Campus Members Present:
2. February Board Meeting Agendas/Issues: Clark briefly noted that tomoffow's Board meeting will focus on emerging areas for legislative concepts and policy/program option packages. The System Strategic Planning Conunittee will largely concentrate on admission-related topics (e.g., a PASS update, the OUS visitation program, annual review of OUS admission policy). The committee will also receive a brief update on the Center for Applied Japanese Language Studies. I - Academic Council Minutes 2117100
3. Legislative Update: Grattan Kerans reviewed the revised list of legislative priorities. The goal is to have, in May, a draft version of the Board's budget priorities. These are likely to include current base support, current service levels, policy options, performance funds, targeted job growth and research areas, etc. We will also seek funding for future planned enrollments, especially in targeted areas, at both the graduate and the undergraduate levels. A consultative process will be established to develop and refine the proposed budget.
Clark indicated that Susan Weeks is finishing a new set of enrollment projections and intends to have it available for March. A Presidents Plus One meeting will probably be scheduled soon. Tomorrow, the goal is for Board members to coalesce on the major categories, such as excellent faculty and facilities, research agenda, and targeted programs to meet workforce needs. Subsequently, we will work on program policy option packages. Kerans added that this next legislative session provides an opportunity for OUS to be forward-looking, expanding into new areas of research and addressing new issues.
The Joint Legislative Committee on Information Management and Technology (JLCIMT) will be meeting next week on state network issues. Also next week, OUS will seek money from the E-Board to sustain OVY'EN as planned.
Clark said that we are devising strategy. 'Me IRMC approved a proposal for a state Enterprise Network. Bill Anslow voted against it (because it subsumed OWEN), but he was in the minority.'Me consultant's report was extremely flawed regarding networks developed and used by higher education in other states. UO network engineers assisted OUS by producing a table for all the states, rather than just 15, and the picture is different and much more complex than the report would lead one to believe. We want to separate out the video issues, so that testing can be conducted before making any commitments. This is basically a different issue from OWEN and the Enterprise Network.
Questions and comments: - On the video side, EOU's recent experience is that the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) has been cooperative. DAS installed the T-line for the university's use during a 60-day testing phase.
- What is our desired outcome? The first is to take the discussion of state networks to a higher plane - objective and factual. The second is to achieve cooperation and concurrence regarding the video issue. The third is to conduct tests, evaluate results, and have cost data before we make a firm commitment. The fourth is to demonstrate that the consultant's report is flawed and the flaw drives the conclusion. (In fact, contrary to the report, a common approach is to have a dedicated university-run network, which, in turn, may provide services to others, rather than the other way around.) And finally, the fifth is to move away from JLCIN4T and toward requesting DAS or gubernatorial intervention, if necessary.
Who appointed Jim Hill to the committee? The Speaker of the House.
Kerans also noted that other E-Board agenda items include requests regarding UO's Autzen Stadium and OSU's hazardous waste facility.
4. New Program Proposals PSU - Ph.D. in Computer Science, External Review, Campus Response Mary Kathryn Tetreault reviewed the program proposal, stating that the program is consistent with community needs and PSU's mission. Community leaders repeatedly say that hey believe the future of Portland is tied to engineering, science, and technology.
The external review expressed some concern about faculty breadth. In response, PSU has hired a new faculty member, who started in January. In addition, two other faculty searches are under way. Regarding course availability, PSU is coordinating with OGI (the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology) to augment course provision. Finally, the library issues raised in the external review have been addressed.
Bill Feyerherm, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies, added that the external reviewerscommented on the extent to which the program utilizes adjunct faculty. This can be justified because many of these adjuncts are heavily involved in industry in Portland, and PSU sees this as a program strength, especially given how rapidly the field - computer science - changes.
Questions and comments: - OSU has no objections to this program. However, the rationale for duplication presented on page 2 of the proposal should be based on state need, rather than narrow, regional need.
- Geography is a troubling issue for PSU, and, in any event, technology is now often used for joint programming. Real access needs exist regionally. PSU does not want this proposal interpreted as a wall around the Portland area because, in fact, it seeks more cooperation.
Can the proposal be revised from its original? Yes.
- The budget doesn't reflect the two new hires.
UO has no objections to the program but would prefer to see
a corrected budget. Clark added that the budget is understood
to be a threshold budget and that we would expect it to grow.
PSU - M.S. in Financial Analysis, External Review, Campus Response Tetreault reviewed the concerns and resolutions of the external review team and directed Council attention to the cover letter, which describes those issues. For example, PSU has hired two new faculty members in the program. The university has not added office staff because the use of electronic applications will decrease required staff time. PSU has also added another recommended course, additional databases, etc. The program meets needs in the metropolitan area and responds to the new state CPA requirements.
Questions and comments: UO and OSU have no objection to the program. The budget appears to be based on the assumptiont hat PSU will capture all tuition andstate .funds, devoting nothing to overhead. In UO's experience, approximately 50 percent of the funds is needed for infrastructure cost. Does the budget need to be revised? Yes.
OHSU - Master of Physician Assistant Studies, External Review Lesley Hallick described the origin of the baccalaureate program, a few years ago, as a result of legislative mandate. Originally, it was on a 2+2 model. Because a graduate program is now being proposed, OHSU will construct a degree-completion program for previous baccalaureate graduates of this program. (This was one of only a few issues raised by reviewers.)
Questions and comments: PSU is interested in working with OHSU
on a common agenda. OHSU welcomed the opportunity for coordination.
OHSU - Certificate in Medical Informatics Hallick indicated that the Medical Informatics degree is fairly new and has rapidly grown and become successful. Graduates of the program are employed in health insurance, managed care, and other health-care occupations in which outcomes require heavy data analysis. The core courses will be available on-line. Student interest in the degree has been strong. Most likely, the proposed certification and content will augment existing positions. Although the program could be completed in one year, students will probably take two o three years to finish this certificate program.
This is one of our first on-line programs, Clark noted, and could be part of the larger bioscience initiatives that may arise during the next legislative session.
Questions and comments: - OSU commented that this is a first-rate proposal.
5. Proposals to Offer Existing Programs in New Locations
PSU - M.A./M.S. in Education, with specializations in Curriculum and
Instruction, and in Special Education in Gray's Harbor and Paciflc
Counties in Washington Tetreault summarized the request to offer the M.A./M.S.
in Education in Washington. This new-location proposal is in
response to a specific request from a Washington school district
to offer these programs. She is aware of, and in the process
of seeking, the required permissions from the state of Washington.
In response to a Council member's inquiry, Feyerherm said he would
check on whether this program represents a closed enrollment.
PSU - M.A./M.S. in Education: Counseling (Marriage and Family Focus Only) in Salem, Oregon After a brief review by Tetreault, no objections were to made to this proposal to offer the M.A./M.S. in Education: Counseling (Marriage and Family focus) in Salem.
If both new-location requests represent open enrollments, Clark noted that we will notify the community colleges and independent, proprietary colleges of the two programs via the electronic notification process.
6. Report from the OUS International Programs Council on
Alternative Budget Models to Alien with the New OUS Resource Allocation B d et
Clark opened the discussion by indicating that we will only discuss the proposals at this Academic Council meeting and table any decisions until next month's meeting. She asked if that timeline would coordinate with other budget processes. Loren Stubbert responded that a decision made by the end of March or early April would be fine.
George Sheridan, co-chair of the International Programs Council (IPC), indicated that IPC, vice provosts, and study- abroad representatives had the task of developing revenue models for OUS international programs that were consistent with the OUS Resource Allocation Model. Using 1998-99 data and assuming an annual central office cost of $800,000 for the study-abroad programs, IPC produced three models. In these models, the principle of having revenue follow international students who attend OUS campuses is used. The models apply only to the Systemwide, not the institution- specific, student exchanges.
Jack Van de Water, co-chair of IPC, summarized the three models:
* Model 1, Split Cell Value Model.- RAM-type funding operates on the cell values generated by FTE of outgoing students - students from the campuses who study abroad or do internships on OUS international programs. For each outgoing FIE, one- third of the cell value remains with the campus of origin of that FTE, and two-thirds is allocated to support the OUS international programs (the central office + the exchange sites).
* Model 2, Split Tuition Model: RAM-type funding operates on the tuition component of campus revenues per outgoing FM. For each outgoing FTE, 50 percent of he average undergraduate tuition is retained by the campus of origin of that FIE, while 50 percent is made available for redistribution, per incoming FIE, to campuses that receive international students through OUS exchanges. Cell values of outgoing F17E support OUS international programs, with no share retained for "institutional support."
* Model 3, Targeted Program Model.- This model retains the 100 percent "off-the-top" method of funding the OUS international programs of the current BAS model, without, however, the mechanism of assessments. Adjustments over time in the budget of the OUS International Programs Office would reflect inflation and, when necessary, new program funding.
In its work, IPC tried to determine the dollars generated
and the campus impact. Sheridan noted that several anomalies,
as far as impact on institution, emerged. For example, OIT
does not send students abroad, so it is affected disproportionately compared
with other institutions such as UO, which has many study-abroad students.
One idea is to charge a participation fee to outgoing students. Two
trade-offs to these extreme cases may be to run the entire $800,000
through the budget model or to hold the whole enterprise outside the budget
model. Under the new budget model, resources are used at the institution's
discretion, and it is hoped that the campuses will support their own international
offices.
Questions and comments: - In Model 1, regarding the tuition for incoming international students, is this money that the institutions are currently receiving? No, those students don't generate revenue. The tuition is collected and then redistributed.
- Is the assumption that the $800, 000 is redirected through the budget model and institutions are assessed varying amounts? If so, that would direct about $600,000 to the central IPC office. From where would the remaining $200,000 come? There would need to be a match from the OUS.
- UO requested staff to perform some financial modeling to help institutions understand the budgetary impacts. The data would enable the university to determine if student exchange is an activity that it should manage entirely on its campus, given its existing economy of scale.
- The resources to support the international program under RAM are the same as under BAS, (i.e., state General Funds and tuition dollars). Now, under the new Resource Allocation Model, the money is completely owned by the institutions, and the central office no longer has central money, except for targeted programs. This new model is clearly centered on students and enrollment activity. In this program, the money is generated by our students who leave to study abroad.
- Do institutions have the opportunity to opt out of this program or does that require Board action?
Could there be a fourth model? If we develop a model based on a participation fee set at an equitable rate and contributed into a central pool, then the sending institutions and the host campus for incoming international students could receive some funds. Consequently, that model would be more revenue driven and consistent with how the RAM is structured to operate throughout the System.
- Does the attached table include Global Graduates? No.
- It is difficult to do a simple comparison of the first wo models. The transition to a different model than the present budget approach may require some transition funding.
- If there is a short .fall, would institutions end up paying the difference, as a result of perhaps readjusted cell values? Yes.
Clark indicated that she would welcome a revised draft including any
additional models, and responses to questions and concerns raised by Academic
Council, at next month's meeting.
7. Enrollment Privileges for Supervisors of Student Teachers: Campus Issues
Charles Lane explained that supervising teachers at SOU wish to use their banked hours to participate in self-support classes. This raises enrollment management questions on the campus. Stubbert pointed out that, with the new Resource Allocation Model, the self-support feature of continuing education and summer session is fading. In the Resource Allocation Model, continuing education enrollment is funded at the same level as regular enrollment. In fact, the Board's Budget and Finance Committee is considering a tuition policy that consolidates the summer and academic year. Consequently, it may be imprudent for institutions to develop contracts that treat those terms differently.
Questions and comments: One issue is that students may want to attend a different institution than the one granting the voucher.
What would be the effect on campus budgets if institutions had to pay the full cost of supervising our student teachers?
- The Fee Book needs to be consistent with the contracts.
Will it be better to have a consistent OUS policy? Or would institutional autonomy be preferable?
- To charge these students an extra fee may be inconsistent with a long-standing Fee Book policy that permits student fees only for items unavailable at the university bookstore, not for instruction purposes.
Stubbert, Holly Zanville, Melinda Grier, and others are holding a meeting to follow the Academic Council meeting on these issues. Interested Council members are invited o participate.
8. Report and Recommendations of JBAC's Credit for Prior Learning Action Team
Clark welcomed Roy Arnold to Academic Council. Although he has left the position of provost at OSU, Arnold is continuing his work with the Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) through June 2000. JBAC has released a draft report about credit for prior learning (CPL) and is soliciting feedback from both Academic Council and community college chief instructional administrators (CIAs). Arnold traced the history of this issue, beginning with a Board solution team a number of years ago, which then referred the issue to JBAC for further work. He noted that page 6 provides a membership list and the history of the CPL action team. Currently representing OUS are President Phil Creighton from EOU, Adrienne Hill from the admissions office at SOU, and Sheldon Nord from the student affairs office at OIT. Page 4 lists the group's recommendations, the most central of which is #1. The focus is to accept these as transfer credits, not as a means to award credits. In the long term, Arnold indicated that we hope to move toward more proficiency-based demonstrations of learning, which will decrease the importance of credit for prior learning.
Questions and comments: Page 4 of the report indicates that many institutions have concerns about cost. Is there a swell of students who want this? Will this be overwhelming to institutions? That concern relates more to the awarding of credits, not the transfer of credits. How much effort is involved in evaluating these creditsfor transfer? Not much. It becomes a matter of trusting other institutions' standards.
EOU's experience is that evaluating prior leaming experience for credit is a revenue-positive situation. The student pays a fee up front that is connected to the credit sought, not the credit awarded. Students attend a workshop before they proceed with their demonstrations of proficiency. Students also develop portfolios, which is an approach that has worked well with corporate partners - such as U S WEST and McDonald's - and has fostered agency-sponsored learning.
How do the community college processes compare with our processes? There is a recommendation in this report that we adhere to specific standards. One of those is that the credit is awarded for courses, not programs.
- Is there an impact on the recommended policy regarding programs with tight national or professional accreditation? There is no impact. Again, this is the difference between a transfer credit vs. meeting a program requirement.
- It is likely the numbers will increase once ONE is up and running.
- Some faculty tend to be suspicious of these programs.
- Are the community college chief instructional
administrators discussing this topic? They have no position at this
point. However, their tenor is supportive, and they will revisit
this item in their spring CIA meeting.
- One minor problem could be that if there is unevenness in how the transfer acceptance is handled, it could open the door to student complaints to the legislature.
- Will there be a problem with students using schools to get credits, perhaps moving from school to school? Students would have to be fully enrolled in the degree program to receive the CPL. Arnold added that, according to regional accreditation guidelines, students must demonstrate sufficient commitment before the CPLs can become part of their permanent records. Students can have no more than 25 percent CPL; therefore, the Blue Mountain Community College data are wrong.
- Clark invited institutional consultation and noted that
this item will be back on the Academic Council agenda later this spring.
9. PEBB Update
Denise Yunker reported that on January 21 the Governor met with the university presidents and indicated that he did not want OUS to leave PEBB. The Chancellor has established a group to research a PEBB "carve-out 'for OUS. Deloitte and Touche are consultants who will work on the carve-out and evaluate independent insurance alternatives, if that becomes our only other option. The carve-out work group - which includes Yunker, John Moseley, Beth Barker (OSU), and George Pernsteiner - will address OUS needs until an anticipated faculty compensation package is presented by the Governor in the 2001 legislative session.
The work group is proposing that, for 2001-02, PEBB plan choices remain intact, the dollar amount cash-back and opt-out components remain constant, the monthly OUS employer contribution continue at $470, and premium increases be paid by the PEBB reserve, which would decrease by $6.4 million. In essence, we are asking to be held harmless through 2002. Then, we would ask DAS to include $6.4 million in the current service level, thus restoring the PEBB reserve. Pernsteiner indicated that we are asking the Governor to authorize DAS to perform the CSL adjustment and to put forward the faculty salary adjustment. Interestingly, this current year has experienced more cash-back than previous years.
Questions and comments: Clark clarified that the Governor fell short
of making a commitment to a faculty salary package in the meeting with
OUS presidents, but he did acknowledge that he understood our perspective.
10. Student Health Insurance
Elizabeth Dickenson summarized the information contained in a February 15 memo regarding student health insurance and the attendant rising costs. With her was Greg Byrd, a senior at UO, who is the chair of the Student Health Advisory Committee. Byrd described UO's student health insurance, which is mandatory for international students and voluntary for domestic students. According to Byrd, this policy creates a situation of adverse selection, therefore driving up costs.
Questions and continents: Would there be a re decades. PSU students pay $14-17 per term for health coverage. This plan works in conjunction with the student health center and its fees.
Would students with documented health insurance be allowed waivers? No. Issuing waivers to select students would create a challenging administrative task. In these cases, the insurance would supplement the student's primary coverage.
What about distance-education students? We have examined
the issue and, at this point, believe that the policy will apply
only to students who pay health center fees.
11. URdate: Staff Analysis of Higher Education Reguirements in Central Oregon., Response to CORAB
Dick Markwood reported that CORAB continues to request resources for staff. The Chancellor has been consistent in responding that he cannot support staff that he does not supervise and that an E-Board request, at this time, would be premature until the full evaluation of the postsecondary needs in central Oregon is complete. In the meantime, University Center staff and program faculty have continued to focus on their duties. Markwood expressed his appreciation for the presence of UO, OSU, and EOU faculty at CORAB meetings.
Some good news is that the fall enrollment was very strong, at 68 FI'E. The Chancellor's staff has been useful in clarifying the operations of the University Center. For example, the staff s financial summary shows that, in 1998-99, the University Center generated $1.2 million in tuition, approximately $750,000 of which were from OUS schools.
At this point, Markwood's goal is to use the construction of the new building as an opportunity to rationalize and standardize the way in which the partner institutions work, realizing that there are some differences between institutions that must be considered. A roundtable, with as many of the partners as possible, is working to develop a standard, boiler-plate agreement that might offer a useful way to realize some System efficiencies.
Markwood and COCC Vice President Bart Queary have agreed to analyze the costs of operating on the COCC campus. Performed collaboratively, this activity should yield clear and understandable numbers.
Clark indicated that staff analysis is proceeding. Craig Purkey, from the University of Washington, will visit Bend this month to examine such issues as student aspirations and capacity. We also are working with Pacific Partners, which has conducted master planning for some of the newest California institutions.
12. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Submitted by Vicki Falsgraf Office of Academic Affairs/OUS March
1, 2000