Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting

Oregon State University

February 4 and 5, 2005

 

 

Friday, February 4, 2005, OSU Memorial Union Joyce Goudy Powell Leadership Center

 

Present:  Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Larry Curtis (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Katie Lasater (OHSU), Robert Mercer (PSU), Marny Rivera (SOU), Maureen Sevegny (OIT), Steve Tanner (EOU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Nathan Tublitz (UO), and Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO)

 

Absent:  Paul Engelking (UO), Dick Fairley (OHSU), Peter Gilkey (UO), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU), and Jim Tooke (EOU)

 

I.  Welcome, Jeff Hale, OSU Faculty Senate President

 

  1. Described OSU as a vital academic, thriving, and growing community. 
  2. Outlined challenges OSU is facing.  We must increase our resources. We must avoid placing the burden of higher education costs on our students.  A significant infusion of resources is needed. 
  3. Discussed the clearly articulated institutional plan at OSU.
  4. Shared how the OSU faculty senate is an equal partner in decision making at OSU.  We have shared governance.  Our IFS senator is a voting member of the faculty senate. 
  5. Applauded IFS’s relationship with the OUS board.  Faculty members are in the best position to guide the education system.
  6. Mentioned the article in the Oregonian today about the Oregon Transfer Module.
  7. Reviewed the activities of the OSU faculty senate, including completing a survey/study on parity for women, beginning a review of the post tenure process, and reinstating the tuition plateau to serve the students, although this will cost the school $3.2 million. 
  8. Praised the school president’s communication skills and ability to act strategically.  There is a huge openness and dialogue that is new for the school.
  9. Mentioned that academic advising has been removed from the athletic department.

 

II.  Ilene Kleinsorge, Dean, College of Business

 

  1. Gave a PowerPoint presentation about the Austin Entrepreneurship Program, which is a program housed in the historic Weatherford Hall.
  2. Explained the goals of the Austin program:  1) build a dynamic learning community, 2) foster creativity and innovation, 3) establish a model for collaboration, and 4) help the Oregon economy.
  3. Reviewed how the learning community includes 290 students living in a multi-use facility that includes incubator spaces, executive suites, classrooms, library, café, conference rooms, and faculty offices.
  4. Shared the formal curriculum: an entrepreneurship minor, an entrepreneurship option in progress for 2005, and a spring seminar focused on entrepreneurship. 
  5. Explained how creativity is fostered through the informal curriculum that involves networking with entrepreneurs.  Business people and entrepreneurs are involved with student projects and seminars, and can spend the night in the dorm at the two executive suites.  We are working on economic development—to bundle services around commercialization.  We are working on a venture fund. 
  6. Listed the State Farm Follows, who are 25-30 CEOs, entrepreneurs, and technology VPs who interact with the students.
  7. Shared the student’s vision for the program:  “We love dreamers that do…”
  8. Introduced student profiles and the projects students have developed through this program, including Website e-business advertising, photography, and audio work.
  9. Explained that this program is the result of private donations.  We did not receive state funding.
  10. Mentioned the added value to the Oregon economy—investing in entrepreneurship education to stimulate economic growth.
  11. Stated that the University of Maryland and Virginia Tech were studied as models for this program.

 

III.  Provosts’ Council Report, Maureen Sevigny

 

  1. Reported that the provosts are asking for summaries of “A day in the life of a faculty member.”  These personal stories may make a difference with the legislature understanding how much we contribute.  Email this directly to Maureen Sevigny by the end of next week.
  2. Discussed this as an opportunity to reeducate new legislators.

 

IV.  James Sager, Education & Workforce Policy Advisor to Governor Kulongoski

 

  1. Stated that the governor appreciates the work that IFS has been doing and the work of faculty and staff at all the campuses.
  2. Stated that the extra million in the governor’s budget has a large target on it from the legislature because of the $1.2 billion deficit.  A number of legislators’ knowledge of educators is from their education.  We must educate legislators about what we do and why competitive salaries are important.
  3. Mentioned that the governor understands the challenges we face in the education system.  You are doing an astronomical job of meeting the needs of students with limited resources.
  4. Reminded us to put the face of the students in front of the legislature.  We need to show student impact.  If faculty members talk, it is seen as self-serving.
  5. Responded to questions about what IFS can do for the governor.  The positive relationship that the OUS board and IFS faculty have built is important.  We need a coordinated message.  The chancellor’s office is the point of contact to make sure we deliver a consistent message. 
  6. Discussed the need to continue educating Oregonians and the legislature.  Faculty members have credibility in the community.  People are not making the connection between how education and the state’s economic future are linked, and we must show this connection.
  7. Stated that the governor has created a budget for three to four bienniums, and we hope we have hit bottom and we are now digging our way out of this financial crises.  The PERS lawsuits are a wildcard in this budgeting process.  Another wildcard is $113 in kicker money that may need to give back to citizens. 

 

V.  Jock Mills, Oregon State University Director of Government Relations and Bill Lunch, Oregon State University, Professor of Political Science

 

  1. Bill Lunch provided context for the 05 legislature.  We have a billion dollar deficit.  This is a large problem, and it will not be solved because we have a democratic state senate and a republican house, and internally within the house the republicans are more conservatives.  Most of the moderates are gone.  We have a democratic governor.  This is a recipe for deadlock.  This legislature will go long into the summer.  The governor is supportive of higher education.  On the other hand, the down side is at the end of the session, they will be looking for mechanisms for asserting leverage against the governor.  So, the legislature is very likely to not pass the higher education budget to hold it hostage for what the legislature wants.  My prediction is that the higher education budget will pass as one of the last.
  2. Jock Mills provided his context.  Republicans have historically been very good to higher education.  “It is the best of times and it is the worst of times.”   The governor’s budget includes 110% increase (45 million kick up) in the Oregon Education Grant.  The budget is very kind in capital improvement.  It was the worst of times—6% cut for overall funding for university education.  No investment of new funds for enrollment growth.  The budget includes an 8% cut in OSU extension services, which cannot be backfilled by OSU tuition.   These programs are the economic development and R&D for rural development.  Having faculty in the legislative “building” is a two-edge sword.  “Why aren’t you teaching?”  The most compelling stories are told by students.  I have developed a shadow program where faculty members spend a day with a legislator based on the legislator’s interests, and this works; however, the most effective representatives in the building are the students.  The Oregon Student Association phone and email blitzes are not working. The legislators want to hear from the average student.  An individual student’s story is huge.

 

VI.  Dr. Ed Ray, President, Oregon State University

 

  1. Discussed how he listened to the university community in reinstating the tuition plateau.
  2. Reviewed the strategic planning process he is using to face the substantial financial challenges.  Colleges/departments are developing strategic plans that align with the institution.  Is there a match between what we say is valuable and where we put our money?
  3. Mentioned the early stages of OSU’s capital campaign.  We have never had one, and we are going to have one.  The strategic plans will help guide us in this process.
  4. Mentioned the diversity action plan the school is developing, including a climate survey related to the status of women at OSU.
  5. Reflected that he is not counting on the state doing anything for higher education.  This nation is in a 20 year slide in legislators walking away from their promises to higher education.  We are going to do everything we can to grow our own research base.  We are looking at developing an innovative campus to make money on intellectual property.  We just announced five or six initiatives that are consistent with our strategic plan.  You grow the resources and you redirect resources.  If our engineering department earns money, then they can share money with arts and sciences.  We are an enterprise in the entirety that is more than the sum of the parts. 
  6. Discussed how the school is trying to become more efficient, including Dual-enrollment with schools like Lynn Benton Community College.  We are determined to have collaboration with every community college.  Also, we have a new staff member looking at more effective and efficient ways to market and communicate.  In administrative costs, we are the lowest in the university system.  We are also teaming with other schools in providing programs.  We are figuring out how to leverage existing resources.
  7. Mentioned that IFS needs to make sure that the good work that has gone into the transfer module is implemented.  

 

VII.  George Pernsteiner, Chancellor, Oregon University System

 

  1. Thanked us for the support of and work behind the Oregon Transfer Module. If only150 students don’t have to take an unnecessary class, our investment of faculty time/resources has paid off.
  2. Explained that he has been challenged by the media in the last two days as to why dentists, doctors, and lawyers have ethics standards and faculty do not.  This is an important issue.
  3. Asked us to return to our schools and determine if each school has a code of ethics and if not how we should approach this issue.

 

  Saturday, February 5, 2005, OSU Memorial Union Joyce Goudy Powell Leadership Center

 

Present:  Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Paul Engelking (UO), Katie Lasater (OHSU), Robert Mercer (PSU), Marny Rivera (SOU), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Steve Tanner (EOU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Nathan Tublitz (UO), Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO)

 

Absent:  Larry Curtis (OSU), Dick Fairley (OHSU), Peter Gilkey (UO), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU), Jim Tooke (EOU)

 

I.  Provosts’ Council by Maureen Sevigny

 

  1. Reported on provosts’ summary of factors impacting faculty recruitment and retention.
  2. Reminded us to send her the “day in the life of a faculty member” by the end of this week.
  3. Discussed a handout showing how tenure positions, especially in the age group of 41-45, are down significantly in the OUS system.
  4. Stated that Kirby Dyess is supportive of the PSU initiative to have an engineering program in China.
  5. Discussed the joint board meeting in which a vote occurred on the transfer module.
  6. Discussed how to communicate effectively with legislature.  Bob Turner reminded us that we must remember that the legislature is being bombarded with information. 

 

II.  Presidents’ Council Report by Scott Burns

 

  1. Reported that on February 18 the Governor will present a plan to unite all of the Oregon boards of education from K-12 through the university system.
  2. Mentioned that a discussion is occurring to have one state budget for education.  A seamless approach.
  3. Stated that all of the universities will be giving scholarships to veterans returning from Iraq above the 10% normally allowed.
  4. Reported that a proposal was quickly presented through the legislature to omit the requirement for a foreign language for admission to college, and this was pulled because of faculty pressure, and it will not be an issue for another year.  Discussion followed in which Bob Turner reminded us to check the OUS board meeting notes daily before the board meetings to ensure we know what is going on before the meeting.

 

III.  Day in the Life of a Faculty Member Discussion, Bob Turner led

 

  1. Asked for volunteers to step forward to write these pieces from each school and to be willing to go to the legislature if asked.  This is not a daily diary but stories about our day related to students and the economics of doing our daily job. 
  2. Discussed as a group that we need to put faces on the stories.  We need to show how quality is being affected without being negative.
  3. Requested that we contact our faculty senates for their stories.  Send these stories to Maureen Sevigny.  Bob and Maureen will talk to OUS leadership (Susan Weeks and Neil Bryant) about next steps.  We will also determine if we can rapidly produce a CD with the same message.
  4. Discussed as a group the issues related to this effort.  We should have input from long-term and new faculty.  Several faculty members will be reporting the request to their faculty senates.  The information needs to be reviewed to show the big picture.  We need to do this right or it will hurt us.  “Economies of scale” is an important way to think about this problem.  At some point we hit diseconomies.  As they keep asking us to do more and more, we need a discussion about diseconomies.  Technology has dramatically changed the boundaries of our work.  Students are paying more and more, and we are being asked to do more and more.  How do we show this?

                                                                                           

IV.  DARS/CAS Online Course Audit System, Robert Mercer, Dean PSU

 

  1. Discussed using technology to streamline the transfer of students from community colleges to colleges.
  2. What does a linked degree audit system offers?  It is 1) a powerful advising tool, 2) a tool to facilitate seamless transfer from community colleges to universities, 3) the opportunity for students to match completed course work and degree programs at multiple institutions, and 4) elimination of potential costly advising errors.  This program allows students to create a transcript online and to run this transcript against any OUS school to see how their credits would fit into any program at each school.
  3. What community college issues are addressed with this program?  This program 1) leaves NO institution behind, 2) creates consistency and uniformity of information dissemination, 3) provides immediate information and feedback to students, and 4) reduces or eliminates redundancy of system-wide transfer and advising processes.
  4. How will the system work?  Currently we have two systems (DARS and CAPP).  There must be an Internet system that links the college systems.  The system that we are proposing is CAS (the Course Applicability System).
  5. What does the system do?  It tracks course work completed by individual students and it shows which degree requirements have been met and which need to be completed.  This is an online system that allows students and advisors immediate access to the student’s progress toward graduation related to every major and option on every OUS school. 
  6. What does a linked degree audit system add?  It provides a central resource for students and advisors to obtain information on transferring to other institutions and an immediate comparison to a student’s completed or contemplated course work with degree programs at any linked school.
  7. Where are degree audit systems used?  It is used by over 200 institutions in 37 states and Canada.  In Oregon, audit systems are in place at three schools and being installed at three schools (DARS ad CAPP).
  8. What is needed to get started?  The systems at each school do not need to be alike, but we need the overall system that links the CAS system with the schools’ systems.  The system does not require a comprehensive, transferable student record system.
  9. How much will the system cost for a college?  DARS will cost, if the enrollment is 16,000, $31,320 ($25,500 for a DARS license, $3,570 annual maintenance fee, and $2,250 training for two staff)
  10. How much will CAS cost statewide (the overall linking system)?  The one-time licensing cost for OUS is $85,857 with an annual fee of $15,454.  For OUS and the community colleges, the cost would be $165,185 for a one-time license cost and $29,733 for annual maintenance fee.  These costs do not include some of the initial setup costs.
  11. How do we get more information?  See the PowerPoint presentation at http://www.dars.muohio.edu/internet/interestedpowerpoints.htm  or on Google, use the keywords “Interested in DARS?CAS.”
  12. Discussed as a group the system.  Politically this system is scary.  A politician might look at this as a way to streamline our courses to make everything homogenous across all campuses, and this can’t be done.  This system allows for OUS system differences.  This system makes the process easy for the student and provides the student with multiple options.  This system helps the student who has taken classes from many colleges.  Faculty members are hearing from advisors that this program has been a Godsend.  This system can improve the advisor/student interaction.  We are already seeing the quality of advising improving because of the system. Quality is a different issue than access.  This will force the community colleges to tighten up some of their courses and make them better to fit within this system.  It helps eliminate the potential for human error.  It eases the student transfer and maintains the campus individuality.  It makes our data systems communicate.  We have a bridge that brings our campuses together.  This will save time and energy.  It supports the individuality of each campus and brings us together.  We should not couch this as an alternative to the legislative proposals, but we should state that this is a good system on its own right.  We should pass our background information on to Gretchen Schuette in the More-Better-Faster group.  One caveat is that we must ensure that the data in the system is correct.  This may be expensive.  We shouldn’t soft sell the cost.  We should not couch this as a “virtual advisor.”  It is a tool in a tool kit.  I would like to couch this as improvement in student quality.  It is an advantage to students, so this is good.
  13. Stated the need to inform the Provosts’ Council, Gretchen Schuette, the OUS Board, and other important constituents about this discussion and our approval of this system.

 

 

V.  Ethics Code Discussion

 

  1. Determined that one person from each institution will forward any documents on ethical behavior to Jeanne Wagenknecht, the newly appointed chair of our ethics information committee.
  2. Restated the two questions the chancellor asked us:  Is there a code of ethics on each campus?  What approach should we take for an overall code?
  3. Discussed the issue as a group.  We shouldn’t make the statement just sexual harassment.  We are really dealing with a conflict of interest problem.  There must be a way at the campus-level mechanisms for implementing code of ethics and conflict of interest issues.  We should gather information, but we should not think about drafting anything.  This is a Pandora’s box.  We are the voice of the faculty.  We will provide our chancellor with the information that already exists.  We will provide a compass for the chancellor.

 

VI.  Senator Frank Morse

 

  1. Reflected on the last legislative session.  It was a virtual disaster with respect to higher education.  It was bit of a joke as seen from my colleagues.  There was no comprehensive approach.  As a result, we formed a higher education work force.  This created a dialogue, increased the level of trust, and hopefully laid the framework for a better session.
  2. Mentioned that OUS board is more active than ever before
  3. Discussed the structural deficits in Oregon.  We need an honest discussion about what has happened since 1990.  We have a structural deficit of 400M.  We have the consequences of unfunded voter initiatives.  We rank 35th in the nation in state funding.  Voter initiatives capture 31% of our general fund.  We have structural deficit.  We need to face the voters with this.
  4. Responded to a question about if it is possible to revisit measure 11 because of the tremendous costs associated with this measure.  “Senator Morse is soft on crime if I touch this…but I am willing to go there.”  Stated that he doesn’t think Measure 5 will be looked at again.
  5. Mentioned legislation he introduced related to Measure 66 that will direct watershed funds to education funds.
  6. Reminded us that in influencing legislators, there is nothing like a human face.  Make an appointment, go in, and tell the story in our institution.  What I hear from my colleagues is that higher education is okay but it is not on their radar screen.  Have your story be consistent with OUS.  “There is no substitute for shoe leather in the capitol.”  However, here’s what you are up against.  Governor’s budget had a 10% cut for Head Start.  I met with a group of mothers, and this one mother shared her story, and it was very emotional.  High education is the future, but we are up against an immediate need—a wave of human tragedy.

 

VII.  IFS Meetings Review

 

A.  In keep our meetings tied to the OUS board meetings, the dates and locations are as follows:

 

The meeting was adjourned.