Oregon University System logo

CENTRAL OREGON BRANCH CAMPUS: WORKING PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

On February 16, 2001, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education discussed and approved the Chancellor's recommendation to award management of the proposed branch campus in Central Oregon to Oregon State University (OSU) as presented in the OSU plan. The Board also directed that, as part of the implementation plan, Chancellor Cox work with Presidents Risser and Frohnmayer to develop a statement of collaboration to maximize the value of higher education services in the region. Staff have further interpreted the Board's directive on collaboration as applicable to all of the current Oregon University System institutions that offer programs in Central Oregon through the University Center. Mindful of the OSU plan, which has primary partners and other partner providers playing integral roles in delivering services, Chancellor Cox invited each campus president to indicate to him their continued commitment to the Central Oregon project.

In the time between the February meeting and the present, OSU has led an ambitious schedule of planning activity on many fronts and with many partners, starting with the leadership of the Central Oregon Community College. These planning activities are presented in considerable detail in the accompanying document developed by OSU, in consultation with the Chancellor's staff, that constitutes the working plan for implementation, which is in progress. Although time has been very limited, campuses have been asked to review and comment on two prior versions of the draft implementation plan. As planning continues and streams of operational decisions are made in each area that constitutes part of the framework for the branch campus entity, there will be additional progress to report.

The OSU implementation plan opens with statements that relate the philosophy and purpose of collaboration to specific intentions of working with partner campuses to extend and enrich educational opportunities. Partners serve with OSU on transition teams, implementation councils, and administrative bodies. Principles and intended practices of collaboration with partner providers are laid out with regard to academic programs and other matters.

Another aspect of the document to which attention is called pertains to the business plan that begins to add specificity to the OSU-Central Oregon proposal for branch campus business affairs. Chancellor's Office staff expect to continue to work with OSU on the evolution of the business plan, including how funding principles are developed in relation to the Resource Allocation Model. Chancellor's staff and OSU representatives are aware that development of a branch campus, particularly one that continues utilizing several elements of a university center model, will require careful attention to operational decisions that work within the larger OUS environment.

Staff Recommendations to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Although branch campus implementation planning activity falls within the purview of the Chancellor, staff bring two action items to the Board per understanding from the Board's deliberations at the February 16, 2001, meeting. These are (1) the name of the branch campus, and (2) the primary title of the lead branch campus administrator (to comport with national practice and the Board's policies).

1. Staff recommend that the name of the branch campus be Oregon State University-Central Oregon.

2. Staff recommend that the primary title of the lead branch campus administrator be Campus Executive Officer.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

CONFIDENTIALITY RULES FOR CAMPUS NEGOTIATION OARS 580-001-0030 AND 580-021-0047

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

The rules proposed to the Board, OAR 580-001-0030 and 580-021-0047, are the Department of Justice's model rules. Adoption of these rules will permit mediations to occur in confidence. The need for these rules stems from the current state of Oregon law on public records. At present, the public records law would permit the disclosure of a wide range of public documents-including those used in mediation processes.

Since disclosure will often times defeat the benefit of mediation, and the public records law has great value to Oregon, the most feasible solution is for a special exemption. This is the same process utilized by virtually all other state agencies. The Governor's approval for this exemption has been secured.

The proposed rules were approved by the Board as temporary rules at its December 15, 2000, meeting. Consistent with the rule revision procedures of the Board, notice was filed with the Secretary of State, publication of the proposed rules occurred, and public comment was invited.

No public comment was received at the public hearing nor were any written comments received. Thus, these rules are proposed for finalization as last approved. Following is the text of each rule:

Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications

OAR 580-001-0030 (1) The words and phrases used in this rule have the same meaning as given to them in ORS 36.110 and 36.234.

(2) Nothing in this rule affects any confidentiality created by other law. Nothing in this rule relieves a public body from complying with the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to 192.690. Whether or not they are confidential under this or other rules of the agency, mediation communications are exempt from the disclosure under the Public Records Law to the extent provided in ORS 192.410 to 192.505.

(3) This rule applies only to mediations in which the agency is a party or is mediating a dispute as to which the agency has regulatory authority. This rule does not apply when the agency is acting as the "mediator" in a matter in which the agency also is a party as defined in ORS 36.234.

(4) To the extent mediation communications would otherwise compromise negotiations under ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), those mediation communications are not admissible as provided in ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in section (9) of this rule.

(5) Mediations Excluded. Sections (6)-(10) of this rule do not apply to:

(a) Mediation of workplace interpersonal disputes involving the interpersonal relationships between this agency's employees, officials or employees and officials, unless a formal grievance under a labor contract, a tort claim notice or a lawsuit has been filed; or

(b) Mediation in which the person acting as the mediator will also act as the hearings officer in a contested case involving some or all of the same matters;

(c) Mediation in which the only parties are public bodies;

(d) Mediation involving two or more public bodies and a private party if the laws, rule or policies governing mediation confidentiality for at least one of the public bodies provide that mediation communications in the mediation are not confidential;

(e) Mediation involving 15 or more parties if the agency has designated that another mediation confidentiality rule adopted by the agency may apply to that mediation.

(6) Disclosures by Mediator. A mediator may not disclose or be compelled to disclose mediation communications in a mediation and, if disclosed, such communications may not be introduced into evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding unless:

(a) All parties to the mediation and the mediator agree in writing to the disclosure; or

(b) The mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding as provided in subsections (c)-(d), (j)-(l) or (o)-(p) of section (9) of this rule.

(7) Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications. Except as provided in sections (8)-(9) of this rule, mediation communications are confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person, are not admissible in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent proceeding.

(8) Written Agreement. Section (7) of this rule does not apply to a mediation unless the parties to the mediation agree in writing, as provided in this section, that the mediation communications in the mediation will be confidential and/or nondiscoverable and inadmissible. If the mediator is the employee of and acting on behalf of a state agency, the mediator or an unauthorized agency representative must also sign the agreement. The parties' agreement to participate in a confidential mediation must be in substantially the following form. This form may be used separately or incorporated into an "agreement to mediate."

Agreement to Participate in a Confidential Mediation

The agency and the parties to the mediation agree to participate in a mediation in which the mediation communications are confidential and/or nondiscoverable and inadmissible to the extent authorized by 580-001-0030(7) and this agreement. This agreement relates to the following mediation:

a) ___________________________________________
(Identify the mediation to which this agreement applies)

b) To the extent authorized by OAR 580-001-0030(7), the mediation communications in this mediation are: (check one or more)

__confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person

__not admissible in any subsequent administrative proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent administrative proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent administrative proceeding

__not admissible in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding

c) ___________________________________________
Name of Agency

_____________________________________________
Signature of Agency's authorized representative Date
(when agency is a party) or Agency employee acting as the mediator (when Agency is mediating the dispute)

d) ___________________________________________
Name of party to the mediation

______________________________________________
Signature of party's authorized representative Date

e) ___________________________________________
Name of party to the mediation Date

______________________________________________
Signature of party's authorized representative Date


(9) Exceptions to confidentiality and inadmissibility.

(a) Any statements, memoranda, work products, documents and other materials, otherwise subject to discovery that were not prepared specifically for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding.

(b) Any mediation communications that are public records, as defined in ORS 192.410(4) and were not specifically prepared for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential or privileged under state or federal law.

(c) A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed by any person receiving the communication to the extent that person reasonably believes that disclosing the communication is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in death or bodily injury to any person. A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed in a subsequent proceeding to the extent its disclosure may further the investigation or prosecution of a felony crime involving physical violence to a person.

(d) Any mediation communication related to the conduct of a licensed professional that is made to or in the presence of a person who, as a condition of his or her professional license, is obligated to report such communication by law or court rule is not confidential and may be disclosed to the extent necessary to make such a report.

(e) The parties to the mediation may agree in writing that all or part of the mediation communications are not confidential or that all or part of the mediation communications may be disclosed and may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential, privileged or otherwise prohibited from disclosure under state or federal law.

(f) A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person if the party's communication with that person is privileged under ORS chapter 40 or other provision of law. A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person for the purpose of obtaining advice concerning the subject matter of the mediation, if all the parties agree.

(g) An employee of the agency may disclose confidential mediation communications to another agency employee so long as the disclosure is necessary to conduct authorized activities of the agency. An employee receiving a confidential mediation communication under this subsection is bound by the same confidentiality requirements as apply to the parties to the mediation.

(h) A written mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding at the discretion of the party who prepared the communication so long as the communication is not otherwise confidential under state or federal law and does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party who does not agree to the disclosure.

(i) In any proceeding to enforce, modify or set aside a mediation agreement, a party to the mediation may disclose mediation communications and such communications may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of mediation communications or agreements to persons other than the parties to the agreement.

(j) In an action for damages or other relief between a party to the mediation and a mediator or mediation program, mediation communications are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of the mediation communications or agreements.

(k) When a mediation is conducted as part of the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement, the following mediation communications are not confidential and such communications may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding:

(A) A request for mediation; or

(B) A communication from the Employment Relations Board Conciliation Service establishing the time and place of the mediation; or

(C) A final offer submitted by the parties to the mediator pursuant to ORS 243.712; or

(D) A strike notice submitted to the Employment Relations Board.

(l) To the extent a mediation communication contains information on the substance of which is required to be disclosed by Oregon statute, other than ORS 192.410 to 192.505, that portion of the communication may be disclosed as required by statute.

(m) Written mediation communications prepared by or for the agency or its attorney are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding to the extent the communication does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party, except for those written mediation communications that are:

(A) Attorney-client privileged communications so long as they have been disclosed to no one other that the mediator in the course of the mediation or to persons as to whom disclosure of the communication would not waive the privilege; or

(B) Attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; or

(C) Prepared exclusively for the mediator or in a caucus session and not given to another party in the mediation other than a state agency; or

(D) Prepared in response to the written request of the mediator for specific documents or information and given to another party in the mediation; or

(E) Settlement concepts or proposals, shared with the mediator or other parties.

(n) A mediation communication made to the agency may be disclosed and may be admitted into evidence to the extent the Chancellor, University President or their designees determines that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious danger to the public's health or safety, and the communication is not otherwise confidential or privileged under state or federal law.

(o) The terms of any mediation agreement are not confidential and may be introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding, except to the extent the terms of the agreement are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505, a court has ordered the terms to be confidential under ORS 30.402 or state or federal law requires the terms to be confidential.

(p) The mediator may report the disposition of a mediation to the agency at the conclusion of the mediation so long as the report does not disclose specific confidential mediation communications. The agency or the mediator may use or disclose confidential mediation communications for research, training or educational purposes, subject to the provisions of ORS 36.232(4).

(10) When a mediation is subject to section (7) of this rule, the agency will provide to all parties to the mediation and the mediator a copy of this rule or a citation to the rule and an explanation of where a copy of the rule may be obtained. Violation of this provision does not waive confidentiality or inadmissibility.

Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Workplace Interpersonal Dispute Mediation Communications

580-022-0047 (1) This rule applies to workplace interpersonal disputes, which are disputes involving the interpersonal relationships between this agency's employees, officials or employees and officials. This rule does not apply to disputes involving the negotiation of labor contracts or mattes about which a formal grievance under a labor contract, a tort claim notice or a lawsuit has been filed.

(2) The words and phrases used in this rule have the same meaning as given to them in ORS 36.110 and 36.234.

(3) Nothing in this rule affects any confidentiality created by other law.

(4) To the extent mediation communications would otherwise compromise negotiations under ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), those mediation communications are not admissible as provided in ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in section (9) of this rule.

(5) Disclosures by Mediator. A mediator may not disclose or be compelled to disclose mediation communications in a mediation and, if disclosed, such communications may not be introduced into evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding unless:

(a) All the parties to the mediation and the mediator agree in writing to the disclosure; or

(b) The mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding as provided in subsections (c) or (h)-(j) of section (7) of this rule.

(6) Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications. Except as provided in section (7) of this rule, mediation communications in mediations involving workplace interpersonal disputes are confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person, are not admissible in any subsequent administration, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent proceeding, or introduced into evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent proceeding so long as:

(a) The parties to the mediation and the agency have agreed in writing to the confidentiality of the mediation; and

(b) The person agreeing to the confidentiality of the mediation on behalf of the agency:

(A) Is neither a party to the dispute nor the mediator; and

(B) Is designated by the agency to authorize confidentiality for the mediation; and

(C) Is at the same or higher level in the agency than any of the parties to the mediation or who is a person with responsibility for human resources or personnel matters in the agency, unless the agency head or member of the governing board is one of the persons involved in the interpersonal dispute, in which case the Governor or Governor's designee.

(7) Exceptions to confidentiality and inadmissibility.

(a) Any statements, memoranda, work products, documents and other materials, otherwise subject to discovery that were not prepared specifically for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding.

(b) Any mediation communications that are public records, as defined in ORS 192.410(4) and were not specifically prepared for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential or privileged under state or federal law.

(c) A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed by any person receiving the communication to the extent that person reasonably believes that disclosing the communication is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in death or bodily injury to any person. A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed in a subsequent proceeding to the extent its disclosure may further the investigation or prosecution of a felony crime involving physical violence to a person.

(d) The parties to the mediation may agree in writing that all or part of the mediation communications are not confidential or that all or part of the mediation communications may be disclosed and may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential, privileged or otherwise prohibited from disclosure under state or federal law.

(e) A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person if the party's communication with that person is privileged under ORS chapter 40 or other provision of law. A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person for the purpose of obtaining advice concerning the subject matter of the mediation, if all the parties agree.

(f) A written mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding at the discretion of the party who prepared the communication so long as the communication is not otherwise confidential under state or federal law and does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party who does not agree to the disclosure.

(g) In any proceeding to enforce, modify or set aside a mediation agreement, a party to the mediation may disclose mediation communications and such communications may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of mediation communications or agreements to persons other than the parties to the agreement.

(h) In an action for damages or other relief between a party to the mediation and a mediator or mediation program, mediation communications are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of the mediation communications or agreements.

(i) To the extent a mediation communication contains information on the substance of which is required to be disclosed by Oregon statute, other than ORS 192.410 to 192.505, that portion of the communication may be disclosed as required by statute.

(j) The mediator may report the disposition of a mediation to the agency at the conclusion of the mediation so long as the report does not disclose specific confidential mediation communications. The agency or the mediator may use or disclose confidential mediation communications for research, training or educational purposes, subject to the provisions of ORS 36.232(4).

(8) The terms of any agreement arising out of the mediation of a workplace interpersonal dispute are confidential so long as the parties and the agency so agree in writing. Any term of an agreement that requires an expenditure of public funds, other than expenditures $1,000 or less for employee training, employee counseling or purchases of equipment that remain the property of the agency, may not be made confidential.

(9) When a mediation is subject to section (6) of this rule, the agency will provide to all parties to the mediation and to the mediator a copy of this rule or an explanation of where a copy of the rule may be obtained. Violation of this provision does not waive confidentiality or inadmissibility.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends Board approval of OARs 580-001-0030 and 580-022-0047, as approved by the Governor.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: OARS 580-021-0050, -0055, AND -0390 (REPEAL)

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

At meetings on October 20, 2000, the System Strategic Planning (SSP) Committee recommended, and the full Board approved, directives to staff to revise the relevant Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) to focus primary grievance process decision-making at the campus level and to maintain the authority for oversight by the Board. At its meeting of December 15, 2000, the Board approved preliminary revisions to the affected OARs.

Consistent with the rule revision procedures of the Board, notice was filed with the Secretary of State that publication of the revised rules occurred and public comment was invited.

While no persons appeared during the noticed hearing times, written comments were received from four entities: Oregon State University, Portland State University, University of Oregon, and the American Association of University Professors chapter at Oregon State University. Those written comments are on file in the Office of Legal Affairs. By far, the one theme common to the majority of comments was the recommendation that Board rules permit flexibility by the campuses in the decision to utilize a grievance officer. The comments received were in a range from generally to highly supportive of the overall thrust of the proposed rule revisions. Staff has evaluated and analyzed the comments received against the directives of the Board and the intent and purpose of the grievance procedure OARs. Accordingly, a small number of changes, as compared against the revisions approved by the Board in December 2000, are recommended to the Board for final adoption.

The recommended changes, as a result of the public comment process, are detailed below. Following the specific changes are complete texts of the relevant OARs, with the following legend: normal type represents original text; bold type represents additions to the original text as approved by the Board in December 2000; single brackets represent deletions to original text as approved in December 2000; italicized/bold script represent additions recommended following public comment; and bracket/strike-out represents deletions recommended following public comment.

Following is a summary of changes recommended following public comment:

OAR 580-021-0050-Grievance Procedures

(1)-deletion of last sentence. This sentence in the original rule was needed to assure employees that the Board's new standard, which established a System standard, did not diminish any rights accorded by individual campus grievance rules. Such assurances are no longer needed. Please note, the assurance is retained, at section (12), that rights accorded under administrative rules or collective bargaining agreements at individual institutions shall, in case of conflict, control.

(3)(b)-reflects the recommendations of the public commentators which favored permitting flexibility at the institution to utilize a grievance officer or permit the president to act directly on the recommendation of the Grievance Committee.

(3)(c)-substitutes the words "final institutional decision" to reflect the fact that the final decision may be by the president or by the grievance officer.

Sections (3)(e), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) all reflect modifications to address the option at the campus level to utilize the grievance officer and the president or the president alone. Separately in section (8), pursuant to the recommendations of the AAUP, the ending clause, sharing a copy of any decision from the Grievance Committee recommendations with that Committee, was added.

At section (12), an ending clause was added seeking to clarify that any existing administrative rule or collective bargaining agreement must be consistent with this rule.

(13)-moves the effective date of campus implementation to October 1, 2001.

OAR 580-021-0055-Appeal of Grievance Decision

Only section (1) is altered to reflect the fact that the appeal procedures are applicable only when a campus has opted to use the grievance officer.

OAR 580-021-0390-Discretionary Review of Academic Nondisciplinary Personnel Decisions

This section has been approved for deletion and is unaffected by the public comments.

Grievance Procedures
580-021-0050
(1) The institutions shall adopt, in consultation with faculty advisory committees including female and minority faculty and representatives of certified bargaining units, if any, appropriate grievance procedures, in accordance with the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. The grievance procedures shall apply to all unclassified academic employees with faculty rank. [The adopted procedures shall not lessen any employee rights under existing institutional grievance procedures.]

(2) For purposes of this rule and OAR 580-021-0055:

(a) "Grievance" means a complaint by an academic employee that the employee was wronged in connection with compensation, tenure, promotion or other conditions of employment or the employee's rights were denied as to reappointment;

(b) "Other conditions of employment" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to[,]: violations of academic freedom[,]; discriminatory employment practices[,]; nondiscriminatory employment practices; and laws, rules, policies, and procedures under which the institution operates. However, challenges to disciplinary actions or procedures shall be raised under OAR 580-021-0320;

(c) "Days" mean calendar days unless expressly designated otherwise.

(3) The institutions' grievance procedures shall:

(a) Set out the details of a grievance procedure appropriate to the institution;

(b) Include both informal and formal steps. The formal steps shall include an appropriate administrator, a faculty committee (at the option of the grievant) and the [institution president][grievance officer] institution president. The institution may (at its option) provide a grievance officer. However, a grievance may be resolved at any step. In a formal grievance, all complaints, responses and decisions must be in writing;

(c) Establish time limits within which a grievance must be filed and for each step that will permit timely resolution of issues. Informal grievances shall receive a response within 15 days. In no instance shall the length of time between the presentation of the written grievance and the [Board's] [president's] final institutional decision be more than 180 days, unless agreed to by the grievant. In the event a decision is not made at any level within the designated time limit, the grievant may submit the grievance to the next step;

(d) Provide for a hearing, at the option of the grievant, by a faculty committee selected by the faculty at the institution. [If a grievant is otherwise entitled to a contested case hearing, that grievant may elect to use the institution's contested case procedure instead of the procedures described in this rule;]

(e) Provide for the appointment by the president of an administrative officer, or officers, (grievance officer) to receive and act upon the recommendations of the faculty committee. The institution may, alternatively, opt to have the president receive and act upon the recommendations of the faculty committee.

(4) The institution may elect not to proceed with a grievance if the grievant also seeks resolution in another forum.

(5) The institution shall adopt rules of procedure for the faculty committee that allow for:

(a) A meaningful opportunity for the grievant to be heard;

(b) An opportunity for each party to present evidence, argument and rebuttal;

(c) The right to representation for each party at that party's expense;

(d) A hearing open to the public at the option of the grievant to the extent allowed by law;

(e) Written conclusions, based only upon evidence presented at the hearing; and

(f) Access by each party to a complete record of the hearing.

(6) The faculty committee shall make recommendations regarding the disposition of the grievance to the grievance officer or president (depending on the institution's election).

(7) Unless the grievance is resolved at a lower level, the [president of the institution, or a designee of the president] president or grievance officer (depending on the institution's election), shall review the recommendations of the faculty committee, if any, and the [president] president or grievance officer shall issue a decision.

(8) If the [president] president or grievance officer (depending on the institution's election) rejects or modifies the recommendations of the faculty hearing committee, the reasons shall be stated in writing, and a copy provided to the grievant and to the hearing committee.

(9) Where the institution has opted to use a grievance officer, [T]the grievant may appeal the decision of the [president to the Board] grievance officer to the president pursuant to OAR 580-021-0055.

(10) Under either option as set forth above, and [E]except as set forth herein, the decision of the president shall be final, and shall be an exhaustion of grievant's administrative remedies with the institution and the State Board of Higher Education. If the grievance involves the president[,] or where the president is the immediate supervisor of the grievant, then the appeal, set forth in section 9, shall be to the Chancellor of the Oregon University System (all other provisions of this rule shall otherwise apply).

(11) Nothing contained in this administrative rule shall be construed to limit the right of the State Board of Higher Education to make such inquiry and review into personnel actions as it may from time to time deem, in its sole discretion, appropriate.

[10] (12) Where collective bargaining agreements or administrative rules exist at an institution in which grievance procedures are specified and such procedures exceed the standards in this rule, such agreements or administrative rules shall control[.], to the extent not inconsistent with the rule.

[11] (13) After consultation with the appropriate faculty committees and approval of the Chancellor's Office, each institution shall adopt its rules by [June 1, 1988] [September 1, 2001] October 1, 2001.

[12] (14) Each institution shall report annually to the Board beginning [July 1989] July 2002, on the number, basis and outcome of all formal grievances filed under the rules herein required.

Appeal of Grievance Decisions
580-021-0055
(1) Where an institution has opted to utilize the process of decision by a grievance officer as set forth in OAR 580-021-0050(3)(e), [A] a grievant may request [Board review of a president's] review by the institution's president of a decision described in OAR 580-021-0050[(7). The [Board or its designee] president shall review the record of the grievance. The [Board] president shall decide, based on [its] his/her own review [or on the recommendation of a designee], whether to support the [president's] grievance officer's decision. The [Board] president's decision must be reached within [60] 90 days of the date on which the request is received in the [Chancellor's] President's Office.

(2) A request for [Board review] review by the president shall be in writing and must be received in the [Chancellor's] President's Office within 15 days of the grievant's receipt of the [president's] grievance officer's decision. The request shall briefly state the basis for the request for review and the specific facts that would support [Board action] action by the president consistent with section [(6)] (4) of this rule. The request shall include a copy of the [president's] grievance officer's decision.

[(3) Upon receipt of a request for Board review, the Chancellor shall notify the institution president and the President of the Board. The institution president shall forward a copy of the record of the grievance to the Chancellor within seven days. The President of the Board shall decide whether initial review will be by the Board or by a designee and notify the grievant and the institution president accordingly. If initial review is delegated, the President of the Board shall select the designee and identify that person in the notice to the grievant and the institution president.]

[(4) Board review] (3) Review by the president shall consist of an examination of the record of the grievance. The [Board (or its designee)] president may elect to receive additional written or oral presentations from the grievant and the [institution president] grievance officer.

[(5) If initial review is by a designee, the designee will prepare a written recommendation to the Board including reasons for the recommendation. The Board is not bound by the recommendation of the designee.]

[(6)] (4) The [Board] president shall not reverse a decision of a [president] grievance officer unless:

(a) Procedural error was committed by the institution during the grievance procedure and the error resulted in prejudice to the grievant;

(b) The decision of the [president] grievance officer is not supported by substantial evidence; or

(c) The decision is in conflict with applicable rules or law.

(d) The [Board] president's decision shall be in writing and shall be sent to the grievant and the [institution president] grievance officer.

[Discretionary Review of Academic Nondisciplinary Personnel Decisions (repeal)
580-021-0390
An academic staff member aggrieved by a president's nondisciplinary personnel decision may appeal such decision as follows:

(1) Any request for Board's Office review shall be made only after the academic staff member has exhausted all internal institutional procedures appropriate for reviewing the decision in question.

(2) All requests for review shall be in writing, shall be addressed to the Chancellor, and shall state succinctly the basis of the grievance and the reasons of academic policy that justify further review of the decision.

(3) Any decision to take further action with respect to an alleged grievance shall be discretionary with the Board.

(4) Requests for review shall be assigned to the Chancellor or a designee for examination, informal settlement if possible, conduct of a conference or hearing, if necessary, and report and recommendation to the Board if the grievance is not resolved.

(5) Consideration of any request shall be limited to appellate review of alleged errors by the appointing authority with respect to procedure, adherence to Administrative Rules or applicable law, and fair consideration of the facts. The scope of review shall not include a de novo review on the judgment exercised by the president.]

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends Board approval and finalization of the revised OAR 580-021-0050 and 0055 as noted, and the repeal of OAR 580-021-0390.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

B.A./B.S., INFORMATION SYSTEMS, WOU

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Western Oregon University proposes to offer the baccalaureate degree in Information Systems, effective fall term 2001. Other OUS programs most closely related are OIT's B.S. in Information Technology and UO's minor in Computer Information Technology. OIT's program is a combination of software engineering technology and management information systems. UO's program is designed for students who have majors in departments and schools other than Computer and Information Science.

The proposed program emphasizes practical computer applications and requires the student to complete a three- to six-credit practicum, working with and developing solutions for outside clients. This program combines the strengths of computer science, liberal arts, and focused business skills to craft graduates who are technically proficient and who also possess excellent communication and management abilities. Graduates of this program will be able to effectively manage such settings as a client-server-based operation, a data-retrieval system utilizing database servers and fifth-generation languages, and an environment in which operations are network dependent.

Students will complete 64 credits in the areas of information technology, computer science, business, and math. Seven new information technology courses are being developed specifically for this program. The program capstone will be the required practicum. It will be designed with computer science faculty members and will verify that the student is able to analyze an initial problem statement and then design and implement a solution with an acceptable level of proficiency. Courses will be offered at nontraditional times to accommodate students who are employed.

Evidence of need for this type of program is strong. Both the National Occupational Outlook and Oregon Occupational Projections show high growth rates for computer scientists, computer information systems managers, and related occupations. Information technology positions are difficult to fill, and growth in the IT industry in the state is projected to increase 75 percent in the ten-year period of 1998-2008.

WOU anticipates serving 30 majors per year, with 20 to 40 graduates by the end of five years. Strong enrollment in this program should not detract from enrollments in similar programs at other campuses. There is currently a greater demand for graduates in computer and information technology fields than Oregon's postsecondary institutions can provide.

WOU currently has five computer science professors who will be involved in this program. The program requires one new faculty member, and WOU is in the midst of a search process. The new faculty member is expected to be on board by September 2001. An additional software upgrade/license will have an annual cost of $1,200, and library resource requirements will amount to an additional $5,000 per year for four years. All of these resource needs will be met from within the current budgetary unit.

All appropriate University committees and the OUS Academic Council have positively reviewed the proposed program.

Staff Recommendation to the Committee

Staff recommends that the Board authorize Western Oregon University to establish a program leading to a baccalaureate degree in Information Systems, effective fall term 2001. The OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

OUS DIVERSITY REPORT: NATIONAL TRENDS, AND RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY AMONG OUS STUDENTS, INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY, AND STAFF

Introduction

In enhanced efforts to examine and understand the benefits of diversity on our campuses, the Oregon University System (OUS) views the concept of diversity from the perspective of representation, inclusion, and engagement of people of color throughout all OUS institutions. OUS seeks to facilitate fertile educational arenas in which robust exchanges of ideas, communication of varied perspectives, production of well-versed and culturally sensitive graduates, and the benefits of diversity extend to all parties.

This report includes reflections on national trends; analyses of Oregon trends; data regarding the racial/ethnic representation of students, faculty, and staff within OUS institutions; and conclusions/ recommendations to further enhance educational and employment opportunities, diversity awareness, and incorporation of diversity into the fabric of OUS institutions.

National Trends

The continuing challenges to American higher education include providing educational and employment opportunities, increasing minority participation, creating diverse learning environments, and facilitating environments in which diversity is valued.

Students

Nationally, undergraduate enrollments (in all postsecondary institutions) will expand by 2.6 million students between 1995 and 2015. It is predicted that 80 percent of these new students will be minorities--African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific American. Enrollment trends for Oregon indicate that for all (public, private, two-year, and four-year) undergraduates, African American representation will increase from 2.3 percent in 1995 to 2.6 percent in 2015; Asian/Pacific American representation will increase from 5.7 percent in 1995 to 7.8 percent in 2015; Hispanic/Latino representation will increase from 4.6 percent in 1995 to 8.0 percent in 2015; and White representation will decrease from 86.6 percent in 1995 to 81.5 percent in 2015.

Faculty

Nationally, there is substantial underrepresentation of many minority groups within higher education faculty ranks. Data indicate that White males are substantially overrepresented among faculty ages 34 to 43; and African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific American, and Hispanic/Latino faculty ages 34 to 43 are severely underrepresented among the age group that commonly begins to move into tenured slots or mid-level positions in academia.

Benefits of Campus Diversity

In order to demonstrate the expanding perceptions of diversity that undergird selected postsecondary activities, higher education institutions nationally have, in recent years, increased research into the benefits of diversity within the academy. Recent diversity-related research includes focused attention to faculty perceptions and actions on college and university campuses.

The results of a recent national survey of faculty members found that, overall, faculty value diversity and that many faculty members adjust their classes to take advantage of diversity to enhance the learning process. Further, campus diversity is seen as desirable and beneficial to all students and faculty.

OUS Data

Students

OUS institutions have made gains in the enrollment (undergraduate and graduate) of students of color, with an increase of 855 (a 10.7 percent gain) during the two-year period from fall 1998 to fall 2000. Students of color in fall 2000 represented 8,818 (12.7 percent) of total OUS enrollments. Seventy-eight percent of fall 2000 OUS undergraduate students of color were Oregon residents and 22 percent were nonresidents. Degrees awarded to students of color increased from 1,368 (10.6 percent) in 1998-99 to 1,501 (11 percent) in 1999-00.

Faculty and Staff

OUS institutions demonstrated a slight increase in the representation of full-time, ranked, instructional faculty of color, from 223 (9.6 percent) in 1998-99 to 234 (9.7 percent) in 2000-01. The largest concentrations in regard to age of OUS full-time, ranked, instructional faculty during fall 2000 by race/ethnicity were: African Americans ages 44 and above (66 percent); American Indians/Alaska Natives evenly split between ages 44 and above (47 percent), and 34-43 (47 percent); Asian/Pacific Americans evenly split between ages 44 and above (46.5 percent), and 34-43 (46.5 percent); Hispanics/Latinos ages 44 and above (54 percent); and European Americans ages 44 and above (71 percent). In fall 1999 (the most recent data available), people of color represented 483 (8.3 percent) of all OUS full-time and part-time staff.

Recommendations

Overall Campus Diversity

Students

Faculty

(No Board action required)

CAMPUS SAFETY

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

The Board's current analysis of campus safety began in February 2000 with the proposed legislative concept process. It was proposed that the Board seek legislative authority to appoint campus police officers (vs. public safety officers) with the associated authority to carry weapons. This legislative concept was not approved.

The Board, however, expressed its desire to more closely monitor public safety on OUS campuses. Annually, the Board received and analyzed campus reports submitted pursuant to the federal Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. The Board next chose to study the legal responsibility of a governing board for campus safety.

The current information represents the final phase of the Board's scrutiny. This report, therefore, focuses on the current status of campus safety. Information collected in this survey addresses the size of a campus' safety force; the annual budget; to whom it reports; a description of agreements with local law enforcement agencies; and the training provided to personnel.

The following executive summary and table provide information sought from each campus, a summary of the campus submission, and a brief description of those submissions. The full report of each campus is on file and available for individual Board members upon request.

Staff recommends that the Board view this and related data on an annual basis to remain current in its monitoring of the status and trends of safety issues on the OUS campuses. Summary

Generally, the smaller campuses (EOU, OIT, SOU, WOU) maintain a security force consisting of six full-time positions with an average annual budget of $287,000. None of these campuses have any outside contracts for police support. The crime statistics (1997-1999) for these campuses indicate the most prevalent criminal offenses are liquor and drug law violations, with burglary and aggravated assault incidences coming in a distant third and fourth respectively.

The larger campuses (OSU, PSU, UO) maintain a security force with an average of 24 positions and an average annual budget of $1,336,477 (including budgets for outside contracts.) OSU contracts with the Oregon State Police for the provision of full law enforcement services consisting of ten officers, including one lieutenant, one sergeant and eight field troopers. UO contracts with the City of Eugene for supplemental police services that consist of one police sergeant and four police officers. The crime statistics for these campuses indicate the most common criminal offense is theft followed by liquor, burglary and drug violations respectively.

(No Board action required)

Campus Safety-April 2001

Description

OSU

PSU

UO

EOU

OIT

SOU

WOU

Size of Force 15 positions from Dept. Public Safety. Oregon State Police contract provides 10 officers 19 positions
15 officers
27 positions 4 full-time positions
5 part-time
6 positions
4 officers
6 full-time positions
10 part-time
10 positions 5.5 officers
Annual Budget $580,000
Dept Public Safetycontract w/Oregon State Police
$625,000
$970,802 $1,833,630
contract w/ Eugene Police is
$422,675
$134,846 $187,673 $311,843 $514,337
Admin.
Supervisor
Assistant VP Finance & Admin. Associate
VP Finance & Admin.
VP for Admin. VP Finance & Admin. VP Finance & Admin. VP Finance & Admin. VP Student Affairs & Enrollment
Outside Contract Agreements Oregon State Police provides full law enforcement No contract w/ Portland Police Bureau Eugene PD provides 1 sergeant &
4 officers
None No contract but has verbal agmt w/ Klamath Falls PD for back-up capacity None No contract
but has exchange of labor dispatcher agree. w/ Monmouth PD
Training   DPSST training     DPSST training DPSST training 6 month
on-campus training program