DRAFT NOT NORMATIVE

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting

University of Oregon

February 3, 2006

Friday, February 3, 2006, Johnson Hall, 1:00 p.m.

Present: Joel Alexander (WOU), Lee Ayers-Schlosser (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Larry Curtis (OSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Peter Gilkey (UO), Marye Hefty (OIT), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU) Jeff Johnson (EOU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), John Nicols (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Steve Tanner (EOU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Bob Turner (WOU), Jeanne Wagenknecht (UO), Dan Wilson (SOU)

Absent: Janet Hume (EOU), Robert Mercer (PSU), Dalton Miller-Jones (PSU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU)

I. Lorraine Davis, Vice President for academic Affairs

A. Gave a profile of the University of Oregon. She began the presentation by stating that it is important to know about the other institutions, and to understand and maintain the differentiation of the OUS campuses. We each take a little different cut, and differentiation is about identifying who we are and what we bring uniquely to the OUS system.

II. Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies

A. Spoke about connecting the University of Oregon's research excellence to economic development. See the attached PowerPoint file for the notes summarizing Dr. Linton's presentation.

B. Stated that research funds at UO support more that $3,000 jobs. Since 2001, UO has experienced more that a 50% growth in research funding. The annual research funding is more than $140K per faculty member, and the federal research dollars are greater than all state appropriations to UO.

C. Explained that the UO discloses a new invention each week, inks a license agreement each month, has had a 10 times growth in licensing revenue since 2000, is the leading Oregon university in licensing revenue, and is 10th nationally in start-ups created per $100M in research expenditures.

D. Ended with the UO challenges to sustain this research-intensive enterprise by recruiting and retaining faculty, developing the research infrastructure, getting investments from the state (almost zero now), facing international competition, working with the decreasing federal R&D budget, overcoming declining success rates on federal grants, balancing basic and applied research, supporting scholarship beyond the sciences, navigating compliance and regulatory concerns, and keeping up the graduate student pipeline.

III. Dr. James Bean, Dean of the Lundquist College of Business

A. Spoke about the Lundquist College at a strategic level.

IV. Phil Barnhart (Oregon State Representative)

A. Began by stating that Dr. James Bean covered many of the areas in his presentation that are important to Mr. Barnhart, such as the idea of entrepreneurship and excellence nation wide.

B. Stated that he admires the response from the universities to the stress from Measure 5 and the recession. The outcomes are not great, but they could have been much worse. Entrepreneur approaches to university education have in some ways made the university system stronger. Mentioned that in comparing the current funding level of university education with what it used to be that if we wanted to get back to the good old days we would roughly need to increase funding from the legislature by about 60% or about 500 million a biennium.

C. Shared that his theme entering his fourth term as a legislator is that education is the very best investment that the state can make. If we don't invest, we will not be able to compete globally.

D. Shared that access issues to university education are very important to him.

E. Explained that a local issue related to student housing (the Wes Morlan project) is very important to him.

F. Showed support for the K-20 plan as a more efficient way and reduced cost way to operate.

G. Expressed concern about governance issues related to the University of Oregon. Specifically, he mentioned the closed way in which the university administration has operated in areas where they think their decisions may be second guessed. I am extremely concerned about what we don't know yet about the university's converting Wes Morlan Housing Project into financial resources.

V. Floyd Prozanski (Oregon State Senator District 4)

A. Restated Mr. Barnhart's concern about access to high education.

B. Mentioned that we need a structure that universities can rely on for funding and stability. Since measure 5 has passed, I have seen tragic results. Access is key.

C. Stated that as his background as an attorney he knows from studies that every dollar put into education will save the state $15 in social services.

D. Responded to the question, “How effective is going to Salem?” Be more proactive. Know who people are when they are running for office. Go to public meetings, and put them on record related to their beliefs. We should all be held accountable. It does make a difference to go to the capital.

E. Phil Barnhart reinforced that the time to get a legislator committed to higher education is when they are running for office.

F. Floyd stated that it is very important to lobby as a single university system not as a separate university. We need a single message.

G. Phil mentioned that right ring anti-government argument has been extremely effective in Oregon. The money we should be putting into the savings account now is the kicker. The republican right ring (which is far to the right of most ordinary republicans) has an ideological bias to increase tax loopholes for businesses to come to the state, in spite of research that shows that this is not a major factor in bringing in new business. Changing the kicker situation will be very difficult because one of the changes that the republicans made with the vote of the people is that any revenue increases must be passed by a three-fifths vote of the house, and this will not happen

H. Floyd stated that an important message for legislators to hear from citizens is that businesses need an education infrastructure to support them.

G. Phil stressed that rural legislators understand the argument of access, and Portland legislators understand the global economy argument more. We either have top quality or we have third world. You need to know your audience.

H. Responses from IFS faculty included that the message has been access, access, access. Other comments are as follows: We would like to put quality on the table. OSU is still funded at 75% of 15,000 students but we have 20,000 students now. Research programs get funded, so the faculty who get hammered are in the English departments and the humanities departments. Some of us say we should only admit out-of-state students because this is where the campus makes money. Oregon is losing its students because it is more cost effective to send students to Washington. The costs for students include tuition and fees. The fees are significant. As we send our kids to other states, will they want to come back?

I. Floyd stated that the initiative system in Oregon has value, but it has a down side. Measure 11 is an example of this. We need to think about the ramifications of our initiatives.

J. Phil stressed that we need a much more global approach. What is America? We are talking about the soul of America. Are we rugged individualists who let the chips fall where they may with a small government? Or, are we a place in which we recognize that by working together we can produce a better economy, better educated people, healthier people? For those of us who have a religious background, we need to make other religious people understand that Jesus did not spend three years talking about abortion and anti-gay rights. He talked about the poor. That is just one issue. The other issue is back to the global economy. How do we compete?

K. Phil responded to a question by saying that “The people of Oregon are going to do what they decide what they want to do.” People will find the money when they decide to do something. It is the will of the people. Are we going to continue to pursue this dead end approach we are doing now, or are we going to switch our cultural expectations about what we do collectively?

VI. Dave Frohnmayer, President of the University of Oregon

A. Shared the seven or eight things that keep a university president up at night. These general topics have not changed in the 12 years I have been president.

1. Resources:How can we provide for our students and the students in Oregon the kind of quality education, research, and services when our peer institutions have 50% more revenue than we do? We do an extraordinary job based on the under-funding of all kinds of services.

2. Faculty:We cannot succeed at what we do without a high-quality faculty. This is faculty competitive at a world-level quality. At best, we have 80% of the resources to pay faculty. We worry about this because this determines the quality of an institution.

3. Graduate and professional education:If we don't have graduate students to teach courses, this impacts the economics of our undergraduate education. Oregon does not pay for graduate assistantships. Finding a way to fund research is essential to our organization.

4. How do we maintain the size and quality of our research program? It has increased by 50% in the last few years, but when you look at federal support, this is not a sustainable enterprise. This means we need a federal agenda. We need to be thoughtful to the national agendas. We need to be flexible to respond to federal changes.

5. How we maintain and perceived quality that will continue to attract non-resident students and international students. We have been able to excel economically because of students beyond our borders. The Asian currency crisis and the events of 9-11 (and the perception that we are not welcoming of foreigners in the United States) have caused a slow decline in our international students. One hundred more non-resident students each year means $1.7 million to our bottom line. The perception of a loss of quality will impact our enrollment.

6. How can we continue to attract an economic diversity in our student body with the cost rising of education? This university needs to be accessible to students. UO has raised 57 million in endowed scholarships.

7. How can we protect the state's investment in campus facilities given the lack of state support? All the institutions share this problem. We are subject to state restrictions that do not allow us to easily get a loan for a building. A very serious issue is planning for capital construction to make sure we are ahead of the curve.

8. Make a start at philanthropy. Donors want to donate for excellence. They do not want to make up for state funding shortages. We need to be careful about the dialog that we use. If we tell people that the place is terrible (which it is not), then they will not want to fund us. We give a great bargain for a quality education. How we convey this message is important.

B. Stated in response to a question that UO is considering privatization options that “going really private is a step I am not willing to go.”

VII. George Pernsteiner (OUS Chancellor) and Jay Kenton (OUS Vice President for Finance and Administration

A. Discussed the legislative process for 07-09. Any proposed legislative issues need to be given to the OUS board by the March meeting.

B. Stated the biggest proposal will be a reduction in restrictions from the state.

C. Explained that the Department of Health Services shortfall will most likely impact the OUS budget. The DHS shortfall is $225 million. This is driving us more toward a special legislative session. The shortfall is now bigger than the ending balance. The legislature will either have to not have a kicker (which they are reluctant to do) or they will have to reduce budgets. The estimated revenue for 07-09 is about a 12% increase. However, the back-loaded biennium costs are about 13% plus the DHS shortfall. Therefore, the state is facing a $400 million shortfall.

D. Provided an overview of the recent board retreat. The OUS board is trying to look out 20 years. How can they motivate campuses to optimize their key outcomes, which are an educated citizenry, quality of student learning, graduate success, and original knowledge creation? Each institution will give different focus to the outcomes. One idea discussed involves institutions having different tuition models. What is the sustainable economic model for OUS? What principles will the board use to guide the system in the next 20 years?

VIII. Jay Kenton (OUS Vice President for Finance and Administration) Ben Rollin (general council), and Jackie Roodolf (OSU HR director)

Ben Rollins

A. Reported on a draft OAR by the OUS system to investigate and implement a policy for criminal background checks for new employees. The idea is to ask the OUS board to approve an umbrella set of regulations, which leave up to specific institutions what categories to check for what specific jobs. This proposal is for checks on new employees and not employees who are already hired. To do the checks, the people must be in critically sensitive positions (e.g., handing nuclear material).

B. Shared in handout form the proposed OAR purpose as follows: “The Oregon University System is committed to protecting the security, safety, and health of faculty, staff, students and others, as well as safeguarding the asset and resources of OUS and each of its universities. To meet these objectives, the Board delegates to the Chancellor and president of each university electing to conduct background checks, responsibility for developing institutional rules governing the conduct of fingerprint-based criminal records checks, criminal history checks, employment history checks, educational history checks, industry-specific credential checks, motor vehicle checks, and credit history checks. Institutional rules must be consistent with this policy and applicable Oregon State Laws and Federal Law.”

C. Expressed that campuses have responded to numerous situations that allow credit, past job, credential, and motor vehicle checks. The board policy would be a directive that these should be turned into a policy. We live in a world today in which parents want to know that their students are going to school at a safe place. This is risk mitigation.

Jay Kenton

A. Started by saying that we have always made faculty salaries a priority. How can we make a more cogent argument to the legislature? Our salaries are low. However, our benefits, our fringe rates:our OPE divided by salary:are very, very high nationally.

B. Explained that OUS is projecting that the OPE system-wide average will go to 48% this year. On average our faculty are 15% below market. Our OPE rates are totally variable with one exception:heath care.

C. Noted that OUS is below market with salary. We are having a hard time retaining and attracting faculty. But, our benefits are better than our peers. Today we are paying 22% for Tiers 1 and 2 of our retirement, and 14% for Tier 3.

D. Asked IFS if it would be palatable to faculty and other unclassified staff if we could bring our fringe benefits down for new hires in retirement. What if for new hires instead of giving them a PERS option we give them a 10% defined contribution option? We believe we could save 30% on our PEBB costs. Why? First, our employee group is less expensive to insure. Second, we would introduce a modest employee co-plan. Third, we believe the plans could be redesigned. Fourth, we could create different incentive programs.

E. Stated that he believes the savings in PEBB would equate to $20 million, and this money could be reinvested in faculty salaries. Also, by having faculty come in under a different retirement plan, he thinks OUS could catch up with its peers (related to salary) in six to eight years. This is a way we can give serious attention to faculty salaries. He stated we should consider this if we want to get to market.

Saturday, February 4, 2006, Johnson Hall, 8:00 a.m.

Absent: Janet Hume (EOU), Robert Mercer (PSU), Dalton Miller-Jones (PSU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU)

I. A motion was made and passed to approve the October IFS meeting notes.

II. A motion was made and passed to re-appointed Peter Gilkey as the IFS Web master. Scott Burns will ask him if he will accept this responsibility for another IFS term.

III. Meeting Reports

A. Provost's Council January summary:Sarah Andrews Collier reported that the undergraduate admissions policy for 2006-07 was passed. The OUS Chancellor discussed legislative strategies. Senate Bill 342 meeting is occurring in February. It will include five faculty from all OUS schools (through the provosts) with assessment and general education knowledge to work on issues related to outcomes for general education. Community colleges, all OUS schools, and independent schools are all attending. This meeting is the start of a longer process that will impact the Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer Degree (AAOT) and the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM).

B. Provost's Council February summary:The OUS Chancellor reported at this meeting that OUS funding requests must be on the board docket by February 17 and March at the latest. A committee (comprised of provosts Roy Cook, Dave Woodall, and Jem Spectar) has been formed to prepare a proposal related at retention of students from freshman to sophomore year. The academic programs that were reviewed and passed on to the OUS Board docket are the Ph.D. in biology from PSU, the master in natural and environmental resources law from University of Oregon, and the master in contemporary music from Western Oregon University. Earl Potter reported on the Governor's Office of Rural Policy, which is a group that looks at higher education research related to rural policy. The Provost's Council is investigating the possibility of an executive session at their meetings, which would be closed to the public. The provosts were conveyed two messages from the IFS about the quality report: 1) more work needs to be done with quality measures and 2) develop the information for over time

C. State Board Meetings:IFS presentation. Scott Burns attend two OUS Board meetings. He handed out copies of the IFS Academic Quality Report to the board and presented the following message about the Academic Quality report: 1) This is not an end but a beginning. Scott will meet with Susan Weeks to get data for the last 7 years. we want to develop additional measures; 2) IFS is committed to being active on OUS boards; 3) IFS is suggesting names for a replacement for Jerry Richmond; 4) IFS is helping in the strategy for the legislature; 5) is using communication tools to discuss and explain SB 342 and 300; 6) IFS is taking part in long range planning.

D. State Board Meetings:What Scott Burns learned. The universities are putting together their budgets for 07-09. There is a possibility of a special session because of the $225 million deficit in the Department of Human Resources. A $50-million cut may be imposed on other state-funded programs. The board voted for Atlas, a computer program for advising. Most campuses do not have athletic deficits at this time.

The board strategic planning committee concluded yesterday. The board has been asking where we want to be in 2025. The four topics: 1) developing an educated citizenry, 2) providing opportunities for Oregon, 3) developing high-quality programs, 4) providing civic and economic benefits. The board brainstormed and analyzed a draft mission and vision for OUS. The board also presented an outcomes template for OUS related to the four areas above. Related to the board's portfolio, the board discussed supporting every campus having their different missions. If there is a spire of excellence on a campus, then that will be supported. The board discussed ways to find new money (with no new money from the state). The board will develop/work more with community colleges. “In the K-20 model, we are the goal.”

Scott Burns reported that the chancellor discussed needing a sustainable economic model. Oregon is one of the five lowest per-capita funding states for higher education. We get very little money from the state.

Scott reported that Jerry Kissler presented information about tuition and aid tradeoffs. One idea involved a surcharge for students who are not on Pell Grants to support those who are. Dr. Kissler discussed the tuition gap between public and private universities. The private schools are raising tuition to improve quality. The state universities are putting money into maintenance to make up for a lack of funding from the state. The average salaries for the leading private schools is $120 per year. The average salaries for the leading public universities is $80 per year for the whole system. OUS has an average of $55 per year. In 1980, OUS was 31% behind these leading public universities, and now OUS is at 45% related to average salary.

A discussion followed on emphasizing quality to legislators and citizens because of the statement that private universities are funding quality, and state universities are putting money into maintenance to make up for the lack of state funding.

E. Joint Boards Articulation Commission:Maureen Sevigny

Maureen Sevigny provided history. This board has members from community colleges and OUS, and last year for the first time they appointed an OUS faculty member because of the work IFS has done with OTM. The focus has been on SB 342 and the work from EDP. Karen Sprague is temporarily assigned to EDP. In the second week of February, the JBAC will be meeting to discuss general education articulation issues and will also tie into the Student Success Education Conference, which involves student services personnel looking at issues that impact student success.

F. Academic Excellence and Economic Development Committee: Jeanne Wagenknecht attended this meeting in January. The committee is working on SB 853, and has accomplished a lot.

IV. IFS Goals Brainstorming Session

A few goals suggested for 2006-07 include the following:

· Dealing with academic quality (taking out involvement to the next level)

· Participating in additional committee work:being actively involved with committees

· Providing a name as a replacing for the faculty member on the board

· Helping with strategy for next legislative session

· Communicating senate bill 342

· Conducting long-range planning

· Asking to be involved in revising the comparator institution list (find out more)

· Discussing more our role as IFS

· Continuing the quality discussion (The issue is declining quality because of the lack of revenue.)

V. Campus Reports

Oregon State University. Reported about the controversy surrounding a one-page article published by Science from a graduate student and professors from the OSU College of Forestry stating that if you log a fired area the trees do not come back as rapidly. Some of the faculty in forestry wrote a letter to Science suggesting that the publication be delayed. A strong reaction occurred in the press and on campus. The Forestry Department is making a request to the administration that an effort takes place to discuss how OSU deals with conflict of interest. OSU also reported that the consensual relationship policy came through the faculty senate. OSU is in the middle of a big financial campaign.

Eastern Oregon University. Reported about budget concerns. Each administrative unit has been asked to plan a budget with a 3% cut from the previous year. The union is continuing negotiations with no contract yet. The administration's salary offer is 0 % and 1% over the next two years. We have hired a new dean for the college of business.

Oregon Institute of Technology. Reported that the school is deep in our self-study year. The board approved an F-Bond ($10M) for the proposed Center for Health Professionals (instead of OIT's LLC idea). F-Bonds require a revenue stream to pay for them. Therefore, OIT is looking at differential tuition to generate a revenue stream. OIT will break ground this summer, and it will be operational in fall 2007. On another topic, OIT had budget reductions because of declining enrollments. Specifically, department S&S budgets were cut. OIT outsourced our printing center without faculty input, and faculty access to network printers is being cut off. The faculty senate passed a consensual relationship policy. Our senate welfare committee is looking at issues of merit and equity.

Southern Oregon University. A committee has been formed to determine the next president. The president is leaving and the provost has applied. A committee is redefining roles and responsibilities to look at how you compare disciplines. The harassment policy has gone through the faculty senate, and we will vote on this next week. SOU has come to an agreement with the union. We will get a small portion this year. It is a complicated contract. They will start differentiating between salaries within a unit. The school is in the middle of a self study. 34% of the folks teaching at SOU this term are adjuncts.

Western Oregon University. The school is in a holding pattern for the new president. John Minahan came out of retirement and signed a two-year contract as the interim president. The school is comfortable with this. David McDonald has been hired as the director of development. To help with enrollment, David McDonald has made a deal with the United Arab Emirates to bring students to WOU, and the United Arab Emirates is paying their tuition. The school and union are stalemated in negotiations. The provost is instituting a freshman academy for retention. We have a new dean of liberal arts and sciences.

OHSU:A presidential search is occurring. The tram (whose cost is now $55M) is projected to be ready by December. The tram is needed because of severe parking problems and the lack of classroom space. At OHSU, 18% of faculty are tenured. The school of nursing is leading the charge to change this low percentage. OHSU has two new programs: a certified registered nurse anesthetist program and a consortium nursing education program (formed through a partnership with all of the community colleges in Oregon to offer a single curriculum). OHSU has a new associate dean at La Grande campus.

University of Oregon:A new provost has been hired. The school is working on a diversity plan. The Wes Morlan issue has dominated faculty governance. The last faculty senate voted to reconsider the Wes Morlan issue. We are in an accreditation process.

Portland State University:Robert Mercer (former IFS senator from PSU) is working with the chancellor to implement the ATLAS advising software/process. The union contract settled in early January. This year our budget cuts have been covered by reserves, but the school will need to find $5 million for next year. PSU succeeded with our accreditation effort. We have 200 new Saudi students in winter term, whose tuition is funded by their government. We have a new engineering building.

VI. Faculty Replacement for the OUS Board

IFS senators discussed nominations for the OUS board faculty replacement for Jerry Richmond. At the end of the month, after senators review possible candidates, IFS will vote on the name to take to the board.

Meeting adjourned