Internal audit structure is slightly different. Connected very directly to board. A lot of functions require intense study. Accountability study. Leverage a lot of that work. Take a look at process within chancellors office make system as effective as can be. Look at both campus piece of equation as well as chancellors piece.

Many of these programs can be done most effectively at campus level. Philosophy is to place the work at that area where it is most efficiently performed. What are thoughts as to how graduate program council? Come up from campuses to provide names - appointments will be facilitated - so important and has potential to be contentious that in cases where is difficult - may need to get approval of committee. Board needs to think about duplication of duties in different way from undergraduate programs. Board member will sit on committee. This is work in progress. Some tough issues ahead but some exciting issues up ahead. Council have permanent core? Or is this more fluid group assembled to look at individual questions? Ans. More fluid group. Might find several individuals who are cross trained in wide variety - because of complex nature of some of the programs - and needs of regionals versus larger - need to be fluid in nature. Going to need a bit of planning. Need to know in advance what agenda will be before putting committee together.

This subcommittee will recommend this to full board tomorrow for similar discussion in front of full board and that is the way we will proceed. See Proposed reorganization chart

To quote from documents passed out at the meeting: The proposed Chancellor's office reorganization is designed to focus the office upon the development and implementation of policy, institutional objectives, management reporting and control systems, planning and analysis capability, and communications and government relations. The Chancellor's Office will continue to be responsible for system wide auditing, budgeting and allocation of general funds. In addition, the Chancellor's Office will continue to perform those functions required of it by statue.

The chancellor's office should provide the maximum autonomy and flexibility to its institutions while maintaining its commitment to the public purposes for which it was founded. It is imperative that the Chancellor's office operate in a truly consultative relationship with the Presidents of the seven universities. The role of the Chancellor's Office should be to focus on policy, advocacy, strategy, incentives and accountability for educational outcomes, leaving the universities more freedom to mount programs and offer services in any way as long as they are consistent with their Board approved mission and will serve the state's educational goals.

To the extent feasible, the Chancellor's Office will divest itself of the responsibilities for providing service functions and technical support. The desirability to maintain system wide standardization and economies of scale will impact upon the nature and extent of the activities ultimately retained. Emphasis will be placed upon shifting the development and implementation of academic programs to the university, college or other affected agency level. However, the Chancellor's Office staff will provide coordinating support to assure that the desired Board programs and initiatives are effectively communicated and implemented.

Often there will be no bright line separating what functions and activities are most appropriately carried out at the Chancellor's office as opposed to the University level. The fundamental philosophy behind the reorganization proposal is to concentrate the activities of the Chancellor's Office on higher level policy, operation, and management issues.

And to quote from another document:

Assumptions about reorganization
• The new OUS Board has made it clear that a more direct reporting line needs to be established between the universities and the board. University Presidents and Provosts are expected to play a more direct role in the array of Board policy deliberations from budget and enrollment matters to legislative initiatives.
• Conversely, a smaller Board staff, focused on policy development, entails that the Board staff will be less present into the day-to-day campus business of the State's universities.
• A small reorganized Board with a policy focus will be expected to supply the planning and analysis necessary for the Board to develop policy while being less of an intermediary between the universities and the board in policy formation and problem solving.
• Academic affairs staff activities should be limited to being directly supportive of Board business without engaging in academic program development and duplicating other operations which are properly the business of the universities.

Proposed academic Councils
•  Graduate Program Council: The council will have approximately 10 members and be chaired by an OUS Board member. It will consist of individuals outside of the OUS system and representatives from OUS institutions. The appointed members from outside the OUS system will be determined in consultation with the campuses and will represent expertise in areas needed to make informed decisions regarding graduate programs at OUS universities. The UO, OSU, and PSU will each name a permanent member on this council.
• Provosts Council. The academic provosts of the OUS institutions and OHSU will comprise this council. The chairmanship of the council will rotate annually among the provosts. Secretarial and other ex-officio staff support for the council's work will be supplied by the strategic programs and planning office. By laws for this council will be written by its members and approved by the OUS board.