March 24, 2002 Academic Council Report

at Portland State University

Submitted by Bob Turner

 

Present at the meeting:

Shirley Clark, Chair	Grattan Kerans	Lorraine Davis, UO	Burr Betts, EOU
Jim Arnold	Dave McDonald	Sara Hopkins-Powell, SOU	John Miller, EOU
Andy Duncan	Ben Rawlins	George Kartsounes, OIT	John Minahan, WOU
Vicki Falsgraf	Loren Stubbert	Mary Kathryn Tetreault, PSU	John Mosley, UO
Nancy Goldschmidt	Holly Zanville	Yvette Webber-Davis	Lesley Hallick, OHSU
	Guest:	Bob Turner, WOU, IFS	Tim White, OSU

Academic Council and Administrative Council Joint Meeting:

The joint meeting was an energy intensive continuation of last month’s discussion of tuition policy. Recall that the OUS goal is to generate policy principles by April that the OUS Board can then use in July as it constructs the ’03-’05 OUS budget. A second draft of “Proposed Principles Governing Tuition at OUS Institutions” was circulated that differed from February’s by treating undergraduate and graduate nonresident tuition under different headings. Unlike February’s joint meeting, this one was dominated by comments from the provosts. Much frustration was expressed over the bind generated by increased enrollment, decreased general fund dollars, and the legislature’s insistence on holding to a 3% tuition increase. Systematic reports from the campuses indicated efforts to address this problem with differential tuition, adjustments to student fees, modifying the plateau, and attempts to move beyond the 3% limit. Provost Mosley presented a model based on shrinking the plateau to a range of 14 to 16 hours and discounting tuition for late afternoon classes that account for the highest fraction of enrollment – this proposal will be presented to the OUS Board. He further advocated a 5 to 6% increase in nonresident tuition, tuition increases in the high single digits for ‘03-’05 and “a new contract” with the state stipulating legislative control only over the funds that it provides. Leslie Hallick reported tuition increase of 10% and 30% for resident and nonresident medical school students and of 15 and 20% for dental school students. Gratten Kerans addressed expressions of the necessity of approaching the legislature for a tuition increase beyond 3% by stating that the conflict between the governor and the legislature is the most bitter that he has seen. They are in a grudge match and the OUS budget is the ball. Tuition increases over 3% are as approachable as a broken high tension line emitting flames as it whips back and forth on the ground. In response to questions, Gratten opined that most legislators see little distinction between tuition and fees as income streams, even though resource fees are currently not in the legislature’s control. The joint meeting closed with expression that the OUS Board wants a larger framework within which to act that includes campus autonomy over access and governance.

 

The Administrative Council then moved to a different room while the Academic Council retreated to consider the following agenda items at its meeting.

 

OUS Technology Plan Issues:

A Power Point presentation was given of a draft report on the OUS response to a Joint Legislative Committee demand for a report of OUS Information Management and Technology that includes “strategies for the efficient purchase of information technology assets and for the system wide management of information technology assets”. The draft report was politely received.

 

Legislative Report:

Gratten Kerans dropped by to underscore the message he delivered at the joint meeting. The governor and legislature are on a “collision course”, a phrase he used at least three times in ten minutes, which will be exacerbated by the $148 million hit that Oregon will take as a result of W’s economic stimulus package. Gratten forecasts new politics for ’03-’05, and advocates an OUS request for the necessary tuition increase and campus autonomy in dealing with the consequences.

 

Staff Fee Transfer Policy:

The U of O effectively contributes $800,000 to this policy, which expires at the end of June, and must be reviewed. Consensus was to advocate continuation with an increase of the fee from $15/ credit hour to something in the $20 range.

 

First Report in the Process of RAM Review:

Current RAM was concisely summarized and data sources for the review were presented and received with no comment.

 

Draft Report on Diversity:

A hefty report was presented that indicates little if any real advances, draws no conclusions and makes no recommendations. A request was made that each campus provide examples that can be highlighted of progress on diversity.

 

Prototype of Survey of Employers of Recent OUS Graduates:

Nancy Goldschmidt presented a Prototype of Survey of Employers of Recent OUS Graduates.

 

OUS Residency Rule Changes:

for 35 minutes Ben Rawlins and Jim Arnold presented and answered questions about wording changes in the definition of Oregon residents that arose during a dispute that has been resolved.

 

Joint Boards Articulation Commission Projects:

Efforts to effectively interface and integrate with two year institutions were reported. The lack of a common calendar for the community colleges is perceived as a major obstacle.

 

New Programs:

Eastern’s revision of its proposal for a Biochemistry BS/BA was presented accompanied by data on potential employment opportunities in Oregon for Biochemistry graduates.

 

The Academic Council quietly adjourned.