At the February meeting in 1994, President Danley asked senators to consider volunteering for a constitutional review committee. The question of parity of representation across the system schools was raised last year. President Danley noted the IFS constitution had not been updated since the early 1980s. IFS needed to check its conformity with recent legislation, particularly the open meetings law and definition of a quorum. He appointed an ad hoc committee (Ed Brierty, chair; Jack Cooper; Leslie Harris; Maxine Warnath) to prepare the issues. At the April meeting it was reported that IFS comes under the open meeting law and must announce its meetings. At the June meeting, the constitutional committee proposed and the senators passed two changes to the constitution and bylaws: have the quorum stand as currently written, a majority with action requiring a majority of those present, no proxies permitted. The bylaws provide that the secretary announce each IFS meeting no later than two weeks in advance with a notice to the Oregonian and to newspaper(s) in the meeting region. The membership issue was found to be of little interest to faculties of the smaller institutions and so a motion to retain the current membership was passed. President Danley raised the issue of providing continuity of leadership by having a president-elect (presumably the vice-president) and have a past president serve on the executive committee. At the October meeting it was moved, seconded and passed that the constitutional committee be directed to modify the by-laws to provide an ex-officio position to the past president that would not effect the election of members to IFS.

In the wake of measure 5, great interest in distance learning rose as a means of cutting costs. In later years, it would turn out most such savings are illusionary but in 1994 many were not aware of this. A number of officials reported to IFS on productivity issues, often arising out of the 2010 Advisory Panel. Other issues coming out of that panel included organizing higher education as a public corporation (in 2003 that issue is still with us in slightly different form), the governance of the system ( this later translated into giving individual campuses wider latitude in making their educational and financial decisions) and the perennial issue of additional educational services in the Portland area emphasizing graduate education.

Productivity was clearly being tied to electronics (databases, inventories, reports) as the magic bullet that would save higher education. (IFS senators noted they currently use these)

The public corporation issue was widely discussed during this year. Ultimately, only OHSU became a public corporation, loosening but not cutting its ties with the system.

The board changed the way the presidential searches operate, removing the search committee from developing the position descriptions. Of particular concern was the elimination of input by concerned groups from the institutions and communities. Now the board would decide without such input, thus removing faculty input from the process. IFS held that the search committee should retain responsibility for obtaining input while developing position descriptions. This issue continues, in the new century, to be a point of contention with the board making decisions without regard to the stakeholders involved. IFS passed a motion to this effect unanimously. At the April IFS meeting, Board Member Diane Christopher said it would be on the board agenda with the implicit endorsement of the board.

IFS proposal to enhance inter-campus communications (shared databases, etc.)

BAS model, tuition allocation, retention of tuition by individual campuses? Early steps by UO and SOSC to retain out of state tuition. This is an early stage of going from BAS to RAM models of finance.

Distance learning has become a faculty issue with intellectual property issues rising for discussion. There is no system wide policy. IFS passed (with 3 abstentions) a motion that ³Faculty-produced electronically recorded instructional materials should not be used without faculty consent.²

IFS did get a faculty member on the 2010 Advisory Panel. With the announcement of the resignation of Board Member Dick Donahue, IFS made mention of a faculty member on the board. At the last meeting of the year, the senators passed a motion: ³IFS resolves to pursue legislation adding faculty representatives to the OSBHE, and seeks OSBHE support for this action.

At the December meeting several changes to the by-laws were passed. They dealt mainly with election duties of officers of the Senate. It was at this time that the recent set of relationships was established: president, vice-president, secretary and liaison to the Academic Council. The time of election at the last meeting of the calendar year was affirmed. The executive committee was detailed and the immediate past president became a voting or non-voting ex-officio member (depending on whether she or he was still in a regular term or had finished the third year of the term of membership). It seems that somewhere in this or the next year, the executive committee ceased to function.

The senators also passed two motions urging the board to put faculty compensation and tuition reduction as highest priorities and, secondly, asking the Chancellor¹s office to come to the IFS with its legislative strategy while it was being developed.

At the December board meeting, Tony Wilcox gave an excellent presentation on faculty concerns about the passage of measure 8. A large turnout of faculty at the meeting helped put the point across. The board reversed its position and agreed to support higher salaries at the next legislative session.