Oregon University System logo

OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FIR ROOM
EUGENE, OREGON

February 18, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the State Board of Higher Education was called to order at 11:20 a.m. by President Imeson.

ROLL CALL

On roll call, the following answered present:

Dr. Herb Aschkenasy
Dr. Geri Richmond
Mr. Shawn Hempel
Mr. Don VanLuvanee
Mr. David Koch
Mr. Jim Willis
Ms. Leslie Lehmann
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg
Mr. Jim Lussier
Mr. Tom Imeson

Absent: Mr. Bill Williams (out of the country)

MINUTES APPROVED

The Board dispensed with the reading of the December 17, 1999, Board meeting minutes. With one minor correction, Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Mr. Hempel seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Executive Session Cancelled

President Imeson announced that he would not convene the Executive Session as planned, due to time constraints. He suggested that any Board members with specific questions pertaining to labor relations contact Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Joe Sicotte.

Strategic Planning

Indicating that the upcoming work session would be the first opportunity for the full Board to discuss strategic initiatives for the 2001-2003 biennium, President Imeson reminded the Board of its goal to bring faculty salaries to the midpoint of peer institutions and to improve executive compensation, noting the importance of recognizing that goal as the Board strategically plans for the next biennium.

UO Visit

President Imeson highlighted the prior day's visitation, expressing his gratitude to staff who planned such a productive day. He also thanked President and Mrs. Frohnmayer for hosting dinner that evening.

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

SOU Guest

Chancellor Cox turned to President Reno, introduced Professor Joel Arrendondo, former vice president of academic affairs from the University of Guanajuato in Mexico. Dr. Arrendondo, on sabbatical from the university, is spending a year at SOU studying American higher education, said Dr. Reno.

Rep. Ben Westlund

The Chancellor invited Representative Ben Westlund to offer remarks to the Board. Representative Westlund congratulated the Board on its success in securing additional monies to implement the new budget model, yet admitted that the System is not yet "made whole."

Suggesting a strategy to successfully continue those efforts, Representative Westlund urged Board members, stakeholders, alumni, and faculty to get to know their legislators or the candidates in districts on a first-name basis. OUS needs champions in the legislature, he said, indicating that he was a lawmaker the System could count on. "You need people that, when the going gets tough, are there to advocate for your position, your issues, and your point of view," he explained. Continuing, he said, "There is a lot of work to be done and we need to do this together. We need to continue funding efforts that were started last session. Lawmakers put a band-aid on an artery cut and sutured the wound. It really is a critical issue for this state and we need to continue the additional and increased funding for higher education."

Thanking Representative Westlund for his comments, Chancellor Cox shared, "In the last several sessions, no one was more constant. When the going got tough, Representative Westlund was there."

CORAB Update

In response to the CORAB proposal brought to the Board at its December 1999 meeting, the Chancellor reported that staff is working in a variety of ways under the leadership of Vice Chancellor Clark. A workforce made up of staff from across the System, he explained, is looking at three questions: 1) financial viability, 2) program sustainability, and 3) delivery of quality. In addition, the Chancellor's Office has retained the services of several nationally recognized consultants, who are reviewing the materials generated to date. The consultants are scheduled to spend time in Central Oregon meeting with CORAB and other interested groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

The Governor, said Chancellor Cox, recently introduced another idea into the discussion, which he referred to as a "transition entity," suggesting that some thought be given to a midpoint between the current situation with the University Center in Bend and where it might ultimately go in 10-12 years. "The key with a transition entity is that it must be something you can transition to and successors can transition from. We're hard at work analyzing this by looking at national models, as well as reviewing the CORAB proposal," explained the Chancellor.

New Partnerships

Moving to engineering, computer science, and technology education, the Chancellor described a new partnership between Clark Community College, Washington State University in Vancouver, Washington, and Oregon Institute of Technology. Arriving at the agreement after some longstanding discussions, the Chancellor said that OIT will provide a need in the technical arena, considered to be a program gap in the offerings in that area of the state. The program, scheduled to begin fall 2000, is expected to draw between 40 and 60 students who will divide their time between the Vancouver and OIT Metro campuses.

Tier One Designation

Chancellor Cox referred briefly to a recent discussion pertaining to Tier One schools of engineering. In his opinion, the Chancellor said that four things drive Tier One designation in the final analysis: 1) number of faculty; 2) number of students; 3) number of degrees conferred; and 4) total research dollars and the quality of the research.

IFS Report

The Chancellor introduced Dr. Gary Tiedeman, new IFS president, and asked for his report. Below is a excerpt of his remarks:

"IFS met February 4-5 at Oregon State University. We were welcomed by Past Provost Roy Arnold and were then visited by Senator Cliff Trow, whose first emphasis was the critical importance by key initiative measures on the horizon, which, if not defeated, could devastate higher education and every other appropriate service enclave in Oregon. We then discussed other facets, mostly legislative, of Oregon's distressing 46th place standing in the state revenues for education, of prospects for the composition and behavior of the next legislature, and of what can be done to affect the state of higher education in general.

"Denise Yunker from the Chancellor's Office spoke about the PEBB situation, particularly as it affects faculty and their interests. Every one of our guests had something to say about the notion of system mediocrity; the consensus was that the recent Oregonian series has been a mixed blessing. The idea does constitute a double-edged sword.

"What we must all express more clearly is that we are confusing at least two forms of mediocrity in our reactive discussion. On the one hand, our resources are, indeed, mediocre. On the other hand, OUS is blessed with many of the finest teachers and researchers in the land. Students benefit from such a surprising but fortunate circumstance and they can obtain an education that matches that found anywhere else and which is anything but mediocre. What we need to stress is how excellent we could become. Why settle for adequacy in higher education when we have the potential to be the very best?

"Let me comment on two IFS goals for the year. First, there is the legislative agenda, to which I alluded earlier. Although this is not a legislative year, we consider it an equally important year for higher education because it's the year during which the next round of players will be chosen, their attitudes ascertained, some of the issues set, and it is the year the next higher education budget proposal will be formulated.

"The second central goal of IFS is very much in consonance with the first. That is to communicate and work more effectively and interactively than in the past with three sister organizations: The Association of Oregon Faculties, The Oregon Student Association, and The American Association of University Professors, on behalf of higher education. Each of these groups has its own traditions, emphases, and strengths and we believe that an active, cooperative endeavor will best benefit all concerned.

"Virtually all of my faculty colleagues pleaded with me to speak loudly and frequently about salaries. Since I am first and foremost a faculty member and since the organization I represent is the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, you can imagine which set of advice I feel obligated to heed. It would be grossly irresponsible of me to do otherwise.

"Finally, faculty can be well and fairly served through benefits other than salary. Faculty with whom I speak are absolutely delighted about the prospect of a tuition reduction program for faculty dependants. Realizing that the Chancellor and Board have already registered support for this simple, inexpensive and inventive assist to faculty, I nevertheless invite whatever additional push may be within your power. Again, it is not just the benefit per se that is at issue, but the all-important demonstration of caring and concern and effort."

The Chancellor followed up on Dr. Tiedeman's remarks with an update on the status of a proposed faculty/staff education benefits extension to spouses, domestic partners, and dependents. He said that a breakthrough had occurred in council meetings the day before, where a consensus was reached to initiate the program on an experimental two-year basis beginning in fall 2000. Indicating that it required an administrative rule amendment, Chancellor Cox said he hoped it would be brought before the Board for a vote within the next couple of months.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION DESIGN 2000-01

Recommendation to the Executive Committee

Given the Board's general presidential salary objectives in 1) addressing the peer group-market issue, and 2) rewarding progress in terms of performance indicators, the Board President recommended the following salary actions, effective in two installments: January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2001:

Dan Bernstine

$146,000

Dave Frohnmayer

$146,000

Paul Risser

$146,000

Phillip Creighton

$115,000

Martha Anne Dow

$115,000

Steve Reno

$115,000

Betty Youngblood

$115,000

In addition, the Board President recommended two high performance awards to Presidents Martha Anne Dow and Paul Risser for their special achievement in turning around institutions that were facing severe problems.

The high performance awards consisted of:*

Martha Anne Dow = $5,000
Paul Risser = $5,000

The source of funding was the Performance Fund in the 1999-2001 budget.

Further, the Board President recommended that Chancellor Joe Cox receive the salary of $149,000, to be effective in two installments: January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2001.

*All other dimensions of executive compensation remained unchanged, including expenses incident to position, housing, use of automobile, etc.

Executive Committee Discussion and Action

President Imeson reviewed the recommendations for CEO compensation. He announced that Presidents Bernstine and Youngblood had chosen not to accept their salary increases until faculty negotiations on their campuses were concluded.

Members of the Committee agreed that staff and the presidents could refine the CEO evaluation process to move from a rules-based to a more results-based system of evaluation, which would consider more than just campus performance.

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to refer the presidents' salaries recommendation to the full Board for a final vote. Further, Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to refer the Chancellor's salary recommendation to the full Board for a final vote. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

Board Discussion and Action

President Imeson reported that the Committee found that all OUS institution presidents performed at meritorious levels, leading campuses that are quite distinct and differentiated in terms of missions and challenges. Moreover, all had a good year in terms of strengthening programs, hiring excellent staff, fundraising, and uniting to achieve the System's legislative agenda in unprecedented ways.

The Committee, he continued, believed the Board should make executive compensation determinations using the same four to five percent resource pool as campuses did in determining faculty salaries.

Following a review of the recommendations by the Executive Committee, Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to accept all CEO salaries as submitted. On roll call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF LEGISLATIVE CONCEPTS FOR THE 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Staff Recommendation to the Committee of the Whole

Staff recommended the Committee of the Whole approve en bloc, and refer to the Board, legislative concepts #1 through #10 for submission to the Department of Administrative Services. Following are the concepts:

1. Public records exemption for donor information
2. Liability insurance coverage for OUS interns
3. Grant authority to OSBHE to use the title of "Oregon University System"
4. Permit OUS to self-insure for purposes of employee health benefits
5. OSBHE retention of interest income
6. Increase the student Building Fee in each of the next two biennia
7. Health insurance coverage for graduate students
8. Optional Retirement Plan amendment
9. Mineral rights leases and royalties on OUS lands
10. Parking tax exemption

Staff determined that legislative concept #11, which would permit campuses to employ armed police officers, would require further discussion and therefore offered no specific recommendations to the Committee.

Staff offered three options (A, B, C) for legislative concept #12, which would statutorily recognize unique state responsibilities at PSU. Staff recommended Option B to the Committee for referral to the Board.

Committee of the Whole Discussion and Action

Legislative Concepts #1 through #10:
Realizing there were many people in the audience with opinions about several of the legislative concepts, President Imeson allowed for public comment, using the same stipulations for input at regular Board meetings.

Legislative concepts #2 through #10 were unanimously referred to the Board for final approval.

Following a motion to refer legislative concept #1 to the Board, Mr. Koch voted against the recommendation and Dr. Aschkenasy abstained. All other members of the Committee supported the recommendation.

Legislative Concept #11
Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to have the System Strategic Planning Committee further examine the matter prior to forwarding to the Board for final consideration. The recommendation was unanimously approved. Following the vote, President Imeson decided to appoint a special Subcommittee to review the matter and then make recommendations to the Board based on its findings.

Legislative Concept #12
After a discussion among the Committee members, President Imeson asked for a specific statement in the form of a motion to recommend to the Board. Mr. Willis said he felt that the Committee saw value in parts of all three of the options, thereby pointing out that an "Option D" should be put on the table for consideration.

That being said, a motion was made: 1) to go forward with PSU's recommendation; 2) to assert authority for the Board to review proposals on an individual basis to ensure consistency with institutional and Systemwide missions; and 3) to engage in a review of past designations to ensure they meet the same criteria as future proposals, and if not, modify or repeal them. The recommendation was unanimously approved.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Koch moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to accept the Committee's recommendations regarding the legislative concepts. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM - FISCAL YEAR 2001 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS

Recommendation to the Committee of the Whole

Staff recommended the Committee refer the federal appropriations list to the Board for final approval. (See the Committee of the Whole minutes for detailed information, which are on file in the Board's office.)

Committee of the Whole Discussion and Action

The recommendation was unanimously approved for referral to the Board by the Committee.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Koch moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to accept the Committee's recommendations. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

OAR 580-021-0028, FELLOWSHIP LEAVE

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the following administrative rule be referred to the Board for final approval:

Fellowship Leave, OAR 580-021-0028

    1. A fellowship leave is leave available to faculty who have received certain fellowships that support research, writing, advanced study or travel related to scholarly or professional activities, including, but not limited to, Fulbright, NEA, NEH, Guggenheim, or other comparable federal or private fellowships, payable only to the faculty member.
    2. Any unclassified employee appointed at .5 FTE or more may be granted a fellowship leave upon approval of an institution president or designee. In addition, an institution president or designee may authorize continuation of institutional health care coverage and payment of employer contribution toward health care or other personnel expenses during a fellowship leave.
    3. Each faculty member, in applying for a fellowship leave, shall sign an agreement to return to the institution for a period of at least one year's service on completion of the leave. If the faculty member fails to fulfill this obligation, the faculty member shall repay the full cost of benefits paid by the institution during the leave. This amount is due and payable three months following the date designated in the institution's fellowship leave agreement for the faculty member to return to the institution.

Budget and Finance Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee recommended the proposed rule be referred to the Board for final consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the administrative rule as submitted. On roll call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none. Director Richmond abstained from voting, due to potential conflict of interest. President Imeson noted that she had also abstained from voting in the Budget and Finance Committee.

AUTZEN STADIUM EXPANSION AND RENOVATION, UO

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee approve and refer to the Board the request to expand and renovate Autzen Stadium and authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek an authorization from the State Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation for gifts of $60.3 million and an Article XI-F(10 bond expenditure limitation of $19.7 million for a total capital project of $80 million.

Budget and Finance Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved referring the proposal to the Board for final approval.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Koch moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to approve the proposal as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

Chancellor Cox pointed out that, as a result of the funding structure for the project, a $2.2 million subsidy, taken from the UO General Fund for the Athletic Department, will be phased back into the University. These funds are earmarked by President Frohnmayer for the faculty salary pool.

PERFORMANCE FUNDING POLICY

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended two performance incentive pools based on budgeted FTE enrollment: 77 percent of the performance funds for OSU, PSU, and UO and a 23 percent pool for EOU, OIT, SOU, and WOU. Each pool would be split 50-50 between the two chosen indicators.

Budget and Finance Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Imeson reported that the item had been presented to the Committee at its January 21, 2000, meeting. The Committee unanimously approved referring the proposal to the Board for final approval.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to approve the policy as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

Vice Chancellor Anslow reminded the Board that performance funding monies are actually an Emergency Board request and, if awarded, will be allocated in the second year of the biennium.

UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION POLICY FOR THE 2001-02 ACADEMIC YEAR

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended (1) that the 2000-01 general admission policy be continued for the 2001-02 academic year; and (2) that staff continue to work with Oregon schools, OUS campuses, and the Oregon Department of Education on the transition from the traditional admission policy to the proficiency-based admission standards system (PASS).

System Strategic Planning Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Willis observed that one of the more striking admission policies was the difference in required GPA for transfer students versus incoming students. Assuring that OUS has not opened the door to under-qualified, under-prepared students, Dr. Clark responded that the course work is more rigorous at the postsecondary level, and the transcripts reflect that.

Responding to a question by Ms. Lehmann regarding how out-of-state students relate to CIM/CAM/PASS requirements, Dr. Clark said that the System will have to run parallel processes for an indefinite period, adding that there is a movement nationwide to go to standards-based admissions.

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved referring the proposal to the Board for final approval.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the admissions policy as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

Undergraduate Admission Requirements: 2001-02 Academic Year
 

EOU

OIT

OSU

PSU

SOU

UO

WOU

FRESHMAN ADMISSION

(Residents and Nonresidents)
High School Graduation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Grade Point

Average (HSGPA)

3.00*

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.75

3.00

2.75

Subject Requirements - 14 Units

(4-English, 3-Math, 2-Science,

3-Social Studies, 2-Second

Language)



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes

SAT I / ACT Scores**

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes



TRANSFER ADMISSION
GPA of Residents

2.00

2.00

2.25

2.00

2.25

2.25

2.00

GPA of Nonresidents

2.00

2.00

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.50

2.00

Admission Consideration for Applicants with 2.00+ GPA

and AA Degree from Oregon

Community Colleges



N/A



N/A



Yes



N/A



Yes



Yes



N/A

Minimum College Hours Required

24

24

36

30

36

36

24

All Applicants Must Meet Specified Course Requirements



Yes***



Yes***



Yes***



Yes***



Yes***



Yes***



Yes***

* In courses taken to satisfy the subject requirements. Students below the 3.00 HSGPA must submit a portfolio with specified, additional documentation.

** Minimum SAT I scores are not set, but score results must be submitted and may be used for alternative or selective admission.

*** Courses Required: OSU, UO - one writing course beginning with WR 121; college algebra or above, or the equivalent of Math 105. All institutions - two years of same high school-level second language, or two terms of a college-level second language, or acceptable performance on approved assessment options. American Sign Language (ASL) meets the second language requirement. Second language requirement applies to transfer students graduating from high school in 1997 and thereafter.

AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD HONORARY DOCTORATES, OSU & UO

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended the Committee refer the nominations to the Board for authorization to Oregon State University to award honorary doctorates to Julian Bond and Gordon W. Gilkey and to the University of Oregon to award an honorary doctorate to Marian Wright Edelman at their June 2000 Commencement ceremonies.

System Strategic Planning Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final approval on its consent calendar.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none

RESOLUTION REGARDING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee refer the resolution to the Board for adoption regarding access to classified information related to the Department of Defense material.

System Strategic Planning Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final approval on its consent calendar.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

APPOINTMENT TO THE FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, OSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee forward the nomination of Mr. Harv Forsgren to the Board for final approval of the above appointment to the Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee.

System Strategic Planning Committee Discussion and Action

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final approval on its consent calendar.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS

President Imeson indicated that the only group to meet since the December Board meeting was the OHSU Board. As the Board representative, he reported that recent discussions focused on the institution's financial progress.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

The following people testified before the Board:

1) Dr. Molly Mayhead, faculty member at WOU, spoke out in favor of bringing faculty salaries in line with the national average of comparitor institutions.

2) Mr. Bill Linden, lobbyist for the Association of Oregon Faculties, urged parity in faculty salaries throughout the System.

3) Ms. Barbara Schenck, member of the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board, spoke in favor of serving the people of Central Oregon through a baccalaureate degree-granting institution in the area. She expressed the group's enthusiasm for the Governor's recent recommendation for a transition entity and asked for the Board's support in such an endeavor.

4) Mr. Paul Holvey, speaking on behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local Union # 1273, suggested that it would be in the best interest of the System and the public to require project labor agreements with the local construction labor community on projects administered by the Board.

5) Mr. Obie Garza, student body president at WOU, referenced the pending case of Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, and urged cooperation between students and staff if the decision favors Southworth.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Echoing Mr. Garza's comments regarding the pending Supreme Court decision, Mr. Koch said he hoped for a System review regardless of the outcome of the case. He also encouraged a process for fee restructuring that involves all stakeholders, particularly the students.

Ms. Lehmann reported that she was recently appointed to the Oregon Tuition Savings Board, the group charged with administering the state's new college tuition savings program established by the legislature during the 1999 session.

Mr. Lussier expressed his appreciation to Ms. Schenck for her earlier comments regarding CORAB and its activities. He asked those involved to make the direction and decision-making processes as clear as possible.

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Board Secretary Vines read the statement pertaining to delegation of authority to the Board's Executive Committee:

"Pursuant to Article II, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Board of Higher Education, the Board delegates to the Executive Committee authority to take final action as here designated or deemed by the Committee to be necessary, subsequent to the adjournment of this meeting and prior to the Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for April 21, 2000. The Executive Committee shall act for the Board in minor matters, and any matter where a timely response is required prior to the next Board meeting."

Although no specific items were brought forth, Board members agreed to the delegation of authority as stated.

WORK SESSION/STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS FOR THE 2001-2003 BIENNIUM

The goal of the work session, explained President Imeson, was to determine which strategies or approaches under the four goals set forth by the Board at its October 1999 renewal were of the highest priority, in order to begin targeting investments for the 2001-2003 biennium. Staff would work with the campuses through the Presidents Plus One Committee to prepare options and a cost benefit analysis for each strategic investment. These options will be presented for further discussion in a joint Committee meeting in May. Following that meeting, staff will develop the final budget and submit it for action at the July Board meeting.

Reviewing the four goals identified at the renewal, Secretary Vines listed them as: 1) ensuring access; 2) ensuring excellence of faculties and facilities; 3) building Oregon's future knowledge capacity; and 4) contributing to the current workforce needs of the state.

Mr. Willis reported on the System Strategic Planning Committee's discussions. In terms of access, Mr. Willis said that enrollment growth, particularly targeted enrollment in the areas of engineering, computer science, and biosciences, was key.

Creating incentives for regional partnerships were also considered vital, said Mr. Willis. Continuing, he said the Committee deliberated the issues of technology transfer and contributing to workforce needs as a possible combined effort.

Speaking on behalf of the Budget and Finance Committee, Vice Chancellor Anslow said that similar conversations took place in an earlier meeting of that group. However, the issue of performance goals, and how those might tie into the strategic goals, was also raised. President Reno added that the Committee saw several overlapping ideas within the goals. He felt that they could be folded together vis a vis the performance indicators, which would be presented as deliverables, thereby documenting a return on the state's investment.

One final concern arose in the Committee meeting, said Vice Chancellor Anslow, about site-bound professionals and how to best meet their needs.

Mr. VanLuvanee remarked on what he felt was a missing element: interdisciplinary collaboration. He urged incentives for creating opportunities for collaboration not only between departments, but also between individuals.

Another topic that arose at the Committee level was that of capital needs and the connection with the master planning process, said Vice Chancellor Anslow. Building on his remarks, Chancellor Cox urged close scrutiny of the facilities issue. "Unless you have first-rate facilities, you will not have good work, good students, or good output. We've scrimped along, we've patched them up, and we're behind."

A final issue touched on by the Committee was that of student services needs, and how to ensure that they are tied into what is available in the larger community, as well as what might be available inside the university community.

Pointing out that some programs may need better specification when talking about targeted enrollment growth, President Dow used engineering as an example. Clearer terminology, she said, might be useful in defining targeted enrollment growth areas. Dr. Richmond agreed, noting that the sciences were pulled off as distinct from engineering, although many of her students who go into industry are hired as engineers.

Continuing, Dr. Richmond encouraged that areas of excellence within each institution be defined, at which point there could be collaboration across campuses. However, she cautioned against taking everyone who has an interest in a particular area and putting them all under the same umbrella. "We have to be very careful when we talk about collaborative efforts across institutions to ensure that they have synergy. Those are the dynamics of the work place you really need to think hard about," she observed.

Reflecting on Dr. Richmond's comments, Ms. Lehmann said that she had been trying to determine how to achieve excellence in a model where entrepreneurism is encouraged. The dividing line between rewarding success and investing up-front money is an issue that she had been wrestling with. Dr. Richmond said that she viewed the Board as the visionary with the "carrot" and if campuses choose to follow the carrot, that was fine, but the Board should not tell them to do so. However, she thought that performance should be rewarded in the areas that the Board encourages.

President Frohnmayer expressed concern that the four primary goals were not mutually reinforcing. "Those can quickly turn into zero-sum objectives unless there is either some set of priorities in the strategic investments or there is institutional differentiation in doing them, or unless they are the umbrella through which we ask for increased investment for all four objectives."

President Imeson said, "I think the question for the Board is, 'What opportunities can we create that are very compelling, that other people care about, and that we can do better as a System than an institution on its own?' But, we don't want to get in the way of what institutions are really able to do by themselves."

Responding to concerns voiced by Dr. Aschkenasy over a perceived lack of contentment on progress made over the past several years, Secretary Vines assured him that on campuses, people are very pleased with the recent shifts made by the Board.

President Imeson observed that the advent of new resources has caused a new set of challenges because people's hopes were raised at the prospect of an additional $100 million in funding. They also had, he believed, very specific ideas about how those funds would be allocated. "What is the best way," he said, "to configure this plan to get the maximum result? I think at some point, we need a very candid intra-System discussion about the most appropriate way to accomplish this."

Mr. Lussier suggested that the Board carefully consider outcomes. Mr. Willis added that all the partners should be involved with the discussion in order to elevate the System. "The responsibility of the Board is to be a board and to tackle the big issues that are in the Board's realm, do that at the legislative level, and build those relationships across the state," Mr. Willis concluded.

Moving back to the actual development of the strategic plan, President Imeson agreed with others that it needs to be very focused. The struggle, he said, is to identify those key areas.

President Frohnmayer suggested a greater focus on the funding model, indicating that it lacks investment capital. "That's where the Board's strategic objectives, either made Systemwide or made on the basis of choosing individual institutions or collaborations amongst them, are very critical," he remarked.

Responding to his observation, President Imeson said, "On one hand, we are talking about strategic investments and on the other, we have a model that doesn't provide what we think is adequate funding for the basics. That's a fundamental issue for us." He suggested that proposals for investments be submitted for the Board's consideration, hoping that would give the Board a better sense of where opportunities exist. Vice Chancellor Anslow agreed to the plan, noting that these discussions occur initially in the Presidents Plus One meetings, where quantifications and prioritizations can be made. Mr. VanLuvanee encouraged staff to create some "collective excitement" about possible funding ideas.

"Most states," observed Provost Minahan, "are willing to fund the same thing over and over, sometimes for decades when they are looking to build excellence. Unless we're willing to persist over the long haul, I don't think we can have great ideas funded." Concluding his remarks, Provost Minahan urged continual, sustained support for faculty salaries. "A university can do no more than the power of its intellectuals," he said.

Referring to a prior discussion about bringing in an external review committee, Dr. Richmond offered her support in securing such a group to better determine where to grow areas of strength. She also suggested that each campus identify five areas on their campus that are world class and/or competitive at that level, which she felt would be extremely valuable input for the Board when considering future investments. She agreed with others, however, that the model must also be fully funded.

Wrapping up the work session, President Imeson summarized the next steps that include investment proposals. Ms. Lehmann added that stakeholders outside of the education circle and in the business community should support those proposals in order for them to move forward.

Chancellor Cox reminded Board members that undergraduate education is very high on lawmakers' lists, and therefore they should be striving for balance when creating the strategic investment plan.

ADJOURNMENT

Prior to adjourning the meeting, President Youngblood introduced Western's new Vice President for Business and Finance, Darin Silbernagel.

The Board meeting adjourned at 1:58 p.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Tom Imeson
President of the Board