April 7, 2006 OHSU

Absent: Lee Ayers (SOU), Larry Curtis (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), John Nicols (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU)

I. Welcome—President Fatemi

A. Shared that the next 6 months will be critical to the future of higher education in Oregon. A number of policy packages could impact higher education in Oregon. Funding for higher education has been insufficient, and our budget had not been even close to sufficient. All of us together must lay the ground work for what happens in the legislature. All of us together must go in aggressively to push for the budget we need. We cannot cut any more (2% here and 2% there); we have cut all that. Unless there is a serious and significant infusion of funds, we will be in trouble. We need to go forth with a united front. The increase that the governor has proposed will not do us any good. This will keep us way below what we need. We need your help to go to the legislators and push for the budget we need

B. Dalton Miller-Jones has been appointed as the faculty member representative on the state board. Jerry Richmond established this position, and Dalton is her replacement.

II. Dean Mike Cannon—Division of Distance Education

A. Stated that distance education has grown substantially at EOU in the last 26 years. Shared some of the evolution of distance education during these years. We are not a static industry; we are changing every year.

B. Shared some of the challenges that have come with the growth. Right now distance education is a half of the institution’s students. One challenge we are facing is how to work with students who are taking distance classes while on campus (with different fee structures for both). Most distance education students are part time and not steady term by term. They come into the system and go out. Another challenge is continuing the find ways to make distance quality the same as the in-class quality.

C. Explained that EOU has complete degree programs in distance education. Most all of our courses fit within our programs.

D. Shared that a big reason for the success of the program is the 15 advisors for the distance education program. Students who are admitted must meet with an assigned advisor and go through a degree-planning workshop, in which they must come up with an education plan. Each advisor has about 100 relatively active students they are advising, and the advisors check in during times like registration. Many students like someone paying attention to their education. The retention rate is good for students completing online degrees, and we attribute this to the advising relation.

E. Stated that most of the faculty in distance education are teaching the classes on overloads and most are located on the campus. We do have a growing number of adjuncts. The control over content is an issue for the programs on campus. Faculty offer programs through us. Our job is to help ensure that the integrity of distance education program is the same as the on-campus program.

F. Explained that faculty is encouraged to participate in distance education, but faculty is not required. It is a way to supplement low salaries. Some faculty members do teach distance education in load. Distance education salary is paid two ways. Most classes are paid on a per student per credit ($45 per student per credit). Some classes are paid on a per class basis.

III. State Senator David Nelson and Representative Greg Smith

A. Senator Nelson explained that he represents four counties: Umatilla, Morrow, Union, and Wallowa. He shared that we have a structural gap in the state. We do not have enough money to pay for state services. I do not see this changing. The legislature tried to change this two years ago, but the voters overturned our plans. The legislature is not taking care of higher education. We need more money in the system. But, we are in serious competition with K-12. They have strong lobbying groups and parents.

B. Shared that we have to continue to tell the story in a united way. There is a huge turnover in the legislature, and many members do not have higher education experience. We need to continue to educate the legislators. You must come down to the legislators as a united front. You need to bring everyone together and come to the legislature with the same message.

C. Greg Smith shared the following: How do you survive in a system where there really are no ground rules? How do you make a difference with legislators? You need to continue to tell the story. How do we make a case? Do you want to be liked or successful? To be successful, you need to know that about seven people have direct influence on the higher education budget. You need to find these people and have a direct influence on them. Identify who are the key people, get to them, and influence them. Some of these key people are the speaker, president, two co-chairs, Wayne Scott, Kurt Schrader, and Susan Morgan, and Kate Brown. Focus on the education committee, the leadership of both houses, and the members of the policy, and the budget committees. How do you reach Kurt Schrader? What is the connection? You need to figure out how to connect with these people. Keep trying. Stay unified. Have the same message. Set aside differences.

D. Senator Nelson shared that a problem with the university system is the controversy on the campuses. It appears to the legislators that you are not getting your act together. Greg Smith shared that we are viewed as the elite.

E. Both provided a message for rural Oregon related to higher education. We are an economic development tool for the state. We want to help your family. We want you to have a good job.

F. Greg Smith stated that the senate president (Peter Courtney) is from WOU. Make sure you know where he stands and that he is your advocate. The senate president has the power to say, “We are not coming home until this is taken care of.”

G. Greg Smith stated he is a strong supporter of returning the kicker to the voters (personal kicker) because his constituents are for this. Senator Nelson said that we have kicker because we budget for a 2-year period. If we budget on an annual basis, this could kill the kicker. By going to an annual session, we would do a better job of projecting needs. The weakness of the legislature is that we do things on a 2-year basis.

H. When asked about priorities for funding, Senator Nelson said the story of the advanced degree does not reach the general public in Oregon. A broad economic base is the only way to increase the pie, and that is what you must do to get money in higher education. Since 1991, money to higher education has decreased. People do not see the value of higher education.

I. Greg Smith stated his funding priorities: 1) Public safety—methamphetamine abuse problems, 2) senior disabled, and 3) higher education.

J. Senator Nelson explained that the voters in the state of Oregon will not change. So, what do we need to do to take care of education? Alaska takes so much out of every drum of oil. We need to rely on our natural resources to produce revenue. For example, if we can take water from the Columbia (without hurting fish) and send this to California, we can use our resources.

K. Greg Smith strongly recommended that IFS identify two to three people who are key to our budget, and make sure that these people know our issues. Peter Courtney needs to be on board because he can draw a line in the sand. Right now we have no one in that building in authority that is drawing a line in the sand.

L. Senator Nelson mentioned that higher education needs to fund a very good lobbyist. K-12 does this, and it works. 50% per month is taken from the employees’ paychecks to pay for this and for the support of campaigns.

M. Greg Smith thanked professor Jeff Johnson (EOU) for teaching him to think.

IV. Jay Kenton, Denise Yunker, and Mike Green (Comptroller)

A. Shared that they want input related to a proposed retirement option change. Proposed a redesign of TDI [403(b)] and ORP [401(a)] plans that includes 1) hiring a master record-keeper, 2) providing a contract for investment managers, and 3) harmonizing plan investment options.

B. Stated why this is important: 1) Participants are currently paying high costs (from retail investment classes and fees and layering of administrative fees for record-keeping and custody); 2) many funds are not top quality; 3) there is a prevalence of products with restrictions and seller fees; 4) current lower than optimal participation (ease of access and education problematic for employees and confusion from too many investment options); 5) participant information, education, and analysis tools vary with each vendor and campus; and 6) regulations governing plans are complex and changing (difficulty to maintain compliance currently and new regulations will require more oversight).

C. Share details of the proposal. The proposed structure will involve hiring a master record keeper (a professional company to take the fee away from the sponsors) and a custodian (right now paid to each of the companies). We hope to have a web access for employees from one location. All transactions for the proposal will be for one-stop shopping. We will also bring together the TDI 403(b) and the ORP 401(a). Four major options: Insurance company best-in-class funds (2 of these) and mutual fund company best-in-class funds (2 of these). This structure is required.

D. Reviewed the “costs” of the redesign: 1) fewer investment choices. The proposed idea will not have all current choices available (may offer a mutual fund window); 2) new administrative tasks within OUS include an investment committee, investment advisor, and record-keeper/administrator and custodian; and 3) transition costs that include participant action (changes will occur in personal retirement counseling, and re-enrollment and investment selection) and conversion to new participation education provider.

E. Benefits of the redesign: 1) reduced costs to participants. This includes no layering of administrative costs (single pay for record-keeping and custody) and negotiated fees based on volume (contracts between plan and investment manager and brings asset volume and cash flow discounts); 2) improved performance (will only include “best-in-class” investment choices and funds monitored on semi-annual or quarterly basis); and 3) improved administration (web-based administrative capabilities, investment education and analysis tools, and strengthened compliance)

F. Next Steps

· Have stakeholder communication (ongoing)

· Hire retirement plan consultant

· Contract with master record-keeper

· Develop investment policies to govern plan investments

· Form investment committee

· Contract with custodian

· Transition investment choices by January 2007

G. Shared that OUS is pursuing this because we need to streamline administrative costs. We have learned to continue in such an open plan with no review of plans or managers of plans adds fiduciary risk. Also, it is difficult to weed out the costs you are paying (fees). The other issue is participation; there are so many funds and options that some people do not want to participate. The system is clumsy right now.

H. Emphasized that in this model you will not have access to all the funds of a company. An investment committee would limit the choices as guided by an investment consultant.

I. Summarized that they believe this will simplify the plan significantly, and still have a good array of investment opportunities for people. It will be a big change for people who are accustomed to doing it the way it is set up now. The gimmick is there is a lot of unknown in the process. This is a journey, and we are asking you if we can go forward. Another state (Connecticut) that introduced this reduced administrative fee significantly. We hope to increase participation from 26% to the national average of 44%. Another important success metric is lower fees.

V. Chancellor George Pernsteiner

A. Reported on the OUS board meeting today. Jay Kenton laid out a 10-year budget plan (considering issues such as the governor’s education plan, tuition going up, enrollment forecasts, wanting to go to market on faculty salaries, and driving the faculty and student ratio down from 27 to 1 to 24 to 1). The net effect is for the 07-09 biennium, the state budget for higher education is $48 million short of meeting the target. Then, $81 million short in the second biennium. Maintenance costs are huge ($600 million backlog grows by $20 million a year). Jay’s formulas come to $932 million needed. If we don’t try to do the maintenance, we are about $35 million short.

B. Stated that OUS needs $180 million above the governor’s current plan. We are looking at three ways to obtain the funding needed: 1) increased state appropriation, 2) tuition options, and 3) legislative concepts. It is clear that we will need some of all three to get to this number. The board will have to wrestle with how much to we ask for from the legislature.

C Shared the idea of asking the legislature to fund one budget package instead of the traditional approach of asking the legislature to fund many different packages (32 right now). Let’s ask for one big package. We want to fund the core in a sustainable way. The budget becomes a political statement. How do we put together the most sellable package with the most compelling argument? These are two very different approaches. Question 1: What do you think sells best? What do you think is the clearer argument? Do we want one big risky omnibus? Or, do we do many budget packages?

D. IFS members commented that if we want a unified front then the omnibus approach works best. We need to stay on message together.

E. Mentioned that the board approved salary increases for all of the presidents except Eastern. This is a market adjustment and brings the presidents to the same percentage of their comparators.

F. Listed some of the issues related to strategic planning that the chancellor and board haven’t gotten to yet but will be addressing:

Portland strategy
Objective and thorough study of the consolidation of OHSU and PSU (under a mandate from the local legislators). The rational is U.S. News and World Report Rankings. The school will get much higher rankings because of the money behind OHSU. Some legislators are interested in this because they see it as a way to get higher rankings while decreasing state appropriations. The chancellor thinks it might be a good idea for IFS to review the RFP.
Come up with a model for community college linkages. What is the structure for post-secondary education in the state? Some want a regional structure.
Branch campuses. Many legislators believe we have too many campuses.
Look at rural Oregon issues. Half the rate of post-secondary degrees is obtained in rural areas related to the cities.
How do we deal with the research priorities? How do we work these into our message? How does this support instruction?

Saturday, June 3, 2006, Ackerman Building, 8:30

Present: Joel Alexander (WOU), Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Michael Cummings (PSU), Marye Hefty (OIT), Janet Hume (EOU), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Dalton Miller-Jones (PSU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), Steve Tanner (EOU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Dan Wilson (SOU),

Absent: Lee Ayers (SOU), Larry Curtis (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), John Nicols (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Muriel Shaul (OHSU), Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU)

Welcome from Scott Burns

Meeting minutes approved.

Mina Carson shared that Kirby Dyess reminded us yesterday that the coffee hours, which the board invites us to, are open to all faculty. When the meetings migrate to the different campuses, please invite your colleagues.

Meeting Reports

Provosts’ Council—Sarah Andrews Collier

Sarah first presented a summary of the OUS Provosts’ Council meeting on May 4, 2006.

Chancellor’s report: George spoke about the policy packages. Do we emphasize 30 packages or just one package? The Provosts’ Council had been asked to bundle packages, and this is time consuming, so maybe one package is best.

Update on policy packages. The policy packages were categorized as follows: (a) which ones are new initiatives (b) which ones support refunding the base budget, and (c) which ones are peripheral to the OUS budget.

Academic program proposals. The council requested that the provost take the OIT bachelor of science in biology back to the OIT faculty for further review; they should consider repackaging health science and environmental courses to do a better job of describing content; they should consider making it more consistent with typical biology degrees, and they should work with SOU on their issues of how the program will impact SOU’s biology program.

The council consensus was to recommend a UO graduate certificate in communication ethics for approval to the board. The program should proceed with ODA notification process.

Program name changes include at OIT the BS in Management Information Systems with Options and BS in Information Technology to BS in Information Technology with Options. At SOU the School of Social Science and Health and Physical Education to the School of Social Sciences.

The council determined that the transfer of unused sick leave be considered in light of different campus situations. The council did not approve of policy changes to the transfer of staff fee privileges (allowing multiple eligible people at the same time, increasing the academic credit per term from 12 to 16, and amending to allow children of deceased faculty members to be eligible).

At the June 1 Provosts’ Council meeting, the council approved a PSU external review for a Ph.D. in technology management. The council approved an OSU BS in Electrical and Computer Engineering. The council approved the name change of at PSU from Health Administration and Policy to Health Management and Policy and the Health Education and Health Promotion to Health Promotion.

A new board is being formed (a research council) that is parallel to the Provosts’ Council. It should probably have an IFS member at the board when it is formed.

Robert Mercer reported on the advanced placement list and voyager tuition program (funding National Guard reservist for when they come back from Iraq above what the federal government is giving them). The problem is that the federal government is not funding them as they should have. Robert will keep reporting on this.

Ruth Keele spoke about performance measures for faculty.

State Board—Scott Burns

The board is focusing on the budget. In December the board went through long range planning and this ended in April. Then, as they are putting the budget together, they are going back to the plan and ensuring that the budget requests are in line with the vision, mission, and goals.

Jay presented to the board the projected budget needs for the next 10 years. A goal at the end of the 10 years is to have everyone’s salary at market value (50^th percentile against comparators). Another goal is a student to faculty ratio of 24 to 1 (with enrollment growth will mean hiring new faculty).

Deferred maintenance is a problem. We have a $600 million backlog (every year $40 million more of deferred maintenance), and the budget to address this is $12 million per year. So, every year we go $28 million in the hole.

Also, we are burning down the fund balance. Oregon has no capital fund. We need to raise the money as a school for any new buildings. The school needs to match what is given by F and G bonds.

Tuition is above market (above 50^th percentile). To meet the 10-year goal, OUS will need 7% and 7% each year in increases. The students are pushing to tie increases to median salary increases. This will be a big issue. Right now 59% of overall budget is coming from tuition.

Since 1991, the largest disinvestment in higher education per capita has been in Oregon.

Governor’s budget calls for a 10% increase each year for all of education. Jay stated we will need $100 million of new money every year to reach our goals.

Related to the policy packages for additional funding, the chancellor is investigating putting most of the policy packages into one budget package. The first policy package (endorsement of Opportunity grant) will stay out of the big package.

The board is still investigating what to do about the RAM funding model. We are 70% of the RAM model, and this kills the regional schools. The formula does not fund at the graduate level.

At the July board meeting, the board will have a budget, and then they will formulate the strategy for working with the legislature. We are being much more proactive this year. Also, we are going to the legislature with one voice and one budget (one package)

A major priority in the policy packages is bringing faculty salaries to market value.

Each campus had 5 to 10 minutes to describe their capital projects.

The OUS is selling the Capital Center in Beaverton for $15 million, as part of the Portland strategy.

The board discussed cost saving measures that Jay had presented at the January meeting.

The board voted on salary increases for the presidents.

Research and development is up 30% (with OHSU we are 19 in the nation)

In summary, the board is “working their butts off.” We have a very fiscally responsive board.

An IFS member stated that he would like to see a discussion of stress indicators. Is the stress of the situation taking a toll? How are faculty doing related to health or stress related indicators?

Joint Boards—Maureen Sevigny (by Scott)

This board is aiming for alignment of K-12 and higher education.

“I am concerned about the interest expressed by community colleges to expand the requirements of the AAOT. SB 342 requires the AAOT, but JBAC has sought to interpret this to mean align the AAOT categories with the OTM, not to change content of expand categories. Two years ago IFS spearheaded the OTM precisely as a means to head off proposed changes in the AAOT that would have made it more difficult for students to transfer into OUS degree programs. I’m afraid we’re going to be stepping into the same fray once again if community colleges keep pushing and OUS stays silent on this issue.”

JBAC met by conference call on May 8 and will be meeting in person on June 15 at Lane Community College. Items discussed at the May 8 meeting:

Advanced placement recommendations. Most placement score cutoffs and numbers of credits to be awarded have been agreed upon.
April 27 “criteria conference” held at UO, which was a follow-up to the February General Education Outcomes Workshop held at PSU. Draft criteria were created in all six areas of the AAOT (writing, oral communication, arts and letters, social science, science, and mathematics) Posting and a discussion board can be found at http://www.ous.edu/aca/forums.html There have been numerous concerns raised including the question of whether the AAOT should include computer literacy, health and wellness, and a global (diversity) component.
Legislative Policy Package(s) on student-centered alignment. This package would seek to bring together high school, community college, and university faculty to: 1) align the content and level of mathematics and writing courses that are at the high school/college interface to help high school students be better prepared for college/university; 2) test a new outcomes framework to determine the equivalence and transferability of General Education course at the college/university interface. There has been some discussion about trying to adopt a single math placement test for universities and community colleges but this idea has been strongly opposed by mathematics faculty

The bottom line for IFS: Community colleges seem eager to expand the AAOT, but there has been no discussion about how these extra courses would or would not transfer into majors at OUS. Remember that the OTM was developed in part to streamline the AAOT and provide a better fit for transfer students. Does IFS with to take a position for me to present at the June 15 JBAC meeting?

Scott talked about an alignment conference in which constituents from campuses came together to discuss SAT or ACT, backward mapping (high school students are not ready for college), numbers in courses, and what is college level work. The ATLAS system will be expanded for the whole K-12 system. What is retention? 14-15% of Oregonians (if you do not include importing) get bachelor degrees in this state.

Comments about Friday’s Meeting

IFS members discussed ideas and lessons learned from yesterday’s speakers.

Campus Reports

Scott reported on Susan Weeks’ report (which took information from the IFS quality report and combined with other requests). 1) 30-50% of all searches are diminished or failed. 2) For market salaries, we are all at the bottom 78-87% of the average. For total compensation, we are 86% to 94% of average compared to our peers. 3) In competition with industry, we are losing people to the professions because of high teaching load and low salaries. 4) A huge decrease of full professors is happening. OUS has experienced a 26% decline in last 10 years, and 80% of the people leaving the system are leaving because of salaries. In last 10 years, we have reduced tenured faculty 7% but have gone up 30% in students.

UO. Passed the diversity plan (Scott reported because no UO representative is at the meeting today)

EOU. A month ago, the senate assembly gave a vote of no confidence for the president (~75% with 140 votes of no confidence and 40 against). Two weeks ago, the chancellor came to campus to talk to faculty, administrators, students, and the community to hear why. The chancellor has not responded yet. The chancellor did not approve of the vote initially. It is unclear what will happen next. The president has not responded to the university community as of yet.

New union authorized a strike last Tuesday.

OIT. A ground-breaking ceremony is occurring in June for the new Center for Health Professions. The NWCCU self study is continuing.

OSU. The school won a Carnegie award. Also, the provosts are rebasing the internal budget after looking at how much teaching some colleges do versus others and how much support the colleges receive. They are moving $7.5 million during the next 5 years into four colleges that are under funded relative to what they are providing the institution.

WOU. Budget issues are being discussed by faculty and staff. Faculty received 12% raises. Presidential search is not starting in the fall; OUS is keeping Minahan; he is working to balance the budget. WOU enrollment projections were down during the last few terms; a big push is occurring for summer enrollment.

SOU. Two candidates remain for the president position, and one is the current provost. We are starting the self-study process for next year. We are looking at a professional rank system for our adjuncts. Departments are defining criteria for promotion.

OHSU. City council voted to fund the package of the last reported shortfall of the tram. The new pavilion dedication was this last week. Also, 963 students graduated from OHSU yesterday. The presidential search down to 3-5 candidates. The school of nursing will be watching the new curriculum in the fall, which is designed to facilitate the articulation between community colleges and bachelorate programs

PSU. We went through a $6-million target reduction process, and cut about $4.5 million. There have been some add backs. We didn’t lose many people. However, we gutted the program “media” support personnel for our classes; the director and others lost their jobs. The faculty does not know how this will play out in the classrooms. PSU is doing a test study with the next Blackboard/Web CT version versus an open source platform. We lost a vice provost who will become a provost in Anchorage. The PSU contract is on the web.

Old Business

Scott stressed to report to faculty senates to please contact your legislators. Get to know the legislator for your area. The website www.leg.state.or.us will tell you who your legislators are if you simply type in your address.

We need to continue to be aware of initiatives 6 and 14, which will hurt higher education.

New Business

IFS members discussed strategies for the summer and plans for the October 6-7 meeting at SOU.

Meeting adjourned at 11:56 a.m. Saturday.