Opening remarks from Peter Gilkey, Marny Rivera, Nan Russell.
Denise Yunker, Benefits, OUS; and Lisa Zavela, Budget, OUS All pension plans, nationwide, are suffering. Because PERS is a defined benefit plan, when stock market goes down, employer must contribute more to maintain the benefit rate. This is not true for ORP, which is a defined contribution plan. Current ORS states that Board shall
ORP coalition still in discussion stages, but has some principles for legislative amendments:
Goals for ORP rates:
Agencies work with council to finish bill drafting; one revision allowed. December: last date for Gov. to "pre session file" bills for 2005 session.
Employees are encouraged to take advantage of voluntary retirement plans through their institutions.
Refer to ORP web site for historical and up-to-date information.
IFS: Mina Carson; Jim Earl; Peter Gilkey; Marye Hefty; Laura Jones; Kelvin Koong; Marny Rivera; Maureen Sevigney; Steve Teich; Jim Tooke; Bob Turner; Sarah Witte.
President Zinser, SOU; President Frohnmeyer, UO; President Dow, OIT; President Bernstein, PSU; Provost Mosely, UO; Phil Cohn, WOU; George Pernsteiner; Nancy Heidelman, OUS; Denise Yunker, OUS; John Yunker, Bill McGee, DAS. Many others.
Competing issues:
Most students benefit from elimination of plateau.
At some schools, number of student credit hours increases with elimination of plateau. At PSU, impact has been negligible.
OIT (President Marsha Ann Dow): Different institutions have differing needs re: plateau. For F 04: Rate increase of 3% Elimination of plateau Rationale: Time to graduation Dual enrollment and degree completion programs with CCÕs Tuition equity Subsidies by PT students eliminated Overall tuition rate increase is lower Actual cost of technical programs is higher than that of liberal arts programs Self-support courses that fall within plateau of 12-18 credits
UO (Provost Mosely) Charges a small amount for 14th-16th credit hours rather than eliminate plateau entirely. Want to encourage students to take additional credit hours to promote timely graduation Discounts for credits taken at less popular times of day.
Oregon Student Association:
Bob Turner, President-Elect, IFS: Accumulated experience of IFS members indicates that elimination of plateau would be academic mistake. Keep plateau, make it revenue neutral. Better option might be to increase cost per credit hour, or perhaps impose fine for course withdrawal.
Henry Lorenzen, Board: Does not plateau place undue cost on the part-time students?
Bridget Burns (Student/Board): Does plateau encourage students to drop classes rather than push through? Perhaps fining such students is a way to keep plateau.
Counter: Such a monetary disincentive could discourage students from taking a course at all.
Bridget Burns: But elimination of plateau is a much bigger disincentive. Has a PT student ever actually complained about the plateau? (Board response: "Tuition must be equitable.")
UO, President Frohnmeyer: problem is actually decimation of financial aid, not tuition.
OSA: We can't, today, address the financial aid issue; we can only address the plateau issue.
Henry Lorenzen: PT student taking less than 12 hours will end up paying 25% more to graduate than a FT student.
Discussion tabled.
Chancellors Office:
PSU to issue bonds for new construction of NWA Center for Science and Technology prior to time money is in the bank approved, with note that such approval is not customary and was based on faith in the identified donors.
Fund balance (monies not necessary for operations during a given period) policy : to be continued.
Discussion of reorganization of chancellors office: Restructuring of academic affairs has already generated 1mil savings. On Wed afternoon made further recommendations to board to vote on. A bit of background. Approved academic affairs. See reductions of 400K in Finance and administration area. Feasibility of those reductions. In area of Information Technology. All reductions are recurring reductions. This is an annual reduction. In IT is important unit have been looking at very carefully so does not have negative impact on regionals. Over a longer period of time. But need to see if can obtain near term savings. Given coincidence of fund balances in chancellors office. Prudent to go forth with taking a recurring cut in IT of 15% or about 500K. In meantime use fund balance to keep operations going as they are. Put a target on IT to reduce by 15% by a year from now. Uncertainty of number. May need to extend time and save fund balance money in chancellors office in case takes a bit longer. Consulted with OSU-IT. Proposal is to fold the current chancellors office IT into IT function of OSU. Do this carefully so do not screw up. Recurring costs reduced by 500K and in turn use fund balance time to bridge. Target fund balance to assist regional campuses to get appropriate training and software. Also looking at might more effectively couple with community colleges so create seamless transition and information exchange. Targeting part of fund balance to do. All these are estimates. Other 1mil comes from realigning OCATE ? capitol center in Beaverton. PSU take it over and grow and expand their market in that regional area. Work with PSU to get a seamless transition of those important courses and get us out of the business of running that. Recurring annual savings of 3,000,000. Money set aside for external consultation on reorganization.
Discussion of the Fee Book
Re: tuition and fee breaks: Nancy Heidelman, OUS: RQ approval of 2004-5 fee book: * proposed increases at or below rates approved in 4/03. * all campuses planning to make further changes to plateaus (except EOU, which eliminated plateau last year) * tuition revenue is projected to fall below legislative limit. * no increases in resource fees are recommended due to legislative limit.
Fees increasing on all campuses; part of that is increase in health (insurance) fees.
OUS created 4 plans, resulting in varying amounts of revenue generated. Plans addressed both tuition and plateaus.
Concern (Tim Nesbitt, Board) about impact of removing plateau: "sticker shock" for FT students, disincentive to take enough hours per term to complete degree within 4 years.
Governor: Tuition increase is unavoidable. How can we minimize impact?
Howard Sohn (Board): Real issue is cost of education. Plateau originated when it was de rigueur for HS students to proceed to college. Students are a more varied lot these days. The plateau actually offers a discount to the very students who have the money to take a full load, placing burden on those who don't. How can we help students in need finance their education?
Henry Lorenzen: Right. There is no such thing as free classes. Incentive might better be given in the form or rebate for students who graduate in a timely manner.
Kirby Dyess (Board): Plateau encourages students to move faster through the system, and encourages students to explore areas they might not otherwise be able to afford.
Bridget Burns (Board): implement policies that help students: listen to OSA.
President Frohnmeyer, UO: Institutions are differentially affected by the various plans, and must be able to decide what is best for themselves. For instance, one of the plans being considered would cause cost at UO to fall disproportionately on low income students.
Don Blair (Board): Yes, institutions must decide for themselves, but Board must provide guidelines. Equity is important. Whatever changes are initiated, we must move slowly enough for people to adjust. There are many incentives to graduate early beyond tuition plateaus.
President Martha Dow, OIT: Students there would rather have tuition rate kept down and elimination of plateau (rather than reverse). Fifty-nine % of students there are PT.
President of (OSU): Use tuition increases to offset costs, rather than plateau.
President Zinser, SOU: Yes, institutions are different. Seventy-nine % SOU students are FT. Also, special programs (e.g., accelerated baccalaureate) require extra funding.
President Phil Cohn, WSU: While there is indeed a relationship between fund balance and tuition / fees, it is important not to confuse one-time balance with ongoing funding.
Tim Nesbitt: Predictability of income is as important as actual amount.
Geri Richmond, (Chancellor's office): Perhaps Chancellor's office could help relieve over-increase in cost for students (fee remissions?).
Don Blair: Request to Presidents: Would universities find out where the difficulties for students would lie with the various plans, and how to cushion student costs, let Board know?
Governor Kulongowski: Board please examine costs and recommend how to reduce "sticker shock", and find a way to reduce burden on students most affected.
Relationship of Chancellor to Board, and to university presidents, is critical. It is crucial to develop a solid fundamental relationship between these parties in order to resolve these issues and move HE forward in Oregon.
We will continue to examine the cost of education to students and of institutional operations.
George Pernsteiner, Chancellor-elect : Pitting FT and PT students against each other, in times when access is at an all-time low, is an unfortunate approach to the discussion of how to increase operating budgets. Individual presidents must have prerogative of assessing the needs of their own students and campus.
Governor: Yes, this is a difficult process; ultimately we must have a plan that the legislature will accept. How much flexibility is appropriate to allow individual campuses?
Academic fee book for 04-05 adopted, with amendments involving:
John Yunker, Chief Operations Officer: We've had "fighting funds" in the past, in amounts greater than are being discussed here. These funds are to be kept in the Chancellor's office and originate within General Fund. Leftover monies would be returned to individual institutions. Only these start-up funds do not originate with individual institutions.
Howard Sohn: concerns re: may be unfair to single out certain faculty for extra money when all are burdened by the state's financial situation. May also be unfair to faculty who are not seeking other employment but who, if they were, would be eligible for consideration for "fighting fund" money.
Tim Nesbitt: consideration of this issue is premature until the fee / plateau issue is resolved.
Kirby Dyess: While these concerns are valid, the reality is that we must be able to compete in the marketplace for our especially talented faculty.
Bridget Burns: Some students (e.g., GA's) are supported by monies brought in by a particular researcher.
President of OSU: Faculty are essential to universities, so it's essential to retain the best and brightest.
President Frohnmeyer, UO: There is a feeding frenzy from outside the state for Oregon's best faculty. What would the effect have been on southern Oregon if Angus Bowmer had been able to be woo'd away in early 1900Õs?
Governor: It's understandable that an academic community would dislike the concept of the :"fighting fund". However, if we can't keep star faculty, we will be unable to maintain institutional excellence.
"Fighting fund" approved.
Discussion of the ACCES Proposal.
Tim Nesbitt, addressing Oregon's "F" in access and affordability to HE. Major reason: lack of adequate state funding. Oregon provides far less aid to students than do neighboring states or the nation as a whole . Fewer Oregonians than the national average complete an associate or baccalaureate degree. Also, not enough grant money to subsidize students.
How to reduce financial barriers? Two-pronged approach: Amend Oregon Opportunity Grant to allow for a slope, rather than a perpendicular line, to differentiate those who do and don't qualify. Amend OO Grant to reflect average cost of attending the state institutions, then adjust when necessary. Amend to provide more assistance than at present for CC students.
This is phase I. Phase II will involve finding a way to fund these amendments.
Governor: K-12 has a funding advantage over HE: It has constitutional footing. We need to provide a constitutional footing for HE as well. This will be a LT investment. Perhaps direct a percentage of the capital gains tax to HE. Common School Fund provides money for K-12. There could be a similar fund established that would provide interest income for HE. Oregon could purchase more forest land, then use interest to fund HE. All these initiatives are necessarily LT. Every Oregon student that has the ability must have the opportunity to attend HE. Helping students repay their loans upon graduation is also important. (For instance, joining Peace Corps can ameliorate some debt.)
Tim Nesbitt: We'd be chasing our tail if providing more money to students turned out to be a precedent to raising educational costs.
Don Blair: What about loan forgiveness rather than loan subsidy?
Comparison of need based aid to merit aid: What about tying the aid to actual program completion?
Current condition of receipt of OO Grant is "satisfactory progress", usually noted in terms of GPA.
Board agreed that amendment of the OO Grant is necessary but that details of qualification and delivery are yet to be determined.
Ben Sappington, OSA: Keep focus on affordable tuition and student aid.
Discussion of the ORP
Denise Yunker (OUS) on ORP: Asking for Board direction: Maintain status quo, or prepare language for decoupling? Peter Gilkey, President, IFS: Meetings have been conducted on all 7 state campuses; consensus is opposed to decoupling. Denise Yunker: the current enormous rate volatility precludes adequate planning for retirement. Several board members, and Governor: Can we not find a plan that addresses the concerns of parties that are currently diametrically opposed? McGee, Dept. of Administrative Services: If even minor movement is made today, there can be given opportunity to work on it further before final submission to DAS. Agreed.
Brief remarks: Peter Gilkey, IFS President: Thanks offered to Board and to OUS for involvement with IFS. Appreciation expressed to OUS for working with IFS and other faculty groups on ORP.
New Provost named at Western: Provost Specter.
Discussion of the ORP: Mina Carson, Chair, ad hoc ORP committee : AOF and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are not in agreement on which course to take re: ORP.
Recommendation :
Windows: Faculty who made the irrevocable decision to go with ORP are now in the position of being part of a new ball game. Bob Turner: there should be a window of time after PERS litigation is settled during which employees could make a decision about which plan they prefer. Also, there should be an option to invest 50% in PERS and 50% in ORP. There is an objection from PERS to this final scenario.
Decoupling: It seems in best interests of Oregon faculty to decouple. This is an explosive issue, especially between AOF and AFT. The most influential position of IFS may be to remain neutral. In addition, language re: decoupling must concretize the terms. The administrations of the state campuses also have not been able to reach consensus. Approved: The IFS authorized the ORP committee of the IFS to act on behalf of the IFS this summer in dealing with ORP. The committee should work to help find draft wording that most protects Oregon faculty and minimizes conflict. It was felt that it is necessary to have detailed and concrete language concerning the rate setting mechanism in any proposal.
GE Transfer Common Core Certificate: Maureen Sevigny. The certificate must be faculty-driven. The skeleton plan drafted to date is meant to be a place-holder while more details are agreed-upon. Jim Tooke, Laura Jones, and Kelvin Koong will attend the June 11 MBF meeting at Chemeketa CC. Courses that are part of the certificate must be outcome-driven rather than title-driven. How best to plan for this? Faculty who specialize in the various subject areas agree on the courses that provide the necessary agreed-upon outcomes.
October meetings on TGEC on each OUS campus: The IFS is committed to organizing meetings on each of the campuses in October. Question: Why not use the current standing committees on each campus to deal with this issue? Why are special meetings on each of the campuses needed? Answer: There is need to involve a greater amount of faculty so that they may be educated on the issues. Also, the standing committees do not yet even know about the MBF effort to a common core. The more faculty understand this situation, the more productive the discussions will be. It was recommended that on each campus that the standing committees dealing with curriculum should be invited to these meetings. The IFS sponsered "faculty driven" meetings were approved. UO is already scheduled for 6 October 2004. IFS members expressed commitment to arranging meetings on their campuses regarding this issue.
Discussion of AAOT and TGEC: Question: Why not use the AAOT as a guide? Answer Because it's CC-based, and is not working especially well for the students. For example, the AAOT loads science students with courses they can't choose. Also, it requires students to take courses outside the common core. On the other hand, we want to identify a core that relates directly to Gen Ed. If the Board can be shown that campus meetings are planned for October to address this issue, it could prevent unwanted action from being taken during the summer. General consensus on concepts discussed.
Kelvin: Ask Board to give us guidelines and timeline, and we will deliver a product. The current Board is demonstrating strong interest in education and in faculty viewpoints. Maureen will re-present the document she has created at the MBF meeting on June 11, and include a chart representing AAOT.
Budgetary matters: Board has charged IFS to thoroughly understand the fiscal implications of IFS sponsored suggestions re: PERS / ORP and tuition plateau. Seems to be a genuine invitation for increased engagement. How to address this? Perhaps schedule an expert (e.g., Don Blair, CEO of Nike and Board member) to give IFS a mini tutorial? It was decided not to have an IFS budget committee.
October Meeting: Board will meet in October at Western, one week after IFS is scheduled to meet at OSU. So: the IFS will meet at Western during the Board meeting on Thursday/Friday October 7/8, rather than at OSU one week earlier. Chancellor-elect Perlsteiner will be invited to address IFS at October meeting.
Summer Board Meeetings: Agreed that it would be productive to follow up on suggestion made by Kirby to Bob to send IFS representatives to future Board meetings to meet with the board for an informal lunch on Thursday; Peter will send a sign-up sheet around electronically.
Respectfully submitted
Laura Jones (Secretary)
| Web page spun on 7 June 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |