Remarks to the Oregon State Board of Higher Education

18 October 2002

Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR

President Lussier, Chancellor Jarvis, Directors and Guests:

Good morning. Before I begin my remarks, I've brought a guest. This is Professor Bill Danley from Southern; he's the president-elect of IFS and will be taking over my position in January. For continuity, I've asked him to attend the fall meetings of the Board.

Let me fill you in a bit on our recent – and very worthwhile – meeting in Bend. Though hosted by OIT, we held the meeting in Bend to give senators an opportunity to learn about the Cascades Campus and to see the new building there first-hand. Guests included OIT President, Martha Anne Dow, Jim Jones, COCC's vice president and chief financial officer, Jay Casbon, the Cascades Campus executive, President Lussier, Henry Sayre, OSU Cascades director and John Leahy, director of UO programs at Cascades. I'm sorry Chancellor Jarvis was unable to attend but we look forward to having him at our December meeting at OHSU.

In her welcoming remarks, President Dow praised the teamwork she's observed between institutions and their faculties in dealing with the budget cuts. She also acknowledged the support of OIT's faculty for her plan to postpone faculty salary increases to prevent cutting programs and positions, noting that she will do everything she can to fund those increases. Salaries for not only faculty, but staff and administrators as well, continue to lag those of peer institutions, she said.

Senators were much interested in the connections between COCC and OSU Cascades, the numbers and types of students attending OSU Cascades, the size and range of offerings for students, and the integration efforts being made to reduce duplication of services. Guests were peppered with questions that they agreeably answered with lots of information. Dr. Sayre provided a tour of Cascades Hall where most of us just remarked – wow! All that

space in those classrooms and all the wonderful new high tech teaching tools were most impressive; many of us were secretly a bit envious. Cascades Hall makes the deferred maintenance on our "old" campuses even more evident – another indication of the diminishing quality of our system.

President Lussier spent a good portion of the afternoon speaking with and, more importantly, listening to senators. Several senators remarked later about his enthusiasm for and buoyant attitude about higher ed. Frankly, after the results of the fifth legislative session, we needed cheering up and he did the job; we felt better about the future – at least for a little while. Thanks, Jim. We certainly are encouraged to pitch in and help out; OUS faculty want to be part and parcel of the OUS effort to achieve the funding needed to keep the quality in our system. We're also willing to assist in what's probably a tougher job –making the case for higher ed. with the citizenry. We urge the Board, the Chancellor and his staff to let us know how we would be most effective. We do plan to meet in Salem during next year's legislative session to do some lobbying and many of us can make ourselves available at other times too.

President Lussier talked about the flexibility initiatives developed as a result of the letter from the institutional presidents to the strategic planning committee. Most senators had not had an opportunity to read and digest them, having just returned to campus. During our Saturday meeting, senators indicated they would view those initiatives through the lens of "quality" as they studied them. Most faculty won't have strong responses to the fiscal operations and management initiatives, but will look closely at the enrollment management and academic program proposals. Streamlining program authorization and permitting campuses to

add and expand programs more easily seem appropriate improvements as long as the Board maintains quality standards and looks carefully at duplication in light of reduced resources. While faculty inherently resist restricting access to higher ed., the proposal to limit funded students so that adequate support is available to maintain quality has merit; allowing institutions to take "unfunded" students may be problematic if an institution sees these students as "revenue sources" and takes so many that the quality of their education suffers. The Board would have to monitor this carefully to assure high caliber programs.

Also during our Saturday morning discussions, several issues arose, some reprises of concerns I've spoken about to you before. The increasing use of adjuncts and teaching assistants at some of our institutions continues to disturb faculty. The impression is that system-wide, there is erosion in the hiring and use of tenure-track faculty. While some adjuncts have very up-to-date credentials in specialized topics and fill a niche, many often are not current in the fields in which they teach and such currency is not a requirement of hiring. Only in rare instances do adjunct faculty become involved in student advising, curriculum development or governance. As the relative numbers of adjuncts grow, the workloads of the tenure-track and tenured faculty available to handle these vital responsibilities increases. Senators considered how IFS might combat the apparent lack of understanding among Oregonians of what we do and what contributions we make to the communities and state. One suggestion was to get to people where they are – in front of the TV – with perhaps some public service announcements with graphic impact. No concrete ideas have emerged at this stage.

One senator encapsulated the many ideas expressed when she characterized faculty as assets of the system and the state – not an idea original with her, by all means. She noted that the administration on campuses seems to be ever changing but most faculty members make and keep long-term commitments to the institution. At the risk of making a blanket characterization, faculty are more interested in what might be termed educational values rather than money issues (which can't be ignored, of course) and in the stability of their home institutions.

Layzell, Lovell and Gill note in their paper "Developing and Viewing Faculty as an Asset for Institutions and States" that an institution or system of public higher education that begins thinking of its faculty as an asset, as it does with facilities, equipment, library holdings and the like, won't think of just hiring the services of faculty members but will invest more in keeping and developing its faculty. Hiring decisions may be more selective and effective utilization of faculty a more important aspect of planning. The authors further state that " [s]alaries are not necessarily the only consideration: investments in laboratory spaces, graduate students and equipment often become negotiating tools." Professional development support, sabbaticals and travel opportunities are needed to keep the asset in top shape.

Chancellor Jarvis, in his "What's the Big Deal?" presentations, stresses the unsatisfactory faculty salary picture here. I thank him for that. But benefit support, retirement packages, modern teaching and laboratory venues and equipment – to name just a few items – would go a long way toward maintaining this asset. A former faculty member likened the many irritations faculty members encounter – contracting benefits, unpaid overloads, deteriorating and outmoded physical conditions in labs and lecture rooms, continuous external calls for proving we're productive, constant sniping at public employees by the public and legislature etc. - as blisters from one's hiking boots; no single blister ends your hike but ignoring an accumulation of many blisters will probably do so. Your faculty are one of your greatest assets – don't drive them away by ignoring their blisters. Pass the Band-Aids!

Thank you.