IFS Notes

Board of Higher Education

At Oregon Institute of Technology

To IFS members: These notes are edited with a slant to what we have focused on in the past. For full minutes, go to the web at http://ous.edu/board.htm

Phone for that website: 541-346-5795. For me, regarding errors, omissions, or complaints about my editing, call 541-552-6225.

Present: Kirby Dyess, OUS, Henry Lorenzen, OUS, Don Blair, OUS, Bridget Burnes, OUS, Gretchen Schuette, OUS, Adriana Mendoza, OUS, Howard Sohn, OUS, John von Schlegell, OUS, George Pernsteiner, Acting Chancellor, OUS, Maureen Sevigny, IFS / OIT, James Earl, IFS / UO, Marye Hefty, IFS / OIT, Laura Jones, IFS / SOU, Marny Rivera, IFS / SOU.

There were others, who came in later and had not signed the guest list by the time I was noting who was present.

(About 1/3 of attendees left just before 1:00 p.m., leaving 4 OUS members actually outnumbered by the 6 IFS members!)

Budget Committee Meeting, 9/9/04

Managerial reporting—Year-end:

Quality and excellence are important, so attn. is being paid to faculty salaries.

Focus is on affordability, access, excellence, economic development.

Another focus: deferred maintenance.

Trying to integrate higher education budget with other education sectors.

It was noted that the base budget MUST be funded; no further reductions are tolerable.

Comment from Jim Earl than money can fuel growth, but is not necessary for change, and that the necessary creative thinking occur on all levels. Faculty very important in this effort. Many problems with students (e.g., students are not able to read well) are invisible at the administrative level.

Also: Faculty appreciate being part of these discussions. Invited Board presence at the October IFS meeting, as a way to support faculty efforts.

Idea from Marye to increase funding and goodwill at OIT: Rather than develop distance learning (2-dimensional), develop continuing education, especially for certification and re-certification of dentists, etc. Work with area resources, e.g., hotels, businesses, to create a system that will bring money to the university, the city, and the Foundation.

Board: How can Board help flesh out ideas like this?

Also: Faculty must mobilize other faculty to work creative efforts.

Kirby: At IFS October meeting, please consider what the Board is missing, and let us know. Let’s see what barriers we can remove to our creative efforts; removing barriers is often more effective and less costly than putting brand-new ideas into place.

Bridget: Board appreciates hearing from faculty as well as administration; the messages are sometimes different.

Maureen: Faculty / Board interaction is crucial. E.g., on a question such as “What effect would higher salaries have on quality of teaching?”, faculty can address this point by point, with examples.

George P: Paying faculty more is not an idea that is playing well in Salem (legislature).

Henry Lorenzen noted that if Oregon faculty are not paid equitably with other states, the long-term implications are dismal.

Jim: If we ask the wrong question, the answer is irrelevant. The correct question is not: “If we pay faculty more, will they teach better?”, but “If we pay faculty more, will we attract higher quality faculty?”

The October-November discussions will be about how to prioritize needs.

How IFS and Board can work together during the next legislative session:

Identify students who can be eloquent about the value of their education; they are commanding speakers because they come from a relatively pure agenda.

Important that the reports to Salem reflect a unified vision of Board and IFS.

Update on Common Core:

Gen Ed Core: basic plan has been created that will be shared with the CC’s in September and October. Meeting with provosts may be in order.

Update on Committees:

Gretchen’s committee is working on retention.

Sept. 15 Acceleration Summit: how to make college credit more available to high school students.

Policy package with regard to retention: what are best strategies to support success? E.g., focus on reading skills? Funding has been directed to 10 new advisors at the universities.

Jim, on retention: we can examine the retention problem and address it via attitude of faculty and students, rather than spending money on it.

Kirby, on retention: it’s not always an issue of affordability; its often one of attitude re: value of higher education, which begins with the students’ parents.

Gretchen: We must also work with faculty at K-12.

Kirby: re: previous discussion on reading, and values: needs to be addressed in high school, middle school, and elementary school.

Kirby volunteered to attend at least one upcoming IFS meeting. Laura will send her a list of dates, times, and places.

Budget meeting (9/10/04):

Health Insurance (PEBB) Contributions

Denise Yunker: Plan year is Jan-Dec. This year, projected increase in rates (14.5%) is greater than what’s been bargained (9.2% expected). Two faculty labor agreements (PSU and SOU) provide that universities will pay costs above projected rate; all other contracts request supplementary contributions from PEBB or for employees to pay. Governor has recommended that OUS pick up the difference (one-time basis), even though union contracts currently state that employees will pick up difference. This is being done in recognition of the salary and step freeze over the past two years and reflects consistency with DAS treatment of other state employees.

Re: part-time employees: there are hundreds of thousands in OUS. For them, it is recommended that the out-of-pocket expense be held to the amount from last year, rather than increased. This is how other State employees are treated.

Don: Where will the money come from?

From PEBB reserves of $15M. Also, Emergency Board will be asked for money.

Net not covered: $4.2M, which will have to come from campus balances.

Motion to agree with governor’s request to pay the difference was carried.

Recommended: Board adopt contribution rates for FT insurance-eligible represented and unrepresented classified and unclassified staff, sufficient to provide fully paid PEBB medical, dental, and basic life insurance in the 2005 plan year. Also: replace OUS premium “buy down” subsidy amounts with PEBB statewide buy down subsidy amounts for PT SEIU and GCIU represented employees in 2005 plan year.

Board Meeting, 9/10/04

Present for IFS: Marye, Maureen, Laura.

Re: Tuition increase mitigation plan

Board requested mitigation plan to lessen impact of tuition increases on resident undergrads for 04-5. Fall 04 charges for resident undergrads , whether FT or PT, are not to exceed 15% increase over spring 04.

Rebate of tuition could be seen as fee remission; no rebates will be given.

Money proposed to come from Chancellor’s office, and fund balance.

$3M saved from re-org. of chancellor’s office; $1M used to cover results of Measure 30.

Staff recommends that nearly $2M from Chancellor’s office reorganization. And $405,000 from Chancellor’s office fund balance be used to cover costs of tuition mitigation plan. Board approved.

Comments from Jacob Wood, student at OIT, on effects of raising tuition: Understand rationale for increases, but plea to Board to look closely at effects of increases on students.

Board requests advice from OSA on appropriate tuition.

Note from Board that it might be prudent to re-examine reciprocal agreements with regional schools, some of which might not work to OUS’s advantage.

It was noted that affordability has to do with financial aid as well as with tuition. Oregon lags behind in that area.

Promise from Board to students that the issue of tuition and financial aid are under continuing scrutiny.

Report from MBF

Working on policy package that will promote excellence in delivery. Two-three other members are to be added to the group.

Board expressed appreciation for faculty involvement as a welcome addition to legislative involvement.

2004-5 operating budget:

Board noted that, even as the they are becoming more skilled at breaking down stats for the legislature, they are not, as they should be, reminding legislature strongly of what is needed from the State to fund quality education.

Board recognized the incongruity of State caps on funding while insisting that more students be educated: not sustainable. Only way to do it is to take from the infrastructure (e.g., teacher salaries).

For discussion on the campuses:

1. Re-evaluate cell values per discipline.

2. How to address enrollment growth for next biennium?

3. Review targeted program allocations.

4. What’s impact of tuition increases over last 3 years on the RAM model?

Board requests greater understanding of the RAM: Currently it’s easier to see where money comes from than where it goes.

Statement from IFS (Maureen S.)

IFS is very happy with present working relationship with Board.

Pleased that we will discuss in October how faculty and board can work together.

Maureen is continuing to work with Karen Sprague, Joint Boards Articulation Committee, on Gen Ed. Core. Still in conceptual stage; details to come.

Noted that students are not getting their due faculty mentoring due to short-staffing. Some are leaving for other schools. Re: recruiting faculty: top choices withdraw when salary negotiations begin.

Maureen: We need to address the serious system-wide problems before we undertake the “nice-to-have” programs.

Comments from the Chancellor

Last 2 meetings have been devoted to the nuts and bolds of running a large state program. Now you’re addressing more educational concerns. Praise to members for keeping big picture (40-year plan) in mind.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura Jones, IFS Secretary