Present: Elizabeth Boretz (EOU), Scott Burns (PSU Geology), Mina Carson (OSU History), Duncan Carter (PSU Liberal Arts and Sciences), Bill Danley (SOU Special Education), Elaine Deutschman (OIT Mathematics), James Earl (UO English), Peter Gilkey (UO Mathematics), Marye Hefty (OIT Communications), Laura Jones (SOU), Jim Lundy (OSU Transportation Engineering), Marny Rivera (SOU), Steve Teich (OHSU Library), Nathan Tublitz (UO), Bob Turner (WOU Biology), and Craig Wollner (PSU Social Science).
Absent: Nels Carlson (OHSU School of Medicine), Dan Edge (OSU Fisheries & Wildlife), Dick Fairley (OHSU Computer Science and Engineering), Solveig Holmquist (WOU Creative Arts/Music), Jim Tooke (EOU Mathematics Education), and Robert Zimmerman (UO Physics).
II.
John Wykoff, Executive Director, Oregon Student Association
(Note: Although Mr. Wykoff spoke at several
different times to allow other speakers to present at their scheduled times,
his ideas are summarized in one place here.)
A.
Reported on the last
legislative session
1.
Stated little chance
to do well because higher education was not at the top of the priority
list. Other essential services
were placed far ahead.
2.
Mentioned that having
tuition as a source of income hurt higher education in competing for funds
because K12 doesn’t have such an income.
3.
Stated that the board
made a mistake in selling “quality” as the higher education issue
to the legislature. Instead the
board needed to talk about the lack of access in order to create a sense of
urgency. The board took the wrong
approach and used the wrong message.
4.
Explained a
credibility problem because the chancellor’s office represented OUS to
the legislators, but the legislators would be much more influenced by the
university presidents and students.
5.
Stressed that OUS
needs to come before the legislature with a unified message.
B.
Reported on the Governor firing the higher
education board members
1.
Shared rumor that Neil
Goldschmidt said he would be on the higher education board if he could select
the other members. No clear plan
seems to exist yet except an idea that Mr. Goldschmidt offers a way to bring
money into the system.
2.
Shared the idea that
OUS may be moving toward an acquisition model involving private dollars instead
of an allocation model.
C.
Shared the
chancellor’s success with effectively interacting and taking student
issues forward to the legislature.
Gave Senate Bill 10 as an example of the risks the chancellor takes to
support students. Mentioned that
students are supportive of the chancellor, but the student organization does
not think his lobbying was effective in the last session.
D.
Shared Oregon Student
Association priorities: OUS
funding, community college funding, Senate Bill 10, Oregon Opportunity Grant,
and Child Care Block Grant Program.
Reviewed some of the successes with these priorities including $12M for
the Oregon Opportunity Grant and $1M added to the Child Care Block Grant
Program.
E.
Stressed the need for
all schools and voices within OUS to come together. “We must be unified with common goals.”
F.
Discussed the
Governor’s “Asset” plan, which is his idea for adding funding
into higher education and elevating the education discussion. The problem is that this plan calls for
significant funding for financial aid from private sources.
G.
Mentioned the
importance of delivering messages from unexpected people to the legislature.
For example, have students talk about faculty pay and faculty talk about
access.
II. Mary Kay Tetreault, Provost, Portland State University
A.
Shared her pride in
the school’s planning process, which involved a committee drafting vision
and values, and then focus groups of faculty and administrators refining these
and determining the priorities of the school. The following vision for the school was developed through
this process.
1.
PSU’s
vision: “Our vision is to be
an internationally recognized urban university known for excellence in student
learning, innovative research, and community engagement that contributes to the
economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and quality of life in the
Portland region and beyond.”
B.
Shared ways the school
is addressing priorities 1, 5, and 6 of the school’s nine
priorities. Priority 1: “Attract and retain a faculty of
distinction. The strength of the
University is based on its faculty and high quality programs.” Priority 5: “Develop our research and creative capacity consistent
with PSU’s central role in knowledge creation and community
engagement. Priority 6: “Provide leadership to create a
nexus of educational institutions that enhance the community and contribute to
economic development and sustainability.”
1.
Explained how the
school’s access money is being transferred to places in the school that
are experiencing growth.
2.
Talked about a revenue
sharing plan.
3.
Mentioned that one way
the school is trying to deal with the over 60 retirements of tenured faculty is
by matching the funds of the provost and deans to fund positions. (She mentioned this as an example of
creative solutions to the budget problem.)
C.
Discussed the
school’s focus on 1) student learning, 2) faculty vitality, and 3)
multiplicity of faculty work.
These focus areas involve asking faculty to think about what they do
best and how to meet the school’s priorities.
D.
Outlined three other
priorities for the institution:
1.
Sustainability on
economic, social, and environmental levels. PSU is working to become a sustainable institution.
2.
“Creative Industries—involves
teaming with animation, movie industry, and creative industries.
3.
Established Center for
Emerging Technologies—A center for bringing together faculty from
different disciplines.
III. Nohad
Toulan, Dean, Urban and Public Affairs
A.
Presented the history
of PSU’s urban campus
1.
In 1946 PSU
established as an extension center and attracted many former soldiers on the GI
bill.
2.
In 1948 the original
campus was destroyed in the Columbus Day flood.
3.
In 1952 Lincoln High
School became the home for Portland State.
4.
In 1955 PSU became a
four-year college
5.
In the 1960s the urban
sites for the college were established.
Later to help stop the antagonism of the community because of the growth
of PSU, the school agreed not to build beyond Market Street.
6.
In 1986 the school
adopted the idea of a university district—a functioning, living district.
7.
1994 the University
District Boundary Established.
B.
Presented some of the
vision of PSU’s urban campus
1.
Described examples of
partnering with business to share space (retail in the ground floor of the
Urban Center Building). The campus
location downtown was once a problem and it is now an advantage.
2.
Described the plans
for an assisted living center that can be teamed with the school’s aging
research work.
3.
Shared the plans for a
small urban village on a 4-acre hotel site, which will include student,
faculty, and low-income housing for non-students.
IV. Tom
Doyle, Bennet and Hartman Law Firm
A.
Presented an update on
the PERS lawsuits
1.
Outlined the four
pieces of litigation:1) Supreme Court petition, involving retirees and
non-union employees; 2) federal; 3) class action; and 4) a 1970s case involving
differences in male\female actuarial tables, in which the court issued a
permanent injunction that female actuarial tables needed to have the same
benefit as the male tables. (This
last litigation is a way for members in the PERS system to keep the same
actuarial tables they hire in with.)
2.
Explained that the
Supreme Court case involves the concept that in the recent legislative changes
to PERS, the legislature is breaking their promise with employees, which is
referred to as an “impairment of contract.” For example, the original contractual
promise was for an 8% guarantee, but the legislature has changed this.
3.
Reviewed a general
timeline for the litigation, starting with the Supreme Court petition that
should result in a decision in 2005.
The class action suit will not go forward until the Supreme Court case
is finished.
4.
Explained that the
State of Oregon’s Supreme Court has ruled previously that the benefits
you begin your career with constitute a contract.
5.
Mentioned that PERS
does not exist for new hires. A
new pension system exists.
6.
Stated that he believe
the PERS problems will ultimately be solved at the legislative level and the
litigation is a way of holding the “legislators' feet to the fire.”
7.
Stated that more
information is available at www.bennethhatman.com
V.
Steve March, State Legislator District 46 Portland
A.
Discussed the built-in
cuts to higher education if the temporary tax surcharge fails. These cuts will include up to $12M in
the second half of this biennium.
B.
Stated that he sees no
rush for a special session if the tax surcharge fails.
C.
Stated that taxpayers
do not see that permanent tax reforms to businesses and others are in the
surcharge bill.
D.
Mentioned the new
retirement system passed in the legislature is “not bad.”
E.
Echoed others in
stating that the OUS message should not come from the chancellor but from the
universities. “We are here
to educate kids.” The
presidents of the schools need to carry this message.
F.
Stated that faculty
can be effective by talking to their local representatives about higher
education.
VI. Denise
Yunker, OUS Human Resources—Update on Benefits
A.
Stated the successor
PERS plan is a good plan
B.
Discussed the Optional
Retirement Plan (ORP) reduction in retirement benefit that resulted from the
voter’s passage of Measure 29 in September. This measure reduced the employer’s contribution rate
to PERS accounts. Because ORP and
PERS contributions are tied together, ORP employer contributions were reduced
from 11.71% to 4.27% of salary for Tier II and to 3.71% of salary for Tier I
employees.
C.
Stressed the need for
a bipartisan effort to de-couple the PERS rate and the ORP rate. Asked for our help in doing this. Mentioned the need for a letter to the
legislature requesting this de-coupling.
The issue is two-fold: 1)
the actual rates going into people’s retirements and 2) the wide
fluctuations in the PERS account within a year.
D.
Discussed how PEBB is
“changing its spots.”
It is moving toward an evidence-based model. As it is designed now PEBB is unsustainable for the future. Ms. Yunker sees a tremendous
opportunity in the establishment of a health reimbursement program.
VII. Jay Kenton, Vice President, Portland State University
Guest Jay Kenton, PSU Vice President for Creative Financial Planning:
Higher education’s problems include:
1. People feeling overtaxed. Some think that higher education (HE) is a private, rather than a public, good, and don’t want to pay for others’ education.
2. The current economic downturn (actually predictable at the beginning of every decade). Some of the most profitable considerations in such times are given to the positioning of higher ed in order to avoid the negative repercussions of the economic climate.
A suggestion: College presidents should meet with legislators to hammer out a shared vision before any rulings on state support. Higher ed must be viewed as an investment / solution, rather than a cost.
PSU realizes that although business and industry are obvious potential candidates for funding, there is justifiable concern about the impact of accepting those funds on HE values. In particular, HE must remain free to criticize corporate behavior.
With all this in mind, PSU is taking the following actions to avoid cutting programs and people in these hard times.
1. Increasing student housing (a safety necessity for an inner city campus), which is expected to increase some revenue sources commensurately:
--alumni giving via an increase in graduates feeling an allegiance to PSU
--percentage of grad students (which will benefit research, which brings revenue)
--attendance at athletic events.
2. Adding retail businesses, including a brew pub and a night club. Income from retail space allows funding for academic space.
3. Increased attention to recruitment of non-residents—for diversity not only of the student body, but of the financial base.
4. Enhancing the physical aspects of the campus, which enhance the public’s perception, and thus giving; people want to contribute to a winner.
Present: Elizabeth Boretz (EOU), Scott Burns
(PSU Geology), Mina Carson (OSU History), Duncan Carter (PSU Liberal Arts and
Sciences), Bill Danley (SOU Special Education), Elaine Deutschman (OIT
Mathematics), Peter Gilkey (UO Mathematics), Marye Hefty (OIT Communications),
Laura Jones (SOU), Jim Lundy (OSU Transportation Engineering), Marny Rivera
(SOU), Steve Teich (OHSU Library), Bob Turner (WOU Biology), Nathan Tublitz
(UO), and Craig Wollner (PSU Social Science).
Absent: Nels Carlson (OHSU
School of Medicine), James Earl (UO English), Dan Edge (OSU Fisheries &
Wildlife), Dick Fairley (OHSU Computer Science and Engineering), Solveig
Holmquist (WOU Creative Arts/Music), Jim Tooke (EOU Mathematics Education), and
Robert Zimmerman (UO Physics).
A. Shared that when interviewed by the Oregonian reporter
that this was the first time he had heard about the board firings.
B. Shared an article in National Cross Talk (a publication of the National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education) entitled “Cause for Alarm” about how
Oregon’s budget crisis leads to tuition hikes and academic program cuts.
A. Discussed
as a group the reason for the reduction in the Optional Retirement Plan and how
IFS can bring this problem forward to the governor and legislature.
B. Elaine Deutschman—asked us all to support AOF
financially because AOF supports the faculty in issues like the PERS lawsuit.
C. Jim Lundy—explained why the ORP reduction
occurred. State agencies borrowed
$2 billion to pay for a PERS obligation.
This resulted in the employer contribution being reduced to 3.71%
because the $2 billion paid the remaining obligation. The ORP and PERS are coupled; therefore, whatever changes
related to contributions occur in PERS will occur in ORP. So, the ORP contribution was reduced to
the PERS amount.
D. Discussed drafting a letter from the presidents of the
colleges, IFS, AAUP, and other college entities to the governor and chancellor
about the need to correct this ORP problem and to de-couple ORP and PERS.
A. Bill Danley—read the letter he sent to the
governor about IFS nominations to the OUS board.
B. Discussed the process by which IFS presented the
governor with two nominations to the OUS board. The process involved an IFS committee reviewing campus and
IFS selections. Craig Wollner
(PSU) and Tublitz (UO) were nominated.
Peter Gilkey—“We set a deep and high standard by nominating
you.”
C. Mentioned the need to thank Geri Richmond when her term
as the faculty member to the board is completed
in January.
D. Reviewed the importance of IFS establishing a
relationship with Neil Goldschmidt.
Have the old and new IFS presidents meet with Mr. Goldschmidt and
establish that IFS is available to serve his needs on the board.
E. Craig Wollner shared his idea for a policy book
communicating the consistent message and needs of OUS to the governor,
legislators, and constituents.
A. OHSU—The school has formed a committee to review its experience with Web filters for screening pornography sites (related to issues of academic freedom and acceptable use policies) and to submit a recommendation—take them off and keep them off.
B. PSU—The Native American Center has opened.
C. WOU—Negotiations for a new contract are
underway. The provost has resigned
after 18 to 19 years at the school.
D. Bob Turner—In future campus reports, include
contacts made with legislators as a way to remind us to make these contacts.
E. UO—Financial issues are causing conflicts between
the administration and the faculty.
F. SOU—The new provost is moving the strategic
initiative plan forward. The
library is still being constructed.
A labyrinth is being built on campus.
G. EOU—The new president (Khosrow Patma) is
arriving on campus in the spring.
Part of his initial vision is to run the school more like a private
school and bring in money from out-of-state sources. EOU is cutting minors to deal with budget cuts.
H. OIT—A compensation committee is reviewing issues
of compensation.
I. OSU—Elimination of tuition plateau is going into
effect. Cuts to extension services
are still having impacts.
J. Question to the group: With the funding model capped at 72% of comparative
institutions, how do we deal with the continuing growth in student numbers?
K. Group discussion: With the changes in the board, IFS needs to work to be a
force of communication for the faculty and the board.
·
February 6&7 Western
Oregon University
·
April 2&3 University
of Oregon
·
June 4&5 Oregon
Institute of Technology
·
October 1&2 Oregon
State University (If OSU has a home football game this weekend, the meeting
will be changed to the next weekend.)
·
December 3&4 Portland State
Bob Turner—President
Elect and Vice President
Laura Jones—Secretary
Dan Jones—Academic Council
Representative
IFS members thank Bill Danley for being extremely effective as president of IFS.