President Conn. Report from WOU.

Proposed administrative rule on transfer of sick leave. Passed

Chancellor's office restructuring. Talk about University Center. Small History. Chancellor Cox worked to get that University Center established. Got 150K in 99 session approved. Successful and I am here to speak as a citizen as south coast. Are 300 people taking classes through 5 OUS institution and through Linfield. Difference between educational attainment rate rural versus urban Oregon. Rural Oregon is in a bad way. The University Center there has been an absolute gem in allowing people on the south coast of Oregon to obtain bachelor's and master's degree. Really imperative that citizens all over the state have an opportunity to obtain a higher education degree. Understand there is some discussion of a partial resolution of this. I implore the State Board to give us a year and to provide funding to EOU to make the transition work for a year. It is good politics - large number of reps and senators come from rural oregon. Not every CC needs a University Center. But it really makes a difference to our people. Prudent economical program. Makes good politics. Question. Why center as currently funded and staffed is essential mechanism? What is increment adds that couldn't be there without other schools picking it up in an alternative structure. A. Someone there has to provide leadership, work with prospective students, advise students as to what programs are there. Our program could not have been successful if Andy Duncan had not been the director to provide leadership. As a citizen of the south coast, for 165K there will be 30-40 graduates of higher ed institutions - it is economically viable. Is generating FTE. Would not work without staffing there to help meet. GS. Comment. I was on first effort on first biennium to create partnerships across the state - in this regard we were successful. Has positive result. Complexity of transfer and enrollment - it does require the human touch and the 1 on 1 effort with students. If we can work toward a system that is more traversible by students themselves, might have less needs for the staffing. But currently is a great need with multiple colleges and universities involved to direct students. Q. If this center did not exist, how could we provide a similar service to students. A. We would get our staff working with students. Would be no one working at our institution working with 4 year institutions to have a program. The complexity. Have to have someone there that can come in and benefit students. We can not do this if we don't have staff to work with 4 years institution. Annual budget is 172K. How many students do you enroll? With about 250 enroll and 25 graduate. About 600 per students enroll. In 2000 no students place bound students graduated. This year it is 47. If University students go away. Some might make it through. GR. Looking at transfer rates relative to all other CC. Doesn't seem to be enhancing rate. Very similar to other CC's.

Talk about general reorganization and process. First part is focussing on academic affairs arena. Ties in with policy planning. Have met with a lot of representatives. Lot of time and effort. Reductions of staff is always very difficult. Affects families and lives. They should not be viewed as an indication that they have not been giving devoted and hardworking service. Henry Lorenzo. What the vision is that we are trying to achieve. Were three principle driving factors. Funding situation - don't have all the money we would like to have to carry out strong programs. Need for Chancellor's office to contribute to shortfall. Second - general philosophy is programs can best be implemented at operational level - i.e. on individual campuses. Third driving force - critical review of chancellor's office. Chancellor's office should be focusing on higher level policy and organizational objectives. Auditing and other functions that could not be efficiently distributed to lover levels. Looking at academic affairs. Chancellor's office will help communicate boards desires and levels to universities. GR. BARC report provides historical context. See Chancellors Office 6 May 04 This is a transitional structure - some of these boxes must move around and change. But this is to pass along the savings to our students. Idea behind Provost's council. To decide undergraduate programs. But when a problem arises that can't be solved by group may end up coming to board. Would be very concerned if could not reach consensus. Don't think have been examples in recent years. Issue of duplication of programs. GS. Where does authority lie for context of charge to accelerate and streamline efforts in undergraduate level. How does charge we have been trying to address would go forward. Would be OUS leadership generally speaking for work of MBF and the work for years that values are associated with MBF. Strongly related to governor's goals. Where in organization does transcendent view come from. The Enrollment Policy and CC Liaison is the central box. I am concerned about any gap in our fragile progress - to really move forward in an arena that is very difficult. That has lots of historical misunderstanding. We have gathered people around that. But that is extremely problematic - I have put my credibility out for this board - we will do some things in new ways. I don't see how this structure supports just the work and as that work is fragile we need a shoring up and a gathering together. If truly this board is not supportive of the key documents we can take a stop. I am concerned. JM. It was very difficult to find any one of them in existing structure who had broad range over existing problem. Some dealt with this and that. Three or four people working on things. We wanted to coalesce functions. Pieces that were logically connected. Policy and planning mission for board. Have put more people directly connected with cc or high school than are there in existing structure. In center of chart. Strategic program and planning officer. Understand how planning integrates with program at campuses. Under that is MBF. Tied in with a series of people who do statistics and planning. We are looking at a team approach to solving a problem which we have not had before in such detail. An initial MBF. Issue of retention looking at 3 or 4 people to have a team. That focus as a team approach is how you can cut down and reduce staff and focus on policy and planning in complex issues. Followed logic in policy and planning. Major functions are covered. Take a bit of getting used to. We think this will work quite well. This is not wait in see. I am certain we have all the main functions of policy and planning that should be done by the board are covered here. People who are used to whole structure may not like this. We believe major functions are covered. We have not done this with people in mind but with a logic in mind consistent with the governors mandate. We have done our level best to function on the major functions. Would like job responsibilities and discussion of how things might relate to the charge.

A couple of things to consider. Listening to concerns of University Center in Southern Oregon. That gets us smack dab in the middle of the MBF initiative. Strongly recommend is that that decision go to her committee to get resolved. Good way to resolve that. Second thing is about the academic excellence. Strongly recommend -- one of the things we are finding - there are incredible number of groups in state working on economic development agendas. Would hope that resources on etech etc - all be exactly the same resources so someone not off in some other organization. YUNKER: Key on chart is true to those values. The issue isn't that some things are going away. It is to where they are going to be instead. In negotiations with a lot of universities. Staffing for etech. Long list of things under value system - these are programs best accomplished somewhere else. Suggest have oversight committee can talk to as work transition details. Knew were pieces. GR. Need to get some resolution today on basic charge. Estimate of system savings is 1000000. Doesn't include savings of stuff that has been moved. Not unfunded mandates. Negotiations are going on. Put negotiations on shoulders of committees that actually doing the work. GS. Where will inspiration come for statewide vision. How do we think about looking at whole state. Need to hold presidents accountable. Need to have a consistent framework. What we have been talking about - some changes are going to have to happen at campus level. Are going to need from campuses. GR We really need buy in from all of you. Needs some staffing from the Universities. If you don't buy in and if you don't help us. Getting us into a mode into developing partnerships that we critically need. Need to create an environment in legislature to what else we need to do. What is going away. What is staying. What is new. What is going elsewhere. Those questions answered in terms of people, programs, and dollars. If knew effect of this would provide some clarity. Got to make a case if going to be under 1,000,000. Different way of trying to do mission. Need to focus on big picture. Notion of moving from a control and administrative to an advisory is absolutely right. Worried about what staff should be doing after the next month. Functions that stay and have been streamlined. Do quick consent meeting. Do one pager do it by phone in the next week. Passed.

At June meeting bring back budget policy place holders and they would be approved in July.

Gilkey thanked the Board for agreeing to meet with the IFS at SOU in June and delivered to the board a handout containg the emails of critical issues from Dan Edge (EOU), Andrew Marcus (UO), Sarah Witte (EOU), Bob Turner (WOU), Craig Wolner (PSU), Lowell Bowditch (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT). These dealt with primarily with compensation and curricular issues. Gilkey also distributed a sheet giving Compensation comparison information for OUS institutions. Gilkey then departed from his prepared remarks. Gilkey had engaged in extensive informal conversations with several Board Members, Provosts, and Presidents of the OUS during the meeting. With those conversations in mind, Gilkey announced to the board that a "faculty driven process" relating to curricular matters will take place as expeditiously as possible:

 
1. During October 2004 the IFS, in conjunction with the Senates of the various OUS Institutions, will organize meetings on each of the OUS campuses as part of the "faculty driven process" relating to a "Transfer General Education Certificate" and related issues/
2. Friday June 4 after the State Board meeting concludes and after our meeting with the State Board, the IFS will invite appropriate people (Dave Phillips of Clatsup CC and Mary Kay of PSU were two specific names suggested to Gilkey) to meet with the IFS concerning this.
3. IFS President Gilkey will attend the next MBF meeting 11 June 2004 at Chemekta CC to firm up details involved.