I attended the Regular Council Business meeting of the Academic Council last Thursday but did not attend the Joint Meeting with Community College Chief Academic Officers in the afternoon.

Shirley Clark gave a legislative update in the absence of Grattan Kerans (who was in a meeting on the other side of Portland). The OUS will need legislation passed to allow it to self-insure for health as OHSU does. We lack the authority to do it now. Kerans doubts we could get such legislation passed. On 30 November Chancellor Cox will meet with Governor Kitzhaber about the health insurance situation. (We should know the result by our December meeting) Provost Moseley (UO) noted that in 2 years the PEBB will reduce UO faculty compensation by 2% on average.

Allocating Remaining 1999-2000 Resources for Collaborative Programs: $200,000 is available and there are some proposals submitted but there is no deadline yet and when a deadline is set, it will be announced. Programs that could receive support include collaboration between OUS institutions (receiving campus does not have to duplicate the program); between OUS institutions and private partners; programs delivered to OUS centers; programs in partnership with regional community colleges.

The Council looked at draft guidelines on non-credit courses that have to be reviewed by the Office of Degree Authorization of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission (ODA). This is a big and painful issue because the private institutions can start up a program that is already in place in OUS schools and claim unfair competition by OUS, as well as complain if OUS starts the program after they do. Only non-credit programs were being discussed. They must be reviewed if the program is an organized teaching and learning activity with open enrollment and awards a certificate indicating substantial academic or vocational learning, preparation related to a new or modified occupational licensure, OR has value as a public credential. Going beyond this description to the line between those that must be reviewed and those that do not have to be, becomes fuzzy. The proposed guidelines excludes programs with no certificate or only certifying attendance (no learning); the program is advertised solely for intellectual value, recreational value or only provides for expanding knowledge in the studentâs present occupation; closed enrollment program; asynchronously delivered program; provides continued education mandated for licensed professionals or upgrades previously qualified workers.

There was considerable discussion that OUS was being put in a straightjacket and the plum programs could be picked off by the private institutions. As a result, there was some discussion about the impact analysis working both ways; private institutions actions impacting on the public one but it was not clear that OUS could demand that. Another point was that if a private moves into an area that OUS already provides a program for, if OUS enhances or changes that program (keeps it up to date, for example) the private could charge OUS with detrimental impact. The conclusion was that the draft guidelines were probably the best OUS could get now and it was probably better to leave it fuzzy than get precise guidelines that narrowed our range of action further.

The other major discussion surrounded the Draft of the System Accountability and Performance Funding Policy. There are 10 indicators to be shared by all OUS institutions but only the first two will be used in the first year: 1) Oregon first-time freshmen enrolled full- or part-time; 2) First-time full-time freshmen persistence/retention to second year. The remainder need more work and/or could not easily apply in the beginning of the budget model: 3) BA/BS graduation rates for freshmen entering full-time in fall 1998 and completing by summer 2005; 4) Satisfaction of degree recipients with the educational experiences; 5) Financial well-being (current fund balance at the end of each fiscal year)(NOTE: they found some conflict with other points: if you save the money for the balance, are you cutting services?); 6) Non state sources of revenue (grants, etc.); 7) Capital assets management (preventive maintenance, repair and deferred maintenance)(NOTE: at one point it was to be measured by the amount of money spent, not the quality of the work); 8) Internships (NOTE: several points raised: campuses need to identify programs that can use internships, not all can; this is not on the table for funding now; it is hard to define and Moseley (UO) noted we need time to clean up these programs and have a uniform standard, i.e. 4 credit internships); 9) recent graduate success; and 10) total degrees granted. There were a couple of points of clarification: Shepard (EOU) asked about the retention point (2) that counts only full-time freshman retention. No credit for part- time ones who return. Second, as it stands now, interns get credit if not paid but no credit if paid so paid interns would not count for the campus. How can they track all these interns and why cannot credit be given for paid internships? No action.

Two institutions presented academic program changes: WOU a BA/BS in Anthropology and OSU establishing two departments in the College of Pharmacy (Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacy Practice). The Western proposal for an Anthropology major was well accepted with only the suggestion that two tracks be identified to demonstrate that 4 faculty could teach all the necessary courses for majors to complete the degree on time. The OSU proposal seemed to be accepted as it stood. Both go to the board.

Under other items, it was noted that a post-doctoral salary is now required every couple of years as a base for salaries proposed for foreign post-docs to get visas. In the past, the NIH salary lists worked, now each state must have its own data base.