Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate

Remarks to the Board of Higher Education

 

October Meeting, 2008

 

Good Morning President Kelley, Vice President Francesconi, Chancellor Pernsteiner, Directors, University Presidents, students, staff, and guests:

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

 

For the Record, my name is Lee Ayers, IFS President 2008

 

Welcome to SOU. Last night as many of you met in the Schneider Museum I could not help but overhear how many times folks expressed the “beauty of SOU.” Truly a Gem! “I forget how pretty it is down here!” As Mother Nature continues to display her array of colors and autumn fingerprints are present everywhere, I do hope that all of you get to experience SOU’s inner beauty not just her outer beauty during your visit.

 

IFS will meet later today for the first time since the June EOU meeting. There is much on our agenda. A full report will be given in November; however, let me mention that we will be updated on the “Give Students a Compass: A Tri-State Partnership for College Learning, General Education, & Understanding Student Success” A signature project of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP), The Tri-State Project (meaning California State University System, Oregon University System, and Wisconsin System) , and Making Excellence Inclusive. The Project will investigate:

 

1.    How high-impact practices can integrate or re-integrate the often fragmented Baccalaureate.

2.    The effect of those practices on underserved population in particular.

3.    Redefining success and assessing learning outcomes that matter most.

4.    Ways to move a state.

 

Giving students a compass explores these questions with the learner in mind, believing that student’s performance, engagement, and self-awareness are key. Students engage deeply when given the right tools of orientation along the way. More will follow on this topic in November.

 

Craig Prins, Executive Director of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission will also update Faculty on the fisical impact of Measures 57 and 61.

 

Saturday we will explore the Dual Credit report.

 

It is hard to open the paper or listen to the news without hearing about the financial crisis. Yes, money seems to monopolize many conversations these days. Worry about the economic sustainability in the United States and the individual state budgets plagues the minds of many University Presidents as well as faculty. While Presidents aren’t necessarily immobilized by worry, it is noted as a common thread woven throughout their leadership experience. It should be of no surprise that the heightened urgency of budgets has only increased the worry and nervousness of many university presidents across the United States. In a recent op-ed piece regarding state budgets, one President offered that “It’s common sense that you can’t leap a 20 foot chasm in two 10 foot jumps.” He also went on to say, “… its common sense that for the state to improve elementary and secondary education and increase the number of college graduates within the state, education at all levels must be adequately funded.” While there is tremendous agreement and support that education is a continuum, it appears that when it comes time to making decisions about providing resources to support all stages of the educational process, there is worry. As another president notes, “… there seems to be a collective case of extreme ‘memory loss’ within the legislator when it comes time to fund.” University Presidents across the nation note having a, “… tough time understanding why others cannot fully comprehend that today’s student may become the teacher of tomorrow’s school children, the CEO of a major corporation, or a legislative leader who will be weighing information and making sound decisions that affect the rest of the citizenry.” There is much concern about the tough time legislators have comprehending the interconnected and synergistic topics such as the support for higher education and economic growth both carry. It seems so clear to many that providing access to higher education benefits the state with a stronger economy, better-educated citizens who enjoy greater earning power and the capacity to create a larger tax-base for the state. With this knowledge, notes one President, “… isn’t it obvious that supporting higher education adequately is highly beneficial for the citizenry and the state’s economy?”

 

Even recently, as a President suggested “getting off the gird” noting that the university needed to more than survive but focused on increasing enrollments and the hard work on retention efforts, and not being so dependant on state funding…there was tremendous media attention. Another worry that strikes to the core was presented by a president noting that he was concerned with the ability, under such harsh budget circumstances, to fulfill this obligation to the society that sustains them. Lastly, another notes that “If the role of higher education is to advance the humanistic, intellectual and economic interest of our state, given this fiscal crisis, will we fall short in fulfilling that role?”

 

Worry affects faculty as well. Some faculty are worried about class size, academic quality, delivery & access, learning outcomes & assessment mandates, and of course, faculty retention. Competitive salaries, although let be it is recognized that work was done during the past year, continue to be a worry. Have you ever heard of academic poaching? Not exactly an Olympic sport, recent figures reveal that it is becoming quite competitive for public universities to “fight raids on faculty” and retain maintain key faculty. The Chronical of Higher Education August 15, 2008, reports that some faculty still participate in a process known for seeking “outside offers to increase their current salaries” while administrators find their institutions under attack and seek prevention as the answer for successful faculty retention.

 

Prevention, according to the article, includes:

*paying careful attention to the academic grapevine (whispers and hints that someone is looking)

*creating supportive environments for research and teaching, and

*recognizing and rewarding essential faculty before recruiter call them

 

Some institutions note they are setting aside critical reserves of cash for the prevention process. Florida University System received a Legislative appropriation of $65-million to raise faculty salaries as a prevention method. Georgia also reported 161 counter-offers in the last year, resulting in 120 professors being retained. Over the last four years, the Georgia system allotted Deans $6-million dollars to assist with retaining faculty known as the “best and brightest” knowing that other institutions would be courting them. It is important to identify disciplines that offer much lower faculty salaries than what other peer institutions are paying faculty in those same disciplines. Filling in the gaps is a key prevention tool. Compressed salaries, productivity levels that warrant salaries at a different scale… thus, connecting the compensation with compression is vital for retaining faculty. It is not uncommon for faculty who are single to work outside of their academic position to survive in the “high cost” areas of Oregon.

 

Investing in faculty and keeping them at institutions is not just a salary issue, according to the Chronicle. Supporting release time for research, leadership opportunities, stipends, lab space, equipment funds, operational funds, and support of collegiality were also mentioned. Even parking, yes, parking spots designated for faculty made a difference!

 

Setting aside funds in today’s cash strapped environment to retain faculty can be a challenge. How do you make the ends meet? University of California Berkeley received a $113-million gift from the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation to assist with keeping professors’ salaries competitive with elite private institutions. The gift gave Berkeley the ability to retain 165 of the 236 professors who had received outside offers.

 

In closing, there is much worry about money by presidents and faculty alike with no clear answers for an “educational bailout” in the immediate future. However, it is clear to this faculty member that some of the best and brightest sit at this very table and are working extremely hard for OUS.

 

 

Are there any questions?

 

Thank you.