SENATORS PRESENT: Linda Alpert (OU), Robert Brandon (EOU), Ronald
Cease (PSU), John Cooper (PSU), Bill Danley (SOU), Carroll DeKock, (OSU),
Elaine Deutschman, (OIT), Irja Galvan (WOU), Maurice Holland, (UO), Kristen
Lampi (OHSU), Marion Schrock, (WOU), Paul Simonds (UO), Dennis Trune, (OHSU),
Mel Turner (OIT), Sarah Witte, (EOU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates
(SOU).
SENATORS ABSENT: Janet Nishihara (OSU), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Una Beth Westfall (OHSU)
GUESTS PRESENT: Gretchen Pierce, Governor's Task on Higher Education and the Economy, Chancellor Joseph Cox, President David Frohnmeyer, State Senator Susan Castillo, Representative James Walsh, Tom Imeson, Vice President, State Board of Higher Education and Steve Handron, North Eugene Highschool.
Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. and introduced guests.
Gretchen Pierce: Ms. Pierce served on the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy (GTFHEE). She reviewed the task force's report (see the December 1997 minutes for a complete copy), pointing out the trends that higher education in Oregon must address:
C. DeKock noted that nothing in the report addresses how students today differ from those of several years ago or offers suggestions on how we address the issue of students' apparent unwillingness to put in the effort to get the education they deserve. Ms. Pierce responded that this challenge can't be addressed at just the higher ed. level - it must be tackled earlier in the education system.
Welcome by David Frohnmeyer: President Frohnmeyer welcomed Senators and guests to the UO campus. In short remarks prepared for the occasion, he noted that change is imperative and the forces for change are compelling. He lamented the "brain drain" from Oregon that is exacerbated by high tuition and students' sense of instability in the OUS. Oregon's best students are leaving the state for college or going to private schools. He reiterated that Governor Kitzhaber wants fundamental change in higher ed. and will put money into such change. If the OUS changes, there will be money. However, he cautioned, if the OUS expects this extra money, it can't be business as usual. Higher ed. must figure out how to make the case that change has occurred - the change must be demonstrable.
In discussion that followed, C. DeKock averred that faculty are frustrated by the fiscal situation and wondered how we rebuild faculty morale? President Frohnmeyer maintains that institutions are permanently navigating white water; they aren't doing strategic planning, they're doing strategic repositioning continually. So faculty can't be told that there is an "Eden" that we'll eventually reach. He rhetorically asked if things would improve for faculty? His answer: they can't get worse. Studies show people value higher ed. so faculty work has worth; since 1974, only people with a college degree have kept up with inflation. C. Wollner asked how we fight for institutional autonomy and market share and still be a "system". President Frohnmeyer responded that institutions in the OUS are not one another's competitors - the competitors are outside Oregon. R. Cease noted that Oregon has disinvested in higher ed. more than all other states but Vermont and asked why? President Frohnmeyer replied that Washington has done just the opposite with startling results; Oregon's high tech industries' growth will push Oregon to invest more.
State Senator Susan Castillo: Senator Castillo, who represents district 20, said that it's difficult to get adequate investment in higher ed. in the state senate. This will continue even though there's been a lot of information available to senators to show the importance of higher ed. She further urged faculty to make their voices heard by talking to candidates; make the case for spending and show the consequences of not investing in higher ed.
When asked by R. Cease what's most important for faculty to say to legislative candidates and legislators, the senator said you have to show what the state gets back from higher ed. The message must be continual, consistent and across the board to all legislators. Unfortunately, she stated, the best argument - that civilization benefits from higher ed. - is abstract and not very effective. L. Alpert added that faculty should make the case for the civility of society that higher ed. can provide.
Chancellor Cox: Chancellor Cox opened his remarks by noting that higher ed. is in a period of profound change, akin to the return of the GIs after World War II or the launching of Sputnik. The market for higher ed. is national and no one owns the turf. The OUS must change without sacrificing the qualities and characteristics of a 1200-year old institution. Citizens must reject the notion that higher ed. isn't a public good. Those in higher ed, must show the importance of what we do, not who we are.
Tom Imeson: Mr. Imeson told the Senate that the State Board was given direction by the Governor at a special December meeting. The Governor wants the new funding model to reward institutions for bringing on line programs that will attract students. Having the system fund students rather than institutions will clarify funding, Differential costs of programs will be included in the new funding model. Regional access monies will be available to ameliorate the funding reductions that will hit some institutions. Changes in OUS will not go forward without funding.
The issue of who is responsible for tuition policy arose in the follow-up discussion. Mr. Imeson responded that the Board wants to keep tuition down and that perhaps it would set a ceiling on undergraduate tuition within which an institution would work. Graduate tuition would see more differentiation than undergraduate.
Chancellor Cox pointed out that since the Board Governance Committee is looking at more autonomy and accountability for the individual campuses, individual institutions will have to maintain their own reserves to cushion downturns.
C. DeKock asked if funding changes would be spread by percent as they are now? Would institutions be able to add lab fees, which they can't do now? Mr. Imeson replied that with increased autonomy, the Board won't handle such issues; those will be campus issues.
J. Cooper wondered how all this will be viewed by the skeptical legislator who's likely to say 'Fine - but are you just reshuffling the furniture? How is the 25% that isn't tuition money going to be distributed?' According to Mr. Imeson, the first time out, funding changes will be furniture rearranging. The question is how does the new system change what happens on individual campuses? That's the proof legislators will need.
M. Schrock inquired whether the legislature would earmark the 25% for specific things? Mr. Imeson answered that the OUS will take a few "pots" to the legislature - like strategic investment - to avoid the propensity of the legislature to earmark funds for here and there. L. Alpert asked if the strategic investment pot would contain funds for distance education. Perhaps, was Mr. Imeson's response; the Board must see what goals that would serve.
Steve Handron: Mr. Handron, a North Eugene Highschool teacher, talked about implementation of PASS, the proficiency-based admissions system. The current standards, which he'd expected to be lowered but weren't, are tough; some school districts are finding it difficulty to educate to meet the standards due to lack of staff and funds. He detailed elements of several of the tests that appear to be very broad in scope. Tests haven't been completed in all subject areas as yet. The PASS system expects classroom teachers to assess proficiency; many don't have the training they need. Mr. Handron is concerned about how uniform such assessment will be.
Representative Jim Walsh: Mr. Walsh, representing district 43, remarked that Oregonians need to look at what they're getting for their higher ed. dollars. Across the country, higher ed. appears to be losing ground. The system must define what a degree means and what students are able to do. He encouraged more connections between higher ed. institutions, businesses and legislators.
When asked by M. Schrock if legislators want more information on the higher ed. budget, Mr. Walsh replied that the committees see details but the whole legislature frequently doesn't; it would be helpful if more detail were given to all legislators.
The meeting was recessed at 5:20 p.m. so Senators and guests could enjoy beverages and hors d'oeurves before meeting for dinner at the Valley River Inn.
SENATORS ABSENT: J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Una Beth Westfall (OHSU)
Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 8:25 a.m. and passed out an agenda.
Approval of Minutes of February 1998 meeting: It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the February, 1998 meeting be approved as sent on e-mail. The motion passed unanimously.
Report on the Academic Council meeting: S. Witte reported that at the February 19th meeting (see appendix for full report) the issue of a school in Bend was discussed. The Education 100 group from Bend wants a school there that offers 4-year programs; they're prepared to find someone other than OUS to provide that service if the OUS doesn't do it.
There was discussion of the Performance Indicators and their connection to performance funding. Individual campuses are to work on selecting indicators from a short list in time for a March interim report deadline. Representatives from SOU and EOU expressed concern about who chose the indicators on the list; there seemed to be no campus input. The indicators will be used as a "report card" to the legislature.
Report on the February 19th Board meeting: K. Yates reported first on the Administrative Council meeting he attended the day before the Board meeting (see appendix for full reports). This is one of three times a year that IFS will have a representative at that meeting. It was K. Yates' perception that budget officers from the campuses didn't seem in the loop on the new budget plan at that time. K. Yates inquired about the comparitor lists for each institution that he characterized as taking on a larger life than just comparison for salary purposes. R. Cease opined that after attending a Board meeting last fall, it seemed to him that the Board appears out of the loop too; the Chancellor's Office makes decisions on the budgets for 1998 and most Board members are in the dark about those decisions. At the Board meeting, there was discussion of PASS. The Board was provided with data regarding Oregon highschool graduates' post graduation paths. The Board reaffirmed the need to recruit and retain Oregon grads in the OUS.
Report on the March 20th Board meeting: K. Yates reported on both the Budget and Finance and Board meetings. The Budget and Finance Committee put together a philosophy for a funding model and a proposed model (see appendices). They also looked at models from other states and heard Vice Chancellor William Anslow discuss various models. The important item from this meeting is that individual institutions will have to have their own reserves as there will be no state money for bailouts in the new model.
Ongoing discussion followed questions from B. Danley about recognizing specialties at each school which would be funded through the "lump sum" allocations given to schools, according to K. Yates. J. Cooper asked who decides what schools will have which programs and on what basis these decisions will be made? L. Alpert surmised that the market model would prevail; those schools who attract students with their programs will attract the money. S. Witte noted that Board will allow entrepreneurial activity but will govern competition so institutions don't savage one another. R. Cease commented that, politically, no institutions would be cut off. M. Schrock concluded there'd have to be a new mindset regarding budgeting; faculty and other academics will have to have a bigger input into the process. D. Trune envisioned a scenario, if the economy turns downward, of the legislature saying all institutions are autonomous and would tell institutions to 'go it on your own'. If an institution depends on the state for 40% - 50% of its funding, it could be disaster if the legislature uses autonomy as an excuse not to fund. S. Witte pointed out that the Board's Governance Committee is unfocused at this time so faculty have an opportunity to influence decisions to structure the system so funding isn't top down but rather bottom up.
Senators had comments and much discussion regarding the budget model. P. Simonds suggested it might be worthwhile to show the legislature what students need funding to overcome the legislative funding problems. J. Cooper suggested the legislature might tell OUS to get out of the first two years of post-secondary education since the community colleges apparently can do it more cheaply. L. Alpert noted that the community college experience is much different that a 4-year college experience and we must emphasize the strengths of the 4-year experience. R. Cease said the community college issue must continually be addressed as each legislator has a community college in his/her district that isn't the case for OUS institutions. The community colleges thus have more influence. Care must be taken to avoid fragmenting the OUS institutions in this discussion; AOF, IFS and AAUP must all be on the same message as well. M. Schrock commented that faculty must be at the table when decisions regarding the entrepreneurial directions for an institution are taken.
The issue of individual Boards for each institution arose. D. Trune felt they would be necessary to take on duties the Chancellor's Office would lose. J. Cooper disagreed, saying there are enough levels of review now. R. Cease pointed out the advantages of individual boards include sensitivity to local needs and lobbying the legislature. C. deKock closed by saying wealthy individuals make good board members as they help with fund raising.
K. Yates asked the Senators what IFS should support at the Board level in the way of a governance model. Consensus indicated IFS would support flexibility but that we should note inconsistencies - autonomy vs a strong chancellor, competition vs cooperation. Funding amounts should be based on at least the previous 3 years' enrollment to maintain stability.
The March 20th Board meeting dealt with performance indicators (see appendix for "Proposed Performance Measures and Indicators"). K. Yates pointed out to the Board that: a) tuition shouldn't come under cost effectiveness; rather it should be an access issue; b) faculty salaries should be a quality indicator and not under cost effectiveness; and c) an indicator of output vs costs should be added so we can show we're educating the same number of students for less money than other states. The Board will set indicators by 2005, though interim indicators were due in March from all institutions and intermediate goals will be set every two years. These indicators will be used to gauge how to spend the 25% of funds that isn't tuition. E. Deutschman asked who will make the decision that an institution is meeting targets? S. Witte replied that Vice Chancellor Clark said all these figures will go to the legislature in some form or another and they will make the decisions. K. Yates noted that institutional measures have problems - inconsistencies, and lack of clarity. What does first year retention really mean? What if a student transfers within the system? Stops out? These issues must be addressed. J. Cooper closed the discussion by saying "satisfying students" and " meeting state needs" are entirely different issues. K. Yates continued with the report by stating that Chancellor Cox talked about the proposed funding model developed by the institution presidents. That's been codified by the Chancellor's Office into tables and philosophy statements (see appendix).
Faculty representative to the OUS Board: The final topic for the meeting concerned preparing a list of faculty names for consideration for the position to open on the OUS Board in 1999. P. Simonds suggested we find out what the Governor wants in a Board member; K. Yates will call the Governor's office for information. R. Cease believes the list from AOF, IFS and AAUP should be the same. The Governor will appoint from the list if names are supported by all three organizations. M. Holland suggested the first faculty position on the Board shouldn't be identified as a "faculty representative"; that person should represent the entire state. C. Wollner responded that the appointment will start as a "faculty representative" but if the person is a statesman, that label will disappear. Individual Senators should bring up the need for names at each faculty senate.
New Business: J. Cooper worked with OSA in a meeting with the Governor at UO on April 3, 1998 where he gave a short talk supporting the tuition freeze. The Governor has agreed to let students control incidental fees but hasn't yet agreed to a tuition freeze. OSA will be having meetings with legislators over the next 2 months.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Elaine Deutschman, Secretary