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), Janet Nishihara (OSU), Marion Schrock, (WOU), Paul Simonds (UO), J. Antonio Torres (OSU), Mel Turner (OIT), Sarah Witte, (EOU), Una Beth Westfall (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kemble Yates (SOU).
SENATORS ABSENT: Maurice Holland, (UO), Dennis Trune, (OHSU), one as yet unelected Senator from OHSU
GUESTS PRESENT: Betty Youngblood, President, WOU; William Anslow, Vice Chancellor for Budget and Finance; Senator Cliff Trow; Representative Lane Shetterly; Herbert Aschkenasy, President, State Board of Higher Education.
Call to Order: Kemble Yates, President, called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and introduced guests.
Welcome by Betty Youngblood: President Youngblood briefly welcomed senators to WOU, stating that she would postpone further remarks until after Vice Chancellor Anslow's presentation and conversation with the state legislators.
William Anslow: The Vice Chancellor acquainted senators with the work done by the his office at the request of the State Board Committee on Budget and Finance and provided copies of the committee's "Toward a New Funding Methodology", with appendices and "Funding Views" which were prepared for a meeting in January 1998. (See appendices herein.) Anslow discussed the current BAS funding model and summarized the financial state of the Oregon University System (OUS) and the goals and objectives of new funding initiatives. His presentation, accompanied by nearly three dozen slides (see appendices), outlined current funding to the institutions, the demands being placed on the OUS and some major policy issues the State Board of Higher Education must address. Important points made by Anslow included:
Senator Cliff Trow: Senator Trow opened his remarks by saying there is a lot of effort being made toward reforming higher ed. He warned that the state needs to beware of changing what's currently a pretty good system. Reform is needed but it shouldn't dislocate the System and reform will require money. He pointed out that the assumptions underlying the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy (GTFHEE) are just that - assumptions. Perhaps these should be questioned. If reform is left to the legislature, watch out. There is little background in the legislature on higher ed. The question that must be addressed is should the state abandon a "system" of higher ed. and decrease centralization. Senator Trow suggested the IFS should begin delineating what needs to remain and what needs changing. Perhaps it's time for academics to say "sure, we'll reform, but we need more money to do it". Academics need to be much more proactive and interact with legislative friends about the needs of higher ed. Discussion followed with questions from several senators. M. Schrock asked how the OUS Board is seen at the legislature. Senator Trow responded that the Board is not passive but legislators are not prone to listen to state government agency personnel. B. Danley wondered if we become proactive, are we in danger of sounding like whiners. Trow replied that faculty have as much right as anyone to speak out and that a bit of criticism shouldn't deter them. Politics is a competitive business. Faculty can't be effective acting alone; they must organize. B. Danley continued by asking if higher ed. is in a fight with K-12 for funding. Mostly , higher ed. is in a fight with tax relief, Trow responded; K-12 is an issue too for general fund money. Academics have to make the case that money is needed to reform the System. J. Cooper inquired whether the state needs tax-system restructuring before additional funds are available. Senator Trow commented that tax-restructuring is not high on the public's priority list so it isn't likely. J. Nishihara asked about repealing the kicker. While there's frequently talk of changing the kicker law, Trow said, there's not much movement. A major problem is the shifting of money through initiatives - prison building, cutting property taxes etc.; the public is unwilling to fund state's needs. P. Simonds reflected that we must be wary of having all schools lobbying individually; the fragmentation and in-fighting could be disastrous. We need a "system" for budgeting etc.
Representative Lane Shetterly: Mr. Shetterly is a co-convenor of the higher ed. caucus and shared some concerns he has with the GTFHEE plan and other reform ideas. He feels that, while there are some good ideas in the general thrust of the GTFHEE report, the devil is in the details. He believes the state needs to keep all the institutions and maintain their individual integrities. He is concerned that higher ed. reform may be just another way to create new winners and losers - especially if public funds are transferred to private institutions. He does not favor fragmenting the System. Questions from senators followed. C. DeKock asked how legislators view the faculty in higher ed. Are faculty presenting the right image. According to Shetterly, image isn't the only issue; profile is more important. Faculty profile is very low and needs to be raised to be heard above the Chancellor's Office. In answer to a question about student input, he pointed out that the students have a very strong lobby. C. Wollner wanted to know what the magic words are to get the legislature to turn loose more money for higher ed. Shetterly responded that small increases in funding should be forthcoming though higher ed. is in competition with K-12 due to measures 5 and 40. He concurred with Senator Trow that it's politically impossible to do anything about the kicker. S. Witte wondered how the legislature feels about decentralization. While he doesn't know specifically, Shetterly indicated his guess is there won't be many jumping on that bandwagon. In response to a question from L. Alpert on what he likes about the GTFHEE plan, Shetterly responded that he liked the ideas of efficiency and effectiveness but was concerned about how these might occur.
Herbert Aschkenasy: The President of the State Board spoke about the Governor's response to the GTFHEE report (see appendices) and his view on higher ed. in Oregon. The Governor is interested in shifting the programmatic and budget focus from institutions to students and addressing issues of affordability and access for students. He wants to allow institutions to develop their own programs without Board approval (though there is a law requiring such approval). The BAS model must be changed as it's not working and Oregon higher ed. must attract more students to reduce per student costs. Assessment of the System must include developing performance objectives. Such assessment indicators will help taxpayers to understand they're subsidizing students, not institutions. The Governor is looking for progress, characterized as glacial to date. The OUS is facing competition in higher ed. and the System must move to meet that competition; the issues cannot be debated forever. The OUS must offer citizens more educational options because it's better prepared to provide the education. The Governor is looking for productivity from the System - it must deliver better, cheaper education and do it faster than competitors.
Aschkenasy summarized by saying 80% of Oregon highschool graduates go on to some form of post-secondary education; the cost of that education has gone up markedly in the OUS which raises an access issue for many students. While higher education is valuable, it's not invaluable and students will find other places to get it. K. Yates asked how we account for the differential costs of programs. H. Aschkenasy responded that as a public university system, OUS must account for this in the new funding model being developed. C. DeKock wondered how faculty are to respond to the twin requirements of attracting students and decreasing costs while increasing quality. H. Aschkenasy noted that institutions can be more selective in the students they attract which raises quality at the same time decreasing costs and encouraged thinking about ways to extend education outside the boundaries of a campus to attract students. He suggested each institution focus clearly on what it does best, developing its own programs and living by the consequences of its choices. "There has to be a consequence to being self-indulgent", Aschkenasy concluded. J. Torres asked how one gets " a great idea" off the ground. Aschkenasy stated that you convince deans and provosts. If it doesn't succeed, you "should pay some consequences" which currently doesn't happen. Institutions don't abandon anything; they just spread resources thinner and thinner. Programs need to die. J. Cooper registered distaste for the business model of running higher ed. Increasing productivity by teaching larger classes means serving students less well - a decline in quality. Aschkenasy noted that reducing the cost per student by increasing enrollment is productivity and the OUS should try to create a climate whereby faculty can do that. Just asking for money won't cut it any longer. Only 21-22% of Oregon highschool graduates come to OUS schools. There should be a reqard for attracting and retaining students. C. Wollner noted that the market model begs the questions of "what is a university?" and "what is a degree?" If you take money from citizens you must deliver a product. The main reason students come to OUS institutions is "to get a job". R. Cease reiterated that there are things the System is not doing that it should be doing (and vice versa) but current funding levels require institutions to make hard choices as new disciplines come on board. If the OUS doesn't do it, someone else will. Somehow, the OUS has to get more students.
Betty Youngblood: President Youngblood thanked the legislators on behalf of the faculty for their concern and their dedication to discussing issues surrounding higher ed. She noted that structural issues with the OUS should probably not go to the legislature but should be ironed out within the System. Compared to other systems of which she's been a part, the OUS is highly decentralized and noted it might be better to have more centralization in some areas. If the System is decentralized, every institution will try to become all things to all people; some may be effective; others won't. Many of the problems in higher ed. can't be attributed to centralization. In analyzing the System, we shouldn't destroy it. Identify what the System does well and retain those features. The BAS model should be fixed. But reform of the System shouldn't overshadow garnering public and legislative support for higher ed. Reorganization is an internal matter.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m. A reception followed for senators and guests. Senators ended the evening with a Mexican dinner at a nearby restaurant.
SENATORS ABSENT: Maurice Holland, (UO), Dennis Trune, (OHSU), one as yet unelected Senator from OHSU
GUESTS PRESENT: Lisa Zavala (Chancellor's Office), Ed Dennis (Oregon Student Association), Grattan Kerans (Chancellor's Office), Greg Monahan (AOF), Mark Nelson (AOF), Rick Troxel (AOF), Victor Savicki (AOF), Bob Becker (AOF-AAUP), Dave Barrows (AAUP), Tom Pyle (AOF), Laurel S. Maughan (AAUP), Bill Linden (AOF), Jim Etchison (AOF)
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Kemble Yates, President, at 8:20 a.m.
Opening Remarks: President Yates greeted participants present for a joint meeting of faculty/student groups interested in formulating a united approach for getting higher ed. well represented in the Governor's upcoming budget. Guests from each organization introduced themselves and spoke for about 5 minutes on faculty salaries and the upcoming budget round.
Representative remarks: Grattan Kerans: the issue of compensation will not be decided in isolation; it will be discussed in conjunction with reform. The Chancellor's package to the legislature will contain a salary increase but it won't be considered without considering a funding model change, benchmarking/performance assessment and governance. Ed Dennis: Students are concerned about the effect of a funding model change on them. Students are currently training on the faculty salary and other issues. They're working with the Governor to roll forward the tuition freeze. If that's in place, they can focus on faculty compensation. Dave Barrows: There will be a huge turnover in the legislature due to term limits. This means it will be hard to interact with legislators in their short tenure; that needs to be done during their campaigns. Lots of education of the House Ways and Means committee members will be needed. Lobbyists can do a lot but legislators need to hear from "real people" including faculty in the trenches. There is nothing more important than having a connection with your legislator; faculty must become more vocal. Need to talk about the ramifications of not getting more money for higher ed. Mark Nelson: Before the next session, the important activities for faculty include: a) providing input to the Board and Governor in developing the Governor's interim budget; b) making a case for higher ed. with 2 key people on the budget committee, Brady Adams and Neil Bryant, because if faculty salaries and the tuition freeze are not in the parallel legislative budget, higher ed. is in big trouble; c) making a case with 5 important legislators - Ways and Means Chair and members, President of the Senate, and President of the House. There must be more noise out of the OUS that the faculty salary package is a priority and that the Chancellor's Office will fight for it.
Ron Cease: Student and faculty issues must be worked together. Faculty must guard against letting differences on issues like reorganization dominate efforts on compensation. Faculty must become more political even though most faculty see politics as "bad". That is a self-defeating attitude.
Discussion: A round-table discussion of compensation and other issues followed. Points raised included:
A Board work session on partnerships with community colleges followed which President Yates characterized as less open that he'd expected. Jack Cooper reported on the January Academic Council meeting. The System has collapsed the admissions policy to just CAM-PASS rather than PASS and CIM-CAM. The Council was told that the Board will be very reluctant to approve programs that aren't explicitly funded. There followed a lengthy discussion on performance indicators which Jack summarized. All institutions will present a plan by June about their ways to measure their own performance in such areas as access, quality and employability of graduates, which will be approved by the Board. The Chancellor's office will seek data from each campus by May on these indicators in order to make a case to the Governor and legislature. Provosts seemed somewhat lukewarm about this effort. Provost Mosely remarked that improvement isn't possible under current funding conditions; schools can't maintain present programs let alone improve them. Chancellor Cox has sent a memo stating his three priorities for the System: capital construction with lottery funds, faculty salaries and access money.
The question of what IFS should say at Board and committee meetings arose. C. DeKock responded that we should say something like "If you bring us to the midpoint of the salary range, we will do _________". Faculty must decide how to fill in the blank. Whatever we use must be tied to students and what faculty can and will do for them. We have to sell it to both the faculty and the Board. We should stress the quality goal is important and maybe we should "do things differently" rather than "doing them better". We should also point out that many faculty are retiring and can't be replaced. Tell the Board and committees the truth which includes the faculty salary situation. We can't get away from the state's concern for efficiency; faculty must figure out how to measure inefficient programs and define productivity. There should be more to the model than number of students per institution. Faculty need to answer the question, "How do we help make the pie larger so there's more money for higher ed?" A senator noted that currently we're all doing that by working under a 70%-funded BAS model.
C. Wollner moved: "The IFS supports a tuition freeze and substantial salary increase and strongly requests the Board to do the same." The motion was seconded and passed with one abstention after only brief discussion.
President Yates asked about press releases. The IFS concurred that these should succinctly state the IFS position and paraphrase remarks by the IFS president and other senators. He will alert senators to anything that might be press-release material and keep Grattan Kerans informed as well.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.