Minutes
of the University Senate Meeting January 10, 2001
Present: B. Altmann, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, D. Conley, R. Darst, J.
Dawson, D. Dinihanian, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D. Hawkins, M. Holland, K.
Howard, S. Jones, R. Kellett, L. Kintz, S. Kohl, C. Lachman, K. Lenn, G.
McLauchlan, P. Mills, R. Moore, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, J. Raiskin, M. Reed,
L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, D. Strom, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz,
M. Weiner, T. Wheeler, P. Wright
Excused: M. Epstein, R. McGowen, D.
Merskin
Absent: L. Alpert, M. Bayless R.
Cambreleng, C. Gary, J. Hosagrahar, S. Khader, L. McLean, M. Vitulli
University
Senate President James Earl began an open forum discussion session prior to the
regular business portion of the meeting at 3:07 p.m. in room 100
Willamette. He reminded senators that
minutes of the meetings are posted on the senate web page and not circulated in
paper copy, in the interest of saving paper, unless requested by
individuals. Paper copies are available
from the secretary, or can be downloaded and printed by individuals.
Update
on the governor’s proposed budget for higher education. President Earl introduced University President Dave Frohnmayer
who prefaced his remarks regarding the governor’s proposed budget by stressing
that his comments were not in the form of a news conference. Rather, he wanted simply to bring members of
the university community who are concerned with the matter of the university
and state system’s budget up to date.
President Frohnmayer noted that issues still remain to be resolved
between the state system and the governor’s office as well as with the
legislative leadership. He did not wish
to be an alarmist in his statements nor to be sensational, but instead would
deliver accurate information based upon what he currently knows. He reminded all that the issues are
preliminary, they have not been resolved, and it is his almost universal
experience that the governor’s proposed budget is not the same budget when the
process concludes. In most cases, the
budgets have ended up being more favorable to higher education than what was
originally proposed.
President
Frohnmayer began by noting that in the last biennium, we had the first
favorable budget in a decade. It gave a
sense of breathing room, the capacity to give long overdue redress to salary
inequities, investment capital, a new funding system, and the public a better
sense of where our money was going and how we could compare ourselves against
national comparators in the AAU and other comparable institutions. However, President Frohnmayer said he is not
encouraged by the governor’s budget.
Although a number of factors may have prompted the governor’s budget --
an economy that is less than robust in Oregon compared to other states, the
passage of an initiative that was unexpected and unwelcome in terms of taking
away revenue, the continuing growth in health care and prescription drugs
costs, and the increasing cost of K-12 education -- the proposed budget is not
a satisfactory one.
After
the budget reaches the legislature, the first analysis is done by the
Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO), which is the fiscal arm of the legislative
body. President Frohnmayer urged
members of the senate and in particular members of the Senate Budget Committee
to request copies of this document from his office. He then read some highlights from the LFO document, including the
statement, “the governor’s general fund budget for education and general programs
is a net $17.6 million, or 2.6%, below the current service level.” Our current operating level as it now
stands, and not adjusting for inflation, is 2% below that. The governor’s budget includes another $25
million general fund that is characterized as funding enhancements, but that
will effectively be used to mitigate or offset the portion of the funding cuts
discussed later in the document.
Included in the budget is a tuition increase of approximately 4% each
year of the biennium, effectively ending the tuition freeze. This has long been expected since the freeze
was kept in phase for four years due to the necessity of letting Oregon’s
tuition come more in parity with institutions in neighboring states, which has
now happened. In the governor’s budget,
the tuition increase will be used not for program enhancements, but to backfill
other program cuts. It does not mean
net new revenue to the teaching and instructional mission of this university or
any others. The added tuition revenue
reduces the net funding cut for existing campuses and programs to $7.3 million
spread over eight campuses.
In
a rhetorical “Where do we go from here” question, President Frohnmayer said
that higher education has been asked to meet internally via the President Plus
One meeting, meaning the president and provost of each institution will meet
with the Chancellor’s staff mid January to prepare a more coherent and
collective response for the State Board of Higher Education based upon reports
of the individual campuses which in turn will be presented to the governor. The governor has invited that presentation,
and President Frohnmayer believes the governor is willing to engage in further
dialogue about the adequacy of this budget.
The governor then may revise his budget for re-submission to the
legislature. After that, a rather long
legislative session will be dominated by a number of issues.
Current
speculation (and hearsay) is that there is considerable momentum to pass out
the K-12 budget first. The K-12 budget,
out of a $14 billion budget is $5.2 billion as submitted by the governor, has
largely been agreed to by most advocates for K-12 education. Instead of being the budget balancer or the
last minute political imperative for increase, some of the thinking of both
political parties and the governor’s office, seems to be saying to fund it
first so that it is off the table. Then
other priorities of the state’s budget can then be weighed. As we look at the higher education budget
weighed against the other priorities, advocates of higher education will argue
that its overall increase is less than that of other sectors that are also
needful of a state budget woefully short of what would be cost of living
increases for all the sectors. Higher
education’s net increase is about 1%; some agencies are as high as 19%.
President
Frohnmayer went on to say that three major events would color the overall
division of resources amongst various priorities. The first is the March revenue forecast which could involve up to
$50 million more than what is projected for the ending balance of the biennium;
or, it could be something less given how the alleged recession that we are now
entering may or may not affect Oregon.
Second, the legislature really does not engage in any definitive final
action on major budgets until the May forecast is received. The third major issue involves disposition
of the tobacco funds. The settlement
received from the tobacco company comes in installments and there is
considerable dispute about how that should be spent -- on health-related matters,
general fund priorities, for emergencies, and so forth. There is clearly a difference between the
Republic caucuses and the governor’s office on how these monies should be
spent, if they should be spent at all.
Is higher education one of those differences with the Republicans, at
this point, being more willing to spend additional dollars? President Frohnmayer believes so based on
representations that have been made publicly.
Will there be a tuition increase?
Yes, but how large the president could not say. It is a very tricky economic balancing act
not to price people out of the ability to have a public college or university
education in this state, and secondly, the raw economic fact is that the higher
tuition dollars go without the accompanying financial aid, the more students
stay away; the more students stay away under the new tuition model, more our
revenue stream is in peril.
The
floor was then opened for questions. A
student asked if there is a cap set on tuition. President Frohnmayer responded by saying that he deliberately is
not talking about a new tuition level because he does not want to send a
message that we are contemplating something that would have catastrophic
impacts on student finances, let alone the overall university fiscal picture. He noted that there are political
constraints as to how high tuition could be raised, and, we do not want to see
sacrifices to the quality of the institution that has tangibly improved as a
consequence of the relatively favorable fiscal climate last legislative
session.
President
Frohnmayer then recognized Senator David Conley, education, who has been very
involved over the last decade in developing the Oregon School Reform Act into
an act administered and understood by policy makers and funded by
legislatures. Senator Conley noted that
prior to the passage of Measure 5 in 1991, it was the local school districts
that competed for state funds.
Immediately after the passage of Measure 5, the legislature decided to equalize
funding among school districts, and K-12 is seen as a single unit requiring
funding. This legislative session is
the first one in which the governor has articulated a very clear set of
priorities for the entire K-12 system; philosophically, his priority in the
budget process indicates he believes that an investment in early childhood
education and the lower grades is where he wants to leave his legacy. Higher education is definitely impacted by
this change because we are also a state-level system and now we are directly in
competition with the entire K-12 system.
President
Frohnmayer added that the state system of higher education receives only a
fraction more dollars in absolute numbers, not adjusted for inflation, than it
received in 1990 before the passage of Measure 5. We went from a sector of state agency that commanded
approximately 12% of the state’s general fund budget in 1990 to a sector that
will command no more than 6% in the state budget today if the governor’s budget
is passed without adjustment. It
represents a staggering long-term secular decrease in funding. The president commented on how remarkably
resilient the faculty and students have been to be able to maintain the quality
institution that we have notwithstanding a fiscal climate that has been more
brutal in this state with respect to the suddenness of those secular changes
than virtually any other jurisdiction of which he was familiar.
A
student asked if President Frohnmayer would argue that now, more than ever with
the new budget model, our university requires a state investment in that we are
competing for students on a state-wide and national level? President Frohnmayer replied that yes, the
administration will do everything in its power and urge all of our friends to
do everything in their power to improve our situation. He noted that the connection between higher
education and the well being of the society has never been clearer or known
more obviously by a larger percentage of the population than ever before. He said it is true in Oregon as well as
nationally. Further, he noted that the
effort to improve our funding is not being done in opposition to the governor’s
good faith attempt to balance the budget as he and his staff see the priorities
to be; rather, it is to say with clarity the priorities that we believe are
critically important to the future of this society. We intend to fight for the best budget we can possibly find.
Another
member of the audience asked what the cuts would be in the student-centered
model. President Frohnmayer replied
although a valid question it was much too early to know and has not been
decided. With help from a drawn
diagram, the president explained that higher education can be thought of as
three independent sources of money under our new model. The first consists of tuition and fees,
which is money is generated by the campus and that now stays on the campus for
the education of students. Because the
funding model depends on maintaining and increasing enrollments, there is
strong incentive to educate more students, whereas in the previous model the
incentive was to educate fewer students.
The second source is state money.
It is distributed through a formula that attempts to identify the cost
of education of students in various academic programs and at various levels of
education (bachelor, master, doctoral; upper and lower divisions; low, medium,
and high cost), 12 “cells” in all.
These cells are compared with peer institutions with comparable programs
to determine what it can or should cost to educate students -- based on real
costs of education. The final source is
composed of a number of different programs that represent state priorities;
some of this was transition funding. In
this new model, there is a subsidy of $8 million for the smaller institutions (OIT,
Eastern, Western, and Southern). These
institutions have to spread the same type of overhead over a smaller student
body. The engineering initiative is $20
million and the Bend Branch Campus Program is $7.2 million. There also may be several specifically line
item matters that fall outside of the cell values which represent special state
investments or special state policies of subsidy for special purposes. Unfortunately, the state did not fund this
model at 100% of the level of the cost, but only at 85% of costs.
Senate
President Earl inquired as to the timeframe for when the decisions are
made. President Frohnmayer responded
that budget hearings would not begin until March or early April under the
current scheduling. If there is an
effort to wait until the May economic forecast to see what kind of flexibility
there is, then it would come sometime after that. Senator Christopher Phillips, mathematics, asked if the
governor’s budget includes money for the Bend campus to which President Frohnmayer
responded that yes, it included $7.2 million.
The president felt that both the Bend branch campus and the engineering
initiative would be funded given the political dynamics.
A
student asked if one of the specific cuts proposed by the governor’s budget is
a $10 million reduction in research dollars, which in turn, would jeopardize
some federal funding. President
Frohnmayer responded that the research money would have been new money, so it
does not come out of an existing budget.
Nevertheless, it was money for which were hoping because this campus’
record regarding research seed money is extraordinary. With no other questions, Senate President
Earl turned to the second discussion item on the agenda.
Vice
Provost for Research Richard Linton comments on the Riverfront Research Park.
President
Earl asked Vice President Nathan Tublitz to introduce Vice Provost Linton and
provide a brief background regarding the research park, especially the prospect
of building north of the railroad tracks.
Vice President Tublitz noted that the first phase of development
included area south of the railroad tracks.
The second building phase, which was to include area north of the
railroad tracks, was controversial and resulted in a senate resolution to
exclude areas north of the tracks from building in order to preserve the
Greenway along the river. The city
council, who is partnered with the university, has decided not to provide urban
renewal funds to develop the area. In
consultation with President Frohnmayer, Vice President Tublitz explained that
he has received assurances from the president that there would be no decision
to build anywhere north of the railroad tracks without prior discussion with
the university senate leadership through the entire process.
Acknowledging
that he is new to the university, Vice Provost Linton also noted that he is not
new to dealing with university-industry issues. He recently arrived on campus from the University of North
Carolina (UNC) where he was a faculty member for almost 25 years as a chemist
and was involved working with industry, consulting, and small business
innovation research grants.
Additionally, the vice provost spent the last 15 years working with the
university system in research administration and dealing with state-wide,
university system-wide policy on university-industry relationships. He remarked that UNC has been regarded as a
model system nationally and they have developed some excellent policies on
intellectual property and conflicts of interest. The research triangle in North Carolina is one of the stellar
examples of developing through the efforts of universities to promote research
and development in a setting that promotes collaboration and economic
development. The vice provost indicated
that although he comes to Oregon with that frame work, he will not to try and
reinvent the research triangle park of North Carolina here -- it evolved
because of a unique set of circumstances.
Nevertheless, Vice Provost Linton indicated he is a very strong advocate
of faculty and university efforts to be entrepreneurial.
The
vice provost stated that he is interested in promoting and encouraging
technology transfer and the commercialization of faculty efforts within the
confines of this community. Tech
transfer here at the university has been on an upward curve with a five-fold
increase in licensing revenue over the last five years. Vice Provost Linton indicated that Mr. Don
Gerhart has just been hired as the new director in this area. Mr. Gerhart, who has an academic as well as
an industrial background will facilitate faculty development in technology
transfer. The vice provost went on to
say that there are lots of opportunities within the campus to develop some
initiatives. The Research Park is an
arm for faculty and students to facilitate technology transfer and
start-ups. Mr. Linton noted that most
of the research park tenants have close connections to the university. They are tied to faculty and start-up
companies have faculty directly involved with their operations. He sees such activities as a very important
role for the research park to be playing.
For example, Cisco Systems, a world-wide leader in networking, has
located in the park and will clearly benefit the university. There has already been a $500,000 grant to
help with some of our on-campus computer science related programs.
The
vice provost acknowledged that the research park has a long and mixed history,
but he said clearly there are a number of important benefits that the park can
and will provide in the way of economic development in tying the university to
industry, for providing greater opportunities for faculty and students to work
in corporate settings, and to try in various ways to enhance the profile of the
university and the community, in Oregon and beyond. He noted one question has been whether the research park
operation deflects or dilutes resources that the university should be investing
within the campus for its various missions.
Current figures show a rather modest level of direct university
investment in the operation of the park; specifically, his office invests
roughly $25,000 annually from revenues generated by indirect costs on research
grants, and the general fund state appropriated dollars contributes $42,000. The goal is for the park to be completely
self-supporting. Mr. Linton thinks that
with one additional building and licensing revenues that come from that it
would be very close to self-sufficiency.
Consequently, he doesn’t see the park as a major drain on university
resources, but as a very modest investment producing some very tangible
results.
The
vice provost spoke in terms of public support for the development, noting the
park has a controversial and mixed history as do most issues in an eclectic and
diverse community such as Eugene where all points of views and academic freedom
is recognized. For those who have a
no-growth outlook, clearly the development of a research park is not going to
be a satisfactory effort. He went on to say that we have to be sensitive to
those diverse views and develop the park in a way that at least addresses what
we feel as an institution, in light of community interest, is most important
for us. He noted that the few official
referenda on the issue showed a substantial majority of citizens in Eugene in
support of the project. Nevertheless, a
traditional concern is how these connections might somehow undermine the
academic mission of the institution.
Mr. Linton stated that this has been a decades old dialog about what the
appropriate relationships are. He
indicated that there has been a maturing of those discussions to the point
where from a collective, regulatory stand point, there are some very appropriate
policies in place to govern intellectual property rights and conflicts of
interest. We are in a much better
position to manage those positions. As
time continues, Vice Provost Linton hopes that more and more faculty will
understand the benefits of those relationships and have fewer concerns about
undermining our basic academic mission or compromising the role of students in
some of these relationships.
Another
issue raised is the balance of entities that are in the park and whether they
reflect institutions that are focused on research and development. The vice provost said there was a strong
case to make about the relevance of these organizations to research, their
relevance to the university, and the connections they make. The recruitment of external companies such
as Cisco into this environment is certainly an important component to the
research park. As the graduate dean and
the research vice provost, one of Mr. Linton’s issues is how to best use that
to leverage the activity on the campus, to help faculty and support them in areas
where they can see development of their basic research or their ideas, and
bring them to fruition to the benefit of society. He sees a lot of opportunity, potential, and successes over the
years and looks forward to working with the university community. The floor was then opened for questions.
Senator
Phillips asked about the one further building which would make the park
self-sufficient and where it would be located.
Mr. Linton replied that it would be located within the existing plat
that has one vacant location. Senator
Chris Elliott, economics, asked about the relationship between the park and the
university and how the research park benefits the university. Mr. Linton replied that of the 14-15
organizations in the park, most of them have developed out of faculty
innovation. It is providing faculty
opportunities locally to begin a start-up, a spin-off type of organization, and
still remain associated with the university.
Faculty can see some local options instead of having to relocate. There are internships for students and
opportunities for graduates to stay locally.
There are various ways to see a positive impact on the university
directly as well as the larger community.
Senator
Greg McLauchlan, sociology, asked about the land use issue concerning building
north of the railroad tracks, wondering what Mr. Linton’s position was
regarding the senate’s previous resolutions.
Vice Provost Linton replied that he is completely supportive of what the
president has said in recent times concerning the senate resolutions and the
university’s position. The president
has a concern about the environmental issues raised and there is no current
plan to develop the area along the riverfront directly, but that he is not in a
position to preempt long-term thinking about that area and various prospects. The president has not said that no,
development will never occur. Mr.
Linton thinks that is a fair and wise stance because we do not know what the
circumstances are going to be in future years and how the city council and the
university will view that area and overall space issues. There clearly is a sensitivity to
development of that space and a very cautious, guarded approach. There are no current plans to develop that
parcel and there is a lot of effort to look at creative ways to swap land as well
as a spirit of cooperative effort with the City of Eugene.
Senator
David Strom, physics, asked about appropriate activity to have in the research
ark, referring specifically to the possibility of Symantec moving from downtown
Eugene to the park. Is there a policy
that would specify how far from research would we allow development to
stray? Mr. Linton replied that the
university did not seek Symantec’s business.
In was an open question whether its mission would have been compatible
with other tenants in the park. We
would have to look on a case-by-case basis and would have to look at how it
fits in with the university’s mission.
Senator
Stan Jones, landscape architecture, noted that the research park clearly was
the design of a 1980s corporate campus model.
With Oregon’s land use being seen as a national model and the campus
wanting to be a good resident of the Eugene-Springfield area and set an example
on numerous fronts, at what point can we consider a significant redesign that
would bring in today’s thinking on urban development? At what point do we as an entity rethink the whole plan, not the
idea of the research park, but the whole plan?
Mr. Linton replied that the conditional use plan currently goes for
quite a number of years, possibly seven years.
When there are specific reasons to alter the plan, that is when it will
be done, but we should go back and look at the plan overall.
Vice
President Tublitz noted that the long-term goal of the city has been to try and
make a connector from downtown to the university that did not include walking
along Franklin Boulevard. Now the city
has taken some very large steps in the recent past to achieve that goal by
buying the Agripak area and potentially having the courthouse site there. Having some sort of greenway into this area
to provide a path for people to walk between these areas and recreate, too,
makes sense. Eugene is unique as a city
with a green greenway running on both sides of the river, with few exceptions,
through the entire city. Since the
university is viewed as a national environmental leader it makes sense to
follow up and reevaluate how we can achieve both a successful research park and
maintain this area for future generations. Vice Provost Linton responded by
saying that we do need some flexibility in the current circumstance. He knows it is a point of contention and
will continue to be so. Hearing no more
questions, Senate President Earl closed the discussion forum and moved to the
business portion of the meeting.
President
Earl called the business portion of the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. Minutes of the November 29, 2000 meeting
were approved without correction.
There
were no announcements and no reports from committees.
Election
of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative and alternate.
Senate
President Earl reported that Peter Gilkey, former president of the senate, has
accepted a nomination as the third of three IFS representatives from the
university. Asking if there are any other
nominations, but hearing none, President Earl recognized Senator Phillips who
moved to elect Peter Gilkey as the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
representative. The vote in favor of
Mr. Gilkey was unanimous.
Mr.
Gilkey, in turn, nominated Senator Phillips to serve as the alternate
representative. Secretary Steigelman
explained that the IFS alternate is a one-year position, renewable, that serves
when necessary if one of the other representatives (there are three) cannot
attend an IFS meeting. The meetings are
held every other month. Senator
Phillips indicates that he will not object to the nomination. And with no other nominations for the
alternate representative, the vote in favor of Senator Phillips was unanimous.
With
no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary