Academic Council Report for 18 December 2003 and 20 January 2004

Both of the previous AC meetings were via a conference call so it was difficult to gauge the reactions of the provosts attending the meetings. Several interesting topics were discussed at both meetings.

New Board--The Board of Higher Education was a topic of some discussion at both meetings. There was a great deal of interest and concern among the provosts about what the new board would bring. Everyone recognized that the board was designed with an agenda and most believed that it would result in substantial change in how the board operated and hopefully a change in the fortunes of the OUS units. Access and excellence were known priorities and several noted that the board had a distinct new economy make up.

ORP—The issues with ORP were discussed at both meetings. All the provosts were concerned that the change in rates would result in some of the systems best and brightest to seek opportunities elsewhere, further eroding the reputation of individual units with each university. Updates at that time were minimal. Denise Yunker related some movement with a 2 phase correction at the January meeting but that they were still waiting for advice from the Department of Justice.

Legislative Update—There was very little discussed regarding legislative activity other than the schedule for approving the new board. A reminder was issued at the December meeting that legislative agenda items were due in the Chancellor’s office. None were put forward for three reasons: 1) the new board had not yet met (or been approved) and there was no idea of what they might support, and 2) there was no reason to expect that the E Board would have additional resources for new initiatives.

Enrollment Watch—Provosts were predicting that enrollment would go down substantially as a result of planned increases in tuition for winter term. OUS maintains an enrollment watch website (http://www.ous.edu/enrollment_watch_home.html) which is updated monthly and new numbers come in. Applications were also down at most of the institutions.

ETIC (Engineering Technology Industry Council)—In 1997 the legislature created ETIC and the Engineering Education Trust (EET). The goal was $100 million over 10 years for enginnering and technology initiatives at OUS institutions. In 97-99 the E-Board use the money in the trust based on ETIC recommendations. During 2001 the Education Ways and Means Subcommittee sent the ETIC money directly to OUS rather than the EET. The interest (~$400,000 was used by Ways and Means to balance the budget. The same thing happened in 2003. Thus, ETIC funds have moved directly into OUS budget and the EET remains unused.

Fee Book Update—The fee book which sets standard fees across OUS institutions has not been updated since 99 when the RAM began being used. There is currently a system-wide push to update the fee book which will be forwarded to the Board in May. Changes include elimination of statewide policy statements and rate limits in a number of areas. One area of concern was fees on “self-supported” credit courses which at most institutions include distance education or summer term, because the credit hours also generate RAM allocations. There was concern that the board would not allow this double dipping.

Teacher Education Program Models—Teacher licensure remains a nation-wide issue. Oregon, which requires a Master’s Degree, has higher standards that many other states. There is now a problem with the large number of teachers being recruited from other states. These teachers are well-experienced but do not meet M.S. requirements. So many school districts are pushing to eliminate the M.S. requirement. OUS is working with the deans from the education programs at the different institutions to prepare an answer to defend the M.S. requirement.

Planning for Budget Cuts—Given the likelihood that Measure 30 would fail provosts provided ideas about how they were planning to meet budget reductions. Ideas or approaches included decreasing fixed term appointments, reducing the number of minors, small cuts in many programs, money set aside and not budgeted to units, eliminating class sections, some additional fee increases, changes in tuition plateau, laying off tenure-track faculty and cutting programs.

Respectively submitted

Dan Edge

11 February 2004