Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting

Discussed a bill he plans to pass in this session to merge PSU and OHSU under the OHSU system. From a business perspective, it doesn’t make sense to run the OUS system from a central system. PSU is a tier-4 university in Portland. If merged with OHSU, it would move it up to a tier-2 institution.
Discussed another bill he plans to pass that will allow a state agency to name a university as a “state” entity leading a grant effort with a state agency.
Shared that he voted against the higher education budget last year. Higher education needs to find an independent source of funding to support higher education.
Said that he saw no business benefit as a department chair of being a part of OUS. Wouldn’t we be better off deciding how we want to fund higher education than throwing the money into a bucket.
Shared that the legislature listens to stories. I spent 35 years as a researcher, and I believe that adults learn by listening and telling stories. At the eight different institutions, when you tell us your stories, those stories really matter. Your success will be in creating a brand. It will not be in sharing your numbers. You need to create stories. One is institutional stories and one is a common story. Legislators need to have stories to tell why they have voted how they have voted.

III. Tabitha Whitefoot and Dr. Tom Biolsi of the Native American Center

Tom Biolsi gave a history of the Native American Studies Program. He explained that the Native American students really drove the implementation of the program.
Said the PSU is discussing a school of ethnic studies, Native American, Chicano, Latino, and Women studies. We are interested in the intellectual chemistry from such linkages.
Tabitha Whitefoot spoke about how the building came from a grass-roots effort and provided her background. Native Americans have culturally related needs that this vibrant center supports. We have donations from every Oregon tribe. Pendleton donated the chairs. Intel donated the computer lab. The Portland metro community supported this effort. We have had three fund raisers already this year. We also want to demystify 20^th century Native American people.

IV. PSU President Dan Bernstine

Welcomed us and shared information about PSU, including the increase in international and out-of-state students.
Spoke briefly about how the presidents of the various campuses are committed to working together. We are looking for opportunities to look for common interests.
Thanked IFS for its work.
Shared that he is optimistic about the end of the session—whenever it ends.

V. Jean Thorne,

PEBB Administrator, Peter Callero, PEBB Board Member, and Cathy LaTourette, Associate Vice President of Human Resources, PSU

Explained that PEBB does not make funding decisions. Our role is to buy the health care and to determine the co-pays and what services, but the issue of how much people pay toward their premiums is not something that we deal with.
The PEBB board decided to take a long-term view. PEBB envisions a new state of health for its members statewide with 6 key components:

1) An innovative delivery system in communities statewide that provides evidence-based medicine to maximize health and utilize dollars wisely.

2) A focus on improving quality and outcomes and not just providing healthcare.

3) The promotion of consumer education and informed choices.

4) Appropriate market and consumer incentives that encourage the right care at the right time.

5) System-wide transparency through explicit, available and understandable reports about costs, outcomes, and other useful data.

6) Benefits affordable to the state and employees.

Reviewed handouts stating PEBB’s vision for 2006 provides a roadmap to addressing healthcare cost and quality issues. PEBB’s overall approach: define a vision; translate vision into uniform, concrete criteria for purchasing services and evaluating performance; implement some cost strategies statewide; recognize that different models to achieve criteria may be required in different parts of the state; work closely with potential providers to launch significantly pilot projects; gradually extend pilots where appropriate.
Reviewed PEBB’s timeline is September 15, 2004—Issued Request for Information to plans and delivery systems; January 2005—Issue Request for Proposals for pilots and statewide services; January 2006—Begin some new benefit programs consistent with vision 2007.
Reviewed how we can help. Recognize this is a longer-term strategy that should stabilize cost trends and improve health; understand this is about getting better value—not about shifting cost to members; understand that PEBB will ask providers to change, but PEBB members also must be accountable for decisions they make about their health and healthcare.

VI. Gregg Hartman, Lead Attorney, PERS cases

Provided a summary of the PERS cases in the courts.
Explained the changes affect people very differently. Those close to retirement can lose up to 10%. Those in tier 2 are projected to have some benefit. Most of the rest of the cases we filed are really meant to maintain the status quo. The legislation has different impacts on different people, so we couldn’t ask the court to throw everything out. So, the court may weigh in our favor, but require the legislature to act. For the most part, waiting on hold for what the courts are going to do.

VII. Chancellor George Pernsteiner

A. Began by stating that the Oregon Transfer Module as important to our credibility.

B. Reviewed the governor’s budget. This budget is about investments and the future. It is not about cuts. He wants to focus on what we can have. He laid it out in a five biennium mode, which he hasn’t done before. The voters have spoken—no more taxes. This means that except for increases in line gains, there is no new revenue. The budget is sustainable if adopted. He is focusing on the longer term vision. We can’t afford to spend any more money than we can take in. The 05/07 budget stops spending money we do not have.

C. Explained that the governor organized his budget around his principles. His first principle is education. The total amount of State General Funds for the Oregon University System in the Governor’s 2005-07 Recommended Budget is $685.4 million, including Capital Construction and dept service, a 24.1 increase over the $671.3 in General Fund in 2003-2005.

D. Presented the budget highlights as follows:

1. The Governor’s Recommended Budget will enable OUS universities to enroll more than 80,000 students per year in 2005-2007.

2. The budget makes a substantial investment in university facilities, including new construction in Medford (with Rogue Community College) and significant repair and maintenance at each campus.

3. The budget makes affordability a hallmark by more than doubling state funding for the Oregon Opportunity Grant.

4. The budget allows universities to keep tuition increases well within single digits each year.

E. Shared that the governor talked about the collaboration with regard to the transfer model. He is very appreciative of this.

F. Said the governor’s budget is a starting point. Only about 1% will move around if the revenue stays the same from a historical position. I am worried we are vulnerable in scholarship money. We want to resist cuts in this money.

Saturday, December 4, 2004, at Portland State University (Native American Center)

Present: Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OUS), Dan Edge (OSU), James Earl (UO), Peter Gilkey (UO), Marye Hefty (OIT), Robert Mercer (PSU), Maury Rivera, Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Steve Tanner (EOU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Bob Turner (WOU), and Craig Wollner (PSU).

Absent: Dick Fairley (OHSU), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Jim Tooke (EOU), Nathan Tublitz (UO)

I. Maureen Sevigny reported on the Oregon Transfer Module.

II. Scott Burns moved and Peter Gilkey seconded Motion IFS-04-1, as follows:

A. IFS

1) Endorses the work done on the OTM

2) Recommends that the Senate of EOU, OIT, OSU, PSU, SOU, UO, and WOU approve the OTM, as endorsed by the Joint Boards Articulation Commission on November 19,2004 (OTM text is at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ifs/dirOTM/OTM19Nov04.html), pending final approval by the Joint Boards of Education

B. A discussion followed related to an email Nathan Tublitz (UO) wrote asking us not to approve the motion because of issues related to quality. Specifically, he states, “It is the beginning of a very nasty slippery slide towards academic mediocrity.” IFS faculty expressed similar concerns related to how the agreement might be betrayed in a way that could negatively impact the university system. One concern is that the OTM could transform over time into 2-year community colleges will dictate curriculum and standards to 4-year colleges. Some discussion concerned the challenging “marriage of community colleges and universities.” The biggest reservation is the politics of OTM. It is not a big problem to begin with. The OTM is faculty designed and it prevents the option of the legislature mandate general education requirements. This OTM can be a useful tool for helping students plan their basic programs, especially new students at community colleges who do not know what they are majoring in. It is a way of focusing students.

C. After discussion, Motion IFS-04-1 passed unanimously.

III. Bob Turner led a discussion of another motion—Motion-04-2.

A. Bob Turner summarized the motion documents concerns about OTM related to 1) outcomes based education instead of counting credits, 2) the need for better advising, and 3) the need to develop a common core for each major.

B. More discussion followed. Anything we can say around essential nature of advising is important. The common core can work within a major, but it takes time to develop. The AA-OT business provides a working model of this. A mindset in the community colleges is that 45 hours equals a sophomore and 90 hours is a junior. Communication needs to be clear that this is not always the case. For example, in biology at WOU, 45 credits still means 3 more years of school. These issues frame key issues like what is a college degree? To say there is a mechanical prescription for duration and other issues does not work. Barriers and joy are not getting any play in our discussions, which are essential to education. We are not requiring competency of our leaders. We are not demanding competency. At SOU we have the assumption that the degree is preparing students for jobs. What is the role of education? In many disciplines, outcomes cannot begin to define the education. Outcomes based education for a liberal arts education diminishes that we are a profession and that we define this profession. We maintain ourselves at a level of quality as professionals. One thing we can all agree on is advising. The key to OTM is good advising.

C. Motion IFS-04-2 was withdrawn.

IV. Peter Gilkey made the motion that IFS endorse the advising statement written by Robert Mercer. (text provided below and at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ifs/dirOTM/Motion-IFS-04-2.html.) The motion was seconded by Scott Burns. The motion was passed.

IFS Statement on Advising

The Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate wants to make a strong statement about the importance of academic advising for all students regardless of whether they begin their higher education at one of Oregon's community colleges or at one of the public universities. While various draft proposals in circulation foot-note a statement about the importance of good advising, the IFS believes that a clear statement, and effective support for the wide range of advising needs of transfer students is essential to the success of any proposal eventually adopted by OUS.

Whether it is the Oregon Transfer Module, or any of the other proposals of the Excellence in Delivery and Productivity's (MBF) working group, accurate, accessible and other student support services are central to student success. This advising must extend beyond any Transfer Module to include specific information regarding a student's desired major and degree. As many students either begin college without a chosen major, or subsequently change that major, this sort of advising presents many challenges; challenging to the student in choosing a specific major path, and challenging to teacher faculty and academic advisers in helping those students select a curriculum.

While many academic majors, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, build major curricula which allow students to do considerable exploration in the lower division course work, the sciences, fine and performing arts, and professional schools tend to be heavy in very specific lower division requirements. Those students who tend to feel that they have wasted credits, or found credits not accepted by one of the OUS schools have often shifted into, or out of, a program with very specific, sequential course work at the lower division level. The course work from their initial major remains transferable, but not completely applicable to their new major. An art major who shifts to engineering, or a business major who shifts to biology will find her or his progress to degree delayed for reasons which have nothing to do with general education requirements.

Strong academic advising helps introduce students to higher education and to connect them to the culture of their particular institution. Beyond the accurate selection of courses required for graduation, advising support must help students in maneuvering through and managing the higher education environment. Students who develop confidence in negotiating a path to graduation make sound choices in attaining their goals.

V. A motion was passed to approve the meeting notes in 2004.

VI. IFS Meetings for 2005.

A. The new IFS meeting schedule is as follows:

February 4 and 5 —OSU

April 1 and 2 —WOU

June 4 and 5 Saturday and Sunday —EOU

October 7 and 8—OIT

December 2 and 3 —PSU

VII. Provost Council Report by Dan Edge

A. Dan Edge reported on two meetings. The Provost Council is working better than the Academic Council. The provosts work well together. The provosts are pleased about the OTM and IFS’s role in this. The provosts discussed performance targets from OUS, and Scott Burns passed out the targets for faculty to share with faculty senates. The four areas are as follows: affordable access, student progress, education quality, and economic and civic contributions. The provosts are gathering data (supporting indicators) in this area to present to the legislature. 350K will be available for the faculty diversity fund.

B. Peter Gilkey thanked Dan Edge, Scott Burns and Maureen Sevigny for their work with the Provost Council.

VIII. Peter Gilkey reported on the OUS State Board meetings.

A. Peter suggested that we continue IFS meetings with the board.

IX. Campus Reports

A. OHSU—40% cut to OHSU in the governor’s budget. Two new campuses are being developed in Portland. Plans exist to double the size of our medical class training. At least three of these years take place in Eugene with UO and Peace-Hope hospital. Nursing education students will double in conjunction with several community colleges. The 2-year program will become a 3-year program. The ideal is to get all nursing programs in Oregon on the same page. Students will start at community colleges, and then transfer to OHSU students.

B. PSU—Searches are taking place for two vice presidents. New dorm is “leed” certified. We are in our first capital campaign for $100M.

C. SOU—We are updating by-laws and reorganizing the campus in social sciences and business. We are having lots of retirements in key positions. We are excited about advertisements we are seeing for new positions. With the new president and provost, there is a new expectation of scholarship, and promotions are being denied at the provost office. Expectations are becoming clearer.

D. OSU—The new president is respected. Administrators are being hired. We have returned to a strict tuition plateau. The stadium is being expanded. We have a new engineering (leed certified) building. We have started an endowment campaign. As part of the strategic plan, six innovative teaching initiatives will be funded.

E. EOU—Arts and Sciences Dean search is continuing. The union is still negotiating the first-year contract. There are plans to build a new dorm. We are headed toward a new push for research and grants.

F. OIT—Enrollment is up for high school students enrolled for college credit. Another growth area is pre-medical imaging. The health care initiative (The Center for Health Professions) is being pushed strongly. Some concerns exist related to the administration’s reluctance to hire necessary faculty. We have received approval for the dental hygiene program at EOU.

G. WOU—Dean of School of Arts and Sciences announced his resignation. Enrollment numbers are down, and the ending fund balance is healthy. A new student computer lab (100 work stations) is being put into the library. The new provost is communicating with faculty and having a positive influence. He has had conversations with all faculty, and as a result, discussions and proposals are coming forth related to invigorating academics and research. The provost also has initiated faculty social gatherings on the campus.

H. UO—The OUS Board has initiated condemnation proceedings for the land for the new stadium.

I. Related to the passage of Motion IFS-04-01, Peter Gilkey asked one representative from each campus to bring the motion to their Faculty Senate and champion this motion through the appropriate senate channels.

X. Focus Ideas for 2005

A. In a discussion, Bob Turner mentioned three areas we may want to focus on next year through study and group discussion: 1) lower division core in majors, 2) advising issue, and 3) retention. At a minimum we could accumulate what is effective as faculty members as models of what works. How active do we want to be? We could form a subcommittee. To what extent is this lower division core something we already do? To the extent that we can improve communication and agreement, we should do this. Some discussed wanting IFS to support not allowing a common core for majors. We need to be clear about where we stand on this issue and communicate this. In house, we need to educate ourselves about common major cores, including studying the AA-OT model. We need to be actively preparing ourselves. Let’s appoint an executive committee to study this. We need to be prepared to act.

B. The group discussed forming communication linkages between OUS faculty and community college faculty. The IFS may be able to help organize a meeting between the OUS faculty and community college faculty.

XI. Election of Officers

A. The new officers are as follows:

Vice president—Scott Burns

Provost’s Council—Maureen Sevigny

Secretary—Marye Hefty

XII. Peter Gilkey made concluding remarks.

A. Peter Gilkey is resigning from IFS because of a research/teaching appointment he has next year in Germany. He will remain as a non-voting member and attend the meetings when he can. Peter passed the gavel to Bob Turner. Bob Turner, as his first act, thanked Peter, and each school offered Peter gifts.