PROVOSTS’ COUNCIL MEETING NOTES

PCC CASCADE CAMPUS

THURSDAY, 5 AUGUST 2004

Submitted

by

Craig Wollner

Forwarded to the Board’s Consent Agenda

OHSU presented and received approval for a post-baccalaureate certificate program in nursing under the title of the “Excellence in Global Nursing Initiative.” This 30-credit program includes intensive English and administrative skills to prepare nurses, especially from Pacific rim countries, to enter graduate studies in nursing. The program will admit 30 students in the first cohort, but has had 200 applicants. As a result, it may admit a second cohort in January 2005 to satisfy demand. The program is designed to make a modest profit, but indications are that it could become a major moneymaker.

OSU presented two programs, Hispanic Studies and Water Resources. The Hispanic Studies program had passed its external review and was unanimously endorsed. Water Resources was described by Provost Randhwa as an interdisciplinary program that will be the largest on campus, with six or seven units involved. Response to the external review focused on the concern about “library issues,” which Provost Randhwa said had been dealt with by a large increase in the budget.

EOU presented its proposal for an MBA program, which the council had been studying for some time. There was skepticism over the viability of the program. It was asserted that the program was at the lower end of the range for credits (it offers 40, with a high for the type of degree of 60), that its business model was suspect, that it might more appropriately be called an MMB program, rather than an MBA, and that there was an unreasonably high student-faculty ratio (in the 30s). Provost Miller addressed these concerns by noting that the student faculty ratio had bee adjusted (to the 20s), that concerns about the business model were unfounded because of the high level of support from citizens of the region and that the program is designed to meet the needs of the region, and that the program will be cautiously advanced in that a second cohort will not be admitted until the success of the program is assessed.

An intense discussion ensued about the role of the Provosts’ Council (was it to micromanage programs of the members or simply to help institutions prepare proposals for submittal to the Board?) Too close scrutiny was intrusive, some believed. Others suggested that the Council should prevent weak proposals should from going to the Board. There was consensus that too much commentary from the Council on program submittals would signal the Board that they should be more critical of the proposals that came to them. Some said that programs should either be forwarded or held back without comment.

Finally, agreement was reached that the EOU MBA program would be submitted as a regional program only and a 3-year review of its progress.

Discussion of Vice Chancellor for Graduate, Academic, and Research Policy Job Description

There was a long discussion of the title to accompany the job description for this new position. The idea that this job should have the rank of vice chancellor was quickly dismissed because it seemed too high ranking, and was too broad and inclusive, especially since other OUS officials have policy responsibilities, including the chancellor him- or herself, should the position be filled in the future. Since the main responsibilities of the position would be to staff the Graduate Council and the Provosts’ Council, the title the group settled on was “Senior Graduate, Academic, and Research Policy Officer.”

Discussion of the Five Year Calendar

There was discussion of the fact that in AY 2009-10, Yom Kippur would be 28 September, the Monday of the first day of the school year. The provosts agreed to change the start date to the preceding Monday, 21 September.

Discussion of Policy Package Requests

There are seven policy packages to be presented to the Board by the Excellence in Delivery and Productivity Working Group of the Board and the Provosts’ Council. These include 1) Retention and Graduation Rates; 2) Data Systems; 3a) Dual Enrollment Framework; 3b) General Education Transferable Common Core (Foundation); 4) Transferable Common Core for Majors; 5) On-line Courses; 6) High School Classes—Rigor College Credit; and, 7) Course Availability. The packages were laid out with slots for a commentary of description, expected outcomes, performance indicators, and budget outline. Few of the packages had been filled out beyond the level of description, because Provost Moseley of UO had done most of the preparatory work and had not been able to complete the assignment prior to the meeting. Other members of the group agreed to flesh out the incomplete packages for presentation at the next meeting and for final presentation to the Board.

Provost Moseley pointed out that all of the packages are important and that some are already funded. He also said that some should receive low priority because of lack of funding. This view was unanimously supported by those present. His strongly worded preamble to the packages document [sent to Dan Edge under separate cover] provide a rationale for this assertion.

The provosts agreed that Package 3b, General Education Transferable Common Core, would require strong IFS input. Maureen Sevigny’s name was mentioned as someone who had already contributed to this package.

A long discussion of an On-line general education certificate discussion raised issues about participation of community colleges and other matters. Also on this subject, the provosts believe that the online package is problematic because they think faculty oppose distance learning. They seemed not to want to pursue distance learning very far.

The provosts do not believe that the high school college credit initiative should be in the higher education budget.

The only one of the initiatives “ready to go to the Board” currently is #1, Retention and Graduation Rates.

It was noted that Dave MacDonald had refused to work with the provosts on the policy packages although he had specifically been directed to do so. It was also said that the Board’s policy package, which he was in charge of, had been done without consultation by him or the Board. They were clearly distressed about the contents of this document, although there was little specific discussion of it. They resolved to ask Gretchen Scheutte to again direct Dave MacDonald to communicate with them, particularly to resolve the differences between the two policy packages.

Discussion of ORP by Denise Yunker

The provosts received an update from Denise Yunker, OUS Benefits Manager, on the Optional Retirement Plan. She told them that although PERS litigation is underway and faculty groups are opposed to it, the Governor wants the ORP proposal to go forward. The decoupling of the linked ORP and PERS employer contribution rate, she said, is the most significant development on this issue. In her opinion, Yunker observed, this was probably the “technical fix.” On the other hand, she was skeptical that it would be politically viable. As a result, she predicted that “something different” will occur. The rationale, in any case, for moving ahead, is “rate volatility.”

Yunker also noted that the ORP policy makers are looking at ORP in the context of total compensation and are afraid that too generous an employer ORP contribution will depress salary advances over the long term.

Discussion of Performance Measures by Susan Weeks

Susan Weeks, OUS staff, concluded the meeting with a discussion of several charts she distributed to the provosts relating to performance measures. She said that the area of performance measures was extremely complex, inasmuch as there are various layers of measures involved for the system. The state’s Department of Administrative Services (DAS) imposes measures, the system has measures, and each institution has its own set of measures. To further complicate the situation, the legislative overseers, Senator Kurt Schrader and Representative Susan Morgan don’t like the OUS targets, but believe that OUS is ahead of other state agencies. In any case, she asked the provosts to help her refine the OUS indicators, especially #1, on affordability. Under the old “Key Performance Measure Data Summary,” #1, which Weeks described as merely a placeholder, read as follows:

1a) Percent of undergraduates receiving Pell grant awards; and

1b) Percent of average tuition and fees and total cost of attendance covered by grants for students who qualify for need based aid (OOG, Pell, and institutional).

The provosts chose two of three options she had previously drafted as options to replace these indicators. The replacements (the new 1a and 1b), read

1a) Average cost of attendance for a resident undergraduate (tuition and fees, room and board, other miscellaneous expenses) as percent of Oregon median family income; and

2) Percent of need met by financial aid (resident undergraduates) for students completing a FAFSA form

a. Pell Grant recipients

b. Other financial aid or scholarship recipients

Because the noon hour arrived before more could be done on this matter, the provosts adjourned.