April 7, 2006 OHSU

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting

Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU)

April 7, 2006

Friday, April 7, 2006, OHSU Nursing Building, 1:00 p.m.

Present: Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Michael Cummings (PSU), Larry Curtis (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Marye Hefty (OIT), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Jeff Johnson (EOU), John Nicols (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Muriel Shaul (OHSU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO), Dan Wilson (SOU), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU)

Absent: Joel Alexander (WOU), Janet Hume (EOU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), Dalton Miller-Jones (PSU), Steve Tanner (EOU)

I. Welcome. Steve Teich (OHSU) introduced the OHSU president with three compliments: 1) He is a leader; he set the goal of OHSU becoming 20^th in nation. 2) He started the south waterfront campus. 3) He took the institution to its status as a public institution.

II. OHSU President Peter Kohler (The following notes are summarized from his PowerPoint presentation.)

A. Explained some of the educational and research initiatives, including several collaborative programs with OUS institutions.

B. Explained that as part of its public mission OHSU strives to do the following: Educate tomorrow's health care professionals, biomedical research scientists, and environmental engineers. Explore new basic, clinical and applied research frontiers in health and biomedical sciences in order to create new knowledge that improves health and well being. Translate these discoveries, wherever possible, into applications in the health and commercial sectors. (Explained how one faculty member invented a billion dollar drug and OHSU receives no money for this. Therefore, we need to begin thinking about partnering with private industry to benefit from these inventions.) Provide high-quality health care emphasizing the development and dissemination of new knowledge and cutting-edge technology. Improve access to health care and education through community service and outreach to Oregon's underserved populations.

C. Explained the OHSU vision to strive to achieve excellence in all that we do, which translates into the following specific interrelated goals: Provide the highest quality education (strive for top 10 in all major areas). Provide the highest quality health care. Become top 20 in NIH funded research – a measure of research quality (peer reviewed, competitive grants) as well as research quantity.

D. Explained strategic elements. Challenge--How do you fulfill an ambitious public mission in an era of greatly constrained resources? Strategic Response--OHSU established a new organizational structure in 1995 that allowed a greater flexibility to generate and use investments in ways that can better leverage state support. Strategic Investments--faculty recruitment, two new buildings on Marquam Hill, Biomedical Research Building, Patient Care Facility, new campus at South Waterfront, linked to Marquam Hill by aerial tram.

E. Explained why a public corporation was formed. (“I think it was the right choice.”) As a state agency, OHSU historically depended heavily on state funds. By the early 1990s, that picture had changed dramatically. Measure 5 passed. Healthcare market was evolving rapidly (managed care). OHSU was poorly positioned to compete. Potential solutions ranged across a broad continuum--become a super state agency, stay the same, public corporation, not-for-profit private corporation, and spin-out hospital and clinics.

F. Stated Senate Bill 2 (now ORS 353) gave OHSU tools to compete. Streamlined governance structure. OHSU has its own board appointed by governor, confirmed by the Senate. Streamlined decision-making: business model. Gave us the ability to go to the bond market. Maintained public missions. Sustained educational programs even through Measure 5. Provided a partnership with state of Oregon.

G. Reviewed the school's growth and change. Showed that in 1975, OHSU had $14 million in grants. In 2004, this became $260 million in grants. State appropriations have gone from 42% in 1975 to 3.6% in 2004.

H. Explained the Oregon Opportunity.$200 Million Public Investment. $103 million for Marquam Hill Biomedical Research Building/Renovations. $12 million for Bronson Creek Building/OGI Renovations. $10 million for State-Wide Research Network/HERON. $75 million for recruitment and research infrastructure. $13 million Science and Engineering (Bioengineering). $48 million all other OHSU. $15 million indirect university costs.

I. Discussed new initiatives including the Advanced Imaging Research Center, Oregon Stem Cell Center (Flow Cytometry, Stem Cell Antibody Generation), Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology in Medicine, Proteomics, Pharmacokinetics Core, High Performance Computing, Gene MicroArray Shared Resource

J. Showed the Aerial Tram. Aerial tram has been the linchpin that made South Waterfront possible. City looking to redevelop brownfield that lay vacant for years. Identified OHSU as attractive anchor tenant. OHSU looking for flat land to expand. City eager to keep OHSU in central city. Tram concept approved in 2002 as part of Marquam Hill Master Plan. No alternative could match the tram for speed and reliability. Rapid transit link essential to retain synergy between patient care, education and research. South Waterfront would have been impossible without the tram. Despite the controversy that has surrounded it, we believe the tram fits squarely within Oregon values. Innovative solution. Far more efficient and environmentally friendly than the hundreds of shuttle buses that were the most frequently cited alternative. Because of the city commitment to the tram, South Waterfront is now bursting with growth and promise. $1.9 billion in planned investment at South Waterfront. Despite media coverage, tram is over 40 percent complete.

III. OHSU Provost Lesley Hallick (The following notes are summarized from her PowerPoint presentation.)

A. Explained strategic focus for the new initiatives. These investments are targeted to maximize the benefits of the synergy between patient care, research and education. Research leads to new knowledge. New knowledge leads to advances in patient care. Students are educated at leading edge of science, both in clinics and classrooms. Result in the highest quality care providers and biomedical research scientists and engineers.

B. Gave research mission funding numbers. FY05 Total Awards: $273,536,825. Research 210,637,961; NIH 188,531,207; Clinical Trial 23,671,163; Other Federal 41,769,775; Training 7,864,219; Nonfederal Government. 5,139,102; Public Service 2,281,93; Industry 26,122,432; Other 29,081,548; Private 11,974,309

C. Described the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN). Dedicated to improving the health of and health care delivery to rural populations in Oregon through conducting and disseminating health research in partnerships with the communities and practitioners served by OHSU. Serves as a research platform and resource for OHSU investigators wishing to conduct clinical research with rural practitioners. http://www.ohsu.edu/orprn/ ORPRN in 2005-- 27 practices in 23 rural Oregon communities. 120 clinicians serving ~150,000 rural patients. Membership is 60% family physicians, 7% general internists, 5% general pediatricians,16% nurse practitioners, and 12% physician assistants. ORPRN clinics represent all models of practice: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), Rural Health Clinics (private and public), university clinics, private health system clinics, and privately owned medical practices.

D. Described Signature Research Centers. Developed as a work product of OCKED. Created and Funded ONAMI. Now under the aegis of The Oregon Innovation Council (Oregon, Inc). Two Proposals submitted Involving OHSU/OUS Collaboration. The Oregon Digital Heath Institute. The Oregon Drug Development Consortium

E. Shared the education challenge for health care. Insufficient numbers of providers are being produced to replace the current provider population because 1) the production of new health care providers has been relatively constant over several decades; 2) the population is growing; 3) the population is aging; health care providers are also aging; 4) the educational model is inefficient and relatively inelastic; 5) providers are not always distributed to meet the need; 6) rural hospitals and practices may not have an adequate economic base to support them and may lack technical infrastructure; 7) reduced state support has resulted in higher tuition for health care students, which in turn results in high debt. This makes it more difficult for graduates to choose primary care or to practice in rural or underserved areas.

F. Discussed health care workforce projections. Shortages in the nursing workforce have been apparent for several years, and are attributed to, aging of both the population and the nursing workforce and increased rate of departure from the workforce. Similar forces are operating on physicians and dentists but they have been less well documented until recently. Widespread recognition of this impending crisis delayed by incorrect projections and concern in the 1980's about a surplus. States have not been significantly involved in workforce planning for physicians or dentists. In Oregon, the problem is compounded by two factors—1) class size/capita for Medicine is approximately 50% of national average; 2) several surrounding states do not have Schools of Medicine and/or Dentistry; and 3) State funding per student or per capita is at or near the lowest in the country.

G. Summarized the School of Medicine Program Initiatives. Enhancing the physician workforce through regionalization. This will require support for the Rural Scholars Program, AHEC participation in both pipeline and support of community partners during rural rotations for both students and residents, development of the Eugene program, phased development of the Corvallis and Bend programs, increased class size in Portland, tuition relief or buy-back, clinical sites throughout the state.

H. Summarized the School of Dentistry Program Initiatives. Establish a required outreach experience for all students over the next 3 years. Develop a hospital based dental service for transplant, dialysis, oncology and other inpatients. Develop a General Practice Residency program. Based in the hospital dental service at OHSU. Create a second “hub” for a General Practice Residency program east of the Cascades. Enhance the outreach program and develop a rural rotation for students using the new hub as a base. Build a new Dental School facility on the Schnitzer Campus with an increased capacity. At any given time, 25-35% of students in their clinical years will be in community based practices

IV. Dr. Sheila Kodadek, Professor and Undergraduate Director of the OHSU School of Nursing

A. Spoke about the Oregon Consortium for Nursing Education. As directly quoted from her notes, OCNE is a partnership of community colleges, and public and private university schools of nursing established in response to the critical nursing shortage and the 2001 Strategic Plan promulgated by the Oregon Nursing Leadership Council. OCNE is one mechanism by which Oregon nursing programs can dramatically expand their capacity and enrollment, and prepare graduates of these programs with the competencies to address the rapidly changing health care needs of Oregon's aging and ethnically populations. Explained that hospitals want their nurses trained at the 4-year bachelorate level.

B. Provided the elements that characterize the consortium. 1) a shared, competency-based integrated curriculum culminating in a bachelor's degree. 2) Improved utilization of clinical facilities and faculty expertise in Oregon, through collaborative planning for clinical experiences, joint faculty appointments and shared expertise in instructional design. 3) Development and use of state-of-the-art clinical simulation to augment on-site clinical training, making use of shared instructional materials. 4) Shared agreements for student support services. 5) Shared agreements for academic standards including admission criteria, progress and graduation standards. 6) Shared purchasing power to equip laboratories.

C. Explained that in spring 2006, the program will be offered initially at Mt. Hood Community College, Southwest Oregon Community College, Umpqua Community College, Rogue Community College, and all four of the OHSU School of Nursing campuses.

D. Shared that the faculty shortage is a huge issue. To help solve this, we are enabling nurses to teach who have master's degrees in other fields and we are “growing our own.” It is a challenge to recruit people to come to the rural campuses. We are looking at online teaching, video-streaming, electronic communication, and videotapes.

E. Shared that this is a national model. The community colleges and the universities in Oregon came together (under OHSU) and agreed on a common curriculum. One of the beauties of the system is that each year requires the same competencies at each school.

V. Robert Mercer, OUS Director of Enrollment and Student Services

A. Talked about an area of Senate Bill 342--Advanced Placement. He has been directed to help lead an effort to come up with agreement on the number of credits that will be awarded for advanced placement tests and the minimum scores for which credit will be awarded among all the community colleges and the OUS schools.

B. Shared the process to date.

C. Shared that as much as 60% of students who get AP credit get the credit in foreign language, math, and English.

D. Explained that we have to decide on the number of credits awarded, but schools don't have to award credit for the same thing. For example, music theory AP credits may be used as elective credits at WOU. These are not automatic credits for a major. We must agree on the number of credits and a basic minimum score on the test.

E. The group discussed an outside push to include high school courses in the OTM. A lot of people in the state would like high school students be able to complete an OTM in high school. If this happens, a UO professor mentioned that UO will need to implement placement tests because we find that students who have passed the “college high” classes do not do well skipping beginning college classes.

F. Stated the huge growth in the number of students taking AP classes; therefore, we need to figure out how to deal with this. One of the differences between AP classes and AP classes plus the AP test is if you are teaching for the test you may not be allowing for necessary creative, analytical thinking.

G. IFS agreed to help Robert Mercer with this issue as he requests.

VI. Senator Kurt Schrader (Education Budget Subcommittee Chair; Co-Chair, Ways and Means Committee)

A. Introduced by Scott Burns as the Senator that Willamette Week named as the legislator of the year. He is the Senator really behind SB-342. Kurt Schrader is a veterinarian by profession.

B. Explained that for the last decade higher education has been under siege. Great demands on the Oregon budget, and higher education is a small sliver (16-17% of the budget). So, when a recession hits, people say that you can raise tuition to get your money. However, I say you can't raise it this much. I have explained to my colleagues some of the problems higher education faces related to state issues.

C. Stated that the OUS board is a breath of fresh air.

D. Shared that the message I give people is we cannot continue to do things in the same way we have done. Our state cannot deal with the current service level. In 07-09, we will face a $400 million hole. The economy will still chug along. It will do a little better, but we still have a structural deficit problem. We recognized this two years ago. Therefore, a group of us developed a performance-based budgeting system. We need a reform of how we get revenue in this state. You are doing more and more and more with less. You have spoiled Oregonians.

E. Spoke about the new performance-based budgeting. Stated that the legislative fiscal web site lists the university performance measures. The concept is if you meet your performance measures, the state will give you more money. With the new system in place, the OUS board is grappling with radical ideas. Should every hospital have an MRI? Should every university have an engineering school? Can OIT have some interesting programs at PSU? What about distance education? If we can achieve efficiencies, we can reward you financially.

F. Shared that a bipartisan group of House and Senate Democrat and Republican legislators is trying to break through the partisan gamesmanship to have a thoughtful discussion about how the entire education system relates. The Governor, Chalkboard, and other business groups have expressed interest along these lines. This group is beginning, and we are willing to entertain radical solutions.

G. Shared that he is working with another group to look at complete fiscal reform for the state, including how we collect money, how we budget money, and how we save money.

H. The following group discussion occurred. Online instruction is a way to increase access and reach place bound students. However, as technology demands increase, the demands on the professors are big. Online instruction does not mean saving in faculty time. Faculty are getting more and more research to do research to bring in grants for financial support. There is an interesting give and take. It provides almost a culture, for new professors, to minimize the teaching and work on bringing in funding.

I. Senator Schrader commented that the current Governor has reached out to the business leaders. The Senator wants to see the business leaders “pay to play.” Many business leaders are willing to give up their kicker. I am somewhat optimistic that the business community will catch on fire and force a change in this state.

J. Mentioned three big problems—access, quality, cost. Our charge is to get this idea across. Have some of your students come down and talk to legislators. “We are suckers for kids.” Telling their story is very compelling. The other thing—use parents, alumni, and faculty to fire the business community up. This needs to be done not on state time. Please communicate that we are doing the best we can do. Build us a base of support.

K. Supported Lee Ayers' idea to invite legislators to take a college course as a way to learn about the issues facing universities in Oregon.

VII. Jay Kenton, OUS Vice-Chancellor for Finance and Administration

Note to the reader—Please read the Saturday IFS notes that follow for the IFS response to Jay Kenton's idea of switching some health benefits for increased salary.

A. Provided ideas for OUS achieving greater financial flexibility in operation because current funding is inadequate for operations, capital, and student aid.

B. Presented one idea to work with PEBB to create a separate health insurance program for OUS to gain greater control over the healthcare program plan design. Use potential savings from this change to increase faculty salaries.

C. Presented an idea involving changing statutes to offer employees a new defined contribution option not coupled with PERS. The contribution amounts would be determined by OUS. The savings could be shifted to faculty salaries.

D. Presented another idea of decoupling the ORP rate from the PERS rate because defined benefits (PERS) and defined contribution plans are fundamentally different types of plans and ongoing material changes in PERS funding strategies create unintended rate consequences for ORP.

E. Presented an idea for OUS to earn income through interest and investment. Currently only cash balances specified by statute earn income for OUS (e.g., gifts, private grants, student funds). The balance of interest earnings on tuition, resource fees, and other income accrue to the state's general fund. Staff estimates that retaining these earnings would be worth approximately $5 million per year to OUS and would stimulate better cash management.

F. Presented an idea for saving in assessments to the state. OUS currently pays $10 million per year in assessments to the state. Market value is at $5 million. Mentioned empowering OUS to purchase directly audit services and commercial insurance. Also mentioned exempting OUS from assessment unless the assessment of OUS is expressly authorized by statute.

G. Mentioned other ideas such as obtaining biennial funding for faculty step increases and exploring the possibility of granting OUS authority to levy taxes for operating or capital needs. Mentioned the idea of removing tuition and other funds that are currently limited from expenditure limitation.

VIII. Chancellor George Pernsteiner

A. Gave an overview of the dire situation in the state.

B. Explained that the ideas presented above are ways to free us from state constraints. We have fewer state dollars now and far more students and we have more state control now. We will still be a state agency. This is not revolution it is evolution.

C. Explained that last year Oregon was 42 in state public investment in higher education (which was 46 before this). We are not lower because of the community college system in Oregon.

D. Noted that two issues make Oregon one of the 10 states with the worst deficits. 1) highest reliance on one tax system—the personal income tax and 2) the tax kicker. In good years we give money back to citizens. The state never saves money for bad times. We are one of the states that is in the worst position for a structural deficit. Oregon is the only one in the worst 10 that is a bottom state for higher education (investment in public higher education). That is the framework in which we are operating. Hence, we must investigate statutory changes.

E. Added what makes the above situation worse are two ballot initiatives in the fall elections. Initiative #6 would limit revenue to statewide annual population growth plus inflation. If passed, IP 6 would place an arbitrary cap on state spending that will take away the state's ability to do balanced and fair budgeting. Initiative #14 would allow itemized deductions taken on federal taxes to be carried over as credits on state taxes. The fiscal impact would be $835 million less in the state's general fund. We already are in a structural deficit in this state; these initiatives will ensure that our position falls even further. It is against this backdrop that we begin to look at our options.

Saturday, April 8, 2006, 8:30 a.m., OHSU

Absent: Joel Alexander (WOU), Janet Hume (EOU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), Dalton Miller-Jones (PSU), Steve Tanner (EOU),

I. Welcome from Scott Burns.

A. Reported that he is meeting with the Oregon Business Alliance to see how IFS can work with this group.

B. Reported that he is working with Susan Weeks related to determining comparators for campuses.

II. Approval of February Meeting Minutes.

A. The February meeting notes were approved.

III. Meeting Reports

A. Provost's Council Report from Sarah Andrews Collier.

1. The chancellor is working on a proposal to change the funding mechanism for regional schools.

2. They discussed the issue related to textbook prices. The Oregon Student Association has approached the Chancellor about textbook prices.

3. OSU and Western provosts are leading an effort to create ideas for retention of students. The group is looking at retention models and ideas.

4. Susan Weeks gave the Board's long-range planning. She passed out the next version of the campus profiles. Each campus arrived with two to five outstanding programs (two to three identified from the regionals and three to five from the big four schools). The one criterion was a national standing (or with investment one that could be).

5. The OSU BS in Forest Operations Management and the PSU BA/BS in Environmental Studies were passed as new degrees.

6. Name changes were passed—1) the OSU BS, MS, Ph.D. M.Agr. and M.A.I.S. degrees and undergraduate and graduate minors in Rangeland Resources to Rangeland Ecology and Management and 2) PSU BA/BS in Environmental Studies to Environmental Science.

B. State Board Report from Scott Burns

1. The four major OUS goals are 1) promote access to postsecondary education for all Oregonians and contribute to an educated citizenry for Oregon, 2) ensure a high quality of student learning to support graduate success, 3) engage in the creation of original knowledge, 4) provide economic and civic benefits to Oregon and its communities.

2. Scott spoke to the OUS board about the IFS goals for the year.

3. Priority issues for the student association. 1) tuition, 2) need based aid, 3) child care, and 4) aspire program high school access program.

4. The Oregon Student Association did a survey and found out the amount of student loans that a student has now is so high that they cannot go into professions like teaching.

5. Scott asked IFS senators to ask their campus community about their reaction to the background check work that each campus is handling through their HR departments.

C. Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) Report from Maureen Sevigny

1. Discussed the work of the February 2006 JBAC workshop to determine student learning outcomes for general education. Shared their summary ideas in a handout. Talked about the faculty and staff workshop and how faculty felt a little short changed about having all the ideas summarized to one sheet. Reported lots of energy during the workshop. The hope is to somehow keep this group growing and to get us talking to our colleagues. The work is motivated by SB 342.

2. Explained that JBAC sees AAOT revision as a community college issue; however, because a lot of majors have no free electives, the community colleges must work with the universities to ensure an effective approach.

D. Academic Excellence and Economic Development Committee Report from Jeanne Wagenknecht

1. She attended the February meeting, and there is not much to report at this time. The March meeting was cancelled.

IV. Follow-up Discussion Related to Yesterday's Meeting

A. Discussed Initiatives 6 and 14. Measure 6. “This measure would limit revenue to statewide annual population growth plus inflation.” TABOR “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” is brought to Oregon by Grover Norquist and Dick Armey's anti-tax groups. Measure 14 (also called the federal reconnect). Initiative Petition 14 “would allow itemized deductions taken on federal taxes to be carried over as credits on state taxes. This raises the ceiling from its current level, resulting in a meager, across the board tax cut. The fiscal impact for this measure would be $835 million less in the state's general fund….The average Oregonian would get just $11.17 per month under this measure.”

B. After much discussion, summarized the IFS position related to Jay Kenton's idea of changing the health care plan to save money that can go toward faculty salaries.

1. The IFS does not support transferring benefits to salary.

2. IFS supports enhancing salaries.

3. Change is coming and we would like to be part of the discussion for managing this.

4. Opting out of PEBB is a possibility.

5. IFS supports exploring ways to save money in the whole OUS system.

6. Trust is an issue. We don't trust our administrations would fairly implement such salary increases.

7. Some campuses (not all) should look for cost savings within their administration.

V. Campus reports

OSU. The $12 million shortfall reported in the Oregonian is the result of the 6% raises. If we don't cap enrollment, it will impact quality.

SOU. Finished the architectural plan for expanding the school of science. Involved in a general education restructure. Presidential search looking at applications next week. SOU has a contract. This contract results in a 2% increase this year with the promise of more next year.

UO. Diversity plan was released. A new vice-provost for each minority group has been appointed. Westmoreland is still an issue. We are about ¾ through our $400 million campaign drive. We are continuing discussion of academic excellence and comparators.

OIT. The faculty senate is continuing work on compensation. We are working on a new post-tenure review policy that would have automatic pay adjustments for full professors. Instead of the post-tenure being thumbs up and thumbs down, senate wants some gradation, and to tie salary adjustments to this. OIT-breaking ground for our new center for health professions. To pay off the F-bond, OIT is looking at tuition surcharge options. Our self study work is continuing.

PSU. Units determined 6% cuts to deal with one-time $4.5 Million cut. Because of the funding model for -05-07 used by the legislature, Portland State is carrying the OUS system on its back. We experienced the least amount of raises, although our school experienced significant growth. We signed an agreement with five community colleges that allows students to take course on any of these campuses for PSU credit. Faculty senate is looking at an evaluation of general education. Sustainability is a big deal on the PSU campus; every new building will be “L.E.E.D” certified.

WOU—Strike was averted. An emotionally traumatic event for the campus. “It was a horrible feeling.” 2.3% cost of living adjustment retroactive to September 2005. 2% step increase retroactive to September 2005. Decompression of steps 2-32 effective May 15, 2006 (means a 4% salary increases for most) $500 summer research grant for faculty at steps 1 and 2. 2006-07 cost of living increase contingent on improved university finances. WOU agrees to freeze upper management administrative positions that are vacant or becoming vacant or become vacant during biennium unless endorsed by the joint committee.

EOU. The contract situation being offered 0 and 0 for two years of biennium. Next week at an emergency meeting of our assembly (our shared governance system) a resolution will most likely be passed calling for an electronic polling that will amount to a vote of no confidence for our president.

OHSU. We are planning to expand medical school enrollment through satellite campuses. The first will be in Eugene, and it involves Sacred Heart and UO. Major curriculum changes are occurring within the school of nursing. We are searching for a new president.

VI. Old Business

A. Intersession Conversations with legislators. IFS members need to get in touch with our own personal legislators. Scott asked each one of us to contact our own legislators. Ask our faculty senates to contact our legislators. This is the time to get in contact with our legislators (many are running again).

B. Academic Quality—Scott is meeting with Susan Weeks and the provosts' council to discuss more about this issue.

VII. New Business

A. A motion was made, seconded, and passed that Scott Burns be the IFS nomination for the faculty position on the State Board.

B. Scott asked IFS senators to find out what is happening on their campuses related to the background check issue.

C. The Chancellor needs to develop a policy related to textbook costs for students. IFS senators need to find out who on their campuses is involved in this issue and let their faculty senates know that students are interested in this issue. Lee Ayers volunteered to work on this as an IFS representative.

D. Larry Curtis will investigate and report on the 6% PERS loss at the next IFS meeting.

E. The next meeting will be June 2 and 3 in LaGrande.