Oregon University System logo

OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
ROOM 1026, CAPITAL CENTER
BEAVERTON, OREGON

December 15, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the State Board of Higher Education was called to order at 10:17 a.m. by President VanLuvanee.

ROLL CALL

On roll call, the following Board members answered present:

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

Absent: Dr. Herb Aschkenasy (business conflict)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Board dispensed with the reading of the October 20, 2000, regular meeting minutes. Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

Mr. VanLuvanee asked if there were questions or corrections to the October 19, 2000, Joint Budget and Finance/System Strategic Planning Committee meeting minutes. Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Young seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

Asking Executive Committee members if they had any corrections to the November 17, 2000, meeting minutes as amended in an errata sheet dated December 14, 2000, Mr. VanLuvanee requested a motion to approve them. Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the minutes as corrected. The following voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Willis, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Biennial Budget

President VanLuvanee noted the Committee of the Whole meeting, which convened prior to the Board meeting, where the Governor discussed his biennial budget for 2001-2003.

Intel Dinner

He formally expressed his appreciation to Jim Johnson and his staff at Intel for hosting a dinner for Board members at the Jones Farm Conference Center the evening before the Board meeting. "I think it's important, especially with the growth of the high-tech industry in the state, that we all get a sense of what companies like Intel are doing, as the high-tech sector plays such a strong role in Oregon's economy," Mr. VanLuvanee observed.

Kudos

Lastly, Mr. VanLuvanee congratulated Dr. Richmond for a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that highlighted her work supporting tenured female chemists nationwide by founding the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists (COACh).

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

New Economy Workshop

Chancellor Cox reported that a recent conference in Portland on the new economy, co-sponsored by OUS and the Oregon Entrepreneurs' Forum, attracted nearly 300 participants, among them 60 state legislators. "If there ever was a case for investing in higher education, the information was provided that day," he said.

CORAB

Noting that the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board had met the day before, the Chancellor said its focus is on the two recently submitted RFP's by OSU and UO for a branch campus in Central Oregon. Praising the work of both campuses, he pointed out that they were both first-rate proposals and the selection process would be difficult.

CAPITAL Center Presentation

Ms. Charmagne Ehrenhaus, director of the Oregon Center for Advanced Technology (OCATE), made a presentation on the history of the CAPITAL Center, and the existing partnerships in the facility. She announced that Tektronix recently committed $80,000 to build out some of the unused space in the CAPITAL Center. Further, Ms. Ehrenhaus reported that Beaverton and Hillsboro High Schools recently formed a new alliance, and their high school programs would remain in the CAPITAL Center.

IFS Report

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

"I am genuinely saddened that this is my final report to you as IFS president. Presiding over IFS in 2001 will be Dr. Craig Wollner, professor of Social Science at Portland State University and interim director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies. President-elect will be Elaine Deutschman from OIT and our secretary will be Jeff Johnson from Eastern Oregon University.

"At our meeting two weeks ago at Oregon Health Sciences University, we were greeted by Provost Lesley Hallick and given a fascinating orientation to that institution. We briefly met with Representative Lynn Snodgrass, and heard her legislative perspectives on higher education in the next session, including the pros and cons (mostly cons) of term limits. We discussed distance education techniques and issues with Catherine O'Meara, who operates the distributive education program at the OHSU School of Nursing.

"Our Board member guest was Mr. VanLuvanee. We enjoyed visiting with him about assorted matters. Of particular interest were Mr. VanLuvanee's perspectives on similarities and differences between corporate management and higher education."

Following Dr. Tiedeman's report, Mr. VanLuvanee encouraged all Board members to participate in future IFS meetings.

GRIEVANCE: DR. SUAD COX, SOU

Director of Legal Services Ben Rawlins introduced the Board's designee to review the grievance filed by Dr. S. Cox, Provost Minahan from WOU.

Dr. Minahan reviewed his findings (a full report submitted by Dr. Minahan is on file in the Board's office). He pointed out that, because one of the respondents named in the appeal at SOU was Dr. Hopkins-Powell, interim president, Vice Chancellor Clark stepped in and acted as president for the sole purpose of hearing the grievance. Dr. S. Cox, he explained, appealed the decision of Dr. Clark to the Board.

Identifying three grievance issues in the case, (being placed on administrative leave without cause, being demoted, and being subjected to an evaluation process that did not comport with SOU's bylaws), Dr. Minahan explained the reasoning behind each. He concluded that, in each appeal, the decisions of Dr. Clark were appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, he recommended the Board uphold Dr. Clark's decisions on each of the three issues.

Mr. Willis asked if the inconsistencies pointed out by Dr. Clark relating to personnel evaluations were remedied by the institution. Provost Minahan indicated they were.

Mr. Willis moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to accept Dr. Minahan's report as the Board's, and uphold decisions made by Dr. Clark relating to the case. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

OUS POOLED ENDOWMENT FUND-AMENDMENT TO POOLED ENDOWMENT FUND INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICY GUIDELINES

Investment Committee Discussion and Action (November 16, 2000)

Upon review of the proposed amendments, the Investment Committee unanimously approved the changes to the Investment Objectives and Policy Guidelines.

Investment Committee Recommendation to the Board

The Investment Committee recommends that the Board approve, for recommendation to the Oregon Investment Council, the changes to the Investment Objectives and Policy Guidelines as submitted.

Board Discussion and Action

Investment Committee Chair, Ms. Wustenberg, asked OUS Controller Mike Green to review the proposed amendments to the policy. He explained that the policy updates, which were relatively minor, reflected the Board's decision in October to move the small fund allocation to an actively-managed mid cap fund. Mr. Green described the three main revisions to the policy as:

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

Following the vote, Ms. Wustenberg announced that the Committee intends to annually interview all asset managers in order to keep abreast of current activities and trends.

MCNARY DINING HALL RENOVATION, PHASE III, OSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended approval of the project and financing as proposed by OSU.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Mr. Williams, who presided over the meeting in Chair Imeson's absence, reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

NEW BELL TOWER, OSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended approval of the project and financing as proposed by OSU.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Mr. Williams reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

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

CANCELLATION OF ACQUISITION OF THE WESTFALL APARTMENTS FOR STUDENT HOUSING, PSU

Staff Summary

Although identified as an action item in the Board docket, Vice Chancellor Anderes explained that, since there was no conclusion to the sale, which was originally approved by the Board at its October meeting, a formal vote was not necessary.

Mr. Williams reported that the Committee accepted staff's conclusions for recision of the sale.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE PETER W. STOTT COMMUNITY FIELD, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

In light of the response provided by PSU to the criteria noted in the summary (see the Budget and Finance Committee docket dated December 15, 2000), staff requested that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board approve the request for an easement and restrictive covenant.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Mr. Williams reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

In reviewing the request, Vice Chancellor Anderes suggested the Board consider examining guidelines for restrictive covenants, noting that staff would likely be forwarding some recommendations in the future.

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

OAR 580-040-0035, SUMMER SESSION FEE BOOK 2001

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

After consideration of comments or testimony received at the November 28, 2000, public hearing, staff requested that the Board Budget and Finance Committee recommend the full Board amend OAR 580-040-0035 to read as follows:

Summer Session Fee Book

OAR 580-040-0035 The document entitled "Summer Session Fee Book 2001" dated December 15, 2000, is hereby adopted by reference as a permanent rule. All prior adoptions of summer session fee documents are hereby repealed except as to rights and obligations previously acquired or incurred thereunder.

Budget and Finance Committee Recommendation to the Board

Mr. Williams reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Williams moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve rule amendments as submitted. On roll call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

Concluding the Budget and Finance Committee's portion of the meeting, Mr. Williams reported that the Committee heard a presentation on audit practices and procedures.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: PROPOSED OAR REVISIONS

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends Board approval of the proposed amendments to OAR 580-021-0050 and -0055. Staff further recommends deletion of OAR 580-021-0390. If approved by the Board, staff would initiate the appropriate notification and hearing processes through the Secretary of State's Office and return to the Board for a final vote on the amendments at its scheduled meeting on April 16, 2001.

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

Chair Willis explained that the proposed amendments resulted from recent Board discussions pertaining to its role in grievances. While the proposed amendments transfer the level of authority to the institution president as the final administrative officer, the Board retains the option of oversight, if it so chooses. (To review the proposed amendments, refer to the December 15, 2000, System Strategic Planning Committee docket.)

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the proposed amendments to OARs 580-021-0050 and -0055, repeal OAR 580-021-0390, and initiate permanent rulemaking processes, which include a public comment period. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

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

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended Board approval of the two administrative rules on confidentiality and mediation, OARs 580-001-0030 and 580-022-0047, as 180-day temporary rules, and directs that said temporary rules be set for consideration as permanent rules at the end of the 180-day period.

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

Explaining the reasoning behind the temporary rules, Mr. Willis said they allow for confidentiality in mediation processes, which are currently considered public documents. Virtually all other state agencies have adopted such exemption rules, he said, and the Governor approved the Chancellor's recent request to proceed with the new rules for OUS. (To review the proposed rules, refer to the December 15, 2000, System Strategic Planning Committee docket.)

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the temporary rules, and have staff initiate permanent rulemaking processes. On role call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

Note: the role call vote was taken after the discussion on the Vision for Engineering and Computer Science in Oregon.

VISION FOR ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE IN OREGON

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended Board approval of the revised 1996 vision statement.

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved a revised version of the vision. Following is the version approved by Committee:

Oregon's public universities will become pre-eminent providers of engineering and computer science by building programs with internationally recognized excellence in engineering and computer science throughout the campuses of the Oregon University System, and by establishing a top-tier college of engineering at Oregon State University.

In their quest for excellence, OUS campuses will:

Board Discussion and Action

Following an explanation of the reasoning behind the amended vision as approved by Committee, Chair Willis moved to accept the vision as submitted. Mr. Williams, noting that he felt the statement wasn't as clear as it could be, suggested slightly modifying the first and third bullets. Below is text of the vision as revised for Board consideration (amendments are bolded):

Oregon's public universities will become pre-eminent providers of engineering and computer science by building programs with internationally recognized excellence in engineering and computer science throughout the campuses of the Oregon University System, and by establishing a top-tier college of engineering at Oregon State University.

In their quest for excellence, OUS campuses will:

Mr. Willis accepted the proposed amendments and revised his motion to reflect the changes. Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the vision statement as amended. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD HONORARY DOCTORATES, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended Board authorization to Portland State University to award honorary doctorates to Mr. Deog Ryong Kim and Dr. Yul Ja Kim at a special ceremony in January or February 2001.

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 on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to authorize the honorary doctorates. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, Young, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.

PH.D., CIVIL ENGINEERING, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish a program leading to the Ph.D. in Civil Engineering. The program would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

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 on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

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

M.S., SYSTEMS SCIENCE, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish a program leading to the M.S. in Systems Science. The program would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

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 on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

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

GRADUATE CERTIFICATES, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish programs leading to graduate certificates in Applied Energy Economics; Systems Engineering Fundamentals; Earth and Space Sciences for K-12 Educators; Applied Statistics; Computer Modeling and Simulation; Computational Intelligence; and Professional Communication. The programs would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

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 on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

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

Concluding the Committee's report, Mr. Willis said that time did not allow for a discussion of the revised performance funding policy or the campus safety issue that Mr. Rawlins researched. Also scheduled for discussion in the near future, he said, would be business practices policies.

OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS

OHSU

Mr. Imeson announced that the OHSU Board recently approved a merger between itself and the Oregon Graduate Institute, creating the Oregon Health and Sciences University. The target date for completing the merger would be July 1, 2001, following some fundraising goals that need to be met, as well as legislative matters with respect to the composition of the Board.

SOU Presidential Search

Search Chair Williams reported that the search was going well, with a rich candidate pool from which to choose.

WORK SESSION: PRESIDENTS' GOALS FOR 2000-01

President VanLuvanee explained the process for the session, which would include a five-minute summarization of goals by each president, followed by a five-minute question and answer period. He reiterated that it was not an evaluation process, but rather an opportunity to exchange ideas and information.

Daniel Bernstine: Portland State University

President Bernstine highlighted several goals, including:

Responding to a question by Mr. VanLuvanee on how the Board can best help President Bernstine meet his objectives, President Bernstine said that continuing support on full funding of the budget model would be a top priority.

Ms. Lehmann asked if PSU has shifted its focus over the past year. President Bernstine replied the most significant shift was related to developing the capital campaign. He noted that the new focus also reflected current academic priorities. Responsiveness to needs in teacher training and preparation are also areas requiring more attention, he explained.

Pointing out that the upcoming legislative session would likely be more contentious than the 1999 session, Mr. Imeson urged all presidents to maintain a unified vision for the System's legislative agenda. Mr. VanLuvanee, agreeing with Mr. Imeson's observations, said, "I think the next few weeks will be a challenge for many of us, and certainly for the University presidents."

Phillip Creighton: Eastern Oregon University

President Creighton reported that his goals were built on the past year's accomplishments, including increased enrollment, improved retention, and recognition by U.S. News and World Report as one of the top public liberal arts colleges in the country.

Noting the coherence between his personal goals and the University's strategic plan, President Creighton said the primary goal is to make Eastern the "crown jewel" within OUS. He hopes to lead the System in retention and graduation rates within the next four years.

He described the University's cornerstone experience, in which all EOU students participate in undergraduate research, an internship or co-op, some form of service learning, and global learning through an international experience before they graduate.

President Creighton mentioned several additional goals for the coming year including:

Anticipating a question by the Board about how it can support his work, President Creighton asked for overall support and recognition of the smaller institutions. Chancellor Cox commended President Creighton for the exponential increases to the foundation endowment, calling it a "turning point for the University."

Ms. Wustenberg asked about the differentiation in graduation rates (32 percent) and the institution's much higher retention rate (67 percent). President Creighton explained that now that retention is on the rise, he hoped to see the same increases in the graduation rate within the freshmen/sophomore cohorts.

Complimenting the foundation's successes, Mr. Lussier asked President Creighton what factor(s) most attributed to its growth. Noting that EOU has begun making the transition from college to university. President Creighton associated that transition with the establishment of alumni chapters statewide, adding that developing that network of alumni and making the "direct ask" seems to be two key components.

Martha Anne Dow: Oregon Institute of Technology

Pointing out OIT's very focused mission, President Dow said that the institution is designed to be different from others in the System. Providing access to more students to help double the pipeline and double the graduates in high tech programs is a top priority, she said. She announced that she has set a target of 4,100 students by 2005 in order to meet the state's goal in these areas, coupled by a 75 percent retention rate. Also noted by President Dow was the high employability rate by OIT graduates.

President Dow described her goal of becoming more collaborative and outstanding in developing appropriate partnerships, particularly with community colleges, statewide.

Noting the foundation's net increase from $3 million to $14 million in the past five years, President Dow said she hopes to raise $1 million in the coming year. She also plans to secure $1 million in seed money to get a distance education infrastructure in place.

When asked how the Board might best support her in achieving her goals, President Dow responded that she hoped the Board would allow OIT to be as entrepreneurial as possible in its approach.

David Frohnmayer: University of Oregon

President Frohnmayer highlighted the following four topics: (1) campus performance indicators, (2) what he'll be facing in the coming year, (3) challenges that lie ahead for UO, and (4) how the Board can assist in overcoming the challenges.

Pointing out that UO met or exceeded eight out of its ten performance indicators, President Frohnmayer said that he believed the trajectory in all areas was going in the right direction.

The president pointed out five priorities he'll be addressing in the coming year, including:

With respect to the challenges he faces, President Frohnmayer mentioned several, including faculty salaries, diversity, increased activism on campus, and not knowing exactly what might precipitate that activism.

In terms of how the Board might support his work, President Frohnmayer urged members to become more acquainted with the ways in which UO operates as a business and the ways it does not. He also suggested the Board better define the level of institutional autonomy in an era of a decentralized funding model. Further, he hoped the Board would "hold the line" on the insistence on quality. Concluding his remarks, President Frohnmayer asked that the Board review three major items where he felt the cells "systematically" undervalue the actual costs.

Ms. Wustenberg asked for clarification in the area of UO setting its own tuition and if that translates into wanting to set its own cell values as well. Indicating that he felt the cell values should be set collaboratively, President Frohnmayer explained that perhaps a "recalibration" of the budget model might be necessary to ensure fairness throughout the System. Ms. Lehmann asked for an example of a program where the market might bear the price and not deny access. He named the UO Law School as a possibility.

Sara Hopkins-Powell: Southern Oregon University

First responding to how the Board might help her achieve her goals, President Hopkins-Powell indicated that allowing SOU greater autonomy, thereby creating an environment for more risk taking, would be beneficial.

Along those lines, President Hopkins-Powell asked for permission to allow SOU to move to a semester system. She said that she intended to return in the spring with a more specific request to pilot the semester system at SOU.

Dr. Hopkins-Powell said that SOU has a dichotomy in its vision about who it is and where it should go. One is its regional mission and the other points to selectivity and focus as a liberal arts and science institution, with a perceived tension between the two. Work is underway to create a strategic plan with the goal in mind of reconciling the two.

A third priority area, said President Hopkins-Powell, is a desire to cultivate, along with OIT, an underserved market that exists in Northern California. She explained that the institutions would like to look at a pricing structure where the tuition would be lower than current out-of-state tuition for some specific counties.

Noting the upcoming 75th anniversary of the institution, President Hopkins-Powell said that the milestone presented a good opportunity for SOU to reflect on its mission relative to teacher education. Building on that, she said that the institution is also looking at how it might change its emphasis, not necessarily by closing and opening programs, but by shifting resources to better meet need.

Addressing the same issue as she did with President Creighton, Ms. Wustenberg asked about the differentiation in graduation rates versus retention. President Hopkins-Powell felt that the scenario President Creighton described was one reason. She pointed out that SOU has historically been an institution where students start and stop along the way. Another recent factor has been the opening of Rogue Community College's branch campus in Jackson County.

Mr. Lussier asked about the rationale behind moving to a semester system. President Hopkins-Powell explained that a 15-week semester allows a professor to engage students in more substantive discussion of material, adding that many textbooks are written for a semester system. Further, she said that there are cost savings involved when processing grades, financial aid, and registration two times a year versus three.

Mr. VanLuvanee asked if the Board had the authority to allow a transition to a semester system. Chancellor Cox replied that the Board does have the authority, but that it should be mindful of other educational systems in the state when considering such a shift.

Mr. Willis asked for further explanation of the idea of offering a lower than out-of-state tuition to some students in Northern California. President Hopkins-Powell, noting her comments were based on preliminary thoughts, said SOU may want to take some programs into Northern California on a self-support basis. Reciprocal agreements that are already in place allow a certain exchange of students, but there has been some thought given to expanding those agreements.

Paul Risser: Oregon State University

President Risser listed five focal points for the coming year:

Responding to the question about how the Board can support the work of the president, Dr. Risser said that he hoped the Board might clarify its position on accountability and efficacy. He urged Board advocacy among multiple sets of audiences. Further, President Risser asked the Board to consider the costs of campuses being a part of "a system called state government. Another way of thinking about our future is to recognize that maybe investing in a system, which, in theory sounds advantageous, may in practice be expensive for us," he observed.

Ms. Wustenberg commented that she hoped as part of the new media program President Risser mentioned, there would be a strong emphasis on ethics. President Risser said that considerable time has been spent talking to journalists about the issue and that it is a priority. He added that another strong focus in the program will be on the liberal arts aspect so that a student learns how to tell a story in the context of history, economics, etc. A third program priority, said President Risser, will be that of experiential learning in the media market.

Betty Youngblood: Western Oregon University

Before presenting her goals for the coming year, President Youngblood commented on the faculty salary situation at the institution. She provided a historical context and the funding approach leading to recent salary increases averaging 17 percent.

Talking about the unique role of WOU, President Youngblood described three major challenges she faced when named president more than five years ago, including an outdated library, a need for strategic planning, and low faculty salaries.

President Youngblood said that much of her first year was spent on strategic planning, culminated by a strategic planning conference in 1996, where goals were adopted relative to academic quality, community service, marketing of the institution, cohesion, and retention, to name a few. In supporting the goal of a student-centered learning environment, focus on the past several years was on building a new library, which opened earlier in the year.

Her concentration in the coming year, she explained, includes fundraising for scholarships, building renovations, enhanced technology, and outreach. In terms of how the Board might support her in these goals, President Youngblood encouraged Board members to visit the campus. She added that Board support with dissemination of information about the University, about its budgeting, and its emphasis on faculty salaries were all important.

Mr. Willis commented on how Board members might work harder to understand the impact of decisions at the campus level, adding that it would likely create a richer context for discussion. Ms. Wustenberg pointed out that establishing a rapport with faculty, as they are the contact between the Board and students, would be beneficial. She suggested Board members attend IFS meetings as a way of doing that.

Expressing his appreciation to all University presidents for their efforts, Mr. VanLuvanee suggested that, in order for Board members to gain a deeper understanding of institutional-level issues, perhaps one or two Board members could be assigned a specific campus to visit more frequently. Mr. Williams said that might be construed as a conflict of interest, which may not be conducive to Board deliberations. A conversation ensued about ways in which Board members can spend additional time visiting all campuses. The Chancellor suggested that more personal meetings between a few Board members and institution presidents could be scheduled around Board meetings. Dr. Richmond felt that would be a good plan, indicating that, in her experience, the more personal contact helped her get a better sense of the presidents' current challenges.

Mr. Imeson agreed that many presidents raised issues warranting further discussion, but he hoped the immediate focus would remain on the status of the budget. He admitted that time was short before the final budget is approved by the legislature, and that the priority should be determining the best way to gain a more thorough understanding of the ramifications of decisions of the Governor, responding to them, and providing quality information to legislators and other stakeholders about the consequences.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Mr. John Wykoff, speaking on behalf of the Oregon Student Association (OSA), announced that, in OSA's recent campaign, Youth Vote 2000, nearly 27,000 student were registered to vote, exceeding the goal of 20,000.

Moving to issues of the budget, Mr. Wykoff (a former Board of Higher Education member), indicated that, from a student perspective, a $94 million cut was being made in the current service level. "This reverses the progress we made last session, and we're very concerned about it," he said. He added that probable tuition increases appear to be matched by cuts in the System, which differ from incidental fee increases, where direct service increases are realized.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Mr. Imeson reported that he recently attended an Association of Governing Boards meeting in Washington, D.C. Higher education report cards were released while he was there, and while he immediately reacted to the fact that Oregon's grades were low in both public and private education, he was later convinced that it required more analysis than just reacting to the grades themselves. One low grade referring to preparedness, he pointed out, really doesn't reflect only on the higher education system, but rather on the state as a whole. Another low score noted was in the area of affordability, which was timely given the discussions about tuition increases. "We shouldn't ignore these things, but rather utilize them as a communication tool," Mr. Imeson observed.

A second issue discussed at the conference, he said, was related to confidentiality for those who donate monies to a university or its foundation. Given the budget scenario, he said that finding ways to minimize obstacles for people interested in contributing should be more of a priority.

Mr. Lussier complimented the quality of the recently submitted RFPs by OSU and UO. "They have exceeded everyone's expectations," he said. Continuing, he said that the leadership by Chancellor Cox and Vice Chancellor Clark throughout the process was exceptional.

Ms. Wustenberg echoed Mr. Lussier's comments. She also thanked all institution presidents for their presentations.

Mr. Hempel read a statement prepared by Mr. Young, who had to leave the meeting early:

"I expected a tuition increase; I even voted to recommend one, but a proposed eight percent increase over the next two years was something I did not expect. This kind of increase in tuition, coupled with the funding reduction in the aggregate for higher ed, makes things not look so good for Oregon students. In looking at some of the national data, I must say I am not comfortable with creating even more inequity between Oregon higher education funding and that of the rest of the country. As a student, it is difficult for me to support anything where students are forced to pay more to get less."

Indicating that he agreed with Mr. Young's statement, Mr. Hempel said that he has benefitted from a tuition freeze the past four years, and that increases, in his mind, would impact students.

Mr. Williams said that he felt there was still unfinished business related to the budget. "If we don't have a meeting until February, and the budget needs to be finished in May, the most valuable thing we can do is have ideas to act upon," he observed. Continuing, Mr. Williams said that he felt the impact could be lessened by looking for ways to avoid expenditure, and increase revenues, or by "changing the rules of the game." He asked for an opportunity to discuss all possibilities as soon as possible. Vice Chancellor Anderes explained the timetable for finalization of the budget. In the immediate future, part of the effort will be devoted to defining specific impacts at the institutional level and describing the linkage between policy issues and those impacts.

Chancellor Cox reminded the Board that another dimension of the discussion included how or if the General Fund numbers will shift as new budget forecasts are released. Mr. Imeson said that discussions should begin quickly in order to start developing responses for the Governor and the legislature. He suggested that the Budget and Finance Committee convene prior to the January 19 Executive Committee, in an effort to better articulate the potential impacts and trade-offs.

The Chancellor pointed out that the first priority is to restore the $45 million to the budget model. "I think we are absolutely focused on the preservation of quality and access, but it has to be access to quality," he said. Mr. Imeson said that he felt the first order of business should be to explain the impacts of the budget proposal. The Chancellor replied that he and his staff would make every effort to meet with the Governor as soon as possible to do so. Ms. Lehmann felt that the responses should include creative ideas, and not just a "here's how it hurts us" presentation. The Chancellor said he hoped to have the next iteration to Board members within a week for their review.

While there was general agreement about the manner in which to proceed, Mr. Williams said he felt larger issues were still not being addressed, and that there was not a forum to discuss them. Using current financial policies related to capital projects as an example, Mr. Williams said, "It seems to me there are ways to attack this budget issue other than mechanically balancing expenses and revenues." Chancellor Cox agreed those were necessary "brainstorming" conversations for the Board to have. Mr. Williams suggested scheduling such a meeting in the near future.

Dr. Richmond reiterated that the Board must remember the priorities it agreed to back in July, the first being full funding of the budget model. Since the Governor has now identified his priorities, and, in light of the anticipated shortfalls, she felt that the Governor's budget should be carefully considered to see if the Board's priorities actually need to be readjusted.

On a related issue, Dr. Richmond noted the Governor's proposed $10 million cut in matching research dollars. Those monies, she said, are multiplicative, which are paid back very quickly. She urged close review of those kinds of potential losses, so they may be brought to the Governor's attention for his reconsideration.

Ms. Lehmann indicated she felt the budget discussion had been both positive and productive, and that the goals articulated by presidents included many good ideas, both long- and short-term.

Mr. Willis suggested that Board members adjust their schedules to allow for a full day of meetings on Board meeting days, rather than establishing an adjournment of 1:30, for example, and then having to run late.

ITEMS FROM PRESIDENTS

President Dow applauded her colleagues on their goals for the coming year. She felt the presentations were very informative.

President Risser indicated that he had similar feelings to Mr. Williams, in the sense that work remained on identifying ways in which to address the shortfalls in the 2001-2003 biennial budget. He felt the Board might be missing opportunities if it doesn't think in broader terms.

President Creighton urged all Board members to spend as much time as possible on campuses, in order to allow students, faculty, and staff to better identify with them.

President Frohnmayer observed that OUS is in an "intensely political process," with at least three fronts to face: internal constituencies (students, faculty, staff, etc.), the Governor and the Executive Branch, and the legislature. "In each of those, we have the chance for potentially big wins or horrific losses. Each requires a coherent strategy, but yet a different strategy," he observed.

President Youngblood thanked the Board for involving the presidents in a significant way in the discussions and wished everyone a happy holiday.

President Bernstine, extending his wishes for a happy holiday, said he hoped for unity and not disunity in the coming year.

Chancellor Cox complimented the presidents for not deviating from their goals, which were written prior to the initial release of the budget.

Summarizing the meeting, Mr. VanLuvanee said he hoped everyone remains confident in each other throughout the coming months. "I would encourage us to stay positive, but not naively positive," he remarked.

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 February 16, 2001. 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."

Board members agreed to the delegation of authority as stated.

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Don VanLuvanee
President of the Board