The meeting of the State Board of Higher Education was called to order at 8:39 a.m. by President Herb Aschkenasy.

On roll call, the following answered present:

Ms. Diane Christopher
Mr. Tom Imeson
Ms. Gail McAllister
Ms. Esther Puentes
Mr. Mark Rhinard
Mr. Les Swanson
Ms. April Waddy
Mr. Jim Willis
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg
Dr. Herb Aschkenasy

Mr. Whittaker was unable to attend due to a family emergency.


The Board dispensed with the reading of the minutes of the November 15, 1996, meeting of the Board. Mr. Willis moved and Mr. Imeson seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, McAllister, Puentes, Rhinard, Swanson, Waddy, Willis, Wustenberg, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.


Introduction, B. Anslow

President Aschkenasy welcomed Mr. Bill Anslow, OSSHE's new vice chancellor for finance and administration. Chancellor Cox noted that Mr. Anslow is coming from the State University of New York (SUNY) with outstanding experience, credentials, and recommendations.

Resignation, A. Waddy

Dr. Aschkenasy announced that Ms. Waddy would be leaving the Board. She is moving with her family to Seattle, Washington. He presented her with a gift and thanked her for her service.

Recognition, M. Rhinard

President Aschkenasy indicated that it was the last meeting for Board member Mark Rhinard and thanked him for his service to the Board.


IFS Report

Chancellor Cox invited Dr. Paul Simonds, incoming president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), to address the Board. Dr. Simonds reported on the last IFS meeting at OHSU, which included discussion of the upcoming legislative session. The IFS will draft a letter to the Governor and legislators encouraging them to provide greater access for Oregon students and greater incentives for retaining faculty. New IFS officers for 1997 are:

Marjorie Enneking (PSU), Academic Council representative
Una Beth Westfall (OHSU), Secretary
Kemble Yates (SOSC), Vice President
Steve Esbensen (OSU), Executive Committee
Bob Brandon (EOSC), Executive Committee


The following summarizes the amendments to the 1997-2003 Capital Construction Budget, which was approved by the Board in July and submitted to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) in early September. With the exception of amendments associated with actions occurring after the DAS submittal to the Governor's Office in early November (such as Emergency Board action in late November), these changes were incorporated in the DAS submittal. Amendments to the capital construction budget request are common and have been presented to and approved by the Board in each of the last several biennia. DAS accepted the amendments on the presumption of subsequent Board approval due to historical precedent and the timing of the capital budget submittal process.

The amendments to the capital construction budget are due to a variety of reasons, including institutional requests to amend project funding sources, amounts, or phasing due to the availability of new information that impacts these variables; corrections to project information; shifting of projects to later biennia due to low campus or System prioritization; removal of projects below $500,000 that do not require state funds or new bonding authority; and small adjustments to better accommodate project phasing requirements.

Amendments to the Capital Construction Budget for the 1997-1999 Biennium

Amendments to this capital construction budget reflect a net reduction of $3.11 million for the 1997-1999 biennium from the Board-approved budget in July. This represents the difference between the Board-approved budget of $396,437,000 and the current amended budget total of $393,327,000. The largest adjustment in the Education and General category, associated with the University of Oregon's Campus Development Project, is due to approval by the Emergency Board in November. In that action, the Emergency Board approved the establishment of an Other Funds expenditure limitation in the amount of $24.5 million for construction of a new Law Center (Phase I of this Board-approved three-phase project), to be funded by a combination of $10.3 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds and $14.2 million of gifts. Since this limitation is now available to the University for this biennium, 1995-1997, the new capital budget has been adjusted accordingly.

The amended budget for the UO's Campus Development Project now includes only the remaining two phases: Phase II--Renovation of the existing Law School Building for general instructional use with requested funding of $4.0 million of Article XI-G bonds and $0.5 million of gifts and Phase III--Gilbert Hall Addition of 40,000 square feet of space with requested funding of $0.1 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds, $1.7 million of Article XI-G bonds, and $5.2 million of gifts. The total project funding is the same as that approved by the Board in July ($36 million), but the amount in the 1997-1999 capital construction budget request has been reduced to $11.5 million.

Other adjustments in the Education and General category include: 1) changed Western Oregon State College's funding split to reflect $1.0 million in gifts (Other Funds) for Phase I of the Academic Facilities and Program Accommodation project, leaving a total of $6.47 million to be divided between Article XI-G bonds and General Fund monies; 2) requested additional Other Funds limitation of $5.0 million for Systemwide repair and renovation projects and a total of $7.5 million for Systemwide projects involving Americans with Disabilities Act, safety, and classroom and lab modernization (this additional limitation is needed to provide adequate flexibility for projects that may be needed in those areas, in keeping with previous capital budget requests); 3) moved Southern Oregon State College's Life Sciences/ Math/Classroom project to the 1999-2001 biennium listing as the first priority project for their campus and placed the Technology Enhanced Resource Center in this position since this project is considered a higher priority by the College; 4) added Other Funds expenditure limitation of $2.5 million to Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine Sciences Center (HMSC) Fisheries Building project to properly cover total estimated project costs of $6.5 million; and 5) transferred Portland State University's Waseda University Center project in the amount of $21.9 million from the Auxiliary Projects category to reflect its correct funding source as Education and General.

Amendments to the Auxiliary projects include adding Other Funds expenditure limitation totaling $5.285 million for those projects to be funded by the Student Building Fee debt service fund. This includes adjustments for both PSU's Smith Memorial Center Renovation, Phase I ($0.46 million), and WOSC's Werner College Center Remodel/Addition, Phase II ($0.385 million), to eliminate the need for future project phasing if sufficient incremental debt service funds are available as a result of a prospective higher student building fee level in the 1997-1999 biennium, and requesting limitation for the UO's Recreation and Fitness Center project in its entirety ($18.14 million) to provide more flexibility if the University is able to expedite the project construction in the 1997-1999 biennium in conjunction with available auxiliary funds. Reductions of $20.585 million to the Auxiliary projects include removal of one duplicate item and four small projects (each under $0.5 million) that do not require state funds or bonding authority; the transfer of PSU's Waseda University Center project ($21.91 million) to the Education and General category as mentioned above; and the addition of WOSC's Valsetz Dining Renovation project in the amount of $3.0 million to permit urgent renovation of the dining hall to accommodate more student diners and update/modernize the facility. These collective adjustments result in a net reduction of $15.3 million to the auxiliary projects request.

Amendments to the Capital Construction Budget for the 1999-2001 Biennium

In July, the Board approved a capital construction budget for the 1999-2001 biennium in the amount of $435,228,000. With the amendments summarized below, the new budget totals $436,558,000 -- reflecting a net increase to the budget of $1,330,000.

The Education and General budget category reflects three project amendments representing a net addition of $21.805 million: 1) phasing of OSU's Greenhouse Modernization project, with Phase II in the amount of $3.93 million included in this biennium's capital construction budget; 2) adding OSU's Burt Hall Addition project to this category from the auxiliaries; and 3) placing SOSC's Life Science/Math/Classroom project in this biennium's budget as the first priority for the campus in this category.

The three Auxiliary budget amendments for this biennium collectively represent a net decrease of $20.475 million in this category. The amendments have all been mentioned previously in this report and include: 1) transferring OSU's Burt Hall addition to the Education and General budget for this biennium; 2) transferring SOSC's Technology Enhanced Information Resource Center project to the Education and General budget for the 1997-1999 biennium; and 3) transferring WOSC's Valsetz Dining Hall Renovation to the 1997-1999 capital budget for auxiliaries.

Amendments to the Capital Construction Budget for the 2001-2003 Biennium



The overall effects of these changes on the 1997-1999 capital construction budget for Education and General projects are to decrease the amount of state funds requested by $1,430,000 and to increase the amount of Other Funds limitation being requested by $13,620,000. The auxiliary services budget decreased from the Board-approved (July) budget of $125,775,000 to $110,475,000, for a net reduction of $15,300,000. The 1999-2001 request (which will be reviewed and renewed by the Board in 1998) would increase by $1,330,000.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended the Board approve the amendments to the 1997-2003 Capital Construction Budget based on the information provided in this report. The amendments result in a revised 1997-1999 Capital Construction Budget Request for the Oregon State System of Higher Education that totals $393,327,000, reflecting a net reduction of $3,110,000 from the budget approved by the Board in July, and a revised 1999-2001 budget totaling $436,558,000, reflecting a net increase of $1,330,000 from the budget approved by the Board in July.

Board Discussion and Action

Interim Vice Chancellor Foute reviewed the docket item. Chancellor Cox added that, in reality, it is unlikely there will be General Fund support for capital construction. "While projects have been thoughtfully prioritized, with background work done so that we will be prepared if opportunities arise, we are quite realistic about what is achievable in this biennium."

Dr. Aschkenasy asked for greater advance notice to the Board with explanations regarding why this many changes are made. Ms. Foute acknowledged the suggestion, adding that she would also recommend in the future some changes to the way these presentations are made to the Board to allow for greater clarity.

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. The following voted in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, McAllister, Puentes, Rhinard, Swanson, Waddy, Willis, Wustenberg, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.


Board Discussion

President Aschkenasy indicated that he and other Board members had received a copy of the annual operating budget for 1996-97. He inquired about the use of $29 million budgeted, which was noted on page 15 of the report. Mr. Quenzer responded that this is not money used to operate the Board's office specifically, but rather functions as a holding account. For example, some of the money is expenditure limitation that is held back for allocation pending revenue. Ultimately, those dollars are allocated to the institutions. Mr. Willis asked for more details on the breakdown of the $29 million. Mr. Quenzer responded that he would provide that to Board members. Chancellor Cox stated that it may be appropriate to repeat a Board work session about how the budget is put together, the components, and process. Dr. Aschkenasy agreed.


There has been significant activity since the May report on Board-approved capital construction projects. The following table portrays the status of all legislatively approved capital construction projects at the seven State System colleges and universities. Some are listed as complete, meaning that the facilities are occupied and all artwork, accounting, construction claims, and other transactions have been finished. Some of the projects reaching this stage since the last report included a Systemwide Asbestos Abatement project, KSOR Improvements at Southern Oregon State College, Hoke Hall Addition and Remodel at Eastern Oregon State College, and the Environmental Computer Center at Oregon State University.

Construction is progressing on a number of facilities as the State System currently has over $118 million of projects underway. These include Phase II of the Family Housing project at the University of Oregon, the Werner College Center Addition and Renovation at Western Oregon State College, and the Family Housing project (Old Mill Village) at Southern Oregon State College. The New Residence Hall at Eastern Oregon State College continues to maintain its construction schedule despite poor weather conditions. The efficient design will minimize construction costs and allow the college to provide comfortable, full-service living quarters to approximately 96 students.

Oregon State University has a number of projects underway: the Visitor Center, Dock Facilities, and Housing at the Hatfield Marine Sciences Center in Newport; the Valley Football End-Zone building; the Seafoods Research Lab and the Seafoods Education Center in Astoria; the Food Innovation Center building in Portland; the Forest Ecosystem Research building; and the West Dining Hall and West Residence Hall remodels.

In addition, Oregon State University officials report the Valley Library Addition and Remodel (a $40 million project) is progressing well since breaking ground in May of this year. The contractors made good use of a drier-than-normal summer and early fall for the massive amount of excavation and foundation work. The 147,000-square-foot, five- story addition on the north side of the existing 189,000-square-foot, six-story building is currently up to the second-floor level. The structural shell is expected to top out in early 1997 and the addition will be completed in late summer 1997. After that, work will begin on the phased renovation of the existing building. The renovation will be done two floors at a time, with all work complete in September 1998.

In addition to major projects such as these, there are many smaller projects and many capital repair/deferred maintenance projects underway.

Board Discussion

Interim Vice Chancellor Foute summarized the docket item for the Board. Chancellor Cox underlined the point that, increasingly, capital construction projects, other than repair and maintenance, are not funded by the General Fund.

(No Board action required)


Balances as of October 31, 1996

($ in thousands)
College/University Project Name Fund Source Expenditure Limitation Unexpended Balance Project Status

1989-1991 Projects

SYS Asbestos Abatement GF $ 2,062 $ 0 Complete*
OSU Kerr Library GF, Gift 2,080 1,579 Balance of Limitation Canceled
SOSC KSOR Satellite Station Federal, Gift 419 0 Complete*
1991-1993 Projects
SYS Land Acquisition, etc Various 440 203 Now Open
EOSC Hoke Hall Addition BF, Housing 2,500 0 Complete*
OSU Envirn Computing Center Gift 2,000 0 Complete*
OSU Mitchell Gym. Rehab. Gift 750 38 Now Open
SOSC Campus Pedestrian Safety Housing 235 45 Under Constr.
SOSC Parking Expansion Parking 150 43 Under Constr.
UO Museum Natural History Gift 1,570 1,570 In Planning
UO Longhouse Gift 545 545 No Activity
UO N. Campus Relocation Riverfront 2,225 2,225 On Hold
UO Communication Services Bldg. Auxiliary 5,200 4,760 No Activity
UO Chemistry Lab Renovat. Gift/Grant 1,520 871 Under Constr.
UO EMU SELP SELP 667 65 Under Constr.
PSU Student Housing Housing 19,040 17,494 On Hold
1993-1995 Projects
SYS Utility Renovation Various 1,726 1,065 Open
SYS Safety Improvements Various 200 200 No Activity
SYS Academic Modern. Various 600 235 Open
SYS Handicap Improvements Various 939 572 Open
SYS Land Acquisition Various 750 35 Open
SYS Deferred Maintenance GF, XI-G Bonds 23,340 587 Under Constr.
SOSC KOSR Improvements Grant, Gift 450 450 No Activity
SOSC Stevenson Union Addition BF, Auxiliary 600 249 Under Constr.
SOSC Visual Arts Complex Gift 2,700 2,190 Part Under Constr.
SOSC Handicap Access Inst. 72 4 Complete*
OIT Child Care Facility BF 200 190 In Planning
OSU Seafoods Lab Grant, Gift 4,400 3,742 Contract Issued
OSU Seafood Ed Center Grant 1,995 1,856 On Hold
OSU Pharmacy Lab Renovation Gifts 850 850 Await Gifts
OSU Kerr/Kidder Energy SELP 1,371 1,306 Under Constr.
OSU Kerr (Valley) Library Expansion, Ph I Gift, XI-G Bonds 20,000 14,447 Contract Issued*
OSU Lab Theater Renovation Gift 750 70 Under Constr.*
OSU Food Innovation Center Grant, Inst, Rent 8,775 8,724 Await USDA CREES approval*
UO Law Library Addition Gifts 2,315 NA Limitation Canceled
UO Fac./Staff Child Care Gifts, Fees 1,240 427 Under Const.*
UO OIMB Add/Alts Grant 1,500 1,500 Await Grant
UO Gilbert Hall Add/Alts Gifts 7,500 7,258 In Design
UO Amazon Housing, Ph II Housing 9,000 671 Under Constr.
UO International College GF/Housing/Lott 18,000 17,730 On Hold
PSU Housing Rehabilitation Housing 4,475 4,475 On Hold
1995-1997 Projects
SYS Repair/Renovation GF/Bonds/Other 28,750 17,334 Under Constr.
SYS Safety Improvements Other 650 650 Open
SYS Utility System Rehab. Other 8,500 8,500 Open
SYS Academic Modernization Other 4,200 3,510 Some in Constr.
SYS Campus Handicap Impr. Other 1,300 1,027 Open
SYS Seismic Improvements Other 1,000 1,000 Open
SYS Land/Various Improv. Other 1,000 352 Open
SYS Facilities Planning Other 500 500 Open
OSU Kerr (Valley) Library Expansion, Ph II Gifts/Bonds 20,000 20,000 Under Constr.*
OSU Forest Ecosystem Res Lab Fed/Gifts 19,746 19,746 Open
OSU Memorial Union Renov. Bldg Fee 2,650 739 Under Constr.
OSU West Dining Housing 4,855 4,650 Under Constr.*
OSU West Hall Renovation Housing 8,285 6,229 Under Constr.*
OSU Family Housing Housing 8,400 8,400 Open
OSU HMSC Visitor Center Federal 5,500 2,906 Under Constr.
OSU HMSC Dock Upgrade Federal 4,200 723 Under Constr.
OSU HMSC Housing Other 1,100 969 Some In Constr.
OSU Valley Football Ctr Add Gifts 5,300 4,800 Under Constr.
OSU Greenhouse Lottery 319 319 On Hold
WOSC Bus./Math/CS/Forensic Other/Lottery 3,500 3,500 On Hold
WOSC Training Center Other 7,700 7,700 On Hold
WOSC College Center Renov. Bldg. Fee 2,250 2,013 Under Constr.*
SOSC Art Facilities, Ph II Gifts 3,065 3,065 In Design
SOSC Family Housing Housing 2,900 250 Under Constr.
UO Law Center Library Gifts/Bonds 9,400 8,856 In Planning
UO Longhouse Other 650 600 In Planning
UO EMU Safety Bldg Fee 4,150 4,055 In Planning
UO Family Housing Housing 6,000 6,000 Ph I Under Const.
UO Riverfront Business Incubator Lottery 3,500 3,500 Await Funding
PSU Urban Center Federal/Lottery 5,500 5,300 In Design
PSU Housing Rehabilitation Housing 2,000 2,000 Programming
EOSC Residence Hall/Dorian Housing 3,935 3,061 Under Constr.
PSU Urban Center, Ph I Bonds 20,470 10,442 In Process*

* Indicates change in status since previous report.

Abbreviations: Inst.=Institution Funds; BF= Building Fee; GF=General Fund; SELP=State Energy Loan Program; Lott.=Lottery; HMSC=Hatfield Marine Science Center; CS=Computer Science



At the November 1996 meeting of the State Board of Higher Education, the Board directed the Chancellor to work with private industry associations, individuals, and deans of engineering from OSU and PSU and report back at the December meeting with a proposal that included the following:

  1. The creation of a Vice Chancellor for Engineering and Technology, reporting to the Chancellor, who will head the Oregon College of Engineering. All state funds for engineering and technology will be invested through this office. Clear goals, measures, and targets envisioned for the College would be approved annually by the OSSHE Board.
  2. The Vice Chancellor will be advised by an Oregon Engineering and Technology Council, which will be predominately industry members but also include membership from the Board of Higher Education. We are concerned both about support and accountability.
  3. The Oregon Center for Advanced Technology Education (OCATE) and the Oregon Joint Graduate Schools of Engineering program (OJGSE) would be merged into the Oregon College of Engineering.
  4. Undergraduate degrees would continue to be granted by current institutions; the Chancellor's proposal will recommend whether the Oregon College of Engineering will grant graduate degrees, joint degrees, or both.
  5. The Vice Chancellor will contract with the Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI) and other appropriate institutions within and beyond Oregon. The criteria will be quality, cost-effectiveness, and match with defined needs.
  6. Faculty and deans of engineering would remain in their current structures, but with a dotted-line relationship to the Vice Chancellor. Their performance would be reviewed based on both the institutional and statewide College of Engineering goals, measures, and targets. Faculty would create multi-discipline, cross-institutional teams to maximize resource and talent utilization.
  7. New resources are absolutely critical to the success of the Oregon College of Engineering, and the Chancellor's Committee will identify resource requirements for submission to the Governor for the budget currently being developed. The Chancellor will also include specific measurable goals for graduate and undergraduate engineering, which the new resources would support in the 1997-1999 biennium. It is also our intention to leverage private-sector contributions that may take the form of cash, equipment, internships, and other in-kind contributions.

The plan that follows addresses each of the seven points of the Board's directive. However, they are not necessarily in the same order.

Situation Analysis

Oregon has made a remarkable transition from a substantially natural resources-based economy as late as the early 1980s to a modern, diversified, multi-dimensional economic base. Key to this development has been the Northwest's emergence as a center of high technology industrial development.

As a result, Oregon ranks among the top five states in the nation in economic growth in 1996.

OSU and PSU, together and separately, deliver continuing education and professional development programs to several thousand engineers each year.

OSSHE faces three major challenges in meeting Oregon's engineering needs:

  1. Oregon cannot continue to depend on the very significant in-migration of engineers that has supported the industry's previous expansion. In addition, Oregon should provide its citizens with the educational opportunities that will enable them to participate in this growing segment of the state's economy. The results will benefit all Oregonians.
  2. The major research universities have evolved downstate, while the industry's growth has historically been centered predominantly in the Portland/Metro tri-county area. A coordinated plan that addresses the engineering education needs in the Portland area, as well as the other growth areas throughout the state, is required.
  3. Essential to continued growth are investment in and expansion of both undergraduate and graduate engineering output, raising both program quality and reputation, and commitment to meeting the engineering needs of the entire state, which by definition include electrical and computer engineering and extend to segments of engineering specializations outside the immediate high technology electronics industry.

The vision that emerged from the work of the Board of Higher Education Solution Team chaired by Paul Risser and Michael Reardon, and the Technology Solution Team, chaired by Larry Wolf, together with important input from several Portland State University proposals, the UO School of Computer Science concept paper, and OGI , is clear:

  1. A statewide commitment to engineering is essential. Responsiveness to the nature and geographic distribution of engineering employment must be the central focus. Addressing the Portland-metro need is first priority, while needs elsewhere in Oregon must also receive attention.
  2. A commitment must be made to those who hire engineers. Industry invests in its bottom line. Quality engineers are essential to the bottom line of the high technology industry. It is our challenge to ascertain the needs of industry and define the best match between those needs and the nature and distribution of the education response.
  3. A commitment to providing a competitive education in engineering and computer science to both top Oregon high school graduates as well as undergraduate and graduate students from other colleges and universities throughout the nation. The very best students seek a highly competitive educational environment where they learn from the best faculty and interact with other highly motivated fellow students.
  4. Strategic investments in quality faculty will provide the foundation for building quality programs.
  5. Key Oregon employers like L.S.I. and Hyundai have pointed out how the interconnectedness between high technology engineering and other engineering fields such as chemical engineering, microelectronic processing, environmental engineering for sustainable production, manufacturing engineering, and mechanical engineering for both manufacture/production creates additional engineering educational needs.
  6. An increase in the delivery of engineering education creates a natural increase in the demand for other programs that are highly integrated in the education and training of engineers, primarily physics and math.
  7. The engineering concept that emerges should be comprehensive enough to reach beyond the programs of the State System and to suggest productive roles for independent colleges and universities, for community college technical programs, as well as school-to-work connections with the K-12 system.
  8. Because the Board of Higher Education has authority over most, but not all, of Oregon's engineering education capacity, it accepts the responsibility of assuming a leadership role in the design of an industry-to-education match for all levels of engineering preparation and for all resources. However, the primary focus of the board must be areas for which it holds direct responsibility and authority.
  9. Oregon engineering-related industries must attempt to define their needs further into the future than they may be accustomed to doing to enable OSSHE to have clear planning targets. Those needs do not have to be precisely defined in order to be very useful to education program leaders.
  10. To achieve the necessary understanding of current and projected industry and/or employer needs, to best match current System resources, and to establish clear planning targets, the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science and industry must jointly engage in a formal and ongoing process of identifying industry trends and needs. Such a process will increase the College's ability to serve the needs of Oregon's employers and respond more rapidly as industry needs evolve.

Board Goals and Objectives

  1. Establish an Engineering and Technology industry council to guide and review the programs and operations of the college.
  2. Provide high quality engineering and technology education for a broad range of students.
  3. Conduct research, provide specialized consulting, and transfer technology that is at the forefront of the fields.
  4. Provide for continuing education and professional development programs that are responsive, flexible, accessible throughout Oregon, and up-to-date.
  5. Focus the College's resources in disciplines of highest priority to Oregon industries and communities.
  6. Increase the System's educational capacity to graduate more students.
  7. Implement uniform policies and practices and provide a supportive and productive experience for students, faculty, and staff.
  8. Enhance the offerings of engineering programs by cooperating and collaborating with other public and private educational providers, both in Oregon and elsewhere.
  9. Operate in an efficient, open manner at a level of performance consistent with the vision for the College.

Operating Assumptions


The situation analysis presented above provides a compelling rationale for expanded engineering education in Oregon. To meet the needs that exist as a result of Oregon's economic growth, the following vision provides guideposts and a foundation for measuring success:

Metro and Statewide Strategy

The following proposal for the development of a statewide model to deliver engineering and computer science education is based upon a coordination of the complementary and specialized offerings of education providers. It also calls for a significant and ongoing role for industry. This approach will require a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities and will guide decisions regarding resource allocation.

OGI currently plays a role as equal partner in collaboration with PSU, OSU, and UO in the proposal to deliver a master's in software engineering. OSSHE is anxious to expand this level of collaboration and consultation.

OGI, together with PSU, currently supports expanded educational opportunities for students through a reciprocal agreement. Other similar collaborations should be pursued.

To expand on existing partnerships, OSSHE will agree, where possible, to base program tuition on actual cost for the delivery of continuing professional education to industry, and in some cases for degree programs such as is being considered for the distance delivery of a master's in software engineering.

  1. Support tuition for continuing education services for their employees at full-cost rates. This raises tuition from roughly $175 per unit to $375.
  2. Participate in MECOP and OPT for CO-OP internship programs.
  3. Encourage enrollment in coursework through high school programs in "school to work."
  4. Provide other support for engineering programs through individual and corporate contributions.

Organization and Administration of the Oregon College of Engineering

At the November 15, 1996, meeting, the Board of Higher Education indicated its preference for a coordinated (virtual) statewide college of engineering rather than an integrated, consolidated model. This choice was described as a "soft merger." Within this model, the College of Engineering at Oregon State University and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Portland State University would remain separate entities as they are at present. However, the broad purposes of a coordinated statewide college of engineering are essentially the same as those proposed for a consolidated model:

Achievement of these overarching purposes will require an increased investment in engineering by both the state and by the private sector. It will also require continuation and expansion of the professional cooperative relationships that are deeply rooted within the engineering faculties of OSU, PSU, and participating programs at UO, OIT, and OGI. These cooperative relationships, in existence for more than a decade, have resulted in research partnerships and joint degree programs; a center for advanced continuing education in high technology fields (OCATE); and the Oregon Joint Graduate Schools of Engineering (OJGSE), a partnership that has attracted state and federal funds in support of high priority university/industry projects.

The Board recommended the creation of a position of Vice Chancellor for Engineering and Technology, reporting to the Chancellor. However, subsequent examination of the impacts of creating a single position/office led staff to propose a modification.

To dedicate scarce resources to programs, avoid administrative redundance, and build in the expectation that both OSU and PSU schools of engineering work together to form an effective coordinated Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science (OCECS), a matrix administrative structure is recommended to include an Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science Leadership Group. The deans of the schools will carry dual responsibilities at the System level. In the latter position, they will report directly to the Chancellor and work closely with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to review and coordinate programmatic matters with the OSSHE Academic Council. In their roles as campus deans, they will report to institutional provosts and presidents. The president of OIT will be part of the Leadership Group. The provost of the UO, or a designee, will also be a member. The Chancellor will chair the leadership group and, by so doing, will assure both accountability and provide a visible point of reference and contact for industry, etc.

Industry colleagues support a matrix model for the management of the "virtual" College. Their advice is based on several assumptions:

The OCECS Leadership Group would require substantial time commitment from these senior administrators; some of their current responsibilities may need to be delegated to associates. In recognition of this, up to one-third (.33 FTE) of the deans' salaries will be funded by the Chancellor's Office.

The Leadership Group will develop and present, first to the Engineering and Technology Industry Council, and ultimately to the Board of Higher Education, a biennial work plan for the statewide College, which will include:

All state funds for engineering will be invested through this strategic planning process. Planning will be led by the OCECS Leadership Group to set strategic directions for the statewide College; clear goals, measures, and targets for the College. The deans will administer programs at multiple sites in the state using all appropriate technologies and will work closely with participating institutions, in particular UO, OIT, and OGI. The deans will establish cross-institutional groups to foster research collaborations, to develop new programs and student services, to promote outreach activities, and to enhance mutual collegial interests.

The involvement of campus provosts and presidents in the development of the statewide College is essential, for the College must be well integrated into other aspects of institutional life and culture. The health and vitality of the College will benefit from strong advocacy by campus leaders. The Chancellor's biennial Engineering Work Plan will be shared with campus presidents for input and comment.

The Chancellor will assume primary responsibility for recommending the strategic direction of the College to the Board and advocating for its wide support within the state. The Chancellor will resolve disputes that need attention beyond the level of an individual campus.

Engineering and Technology Industry Council

The Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science will be guided and advised by an Engineering and Technology Industry Council. The Council will be made up predominantly of industry members. In addition, members will be drawn from the Board of Higher Education and other entities, as follows: six or more industry members representing all engineering specialties, two Board members, one community college member, one private college member, one or more members from industry associations, and the Oregon Economic Development Department. All appointments will be made by the President of the Board of Higher Education, based on nominations from member associations and the other represented entities. The Chancellor's Office will provide support for the work of the Council.

The function of the Council will be advisory. It will focus on:

College Operations


Programs currently in place at participating institutions will continue as they are at present. Campus mission differentiation relative to types of programs will continue. At present, Oregon State University provides the preponderance of doctoral degree programs. New graduate engineering programs that are needed, particularly in the Metro area, will be established to the greatest extent possible collaboratively. Baccalaureate and master's programs will be offered by both OSU and PSU. Engineering technology programs will be offered by OIT. Needs analyses and available resources, including delivery technologies, will determine program capacity, expansion, and location. Particular emphasis will be given to increasing the production of baccalaureate-level engineers and technologists in the high technology fields and offering professional master's programs. Whenever appropriate, degree programs will be structured to encourage the multi-campus participation of faculty and students and the offering of joint programs.

A prime example of a restructured multi-campus entity is the proposed "school of computer science." Computer science education must achieve visibility in the state among Oregon's industries and in the world. It should grow in critical mass and quality while encouraging complementarity among the diverse programs of participating institutions. While having a home base, students and faculty should be encouraged to move among the campuses to avail themselves of instructional and research opportunities. Administratively, a faculty chair would rotate among participating institutions. The chair would coordinate the activities of councils of program representatives responsible for various aspects of the school's mission (e.g., a graduate education council, a research council, etc.). As appropriate to the need, the chair should join the College of Engineering and Computer Science Leadership Group for planning and decision making relative to computing activities.

The College will work with the Commissioner of the Oregon community colleges to articulate curricula and transfer processes between associate-level and baccalaureate-level programs. Oregon Institute of Technology and the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science will articulate curricula to foster transition between engineering and technology.

The College will continue to expand its working relationship with OGI by contracting for delivery of graduate engineering courses that are needed for a comprehensive continuing education program and will develop program contracts with OGI and/or other universities in specialized areas that are not strengths within the OSSHE program inventory. This is particulary promising with respect to Washington State University-Vancouver. There are ongoing discussions regarding achieving metropolitan coordination and complementarity. Both Senator Tom Hartung and Roger Bassett, Community College Commissioner, have been involved in these discussions.

Given the high priority of increasing opportunities for continuing education for working engineers, and the growing demand for customization of professional development programs, the College would coordinate, through a single office, the planning, scheduling, brokering, and delivery of continuing education and professional development programs. Relatedly, OCATE would merge with and become a part of this single statewide entity. The OJGSE will be subsumed within the College structure as well.


Faculty currently in tenure/tenure-track appointments at Oregon State University, Portland State University, and Oregon Institute of Technology will continue within their appointments as provided under campus personnel policies. Appointment of new faculty will be the most significant strategic investment we will make. Assignment of new positions and replacement positions will be made by the Leadership Group in accordance with strategic considerations and subject to review by institution provosts and presidents. The Chancellor, who chairs the Leadership Group, will resolve position allocation disputes if needed.

Faculty performance will be reviewed and rewarded in accordance with campus and Systemwide expectations. In all cases, retention and reward will be based on performance. To the maximum extent feasible, faculty will be encouraged and expected to work collaboratively across disciplines and institutional lines in order to make best use of talent, experience, and resources. Cross-institutional councils will be a major mechanism to ensure a high degree of cooperation among faculty. New hires will be a combination of tenure-track, and fixed-contract hires, and cross-institutional joint appointments will be encouraged.


The College will operate within a standard calendar framework to ensure that qualified students on one campus may access classes and course offerings on another. Within the standard calendar, modularized courses and alternative instructional formats will be encouraged. The College will develop electronic catalogues and course schedules and a common record system. Admission requirements, procedures, and tracking systems will be equivalent for students at any location. Undergraduate students may transfer from one program to the same program on another campus provided that reasonable campus residency requirements are met and space is available in the receiving program.

College Budget Assumptions

The Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science will develop a budget for the three biennia (1997-2003) that details the various revenue sources available. The budget will include startup investments as well as ongoing/annual/recurring categories.

The 1997-1999 Educational Investment Proposal

OSSHE has prepared an investment budget for the 1997-1999 biennium. This is being reviewed by Governor Kitzhaber and an Economic Linkage Engineering Subcommittee.

The proposal addresses five areas of concern and focuses attention and resources on these topics:
1. The need for greater, higher-level post-baccalaureate educational services in the Portland metro area. Contract with OGI and possibly other providers to expand these services
Graduate education 1997-1999 1999-2001** 2001-2003**
OCATE/OJGSE funds will be invested in programs prioritized after consultation with the proposed Oregon Engineering and Technology Council. Presently, OCATE exclusively supports programs in electrical and computer engineering and computer science, while OJGSE supports these high technology areas, and metals, environmental engineering, and manufacturing. $3.0M* $3.0M $3.0M
Continuing professional education 1997-1999 1999-2001** 2001-2003**
$1.5M $1.5M $1.5M
Subtotal $4.5M $4.5M $4.5M
2. The BS in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, and Computer Engineering -- doubling the output (includes an expansion of OIT's corresponding technology programs)+
Total cost (biennial)


Phase in over three biennia: 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003
$4.0M $4.0M $4.0M
+These fields comprise 35-39 percent of OSSHE engineering/technology totals
3. The MS in Software Engineering 1997-1999 1999-2001** 2001-2003**
$1.5M $2.0M $2.0M
Startup fall 1998. Accelerating the ramping up of the program, both with respect to time frame and size and scope
*Current budget resources
**Not adjusted for inflation
4. An expansion of cooperative internship programs (MECOP) -- to include both PSU and UO and increasing the scope to twice the participation level of 1996, possibly to include summer term programs
1996 Current Enrollment Levels
OSU 150
UO 0
1997-98 Projected Enrollment Levels
OSU 200
PSU 40-50
UO 40 (Computer Science)
Additional resources required 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003
$300,000 $300,000 $300,000
(plus expanded industry level of support, currently at $145,000)
5. Closing the Technologist-Technician Gap -- expanding output of both AA and BS graduates to twice current levels by 2000
OIT - the OPT for CO-OP Concept and the Degree Completion program for AA holder industry employees in the tri-county area 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003
$1.5M $2.0M $2.0M
The true budget requirement here is for an additional $ .5M each of the three biennia which we hope to secure from an industry match
Total~ $11.8M $12.8M $12.8M
~Total includes $3M in redirected OCATE, OJGSE current resources
6. Expanding the Community College Output of AA Technicians by the same factor(Roger Bassett will have to supply these data)

[Note: Tables available from the Board's Office]

Presentation to the Board

President Aschkenasy asked Mr. Imeson to introduce the topic of the Oregon College of Engineering. Mr. Imeson stated that the Board had considered the proposal recommended by the solution team chaired by Dr. Risser and other recommendations presented to the Subcommittee on Engineering, which included proposals from PSU, OGI, and the UO. Ultimately, the Board adopted a resolution directing the Chancellor to work with OSSHE staff and representatives from the private sector and return to the Board with a proposal to create an Oregon College of Engineering. "We asked the Chancellor to make sure the private sector would be involved in how this institution was created and operated. We asked him to work with the Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI) to identify services it may provide through contract with the state." Mr. Imeson invited Chancellor Cox to present the final proposal to the Board.

Dr. Cox pointed out that, from the State System point of view, a primary issue is to examine the strengths of each of the seven institutions. "We must leverage our resources, act like a system, but still respect the distinctive missions of each institution. There's strength in the idea of preserving capacity and autonomy of individual units while drawing on those strengths to focus on specific projects." The Chancellor indicated that his proposal uses a matrix approach rather than a forced consolidation.

"The setting is very clear," Dr. Cox continued. "Engineering is critical to the state's economic health. Our engineering and computer science programs have to be strengthened to give Oregonians the opportunity for high-wage jobs and to secure Oregon's position in the high technology and knowledge economy. The vision is to have Oregon be a place where professional development and lifelong professional development in engineering education makes us a preferred location for both companies and working professionals. We must have both supply and quality of undergraduate and graduate education that better matches industry's needs than we do at present. And we need a state investment policy that provides support to all educational sectors."

Having presented the context, Chancellor Cox summarized the proposal for the Board and Governor Kitzhaber.

Mr. Imeson invited Mr. Don VanLuvanee, a member of the Governor's Task Force on Linking Higher Education and the Economy, and chair of that group's subcommittee on engineering, to address the Board. Mr. VanLuvanee noted that he's seen a willingness to change and improve the state that he hasn't seen in other states in which he's lived. He reiterated the reasons this change is vital to the state's well-being, and expressed his appreciation for the Governor's budget, which includes an investment that is responsive to these growing needs. "From an industry point of view, I am personally committed to stepping up to the table. We're willing to commit the industry time to work to make this a success. We'll recruit students into engineering programs at the secondary school level. We will help establish a framework for developing engineering in Oregon. We're also willing to look at a tuition policy that provides greater financial support for working professionals so that we can expand the program without additional direct state investment. I think the Chancellor's proposal provides a real framework for that continued participation of industry."

Mr. Imeson introduced Mr. Bruce Schafer, general manager of PC-KWIK, who served on the Board's Subcommittee on Engineering. Mr. Schafer, who has also served as chair of the Education Committee for the Software Association of Oregon, indicated his support of the master's in software engineering as well as the Chancellor's program and proposed budget.

Finally, Mr. Imeson invited Dr. Paul Bragdon, president of the Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI), to address the Board. Dr. Bragdon provided the Board with a brief history of OGI and concluded his remarks by indicating his commitment to the success of the proposed program.

Governor Kitzhaber, College of Engineering

Governor Kitzhaber acknowledged all those whose hard work contributed to the formation of the proposed statewide College of Engineering. "I'm very impressed by the willingness of all the partners, both private and public, to come together to try to design a quality graduate engineering plan for the state of Oregon. Clearly the collaboration between our public institutions and the OGI, as well as the high tech industry, bodes very well for our ability to match the needs of this industry with an educational system that can support it. I'm especially pleased by the level of cooperation between our state campuses and the OGI. This institution has been with us for over 30 years. I think this agreement, perhaps for the first time, properly recognizes the growing role and importance of the OGI in providing the educational needs for our engineering community. This is a public-private collaboration in the best sense; it maximizes resources and talents in a way that's going to allow our students to take advantage of the opportunities in this new high tech economy. It's an investment that goes well beyond just an investment in students. It's really an investment in the state as a whole." Governor Kitzhaber emphasized, however, that the proposal would only be funded if he is successful in moving his larger investment package through the Oregon legislature. He urged those who work with the legislature to make a strong case in support of the investment package.

President Aschkenasy thanked the Governor for his presence and support, and Mr. Imeson for accepting this difficult assignment. He noted that since industry has made its view clear -- industry as a potential employer and not simply as a source of funds -- should help the program get a good start. He added that Chancellor Cox will bring to the Board basic objectives for the program that are concrete and measurable.

Chancellor Cox thanked OIT President Larry Wolf, PSU Dean of Engineering Bob Dryden, OSU Dean of Engineering John Owen, and UO Provost John Moseley for helping accomplish this task, as well as Presidents Risser, Frohnmayer, and Ramaley. In addition, he thanked Duncan Wyse, Oregon Business Council; Jim Craven, American Electronics Association; Jerry Fisher, Hewlett-Packard; Warren Harrison, PSU; Sandy Hogan, SAO; Gordon Reistad, OSU; Stead Upham, UO; and Mark Lasswell, Ch2M Hill.

Dr. Cox provided an explanation for his decision not to appoint a vice chancellor for engineering and technology at this time. One, scarce resources will not be diverted into building a bureaucracy and, two, it allows for greater flexibility. Presidents Frohnmayer and Ramaley both expressed their support of the proposal. President Risser added that "we will be successful with isolated items, and that's what the Governor has in his budget -- some isolated items. We'll only be successful in the long term when we integrate those items with other parts of a successful engineering program. Also, we must recognize what high quality means; the notion of how we attract high-quality students and how we make them successful needs to be part of our thinking. Last, I hope we eventually build a program that, more than gaining industry participation, generates the enthusiasm of the leaders of industry." President Wolf stated that the proposal presented to the Board is the correct solution for the present needs.

In closing, Mr. Imeson thanked Chancellor Cox for never losing sight of the ultimate goal in the development of this proposal. Mr. Imeson noted that his goal in the creation of the new vice chancellor position was to have a point where accountability resides. He stated his belief that Chancellor Cox has accepted that accountability; Mr. Imeson stated that the change was acceptable and he thanked Dr. Cox for his willingness to be that person.

Dr. Cox invited Mr. Charles Rosenthal, representing the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, to address the Board. Mr. Rosenthal reported that there are 400,000 members worldwide, 3,000 of whom are in Oregon. "We are the lay engineers for whom you are planning an educational program. We're going to be on the receiving end of what you are proposing. Consequently, I'd like to make one point: I believe we need more representation in the process of the evolving program. We ought to be represented commensurate with the business alliances you are bringing into your deliberations and into your future council." Mr. Rosenthal made five suggestions:

Board Discussion and Action

President Aschkenasy stated that he doesn't want to hear complaining about limited resources. Rather, he expects to hear plans and proposals for meeting the Board's objectives within the resource reality.

Ms. Christopher asked that the Board receive regular reports on progress. Dr. Aschkenasy stated that first objectives need to be developed; Dr. Cox added that ways to measure success must also be determined.

Chancellor Cox indicated that the first step would be to submit to the Board names of possible appointees to the Engineering and Technology Industry Council. Dr. Aschkenasy asked who would make the appointments; Dr. Cox responded that the Board president would.

Mr. Swanson asked when goals of the program would be set. Dr. Cox replied that, prior to the May meeting, the Board would be presented with the work plan. However, progress reports on the evolution of target and goal setting would be shared with the Board as it progresses. Mr. Swanson commented about Mr. Rosenthal's statements regarding quality and quantity. "I think we have to have both," said Mr. Swanson. "And we're going to have to develop some benchmarks by which we can determine whether we've actually increased the quality of the engineering program because it's that quality that's going to attract the students of the future." Chancellor Cox responded that in January he could present the Board with some benchmarks in terms of the qualitative indicators for the current student body which could serve as a beginning point on which to build. "We'll give you the benchmarks first, then the projections."

Mr. Imeson moved to approve the Chancellor's plan as presented. Ms. Christopher seconded the motion. The following voted in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, McAllister, Puentes, Rhinard, Swanson, Waddy, Willis, Wustenberg, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.


Government Relations

Grattan Kerans provided the Board with a brief overview of the Governor's budget for the next biennium. Mr. Kerans pointed out that, when faced with Measure 5, the Board yielded to the reality of reduced resources while maintaining their vision of what public higher education in Oregon should be. As Mr. Kerans described it, the Board created a culture that allowed people to take risks, to become more efficient and effective. The recognition of those efforts can be seen in the Governor's budget. Chancellor Cox added that "it's a nice way of saying you ought to stop and congratulate yourselves for getting through this. Your efforts are beginning to pay off because the disinvestment stops here. It's the first Governor's budget since 1989 to recommend a current service level for OSSHE." Dr. Cox pointed out that the Governor's investment packages track from the Board's priorities.

Mr. Kerans noted that two impacts of Measure 47 are that the Governor could not include the educational technology commitment in the OSSHE budget, but could only fund the half that is for K-12. The other cut was the larger student access in addition to regional capacity. However, Mr. Kerans stressed the fact that the Governor has allocated dollars to this budget for policies that are important to the Board.


President Aschkenasy reported that the previous Thursday evening, the Board had a working dinner where the principal topic of discussion was setting standards for OSSHE -- what is meant by quality, access, cost. He indicated that the Chancellor would be working with the institutions to develop objectives in that category. "We believe the Board should be playing a larger role in setting directions of the institutions, and this is a way of doing it."

Dr. Aschkenasy noted that a second topic of discussion was the issue of university status and concerns about cost implications in a name change for the regional colleges. He explained that Dr. Youngblood had offered to provide suggestions and literature on the subject.

Mr. Willis thanked Mr. Imeson for his work in focusing the engineering discussion. He added that the Governor has other responsibilities as well, such as the state investment in criminal justice measures. "We have to think in a broader context as we start to sharpen the vision for higher education -- how we fit in that context and the contribution we make to the whole state, not just one piece of it."

Ms. Waddy thanked the Board, faculty, staff, students, and citizens of Oregon for making her term on the Board a positive experience. She felt supported and gained the confidence to speak out on issues, and she urged future Board members to express themselves more openly.

Ms. Puentes commented on her enjoyment in working with Ms. Waddy. She also stated she was looking forward to the implementation of the engineering proposal.

Mr. Swanson told Ms. Waddy he had appreciated her courage. He, too, is anticipating the further development of the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science.

Ms. Christopher also complimented Ms. Waddy on her membership on the Board. In addition, she acknowledged the groundwork Mr. Swanson laid in his leadership of the 2010 Advisory Panel.


The Board meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Virginia L. Thompson, Secretary of the Board

Herb Aschkenasy, President of the Board