Board Presentation 19 December 1997

President Aschkenasy, Members of the Board, Chancellor Cox

The Interinstitutional Faculty Senate held its 5-6 December 1997 meeting at Portland State University. Chancellor Joe Cox and Board Member Esther Puentes joined us for a discussion of this Fall's educational, political and financial events (the emergency board action on higher education funding, cooperative initiatives between campuses of OSSHE and other education sectors in Oregon and related issues) on the one hand and the board's committee structure on the other. We thank Esther Puentes for her presentation of the progress in developing the board's committee structure and the full discussion we all carried on.

Duncan Wyse, Chair of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and his associate joined us, as did State Senator Hartung and State Representative Beck. Duncan Wyse presented a number of issues raised by the Task Force, but not the report itself which was still being polished at that time. All of us have heard or seen many of the issues and we are about to hear the Governor's view on the final report so I will limit my comments at this time. However, a big issue is how higher education will meet the needs of both students seeking a relevant education and employers seeking skilled employees in the future. As an example, employers are hiring engineers at a high rate, many from out of state because we do not produce enough in state. The problem is not entirely capacity in OSSHE, it is also that many entering students do not have the mathematics skills to succeed in engineering. We can increase capacity but K-12 must also enhance mathematics skills if we are to recruit the greater enrollment in technical areas.

A major discussion among senators at our work session Saturday was the upcoming presidential searches. Senators agreed the board's process is very good, allowing substantial input from the stakeholder constituencies. We still have some concern about the short time between the final interviews and final decision. It both limits the chance for input after the candidates visit and tends to give the impression of a decision without due deliberation. Is there a way to extend the interval without compromising the candidates interests in a swift decision? Your efforts to fine-tune the process each time are appreciated.

Paul E. Simonds, President, IFS
Note: New Officers: Kemble Yates, SOU, President; John Cooper, PSU Vice President; Elaine Deutchman, OIT, Secretary; Sarah Witte, EOU, Administrative Council Representative