SENATORS PRESENT: Robert Brandon (EOU), John Cooper (PSU), Bill
Danley (SOU), Carroll DeKock, (OSU), Elaine Deutschman, (OIT), Irja Galvan
(WOU), Maurice Holland, (UO), Jeff Johnson (EOU alternate), Kirsten Lampi
(OHSU), Janet Nishihara (OSU), Marion Schrock, (WOU), Paul Simonds (UO),
J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Mel Turner (OIT), Una Beth Westfall (OHSU), Craig
Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates (SOU).
SENATORS ABSENT: Ronald Cease (PSU), Dennis Trune (OHSU), Sarah Witte, (EOU).
GUESTS PRESENT: Andrew Hashimoto, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs; Jackie Balzer, Director, OSU First Year Experience Program; Joe Hendricks, Dean, University Honors College; Mark Nelson, AOF Lobbyist; Grattan Kerans, Director of Governmental Relations, Chancellor's Office; Ed Dennis, President, Oregon Student Association; Barbara Ross, Representative, District 35; Yvette Webber-Davis, Diversity/Affirmative Action & Special Projects Policy Associate, Chancellor's Office.
Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and introduced guests.
Associate Provost Hashimoto: Dr. Hashimoto welcomed senators to OSU. He spoke about the new promotion/tenure guidelines being developed at OSU, outlining the key issues: systematized, defined job descriptions; and definition of scholarship and its assessment. He applauded the efforts at OSU in increasing enrollment and in retention and recruitment.
Jackie Balzer: Ms. Balzer summarized the Freshman Year Experience (FYE) at OSU, citing the need for more than summer orientation to create well-oriented freshmen. The program, OSU Connect, involves faculty, student services staff and older students; she especially praised the huge faculty involvement. Activities identified through an RFP process are funded through the FYE office. The program includes OSU Odyssey, a one-credit class for freshmen in which students are oriented to life on the OSU campus.
Joe Hendricks: Dr. Hendricks acquainted senators with the 3-year old OSU honors college program. While the honors college is budgeted for 400 students, 500 students are currently enrolled representing 66 departments - about 60% of which are either science or engineering departments. Students apply to be in the honors college; underrepresented minorities and those with cross-cultural experiences are especially sought. Students who may not have top test scores can write their way into the program. The biggest difficulty, according to Dr. Hendricks, is getting course proposals. Faculty must be transferred from regular courses, which then must be covered by grad students. Teaching an honors course is more difficult as the students learn more quickly; classes cannot be delivered in a rote manner. Honors programs are not funded directly in the new budget model; they're costly programs which are paying dividends. Funding may become an issue.
Mark Nelson, Grattan Kerans and Ed Dennis: Senators heard from each about the prospects for higher ed. in the upcoming legislative session. Mark Nelson indicated that, while the Governor says he wants to rebuild higher ed., this may not be his highest priority. Measures 5,47, 50 and 11 hamper what he can do. Building and maintaining prisons is costing Oregon a bundle. The Oregon Health Plan and salmon stream recovery are also very important thus, the Governor may present a budget that contains as little as one-half what the OUS proposes.
Nelson noted that 9 important people will determine the OUS budget - the Ways and Means committees, Speaker of the House, and Senators Neil Bryant and Gene Derfler. Grattan Kerans mentioned that State Board members, institution presidents and Chancellor's staff have been meeting with legislators to promote the messages: (1) What does Oregon get from OUS? and (2) What do students get from OUS? Legislators have been well briefed on the new budget model. The OUS needs the Governor to say he wants enough funding to support the new budget model and to specify a timetable for such funding, according to Kerans. Budget roll-ups for OUS will be financed through cuts in other agency budgets thus making higher ed. a candidate for funding cuts. There seems to be legislative support for the $120 million needed but there isn't a clear idea about how to get such funding, Kerans added. Ed Dennis indicated there'd been lots of work over the summer by students. They've met with over 50 legislators promoting their priorities of faculty salaries being raised to the national midpoint, a tuition freeze, funding the Oregon Need Grant and student control of incidental fees. Their highest priority, faculty salaries, is being promoted as an access-to-quality issue. That message will change as the new budget model comes on line to "fully fund the model to get the quality you want." Dennis cautioned that the Governor should not yet be thanked as he's not "there" yet on fully funding the new model. After spending a year telling OUS to develop a model that would please him, the Governor now has "to step up to the plate", Dennis said. Discussion and questions followed in which senators learned the Governor's budget is due by December 1st. The Republican budget will come out, probably after the election when the results of ballot initiatives are known and understood. According to Ed Dennis, who's met with Brady Adams, funding the new OUS model is Adams' second priority; Adams agrees that higher ed. is the only segment of state government that's been hit so hard.
In response to comments noting Oregon spends $91 per capita on higher ed. compared to an average of $151 per capita in the 13 western states and that the economy is no longer strong on the basis of timber and agriculture but rather because of the high tech sector, Mark Nelson remarked that the legislature is coming around and now talking about investment rather than just cutting. The investment plan will go to state parks, state police and higher ed. Grattan Kerans responded to a question about what happens if the new budget model isn't fully funded, as appears will happen, by saying that funding can be phased in and should be totally in place by 2002. He cautioned that the model can't be cherry-picked; it must all be phased in. State revenue is flattening so funding may be problematic. Ed Dennis stated that if the Governor is going to take money from everyone's budget for higher ed., advocates for higher ed. will be on the hot seat, the target for many pot shots. Discussion ensued about a faculty member on the State Board. Mark Nelson reviewed the legislative process that brought the bill to fruition and pointed out the Governor's appointment of a faculty member is discretionary, not mandatory. Grattan Kerans noted that the Chancellor's Office is interested in the makeup of the Board only to the extent that it should be diverse with respect to sex, culture, occupation etc. Mark Nelson indicated that AOF wants an ironclad promise from the Governor that the next appointment will be a faculty member; if that promise isn't forthcoming, AOF wants to resubmit the bill to make such an appointment mandatory. Ed Dennis thinks if faculty become more active politically, there'd be more incentive to appoint an active faculty member to the Board. Discussion returned to the budget issue. Grattan Kerans noted that this is the first year since 1990 that OUS has a positive budget; that's happening at the expense of other state agencies. The reason is proponents are united - all institution presidents are together on this issue. The level of "noise" must be maintained to show what the state gets from the OUS. Mark Nelson observed that the system is more united now than it's been. There are two weak links: (1) the Governor who may not give higher ed. the priority it needs and (2) Brady Adams and Lynn Lundquist who may not support full funding. Letters to all three are necessary.
Budget needs were delineated: (1) current service roll-ups; (2) $120 million to bring higher ed. back to where it was 12 years ago and (3) $120 million on a "wish list". Full-funding means at least items (1) and (2); (3) can be considered an "extra".
Barbara Ross: Ms. Ross commented on the upcoming legislative session, saying the legislature anticipates having $100-$150 million in extra funds; she predicts a feeding frenzy. While institution presidents are asking for $90 million, it's unlikely the legislature will go for that amount - there are too many competing needs. She noted there's too much reliance on the state income tax for funding and lottery funding is not reliable. The major competitor for higher ed. is K-12. Higher ed. has made a good case for funding between sessions. Other funding issues facing the state include the new requirement to pay counties and cities for mandated services. Funding is needed for transportation statewide; perhaps a gas tax increase would support that. In response to questions about effective lobbying of legislators, Representative Ross explained that legislators are busy but always willing to talk to a constituent; she recommended an appointment. Or, speak to a staff member or ask a staff member to "spring" the legislator from a meeting when you then have about 8 seconds to give the member a written plea for your issue. She suggested calling back to see if the legislator is supporting your position. Lastly, she encouraged getting the legislator to support your funding request in the "Christmas tree" handout at session's end. When asked why Oregonians won't support higher ed., Representative Ross mentioned several issues: (a) higher ed. is seen as being for the privileged class; (b) professors can go home in the afternoons if they choose to; (c) professors are too happy - they don't hate their jobs the way others do; (d) legislators have private colleges in their backgrounds and think private schools should do the educating instead of the state; and (e) expenditures on what appears to most as extravagance puts people off. Representative Ross said that tenure is no longer mentioned at the legislature; the anti-intellectual atmosphere of earlier sessions is disappearing.
Yvette Webber-Davis: Dr. Webber-Davis has recently assumed her position in the Chancellor's Office. Her initial concerns include: (1) The Underrepresented Minority Scholarship program, now the responsibility of each individual campus, wherein race, socioeconomic level, age and other characteristics may be considered in achieving diversity. She noted there's been progress increasing diversity but there's a way to go yet. Often it's become a counting exercise with no thought of the value of diversity to higher ed. There's a need to identify the "why" of diversity. (2) The PASS project (Proficiency Based Admissions Standards) and concern about students who can't meet the standards. Dr. Webber-Davis is dedicated to making sure these students have opportunities. (3) How is OUS going to enhance opportunities for native Americans to enter its institutions and to be successful once there?
The meeting was recessed for a reception and dinner following at a restaurant in downtown Corvallis.
SENATORS PRESENT: Robert Brandon (EOU), Ronald Cease (PSU), John
Cooper (PSU), Carroll DeKock, (OSU), Elaine Deutschman, (OIT), Irja Galvan
(WOU), Maurice Holland, (UO), Janet Nishihara (OSU), Marion Schrock, (WOU),
Paul Simonds (UO), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Mel Turner (OIT), Una Beth
Westfall (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates (SOU).
SENATORS ABSENT: Kirsten Lampi (OHSU), Dennis Trune (OHSU), Sarah Witte, (EOU),.
GUESTS PRESENT: Maggie Niess, President, OSU Faculty Senate
Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. He announced that Linda Alpert, Senator from University of Oregon, has resigned.
Approval of the Minutes of June 1998 meeting: It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the June, 1998 meeting be approved as sent on e-mail. The motion passed unanimously.
Maggie Niess: Professor Niess spoke about the effect merging SEBB and BUBB is having on the health and dental plans available to faculty. BUBB did not have a cafeteria plan, the cash-back, or opt-out features of SEBB; there's concern that these will disappear for faculty. The most recent discussions indicate these will be retained though the numbers of options will be reduced. Faculty should support the cafeteria approach on the survey form in the current benefit package, especially indicating the need for an indemnity plan in addition to managed care options. Niess noted that faculty are supported better than most other state employees and are at risk of losing that level of coverage if they sit back and do nothing. While it's possible for faculty to seek their own group within PEBB, it's not likely the Governor will support that as he wants the entire state under one health system. Faculty must lobby for their superior benefit level as it's a recruiting/retention tool for OUS. Faculty will be taking a pay cut if they lose the opt-out and cash-back features. Niess pointed out there will be more chance for input for 2000 but 1999 levels are already determined. Everything is up for grabs for 2000 - whatever can be purchased with the funds available (which haven't been increased in 5 years.) The new OUS budget includes an 8% increase. On the issue of 9-months' salary paid out over 12 months, Niess said she went to OSU President Risser after the faculty were notified in mid-August about the change. The law says there can't be two paychecks in a month so there must be legislative redress later. OSU, through President Risser, agreed that faculty would be taking a pay cut; so OSU will make a no-interest loan to 12-month-pay faculty to settle the issue.
Faculty Member on the State Board: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding IFS's position on the appointment of a faculty member to the State Board. Two names were forwarded to the Governor for the last appointment but the Governor appointed someone else. The process used to identify those two names was confusing to some faculty. Maggie Niess contacted the Governor's office to find out what he was looking for in an appointment. The OSU Senate then forwarded possible names to Kemble Yates though the timeline was not clear. It was only after the fact that she learned someone had been appointed. Kemble Yates agreed the process must be clearly defined. Several senators voiced concern about the apparent lack of power faculty have in this matter. There was general agreement that the time until the next appointment (by July 1999) should be used to develop a process and lobby the Governor's staff in a gentlemanly manner on behalf of a faculty appointment. IFS, AOF and AAUP should have a common plan and strategy for going back to the legislature for a new bill requiring appointment of a faculty member, if that's necessary. Kemble Yates asked senators to identify what would satisfy the body regarding the Governor's actions. If the Governor told us he would be appointing a faculty member, would that suffice? Or should we join AOF on a possible new bill? A senator asked if it might not be more important to get the Governor to support fully funding the budget for higher ed.? Another cautioned that IFS might want to carefully choose the issue on which to battle. A third responded that the two issues aren't mutually exclusive; we can fight for two goals at once. Further, a bill on requiring the Governor to appoint a faculty member could be dropped in the hopper without offending anyone; that would show faculty groups' unhappiness. We could later decide whether to lobby for passage or not. Concern was voiced about offending the Governor when we want him to support $120 million for higher ed. Others noted we'd been fighting for a State Board position for 20 years and occasionally one has to offend a friend to get what's important. The problem may be that we haven't rallied our institutional faculty to support this as we haven't rallied them to lobby for funding; the faculty lobby groups must explain to faculty why a Board position is important.
Kemble Yates summarized the discussion by saying faculty groups should try to get a commitment from the Governor and his staff to appoint before going in with a new bill. Enlisting the aid of institution presidents was suggested as they have the ears of legislators and the Governor; they could be another route to lobbying the Governor. The IFS then developed a process for selecting nominees. Discussion resulted in a motion from Paul Simon: "Ask individual faculty senates for a motion to endorse the process outlined below: Each faculty senate will submit names to a subcommittee of officials of IFS, AOF and AAUP who will review the submitted names and come up with a list of at least 3 names. This list of names will be resubmitted to the individual faculty senates for approval." The motion was seconded by Craig Wollner. In discussing the motion, Una Beth Westfall amended it to read "...and come up with a list of no more than 3 names." The amendment, seconded by Marion Schrock, passed unanimously. Marion Schrock also amended the original motion to replace the final word with endorsement. The amendment, seconded by Jack Cooper, passed as well. The amended motion passed unanimously. Senators conferred on making the motion operational, setting January 15, 1999 as the date for submission of names to the IFS president. The motion is contingent on AOF and AAUP concurrence; the selection of the sub-committee to review names will be left to the presidents of the three organizations. The candidates must agree to complete the paperwork and the nomination/appointment process. Kemble Yates will send a letter to individual faculty senate presidents (after first sharing a draft with IFS members) outlining the history surrounding the appointment and the issues involved and explaining what's required of each senate. When the list is returned for individual senate endorsement, a short summary of each person's competencies will be included. Ron Cease asked what happens if the short list doesn't include a person one senate particularly wants so that senate won't endorse the list? The Governor won't appoint a faculty member is there's dissension among the institutions. The names that are forwarded to the Governor must have system-wide credibility. The characteristics being sought in a possible appointee include: (1) willingness to serve; (2) disposition to stand up for faculty points of view and not be easily buffaloed; (3) credibility and recognition across the OUS. It would probably be a good idea to alert the Governor's staff that the process is underway.
Academic Council Reports: Sarah Witte, representative to the Academic Council, was unable to attend this IFS meeting. Her reports were presented by e-mail and discussion and comments were sought from senators. The proposal from the Academic Council to change to per-credit tuition, engendered a question about whether this was a way around the tuition freeze and a way for institutions to increase revenues. Kemble Yates will ask for clarification on this. There was short discussion about the presence of the OUS system in Bend. One senator pointed out that OSU gets money for providing services there while PSU must fund its efforts in Bend. Several senators expected Bend legislators to continue saying there was need for an institution in the Bend area and felt there would be one eventually. It was suggested that Central Oregon Community College handle lower division education with OUS supplying upper division and graduate education.
OUS Budget: Kemble Yates indicated the IFS plans to affect the budget outcome for the OUS by lobbying in the legislature. The new budget model will be in place and tuition will stay with the institutions. State funding will differentiate between high cost and low cost programs, undergraduate and graduate education and a few other items. A senator asked what "We can't run the model without full funding" means? When the legislature finally decides on a figure for higher ed., faculty won't have much time for input on how to function with less-than-full funding. According to Kemble Yates, the OUS is going into the legislative session saying the new model can't be done without full funding and is not yet mentioning a fall-back position Senators were urged to encourage their faculties to write the Governor's office requesting full funding of the new model. Such letters should indicate that fully-funded means funded at the level of 12 years ago considering population and inflation - the current service budget and a base budget build-up.
The sum of $120 million should include getting OSU and OIT to a "clean slate" before beginning the new model. Letters might also point out that the higher ed. budget had been cut for 5 biennia before the last session; that upward trend should be continued. Funding for higher ed. should provide access to quality for Oregonians so high-paying jobs don't go to out-of-state residents. Letters to Brady Adams are also needed as the Republicans will put out their own "shadow" budget.
Other items: Kemble Yates reported the State Board's Governance restructuring committee is considering more frequent evaluations of institutional presidents using new standards. Institution governing boards are on the committee's agenda; approval of such governing boards is expected but no mechanism for their appointment has been delineated nor have their powers been listed. Post tenure review is still at the Academic Council. Shirley Clark will make a report to the State Board later in the fall on the issue. Kemble Yates has expressed concerns to Shirley Clark about signed administrator reviews and the possibility of retaliation. There are legal requirements for such reviews. Maurice Holland summarized: there are no OARs regarding administrator reviews that distinguish them from faculty reviews except on criteria. There's an absolute prohibition on anonymous input for both. So the chance of retaliation does exist but that may be outweighted by the need to prevent anonymous input.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elaine Deutschman, Secretary