Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
(IFS) Meeting
December 7-8, 2001
Dec.
7th
Present: Scott Burns (PSU), Ann
Tedards (UO), Elizabeth Boretz (EOU), Duncan Carter (PSU), Bill Danley (SOU),
Elaine Deutschman (OIT), Peter Gilkey (UO), Marye Hefty (OIT), Jim Isenberg
(UO), Kirsten Lampe (OHSU), Mary Anne Linden (WOU), Jim Lundy (OSU), Bruce
Sorte (OSU), Gary Tiedeman (OSU), Bob Turner (WOU), Craig Wollner
(PSU)
Absent: Jeff Johnson (EWU)
I.
President
Dan Bernstine (PSU)
A.
PSU
very involved in development of downtown urban planning.
B.
nearly
22,000 students – enrollment up
C.
first
African American president in Oregon higher ed system, been in Oregon 5 years.
D.
expressed
concern about the budgetary and tax revenue issues in Oregon
E.
access
is at top of PSU’s priority list, need to be able to meet the demand for
higher ed, nobody should be denied access because of inability to pay
F.
need
to show support for our faculty and staff
G.
Guiding
Principles for dealing with budgetary challenges:
1.
maintain
student access for Oregon undergrads with high quality
2.
continue
investments in technology
3.
maintain
collaborations with community colleges
4.
preserve
viable resources
5.
cut
research and public service programs first if necessary for budget
H.
Need
sacrifices from Oregon public as well as from our universities…
II.
Debbie
Murdock, Government Relations for OUS
A.
Special Sessions, Legislative Budget
Committee Meeting scheduled for next week.
1.
All
posted on legislative website (www.leg.state.or.us)
2.
Public
hearings (comments) will be taken by House committee on Thursday
3.
The
role that higher ed can play – use the committee time – these are
the places for the public’s participation in the process. Need to have
real citizens show up.
4.
Senate
committees regarding budget are scheduled for Tuesday.
III.
Lesley
Lehman, Chair, Strategic Planning Committee of State Board of Higher Ed
A.
It’s
really about students, despite the over-riding concerns about budgets.
B.
We
know that you are under-compensated and we’d love to be able to do
something about that.
C.
The
goal of fully funding the “model” slipped when legislature became
over-enamored with some pet projects such as boosting technology funding, etc.
D.
Somehow
we’ve given the impression that it’s okay, that “we’ll
muddle through,” and now it’s time to speak out more assertively.
E.
Board
has been going through some self-examination.
1.
Want
to get handle on relationship between higher ed, the economy, and the
workplace. Will help us present benefits to public.
2.
Better
define our relationship to preschool through 14 (“P thru 14”)
3.
We
should clarify how much to be involved in individual universities’
decision making progress regarding their own program and other initiatives.
4.
Take
a hard look at alternative funding models.
5.
Are
there alternative governance structures we should look at that would be more
effective?
F.
It
was Board’s intent to solicit input from universities regarding the
Chancellor search. “You have been heard,” she said.
IV.
Vice
Chancellor Diane Vines
A.
At
some point we’ll have to limit access – can’t keep adding
students with no additional $$.
B.
Will
be talking to legislature about raising tuitions and/or limiting enrollments in
some areas.
C.
Town
meetings, facilitated by the Board, are planned on individual campuses; they’d like our
input and participation.
1.
First
series – winter/spring – to hear about the needs of campus people
from all over the state
2.
Over
the summer, Board will digest the information, and this input will help drive
the budget planning process for the next biennium.
3.
Fall
series – take a budgetary strategic plan to the public forums to get
feedback.
D.
There
is a lack of a good accountability system to follow money allocated to specific
programs – from OUS to the campuses, and even within the campuses.
E.
Across
the board, the general fund constitutes about 16-20% of the total budget.
It’s questionable that the source of those funds should be able to
dictate all the programs where those funds are sent.
V.
Betsy
Johnson, State Rep, Scappoose
A.
Regarding
the difficulty of the RAM model: “I couldn’t explain the RAM model
to anyone. I don’t believe anybody could explain the RAM model.”
B.
“The
State is $720M upside down and falling. I heard the word “billion”
used the other day. When we meet, we might be dealing with a shortfall as high
as $900M.”
C.
“We’re
looking at 5 days of grueling negotiations beginning Monday.”
D.
A
number of legislators who are not supportive of higher ed perpetuate a myth
that higher ed is full of a “bunch of whiners.” Some believe that
we are over-funded, and simply not frugal nor efficient with money.
E.
Other
potential funding sources: tobacco money, Medicaid extra money – one-time
money.
F.
Question:
Why does K-12 get positive support from the State while higher ed does not?
Shouldn’t we see education as a seamless process from P through college? The
legislators see a “different face” from K-12 than from higher ed.
The children’s faces, the overcrowded classrooms, etc. vs. presidents of
universities in a competitive stance.
G.
Would
support having periodic “special” sessions of legislature to do
incremental adjustments to budget rather than trying to overhaul the entire
thing at once.
VI.
Bob
Bruce, Chancellor’s office.
A.
Priorities
– how can we be more effective with economic & workforce issues, and
work better with K-12 and private education entities?
B.
We’ve
not been very good about talking to Oregonians about these issues, which is the
purpose of the town hall meetings.
C.
12
meetings, January through April, 3 per month, including
Hilsboro, Bend/Redmond, Coos Bay. Inviting community leaders, business leaders,
variety of individuals. Will invite all participants to continue to engage in
an electronic dialogue.
D.
Also
hope to educate public about what we do in higher ed.
E.
Hope
for another round from Sept. 2002 through January 2003 to feed back to them,
and solicit their support for, the budget initiatives for the 2003-2005 biennium.
F.
There
are coordinators on each of the campuses.
G.
Admits
there have been no initiatives to utilize mass media such as TV to educate the public or appeal to
rural, Native American, and other hard-to-reach segments of the population.
VII.
Roger
Bassett, new member of State Board
A.
Been
in higher education policy work a long time, served as Education Advisor to
three Governors, Commissioner of Community Colleges for some time.
B.
A
fundamental underpinning to all of our concerns is that several of the
public’s general perceptions, expectations, or beliefs are that
1.
their
tax dollars should come back to them in one way or another.
2.
Any
surplus in the state budget is nothing but “fat.”
3.
Public
education is just another public service.
4.
The
terms “public” and “public education” have lost their
tread.
C.
Therefore,
the public would need to see a “hook” to get them behind higher
education.
D.
Institutions
that do not have something of value do not receive support or end up on
chopping block.
E.
All
of these are the subjects of a string of “issue papers”
F.
How
do we position ourselves?
1.
It’s
not enough to do forums, conversations, etc. to make ourselves more visible.
2.
We
must “run Higher Ed for Statewide Office.” Have to do all of those
things with the deadly seriousness of a statewide candidate. Tons of cash, frequent
appeals, radio, television, face-to-face, etc.
G.
RE:
The Chancellor Search
1.
Job
should be statewide educational leader.
2.
One
of the issues I’m worried about.
3.
Needs
skills to “ride herd” on the campuses.
4.
Rock
& hard place role. Between legislature & constituency.
Dec. 8th (Saturday)
VIII. Approval of Minutes, October 2001
A.
Jeff
Johnson (secretary) not present today, and minutes not available for review.
IX. Academic Council Report (see document notes from meeting)
A.
Discussion
ensued over the changing membership on the Board.
B.
There
is a seat on the Board that can be filled by a faculty member, but is not
dedicated to faculty membership. Governor can choose whether to appoint faculty
to Board. Geri Richmond currently holds that seat, her term is up this year,
and that seat may not be refilled with a faculty member.
X. OUS Budget Cuts
A.
Peter
Gilkey shared a 3-point letter from Nathan Tublitz, President of the OSU
University Faculty Senate, asking that IFS urge the State Board not to attempt
a fiscal bail out of OSU as that would likely have budgetary implications for
the other OUS institutions.
B.
Gary
Tiedeman stated that it’s not that OSU is “in the hole” but
has a $19M shortfall, and must make cuts by a particular date in order to not
remain indebted.
1.
Bruce
Sorte has been elected as President-elect of the Faculty Senate at OSU.
2.
Plan
of OSU to deal with the shortfall currently stands as follows:
a)
Re-design
the OSU campus structure. One idea was to hand the redesign of the academic
portion 100% to the Faculty Senate.
b)
Remainder
of this year to be devoted to dealing with immediate budget concerns
vis-à-vis the state system.
c)
Next
academic year will be devoted to the redesign process, which will be completely
influenced by the faculty at OSU.
d)
Have
to address the $19M PLUS the state mandate of the 2% minimum reduction that all
institutions are having to deal with.
e)
Discussion
around reasons for the shortfall – OSU may have continued to its
expenditure patterns and even added expenditures (e.g., scholarships, other
enhancements, etc.) while other campuses may have begun to reduce costs in
advance.
XI.
Chancellor
Search
A.
Fact
remains that there is no known written document that lays out the protocol for
a Chancellor search.
B.
Board
is not obligated
to canvass the faculty or anyone else in their decision making process, yet
politically and diplomatically it might be wise.
C.
Next
opportunity for us to comment on this process publicly will be at the December
21st Board meeting.
D.
IFS
will draft a letter to the Board explaining why there has been concern about
faculty and student input, to educate or remind them about what the history of
faculty governance is all about and how it benefits the system and the state at
large.
1.
Ann
volunteered to take the lead on the draft, and will send it to Craig to
integrate the Chancellor characteristics listed below, then submit it to the
IFS ListServ for our review.
2.
We
are used to another kind of search process, one that is commonly used for other
institutional administrative positions, e.g., deans, provosts, presidents, etc.
OUS, on the other hand is coming from a different perspective – and it
seems inconsistent with the more pervasive model.
3.
There
is
historical precedent for a more inclusive process – some have been done
that way and some have not.
E.
What
are we most concerned about?
1.
A
Chancellor who would run OUS like a corporation – focus on efficiency,
profitability at all costs.
2.
A
Chancellor who would not acknowledge the diversity within the system –
who would try to set policy as a “one size fits all” approach.
F.
Characteristics
we would most like to see in a Chancellor.
1.
Understand
the diversity of the system – one size doesn’t fit all.
2.
Ability
to work with the legislature
3.
Public
relations
4.
Significant
academic background
5.
Rich
understanding of history and mission of higher ed in Oregon.
6.
Long
range vision, particularly in planning ahead for changing biennia.
7.
Consensus
builder.
8.
Ability
to articulate a collaborative relationship with entire educational system of
Oregon.
9.
Leadership
qualities sufficient to facilitate collaboration with university Presidents.
10.
Ability
to see Oregon Higher Ed as part of a national mission.
XII.
WOU Strike
issue – 215 faculty
members at WOU, not all of whom are members of the union. Negotiations are
continuing between union and administration. Deadline supposed to be beginning
of Winter quarter.
XIII.
Overall
IFS Strategy
A.
Presentation
to Board.
1.
Reiteration
of the desire for inclusiveness in the Chancellor search process.
2.
Applaud the
strategy at OSU to have faculty and presidents take the lead in reconfiguration
of their own campus. Could be a good model for OUS to consider in other
campus-specific issues.
B.
For future
goals over the next year.
1.
Perhaps
rather than being so reactive to issues, we could be more proactive.
2.
But perhaps it
is part of our role to be there to monitor issues within the system and attempt
to influence their progress.
3.
We could
respond to Roger’s suggestion that we change the way we
“sell” higher education to the state. We could take a lead role in
ideas for that.
XIV.
New
Business.
A.
Re: planning
for the Friday meeting of IFS next time (Feb. 1st & 2nd,
U of O)
1.
Ideas of
people to invite
a)
Gubernatorial
candidates
b)
legislators
c)
board member
Roger Bassett
d)
Board member
Geri Richmond
e)
Chancellor
Cox.
f)
Perhaps also
the person who chaired the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education of a
few years ago? Duncan Wyse.
g)
John Moseley,
Provost of U of O – who had presented in the past on ideas to increase
faculty salaries. Perhaps someone from the Budget Committee on which Moseley
served.
h)
Invite
Governor Kitzhaber and tap his perspective on our future and how to better
“sell” higher ed.
i)
Others thrown
out on the table for consideration
XV.
Election
of Officers
A.
Nominated
slate:
1.
Elaine
Deutschman – President
2.
Bill Danley
– Vice President (President-Elect)
3.
Marc Levy
– Secretary
4.
Bob Turner
– Academic Council Representative
B.
Unanimous
vote of approval of slate.
C.
Craig Wollner
continues as Past-President
XVI.
Calendar
items
A.
Next year
– October 4th & 5th OIT, December 6th
& 7th OHSU.
B.
OUS, AAUP,
OAF, IFS joint meeting on April 27th at OSU