Interinstitutional Faculty Senate February 5, 1999 State Capitol - Salem, OR.
 

Friday, February 5:

SENATORS PRESENT: Robert Brandon (EOU), Ronald Cease (PSU), John Cooper (PSU), Bill Danley (SOU), Carroll DeKock, (OSU), Elaine Deutschman, (OIT), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Kirsten Lampi (OHSU), Paul Simonds (UO), Jim Terborg (UO), Gary Tiedeman (OSU), Dennis Trune (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates (SOU).,

SENATORS ABSENT: Irja Galvan (WOU), Marion Schrock, (WOU), Ann Tedards (UO), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Mel Turner (OIT), an OHSU senator, not yet elected.

GUESTS PRESENT: Brady Adams, Senate President, Ginny Burdick, co-chair of Higher Education Caucus, Grattan Kerans, legislative liaison from the Chancellor's office.

Call to Order: Jack Cooper, president, called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and welcomed guests.

Brady Adams: Senator Adams reviewed the budgets thus far presented, noting that both the Governor's and the Republicans' budgets increase OUS funding but differ in amounts. Senator Adams made the following points:

• There is money in both budgets for funding the new budget model: $44.7 million in the Governor's budget and $80 million in the Republicans' budget. The OUS is taking a significant risk in changing to the new model; if it is not sufficiently funded, the changeover will be too challenging. At the Governor's level, there will be winners and losers.
• Legislative leaders, the Chancellor and institution presidents met to discuss the budget; OUS representatives stated that funding for the new model must be closer to the Republicans amount.
• Because the kicker will probably "kick", there will be less money available to the state. The Republican budget has $170 million in tax cuts built in that won't be passed if the kicker "kicks". The Governor doesn't have that built into his budget nor does his budget account for reduced cigarette tax receipts so it may be as much as $177 million out of balance.
• In a market-based budgeting model, can OUS continue to freeze tuition? Are differential tuition rates possible?
• There are so many new representatives that there's a lot of learning that must take place regarding budget matters.

 
• The kicker doesn't "kick" until the receipts are counted in August or so. If the March forecast "kicks" the kicker, legislature would be remiss if it didn't consider the kicker in its budgeting.
• The tuition freeze should not be eliminated - students are unable to pay more. In fact, perhaps tuition should be reduced.
• For the level of funding the OUS gets, it is a gem when benchmarked against other systems that are much better funded. The OUS is currently funded at 60% of its comparitors' level.
• Some legislators argue that indeed there's a need for a tuition freeze but wonder if tuition rates should reflect the need of student. However, the cost of administering such a program would be large.
• There are parts of the OUS budget that are targeted for special programs or specific institutions. Should these be within the budget or special add-ons? Should the model be run first and then add on for special cases? - a scenario supported by many IFS senators.
• Should tuition follow a student wherever he goes - public or private institution in Oregon? Conflating private with public is a concern with legislators.
• Should OUS be providing training or education? Only providing curricula from which graduates get jobs is a narrow view.
• A different question should be asked: should the state invest in higher ed. so a student's decision on going to college isn't made on ability to pay but rather on ability to succeed.

 
• The new model has a built-in partiality to departments with large enrollments but the market might not reward programs that make education rather than training a priority.
• Faculty will have more input into funding allocation.
• A student isn't just an "engineering" student; funding must be available for support courses.
• The new model does not explicitly set aside money for salary relief. Hiring new professors at market salaries that exceed senior professors' salaries results in salary inversion. The new model may exacerbate this. New professors can't be hired at retiring professors' salaries.
• The new model may encourage institutions to hire more adjuncts to cut costs. That's exploitive of the adjuncts as pay levels are very low and adjuncts don't participate in the governance of the institution so regular faculty must assume more responsibilities.
• Start-up costs are a concept many don't understand and funding is crucial to cover them when hiring new faculty.
• Getting Oregonians to feel invested in higher ed. requires explaining the value of a college education to economic well-being.

Brady Adams is convening a group of alumnae association directors and faculty senate presidents to discuss higher ed. and to keep higher ed. "on the radar screen" in Salem. The OUS budget will go to Ways and Means about March 22nd or 29th . Education of legislators must be complete before that time. When asked if the OUS has a plan to show what extra dollars that might come in the "Christmas Tree" at the end of the session could do for higher ed., Kerans responded that the new budget model is scalable and would absorb any extra money rather easily.

Debriefing of Senators re legislative visits: The IFS concluded the afternoon with a summary from each senator about his/her legislative visits. Discussion about follow-on lobbying and letter writing followed.

The meeting adjourned about 5 p.m. so senators could drive to Corvallis for dinner.

FRIDAY MINUTES BY ELAINE DEUTSCHMAN Minutes of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting Saturday, February 6, 1999 at Oregon State University

Present Gary Tiederman Bill Danley Elaine Deutschman Paul Simonds Jack Cooper Craig Wollner Dennis Trune Carroll DeKock Kemble Yates Jeff Johnson Bob Brandon Kirsten Lampi Irja Galvan

Call to Order : President Jack Cooper called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM. Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.

President's Report Report on State Board Executive Committee Meeting of January 15, 1999 ¬ Report of Budget Committee Budget Breakdown 32% State Funding 30% Federal Government Funding 23% Campus Revenues 15% Tuition Discussion of "plateau" fee system (full time students pay flat rate) Discussion concerning Comparatory Institutions for setting faculty salaries ¬ Full Board Meeting Discussion of establishing charter for Regional Advisory Board for Central Oregon University

Discussion of President's Report. Following points made: - important for establishing the nature of the Comparator Universities List - "Central University" called 'university' without proper process - case for adequate funding for Central U. must be made - IFS needs to take stand, issue statement concerning Central U. - Momentum exists for the establishment of Central U. - Other campuses should be involved in the development of programs at Central U.

Academic Council Report (handout provided)

AAUP Report ¬ Post Tenure Review Proposal discussed -nature of process -issue of tying remuneration to review >> IFS Discussion: - PTR a possible subject for Collective Bargaining? - Point to be made: PTR weakens tenure - How are campuses handling PTR? ¤ UO : in context of accreditation requirements ¤ EOU : gone to mini reviews

IFS Discussion Item: How is the New Budget Model being addressed on the various campuses? PSU ¬ Concern for what was to be looked at for evaluating "performance" ¬ Discrepancies among departments: some would make money (Urban and Public Affairs), others would lose money (Engineering, Business) ¬ Concern for " fluid situation": what happens when enrollment decreases? OSU ¬ Campus seemingly benefiting: more money received under new system than old; more rationality for tying numbers of students to campus funding; distribution of funding at campus level not simple EOU ¬ New Model may encourage competition between departments ¬ Under Old Model, campus broke even; might not do as well under New Model UO ¬ Distribution of funding under New Model to be decided by Deans; department heads informed but not Senate Budget Committee; no faculty involvement WOU ¬ Concern that recruitment of students will become more competitive; many departments developing own strategies for recruitment

IFS Resolution concerning New Funding Model adopted: IFS is united in supporting full funding to ensure adequate funding for each institution to carry out its mission and to enable each institution to retain excellent faculty. Next Meeting

April 2 and 3, 1999. Friday 's meeting will be in Salem meeting with legislators. Saturday's meeting will be at the University of Oregon.

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM

Submitted by Irja Galvan for Marion Schrock