http://www.uomatters.com/2012/... http://pages.uoregon.edu/assem... "The problem for Dave’s defenders is the historically erratic behavior of their champion when it comes to matters of law, as illustrated by his difficulties in dealing with the role of the Faculty in University governance. 1. In 1995, Dave (and/or his General Counsel?) promoted the creation of a UO Senate to execute the governance role previously played by the Assembly. His argument was that the Oregon Public Meetings Law limited the Assembly to action only when at least half of its members were present, an alleged quorum requirement that was rarely met (This Law, passed in Salem in 1974, had not previously been understood to govern meetings dealing with internal UO governance.) 2. In response to this demand, the Faculty created the “Senate Charter”, which was endorsed by the Faculty in an Assembly attended by fewer than half of its members.