In her opening remarks, S. Clark noted that the State Board was
holding open sessions on the OSU campus, taking input from faculty, students
and staff. Apparently, the Board will do this from time to time as part
of its monthly meeting. Clark also reported that the Board would be participating
in a "Joint Boards" meeting during which regional partnerships between
community colleges and OUS institutions would be developed. Post tenure
review was on the agenda for the 2/19/99 Board meeting; the draft IFS saw
in December has been slightly revised in both the OAR and the IMD.
The Board is evidently interested in keeping admissions standards to OUS institutions as they now are until PASS is fully implemented in 2005-6. S. Clark wants OUS to keep its options open and review yearly rather than locking the system into a set admissions procedure/policy.
The Board has implemented a new method of program review called "consent agenda" to more efficiently handle program approvals. Since the Board meets in executive session every other month and cannot review and approve programs at those meetings, it developed this new method to expedite approvals. Details weren't available on the "consent agenda" approach.
S. Clark reviewed the status of the two Board subcommittees. The Budget Committee has gained agreement among the institution presidents and budget officers on how funds will be distributed to each campus for three different funding levels - the Governor's level, the Republican budget and the OUS request. One provost remarked that even at the Republican budget level, funding salaries will provide only a small increase. The cells would be funded at 90% of the OUS request level that is calculated at 88% of what's really needed (so the Republican budget would be funding OUS at less than 80% of what's really needed·).
The Strategic Planning Committee (renamed from the former Governance and Structure Committee) seems unclear about what it wants to accomplish. Members are awaiting the results of the new budget model. Clark observed that institutional assessment procedures seemingly must encompass more campus activities, including such things as business offices, student services, and distance learning in addition to educational services. Apparently, NWASC (Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges) is raising the levels of expectation; institutions will have to meet these in upcoming accreditations. Provosts suggested campuses be provided with institutional assessment plans that NWASC has found appropriate as it is not offering guidance to schools with assessment problems. Doubt was expressed about whether NWASC even has plans that are acceptable; it may not know what it wants but possibly it's looking for on-going processes that are comprehensive.
Discussion returned to admissions to OUS Second Language programs. Again, concerns were expressed about the paucity of students who could meet the proposed standards and setting higher standards exacerbating the problem. However, high schools have sent OUS preservice teachers back because they weren't adequately prepared. The system must address this. Language departments at OUS institutions seem more interested in literature and culture than in language skills so they don't prepare teachers well. The question arose: will private institutions step in to prepare students OUS doesn't admit? Could Teachers Standards and Practices set the standards so OUS institutions would be even with private schools; this might give provosts leverage to encourage language departments to do a better job as well. One provost remarked that the standard is not particularly high and felt OUS should set the bar and challenge foreign language faculty to get students to that level.
Grattan Kerans reported to the Council on legislative issues, noting the "gloves have come off" in the jockeying for funds. There are groups who want part of the money in the OUS tuition freeze - especially the private institutions. A bill providing scholarships and grants to private school and community college students is in the legislature; the OUS will counter, saying that tuition will have to be raised in order to get some of the money back that would be lost if the bill passes. OUS is glad to support expansion of need grants as long as it doesn't impact the OUS budget, Kerans said. Regarding PERS, Kerans "guessed" a new 3-tier system will be developed in which new hires will enter a 401-k type plan so that when the employee leaves the system, there would be no further actuarial responsibility.
Kerans noted that state employee salaries are underfunded by about 80% in the Governor's budget. The legislature in unlikely to fund salaries at higher levels. Increases in costs from PEBB and PERS will have to be absorbed by the individual agencies. When asked if he thought faculty salaries would reach the midpoint of comparitors in 3 years, Kerans responded that legislative appropriations and the ability of institutions to draw students will determine salaries. He further noted faculty are worried about this.
Discussion of several new/revised programs were among the routine items on the agenda. From PSU: M.A./M.S. in Writing, Ph.D. in Computer Science, M.S. in Systems Science, M.S. in Financial Analysis. From UO: B.S./B.A. in Environmental Science, undergraduate certificates in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching and in Global Management, discontinuation/renaming of certificates in the College of Education, merging the Russian Department with the East European Studies Center; from WOU, Masters of Arts in Teaching (revisions); from OSU, a joint Oregon Master of Software Engineering. A new OUS student exchange program with Mexico was presented and discussed as well.
Finally, thirty candidates are vying for 6 positions on the new central Oregon Advisory Board . Appointments are expected by the end of February.