OCT. 1 - FRIDAY MEETING

IFS senators present: Robert Brandon (EOU), Jack Cooper (PSU), Elaine Deutschman (OIT), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Marion Schrock (WOU), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Paul Simonds (UO), Ann Tedards (UO), Gary Tiedeman (OSU), Dennis Trune (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU)

GUESTS: Bruce Shepard, EOU Provost; Gail McCallister, OUS Board Member from Burns, Oregon

1:00 PM - Welcome by Dr. Bruce Shepard, Provost, EOU

1:15 PM - Conversation with Gail McCallister - OUS Board Member from Burns, OR

•  1. McCallister noted that she is in the last two weeks of her term on the OUS Board
•  2. Comments about OUS system and the recent legislative session:
•  a. Strength through unity shown in the OUS interaction with the Legislature -- a new acceptance of OUS by legislators -- she hopes that this new acceptance will positively impact salaries in the next session
•  b. performance measures will continue to be a part of the OUS budget process -- a good start has been made on this process
• 3. New Budget model:
 
• - a system by which OUS and individual campuses are accountable
• - helps legislature see how we are doing
• - Budget model also recognizes that there are specific concerns from various universities

2:15 PM - Video conference with Vice-Chancellor Bill Anslow

By fax several documents were provided on the overall budget increases of the various campuses:

As of Sept. 13, 1999, the Budgets of the OUS institutions were given as follows (followed by the percentage increase over the CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL : base + inflation):

 
1. EOU - $17,738,935 -- 3% increase
2. OIT - $19,928,054 -- 5.6% increase
3. OSU - $155,406,904 -- 5.8% increase
4. PSU - $107,404,392 -- 12.1% increase
5. SOU - $31,699,997 -- 3.6% increase
6. UO - $161,645,802 -- 5.1% increase
7. WOU - $28,174,905 -- 9.7% increase

Anslow comments on Budget model and process:

 
• 1. New budget model brought on line in less than two years. Other states have taken longer to do this. -- There may need to be some adjustments in the mid biennium
• 2. As long as regional universities are wanted some additional adjustment funding will always be needed
• 3. The legislative mandate to serve all qualified undergraduate students is in tension with the costs of graduate programs and graduate research. -- the cell values used to calculate budgets is weighted towards undergraduate education

Anslow responses to this general questions:

 
• 1. 60 to 70% of model in personnel costs
• 2. Relationship to market much closer in classified salaries than in faculty or administrative salaries
• 3. He acknowledged that California and Washington faculty salaries are moving up faster than inflation.
• 4. Model assumes pay raises of 2% + 1% + 1% current budget does NOT allow for a 2% + 2% increases in salaries
• 5. OUS system will have to negotiate roll up cost process in 2001-2003 budget -- Each campus President is trying to determine what the roll up costs will be for 2001-2003 budget
• 6. EOU Provost (sitting in on the Anslow presentation to IFS) noted that with the cell values in budget model at 88% of comparator universities we cannot get to the median salaries in the comparator institutions. -- Each campus will have different faculty salary solutions NOTE: OUS board is NOT approving individual campus salary plans
• 7. Further Anslow comments on budget: -- would recommend that targeted programs be improved -- tuition will have to go up next biennium -- we have been less than successful in getting targeted increases in salary monies in Higher Education budget.....this will likely continue to be true.

 
• 1. All models are interim solutions
• 2. We have had to be entrepreneurial at EOU because of wide spread geographical area
• 3. We like that ALL on and off campus students treated the same in funding (this is crucial to EOU distance education efforts 4. We like the revenue stays at home idea Note: This may increase the pressure on differential tuition Differential tuition will have to come or system will pull apart still more
• 5. The budget cell structure doesnt support graduate tuition cost --- this fact temps institutions to rob undergraduate monies
• 6. We are going to a revenue based thinking rather than a cost based thinking for new (as well as) existing programs --- it is recognized that there will be programs that must be supported in a university that will not ultimately pay their costs
• 7. An investment fund will be created to help new programs
• 9. Question in the budget model: -- How do you deal with non-teaching units of a campus that don't bring in revenue? -- How do you create incentives for these areas of a campus
• 10. EOU is exploring linking faculty salary increases to enrollment increases
• 11. NOTE: EOU is looking at tuition wavers for faculty children, spouses, and domestic partners ($15 per hour)
 
• -- EOU, OIT, AND SOU are jointly considering this step (MAY BE joined by WOU)
• --- these individuals could take classes at any of the cooperating campuses
• --- this is a faculty incentive that may not cost much to the cooperating campuses

OCT. 2, 1999 - SATURDAY MEETING

IFS senators present: Robert Brandon (EOU), Jack Cooper (PSU), Elaine Deutschman (OIT), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Marion Schrock (WOU), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Paul Simonds (UO), Ann Tedards (UO), Gary Tiedeman (OSU), Dennis Trune (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU)

 
• 1. Minutes of June, 1999, meeting approved
• 2. Jack Cooper (IFS Pres.) reported on the Board meetings/conversations this past summer -- report on Aug. mtg. printed and circulated to IFS senators
• 3. Elaine Deutschman -- Academic Council report -- Note that this was circulated by email to all IFS senators
• 4. Academic Council (Provosts) are still working on how to effectively proceed with the performance indicators mandate of OUS system
• 5. IFS Constitution revision -- work continues towards a proposed revision document for the Dec., 1999, meeting -- sub-committee (Paul Simonds (OU), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Robert Brandon (EOU) is asking for input from IFS Senators
• 6. Extensive discussion occurred on the issue of ãSystem versus Autonomous Campusesä in the developing restructuring of OUS
 
• a. How should IFS speak to the Board at their Oct. retreat concerning this issue? --Should IFS have Pres. Cooper go to Oct. Board meeting with a specific list of issues that we are concerned about? -- this was proposed by several senators
• b. There seemed to strong consensus in IFS that we need to remain a system but that the Board has NOT communicated what the boundaries of autonomy will (should) be
• c. IFS senators were asked to email ideas to Jack Cooper for inclusion in his written report to the OUS board.