OUS State Board 09 09 05

IFS President’s Report

Long-Range Planning Work Session: September 8, 2005

To initiate preparation for its mid-November retreat, the OUS Board held a public work session on the afternoon of Thursday, September 8, with the following agenda:

Agenda

1. How will the Board achieve success in its long-range planning?

2. What are the principles the Board will use as guidance?

3. Who will OUS serve in the future?

4. How will OSBHE planning connect to Joint Boards planning?

5. What are the next steps in the Board’s long-range planning discussions?

A. Funding scenarios

B. Outcomes (as part of annual Board report on performance measures)

C. Strategis policy variables and issues

6. Settnng the date for the November retreat

The following is a report of comments by specific board members during the work session.

Discussion of Agenda item #2:

Director Von Schlegall: In his opening comments, Director Von Schlegal stated that two problems with OUS are that there are duplications, some of which are counterproductive and that quality is being assessed by measures that don't measure quality.

Director Lorenzen had asked for a funding analysis based on the amount Oregon spends: the state is 47th on spending per student and 40^th in total higher ed spending as% total state income, about 25th in both personal income and the % of students in higher ed

Director Lorenzen emphasized his conclusion that Oregon underinvests w respect to peer comparators, so the quality of its product will suffer

Director Sohn stated that these numbers will have minimal impact on the state, since it is his opinion that numbers are only heeded when they support one’s pre-existing position, which leads him to conclude that the important question is “what do we do to plan our system given the money that is available?”. The Board needs to look 5 - 10 years into the future of the system with the money that Oregon wants to spend. For him, the question is one of intention - who do we intend to educate? We won’t be able to replace faculty w current salary structure

Diirector Nesbitt stated that a 2006 spending limit will cut OUS off at the knees, but that the board has to look both at how OUS spend the funds - if we assume that the willingness of Oregonians to fund higher ed is at the current level, then what are we going to fund?

Director Richmond asked what OUS structure can we fund? "Do we have too many campuses?"

Director Van Vliet proposed that the Board model its funding decisions on a process like that used to fund the Oregon Health Plan, and suggested the following funding priorities, from highest to lowest: Faculty retention, class size, offerings, access

OUS President Ray pointed out that political realities are important andasked “where are the political powers on the structure of higher ed?” He encouraged the Board to refuse to "be the engine of success for those with low aspirations"

SOU President Zinser suggested that the Board break down Oregon into areas and look at the support for higher ed within each area

Neil Bryant encouraged the board to consider the concept of branch campuses, and merging campuses with PSU and OSU

It was pointed out that even a 5% funding increase from legislature doesn't keep up with increased PERS & PEBB costs

Director Dyess argued against the "duplication" comments, stating that her scrutiny of the individual campuses taught her that the apparent duplication is actually to service to distinct and to distant populations. She originally shared the view that there are unnecessary duplications, but has become convinced that any duplications are lean & mean

Director Van Vliet offered comments in support of those made by Director Dyess

Discussion of Agenda Item #3:

Susan Weeks had provided the Board with some modeling of the demands on OUS in the future. She directed the Board’s attention to two tables in the handout. The first showed that, if OUS maintains OUS enrollment at that required to have 26% of Oregon’s over 25 population with at least a bachelor’s degree (which is the current situation), an additional 46,00 students will be in OUS institutions in 2025, and an additional 6,000 degrees will be awarded annually. To meet the goal of 40% of Oregonians with at least bachelor’s degrees in 2025, an additional 18,000 degrees must be awarded, which is more than the number of students in all 4 of the regionals - now to guiding principles NB #2

Directors Von Schlegall and Richmond commented on the need for sustainability

Director Von Schlegall stated that this board wants to define quality

Director Dyess and Chancellor Pernsteiner told the Board that IFS is drafting an academic quality document, and IFS President Turner informed the Board of the status of that document

Director Von Schlegall asked if the Board is willing to have students pay 70 - 80% of their education. He also pointed out that generating branch campuses does not save money

Chancellor Pernsteiner told the Board that in October, the Board will look at three different funding scenarios, and expressed the opinion that fewer students will be in the system

Director Richmond stated her opinion that in considering ideas for the structure of OUS, the Board should consider that the future student population will be more diverse student population and won’t value the college experience – in her view, perhaps Podcasts need to rep!ace lectures

Chancellor Pernsteiner doesn't see how, with current funding levels, OUS can serve the 160,000 predicted to be in higher ed in 20 years, so maybe only 100,000 will have access to higher education, leading to a major decrease in the % of Oregonians with bachelor’s degrees.

Discussion of Agenda Item #4:

Susan Weeks referred the Board to a Venn diagram of the relationship between OSBHE and OUS with an overlap of functions and concerns that helps define the role of the Joint Boards

Due to the length of this work session, the Board deferred further discussion to October and to its retreat in November

Director Dyess and Chancellor Pernsteiner emphasized that it is extremely important to have a definition of real academic quality and how to measure it, and that it is critical to have and consider the document that IFS is producing

Directors Von Schlegall, Burns and Dyess are all in favor of raising expectations for additional funding through advertising & PR

OIT President Boyd emphasized the importance of using case studies & testimonials

Director Nesbitt stated that in the focus groups that his affordability working group conducted most heads start nodding in agreement when it is pointed out that the state is "not matching the effort of students to fund their education", and that this should be a major emphasis of efforts that he would support to produce additional funding.

The 8 AM coffee conversation, which ended after 9:15, was attended by was attended by Bob Turner, Maureen Sevigny, OUS board members Kirby Dyess, Howard Sohn and Adrianne Mendoza, Susan Weeks from the Chancellor’s office, and, for about the last 20 minutes, WOU Provost Jem Spectar. The discussion covered a handout from Director Dyess on the impact of Senate Bill 853, the University Venture Fund Bill, the OUS Board’s sexual harassment/consensual relationships policy, and IFS’s academic policy document. SB853 furnishes funds to “fill in the Valley of Death” – the gap between the ideas generated by OUS faculty and the prototype or proof of concept that will be supported by venture capital. This discussion also covered (not too shockingly since the only IFS senators present were from regional institutions) some of the problems in conducting research at the regionals, including the concept of a single grants officer dedicated to serving all of the regionals. The board subcommittee that examined the sexual harassment/consensual relationship policies of the OUS institutions found those policies to be in good shape except in the areas of information dissemination and assessment of the effectiveness of training about the policies. There is a great deal of interest in IFS’s academic quality document, at the OUS Board’s long range planning meeting, this coffee conversation and at the OUR Board meeting.

At the OUS Board meeting:

Jay Kenton presented the OUS 2005-7 Biennial Budget approved by the Oregon Legislature. (this budget is on pp 43 – 50 of the Board Docket for September 9, 2005 located at http://www.ous.edu/board/dockets/ddoc050909.pdf). Items of interest to IFS are that the legislature chose to emphasize EBL rather than enrollment growth, that the budget contains $1 million for faculty recruitment and retention, an estimated $29 million for salary awaiting E Board approval, and $2.1 million for the “K-16 Data Project” also to be approved by the E Board, pending development, in cooperation with the Department of Education and Community Colleges, of performance measures for the Data Project.

The Board appointed George Pernsteiner the permanent Chancellor of the OUS System.

The board received the recommendations of its subcommittee on Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relations, and a temporary administrative rule. The portion of the OSU Board docket (pp 51-3 of the September 9, 2005 docket) containing this policy will be posted on the IFS web site. These policies must be fully implemented on each campus by September 2006. Directors Lorenzen and Dyess both emphasized that each campus MUST REPORT on the effectiveness of their training and of their policy by the September 2006 OUS Board meeting. With respect to the Sexual Harassment policy, this policy includes situations in which the relationship involves one not an employee of the institution, so even contractors are to be included in this policy. The Consensual Relationships policy is not a policy of punishment, it is a policy that deals with the conflict of interest in such relationships by discouraging the relationships and establishing a culture of reporting them. Though the policy cannot require a student (or anyone else) to report such relationships, it can construct a system that is receptive to such receiving such a report. Additional points made during the discussion were that these relationships cannot be prohibited but there can be a prohibition on the conflict of interest, that minors cannot give consent so they cannot participate in consensual relationships, and that the conflict of interest covers student to student relationships as well.

The Board requests that these policies be presented to each campus’ Faculty Senate for their consideration and endorsement.

4. Jay Kenton presented the OUS 2004-5 Operating Budget

- 1st budget increase for OUS in 6 years though some campuses may have to take cuts

- $327m General Fund distributed using RAM

- $300m of $400m in capitol budget comes from sources other than state funds

- Much discussion of salary & benefit levels & costs w/i OUS & nationally

5. Chancellor Pernsteiner commented on problems with access that are predicted from increased student population and constant (or declining) state support for OUS, noted efforts by the preK-20 Joint Boards Working Group, IFS participation in preK-20 and academic quality, and IFS agreement at Provosts’ Council to take part in examination of textbook costs

6. Neil Byant – pointed out that the legislature will seek preapproval of construction projects even when private funds have been raised to initiate the project

7. Presidents of each campus offered very bref comments

8. IFS President Turner informed the Board of the timeline for IFS’s academic quality document, stressed the continuing interest of IFS in actively participating in the Joint Board’s preK-20 working group, stated that he had heard the Board’s request that the sexual harassment/consensual policy be presented to the Faculty Senates, commented that faculty compensation is strongly impacted by the individual faculty member’s PERS status and closed by stating that it is not necessary to discuss salary and benefit levels beyond monitoring OUS’s inability to effectively recruit and retain faculty.

9.OAS Board Member – Catalina Clarke - concerns with academic quality & value of degrees and access, expressed concern with increasing use of resource fees, since they are not used in the calculation of Opportunity Grants, and stated that long range planning must include students

10. Bill Linden, AOF, spoke to the board to advocate for steps on all campuses and asked the OUS board to take on instituting steps

11. Directors’ comments on working groups in which they participate:

Tim Nesbittt – innovative measures will occur to encourage families to save for college

Don Blair - external audits - good news is that institutions willing to call in external audits, ending fund balances at 13%, investment portfolio return was 10.3% w benchmark of 8%, TRowe Price only mgr to underperform & will be replaced,

Tony Van Vliet – reported on the DOE retreat –

Howard – encouraged by added requirements for high school graduation, since this better preparation should lead to greater efficiency in student progress through OUS institutions