Minutes of the IFS 3-4 April 1998

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

June 5 - 6, 1998 Southern Oregon University

Friday, June 5, 1998

SENATORS PRESENT: Robert Brandon (EOU), John Cooper (PSU), Bill Danley (SOU), Carroll DeKock, (OSU), Elaine Deutschman, (OIT), Maurice Holland, (UO), Kristen Lampi (OHSU), Janet Nishihara (OSU), Marion Schrock, (WOU), Paul Simonds (UO), Mel Turner (OIT), Una Beth Westfall (OHSU), Sarah Witte, (EOU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates (SOU).

SENATORS ABSENT: Linda Alpert (UO), Ronald Cease (PSU), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Irja Galvan (WOU), Dennis Trune (OHSU).

GUESTS PRESENT: Provost Sarah Hopkins Powell, Representative Judy Uherbelau, State Board Members Diane Christopher and Jim Willis, Dave Conley (PASS Director), and Kate Kennedy (Ashland High School teacher).

Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and introduced guests.

Provost Powell: Provost Powell welcomed Senators to the Southern campus. She spoke briefly about current initiatives at SOU: the fund drive underway for a new building that she characterized as a major undertaking for a small school; the internal discussions on post tenure review and efforts to rewrite the post tenure review policy and faculty evaluations; and the revisions in general education requirements that now mandate a freshman year colloquium. Provost Powell also stated that, if the legislature grants higher education additional revenue, Southern must clearly articulate what it would do with additional resources.

Diane Christopher: Ms. Christopher spoke as a member of the State Board's Budget Committee which had been tasked with developing a new funding model for the Oregon University System (OUS). She noted that the new model seems to be acceptable to all campuses but that there are many details to be worked out. In response to the question "What if the needed additional funds aren't forthcoming?", Ms. Christopher stated that the Board has to "sell" the idea and make the whole model work. The Governor has indicated that this budgeting process will not be a zero-sum game; he is supporting additional funds. The time-line for the new process is the next biennium; it will not be implemented during the current biennium. The Board is holding a retreat in July; it will discuss its role at the legislature in the upcoming session. M. Schrock urged the Board to be more visible, generally, and at the legislature in particular. Ms. Christopher responded that the Chancellor's Office does not discourage Board members from working with legislators and leaves them free to meet with legislators as they see fit.

Jim Willis: Mr. Willis told Senators that the Board, as part of assessing how it organizes its work, is considering reorganizing its schedule; every other meeting would be devoted to Board business and at intervening meetings, the Board would focus on specific topics such as technology, access etc. The Board wants to assess how it organizes its work. He pointed out that the general belief that all programs must be approved by the Board is a misconception; within-mission programs can be okayed on campus. The Governor has told the Board that there should be no individual governing boards with ultimate power at individual campuses. This issue is not yet settled. The goal of encouraging local autonomy and building constituencies seems at odds with a system approach and the method of combing the two is as yet unclear. The question arises: could devolving power /authority to the institution's presidents and faculties meet the goal? When asked what one or two changes the Board would like campuses to make, Mr. Willis responded that there should be more community outreach, especially to legislators, through inviting legislators to campuses for learning and sharing days and each campus needs to find more ways to convince the public of the worth of higher education as the OUS is not currently doing a good job getting that message out. Regarding the OUS activities in the Bend area, Mr. Willis says the public there senses that the state schools are fighting for turf and are not helping the community get what it feels it needs. Increased integration of all players in higher ed. in the region is required to break down the public's perception of a bunch of little fiefdoms fighting among themselves.

Dave Conley: Mr. Conley presented an overview of the PASS Project - the Proficiency-based Admission Standards System of OUS - that is designed to get better students into the OUS. The initial legislative mandate of 1991 that required high school students to meet general education requirements to enhance the Oregon work force applied to K-12; the focus of the legislation was not on college-bound students but on the general student population. In 1993, when the Board asked the K-12 board how higher ed. could make the CIM/CAM (Certificate of Initial Mastery/ Certificate of Advanced Mastery) work for college-bound students, the response was delineate what proficiencies students need to enter college so these could be included in CIM/CAM. Those proficiencies, developed by 1994, have been continually updated and refined since. (See PASS Project booklet in the appendix.) Assessment criteria are included from which classroom teachers can work. Letter grades will be kept until 2005. Thereafter, a student will leave the K-12 system with either a CIM or a CAM. As part of his presentation, Mr. Conley introduced Kate Kennedy, an Ashland High School Physics and Science teacher who has been active in developing assessment criteria for the science portion of PASS. She outlined several proficiencies required at different levels of secondary school and discussed actually assessing students' performance on them.

Representative Judy Uherbelau: Representative Uherbelau remarked that higher ed. is vulnerable to losing funding to prisons and K-12. New initiatives to increase spending on prisons are being made in isolation without regard to ramifications on state general fund spending. Higher ed. is also in competition for funding with the social service agencies. In response to the question "Is there an awareness in the legislature of the major changes in the OUS budget model?", she responded that it is known by some but not all legislators; particular legislators have heard from college officials in their districts. Representative Uherbelau observed that term limits will make the next legislature less likely to automatically fund higher ed. because there's been little time to build relationships and coalitions. Legislators will be worried about having so little time in the legislature to focus on their particular agenda items that they'll ignore broader perspectives. She stated that it is imperative for college personnel to meet with local legislators as it's a competitive market for money at the legislature. In response to a question regarding the "kicker", Representative Uherbelau asserted that repeal is very "iffy". A portion of the business kicker might be kept by the state, but the individual kicker will not be repealed. She further noted that Oregon is one of only five states without a reserve and she characterized such a reserve as "out of the discussion".

Senator Lenn Hannon, an invited guest for the Friday meeting, was unable to get to the meeting as scheduled; his appearance was rescheduled to Saturday morning. Thus the meeting recessed early for refreshments preceding dinner.

Saturday, June 6, 1998

SENATORS ABSENT: Linda Alpert (OU), Ronald Cease (PSU), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Irja Galvan (WOU), Dennis Trune (OHSU).

GUESTS PRESENT: Senator Lenn Hannon

Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. He announced that Linda Alpert, Senator from University of Oregon, has resigned.

Approval of the Minutes of April 1998 meeting: It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the April, 1998 meeting be approved as sent on e-mail. The motion passed unanimously.

Report on the Academic Council meeting: S. Witte reported on the April 6th and May 4th, 1998 meetings of the Academic Council (see appendix for reports).

Senator Lenn Hannon: Senator Hannon asserted that it is time for the Chancellor and the Board to throw down the gauntlet to the Governor and legislature to say "enough is enough" - higher ed. has reached the bottom and this state is now dismantling higher ed. brick by brick. He declared it is unconscionable for OSU to take a $1.4 million cut; such a cut should not be condoned. Senator Hannon cautioned that the OUS doesn't want to be micromanaged by the legislature as that inappropriately politicizes higher ed. He urged faculty to get in touch with legislators to say, "enough is enough". Measure 5 results in more money for K-12 and community colleges every session at the expense of higher ed. When asked whether the legislature would fund higher ed. on a per-student basis as it does with community college students, Hannon explained that legislators think the efficiency act will result in savings so increased funding isn't needed. In order to avoid driving students away because the OUS is "crying" too loudly about funding, Senator Hannon suggested that those in higher ed. should point out there's a change in the support method so that the system will no longer be doing less with less. He further inveighed against the "competition will make us stronger" model, as competition would cannibalize campuses and destroy the system. Senator Hannon made the following additional points:

Faculty should come up with an "anticrime" measure - showing that spending $16,000 now on higher ed. will save money and generate more taxes later.
Faculty must be more visible at the legislature; last session Senator Hannon heard primarily from students on higher ed.
Invite legislators to campus to see "a day in the life of a faculty member".
It's time to quit placating politicians; say what the problem is and how bad it really is. The Chancellor's office isn't the only method of informing the legislators. Build a personal relationship with a legislator.
Support a sales tax so we "stop subsidizing out-of-staters". Legislators don't trust the public not to vote them out if they support a sales tax.
Corrections should be made to income and property tax laws to change the balance between individual and business tax loads.

Senators discussed Senator Hannon's remarks and made several recommendations: IFS needs to be a presence with legislators; individual IFS senators should be catalysts for campus visits. The IFS should develop a plan by fall on how to do this. IFS should connect with OSL as they've already scheduled meetings. Get alumni involved as they're among the best spokesmen for the system. Get individual faculty senates involved. Ask "non-academic" stakeholders to make contacts.

1999, 2000 meetings of the IFS: Meetings during the legislative session should include a lobbying session with legislators. Tentatively, the 1999 meetings are scheduled as follows:

February WOU Friday all day a lobby day; meeting Saturday.
April UO ?In Salem
June OIT Sponsored by OIT but held in Salem; lobby Friday
October EOU
December PSU

February OSU
April UO
June SOU
October OIT
December OHSU

Report on the May Board meeting: K. Yates' report to the Board appears in the appendix. The Board discussed Southern's budget crisis, which is being solved by faculty retirements; the method has angered both faculty and staff. Senator Hannon also spoke bluntly to the Board indicating he is angry at what's happening financially to various institutions. He felt the legislature isn't getting the straight scoop. Further, he doesn't like replacing administrators with student help and full-time faculty with part-timers and adjuncts as a way of making ends meet.

Miscellaneous Topics:

Names of nominees for the faculty representative on the Board must be in by May 1, 1999. K. Yates will get the necessary forms to "indicate interest". The IFS, AOF and AAUP will collectively submit 3 names to be decided by April.
K. Yates raised the issue of administrator evaluation. He said that at SOU, every academic administrator is evaluated every two years. The OARs require a signature to protect evaluees from anonymous hits/smears; he characterized this "a mandatory praising of one's supervisor". The evaluee waives the right to know who said what; only the committee receives the input. There seems to be a variety of evaluation processes for academic administrators on the various campuses. There is an OAR specifying frequency, process etc.; it apparently is not being followed carefully at all campuses. K. Yates proposed the following motion to Senators: "The Interinstitutional Faculty Senate requests the State Board of Higher Education require all campuses to follow the OARs on review of administrators." C. Wollner seconded the motion. Discussion included suggesting that the appropriate OAR be found, asking if faculty should be involved and whether the evaluations should be mandatory. The motion passed unanimously.
K. Yates reported that post tenure review is again an issue in Academic Council where the provosts are drafting a report. They've looked at what's happening nationally and at the Board's charge which says only that there will be some post tenure review. The Board has asked Vice Provost S. Clark to report on post tenure review; the provosts are intending to present their report to the Board before fall. S. Clark stated that resources available for review are an issue; the provosts are not enthusiastic about collecting data. The information they're collecting will appear as a report rather than policy change. Discussion on post tenure review followed. B. Danley noted that the surfacing of the issue is related to a national movement to do away with tenure. S. Witte remarked that it's also related to retirement; if you release someone it's cheaper than paying retirement. J. Cooper stated the real attack on tenure is through the hiring of fixed-term people in place of tenure-track hirees. U.Westfall asked if post tenure review is only a peer review or is there an administrative component. She further questioned whether those should be combined as they appear to have different objectives. M. Turner expressed the view that in higher ed. administrators often don't "administrate"; terminating someone is tough and requires a huge amount of documentation. C. Wollner urged that faculty get control of the process before an external body does. P. Simonds remarked that the Board should not separate tenure review and post tenure review; the 6 or 7 year process of tenure review weeds out the inadequate folks before tenure is given.
A brief discussion followed on the new salary payment schedule wherein 9-month employees have their salaries paid out over 12 months. Essentially, these people are loaning the state two weeks' salary until they retire or leave the system. Flexibility is lacking in the new computer system; it is unable to correct this error..

Respectfully submitted, Elaine Deutschman, Secretary

Web master: Peter B Gilkey, 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene Or 97403-1222 USA. email: gilkey@math.uoregon.edu