Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Meeting

April 6 and 7, 2007

 

Friday, April 6, 1:00 p.m., State Capitol, Hearing Room 50

 

Present: Joel Alexander (WOU), Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Duncan Carter (PSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Marye Hefty (OIT), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Janet Hume-Schwarz (EOU), Jeff Johnson (EOU), Kirsten Lampi (OHSU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), John Nicols (UO), Peter Gilkey (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Joanne Sorte (OSU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Dan Wilson (SOU), Craig Wollner (PSU), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU)

 

Absent: Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU)

 

I.  Jock Mills, OSU Government Relations, Co-Chair HELN

 

A.  Reviewed that for the OUS operating budget, the governor’s proposed budget for OUS was $874.6 million. The Ways and Means Co-Chairs’ budget is less than this at $840 million, which is a loss of $34.5 million for higher education. The programs likely to be reduced by this budget include the following:

• Instructional programs (to be determined)
• OSU-Cascades campus (some portion of the $7 million reduced by the co-chairs)
• Statewide public service programs ($5.5 million reduction) applied to agricultural experimentation stations, extension services, and the forest research laboratory
• Engineering and Technology Industry Council—ETIC ($7 million reduction)
• Institute of Natural Resources ($.3 million reduction).

 

B.  Reviewed that the governor’s capital budget was set at $324.8 million. The co-chairs’ budget is much less at $53 million. The reduction is $271.8 million. Stated that schools have money on the table for supporting new buildings, but this budget reduction means that the bonds will not be available to match this money.

 

B.  Stated that is appears the legislature is positioning the higher education reductions to be the instigator for convincing the business community to support increasing the corporate minimum tax (to adequately fund higher education because an educated workforce is needed for corporations).

 

C.  Shared that he believes that the co-chairs’ budget at this time does not have enough votes to pass any of the budgets. The budgets are either not enough or too much. Therefore, to get where they need to go, they may refer the corporate minimum tax out to the voters (to increase the $10 minimum), but the voters will not see this until September, which is a timing problem for OUS. Also, if the tax passes, the business people are stating that they want the money earmarked, and in the past this tax money has not been dedicated to higher education.

 

D.  Explained that one way to talk about this $35 million cut is to explain that the legislature is forcing tuition increases on students because the legislature did not come through for higher education (as it did for K-12).

 

E.  Shared an OSU letter from Ed Ray and OSU to Senator Schrader that states that OSU supports the K-12 budget “but without concurrent investment in its public universities, the Legislature will create an empty promise for current and future students across the state.”

 

F.   Asked that higher education supporters pack the rooms at the public hearings that are occurring across the state. If you are not there, they will notice. Get everyone you possibly can to attend these meetings. They need to hear that we are really hurting under this budget proposal. There is a 20% increase in revenue increase in this budget, so give us our share; we would be delighted with 12-15%, which is what the governor’s recommended budget gave us.

 

G.  Stated that the co-chairs’ budget is a slap in the face to rural Oregon.  

 

H.  Ended by stating that this is a marathon. We can’t just scream and disappear. Our efforts need to build to a crescendo. The 20% increase in revenue is not enough. We need to increase the corporate minimum tax. (We need a new tax structure, but this will not happen soon enough.) For the public hearings, get there early and provide public comment. It is theatre. Get there early and sign up. Have students turn out big time. You can submit written comments (email). If you want your comments to make a difference, make sure the comments go to the legislature, and make sure your address is listed on this email. We are not as loud or effective as K-12 and the community colleges.

 

II. Rob Wagner, Director of Political and Legislative Affairs for the American Federation of Teachers in Oregon, Legislative update from AFT

 

A.  Explained that AFT is a 12,000 union of professionals. We represent more than five of the seven OUS campuses. Nationally, we have 160,000 members in higher education.

 

B.  Shared that House Bill 2579 passed in committee. It adds a second faculty representative to the State Board of Higher Education. This second seat will be filled by a representative from one of the regional schools.

 

C.  Asked for IFS support for House Bill 2579. IFS put forth a motion to write a letter to support the bill. Because of the discussion resulting from one no vote and one abstention (“we have not had the chance to discuss or review the bill”), the IFS passed a motion to reconsider the support letter after discussion on Saturday.

 

D.  Shared details of House Bill 2578, which addresses the fact that we have seen a shift in full-time tenure tracked faculty to more part-time and adjunct faculty. We are looking at a way to address the faculty and staffing crises in the United States. We have bills running in 10 states. The bill has two sections: 1) more and better paid faculty at our universities and community colleges (in Oregon we need to get to peer median in 5 years) and 2) equity issues for part time instructors. This bill requires a new fund to be established to find additional revenue. This bill highlights what has happened because of our disinvestment in higher education. From Measure 5 and on, we know that in inflation-adjusted dollars the state’s commitment to the Oregon University System has declined 26% since the 91-92 legislature. This bill is not perfect, but it is a first attempt to get a conversation going about what is happening to higher education in this state. We are balancing the budget on the backs of students and our faculty.

 

E.   IFS members discussed concerns with House Bill 2578. This discussion prompted Mr. Wagner to state that the bill will not pass, but it is a way to start a discussion and to wake the legislature up about the cost. An IFS member stated that what this bill does is turn the discussion to faculty salaries, and we should not do this now. Instead, our message should be that we are concerned about hurting a generation of students. IFS members brought up concerns about how the bill would impact graduate students who need the teaching assistantships/fellowships. Another member mentioned the real threat to the tenure system from such a bill. Another member stressed that this bill takes the conversion from students to faculty salaries, and this is not a smart message right now.

 

F.  Explained that House Bill 2891 enables 50% + 1 of union cards submitted (the number is 30% now) to the Employment Relations Board (with no election) to result in initiation of a union.

 

III. Melisa Unger, Oregon Student Association President

 

A.  Shared that this session OSA is focused on 1) tuition and funding, 2) the shared responsibility model, 3) ASPIRE, and 4) tuition equity

 

B. Reviewed the OSA report “Where are we at and where are we going? A survey of college campuses and students in Oregon.”  The report contains data from surveys and interviews of administrators, faculty, staff, and students. One of the biggest impacts we found was on morale on college campuses. One quote was, “When you ask someone to do their job and then someone else’s job, morale quickly diminishes.” A big thing students mentioned was the increase in class size and the decrease in classes. The funding cuts have diminished quality.

 

1.     Students reported being highly satisfied with their interactions with faculty, but the two most concerning trends are that 29% of the students said that a lack of access to a class extended their time in college and 43% of seniors reported this. As students progressed, the number got higher.

2.     50% of students stated that costs have directly impacted their education. Students are reporting that they are not going to graduate school because of cost. Students are taking the minimum classes because of costs. Costs scare students overall. For students, they wonder if was the cost worth it (going $40,000 into debt.) Students believe their cost is unmanageable. Students reported that they believe debt will impact their career choices.

3.     Almost 30% of students will change their school plans based on a tuition increase.

 

C.  Shared that the slogan for the report is that campuses are teetering on a very dangerous edge, and if we do not get help, we will fall. The university system is in crisis. Our message is that the legislature has to buy affordability.

 

D.  Reviewed OSA’s work on House Bill 2705 that supports providing in-state tuition to the children of undocumented parents when these children have graduated from an Oregon high school and attended the high school for at least three years. We think this is an education issue and not an immigration issue. We are looking for endorsement (a letter) from IFS. This bill has been passed in 10 other states. We are the only state in the Pacific Northwest that has not passed this bill.

 

E.  Asked faculty to attend the “road show” state hearings in the next few weeks and to ask students to attend. If you can’t speak, please wear your school colors. Also, ask faculty to send emails to their legislators. We need to get in their faces (Ways and Means).

 

IV.  Mark Endsley, Director of K-16 Alignment for the Oregon University System

 

A.  Explained that the K-16 system is at a crossroads related to assessing student proficiency (for their preparedness for college). Many of the systems in place over the last decade turned out to be too complex, cumbersome, and bureaucratic to sustain themselves. CIM and CAM are currently in theory on the chopping block, but what this means is that the terminology will disappear, the certificates will disappear, but the standards will continue. So, the same expectations are there. We will just not recognize students who achieve the expectations, which is ironic. Politically, the terminology has baggage with it. It was perceived as an exercise in compliance, so the terms have to go. So what we are thinking about now is what do we put in their place?

 

B.  The State Board of Education in February adopted new diploma credit requirements including upping math and English requirements, and eventually adopting another year of science. The goal of the State Board for Education is to ensure that the diploma represents college readiness or workforce readiness. Arguably this has not been true of the diploma in the past. Until this new diploma change, Oregon was in the bottom third of all states in diploma requirements. This bumps us up into the top half.

 

C.  Stated that proficiency is taking on new dimensions. We are going to restart the conversation about what proficiency looks like. What are the measurements that are valuable to us? The State Board adopted the essential skills (the old process skills), and these are difficult to assess and define. In mid-May the Department of Education will receive a report from West-Ed about how the proficiency system is working in our system and about ideas for future directions. We plan to bring faculty together in May across the campuses to begin this discussion related to what has happened in the past and what needs to happen in the future. What I am hoping is not to answer all the questions in May, but what we need to have are people who are ready to engage in the conversation.

 

D.  IFS members discussed issues related to addressing proficiency. For example, what do we tell colleagues who have been down the CIM and CAM road about how this process will be different? Mark’s answer involved the integrated data transfer system, a new look at making the system less complex, and focusing on student outcomes and not teacher centered. One IFS member mentioned expanding the AP tests as a way to address proficiency. Another IFS member mentioned that faculty are more overworked now than 10 years ago, and they may be reluctant to get involved in this issue because of issues such as timing and cost. Mark responded that travel and lodging will be paid for. We are looking for three to four people from different disciplines on each campus to work with us. We are not starting over. We have some reliable measures.

 

V. George Pernsteiner, OUS Chancellor

 

A.  Shared that, “Oregonians sit in the present and look to a better past.” The co-chairs’ budget “is a very good budget for the 1950s.” It finally funds K-12 education at a level that will allow students to succeed, which is an important milestone. With this budget, we can tell university students that they can afford to go to school, but the schools cannot afford to come up with the new course sections, so there is no one there to teach them. Part of the challenge that we have is how do we connect with people about the future instead of remembering a rosy view of the past?

 

B.  Mentioned that the governor’s higher education budget was good start, but the co-chairs decided it was a bridge too far by about $35 million on the operating side and by 271.8 million on the capital side. They basically said that they do not buy into the governor’s K-20 vision. Basically, the budget does not support rural Oregon. The message appears to be that we in Portland have subsidized you for years and it must stop. They reduced money for regional campuses, they eliminated the rural access initiative that Eastern had, by eliminating the funding for the ASPIRE program, by cutting statewide public services. Basically, the reductions fell disproportionately on the regional campuses. The big impacts are going to happen on the rural campuses. We are now back to a view that post-secondary education is a privilege and a luxury. Stated that the co-chairs’ budget has political undertones.

 

C.  Urged that students and faculty need to turn out in their school colors for the co-chair hearings that are occurring in the next week throughout the state. The co-chairs need to hear from higher education. We need to put enough pressure on our legislators. Push this as aggressively and vocally as we can. I am hearing this from real people.

 

D.  Stated that we are pawns in the revenue game related to upping the corporate minimum. We will be trying to bring our business supporters to the table, which is why I believe ETIC got cut.  The legislature is trying to get to the republicans in the rural districts to vote for the corporate minimum tax. (In 1931 the corporate minimum was $10 and tuition and fees at UO $78. In 2007 the tuition and fees at UO are $5970, and the corporate minimum is $10.) The problem is that the likeliness of getting this is really hard. Do turn out for the hearings. My concern is that the corporate tax will not pass. I don’t like being caught with this being my only option.

 

E.  Stressed that the capital budget is more dire than the operating budget as proposed. It will be the worst we have faced since post Measure 5. We have zero dollars for repairs. Discussed that Lincoln Hall (abandoned by the Portland School district in 1952 as unfixable) at PSU needs substantial repair work to remain open (the conditional use permit expired last Saturday night), and there is not enough money in the proposed budget to do both repair of PSU buildings and to fix Lincoln Hall. We cannot live with the co-chairs capital budget because if we close down Lincoln Hall, we close down 13% of the campus space on a campus that is running throughout the day and evenings.

 

F.  Mentioned that it is early yet, and “I remain cautious and cautiously optimistic.”

 

G.  Asked the five campuses that were open in 1942 to discuss on campus how they plan to address providing honorary degrees for Japanese citizens who were interned during WW-II, specifically during 1942. We need to ensure that a process is followed and that each request is valid.

 

VI. Denise Yunker, OUS HR Director and Vice Chancellor Jay Kenton

 

A.  Provided an update on the work of the TDI-ORP reform committee. There will be three record keepers because we are finding that the companies do not work well together. The major record keeper will be Fidelity. Another will be TIAA-CREF, which will have no changes. AIG VALIC will continue for those who have been working with them, but it is not open to new members because this group has the highest fees and the worst investments.

 

B.  Reviewed that the Investment Committee wants to add advisory committee members from the faculty (including Larry Dann from UO, Kim Signavich from SOU, Chuck Subtle from PSU). There will be four faculty members on the committee, including Larry Curtis from OSU (and formally IFS).

 

C.  Reviewed that the core menu of funds includes 1) asset allocation funds, passively managed index funds, actively managed mutual funds (fixed, bonds, and equities), and choices for mutual funds and annuities.

 

E.  Explained that the next job is communicating with campuses. Most of this will go into high gear in September or October. There is a plan and we have made great progress. We got a lot smarter in the process.

 

The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m.

 

Saturday, April 7, 8:45 a.m., Western Oregon University Library

 

Present: Joel Alexander (WOU), Lee Ayers (SOU), Scott Burns (PSU), Mina Carson (OSU), Duncan Carter (PSU), Paul Doescher (OSU), Marye Hefty (OIT), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Janet Hume-Schwarz (EOU), Kirsten Lampi (OHSU), Kathie Lasater (OHSU), John Nicols (UO), Peter Gilkey (UO), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Joanne Sorte (OSU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Dan Wilson (SOU), Kate Hunter-Zaworski (OSU)

 

Absent: Sarah Andrews-Collier (PSU), Muriel Shaul (OHSU), Craig Wollner (PSU), and Jeff Johnson (EOU), who attempted to attend but was accidentally locked out of the building.

 

I. Reports

 

A.  President’s Report. Mina Carson attended two Unified Education Enterprise meetings. The group is looking seriously at dual credit programs, such as College Now. Duncan Carter is on the subcommittee and is a point person for College Now information.

 

B.  Lee Ayers reported on the presentations being planned for the OUS University System Presentation to the Education Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, 2007 Legislative Session April 18, 19, 23, and 24. She commended the Chancellor and his team for preparing extensive data about the impacts of financial cuts and the erosion of services and facilities.

 

C.  IFS members shared ideas for communicating with legislators and constituents about the budget for higher education. In addition to sharing many campus stories about having to accomplish more with much less, IFS members stated that we need to get the message out all year long and every year. We need to be consistently in our legislators’ faces. However, we need to be careful of sharing stories that show how we successfully respond to doing more with much less because this does not help our cause. Another point mentioned was that none of the universities has the nimbleness to respond to major issues. Climatic change is a good example. PSU put together a plan for addressing issues related to climate change. However, the only way to fund the plan is to cut funding in other areas on campus. Campuses do not have the resources to respond to anything new. As universities, we should be responding to society, but we can’t do this. Another member mentioned that we should present a catalog of recent university disasters resulting from lack of funding. Our legislators need to hear from us daily. Another point is that because of increased tuition students cannot afford to come so we have declining student numbers. The beautiful campus environments (e.g., manicured grass and flowers) are a façade. Behind this front, like Lincoln Hall (which is beautiful on the outside but red tagged by the city because of needed upgrades), the buildings are falling apart.

 

D.  Mina Carson requested that each campus send her the following:

1)    The campus strategy for communicating with the Ways and Means Co-Chairs and constituents, including the campus approach to attending the hearings and testimony, emails to legislators and visits.

2)    Examples of the dire situations in the classroom, including photos of buildings falling apart, examples and photos of over crowded classrooms, and any other data that tell our story

3)    Specifics of failed searches and other anecdotes illustrating pressure on faculty attempting to do good work.

 

E.  JBAC report. Maureen reported that JBAC met on Thursday. She reported that the AAOT is going up for review by the Council of Instructional Administrators (community college group). The OTM will be rolled into the AAOT. The AAOT starts at 90 credits and could go as high as 108. The AAOT is supposed to satisfy lower division general education. The working model seems to be with courses and not credits. An ASOT (Associate of Science Oregon Transfer) is being discussed. The only case of this now is business, and it works. In a lot of majors this would be far more beneficial. The disciplinary faculty will need to drive this.

 

F.  Sarah Andrews-Collier was ill and could not give the Provosts’ Council report in person. However, her minutes are posted at http://www.ous.edu/about/provcouncil/meetmat.php

 

 II. Laura Wisecaver, Institutional Research at Linn Benton Community College and Rich Horton the LBCC College Now Coordinator

 

A.  Laura explained that College Now involves students who take classes in high school and get college credit for it. The teachers of these classes are qualified to teach at the community college level. The classes are content controlled to match the expectations of colleges, and the students get college credit for the course if they earn an A or B.

 

B.  Laura started research three years ago, which she updates each year, to determine if the students in College Now did as well in the next class. For example, if they took writing 121, how would they do in writing 122 compared to students who took the class in college?

 

C.  She announced that based on the data her findings for LBCC students show that in just about every way students who earn an A or B in the course in high school through College Now do better in the subsequent course than students who take the course in college. An example she gave for LBCC is that for College Now students who earned an A or B, in 2001 for writing 121 90% passed the next class in comparison to 80% taking the next course and passing it from non-College Now courses. In 2002, 90% College Now passing versus 80% non-College Now passing. In 2003, it is 83.7% passing with College Now versus 78.1% for non-College Now.

 

D.  She shared her insight into why she believes the College Now students do better. The students who are in College Now are automatically a different set of students than those who take this course at the community college. Developmental statistics show if you are a faster, easier learner at the beginning, then you will be a faster, easier learner latter. You are looking at the All Star team when you look at College Now students. So, when you see the data, you are looking at the All Star team in College Now, and you are seeing basic students in the other courses.

 

E.  After much discussion, the IFS members thanked Laura and agreed this type of data analysis needs to be completed for all 16 community colleges. In addition, members shared that placement issues are separate from College Now issues.

 

III. Motion to Endorse House Bill 2579

 

A.  House Bill 2579 “increases number of directors appointed to the State Board of Higher Education. Reapportions representation of faculty at public institutions of higher education between two members.” Basically, this bill adds a new member to the Board from the faculty of EOU, OIT, SOU, or WOU and requires the other director to be from PSU, OSU, or UO. Currently, there is only one faculty representative on the Board. This change will ensure representation from both a large school and a smaller school.

 

B.  It was moved that IFS endorse HB 2579. The move was seconded, discussed, and voted on resulting in unanimous approval.

 

C.  IFS will provide Rob a letter next week that documents IFS support.

 

IV. Discussion about House Bill 2705

 

A.  This bill is being championed by the OSA. It deals with allowing in-state tuition for the children of undocumented parents in cases where these children have attended a high school in Oregon for 3 years and attend an Oregon college.

 

B.  Because the members have not read the bill, Mina will email a copy of the bill for more discussion, and the group will communicate through email about if and how this should be supported.

 

V. Campus Reports

 

WOU—On April 18, the accreditation team comes. The provost has taken a position as the president at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.  

 

OIT—Accreditation team is on campus next week. The president is at OHSU because of illness. The exact nature of the illness is not being shared with the campus community. The board chair, Henry Lorenzen, will be at OIT next week to lead our campus through accreditation. Last month the campus completed a 10-year strategic planning congress event. The faculty is doing a review of the provost’s office.  The first phase of the Center of Health Professions building is on schedule for completion this summer. The second phase has received private financial support, but the new Ways and Means budget at this time prevents OIT from getting a bond to fund the rest of the construction.

 

UO—The Faculty Senate passed legislation that endorsed the call of the provost to follow through on the investigation of the effectiveness and credit tracking concerns of the College Now program. UO is facing their accreditation visit soon. As part of this, the campus has undertaken a major record archiving process. Peter urged all of us to ensure that we attend the Ways and Means public hearing in the next week (and get as many people as we can to attend for higher education). This is our most important task in the next week.

 

OSU—All of our budget planning efforts have been put on hold because of the proposed reductions to the governor’s budget. A campus committee is going to be reviewing our general education core requirements, what we all our Baccalaureate Core (related to student engagement and how to incorporate this into these classes). We are revising the promotion and tenure guidelines (a joint administration and faculty effort).

 

OHSU—We received a $40-million anonymous gift that will go to building a new medical school. School of nursing is rewriting its P&T guidelines. The dental school is giving more essay tests, and we are finding many students do not have writing skills.

 

PSU—We have a new football coach and a new athletic director. We are facing huge budget cuts, so morale on campus is awful. We have major and huge space problems on campus. An issue that some are discussing is the fact that the faculty governance structure does not work well anymore for the faculty structure we have (many non-tenure track faculty).

 

SOU—The provost Earl Potter has accepted a position as president of St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. We have merged into a college of arts and sciences (by eliminating several schools). The morale at SOU is low. Established and respected faculty members are applying for other jobs. Enrollment is flat for us.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.