Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Meeting

Absent: Craig Wollner (PSU), Marye Hefty (OIT), Dan Edge (OSU)

I. John Moseley, Provost U of O

A. How UO plans to respond to budgetary concerns.

1. Latest info on latest Legislative proposal – reduction of 8 million dollars for U of O, represents 4-5% reduction in State general funds. In order to meet that, having gone through most of this year already, will mean the majority of the cuts will have to be next year.

2. Started with a positive balance. Carried out a rescission of about 1% from all budgetary items earlier in the year that helped to address the problem.

3. Have made substantial progress in salary parity with comparative institutions nationwide.

4. Prior plans were for a 3% tuition increase next year as a potential revenue tool for the State. Trying hard to keep tuition off the table for now.

5. Plans to expand the day (spreading class offerings) to accommodate increases in enrollment while taking one classroom building “off line.” Could not handle teaching all the students who need classes any other way.

a) One radical debate going on: Looking at a differential tuition rate for students who choose to take courses in the low utilization time slots. Most revenue they gain from any tuition will have to go toward instructional needs.

b) Also considering a range of 10-15% discount for students who take classes in nontraditional time slots (e.g., 8am or after 3pm).

6. Also looking at revisiting the “plateau model” of tuition, where you get 13-18 credits “free” after paying the full-time tuition rate. Considering not necessarily a pure per-credit hour model, but some incremental increase in the full time range. This might help part-time students more instead of having them subsidize the full-time students.

7. Trying hard not to make a mistake similar to those associated with the period following Measure 5, when campuses often cut program offerings. This had a backlash of plummeting enrollments, and left many unprepared for upswings in the economy.

II. Geri Richmond, Professor of Physical Chemistry, UO, & OUS Board Member

A. More discussion on governance structure, and the degree of autonomy from OUS each campus might have. Also how independent each campus might be in carrying out its own governance.

B. Chancellor search process.

1. “Town hall” process really is intended to engage the campus communities in discussions about the Chancellor search. Talking about what characteristics we want in a Chancellor.

2. Geri is relatively pleased with the openness that has evolved in the process, largely due to the efforts of IFS and campus correspondence.

C. Discussion around why we need a “Chancellor’s Office” in the first place. Many chuckles and candid discussion – It’s true, for example, that the community college system runs very well with only a Commissioner’s Office with a budget of only about 2 million dollars.

III. Nathan Tublitz, President of the University of Oregon University Senate

A. Stereotyping faculty is a problem in the system. There is an attitude that faculty perspectives are already “known,” so it is useless to solicit their input on issues any further. Implication is that faculty voices are not heard at the State level.

B. Touted UO’s efforts at a more collaborative effort, beginning in 1996, when they created a “university senate,” represented by faculty, administrators, students, and librarians. This has resulted in productive improvements such as:

1. New post-tenure review process.

2. Significant improvement in faculty salaries.

3. Removal of 2 million dollar athletic subsidy

C. Encouraged us to continue being a strong “faculty voice” at the State level.

IV. Dave Frohnmeyer, President of U of O

A. Priority is to preserve access and quality to the best of their ability during within the budget cut atmosphere.

B. If the “tuition card” has to be played, there is talk of allowing institutions to independently determine what level of increase could be sustained in the context of their respective markets.

C. Long range – recent discussions of strategic vision for next five years or so –

1. What is our capacity? Includes discussions about enrollment, classrooms, buildings, numbers of faculty, capability of physical plant, etc.

2. Should there be an enrollment cap?

3. What does it mean to be a “public institution”? Proportion of General Fund dedicated to Higher Ed has gone from 12% in 1990 to 7+% now.

a) Personal opinion is that a public institution offers access to the general public, that higher ed is a public responsibility.

b) How should a public institution interface with community-based private business entities?

4. In what disciplines should we be investing our resources? Campus-specific decisions.

D. Who becomes the next Governor matters.

E. Other debates currently happening here – athletics and diversity issues.

F. Believes that public opinion about higher education is already very positive but the breakdown comes when legislators have to make difficult choices about where to shift priorities with a given pot of money.

V. Roger Bassett, OUS Board Member, Former Community College Commissioner

A. Governor’s staff is as small as it’s ever been, and they have vacated the Education Policy function almost completely. So he understands why they could not attend this meeting. He met with them prior to this meeting, and encouraged us to ask him questions we might have wished to ask them.

B. There will be a tendency to go for the short-term solution to revenue problems; toward the middle – regarding the budget discussions.

C. Oregon public’s stance is that, given the opportunity, they “want their money back.” Governor wants a long-term solution, but the short-term solution is pulling the energy to the center. Try to put yourself in his shoes right now.

VI. Senator Tony Corcoran

A. Provided handout of the latest proposal put forth by the “Gang of 5” – representatives of the Legislative leadership.

B. “Revenue Solution” page they’ve produced shows that the proposal over-relies on one-time revenue generators.

C. Discussed many examples of inertia and ignorance within the legislature. Supported the Governor’s stance that we need to have sustainable revenues, and that if they submit the current proposal with the heavy reliance on one-time revenue, he’ll veto it.

D. Discussion about the dark picture of the future for the funding of the State – real people suffering real losses in services – human services, medical, food assistance, etc.

VII. Kirsten Lampe

A. OHSU heard on Jan. 12^th that Gang of 5 was planning to cut $33M from their budget, which could have essentially shut them down. They rallied, got it down to about $9M.

B. Spent last 3 weeks spearheading cold calling, taking dental and dental hygiene students to Salem, making phone calls, sending emails, etc. Said the legislators who have been there had little knowledge of what OHSU actually offered in the State.

C. Encourages us to do the same – pointed out that misinformation existing among legislators is difficult to overturn, but lobbying and building relationships is what it takes.

D. Lost $10M in July. Immediately lost their hygiene program, and have already planned a 15% increase in student tuition for next year.

Feb. 2^nd

Absent: Craig Wollner (PSU), Marye Hefty (OIT)

I. Approved December 2001 minutes with slight changes of a couple of names and affiliations.

II. Accepted notes from June & October as approved minutes.

III. Report on January OUS Board Meeting (Elaine Deutschman)

A. Was an Executive Board Meeting.

B. Discussed the Chancellor Search and other ongoing issues.

IV. Report on Academic Council Meeting (Bob Turner) – see handout of notes from that meeting (attached) for some details. List of topics discussed:

A. OIT’s conversion to private institution.

B. Preview of Jan. 18^th Board Meeting

C. Review of Proposed New Programs, all from PSU

D. Grattan Kerans reported on various budget proposals.

E. Nancy Goldschmidt moderated a discussion of standardizing internships and practica.

F. Second hour focused on tuition issues, including eliminating the 12-18 hour plateau, desirability of avoiding subsidizing M.S. programs with undergraduate tuition.

V. Bruce Sorte’s opinion of the “reality” of OSU’s budgetary woes.

A. We’ve all been using up reserves to fulfill initiatives.

B. The shortfall amounts to about 4% of their total budget – if looked at in this context, this is not the extreme “crisis” that the State has been making it out to be. All of the institutions are facing similar outcomes.

C. Part of the problem is symptomatic of the lack of communication and understanding between institutions and the Sate, between administration and front line employees, and between individual institutions.

D. An ongoing problem is that many people aren’t truly aware of how their budgets work, and the money sometimes gets “lost.” One example is OUS President Riser’s use of scholarships to get students, which cost $2M.

E. Students definitely do bring in more money than they cost.

VI. Elaine – OIT Independence Proposal

A. Last spring Dick Wendt came to Advisory Board and offered $75M endowment if OIT would leave OUS and he could have a seat on the Board of Trustees.

1. Wendt is a very conservative person.

2. Does not support unionization.

3. Offered a guarantee of 15% each year for the first two years – bringing total to approx. $100M

B. Martha Anne Dow (President) wants to investigate the proposal in depth because OIT is seeking freedom from the frequent crises in the State.

1. Brought this proposal before the whole campus at the January convocation.

2. Has been running through numerous revenue models.

3. Would call for an increase in tuition of 10% each year for the first 10 years.

4. Has guaranteed current full time students that their tuitions will not increase more than the increases mandated by the rest of the state.

5. Has guaranteed faculty she would keep the same level of benefits that they currently have.

C. Faculty has agreed to conduct due diligence, investigating all factors they can.

1. Current opinions of faculty vary widely.

2. There are a number of “deal breakers” possible, and it is important to understand that this is not a done deal.

a) Having trouble getting answers from Dick Wendt for the past few weeks, so there is a lot of ambiguity and unanswered questions.

b) The $75 is in the form of company stock, which raises concerns.

c) The interest on the money would need to be supplemented heavily with tuitions and other endowment contributions.

D. Dow prefers the term “independent” rather than “private” because of the negative connotations of the latter.

E. Concern about the timeline – if they were going to go forward with the independence, Martha Anne would need to go before the legislature next January which means she would need to go before the OUS Board by this Fall.

VII. Chancellor Search Process

A. Now that process is more open, we need to follow through and make sure we give our input at the forums.

B. Letter has gone out from Jim Willis, Chair of the Search Committee, to Presidents of the seven universities and other stakeholders, describing the forum process as follows:

1. These sessions are planned as informal drop-ins where you and others from your institution will be able to visit with a member(s) of the Search Committee and others to discuss these three questions:

a) What are the key challenges facing the Chancellor and the Board in directing higher education in the future?

b) What kind of person do we need to guide higher education into the future?

c) What specifically do we need to guide higher education into the future?

C. Headhunters – January 16^th – began recruiting.

D. By March 15^th, will narrow candidates to 5-7 top people.

E. April 4^th, have reference reviews completed.

F. April 21^st, have completed interviewing top candidates.

G. Going to have final on-site interviews with top three after the Primary elections so that the candidates can interact and respond to the Gubernatorial candidates. (May)

H. Hope to make final announcement by early June.

VIII. IFS Legislative Strategies and IFS Funding (Bruce Sorte)

A. Based on premise that we ought to get our political agenda known in a more formal way.

B. Legislative Agenda committee last session – Bruce, Bob Turner, Gary Tiedeman

C. Legislators believe that higher ed is on solid ground with their funding!

D. Legislators are very data-intensive

E. We may still be seen as an economic engine.

F. Prior to the 2001 Legislative Session, proposed four major initiatives to the Chancellor:

1. Scholar’s Network – to provide services to the State, $15,000.

2. K-16+ Oregon Education Plan – to promote partnerships at all levels of education - $37,600.

3. Creativity Through Diversity – propose funding two positions per institution per year to hire two years prior to retirement of person they’re replacing - $2,828,800.

4. Support an IFS Office - .5 FTE for IFS President, and .25 FTE clerical support - $64,850 (including OPE benefits and supplies/overhead).

G. After sidestepping and re-working, we ended up with $20,000 for the biennium, $10,000 per year. OUS has sent Elaine Deutschman $5,000 now with $5,000 to be distributed in July.

1. This money should be above and beyond the Board’s contributions for travel to Board meetings.

H. Bruce is recommending we form the Legislative Agenda Committee now to work on the 2003 legislative session.

I. Elaine will let Chancellor’s office know that we have begun forming a legislative committee and will be formulating our positions for consideration and inclusion in the Chancellor’s Policy Option Package as it is being developed.

J. Elizabeth Furse – recommends we write more Letters to the Editor to our local newspapers.

IX. Plan for the Upcoming IFS Report to the Board (Elaine Deutschman)

A. Thank them for opening up the search process. Then let them know we’d like to be at the table during the interviews of the 5-7 top candidates.J

B. What is the Board doing to help us with the fact that enrollments are increasing while resources are going down?

1. We also wish to stem the tide of the increased use of part-time faculty who do not contribute service-related activities.

2. Elaine would like us to try and send any data we have on the proportion of our classes that are taught by part-time adjunct faculty; this might help with her presentation to the Board.

C. Appeal to the Board members’ personal experiences with higher education – e.g., with their own children, for whom they wish to have such characteristic qualities as small classes, expertise offered by “real” professors, value for future career or advanced training opportunities.

D. Thank them for allowing us to participate prior to the 2001 Legislature, and remind them to allow us to sit at the table with the Presidents in developing the 2003 legislative agenda.

X. IFS Meeting in Ashland in April (Bill Danley & Marc Levy)

A. Will post web-based links for information related to lodging and the Shakespeare Festival.

B. Invitations

1. Roger Bassett, who will also invite the Governor

2. Gubernatorial candidates – perhaps wait for the LaGrande meeting in June.

3. Lenn Hannon

4. Russell Sadler

5. Les AuCoin

6. Joe Cox

7. A Board Member to assist us with our legislative policy (Bruce Sorte will investigate this)

XI. Craig Wollner & Elaine Deutschman met with Chancellor Cox

A. Recommended that IFS get to Kulongoski (a Gubernatorial candidate) to educate him about an opinion out there that Oregon should provide higher education vouchers for all Oregonians.

B. Brought up the issue of the importance of getting our voices heard early in the political process.

C. Elizabeth Furse believes that Beverly Stein has a good chance of winning if she can raise enough money.

XII. Adjourned 11:53AM