Oregon University System logo

OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
ROGUE RIVER ROOMS A/D, STEVENSON UNION
SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
ASHLAND, OREGON

October 20, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the State Board of Higher Education was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by President VanLuvanee.

ROLL CALL

On roll call, the following Board members answered present:

Dr. Herb Aschkenasy
Dr. Geri Richmond
Mr. Shawn Hempel
Mr. Bill Williams
Mr. Tom Imeson
Mr. Jim Willis
Ms. Leslie Lehmann
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg
Mr. Jim Lussier
Mr. Tim Young
Mr. Don VanLuvanee

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Board dispensed with the reading of the July 21, 2000, regular meeting minutes. Mr. Imeson moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the minutes as corrected by staff in an errata sheet dated October 11, 2000. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Senator Lenn Hannon

President VanLuvanee invited Senator Hannon to the table. Asking to speak as a citizen rather than state senator, Senator Hannon referenced recent discussions about campuses joining workers' rights organizations. He urged Board members not to support institutions in lending their names, joining, or opposing an organization or particular point of view. "I think it's inappropriate for any campus to use its academic freedom for this purpose. These are issues that should be decided upon individually by students, faculty, staff, and institution presidents," he observed.

Reporting on the Board's campus visitation, Ms. Lehmann highlighted the day's activities, which included presentations, an open forum, and a reception celebrating the opening of the new Center for the Visual Arts. "We all want to express our gratitude to President Hopkins-Powell and her staff for a very enjoyable day. This is an impressive campus," she said.

Mr. VanLuvanee described the upcoming work session with Dr. David Nygren. He encouraged all Board members to participate in the discussion of Board goals, which were slated for completion.

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

Hoping to devote as much time as possible to the work session, Chancellor Cox deferred his report. He briefly pointed out that Central Oregon University Center Director Dr. Dick Markwood and Southwestern Oregon University Director Dr. Andy Duncan were in the audience. The Chancellor said that he was very encouraged by the growing enrollments at both locations.

INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY (ATHLETICS), OSU

Staff Recommendation to the Executive Committee

Staff recommended that the Board's Executive Committee approve, and refer to the full Board for its final approval, construction of a new indoor practice facility at Oregon State University. Staff further recommended the Board authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for a new project expenditure limitation of $11 million for use of Other Funds to finance the project.

Executive Committee Discussion and Action (September 15, 2000)

Lynda Swanson, OUS director of capital construction planning and budget, reviewed the proposed project.

Mr. Imeson moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to approve the project proposal as submitted. The following Executive Committee members voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lussier, Willis, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none. (Note: Ms. Lehmann was not present at the meeting.)

Executive Committee Recommendation to the Board

The Executive Committee recommended full Board approval of the proposal submitted by OSU for an indoor practice facility.

Board Discussion and Action

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

IFS REPORT

Following is an excerpt of IFS President Gary Tiedeman's remarks:

"IFS met on October 6 and 7 on the campus of Oregon Institute of Technology. Friday's meeting began with visits from President Dow, and a conversation that was a very interesting and fulfilling one with Board member Shawn Hempel. In both cases, the small university initiative with regard to adjustment of the budget model was discussed, as was the mixed blessing of enrollment growth and assorted other topics.

"Our business meeting on Saturday included many of our standard topics as well as new ones, such as workers' rights organizations; the progress of proposals for the Central Oregon branch campus; changes in general education requirements at Eastern; OHSU's absorption of the Oregon Graduate Institute; and a new urban center at PSU. Continuing concerns for IFS include faculty grievance procedures, monitoring the operation of the budget model, especially at its end phase, and the important issue of rightful political freedoms and protections of faculty as employees."

OUS POOLED ENDOWMENT FUND/SMALL- CAP INVESTMENT MANAGER

Summary

At the September 26, 2000, meeting of the Investment Committee, the Committee interviewed the following firms for OUS small cap investment manager:

1. Columbia Management Company
Management Style-Growth

2. Nicholas Applegate
Management Style-Growth

3. Batterymarch
Management Style-Core

4. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Management Style-Value

Investment Committee Discussion and Action (September 26, 2000)

Results of Committee discussion and manager interviews indicated that Batterymarch has shown strong, consistent performance and provides a balance between growth and value stocks. Batterymarch offers stock selection criteria and a mix of both small- and mid-cap equity.

Ms. Lehmann moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve, pending an affirmative response from Russell Consulting, recommending Batterymarch as the new small-/mid-cap fund investment manager.

Investment Committee Recommendation to the Board

The Investment Committee recommended that the Board approve, for recommendation to the Oregon Investment Council, that the Pooled Endowment Fund allocation to the BGI Russell 2000 Index Fund be sold and the proceeds be invested with an actively managed small-/mid-cap fund with the investment firm Batterymarch.

Board Discussion and Action

Following a synopsis by OUS Controller Mike Green, Ms. Wustenberg moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to accept the Investment Committee's recommendation. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

ENHANCING ENGINEERING PROGRAMS: 2001 AND BEYOND

Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended Option D as the alternative that best addresses a number of competing concerns. (A copy of the completed staff report, which fully outlines Option D, as well as Options A-C, is on file in the Board's office.) The following arguments support Option D:

Options A through D were relatively similar in addressing points 1-4, but Option D (the lowest cost option allocated over four biennia) increases the chances for leveraging all resources in a measured and meaningful fashion.

The identification of overlapping or duplicated costs between EEIF and MGT is imprecise. It is critical, however, to recognize that achievement of a number of the objectives in the EEIF proposal will contribute to peer improvement and close the funding gap that presently exists. (An annual process of assessment could be developed that reviews actual expenditures from state and other sources with the intent of providing a set of measures against those factors that define peer improvement.)

The success of all of the options is dependent on gaining sufficient support through the EEIF and substantial non-state sources. Realistically, if the projected faculty and scholarship funds from EEIF are not realized, the success of the Tier 1/Spires of Excellence enhancement will be even more dependent on non-state resources.

Option D provides an additional margin of time to react to circumstances driven by financial considerations. The alternative does not restrict institutions from soliciting operating and capital funds that allow for achieving the objectives in a reduced period of time. In fact, it encourages all institutions to seek non-state funding that exceeds the 50 percent target.

Approval of Option D would include:

(In millions)

Unit

State
General Fund

Other Funds

Total

OIT

$ 1.38

$ 1.39

$ 2.27

OSU

6.22

6.22

12.44

PSU

2.08

2.08

4.16

UO

.95

.94

1.89

Total

$10.63

$10.63

$21.26

Joint Budget and Finance/System Strategic Planning Committee Discussion and Action (October 19, 2000)

Chair Imeson reported that the Budget and Finance Committee met on October 16 via telephone to discuss the four Options, but no action was taken. In the October 19 meeting, Vice Chancellor Anderes and Dr. Dan Layzell, from MGT of America (the group contracted by the Chancellor's Office to provide analysis of what it might take to achieve top-tier or Tier I status at OUS institutions), were present to respond to questions and concerns by Committee members. (Minutes from both meetings are on file in the Board's office.)

Mr. Imeson asked for a motion from the Joint Committee to move the recommendation [Option D] along with corresponding capital requirements forward to the Board for its final consideration. Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to adopt the proposal as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Wustenberg, Young, Willis, and Imeson. Those voting no: Director Richmond.

Board Discussion and Action

According to Mr. Imeson, if the Board approved Option D, the Board would be "responding in a very positive and thoughtful way to the Governor's request." Continuing, Mr. Imeson observed, "This proposal puts Oregon State University on a top-tier track. It's our understanding from the comments of the president of the university that he views the proposal as one that would enable OSU to achieve that status in engineering. That's something to which we should hold OSU accountable."

He pointed out that more work was needed to identify exactly how funds are allocated, due in part to the fact that a portion of the monies earmarked for OSU's effort will be raised privately. Remarking that in no way should the Board's support for Option D dampen other institutions' enthusiasm, Mr. Imeson observed that it will actually help them achieve the aspirational goals they identified.

Dr. Aschkenasy suggested that, as objectives are set forth, significant attention be paid and a dialogue initiated with K-12 sector staff. Agreeing with Dr. Aschkenasy's point, the Chancellor noted that the consultant's report stated that significant attention must be paid to establishing scholarship funds to attract "every single one of the best and brightest students to engineering and computer science programs." Ms. Lehmann reminded members that a part of OUS' responsibility is to train teachers to prepare students.

If adopted, Mr. Imeson urged the proposal's submission to the Governor along with a letter reiterating the Board's priorities in the coming biennium. "The budget model needs to be fully funded and there are linkages between that model and what we're trying to do here," he said.

Mr. Imeson moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve Option D, the staff recommendation for enhancing engineering programs in 2001 and beyond. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: Director Richmond.

ACQUISITION OF WESTFALL APARTMENTS FOR STUDENT HOUSING, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee recommend full Board approval of the acquisition by Portland State University of the facility known as the Westfall Apartments for a total cost of $2,800,000 plus closing costs, and authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for an Other Funds expenditure limitation of $2,800,000 plus closing costs for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds to finance the project.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

NORTHWEST CENTER FOR ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: PHASE I, STAGE A: REMODEL OF THE FOURTH AVENUE BUILDING, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee recommend full Board approval to the following: (a) renovate the first two floors of the Fourth Avenue Building, to accommodate faculty and programs being located from the PCAT building, for a total cost of $7.2 million, and (b) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for a $7.2 million Other Funds expenditure limitation for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds, to be repaid from rental revenues from tenants in the Fourth Avenue Building.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: GILBERT HALL PHASE III B, UO

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee recommend full Board approval to accomplish the following: (a) construct Phase III B of the Gilbert Hall Additions and Alterations Project, a $33 million entirely gift-funded project to extensively remodel and build an addition to Gilbert Hall; and (b) amend the previously-approved 2001-2003 OUS Capital Construction Budget Request to the Department of Administrative Services to include this project.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

STRAUB HALL ADDITION FOR A FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE FACILITY, UO

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee recommend full Board approval of the following: (a) amend the Straub Hall Additions and Alterations Project, approved by the 1999 legislature, to carry out additional remodeling and build a small addition to house a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine (fMRI); (b) approve an increase in the project budget from $3,320,000 to $4,495,000; and (c) authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the Legislative Emergency Board for a change in the expenditure limitation from $1,166,000 in Article XI-G bonds and $1,166,000 in Other Funds (gifts) to $1,166,000 in Article XI-G bonds and $500,000 in Other Funds (gifts) and $2,829,000 in Other Funds (federal).

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

Mr. Imeson concluded the Budget and Finance Committee portion of the meeting by reporting that SOU President Hopkins-Powell announced her decision to rename two buildings at the new Center for the Visual Arts. The Siskiyou Commons Building was renamed the "Marian Ady Building" in honor of Marian Ady, a longtime University faculty member. Art East, which houses the sculpture studio, was renamed the "DeBoer Sculpture Building," after Walter DeBoer, a well-known community leader. President Hopkins-Powell's action was taken pursuant to OAR 580-050-0025, which says that a campus president is authorized to name buildings and structures for persons who are deceased.

GRIEVANCE PROCESS OPTIONS

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

In lieu of a formal recommendation, staff presented several options for consideration by the Committee. (The document highlighting all options is on file in the Board's office.)

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee determined that Option III, with slight amendments, was the most appropriate course of action to recommend to the Board. This amended option, which limits Board review of grievances, was unanimously submitted by the Committee as follows:

Noting that the matter has been referred to legal counsel for drafting, as well as to insure legal sufficiency on the issue, Mr. Willis said a final draft will likely be submitted to the Board for final action at its December meeting.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to accept the Committee's recommendation for modifications to the current grievance procedures.

Mr. Williams asked for clarification on the actual recommendation. Board Secretary Vines explained that staff was instructed to create amendments to the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) outlining the revised procedures for Board consideration.

The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

Following the vote, Mr. Willis noted for the record that existing grievances would be considered under the current process until the amended OARs are approved by the Board.

CONFIRMATION OF INSTITUTIONAL DEGREE LISTS

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee recommend the full Board approve institutional degree lists submitted for school year 1999-00 on its consent agenda.

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

WORK SESSION #2: 2000-01 STRATEGIC PLAN

President VanLuvanee introduced Dr. David Nygren, facilitator for the work session. Dr. Nygren summarized the work completed at the September 15 Executive Committee meeting, where two goals were agreed upon:

  1. Expanding the Board's role in leading social discourse on key issues related to the System's contribution to Oregon's future.

  2. Creating a refined model of governance for the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.

Elaborating on the second goal, Dr. Nygren said that issues identified as part of that goal included 1) adjusting the Board's calendar; 2) refining policy processes; 3) specifying the Board's information needs; 4) refining Committee charters; and 5) evaluating the Board's performance.

Referencing the fifth issue, Mr. Willis explained that in earlier discussions, the System Strategic Planning Committee agreed that evaluations should occur for the full Board, but not the performance of individual Board members. It was further recommended that these evaluation sessions take place every other year, most likely in July. Board members agreed to the recommendation.

When reviewing the Board's calendar, Mr. Willis said the Committee's greatest consideration was placed on putting strategic planning in front of budget development. To that end, staff modified a meeting calendar to include a mid-course review in February of odd-numbered years, where the Board would examine budget targets as well as accountability issues. In even-numbered years, the Board would engage in a comprehensive strategic planning session, and establish its priorities prior to biennial budget building. The mid-course review, said Mr. Willis, might also be a time to begin considering options for the coming biennium. Mr. Williams suggested that, in addition to mid-course reviews, more frequent periodic performance information be provided.

Moving to the question of regularly scheduled Thursday afternoon meetings, Mr. Willis shared that the Committee felt it wasn't critical to mandate the meetings, but rather schedule them as necessary. Mr. Willis added that at some point, routine meetings may need to be scheduled on Thursdays, given the fact that full Board meetings occur only six or seven times a year. He viewed the time as a possible opportunity for more in-depth discussion of issues.

Further discussion ensued on the usefulness of an environmental scan, and the kinds of data about public perception as well as input from business/industry. Chancellor Cox noted that information was vital to the alignment of state priorities, and that the Governor would be gathering similar data. Ms. Lehmann pointed out that serving the state under the new budget model was critical, as was garnering the support of lawmakers. She added that the mid-course reviews should include some accountability measurements to ensure adequate follow through. Mr. Lussier encouraged that, as a framework for achieving goals is articulated, longer-range planning take place.

Dr. Nygren asked for suggestions in creating a better system flow, given the complexity of the work required of a volunteer board. Mr. VanLuvanee cautioned against asking for too much data and encouraged information gathering on relevant issues only. Bringing up the specific point of teacher shortages, Dr. Richmond asked to ensure that issue be brought to the forefront. Agreeing with Dr. Richmond, Mr. VanLuvanee reiterated that, given the busy lives of all Board members, there is a challenge to make sure they receive appropriate information, and not only data. Dr. Nygren summarized by saying that a Board goal might be to move from data to information to knowledge.

Offering another perspective, Mr. Williams urged the Board to become more proactive in anticipating questions and preparing for issues well in advance. Building on his comments, Mr. VanLuvanee referred to a tool used in his business, "flash reports," that point out areas of possible concern early on. Mr. Williams concurred, adding that they deal with exceptions from the anticipated. He felt that a "dashboard" report of key indicators distributed at each Board meeting would be useful-something that pointed out trends, a historical perspective, and how it relates to the budget and performance. Dr. Nygren, indicating that many boards nationwide use such a tool, suggested that it be web-based, tying into related reports so that Board members might examine a specific issue if deemed necessary. Members agreed it would be beneficial to have staff create such a tool, and February 2001 was established as the due date for the first report. While not disagreeing with the concept, Mr. Lussier felt a higher level of strategic planning was still necessary. Metaphorically speaking, he said, "The dashboard tells us how fast the car is going, not that it's going to the right destination. It's our job [the Board's] to determine destination."

Dr. Nygren highlighted several focus areas that would better enable the Board to become more visionary in its approach: 1) greater understanding of the budget process, 2) creating a strategic formulation process, and 3) developing a data monitoring system to assess key performance indicators.

Concerning methods of strengthening system government, Dr. Nygren listed five topics for the Board to consider in assessing how it conducts its business over the coming year:

In terms of information flow, Dr. Nygren explained that there are formal and informal means and mechanisms for supporting the Board's work. Using the information for learning is key, he said. Listening to citizens and working their thoughts into the Board's strategic planning processes will impact choices about allocation of resources, pointed out Dr. Nygren.

Dr. Nygren suggested dividing agendas into four components: operational, information, consultative/deliberative, and strategic. He speculated that by doing this, meetings would become more productive.

Speaking to the values and spirit of the Board, Dr. Nygren referred to the concept of "obedience to the unenforceable." He described it as a part of the symbolic culture, which relate to activities such as attendance patterns, campus visits, and individual versus team performance. He encouraged a culture of confidence, accountability, and vision.

Concluding his remarks, Dr. Nygren suggested, when looking at the actual composition of the Board, a full range of complementary competencies among members be sought. He clarified that he was not referring to specific professions, but to look for people who are analytical, strategists, relationship builders, and politically sensitive.

OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS

OHSU Board

Mr. Imeson reported that an area of interest at OHSU is the discussion between OHSU and the Oregon Graduate Institute. Dr. Hallick said that the Boards of both organizations will be reviewing materials in December.

SOU Presidential Search CommitteeSearch Chair Mr. Williams indicated that the process was going well. The presidential search, he said, was at the point of receiving nominations and applications, of which the Committee is anticipating more than 100 submissions.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Two people signed up to speak, but neither were present at the time their names were called. However, Ms. Mary Cunningham was invited to speak to Board members later in the meeting. (p. 94)

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Ms. Lehmann expressed her gratitude to President Hopkins-Powell and her staff for the Board visitation.

Announcing that the Oregon College Savings Plan Board completed its initial work, and that the program would be effective early 2001, Ms. Lehmann recognized the new administrator of the program, Mr. Michael Parker. Mr. Parker described the new program, noting that the reason the plan was initiated by the legislature in 1999 was to enhance access, while making a college education more affordable. Encouraging saving and investing were also goals of the Savings Plan Board and the legislature, he said.

Mr. Williams pointed out that he felt some clarification was needed on the Board's mission and vision related to engineering. He read a statement he hoped the Board would adopt to that end. Following his recitation, he motioned that the Board approve his recommendation. Mr. Imeson agreed that it was a good idea to craft such a statement, but stopped short of seconding the motion on the table.

Dr. Richmond, while supporting a portion of the statement, said that she felt it might limit other institutions from reaching Tier I status in their respective areas. She amended the motion to include OIT, PSU, and UO in aspiring to Tier I status in related areas of engineering.

After further discussion on the language used in the statement, President VanLuvanee asked members if they might want to let staff rework it and present it for consideration at the December Board meeting. Mr. Williams said that he felt it was important for the Board to clarify itself to the public immediately. However, he agreed to an earlier suggestion that the 1996 vision statement by the Board, which was used to frame the context of the engineering proposal, be modified to better reflect the situation along with the current Board's vision.

Reminding members of the motion still on the floor, Dr. Vines asked if perhaps Mr. Williams might want to amend his motion. While many members supported the concept of Mr. Williams actions, several were unclear on how the statement should be worded. Mr. Imeson then seconded the motion, asking Mr. Williams if he planned to bring back an amended version of his initial statement. Agreeing to work with staff to get something on paper for the Board to react to, Mr. VanLuvanee then asked Ms. Mary Cunningham to come forward and speak as if she were in the public input session.

Ms. Cunningham, chair of the Oregon Student Association Board, reported on the OSA's efforts on campuses to register students to vote. She indicated that she was encouraged by the student involvement and the overall excitement on campuses about the upcoming elections.

Returning to the motion, Dr. Vines read an amended statement. Further questions and concerns by members arose about naming specific institutions and not including others. Following additional debate among members, Dr. Vines asked if Mr. Williams and Mr. Imeson wished to withdraw their motion. Mr. Williams hoped to resolve the issue immediately, and Mr. Imeson concurred, thereby leaving the motion up for a final vote.

President Frohnmayer suggested there were actually two motions and two ideas being discussed: one that would accompany the budget request, identified as being responsive to the Governor's request of the Board, and another that might clearly describe the Board's position on institutions' aspirational goals as they relate to mission statements. Noting that the latter could probably be moved to a later date, Mr. Frohnmayer said the alternative might alleviate some confusion.

Board members continued to discuss ideas and clarify their points of concern. Dr. Vines read a revised statement for the Board's consideration:

"The Oregon State Board of Higher Education, in recognition of the contribution of engineering and computer sciences to the state's economy and quality of life, encourages and supports the expansion and pursuit of excellence reflected in the aspirational goals of the state universities. The Board endorses Oregon State University's goal of top-tier engineering college status."

Following her reading, Mr. VanLuvanee asked to finalize the motion: Mr. Williams moved and Mr. Imeson seconded the statement affirming the Board's support to the institutions in their pursuit of excellence. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: Directors Hempel and Young.

Mr. Young said that he hoped the statement wasn't construed as a negative for the other institutions. He expressed concern that the Portland Metropolitan Model did not receive adequate consideration in the MGT engineering study (see minutes from the Joint Budget and Finance/System Strategic Planning Committee meeting on October 19, 2000).

Mr. Hempel congratulated the Oregon Student Association on its successful efforts to register more student voters. "I know it will make a huge impact on the state," he said.

Ms. Wustenberg thanked staff at SOU for their hospitality. She also expressed her appreciation to the Chancellor and his staff for their work on the engineering study.

Mr. Lussier reported that Central Oregonians appreciate the presence and its interest to both OSU and UO as RFPs for a branch campus in the region are developed. He pointed out that the development of partnerships with other campuses as part of the process were particularly positive.

Mr. VanLuvanee said that he was especially thankful to the Chancellor and his staff, as well as institution presidents and their staffs, for their efforts in constructing the engineering proposal. "The objective is to do the right thing in Oregon, and on behalf of the state of Oregon, to make the citizens more successful," he observed.

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 December 15, 2000. The Executive Committee shall act for the Board in minor matters, any matter where a timely response is required prior to the next Board meeting, including a grievance initiated by Rikki Schoenthal."

Board members agreed to the delegation of authority as stated.

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting adjourned at 1:22 p.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board



Don VanLuvanee
President of the Board