IFS Meeting

Western Oregon University

October 8-9, 2004

                                                                                    

Friday, October 8

Welcome from Phil Cohn, WOU President.

 

WOU is the oldest Oregon state campus.

 

Introduction of Jim Specter, new Provost at WOU.

 

Question: What role do faculty play in institutional decisions at WOU?  Drs. Specter and Cohn replied that faculty always have input into administrative decisions.  Also, since deans and chairs are chosen by faculty, they are considered “faculty who manage”, rather than “managers who teach”.

 

Chancellor Pernsteiner

Expressed appreciation for the work of IFS.

 

Re fiscal situation for OUS:

80,000 students, which is a large number for this system.  During Measure 5, legislature said essentially, “we’ll import students, because we can’t afford to educate our own”.

 

4000 faculty.

 

Faculty earn, in grants and contracts, the same amount that state provides for education.

 

Money from private donors equals half of state’s subsidy.

 

We have evolved from a business which gets most of its money from the state to one which gets most of its money from students, private donations, and grants / contracts.

 

Board’s funding problems for next biennium:

  OUS schools are unaffordable for students.  Tuition is slightly higher than the national average, but we have one of the lowest grant aid figures in the nation.

 

Oregon ranks 30^th in US in terms of per capita income.

 

We have a $600M backlog in deferred maintenance.  OUS invested in other things when state money dried up, and the bill is coming due.  Same with faculty salaries.

 

OUS pays at about the 70^th percentile in faculty salaries.  We are usually unable to get first choice in whom we want to hire.  We have fallen from 23^rd to 44^th in student appropriations.

 

We rely extremely heavily on out-of-state tuition.  We are vulnerable to losing students to other states, just as we lose faculty.

 

We can no longer rely on timber, salmon, agriculture alone for growth; it will be human resources.  Without higher education, our citizens will be second-class citizens.

 

We can import students to pay out-of-state tuition to keep things afloat.  But what about their children? 

 

Board has recognized that

            1.  We must find a way to increase need-based aid and hold the tuition increases so that they don’t exceed median family income.

 

            2.  Access must be improved, so that higher education is available to all sectors of communities.

 

            3.  Excellence (related to faculty compensation).  Within 6 years, have faculty compensation equal to average of our peers.

 

 

OUS has expanded honors programs, to keep best and brightest in Oregon.

 

We’re on track with our goals for increasing money from private sector for research.

 

State is facing $800 M shortfall going into next biennium.  PEBB and PERS costs are higher than anticipated.  State money is being spent on needed new corrections facilities.

 

Other agencies have been told by governor that there will be a 10% reduction in their budgets; OUS has not been told that.

 

Can OUS get governor to agree to a multi-year plan, rather than just a 2-year plan?  We want to set a plan that provides for necessary increases over coming bienniums.

 

OUS belongs to a higher education lobby network, which includes AOF and AAFT.

 

One of the hardest sells is compensation to employees.   Legislature’s concerns have not included OUS’s rank with regard to other state systems.

 

Chancellor is interested in practical repercussions of faculty who have left OUS for better circumstances, especially if they’ve taken grants with them.  Even if no grants: How have programs suffered?  Students suffered?

 

Many candidates for teaching and administrative positions within OUS have withdrawn after learning salary.  The failed searches are also an issue, because then another search must be held.

 

 

James Sager, Higher Education consultant to Governor.

Efforts are being made to educate legislators and public about the issues.

 

There are 87 different programs K-20; need to lump some details together to make understandable to public (and legislature).

 

Education, human services, and public safety take up 75% of the state’s budget.  Within those areas, most programs are mandated or ones that can’t morally be cancelled.  Prison expenses, for example, are soaring.

 

There is way more money needed in all programs than there is available.

 

The governor has a deep passion for education.

 

Q: Is there any hope that voters and legislators will see the need for enhanced revenue (e.g., taxes)?  A: Legislators will need to lead this charge, rather than educators (seen as self-serving).

 

Nathan Tublitz, UO, proposed two ideas:

1.  Aside from state-level administrators, best reps for higher education are faculty and students.  Individual faculty members and students need to link with legislators. As a link to the citizenry,  faculty / student teams can go out to Rotarians etc. and give topic-specific talks; after all, education is what we do best, and groups don’t seem to mind if the topic is somewhat esoteric.  Business leaders are also a vital part of linking with the legislature.

 

Jim Sager: Exposing high school students to college classes is a recruitment tool, because many of the students succeed where they didn’t think they were capable, and thus begin to consider higher education as an option after high school.

 

Nathan and other UO scientists organized a science outreach program 4 years ago to help local schoolteachers in their ability to teach science.  This has been much appreciated by the teachers.

 

Chancellor segments Oregon education into 4 areas:

            1.  Rural (eastern and coast)  Fewer students are going to college there now.  Even though their industries hire educated people, that change has been gradual, and they sometimes don’t realize that these educated people got their education somewhere.  Also, it won’t be until the residents themselves become aware that there is a way of life other than what they’ve always known that they will begin lobbying their legislators.

 

            2.  Social-service-needy areas: constituents need food and shelter before they can think about education.

 

            3.  University communities

 

            4.  Suburban Republicans, who currently control agenda in the House.

 

 

There is approximately 25% percent legislative turnover every several years.

 

 

Denise Yunker, Chancellor’s Office

PEBB will be fully funded for the next 2 years, but the costing will be different.  How do we get control of the health care system?  A: Looking at pilots of programs that determine most efficacious way to spend every single health care dollar.  Evidence-based medicine.  On-line access to PEBB is coming.

 

The tiered system is awkward.

 

When care by physicians, hospitals, etc. is consumer-driven, costs and outcomes are more prominent.  More of a free market approach.

 

 

From legislature: Oregon Representative Ben Westlund (republican) and Peter Courtney, Oregon Senate President (democrat)

 

Ben: You need to know your legislators by their first names, call them, and talk with them. 

 

Budgets are a squeaky wheel process.  Do more than e-mail; legislators get 200 e-mails a day.

 

The state funds less than 1/3 of OUS.  Recently, Oregon’s revenues fell farther and faster than at any other time, because we are incredibly dependent on a single—and volatile—tax.  We were down 20% in 02-03.

 

We are facing being down another 10%.

 

Q: What drives governmental inflation?  A: It’s not spending or normal inflation; it’s caseloads: prison population, higher education, social services.  Q: What drives the caseloads?  A: Oregonians themselves. 

 

Higher Education work group of Ben’s is addressing fee remission. Fee remissions are deductions from tuition, given on a need basis.  Ben thinks they are essential for individual institutions as a way to make budget a bit more flexible.  Frank Morris and Ben (R), and Kurt Schrader, Ryan Decker (D) are the higher education work group.

 

For past 10 years, 25% of tuition increases have been targeted for fee remissions.  Senator Schrader wants to cap that at 8%, thinking that the money may be being misused.  Doesn’t think that students paying full tuition should be subsidizing other students.  Would rather see money come from Chancellor’s office and allocated for fee remission.

 

Representative Westlund thinks that fee remissions allow an institution to be better.

 

If state provides such a small part of OUS budget, why does it get to administer OUS as if it fully funded it?

 

Difficult decisions—where to get money for state budget?  Can’t take it from health plan.  Measure 11 passed, mandating sentences for convicted criminals and necessitating more money for corrections.  Only solution seen as feasible by the legislature so far: Raise tuition; take it from students. 

 

Governor has specific, limited revenues he can use.

 

How are we to address the issue of educational quality?  Do we want a population that’s less educated than they need to be?

 

 

Senator Courtney thinks the issues are much more global than “the state doesn’t give us enough money so we can’t do our job”.

 

Serious issues underneath all our questions about higher education:

  1.  What is the role of government in our society?

 

  2.  OR government can no longer function the way it was designed to function. 

 

  3.  We are a divisive people: race, ethnicity, gender, region, etc.

 

Governor needs to take the lead and act in partnership with major sections.

 

Bob Mercer, PSU:  How do we measure the “better” part of MoreBetterFaster? 

 

Bob Turner, WOU: It’s easier for people to be divided because it’s easier to pick a position and hold it.  It’s more productive, and harder, to meet in the middle and work things out.

 

Senator Courtney: For the past 3 ½ years, the OR legislature has been an emotional and physiological meat-grinder.  The decision-making in the face of dwindling money has been horrendous.  Analogy: The house is burning; there’s been no reason to think about fertilizing the lawn.

 

Quality and money are chicken-and-egg partners.

 

 

Denise Yunker, Chancellor’s Office

PERS volcano is rumbling, but no eruption expected.  The deficit reserve will be funded sooner than was expected.

 

PERS will be one system with four plans.  New executive director, Paul Cleary.

 

Soon we’ll be able to access our PERS accounts online.

 

PERS communicates directly with members; there is no oversight by OUS. 

 

PERS has cut costs so much that there’s no money for customer support.  They’re understaffed and working with outdated equipment—chaotic. 

 

Lisa Zavala, Chancellor’s Office

Re: ORP: Several pieces of language are now being drafted.  Takes a lot of expertise and attorneys. 

 

Concern: the language will go to the legislature before faculty has input.  IFS urged Lisa to ensure that faculty is kept in the loop.

 

Decision about PERS and ORP will be tied to an absolute date, per Denise.  Bob Turner, WOU, urged the date to be far enough removed from date of new implementation that it will be workable.

 

Senator Courtney noted that conversations just like this one can bring faculty concerns to the forefront before they become critical (muzzling the alligators).

 

 

October 9, 2004

 

Announcements:

 

1.  Laura Jones is resigning from IFS in order to research; a replacement secretary is needed.

 

2.  Peter Gilkey, President will be contacting members to ascertain who might be willing to serve as VP next year.

 

3.  ORP: President Gilkey will write to Chancellor Pernsteiner and suggest a meeting with the IFS ORP committee.  There is concern that the decoupling decision is being made on legal and political grounds, rather than the investment considerations of the participants.  It was noted that although OUS gets only 9% of the state budget, it comprises 26% of state employees. 

 

Another consideration: those who signed up for ORP signed into the “coupled” situation.  If there’s to be a decoupling, ORP members should have the option to sign onto PERS instead.  Also, perhaps there should be the option to split the package, so that an employee could invest in both.

 

4.  Neil Bryant’s (OSU Board) presentation to the State Board of Higher Education Friday morning included mention of the Higher Education Lobbying Network.  What about including IFS?  Bob Turner, WOU, and Nathan Tublitz, UO, will be at the upcoming meeting this Monday and agreed to be appointed as IFS reps to the HELN.  A previous appointment of  Peter drew an objection from Michael Redding (Office of Governmental Affairs) that faculty should be in the classroom rather than part of such discussions.  The committee is comprised of lobbyists from each campus, and AOF, OUS, and AAUP.

 

5.  Representative  Westlund and Chancellor Pernsteiner have agreed that IFS should be part of the higher education task force, comprised of legislators.  Nathan Tublitz (UO) and Bob Turner (WOU) agreed to serve in this capacity.  Solveig Holmquist (WOU) will be Bob’s alternate when time constraints preclude his attendance at meetings.

 

Update from OUS schools:

 

OIT has hired new Energy Center Director.  Also another new administrator, who is being well received by faculty.  Recent convocation on compensation; administrators have changed “faculty salaries” to “faculty and administrator” salaries.   Faculty noted in the meeting that, although there is difficulty hiring faculty due to salaries, there is no difficulty hiring administrators.  Forecast: serious divisive issue. 

 

OHSU: Two enormous construction projects: patient tower and research building. 

 

SOU: Has named a new school, Education, despite previous discussions toward reorganizing into fewer schools.  SOU will continue to reorganize; administration has asked departments to write mission statements so that proper alignments can be made, with an eye toward being understandable to the lay public. 

 

            Continued discussions about what constitutes scholarship.

 

OSU: Faculty continue to be happy with new President Ed Ray, who is a good conduit between higher education and the corporate world.  New administrator on campus has defined diversity as “everyone feeling part of the community”. 

 

EOU: New Science Center is completed.  New President Khowshro Fatemi has begun first full year.  Reorganization has changed School of Business to College of Business, complete with new MBA program.  Dean search for Sciences.    New president tried to decertify the union but failed.

 

UO: Pres, Provost, Vice-P, and Senior Vice-Pres are all retiring next year.  With their departure may go the old style of emergence of administrators from the ranks; new wave is to appoint outsiders.  Also part of new wave: administrators move into administration without serving as faculty first.  Result: Administrators tend to leap-frog from position to position, sometimes without gaining wisdom about, or allegiance to, their schools.  There are inherent problems with administration by personnel who do not anticipate staying long enough to live with their changes.

 

PSU: Looking for new Provost and new VP for Funding.  The retiring ones were committed to their institution; concern is that the new wave of administrator selection will produce a non-committed person.

            Enrollment up, but credit hours down due to plateau.  Increasing shift to fixed-term, less expensive faculty.

            New dorm filled on first day.

 

            Two searches: Finance Administration and Provost.  Concern that inability to compete in salary arena will preclude successful search.  New Library Director anticipated.  Dean of Public Research has retired.  Four recognitions in US News / World Report.

 

            Growth to 35,000 expected within next 10 years.

 

            WOU:  Looking for ways to communicate that the Arts are a rigorous field of study.

            Excited about new Provost, Jem Spectar.      

 

Provosts’ Council (previously Academic council) report from President Gilkey (Dan Edge not present).  Provosts’ Council has taken leadership in several ways, but is not consulting with other Provosts or with faculty.

 

            Maureen Sevigny, OIT, attended last meeting (for Dan Edge) and noticed that most provosts had sent representatives rather than attended themselves. 

 

While there used to be sanctions against duplication of programs among universities, that seems to have disappeared as long as no new resources are required.

 

It was noted that, with reorganization (and disempowering) of the Chancellor’s Office, leadership to the Board may be compromised.

 

 

Re: Gen Ed Transfer Model (GETM):

The Board, MoreBetterFaster and the Joint Boards Articulation Committee (JBAC) are engaged in conversations about the current common core, AAOT, and GETM.

 

            The Retention, Advising, and Time to degree (IFS-RAT) force is dedicated to compiling best practices, then distributing to campuses.  Thus it is involved in consideration of GETM.

 

            Properties of GETM: relies on courses already designated for AAOT, meets minimal standards, which individual universities can “top off”. 

 

            Caveat: Does not replace effective academic advising.

           

            The 4 boxes into which credits can fall: Electives, major, minor, and General Education.      

 

            OR has a lot of drop-outs, often because transfer students were unprepared for the work in Upper Division.

Difficulties thus far regarding transfer of courses:

 

            AAOT has promised seamless transfer to 4-year college, but that’s not been true: Often the transfer is into degree requirements to which the CC’s and student had been oblivious.

 

            Students can transfer 125 credits from CCs.  Still need required number of upper division credits to graduate, and that hasn’t always been understood.

 

            General Education does not mean “everything I have to take outside my major”.  There are also BA / BS requirements, and requirements for pre-admission to majors.

 

            Courses do not always translate into same number of credits between universities.  Each university has its own system here, as well as rules about “double-dipping”.

 

            Students who say “all my CC credits didn’t transfer” are often students who haven’t yet focused their studies in CC and go in many directions.  If MBF is serious, there must be more effective advising. 

 

            Funds for more comprehensive advising should come from GETM.

 

            Concern: GETM will not really be helpful.  It would be better to improve the advising than to change the common core.  Faculty, not administrators, should decide on curricular matters.

 

            Concern that GETM will homogenize the institutions, mediocritize them.  Legislators seem to feel that the state institutions are interchangeable.  They want the students to be able to “swirl” through the system—maybe, later, even including the private institutions.

 

            For the most productive discussion, Community Colleges and students should be present during GETM discussions.

 

            President Gilkey will visit each campus to facilitate a meeting explaining GETM and seeking faculty input, then ask for a summit meeting, with IFS, Provosts, JBAC, and Council of Instructional Administrators.  Task then: Draft a proposal, bring it to IFS, take it to campuses, take it to Board.

 

In December, new positions will be elected: Secretary and expiring terms.

 

--end--