Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

DRAFT Minutes for June 6/7, 2003

University of Oregon

 

June 6, 2003:

 

Present:  Bill Danley (SOU, retired), Peter Gilkey, (UO), Dan Edge (OSU), Elizabeth Boretz (EOU), Mina Carson (OSU), Elaine Deutschman (OIT), James Earl (UO), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Laura Jones (SOU), Jim Lundy (OSU), Marny Rivera (SOU), Paul Simonds (UO, retired), Jim Tooke (EOU), Bob Turner (WOU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Robert Zimmerman (UO)

 

Absent:  Marye Hefty (OIT), Scott Burns (PSU), Duncan Carter (PSU), Nels Carlson (OHSU), Dick Fairley (OHSU), Steve Teich (OHSU)

 

Guests: Representative Phil Barnhart; Roger Bassett, State Board; Shirley Clark, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs at UO; Geri Richmond, State Board; Tim Young, State Board

 

Meeting opened at 1 p.m. by President Danley with introduction of guests.

 

Dr. Lorraine Davis:  Welcoming and other remarks included:

·       Meetings such as the IFS meetings important in keeping lines of communication open between faculty and administration

·       Important to keep communication open among institutions and between administrators and the Chancellor's office as well

·       If there isn't cooperative, collaboratice discussion among all sectors of the system, we're doing ourselves a disservice

·       Legislative turmoil continues; faculty should seek information from scheduled guests at the meeting to become better advocates for higher ed.

·       More stressful session than previous 5 she's dealt with for several reasons:

·       Term limits – new legislators aren't up to speed on higher ed; have no historical perspective to build on

·       Revenue situation is worse this session

·       People don't know the new chancellor and he's not familiar with how the legislature operates

·       PERS situation affecting OUS – premature retirements, anxiety, decisions to retire being made based on not trusting the information available

·       Issues U of O is currently focussing on:

·       Faculty salaries which are now at the bottom of comparitor institutions

·       Tuition increases vs  maintaining access; need-based support is too low

·       Proportion of courses being taught by contingent faculty – adjuncts, non-tenure track etc. Currently about one-third taught by contingent faculty

·       Treatment of contingent faculty

·       A major capital campaign underway to raise $600 million; proposals for the funds coming from faculty and others; about 700 proposals under review; $100 million will go to scholarships and another $100 million to endowed chairs.  Some faculty concerned about the size of athletic component - $180 million – but administration unwilling to decouple athletics from the whole university picture.

 

 

Geri Richmond: 

·       The Board and the system can't be so overwhelmed by the budget woes that we can't see ways to move forward

·       Good news is the Board is the best its been in a long time – very proactive, acting like a governing board rather than an advisory board, has taken the lead in strategic planning and is thinking about where OUS should be going and where it wants to be

·       Being a faculty member on the Board has been a mostly positive experience though occasionally communication hasn't been the best

·       Faculty can make the biggest impact through their institution presidents; if presidents can say "my faculty are passionately concerned about the quality of our product that is being eroded in ways that might not be apparent for several years", that will be heard by the Board and legislators.

 

Roger Bassett: 

·       The Board has been clear that access will be limited; both it and the community college board have adopted a "quality vs enrollment" statement.

·       Board has one more vote to go after the budget is known on how many can be admitted in 2003 – 04 to keep 2002 – 03 level of quality. The Board will make clear that enrollment levels are a consequence of limited funds.

·       Money goes to fund growth; must get past the notion that we need growth though the budget model demands this. It's difficult to say "it's better that you don't go to an OUS school than to go and get a poor education".

·       On the legislative session:           

·       Good news is that legislators are considering revenue options; discussion isn't exclusively about cuts; question is – is this serious consideration or a "get out of town" move so that most heavily lobbied items will win?

·       If legislators are looking at revenues only to avoid further cuts, they'll look only at small potatoes, not tax overhaul.

·       The Governor probably wants to do more in terms of revenue but can't or won't do anything just now

·       The Governor is proposing taking some money from capital gains revenues to put into an endowment fund to provide need-based money for access to both public and private institutions.  Building such a fund will take a long time

·       The Board "has planted flags" on both access (that it is money driven) and on quality

·       The Board will be focussing on mission differentiation to define what is uniquely attractive from a marketing point of view for each institution

·       The Joint Board is looking at how prepared students are when they come to OUS or community colleges

·       The Chancellor realizes the growth he sought last fall won't happen but he doesn't want to abandon that aspiration

 

Tim Young:

·       OUS wants its degrees to mean something. 

·       Board must make it clear that it isn't saying deny students access but that it's preserving the worth of what we have.

·       Personal concern for overuse of private funds (as in foundations supporting institution presidents) as those private donors may want to set the agenda for public higher ed.

 

Discussion points with Board Members and Senators:

·       Enrollments may drop because prospective students don't any longer see value in an OUS education

·       "Hydraulics" among Chancellor's Office, Board, legislators, Governor, institutions and faculty are strongly affected by lack of continuity; legislators, governor, state board members etc. change from time to time.

·       In answer to the question "Is the RAM dead?":

·       It will live because the Oregon Business Council believes in it and has influence

·       It will live because its calculator function can show consequences of underfunding

·       It will live because the system needs some framework to allocate funds and the RAM does that.

·       RAM has to be refined to help small schools and handle special projects

·       The legislature is interested in such refinements and modifications

·       The Board will review the RAM and reaffirm it as a good allocation model

·       RAM would only die if the OUS system goes because of serious underfunding

 

Representative Barnhart: (Represents parts of Lane and Linn counties – Democrat - in his second term)

·       Legislators and other stakeholders like the Governor are engaged in a big chess game

·       21 of 35 Republicans in the House have taken the "no new taxes" pledge

·       16 other Republicans and 25 Democrats believe the budgets they're now looking at are disasters

·       Speaker of the House must be convinced to let revenue committee send revenue bills forward to the full house where they'll probably pass; currently, such bills are not allowed out of committee

·       Even if passed in House, need a 60% support in the Senate and finally the Governor must agree as well

·       Slowly, slowly some representatives are coming around; conversations are beginning on just getting bills to the floor

·       Most likely outcome is something similar to the Governor's April revised budget

·       $1.5 - $3.5 billion in revenue needed to be where the state was at the beginning budget of the 2001 - 03 biennium

·       Short-term revenue options include:

·       fixing loopholes in the income tax where almost $1 billion has been carved out in loopholes since 1997

·       could collect $3 billion if limits on deductions are set

·       apply an across-the-board compression factor to business credits and deductions as these can't be addressed one at a time; such a compression would quickly raise revenue and could be part of a long-term revenue solution

·       tax real estate transactions, though this probably wouldn't pass

·       apply a provider tax on hospital receipts; money would be returned to hospitals in the form of medicaid payments that are matched by federal funds

·       Long-term ideas:

·       Business education tax charged at low rates to business – really a sales tax

·       Statewide property tax increase though that probably wouldn't pass

·       Republicans won't refer any tax measure to the voters that might pass as they continue to believe that Oregonians don't want to raise their own taxes

·       Republicans keep bills off the floor that will make their members look bad and be accountable

·       The best thing faculty members can do is talk to your legislators about what's happening to your programs and students on your campus – the personal perspective

 

June , 2003:

 

Present:  Bill Danley (SOU, retired), Peter Gilkey, (UO), Dan Edge (OSU), Elizabeth Boretz (EOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Nels Carlson (OHSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Elaine Deutschman (OIT), James Earl (UO), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Laura Jones (SOU), Jim Lundy (OSU), Marny Rivera (SOU), Paul Simonds (UO, retired), Jim Tooke (EOU), Bob Turner (WOU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Robert Zimmerman (UO)

 

Absent:  Marye Hefty (OIT), Duncan Carter (PSU), Dick Fairley (OHSU), Steve Teich (OHSU)

 

Guests: Richard Jarvis, OUS Chancellor; Susan Weeks, OUS Deputy for Planning and Chief Information Officer

 

Meeting opened at 8 a.m. by President Danley with introduction of guests.

 

Susan Weeks: 

·       There will be no additonal revenue for OUS this biennium

·       Planning is underway for the 2005 –07 biennium

·       Powerpoint presentation included the following points:

·       Demand expectations are for 93,300 students by 2010

·       Student-faculty ratios are increasing; as of 2002, the ratio was at 25.9

·       Faculty compensation weighed against comparitors is dropping – near the bottom for most institutions; even though comparitors are also declining, OUS salaries declining faster with respect to median.

·       OUS faculty are aging so retirements will increase in the next few years

·       All indicators pointing to a mess – what happens to quality?

·       The goal setting model developed in 1998 to increase faculty salaries supports Joint Boards statement on quality – a framework for figuring new salaries; model does not take into account the shrinking worth of benefits

 

Chancellor Jarvis: 

·                Reflections on the "Salem Experience"

·       OUS working on 2005-07 relationships; the setup for that biennium is being made now

·       Any money that may become available will go to student enrollment; the most that could be expected is $30 million of a $60 million shortfall

·       The ending budget will be between the Governor's April revised budget of $742 million and the co-chair's $704 million

·       Session has done a wonderful job of reducing expectations

·       Could live with the Governor's revised budget if (a) tuition increases of 3.4% for 2003-04 and 8.8% in 2004-05 (over previous year's tuition) are approved and (b) the Efficiency Act proposals are passed.

·       Proposed tuition increases would maintain access to Oregonians at the 2003-04 level; can't take more

·       If the Governor and legislature won't maintain access at current levels and instead buy into letting enrollment drop, that could snowball to the stance of "let them pay for it themselves" and let the colleges raise their own money. There are many out there who feel that way.

·       If OUS is forced to take more students, student's won't get sections, time to graduation will increase, retention suffers – a downward spiral

·       Social contract on education ends at K-12.  Community colleges are on the "cusp" of the social contract; for many, higher ed. is a private good.

·       Even legislators who support higher ed. say $4000/year is not so bad and a debt load of $28,000 is what it takes to buy a car so that's not all that bad.

·       If you allow downsizing of higher ed., you're out of the social contract

·       If body politic will allow community colleges to stumble, you're in a new ballgame since community colleges have always had hearts and minds of legislators.

·       If tuition increases fail, that's a budget cut; that's the only source of revenue.

·       State support of students declining: in 1999 – 01, tuition covered about 50% of costs and state support covered the same while under the Governor's revised budget, the split is more like 60% tuition and 40% state support

·       Efficiency act garners no money; if it's passed, the extra interest income could be put into financial aid through the Governor's access endowment fund

·       Co-chair's budget is $42 million less than what OUS currently has – would permit about 5000 fewer students from 2002-03 numbers

·       Governor's budget would permit about 2000 fewer students;

·       If tuition increases are approved, extra students could be over-enrolled to get to the 2002-03 numbers

·       All performance indicators are up; graduation rates, diversity, retention etc – OUS knows what to do; if the legislature will give OUS the money, it will do what it's been asked to do

·       OUS must distill its arguments to 2 or 3 pithy points as K-12 has: class size, national scores, teacher compensation

·       Chancellor poses three questions to the faculty: (a)  What makes the issue of faculty compensation rise to the top of legislative concern?  (b) How do we frame the case for increasing compensation? (c)  What are the first steps toward a 2005-07 faculty compensation inititative?

·       Higher ed is on everyone's top-10 list but on no one's top-2 list; no one in leadership has a passion for higher ed; no one will "die on a hill" for higher ed.

·       Higher ed's biggest influence factors are students and their woes; to some extent, the high tech industry; some industry groups but only for targeted programs

 

IFS business meeting:

 

·       Bill Danley shared some newpaper articles on PERS and on the AFL-CIO tax initiative plan

·       Craig Wollner reviewed his academic council report (he sat in for Dan Edge); the full report is posted on the web

·       Bill Danley augmented his web-posted Board report by wondering if the Board focus on mission differentiation was a euphenism for no duplication even though the Board is saying it wants to capitalize on each university's strengths

·       Bill Danley asked if any institution was seeing faculty flee because of salaries; response was no large numbers leaving but retirements are creating vacancies and hiring is going on a good salaries.

·       Paul Simonds was introduced; spoke about his first attempts at putting together the IFS history since 1991; noted he had pretty complete lists of members and officers but was awaiting reports from former presidents to fill out the history

·       The editorial/publicity initiative goes forward; purpose is to be more pro-active, to let people know where we stand and to educate about issues surrounding higher ed.  Letters-to-editors will explain that we provide a service, care about our students and care about the quality of their education.

·       Any IFS senator who'd like to produce an opinion piece is welcome to do so; send short, pithy pieces to Bill Danley and he'll disseminate them.

 

Campus reports:

·       OSU

·       Vision 2007 published; talks of combining colleges; will mean more committees to study feasibility of suggestions

·       New president selected; from Ohio State University

·       Extension service will be laying off tenured faculty in a not-very-apparent process that will undoubtedly result in court suits

 

·       EOU

·       Presidential search underway

·       Provost is taking back release time originally promised faculty in order to save class sections

·       Large numbers of faculty are not leaving but it has been difficult to attract the best candidates for openings

·       Non-tenured faculty received letters apprising that they wouldn't be rehired – an employment-law requirement

 

·       OIT

·       The Fiscal Oversight Advisory Committee has asked the administration for a 1% - 3% COLA or a 4.5% salary increase to be awarded by merit, inequities and some cost-of-living; there have been no salary adjustments at OIT this biennium

·       Administration responded with an offer of 2% COLA; the request has gone to the Chancellor as it must be in place by the end of this biennium to avoid the Governor's salary freeze; the Chancellor is "thinking about it" because he feels it's bad timing, politically speaking.  Faculty are grumbling because of the raise the Chancellor granted the president at an equally bad time, politically speaking.

 

·       SOU

·       Students are questioning the building of a new library at the same time as library hours are being reduced to save money; they don't understand the nuances of state spending

·       The massive reorganization to consolidate schools and conserve funding undertaken earlier this year was abandoned by the President in a rather blunt way; that's left many wondering what's going on

 

·       PSU

·       Capital campaign- first in PSU's history – underway and about 60% complete.  The Director of Development, who's been responsible for its success thus far, is leaving; some worry about the effect of his leaving on the result

·       Building 2 new dorms in partnerships; rental retail space on the ground floor, with residents living above

·       Native American center is complete

·       Vision of enlarging the university to a "University District" that will extend down to the Willamette River

·       All fixed-term faculty told in December that they wouldn't be rehired; while many will return, the effect has been destabilizing

·       Deans, chairs & program directors will be on month-t0-month contracts starting fall term

 

·       OHSU

·       River front development is proceeding rather more slowly than anticipated; completion date not certain

·       University side of OHSU will be expected to make it on its own and not depend on money from the hospital side; to do that, salaries are being reduced, tuition increased, class sizes increasing; at OGI, programs are being combined and staff reduced

·       Hospital is attempting to reduce the numbers of non-paying and low-paying patients; taking no gratis dental patients and there are no longer pharmacy services without up-front payment

·       150 – 200 jobs will be lost at OHSU

 

·       U of O

·       Refer to Dr. Davis's report on Friday – that pretty well summarized what U of O is doing

 

·       WOU

·       New president has had a brutal first year; he wanted to protect full-time faculty so laid of 30 staff which lead to some bad press and a sour taste in the mouths of remaining staff

·       Positions at WOU are being filled but staff cuts have hurt; some searches are being abandoned because there aren't resources to get the people needed

 

October 3/4 Meeting in Ashland:

 

·       Marny Rivera and Laura Jones will be planning the meeting

·       Chancellor will be invited

·       Make play and motel reservations early to assure you get what you want

 

Meeting adjourned shortly after 11 a.m. – new record?!?