President Van Luvanee, Members of the Board, Chancellor Cox:
Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to address you on matters important to faculty.

At our last meeting on April 6 and 7, IFS convened at the Oregon State Capitol building in Salem in order for members to make personal visits to their legislative representatives and to other legislators in key positions with respect to higher education budget deliberations. Prior to the visits, however, we were addressed first by Representative Lane Shetterly, Republican of Dallas, then by Representative Mark Simmons, the Republican Speaker of the House, and others. Representative Shetterly discussed his bill which calls for using the common school fund as a rainy day fund, in case of a fiscal emergency in Oregon. Speaker Simmons reaffirmed the commitment of the Republican caucus to adequate funding for higher education.

Speaker Simmons was followed by Senator Cliff Trow, a Democratic member of the Joint Ways and Means Education subcommittee who spoke about the prospects for an adequate higher education budget. Like Speaker Simmons and all others who addressed IFS at our meetings on those dates, he emphasized that the fate of the higher education budget would depend in large measure on the state economist's May revenue forecast, meaning that the task of budget making would finally commence once the final and firmest forecast of the moneys that will be available to the state from tax revenues is known. The prospect that the forecast would be favorable, he said, grows steadily less certain and, in fact, there is a generally held view in the Capitol that significant cuts will have to be made in some important programs, perhaps including higher education. Like Representative Simmons, Senator Trow was clear about his support and that of the subcommittee for higher education. He also said that it is imperative for the "kicker," the potential tax rebate, to be retained (at least in part) by the Legislature for higher education to achieve an adequate level of funding. He recommended that the higher education community explicitly thank Governor Kitzhaber for his rebalancing of the state budget and for his leadership on this matter. He also pointed out that the decennial redistricting of the state is about to occur with, perhaps, far reaching consequences for Oregon politics and for higher education.

Following this talk, the IFS senators dispersed and met with legislators. Notwithstanding the late hour on a Friday when these meetings occurred, there were some successful contacts and gratifying conversations held.

The Saturday meeting of IFS occurred in the context of the annual combined meeting of the Association of Oregon Faculties, AAUP, and IFS. The meeting was held at the Alumni Center on the OSU campus. It featured speakers such as lobbyists for the three organizations, Chancellor Cox, and, again, key legislators such as Senators Dave Nelson, Tom Hartung, Kate Brown, Len Hannon, Senator Trow, Representative Kelly Wirth, and John Wykoff of the Oregon Student Association. Much the same perspectives that we heard on Friday were given by the Saturday speakers about the dynamics of the current session and all speakers reiterated the importance of the May revenue forecast. Chancellor Cox made very positive remarks about the accomplishments of OUS over the last several years, pointing out that the system has responded to the demands of the Legislature and the public. We are, he noted, more accountable, more efficient, we have achieved a broader statewide reach. We have kept our part of the bargain to do better.

In the face of the uncertainty of our fiscal situation, IFS members left the meetings heartened by the positive attitude of the legislators we spoke with and Chancellor Cox's very affirmative message. In light of such clear signals that these legislators are eager to help us, the system's excellent performance, and the Governor's stepping forward to assist, we believe it is time for the Board to spend its capital as our stewards and help these legislators keep their commitment to this system.

Notwithstanding the support of our political allies, there is at least one difficult issue that has arisen in the Legislature. IFS hopes the Board will be willing to grapple with it. There is a movement among a handful of legislators to abolish the incidental fee system. Even though some who support this proposal are otherwise among the staunchest friends of higher education, it would, in our judgement, be an unwarranted intrusion into the educational process and a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water if they succeeded in such a campaign. The purport of this initiative seems to be to cut off from funding specific incidental fee supported student organizations which its sponsors find odious for one reason or another. They justify their concern as an attempt to reverse an instance of the tyranny of a minority. They say the programs they dislike appeal only to a small subset of the student body at any given school. They claim the incidental fee system is an undemocratic imposition on the rest of the student body and unworthy of institutional support as a matter of policy.

But, in fact, the incidental fee system on all campuses is a model of democracy. It is the abolition of incidental fees that would be undemocratic. More tot he point, abolition would have at least stultifying, and in some instances, devastating, effects throughout the system for students and for institutions. At OIT, for example, incidental fees fund a free bus system that moves students around the community and campus. They fund child care, an essential component of the educational enterprise for many students, disabled student services, athletic teams, cultural activities, student media, and arts events, activities that could not otherwise be supported within the institutional budget.

More than any of that, however, the attack on the incidental fee system is an unwonted incursion on academic freedom and free speech. Students have as much right as any scholar to the exercise of these rights on campus. That they choose to express it in ways funded by incidental fees which disturb some is nothing to the point. Their choices don't trouble state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, nor the U. S. Supreme Court. At each level of the judiciary, the courts have made it clear that it is the responsibility of the universities to protect this right for students. Without incidental fees, the rich and various cultures of the campus communities would be utterly compromised. That would be a tragedy for students. IFS therefore urges the Board to take notice of this threat and to resist it vigorously.

A number of questions were asked about the budget model at our meeting and I have been directed to raise them with you. They betray some faculty frustration with the way its operations have unfolded, as it were, at the grass roots level, and we ask the board to consider them carefully.

The first issue concerns accountability: are the moneys generated in the RAM filtering down to the lowest level. That is, does tuition follow the student all the way down to the department? Clearly the answer to this question will differ from campus to campus, but there is a fundamental issue here that should be addressed in a way that faculty who feel betrayed by high enrollments with little return through the model can understand.

Second, IFS would like the Board to give attention to the way that the model treats the small institutions. Are they being funded adequately under the budget model? Faculty in the regional institutions feel extremely vulnerable in the RAM and need reassurance that, in the end, there will be recognition of the special circumstances, including budgets that can't tolerate even small drops in enrollments for there to be a disastrous destabilization of the small institutions.

Third, faculty would like to be assured that the budget model itself is under review. Someone asked only partly in jest if there were performance indicators for the RAM. In any case, we assume that the cell values are correct, but are they?

Having sat through some of the budget committee's deliberations and listened to the presentations of Vice Chancellor Anderes and others, I'm sure that these questions seem rudimentary to you. But they bespeak a continuing unease on the part of faculty with the model and the process. It would build confidence for faculty to have more input in the budgeting process at the system level and IFS advocates that, but we feel it is equally important for the Board, as the advocate of all the system's stake holders, to question the functionality of the model at every turn and to consider the unique relationship of each of the institutions to the model as it scrutinizes the results of the RAM's application.

H. L. Mencken, the great curmudgeon of American letters, once noted that there is ìno idea so stupid that you can't find a professor who will believe it.î A few weeks ago it seemed would have seemed far fetched to think that we could triumph over the fiscal adversity that lurked ahead. But the heartening report card given OUS by Chancellor Cox that profiles our vibrancy and the encouragement of our friends in the Legislature at our meetings, as well as the resolve of Governor Kitzhaber to change the fiscal equation, suggest that we do have the chance to deliver ourselves from disaster, notwithstanding even the projected revenue shortfall. At the same time, if we uphold the most sacred principles of the academy, we can offer our students the full educational experience they deserve. Finally, if we work together we can make our budget model work not just for the present, but for the long run. Call me stupid. I believe that if we work hard over the next long weeks to adjournment, we can make a significant difference in the fate of our system on a number of fronts. Thank you.