OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF NURSING, ROOMS 358/64

June 19, 1998

ROLL CALL

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

On roll call, the following answered present:

Ms. Diane Christopher
Mr. Tom Imeson
Mr. Jim Lussier
Ms. Gail McAllister
Ms. Esther Puentes
Ms. Katie Van Patten
Dr. Jim Whittaker
Mr. Jim Willis
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg
Mr. John Wykoff
Dr. Herb Aschkenasy

MINUTES APPROVED

The Board dispensed with the reading of the May 15, 1998 minutes. Mr. Imeson moved and Ms. McAllister seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Noting that the Nominating Committee report item was inadvertently omitted from the docket agenda, President Aschkenasy said that a new slate of officers would be elected later in the meeting.

Thanks to OHSU
He thanked both President Kohler and Provost Hallick for inviting the Board to their campus. "It was an enjoyable morning. I always feel good about OHSU and Oregon education when I visit up here, and this time is no exception," he observed.

Board Members Recognized
Informing the audience that both Mr. Wykoff and Dr. Whittaker would be leaving the Board, Dr. Aschkenasy extended his appreciation for their years of service. Mr. Wykoff is leaving because his term would be ending on June 30, and Dr. Whittaker, because he recently accepted a position at Blue Mountain Community College. He also welcomed new student Board member David Koch, recently confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Koch will officially begin his two-year term on July 1.

Performance Indicators
Stating that large portion of the meeting involved further review of performance indicators, Dr. Aschkenasy said that, "This combines, for the record, with a number of other initiatives of the Board, principally two committees: one dealing with budget allocation systems and how to improve them in support of the performance indicators and Mr. Willis' group on Governance and Structure, which is looking at the tradeoff between accountability and autonomy. His committee and the issues it is addressing are very important to the overall movement toward changing the education system in Oregon. These are important efforts and I think that, combined with the performance indicators, we are moving in a direction that will improve the System, improve our service to students, and will improve our ability to communicate with our fellow citizens. We need to show people not only that we are doing a good job, but that we are getting better."

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

Jeff Tryens, Oregon Progress Board
Chancellor Cox concurred with President Aschkenasy's report, adding that, "Next month we are going to have to chart our course for the next year, and considerably beyond that. The work of two key committees is coming to fruition with significant changes on several sides. Having seen this presentation by Jeff Tryens, executive director of the Oregon Progress Board, I felt it was very appropriate as a kind of backdrop to our own planning work to get a sense of the state's priorities as the Progress Board reflects them. It will be an excellent grounding for our own creative thinking in Bend."

Mr. Tryens explained how Oregon Shines, an effort initiated in 1987 and revised in 1997, is helping state government improve its strategic planning efforts. (Two documents that evolved from the process, Oregon Shines and Oregon Shines II, are on file in the Board's office, as is a copy of overheads from Mr. Tryens' presentation). "What Oregon Shines offers is the opportunity to create a framework for all state agencies so they will head in the same direction. By using the four parts of the Oregon Shines strategic planning: unified vision, meaningful measures, shared strategies, and outcome-oriented evaluation, we can take all of state government and make it more focused and aligned," he said. In describing the planning model, Mr. Tryens said that it is very straightforward, where four questions are asked: 1) where are we? 2) where do we want to be? 3) how do we get there? and 4) how do we monitor our progress toward that vision?

Further articulating the findings from the 1996-97 update, Mr. Tryens said that the economy is strong, and most indicators that the Progress Board tracks rank Oregon at average or better. The areas where problems remain or have increased involve the states' young people. "We have a crime rate among young people that exceeds the national average by a significant margin and that is unusual for Oregon. That is also the case for alcohol and drug use and smoking among young people," he described. In further outlining the recent findings, Mr. Tryens explained that, "The other thing that surprised us was the extraordinary economic prosperity, and also that the poverty rate in 1996 was the same as it was in 1990. When we look at our surroundings, both physical and environmental, we find that housing affordability is really a key driver and is really a problem statewide. And then our limits in natural resource extraction has a dramatic effect on the economy.

"In terms of the economy, the best educated workforce was the way this plan started out in 1997. That is the marquee for us: to have the best educated and trained workforce in the US by 2000 and equal to any in the world by 2010. Another driver is 1995 education versus earnings in the U.S. High school dropouts, on average, made $12,000-18,000 in the U.S. in 1995. College graduates made $32,600. In Oregon, the line would be a little different. But anyone pulling out of high school right now is looking at this kind of a curve and it is only going to get steeper.

"When looking at our communities, what we found was that engaging with our young people was the key for us. Our marquee is: responsibility for caring and mentoring the children. We believe that if every young person in the state had a responsible adult in their lives from the time they are born, we would really reduce a lot of these long term community problems we have in the state," Mr. Tryens observed.

According to Mr. Tryens, the primary reason for this juxtaposition between a strong economy and weak link with young people is that the social health continues to lag behind the economic health. "One of the big reasons for this is when women started entering the workforce. This is when two wage earners needed to be in households in order to continue to have a middle class way of life. That is one of the big drivers behind this."

In terms of measuring progress, Oregon is renowned for its use of benchmarks and how they relate to strategic planning. "The benchmarks are all about results and not efforts. Meaningful measures are the second way that our strategic planning process helps to improve efficiency in state government," said Mr. Tryens.

Explaining in detail how the benchmarks and categories have been reduced and clarified over the years, Mr. Tryens said now there are three key benchmarks: 1) the economy (quality jobs for all Oregonians, 2) people (safe, caring, and engaged communities), and 3) the environment (healthy, sustainable communities). The issue of education weighs heavily on the first two.

A current focus of the Progress Board is developing primary links between state agencies. This is where larger societal issues are broken down among the responsible partners (not all necessarily state agencies). Accountability becomes easier to identify, as well as shortfalls within the system. A document known as the "blue book" (not to be confused with the Oregon Blue Book) cross references each of these links. From that, one can begin to look at coordinated strategies. In terms of the benchmarks that relate to the Oregon University System, there are six that have primary links: the baccalaureate degree; income per capita; skills training; foreign language; industry research and development; and, economic diversification. Mr. Tryens said that, based on current trends, three out of the six OUS-linked benchmarks will meet the year 2000 targets.

A key to success with benchmarks is to keep them simple. The process also must have support from both Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Tryens explained. Further, it must be attractive to managers as an effective tool. "You have to put a system in place that meets the needs of the people who are trying to do the work," he said.

Chancellor Cox explained that Nancy Goldschmidt, OUS senior policy associate, has worked extensively with Mr. Tryens in developing the OUS performance indicators. "I think it is fair to say that we have learned a lot from him and we are very much together on trying to be certain that we are aligned. Your validation that we are on the right track is appreciated," said the Chancellor.

Mr. Lussier inquired about the use of the grading system as a communication tool and asked that Mr. Tryens apply that to the OUS performance measures. "You have to use symbols that people easily understand," said Mr. Tryens. "The grades are not for state agencies, but for Oregonians. The grades make people nervous, but it is a way of making yourself come back and look to see how you have done. And hold it up against your standards in a way that you are able to simply say, 'we either did really well or we didn't do very well.' We figured out what an 'A' was prior to looking at the data and then we applied the data. We actually changed a little bit on the basis of a couple of initiatives where they would have gotten an unfair rating. We had to get the Progress Board to sign onto the grading system and look at what the data showed us. That was an important part of what we did," he concluded.

Oregon Student Association Award
Dr. Cox introduced Ed Dennis, director of the Oregon Student Association. Mr. Dennis announced that retiring EOU President David Gilbert recently received the OSA's Lifetime Achievement Award. "I'd like to ask you all join to me in recognizing President Gilbert for his lifetime of achievements for education in Oregon," he said

IFS Report
The Chancellor asked IFS President Kemble Yates for his report. Following is an excerpt:

"The IFS held its most recent meeting at SOU two weeks ago. Our guests included Board members Diane Christopher and Jim Willis. We had an interesting and fruitful exchange on ideas and issues surrounding the two Board Committees' work.

"We received a report from Dave Conley, the Chancellor's Office point man on the new PASS admissions standards, scheduled to go online in 2001. I think the IFS is now clearer on the goals and philosophy that have gone into the standards; I believe faculty are adopting a 'wait-and see' posture to PASS. If CIM and CAM really achieve a significant fraction of the vision of reform in K-12 education, then PASS has a correspondingly good chance of being an improvement to our current admissions standards for the Oregon University System.

"We also had excellent conversations with Representative Judy Uherbelau and Senator Lenn Hannon. Both expressed strong support for Oregon public higher education, and gave the IFS good advice on how faculty can advance the higher education agenda this fall and in the legislative session next year. Interestingly, without prompting from us, both legislators commented to the effect that higher education plays a wider role in Oregon's well-being then simply being an economic enhancement vehicle. They supported the value of an educated citizenry. To be honest, though, their comments were in the context of how we in higher education can best reach legislators. And the most widely accepted argument in Salem currently is the economic one: higher education creates needed expertise in the workforce and family wage jobs.

"In our business meeting on Saturday, we discussed several issues and set the IFS meeting schedule for the years 1999 and 2000. The one issue we discussed that I want to share with you has to do with the conversion by the OUS to the new Human Resources Informational System payroll software. In a nutshell, a shortcoming of this new software has been passed on to faculty and classified staff who spread nine- month contracts over a 12-month pay period. The problem, as it has been explained to me, is that the new software is incapable of handling a faculty member's half month salary for the period September 16-30 AND saving a quarter of that for the three months in the following summer. The policy decision by the Chancellor's Office is to force those employees who wish to have a 12-month payout of their nine-month salary to be paid over an October 1 through June 30 pay period even though they work from September 16 through June 15.

"The bottom line is that faculty must loan two weeks of their pay this coming September to the System, which will not be repaid until the last two weeks of September at the end of their careers. This simply is not fair, and has put another dent in faculty morale. I urge the Chancellor's Office to reconsider this policy decision and not make faculty and staff pay for this shortcoming in the software.

"When I examined the Board docket in preparation for this meeting, I looked over the Performance Indicator section pretty carefully. I know you'll be discussing this at length today and I will be interested in your reactions. I'm still very concerned with how the money indicators are going to be calculated and presented. As I mentioned to you at the March meeting, the idea that tuition and faculty salaries should be put under Cost-Effectiveness puts exactly the wrong emphasis on them -- the implication to a legislator would be that the System's goal is to charge the highest possible tuition and pay its faculty the lowest possible amount -- all in the name of being cost-effective relative to state investment.

"Tuition belongs under Access because dangerously high tuition levels are driving qualified Oregon students away from OUS, and faculty salaries belong under Quality because OUS will not be able to attract and retain high quality faculty at its current, well-below-market, salary rates. I sincerely hope the November report will reflect those emphases. The other comment I wish to repeat from March is: if these indicators are to be at all useful in persuading legislators to increase funding, we must have them normed against national comparators. I know this is in the works for faculty salaries, and I presume it is as well for important statistics like average state support per student and average total expenditure by the System per student.

"Having resubmitted those caveats, I commend the Chancellor's staff for their hard work on these indicators. I think they have the potential to go hand-in-glove with our new governance and budgeting structure.

"I wanted to make a couple of less formal remarks. First of all, I want to say a sincere thank you on behalf of IFS to Jim Whittaker and John Wykoff for your years of service to the State Board of Higher Education and the citizens of Oregon. Also, I would like to welcome David Koch in his new role to the Board.

"I guess we have all said goodby to Dave Gilbert several times, but for the record, goodby from the IFS and thank you for your years of service."

Chancellor Cox asked Vice Chancellor Anslow to respond to concerns raised in Dr. Yates' report regarding payroll. Mr. Anslow said that one of the important issues will be to get legislation to allow payroll to be run on a more frequent basis, believing that would take care of this particular problem. He added that the Board has supported the legislative concept to do that.

"The current law requires us to pay on a monthly basis, which complicates this issue," said Mr. Anslow. "We will certainly look at it another time and see what we can do during this time period, but we do need legislation to give us more flexibility."

PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND INDICATORS: 1998 BASELINE PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR INSTITUTIONS, OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Introduction

The performance measures and indicators initiative is a statewide effort to refine priorities, strengthen quality, and improve the productivity of the Oregon University System (OUS). This effort was initiated by the Board of Higher Education in January 1997 under the leadership of Board President Aschkenasy. The Board identified four broad goals, driven by OUS mission and strategy, as a basis for transforming public higher education and meeting the needs of the state of Oregon. These goals are:

  1. Strengthen existing quality of instructional, research, and public service programs;
  2. Expand access by students of different circumstances;
  3. Achieve cost-effectiveness appropriate to institutional missions; and
  4. Enhance employability of graduates.

These goals, which were written into law by the 1997 Oregon Legislature and later affirmed by the Governor, were used to guide the development of nine performance measures. The nine measures are:

Measure   Strategic Goal    
1. Degree completion (six-year graduation rates) Quality
2. Graduate abilities at degree completion Quality
3. Customer satisfaction Quality
4. New customers Access
5. Student quality and diversity Access
6. Graduate success and unmet state needs Employability
7. External resources and entrepreneurship Cost-effectiveness
8. State's investment Cost-effectiveness
9. Institutional management Cost-effectiveness
Most of the measures are complex and require considering several indicators of performance (see Figure 1-- on file in the Board's office). The performance measures and indicators are the basis for an information system, the purpose of which is to foster internal improvements and provide external accountability.

At the November 1997 meeting, the Board approved a schedule for implementing the performance indicators in phases. Phase one involved completing analysis of System and campus data for the indicators for which baseline data are collected and maintained already. Baseline data for the performance indicators were to be presented in two installments -- a System report and campus reports.

Baseline Performance

At the March 1998 meeting, the Board reviewed the Performance Measures and Indicators: 1998 Interim System Report, which presented performance data for phase one and some phase two indicators. The Board also approved the adoption of the target-setting methods used by the Oregon Progress Board in establishing Oregon Benchmarks and directed institutions to return in June 1998 with performance data, improvement targets, and brief descriptions of initiatives to achieve targets.

For the institution reports due in June, the Chancellor's Office supplied most of the data to ensure consistency of data definition and collection conventions. The institutions reviewed the information with their educational communities to develop performance trend descriptions, targets for 2005, and initiatives to achieve targets. Targets were developed based on the historical performance of an institution and in the development of these targets, several institutions aligned the performance indicator effort with ongoing planning activities. For example:

Institutions are beginning to use performance measures not only to clarify and communicate strategy, but also to manage strategy. OUS wants to use the new measurement system to communicate its effectiveness and align the System with newer strategies. This means focusing on existing processes as well as on generating growth opportunities by offering innovative educational programs and services desired by customers. The Chancellor's staff anticipates that the indicators will change as the System builds on the anticipated rich implementation experiences over the coming years.

Limitations of Indicators

As performance indicators were developed, a primary criterion for their selection was the availability of data. The indicators do not necessarily capture the full complexity and fluidity of the higher education environment. For example, a six-year graduation rate from an institution where the student started is used as an indicator of quality. Yet, some students begin at one institution with the full intention of completing a degree at another for myriad reasons (e.g., personal finances, family responsibilities, program offerings). Others enroll in classes but do not intend to complete a degree.

Implementation of performance indicators will also be affected by factors outside the scope of the institution's control or as a trade-off for other decisions. For example:

OUS Process Changes

Partnerships

Economy

With these limitations in mind, the campuses are establishing targets for improvement, identifying strategic initiatives, and considering needed investments.

The purpose of the performance indicators is to improve what each institution does in comparison to past performance and external standards (based on an institution's peers). This process prompts these questions: (1) how well are we doing compared to ten years ago? (2) how well are we doing compared to others? , and (3) how good do we want to be? The baseline performance of the institutions is summarized in three ways:

Detailed institutional reports include performance data, trend directions, targets for 2005, and initiatives. These are provided in a full report in the supplemental section of the Board materials. (The institution reports do not yet provide comparisons with external peers as the identification of peer institutions was not completed in time for setting targets. Later reports will include "stretch targets" based on an analysis of performance of peer institutions.)

Overview of Institution Reports

An overview of the baseline performance of the institutions provides a different perspective from the 1998 Interim System Report, which focused on how well the System as a whole is doing.

This overview of the campus reports focuses on an aggregate view of how well each campus is doing compared to its own past performance. The overview does not compare the performance of one OUS institution against the performance of another OUS institution. For example, the question is not: Is the graduation rate at OSU higher or lower than the graduation rate of another System university? Rather, the question is: is the graduation rate at OSU improving over time? This view allows for differences in institutions -- missions, programs, and customers. In the overview, one is able to quickly determine for a specific indicator how many of the campuses are headed in the right direction. This overview is organized by the four Board goals -- quality, access, employability, and cost effectiveness.

QUALITY GOAL

Rates at which entering freshmen stay in school and graduate within six years (cohorts entering 1987 through 1991 and excluding OUS transfers)

Rates at which Oregon community college transfer students graduate within six years (cohorts entering 1987 through 1989 and including OUS transfers).

The total number of credits earned by community college transfers for a baccalaureate decreased for four campuses (OSU, PSU, SOU, UO) reflecting campus efforts to smooth the transfer process and positive trending for four campuses (OSU, PSU, SOU, UO), but increased slightly for three campuses (EOU, OIT, WOU).

Success of graduates on national and state professional licensure and certification exams

Overall student/alumni satisfaction with education received

ACCESS GOAL

Oregon high school completers enrolling as first-time freshmen (cohorts entering 1987 through 1996).

Regional access for undergraduate and graduate students (baseline data for 1996 only).

Top high school scholars attending Oregon universities (cohorts entering 1987 through 1997).

Diversity of students attending Oregon universities (cohorts entering 1987 through 1997).

EMPLOYABILITY GOAL

Percentage of graduates who are employed and/or enrolled in graduate/professional schools (baseline data for 1994-95 graduates).

Percentage of graduates who complete internships (baseline data for 1994-95 graduates).

COST-EFFECTIVENESS GOAL

Research grants and contract expenditures

Alternative revenue sources (e.g., fundraising)

The trends and targets are summarized in separate tables for each campus (Tables 1-7). Because this overview does not provide explanations for performance trends, readers are directed for context information, the reader is directed to the campus profiles and to the institution reports included in the Board's supplemental materials (on file in the Board's office).

Reports to Board and Legislature

Baseline data for phase one and two indicators for which data are maintained were to be presented in two installments. Baseline data for phase two indicators that involve new data collection efforts (e.g., return on the state's investment, cost measures, unmet workforce needs, and faculty salaries) are to be reported to the Board in November 1998. Thereafter, institutions will report annually on their accomplishments. The Chancellor's Office will track achievement of common and mission-specific goals. An annual report on System performance will be made to the Board in November. A biennial report for the legislature will be prepared based on System performance. A format and process for this performance report needs to be developed.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board direct Chancellor's staff to return in July 1998 with a format for a performance report and a recommendation for a process for "grading" System performance.

Board Discussion and Action

In beginning the discussion of performance measures and indicators, Vice Chancellor Clark reminded the Board that the materials and recommendation being presented built on the work that was presented to the Board in March. She observed that there were many points of connection between the Oregon Progress Board report and the work of OUS institutions because, "We have, in a very deliberate fashion, tried to align ourselves with the Oregon Benchmarking process. The Board took action in January 1997 to establish four overarching goals that reflect the needs of the state. The performance measurement process we have been shaping since is a Systemwide effort to improve and focus what we do and to be more accountable to our many constituencies.

"This is a national trend as well," Dr. Clark continued. "A study estimated that at least 37 states now use performance measures in some way for quality improvement, to better inform customers and constituents. In approximately ten states, it is used to allocate some small percentage of budgetary resources to campuses on the basis of performance as measured by selected indicators.

"I was interested in Mr. Tryens' reminder that the Progress Board has, since 1988-89, made a number of changes and refinements in the Benchmarks including greatly diminishing the total number of benchmarks. I think that we are probably on the high side when we look at the numerous indicators under the nine major areas. But we do feel that we are making progress."

Dr. Nancy Goldschmidt reviewed the process and progress to date on the development of the performance measures and indicators. "There are two key reasons for having performance indicators," she reminded the Board. "One is to be accountable to our various publics and customers and the other is for internal improvement. When we are using these to measure performance, there are three basic questions we ask: 1) how good are we compared to ten years ago? 2) how well are we doing compared to others?, and 3) how good do we want to be?"

Dr. Goldschmidt concluded by indicating that it is not so much the numbers that each institution is proposing, but the "fact that we are starting where the campuses are and measuring improvement against their own past performance. We are not necessarily comparing campuses against each other.

"What we will do in moving from where we are today -- in July we will work on the kind of report card that we want to report progress. In September the campuses will begin work on refining their initiatives so that we can prepare a report card for the next legislative session. And, finally, we will begin to implement the next phases of indicators, most of which require new data collection efforts," Dr. Goldschmidt said.

President Aschkenasy asked if there were a mechanism in place to feed back the results and indicators and add to or change them. Dr. Clark responded that the institutions are beginning to be more clear about what indicators are more meaningful than others and invited the Board members to engage in discussion around those as well. "We think, and our recommendation to you today indicates, that moving toward the format of a performance report card and process for 'grading' the System performance is very important."

Dr. Clark said that each institution would briefly highlight their plans, adding that, "All of the indicators on which we are reporting at the present time are those for which we have numerical data."

EASTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

Provost Bruce Shepard indicated that the overriding objective for EOU was to increase the size of the institution by 25 percent over the next decade. This would include increases both of the residential student body and the number of extended degree program students. One of the ways proposed to achieve this increase is to improve the graduation and retention rates. "We are expanding programs that have demonstrated capacity to grow, improving our orientation of students from the beginning, and orienting faculty to see the payoffs in increased graduation rates. By growing, we can then shift our overhead costs down as a proportion of our budget and shift more revenues to achieving other objectives," Mr. Shepard highlighted.

OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

President Martha Anne Dow observed that OIT has an advantage relative to the Oregon Shines report and benchmarks that relate to having the best educated and trained workforce in Oregon. "In our 1997 statistics, we have a 98 percent placement rate of our graduates and we have achieved an excellent rating from employer satisfaction data on seven out of ten skills. But we know that we need to be more accessible and improve our student head count," President Dow pointed out. OIT also will concentrate on persistence and retention of freshmen as a key target for OIT's growth as well as increasing the number of community college transfers.

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Provost Roy Arnold said that one of the most important areas for OSU is to create earlier and stronger connections for new students to improve retention rates. He pointed out two specific programs, one being a summer advising program and the other a fall term orientation. "What is noticeable about the fall program is that it is taught by pairing volunteer faculty and students." Dr. Arnold indicated that OSU is doing well in the area of external grants and contracts and the plan is to sustain the high level. In closing, he observed, "The targets are currently focused on trend data the institution has. Second, the performance measures are useful and helpful in focusing discussions. And third, everyone of the measures require faculty effort and focus and they are the same faculty."

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Provost Michael Reardon indicated to the Board that PSU was emphasizing many of the same things as the other institutions. He indicated that PSU, compared to many other urban institutions, had a low retention rate to graduation and a goal was to improve that. "We are looking at the nature of services that we provide students in terms of their satisfaction with PSU. We are striving to serve a very diverse student body and we must respond to them both programmatically and also in service. PSU is working on performance measures in conjunction with three other specific projects on a national basis that give us another way of looking at our development in terms of comparator institutions," Mr. Reardon concluded.

SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

President Steve Reno highlighted the work of SOU and mentioned three important events leading to the development of the indicators: the annexation of Jackson County by Rogue Community College Service District, the loss of institutional research capacity as a result of budget cuts, and the completion of a strategic planning effort that showed that difficult choices had been made and would continue to be made regarding the nature of courses offered. SOU will concentrate on improvement of retention to graduation, increase the number of community college transfers, increase internship programs, and the initiation of the largest capital campaign in Southern's history.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

Provost John Moseley referred Board members to a paper, UO in the 21st Century," which details the UO's strategic planning efforts. He pointed out that one of the goals is transformation of the general education process which the institution has determined has been "a little too diffuse and scattered." UO is also initiating strategies to assist in orienting freshmen students. "One of the concerns is that the freshmen to sophomore retention rate was higher in the 80s than it is now," Dr. Moseley pointed out. This will be an important focus for the institution. Finally, he said that funding for research was high and the private fundraising was up 300 percent.

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

Provost John Minahan said that ten years ago, Western was 25 percent smaller and that the growth occurred at the same time that funding was decreasing. He added that, "Like the other institutions, Western was focusing on graduation and retention rates among freshmen and transfer students. We have a very large open front door and very large back door where students leave us so quickly. We want to close the back door," Dr. Minahan emphasized. He also pointed out that WOU wants to improve articulation between community colleges and institutions in the System.

In closing the institution reports, Dr. Minahan observed, "In one sense we set these performance indicators a little bit as if the cart were before the horse. We would like to see the budget before we go too much further. Having strained for ten years with growth, we are hesitant to set many more of these indicators until we actually see the dollars." Chancellor Cox agreed this was a concern for the System and the Board.

Ms. Wustenberg asked for clarification of new customers and the definition of customer. Vice Chancellor Clark responded that this was an attempt by the System to be more market oriented and speak in terms better understood by the public.

Since all of the institutions emphasized the importance of increasing graduation rates, Chancellor Cox asked, "If a student begins, for example, at Eastern and graduates within the time period we are talking about from the UO, who gets the credit?" Provost Shepard responded that it would show up in the rate of students who graduate from an OUS institution. "We have a major issue in that we believe that students who come to EOU to complete an agriculture degree, in conjunction with OSU, or a nursing degree in conjunction with OHSU must be considered in our graduation rate. But we are still discussing that."

Ms. Wustenberg asked who sets the goal in areas such as fund raising. "Does someone at a different level in the Chancellor's Office have the capacity to say that the target isn't high enough? Who sets them?"

Vice Chancellor Clark reminded the Board that at this point the target setting has been done by the campuses with encouragement for variation to be sure that the campus situation has been taken into account. "It will be an important consideration for us to look overall to better understand the nature of the situations and the targets and then ask if they are ambitious enough. It gets very complicated because in some areas where campuses are already showing considerable success, it is harder to go to the next level than it may be to move if you are in the middle or toward the lower end. It is very tempting for me to do some standardized target setting, but then we would not be paying enough attention to individual campus missions."

Chancellor Cox added that the bottom line is, if a member of the Board is not satisfied that the targets are ambitious enough, they should express the concern.

Mr. Lussier added that another important aspect is to look at System performance measures and how those, in turn, relate to each of the institution's measures so that there is an understanding about how well the entire System is doing. Mr. Imeson added that there might be other areas where the Board should review Systemwide goals. "Maybe we want to look at fairly simple math and see whether the overall headcount goals of the institutions add up to something that we think is the right number for the System."

It was pointed out that several external studies by groups such as the Oregon Business Council and Associated Oregon Industries indicate that one of the fastest growing areas of demand is for lifelong education and yet the statistics from the institutions indicate that there has been an overall decline of students 35 and older. Chancellor Cox asked, "Is that because we have it all in continuing education and once we have a new budget model where everything is counted the real numbers will show?"

Vice Chancellor Clark responded that some of the students were being counted in other ways. "There are very strongly held beliefs about lifelong learning and we need to know more. Are they going somewhere else? We don't know that fully. There are many providers and it is very, very difficult to get your hands around the whole picture. I think we tend to believe that the number of lifelong learners will increase, but we are not overall seeing increases at the level of the rhetoric."

Ms. Puentes asked about what appeared to be a decline in the number of community college transfers. "Do we have a feel for what is happening to those students? Are they going elsewhere?" she asked. Dr. Clark indicated that the answers are not entirely clear but that there were more data about that than appeared in this document.

Mr. Lussier raised a related issue regarding the readiness for higher education of high school students coming out of the K-12 experience. "Maybe we could establish some end measures that can be tracked and help us communicate back to the other board," he said.

Dr. Aschkenasy closed the discussion by indicating this would be an ongoing topic and one of refinement and change. He thanked Vice Chancellor Clark, her staff, and the individuals from the institutions for an impressive amount of work.

Ms. McAllister moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

Institution Profiles

EASTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

EOU is a trail-blazing institution -- within Oregon and nationally -- in the development of strategies for effectively and economically serving the needs of a large, rural region. These strategies include the extension of degree programs (not just courses) to those who are time as well as placebound; the development of myriad partnerships, both public and private; the creation of strong residential programs; the extension of targeted attention to community and economic development; and the employment of cutting-edge, as well as established, technologies. Eastern has established a capacity to flourish within an emerging competitive environment where the requirements are to seek out, fully comprehend, and quickly and creatively respond to people's needs. Growth, through new programs, on- and off-campus expansion, and through improved recruitment and retention, becomes a paramount strategic objective if EOU is to have the cost structure that will allow it to fully apply its demonstrated entrepreneurial capacity in service to Oregon. Growth alone is not enough, though, and will be complemented by attention to continually improving the quality of the undergraduate experience. Eastern also believes that, within such an environment, the need for regional institutions -- and EOU's regional mission -- is increased. The role of a regional institution derives not from attempting to control access but springs from aggressively expanding access by articulating regional needs and then meeting those needs through creative collaboration and partnerships.

Priorities for Targets

Eastern's aspiration is to have the highest retention and graduation rates in the State System.

Eastern will increase enrollment -- including students attending programs on the La Grande campus as well as those completing degrees at a distance -- by 25 percent.

Eastern will increase the proportion of this increased student body who are ethnic or racial minority students, doing so at a rate of increase at least comparable to that achieved over the preceding decade.

The University will seek to provide opportunities for internships, international experiences, and meaningful involvement with faculty on research or creative activities for all undergraduates.

Working in close partnership with Blue Mountain Community College and Treasure Valley Community College, Eastern must assure the success of the Eastern Oregon Collaborative Colleges Center.

The University will significantly build its endowment as one means of providing the resources necessary to reach other targets.

Freed from traditional concerns and constraints having to do with "turf" and seeming duplication, Eastern will add academic programs as both a means of growing and as a means of providing the resources necessary to grow.

EOU intends to provide an ever better quality of education to more students while working in close collaboration with partners, to ever more effectively meet the cultural, community development, and economic development needs of the eastern Oregon community.

OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

OIT is the only public institute of technology in the Pacific Northwest. As such, OIT provides a service to all the citizens of Oregon. Through its Metro operations located in Clackamas, at the CAPITAL Center in Beaverton, and the main campus in Klamath Falls, OIT provides high quality baccalaureate degree programs in engineering technology, management, health technology, and applied sciences. With a placement rate in excess of 98 percent (based on 1997 figures), OIT graduates can expect to enjoy long and productive careers.

Priorities for Targets

The performance indicators will be a focus of the Strategic Plan "Shaping the Future of Technology Education," as it is revitalized during 1998-99. The data reported on the following pages will detail the extent to which OIT is fulfilling its statewide mission as well as some areas for improvement. Among the key strengths of OIT are:

OIT graduates consistently meet or exceed state, regional, and national standards on professional licensure exams;
OIT students rate the quality of their educational experiences very high;
Employers are very satisfied with OIT graduates;
OIT draws its students from every county and economic region of Oregon; and
The OIT Foundation is growing markedly.

Despite strengths in the above areas, there is room for improvement. OIT has set realistic targets for improving the quality of education, acceptable levels for passage of licensure exams, and attracting new students from underrepresented counties (particularly the metro areas) and students of greater diversity.

Among the key issues confronting OIT in the near future are the need to continue to grow student enrollment, develop sponsored research, improve the diversity of student population, and expand the OIT/industry education partnerships. The implementation of performance indicators will require additional resources for institutional research services. Improvements in these areas will be accomplished by:

  1. Recruiting more high ability freshmen;
  2. Providing better advising;
  3. Refining placement indicators;
  4. Emphasizing student success seminars;
  5. Encouraging greater involvement in applied research;
  6. Developing new degree programs to meet state needs;
  7. Marketing OIT degree programs throughout the region and nation; and
  8. Developing an Applied Technology Center.

Through achievement of performance objectives, OIT will expand the access to quality technology programs throughout the Pacific Northwest and will enhance the economy of Oregon's citizens through key partnerships with industry and other educational institutions.

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Outcomes assessment and accountability will become a more central and integral part of OSU's regular, ongoing self-evaluation and improvement process. Performance indicators will illustrate OSU's commitment to evaluating its mission of serving "... the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through education, research, and service." In this context, performance indicators will be used by OSU to help refine priorities, strengthen quality, and improve productivity. The goals of performance indicator use will include:

  1. Strengthening the existing quality of instructional, research, and public service programs.
  2. Expanding access to diverse students (OSU Statewide; international exchange programs; achievement and access scholarships; minority and cultural student groups).
  3. Achieving cost-effectiveness appropriate to OSU's mission.
  4. Enhancing the employability of its graduates.
  5. Incorporating assessment and performance indicator information into the next full accreditation, which is scheduled for spring 2001.

Priorities for Targets

OSU's goals apply to the learning needs of Oregonians in their many roles -- as students, parents, workers/employers, and citizens, and it does this by employing OSU's many and varied strengths and talents in collaborative and productive ways. In order to achieve a top tier institutional status and to provide compelling learning experiences, OSU designs and delivers programs and services to meet its stakeholders' needs effectively, efficiently, and economically. The proposed performance indicators will provide a basis for setting targets and measuring the results achieved by OSU.

Data for some of the performance indicators reside either at OSU or at OUS. For others, new efforts and additional assessment funding, such as survey information gleaned from students, alumni, and employers, will be required. The following represents a few highlights and future priorities as they relate to performance indicators and assessment at OSU:

  1. Performance indicator priorities include: improvement of student retention and graduation rates; recruiting more diverse students and those with higher GPA's and SAT scores; expanding program availability and access through OSU Statewide and collaborative 2+2 programs with community colleges; expanding external funding; and increasing student learning and employability through internships and work related experiences.
  2. Assessment planning priorities include: recognizing the importance and enhancing the institutional research and planning functions and services that are provided to the University; establishing an OSU Assessment Council to oversee, coordinate, and report on the various institutional-level assessment activities and those within academic units and administrative offices; and conducting a review of OSU's Baccalaureate Core.

In sum, the goal of OSU is to offer a compelling learning experience, to strengthen and enhance its reputation as a top-tier institution of higher education, and to extend OSU's programs to the state of Oregon. The purpose of performance indicators will be to improve upon what OSU is, in many areas, already doing quite well. OSU will strive to reach these and other selected goals/objectives based on a comparison with past performances. As performance indicator targets are realized, OSU should be compensated fiscally with budget augmentations whenever these collective and collaborative institutional efforts and targeted goals are either met or exceeded. Compensation for performance-based achievements will allow OSU to further improve the quality of its instructional, research, and outreach services, to further expand student access, to maintain reasonable cost-effectiveness, and to ensure the employability of its graduates.

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

PSU is Oregon's urban public institution, enrolling more than 32,000 students in credit courses during the academic year. Central to PSU's mission are programs and services designed to enhance access to higher education, provide a quality liberal arts education and opportunities for professional and graduate study in areas relevant to the metropolitan region, encourage community research and service, and promote diversity and cultural understanding. Progress toward performance indicators related to these aspects of PSU's institutional context and mission will receive the greatest emphasis.

Priorities for Targets

PSU has dedicated resources from both internal and external sources toward efforts to improve student retention and graduation, expand access to students of different circumstances, enhance graduate employability, and promote lifelong learning. Of key interest to PSU are indicators focused on completion of internships as part of the academic experience, racial and ethnic representation within the student body, programs and services for returning adult students and community college transfers, and assessment of student learning across the curriculum. Additional resources will be needed to continue administration of student and alumni satisfaction surveys, provide additional scholarships and other forms of financial aid to attract and retain students from diverse backgrounds and circumstances, facilitate the systematic collection of assessment data, and expand faculty development opportunities.

As progress is made toward targets, PSU will continue to gather, analyze, and disseminate information related to performance measures. Its focus is not simply on the realization of targets, but on the opportunities performance measurements will provide for reflection and review. This process of continuous review will benefit both the institution and its constituents as programs and services intended to provide quality higher education to the metropolitan area, the state, and the region are developed or enhanced. Performance targets provide PSU with a framework for improvement and a means of ensuring that it continues to provide a high level of service within OUS.

SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

A recent Northwest Association Accreditation visiting team concluded: "The community has made heroic efforts to do more with less during the past decade. The visiting team recommends that Southern make use of its new mission statement and strategic plans to inform difficult choices about priorities...." To that end, SOU recently released its planning document entitled Focusing Southern's Mission by Building on Strengths. This document brings Southern's vision, strategic plan, and budget into alignment. The document does not plan to a budget, but budgets to a plan. Performance indicators will be compared with Southern's targets. The identified performance targets flow down from strategic objectives released in the plan. The performance indicators will serve as a strategic assessment of Southern's existing mission and goals and will focus on the institution's distinctive characteristics.

Priorities for Targets

Priority targets (specific targets, strategies, and rationale are provided in the full report) for SOU include:

  1. Increasing the total number of community college transfers who graduate from SOU;
  2. Implementing the comprehensive assessment plan;
  3. Increasing the number of graduates and alumni who rate the quality of education good to excellent;
  4. Coordinating with Rogue Community College to increase access to postsecondary education;
  5. Changing the mix of total enrollment by increasing transfer and upper division students;
  6. Increasing the number of SOU graduates who are employed or continuing their education; and
  7. Continuing the growth in foundation revenues.

SOU needs resources to staff institutional research efforts. The production of performance measurement data will enable Southern to monitor efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of programs and services, and is a desired management practice.

The value of realizing these performance targets for Southern includes:

  1. Improving student learning;
  2. Demonstrating SOU's educational effectiveness to the public and prospective students;
  3. Providing an additional incentive for achieving institutional and programmatic goals;
  4. Increasing response between integrated service units; and
  5. Providing information for program accreditation and external peer review.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

The UO's "Process for Change" is focusing discussion among faculty, students and staff to provide the framework for significant changes and improvements in all areas of the University, taking into account the needs of students and of the state as we enter the 21st century.

UO is transforming general education, with a highly personalized focus on learning and advising opportunities in the freshman and sophomore years. The University is also expanding the flexibility and learning opportunities of its upper division, graduate and research programs, extending educational services to nontraditional populations and lifelong learners, strengthening its common bonds as a learning community, and connecting more directly with its external constituencies through a vigorous program of marketing and other outreach activities.

Priorities for Targets

The UO has initiated the following, which tie directly to the performance indicators:

  1. Increased emphasis on the first year experience, which positively impacts both retention and graduation rates.
  2. Increased student involvement in inquiry-based learning experiences through research, internships, practice, portfolios, service learning, and capstone projects.
  3. Increased attention focused on the creation of ethnically and culturally diverse communities through recruitment, financial aid, and coordination of campus resources in curriculum, advising, and other support services.
  4. Expanded opportunities for high achieving students in honors programs.
  5. Expanded opportunities for nontraditional students with innovative course offerings and new locations for continuing education in downtown Eugene and downtown Portland.
  6. Renewed commitment to collaboration across all parts of the University, involving student, faculty, and staff.

The broad campus participation in the "Process for Change" is a strong indication of the commitment of the UO to excellence in education and in service to Oregon. The UO is confident that we can demonstrate marked improvement in the areas of students recruitment, with a focus on higher ability students as well as on a more diverse students population, students retention and time to degree. In addition, UO believes it can show increased qualitative and quantitative improvement in student collaboration in faculty research, in recruitment of lifelong learners, and in internship offerings.

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

Observation And Goals

  1. Six-year graduation and retention rates for freshmen and transfer students require improvement from the mid 60 percent to the mid- 70 percent level.
  2. The visibility of WOU's undergraduate programs in the arts, sciences, business and computer science needs to be improved in Oregon's northwest coast and central Oregon counties.
  3. WOU's graduate program visibility needs to be increased in the same northwest counties.
  4. Improvement in graduated student satisfaction: academic major selection and degree requirements.

Priorities for Targets

The highest priorities are as follows:

  1. Six-year freshmen retention/graduation rates;
  2. Six-year cumulative retention/graduation rates; and
  3. Improved northwest region student access/participation.

The next highest priority is as follows:

  1. Improved Student Advisement

Improved undergraduate and transfer student retention will reduce program costs per student credit hour. Improved program advisement will both improve retention rates among freshmen and transfer students and improve graduated student satisfaction levels.

The need to improve student advisement in regard to the selection of academic majors is demonstrated by the high number of freshmen and transfer students who appear to be entering Western without specific career goals in mind (40 percent of freshmen and 30 percent plus of transfers). Better advisement should improve retention rates and effect cost per credit hour efficiencies.

B.A./B.S. IN COMPUTER SCIENCE/MULTIMEDIA STUDIES, EOU

Introduction

Eastern Oregon University requested authorization to offer the baccalaureate degree in Computer Science/Multimedia Studies, effective fall term 1998. The Board reviewed a preproposal for this program at the February 20, 1998, meeting.

Enhanced access was the fundamental reason for legislative funding of the Eastern Oregon Collaborative Colleges Center (EOCCC), and this proposed degree program is one of the key initiatives by which the EOCCC partners seek to expand access to higher education in the eastern region. Eastern, in close collaboration with Blue Mountain Community College (BMCC) and Treasure Valley Community College (TVCC), and as part of the new regional partnership funding, proposes to re-establish computer science offerings at EOU and provide a baccalaureate program in Computer Science/Multimedia Studies.

The proposed program follows the pattern at Eastern (which is appropriate for a university of Eastern's size) of bringing together related disciplines within a single degree program rather than attempting to establish separate programs. Fully deliverable on all three campuses and by distance-learning methods throughout the region, this program will have two distinct tracks with a common core. It has the strong support of the leadership of BMCC and TVCC and the involvement of their faculty. If approved, the program would admit freshmen in the fall, then phase in the program over three years.

Staff Analysis

1. Relationship to Mission

Eastern's mission is "to serve the educational, social, cultural, and economic needs of the ten eastern-most counties of Oregon through high-quality programs of instruction, research, and service." Several features of this program highlight its direct alignment with these mission goals. First, the educational needs of students include obtaining strong computer literacy. Not only would the proposed program support majors, but students in other programs who seek additional computer skills as well. Second, it responds to Eastern's mission (and clear legislative mandate) to increase access to higher education in the eastern region of the state. Finally, the program was developed with a clear eye toward future employment options (and, thus, economic needs).

2. Evidence of Need

Currently, Eastern is the only one of the seven OUS institutions lacking a baccalaureate program in the computer science area.

Student Demand. Evidence of need is demonstrated by the many inquiries Eastern has received in response to very limited and informal preliminary publicity concerning this program. The EOU Admissions Office reports that the most frequently asked question they receive is whether Eastern offers a computer science program. This program targets current and potential students who would otherwise select another major, not continue their education, or be forced to leave the area to continue their education. Current pre-engineering, business-oriented, or placebound students who are not pursuing a degree but wish to upgrade their skills are other examples of those who may take advantage of this degree program.

It is anticipated that, after two years, the program would serve ten majors per year in computer science and five in multimedia studies on campus, for a total of 60 majors (freshman through senior) on campus. Students at BMCC and TVCC would increase the total number of students to 90.

Employment and Internship Opportunities. Staff has had informal reports from various Oregon higher education institutions (community colleges and OUS schools) that not only do their computer science graduates have 100 percent employment rates, but that companies are recruiting these students before they even complete their academic program. Job prospects are bright and salaries are relatively high. Possible career options include Web page construction, consulting, data analysis, and modeling in federal and state agencies with regional offices, computer sales, media, and public relations. Multimedia is also a very lucrative field currently. Although many jobs require a master's in engineering, there are ample opportunities for baccalaureate graduates in such areas as multimedia design, development, marketing, multimedia training, and technical writing.

This degree would feed into work with governmental agencies such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which employ fairly extensive data analysis and modeling of environmental issues. With a subfocus on issues of computer security, graduates would be helping to make policy and construct systems that ensure the public's continued confidence in using the computer for banking, shopping, etc. With a subfocus on multimedia design and applications, graduates would be touching consumers across the board.

Locally, Eastern has had inquiries about potential employees and overtures for practicum partnerships with Grande Ronde Hospital, the city of La Grande, Boise Cascade, the Center for Human Development, D2 Enterprises, the Forest and Rangeland Resources Lab, and EOU's Computing and Telecommunications.

3. Quality of the Proposed Program

The proposed program offers a common core in the theoretical components of the discipline, and then allows students to select one of two tracks: computer science or multimedia studies. Courses in the core will orient students to both tracks, and will be team taught by faculty from both specialties.

The core sequence acquaints students with the theories behind computer applications. Introductory core materials include computer organizations; social and ethical issues in computing; analysis of algorithms; symbolic logic; principles and problems involved in development of an operating system; theory and practice of principles of design in multimedia, computer-enhanced, and computer-generated environments; syntactic and execution characteristics of object-oriented programming; and the theory and practice of multimedia programming.

Each track offers specialized instruction in techniques and applications. Computer Science students learn about programming, architecture, compiler design, artificial intelligence, software engineering, statistical and scientific computing, information systems management, programming languages, systems analysis, data structures and database management, and networking and network administration. Multimedia Studies students focus on computer graphics and animation, applied discourse theory, simulation politics, the electronic word, electronic music, digital photography, telemedia, and interactive multimedia. The multimedia track requires a practicum and both tracks offer a capstone experience in which individual work may be linked to a work environment.

4. Adequacy of Resources to Offer the Program

Resources needed for the program include faculty FTE within the major, offices, upgrades to computer labs and computing capabilities, and support for the impacts that increased student numbers will have on course enrollments outside the major. These resources will be provided through a variety of means. Two permanent tenure-track positions have been created through internal reallocation. One additional fixed-term appointment will be made using EOCCC funding. In addition, both BMCC and TVCC will add a faculty position to support this program (also funded through the EOCCC). Lab and computing upgrades would be funded through a combination of EOCCC funds and, where appropriate and recommended by a joint student/faculty committee, a portion of the technology resource fee funds. Funds have been budgeted, through internal reallocation, to cover needs for additional sections of general education courses as expected program growth affects offerings outside of the major. Space needs will be met using internal reallocation made possible because Ackerman Hall is no longer used as a laboratory school.

Program Review

The proposed program has been reviewed positively by all appropriate institutional committees and the Academic Council.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board authorize Eastern Oregon University to establish a program leading to the B.A./B.S. in Computer Science/Multimedia Studies, effective fall term 1998, with a follow-up review of the program to be conducted by the Oregon University System Office of Academic Affairs in the 2003-04 academic year.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Clark reminded the Board that this program had been reviewed as a preproposal at the February meeting.

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. McAllister seconded the motion to approve the program. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

B.A./B.S. IN WOMEN'S STUDIES, UO

Introduction

The University of Oregon requested authorization to offer a baccalaureate degree in Women's Studies, effective fall term 1998. The Board reviewed a preproposal for this program at the April 18, 1997, meeting.

Staff Analysis

1. Relationship to Mission

The University's mission, approved in September 1997, states that it "serves its students and the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through the creation and transfer of knowledge in the liberal arts, the natural and social sciences, and the professions." The UO also has an explicit "commitment to undergraduate education, with a goal of helping the individual learn to question critically, think logically, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically," and accepts "the challenge of an evolving social, political, and technological environment by welcoming and guiding change rather than reacting to it."

The proposed program supports and furthers these mission directions. Women's Studies is an interdisciplinary field that combines academic efforts to integrate the study of women's lives, past and present, with a theoretical analysis of gender in many cultures. In addition to students gaining an understanding of women's experiences and achievements and learning how gender shapes and functions in societies, they will learn to think critically and communicate clearly.

2. Evidence of Need

Institutional Needs

Access. The Women's Studies program at UO has been part of the College of Arts and Sciences since 1976; a minor degree and graduate certificate are currently offered. Approximately 12 courses are taught regularly in Women's Studies, enrolling about 1,100 students per year. Summer Session enrollments are also increasing. In addition, Women's Studies cross-lists about 40 gender-related courses per year. The Women's Studies program has always served part-time and continuing education students and, every summer, a full range of weekend workshops are offered. PSU is the only other OUS institution with a baccalaureate degree program in Women's Studies, and the two programs were developed cooperatively. Since the faculties at UO and PSU highlight different subspecialties, students majoring at one school may take courses for credit at the other institution. The faculty at PSU and UO are also exploring the possibility of coordinating long-distance learning projects.

More than 100 students currently minor in Women's Studies, and many of them have expressed a desire to major in the field. Two years ago, a survey of 364 students in Women's Studies classes revealed that 45 percent of them would be interested in a women's studies major if it were available. If the proposed program is approved, Women's Studies anticipates 30 to 50 majors in the next five years, with a graduation rate of 10 to 15 students per year.

Academic. Lack of academic coherence for students pursuing a course of study is another evidence of need. Currently, approximately 370 students take Women's Studies courses each quarter, and they can take gender-related courses from a number of departments in no particular sequence. A major in Women's Studies would lead students systematically from the introductory issues courses to theory and research methods, interdisciplinary thematic courses, and disciplinary foci.

Discipline. As it was explained more thoroughly in the background paper provided to the Board in September 1997, Women's Studies is a mature field of scholarship. Student interest has continued to be robust and the number of faculty members with a specialty in gender or Women's Studies has also increased. The only way in which the University has not kept pace with national developments is the lack of an undergraduate major.

Community Needs

One of the achievements of Women's Studies has been to make gender an explicit, serious category of interdisciplinary study and analysis. Gender (the cultural definition of what it means to be male or female) is at once the most intimate and universal distinction made between persons. We learn of it and our place within gender in early childhood; it exists as an important distinction in all known societies. Responsible citizens in modern society should be made aware of the repercussions of how we define gender and be prepared for cultural distinctions and changes in how it influences social organization and decision making.

Every economic indicator shows women increasing their participation in the labor force and entering new and different trades and professions. Employers and employees have begun to adjust, and will need to continue to adjust, to this influx of female workers. In the long run, it will require our society to reconceptualize how work is defined and structured so that there is a better "fit" between the needs of the labor market and the needs of family life. Students who have majored in Women's Studies will be prepared to address these issues and develop creative solutions -- as employers, employees, and citizens.

More specifically, Women's Studies will prepare students for many careers that focus on serving the needs of women and children. Graduates from women's studies programs across the U.S. have found employment in such fields as social service and mental health provision, job development and training, industry consulting, human resources, education, communications, public relations, and medicine.

The current UO program has developed ties with the Career Center on campus, which provides students with workshops on resume writing, interviewing skills, and information on post-graduation internship opportunities. Those students electing to participate in the internship will have direct experience with agencies and organizations that connect knowledge with practical application. For all students in the program, the academic rigor and interdisciplinary nature will prepare them for further work in the professions or academia.

3. Quality of the Proposed Program

Curriculum. Students will complete 48 credits in Women's Studies and a minimum of 24 credits in another department or program, with the approval of a Women's Studies advisor. Students may pursue one of two tracks: one culminates with a senior research paper (thesis or project), and the other with an eight-credit internship. This internship with community agencies is tied to an academic seminar that focuses on the history of agencies that serve women, the feminization of poverty, the history of welfare and its effect on women and children, and the economic and political place of nonprofit and nongovernment organizations. The course also examines the literature on organizational structure and funding. The purpose of the course is to allow students to critically examine the agencies in which they work and their own experience, and to give them insight into the economic and political realities of community nonprofit organizations.

All of the courses require papers that are carefully evaluated and criticized to help students improve their subject understanding and communication ability. The program also takes advantage of the most recent developments in information technology. Students will be encouraged to become fluent in the use of networking tools such as the Web, file transfer protocol (FTP), and Telnet. In particular, when students reach the stage of doing research for their senior projects, they will be encouraged to use information technology to draw upon libraries, research centers, and on-line journals maintained at institutions throughout the world.

Faculty. There are currently 2.67 FTE faculty, plus $20,000 to be used to "borrow" faculty from other departments or programs to teach the WST-prefix courses. (These funds allow five additional course offerings per year.) In addition, over 70 affiliated faculty members either teach courses cross-listed with Women's Studies or serve as resources for students doing papers and projects on women and gender. All core faculty have appropriate terminal degrees and extensive relevant experience and expertise.

4. Adequacy of Resources to Offer the Program

Current faculty are sufficient to support this program, and library resources are adequate. There will be some nominal costs for increased clerical support, additional library resources, and administrative needs; these will be met through reallocation within the University.

Program Review

The proposed program has been reviewed positively by all appropriate institutional committees and the Academic Council.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board authorize the University of Oregon to establish a program leading to the B.A. or B.S. in Women's Studies, effective fall term 1998, with a follow-up review of the program to be conducted by the OUS Office of Academic Affairs in the 2003-04 academic year.

Board Discussion and Action

Provost Moseley indicated that there has been a Women's Studies program as a minor at the UO for the past 20 years. The program is proposed as a major following increasing demand from students. "Women's Studies is, in fact, a pure area of social science scholarship and students move into areas of employment such as social service, mental health provision, job development, industry consulting, human resources, and public relations," Dr. Moseley explained.

Ms. Wustenberg commended the UO and PSU on the statement that the faculties of each institution possess different subspecialities and students majoring at one school may take courses for credit at the other institution and that faculty are also exploring the possibility of coordinating long-distance learning projects. "I really like to hear statements about collaboration like that," she added.

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Ms. Puentes seconded the staff recommendation to approve the program. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

B.A. IN JUDAIC STUDIES, UO

Introduction

The University of Oregon requested authorization to offer the baccalaureate degree in Judaic Studies, effective fall term 1999. This secular, interdisciplinary degree program is organized around inquiry into Jewish society, thought, and creative traditions considered in the context of the history of Western culture. While providing a broad liberal arts education, Judaic Studies also introduces students to the great contributions of Jewish thinkers and artists as aspects of a larger intellectual tradition. Once the program is fully implemented, UO anticipates approximately 20 students in the major.

Staff Analysis

1. Relationship to Mission

Judaic Studies supports UO's commitment to undergraduate education by offering opportunities for intense intellectual inquiry in small class settings and requiring senior capstone experiences in the major. The proposed program, which is nonsectarian, interdisciplinary, and appropriate for students with various religious and ethnic backgrounds, furthers the University's affirmation of diversity. Encouragement of study-abroad experiences reinforces the international aspects of UO's mission.

2. Evidence of Need

Student Interest. The first evidence of need grows out of nearly 20 years of discussion by faculty and students interested in establishing a program in this area. This ongoing conversation culminated in the 1996 conference on "Ethics After the Holocaust," which attracted international scholarly attention and stimulated extraordinary interest among students and faculty at the University as well as among a wide range of community groups throughout Oregon.

Students have lobbied intensively over the past two years for the creation of a Judaic Studies program. Several dozen frequently sign petitions requesting that Hebrew be offered on a regular basis. Typically, half a dozen students annually enroll in the University's collaborative program with Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Furthermore, the director of the UO Ethnic Studies program has indicated that students in that program are eager to see Judaic Studies established.

The only existing similar program in the Northwest region is at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Faculty Interest. The second evidence of need is demonstrated in specific responses of UO faculty. Over the past three years, more than 20 courses on Judaic Studies-related topics have been offered at the University, invariably generating substantial attendance. For instance, an unadvertised course in Beginning Hebrew offered two years ago enrolled over 20 students, even though at that time it did not satisfy the University's foreign language requirement for the B.A. A recent survey indicates that at least three dozen faculty teach and/or conduct research in related areas and have expressed interest in serving on a Judaic Studies Advisory Committee. Most of those faculty teach courses that could contribute to a Judaic Studies program.

Employment Opportunities. As a liberal arts program drawing on and contributing to the core disciplines of the University, and as a program emphasizing the development of research and writing skills, Judaic Studies will provide graduates with a broad background for a wide range of professional careers in such fields as business, journalism, law, teaching, and related areas. In addition, it provides a more specialized background for those students wishing to enter the growing fields of Jewish Communal Services and Jewish Education.

3. Quality of the Proposed Program

Curriculum. The proposed program will offer an integrated course of study centered on Judaic texts, traditions, and experience fundamental to Western intellectual history. It will provide training in Hebrew, social and economic history, philosophy, and the arts, and will encourage consideration of such broad social issues as anti-Semitism and race relations, immigration, diaspora, the Holocaust, and the tension between cultural continuity and change.

Many of the courses that will satisfy Judaic Studies major requirements are already offered at the University and will continue to be taught in their regular departments while being cross-listed under Judaic Studies. The major will include two years of Hebrew; 12 credits in 100- or 200-level courses on broad traditions of Western history or culture; a 12-credit "Foundations of Judaic Studies" sequence; 12 credits in upper-division "topics" courses on special issues in Judaic Studies; eight credits in "discipline-based" courses in which students conduct independent, in-depth exploration of issues related to Judaic Studies; and eight credits in senior project courses including a capstone seminar. The capstone course is designed to integrate all the work of the major in an independent research project. Students will also be strongly encouraged to spend a year abroad in UO's collaborative program with The Rothberg School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Some upper-division requirements may be satisfied by study in Israel.

Faculty. If approved, UO will launch a search for a new faculty member with special expertise in Judaic Studies to serve as founding director of the program. In addition, Judaic Studies will draw on the teaching and research interests of a number of current faculty, who will also serve as program affiliates. Some of these faculty will serve as members of the program's advisory board. Two of the faculty members have directed programs similar to Judaic Studies elsewhere: Dr. Shaul Cohen has served as director of the Middle East Studies program in the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University, and Dr. James Mohr was chair of the History Department, including the program in Jewish Studies, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. To date, 27 faculty members from across the disciplines (e.g., English, geography, sociology, honors college, landscape architecture, history) have agreed to serve as affiliates.

4. Adequacy of Resources to Offer the Program

Resources will be needed to support a full-time program director, faculty member to teach Hebrew, .25 FTE clerical support, and minimal additional library acquisitions. The University has received a $1.5 million gift, which will yield an additional annual income of $60,000 and be matched by University resources. Two other gifts totaling $55,000 have also been received. Consequently, with Board approval, Judaic Studies will open fall 1999, with the full program phasing in over three years, permitting the endowment to grow. Additional gifts received will permit the UO to begin first-year Hebrew language courses in fall 1998, along with some faculty development work. The program will not require any new facilities or equipment.

Program Review

The proposed program has been reviewed positively by all appropriate institutional committees and by the Academic Council as a preproposal in February 1997 and as a full proposal in May 1998.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board authorize the University of Oregon to establish a program leading to the B.A. in Judaic Studies, effective fall term 1999, with a follow-up review of the program to be conducted by the Oregon University System Office of Academic Affairs in the 2004-05 academic year.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Clark reminded the Board that she had corresponded with them concerning the circumstances of the program and the generous endowment that will assist in its development. Provost Moseley said the program has been under discussion at the UO for the past 20 years. "It was brought to a head with a conference two years ago on ethics after the holocaust that was organized primarily by students and a couple of faculty members," Dr. Moseley explained. "It attracted international scholars and attention to the UO, precipitating some events that ultimately have led to a $1.5 million gift from the Harold and Arlene Schnitzer CARE Foundation. We have matched that gift institutionally with one of our Knight endowed chairs and some institutional funds. We have been sitting on this proposal for about six months while we have been waiting to assure we have the funding in place."

Mr. Whittaker asked what the opportunities were for graduates. Provost Moseley indicated that the program is basically a liberal arts education, a solid humanities degree with a specific specialization comparable to what a graduate in history, philosophy, or one of the major language programs might be. A minor will also be possible within the program.

Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Imeson seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

SALE OF CURRENT PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE AND PURCHASE OF NEW PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE, EOU

Summary

Eastern Oregon University requested Board authorization to sell the current President's residence at 402 Washington Street, La Grande, and to acquire a house located at 809 South Highland Place, La Grande, to serve as the new EOU president's residence. Campus officials are making this request after careful consideration of the alternatives to renovate the existing residence or to purchase a new home.

Staff Report to the Board

As part of the transition of presidents at EOU, the University conducted a facilities condition audit of the President's residence at 402 Washington Street, La Grande. This review indicated a need for substantial maintenance and modernization of the 50-year old residence. The audit indicated the need for maintenance in the following areas: modernization of the heating and ventilation system, the kitchen, bathrooms, and lighting systems, plumbing repairs, and modernization of, and major repairs to one of the two garages on the property. New wall coverings and floor coverings would also be required throughout the house. In addition, the residence does not allow any handicap access and does not lend itself to remodeling that would provide American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Upon request by campus officials, the System office agreed to allocate $70,000 to Eastern to perform all feasible updates of the residence.

Prior to making the investment in renovation of the existing property, campus officials conducted further review of the property and explored the option of selling the current residence and purchasing a more suitable one in the La Grande area. They considered all suitable properties available before selecting the house at 809 South Highland Place. It is a 2,674 square foot, single story contemporary home with three bedrooms, two and a half baths, large kitchen, dining room, and living room. Built in 1989, the house has an open floor plan, which is ideal for entertaining and provides good access to handicapped guests. Its relative newness and state-of-the-art subsystems (HVAC, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.) would translate to lower annual maintenance and operating costs than the current residence. Further analysis of the estimated costs of renovating the current residence versus costs of purchasing the new residence indicated it would be more cost effective to purchase a replacement home.

The University is fortunate in obtaining this residence for a reduced price of $258,000 because the current owner wishes to make a contribution to the EOU in the form of a price reduction. In order to take advantage of the market opportunity, the purchase price of $258,000 (plus closing costs of approximately $1,000) has been negotiated by University officials subject to two independent appraisals and approval by the Board. Funding for the purchase will come from the sale of the current residence at 402 Washington Street and the $70,000 allocated by the System office for its renovation and modernization as shown below. Any difference in costs on the sale and purchase of the properties will be borne by the University from institution revenues.

Estimated Sale Price of Current Residence

$ 180,000

Renovation Allocation

70,000 *

Total Estimated Revenues Available

* Excludes Estimated ADA Access Upgrade

(not funded due to infeasibility)

$ 250,000

$ 25,000

   
Asking Price of New Residence

$ 268,000

Estimated Closing Costs

1,000

Less Seller's Contribution

(10,000)

Purchase Price of New Residence

$ 259,000


Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board approve the sale of the current president's residence at 402 Washington Street, La Grande, and the acquisition of a new president's residence at 809 South Highland Place for a price not to exceed $258,000 plus closing costs of approximately $1,000. This was contingent upon the completion of two independent appraisals of the property and the acceptability of the related real estate documents required by the Board for this transaction by University officials and the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow highlighted aspects of the staff report to the Board. He said that the report indicates that the purchase of the new home was contingent upon completion of two independent appraisals. "I am able to report that we have had independent appraisals from certified appraisers, judging the property to be worth between $263,000 and $270,000. Therefore, the property at $258,000 would be within the realm. Part of that is the result of the seller being willing to contribute $10,000," Mr. Anslow reported.

Chair Aschkenasy asked if the plan was to sell the existing residence, to which Mr. Anslow responded positively. "We will sell the existing residence and use the $70,000 we otherwise would have put into renovation to comprise the bulk of the money that will be needed." Mr. Imeson inquired if the new house required any renovation. Mr. Anslow reported that the house was in good shape.

Ms. Puentes moved and Mr. Whittaker seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

HOTEL CONFERENCE COMPLEX, OSU

Summary

At the May 15, 1998 meeting, the Board heard a presentation on a public/private partnership for a new hotel conference complex proposed for development on 3.67 acres of land on the OSU campus. Before development of a new 80,000 square foot, 156 room hotel and restaurant, with related parking and site improvements, the Board must approve a long-term ground lease (not to exceed 99 years) to a hotel developer who would then own the building and improvements it constructs on the land. At the end of the lease, the building and improvements would revert to the State Board of Higher Education. Beyond leasing the land, OSU would have no direct financial obligation in the facility construction or operation. However, the ground lease provides for payment to the University of annual base rent and rental income related to the level of occupancy. The proposed lease has been drafted by Department of Justice (DOJ) legal counsel and reviewed and approved by OUS legal counsel for submittal to the Board.

Staff Report to the Board

The proposed hotel conference complex will be constructed on University property at the southeast corner of the intersection of 26th Street and Western Boulevard in Corvallis. The hotel will be directly across the street from the LaSells Stewart Center and easily accessible to the CH2M Hill Alumni Center, Gill Coliseum, and Parker Stadium. The site is currently used as an overflow gravel parking lot during athletic events.

An updated market analysis is currently being prepared by HVS International for the developer and is expected to be available to the Board by the June meeting. This market analysis is a requirement by Hilton Inns for approval of the developer's plan for construction of this hotel conference complex; it will be compared to the market analysis undertaken by the City of Corvallis Chamber of Commerce. Market research by the University indicates that there are currently fewer than 400 rooms available for conference attendees and fans attending athletic events in Corvallis. The current hotel occupancy rate in the Corvallis area is more than 70 percent and there is only one other hotel in the area that provides a full service food/beverage and banquet facility comparable to the quality of the proposed facility.

The new hotel conference complex will be developed by Corvallis Garden Hotel Company, LLC, a California limited liability company, which is a subsidiary of Larkspur Hospitality Company, also a limited liability company. The Larkspur Hospitality Company is a fully integrated hotel development and management company that operates three chains of hotels in northern California, Oregon, and Washington. Larkspur Hospitality has signed a strategic alliance agreement with Hilton Inns, Inc. The agreement commits Larkspur Hospitality to making reasonable efforts to develop and operate at least ten Hilton Garden Inns, at the approximate rate of three hotels per year. The company now has three hotels in operation, and expects to open several more by the end of 1998. The developer will adhere to the technical specifications contained in Hilton Inns' "Technical Planning Guide."

Larkspur Hospitality has secured a binding commitment from Farallon Capital Management, LLC, to provide up to $40 million of equity capital and $70 million of construction debt to Larkspur Hospitality Company to finance the development, construction, and operation of hotels in northern California, Oregon, and Washington, including the Hilton Garden Inn on the OSU site. The development costs for the proposed OSU project are estimated to be $63,500 per room, for a total estimated project cost of $10 million. All development costs for the project will be borne by the developer including utility requirements, parking and traffic mitigation, and any other zoning related changes required by the City of Corvallis for permit approval.

On May 26, the developer applied for the initial permits to begin construction of the hotel. This initiated the approximately 120 day permit review process. If the developer receives all necessary permits, Board approval of the project, and the ground lease, they anticipate they can begin construction this fall, with a nine month construction schedule and a planned facility opening prior to the fall 1999 OSU football season.

Legal Agreement with Developer

A long-term ground lease has been drafted by DOJ legal counsel between the Board and Corvallis Garden Hotel Company (CGHC), LLC, a California limited liability company (Lessee). Key terms and conditions of the ground lease are summarized below:

Term

Fifty-five years, with three extensions to renew for a total maximum term of 99 years, beginning 30 days after the developer receives necessary zoning and building approvals.

OSU would seek approval from the City of Corvallis for the changes to its Campus Master Plan in conjunction with a request by the developer for the necessary permits.

Rent

The base rent starts at $25,000 per year and by year four will increase to $50,000 annually. The base rent will adjust upward every five years consistent with the Consumer Price Index. When the base rent is added to OSU's share of the room rent, the annual income stream is expected to exceed $100,000. This expected income is comparable to other hotel projects already developed on other University campuses like Dartmouth, Cornell, Ohio State University, and the University of Colorado.

Board's Rights in Event of Default by Lessee

Corvallis Garden Hotel Company (CGHC) is a subsidiary of Larkspur Hospitality. Both CGHC and Larkspur are limited liability companies. Any judgment against CGHC would be similar to a judgment against a corporation. If CGHC has no assets, it is effectively judgment proof. Assuming Larkspur and CGHC properly maintain the legal formalities of their LLC status, it will be very difficult to get access to Larkspur's assets if CGHC defaults. However, this situation is no different than if both entities had been corporations.

Successors in Event of Default

If the lease is terminated for any reason, the leasehold mortgagee becomes the Lessee and it may assign, without OSU's consent, the lease to any entity with a net worth greater than or equal to that of CGHC on the date of the original lease and someone either with comparable experience to CGHC in operating and managing similar hotels or a manager with comparable experience. In addition, the assignee must operate the hotel in a substantially similar manner so that the hotel shall serve the same type of clientele with the same level of amenities. Any assignee is bound by the other terms of the lease.

Foreclosure and Default

OSU must get the prior written consent of the Leasehold Mortgagee(s) before terminating the lease. The Leasehold Mortgagee(s) have the right to cure CGHC's default and have 30 days longer than the Lessee to cure.

Changes to Hotel Plans

Any material change (more than $100,000) in the original hotel plans or any subsequent material alteration or renovation requires OSU approval.

Performance/Insurance

Lessee is required to provide fire, extended coverage, general liability, and boiler insurance, and to maintain the site free from liens.

Financing of Improvements by Lessee

The Lessee has the right to pledge its interest in the hotel to a Leasehold Mortgagee (i.e., the Lessee can encumber its interest in the hotel in order to secure financing).

Taxes

Lessee is liable for all real property taxes on the value of both the hotel and the underlying 3.67 acres of OSU land.

Non-Compete Clause

OSU will not allow any University-owned property within a two-mile radius of the hotel to be used for another hotel.

Student Employment

The Lessee shall actively endeavor to recruit OSU students for employment in the hotel.

Options to Renew

If the Lessee is not in default at any time during the six months prior to expiration of the lease, the Lessee has the right to extend the lease term.

The developer has reviewed the draft ground lease and has raised no major issues with the terms and conditions; however, there is a possibility prior to final approval that it may request some modification of the language or terms.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended the Board approve the proposed project to develop a hotel conference complex on 3.67 acres of land on the OSU campus subject to the developer securing all necessary permits and approvals from the City of Corvallis and adequate construction financing. Staff also recommended the Board agree to enter into a long-term ground lease with the Corvallis Garden Hotel Company, LLC, to allow development of the hotel conference complex pending the University's written notification of its satisfaction with the market survey, which will be submitted to the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration for approval prior to being transmitted to the Board. Staff further recommended, if negotiations with the developer are not concluded by the Board's June meeting, the Board delegate authority to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to approve minor changes to the lease prior to signature by the Board President and Secretary.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow reminded the Board of the initial presentation on the Hotel Complex that was made at the May meeting. Mark McCambridge, OSU interim vice president for finance and administration, indicated that the items that had been raised at that meeting by the Board were addressed in the June docket materials.

Carl Holdman, chairman and CEO of Larkspur, addressed the Board, underscoring his belief that this project is important and a win/win for his company, OSU, and the community of Corvallis. "Our company's strategy and philosophy is that we are committed to these geographical areas (Northern California, Oregon, and Washington). We are also committed to all new construction, very high quality upscale properties. We take a long-term view in our business and our properties. In terms of our charter and philosophy, returns to our investors are critical. In addition, we also take a long-term view to our employees and customers in the communities in which we operate. The Corvallis community is one we have been attracted to as well as OSU," he explained.

When Ms. Wustenberg asked if the non-compete clause is customary, Mr. Holdman responded that it was. "With some of our projects on adjacent parcels where there is an owner who owns/controls a larger tract of land, we get agreements for them not to develop competing hotels for a period of time," he indicated. Ms. Wendy Robinson, attorney with the Department of Justice, indicated that the agreement was legal.

Bill Fortier, vice president for franchise development with Hilton Hotels Corporation, told the Board that the purpose of Garden Inn is to work with smaller communities to put in appropriately sized, full service hotels. "We have a number of standards at Hilton that we look for in our franchise. We went through each of those steps with Larkspur and found they had excellent sources of financing, excellent command of developing and constructing a hotel. And they also have what we see as excellent potential in the operation of the hotel," he concluded.

Ms. Van Patten asked if employees were allowed to unionize. Mr. Fortier indicated that his company is not anti-union. "We just don't have any unions on our properties. We take very good care of our employees, proactively. We are very fair and, frankly, there hasn't been a need or interest for our employees to organize," he said.

James Hanson, Vice President for Development at Larkspur, reviewed the specifications of the complex and indicated that his company is prepared to move to the next step, assuming Board approval.

Ms. Christopher inquired about the size of the conference facilities. Mr. Fortier responded that, given the proximity to the Lasells Stewart Center and the Alumni Center at OSU, the plan for the complex has approximately 1800 square feet for receptions.

Mr. Anslow reminded the Board that a concern raised at the May meeting related to the issue of continuity and assuring that any other owner of this particular property maintain it in the same condition. "We have proposed to add a feature to the lease arrangement that protects and assures that outcome." Extending the question, Mr. Lussier asked if, within the lease language itself, "there are any restrictions on the use of this property or the use of the lease to carry out just this mission." Ms. Robinson indicated that the lease is restrictive to the property only for hotel purposes. Finally, Mr. Willis asked for clarification of the portion of the staff recommendation that reads, ". . . if negotiations are not concluded by the Board's June meeting the Board delegates authority to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to approve minor changes. . ." Ms. Robinson indicated that the proposal has been agreed to by council for Larkspur but it is not yet signed. Mr. Anslow clarified by saying that approving the staff recommendation would, "authorize me to change commas or words, as long as they were of a minor nature." In response to the question from Mr. Lussier about whose name would appear on the lease, Mr. Anslow indicated it would be the Board on behalf of OSU.

Ms. Christopher moved and Mr. Lussier seconded approving the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

1998-99 ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATION

The recommended 1998-99 annual operating budget allocations are in accord with the limitations set by the 1997 Legislature in approving the 1997-1999 appropriations for the Oregon University System. The recommendations outlined below reflect the second year of implementation of the 1997-1999 budget plan. The programs authorized by the 1997 Legislative Assembly, were, in most cases, initiated in 1997-98 and are being carried forward into the second year of this biennium.

The recommended budget for 1998-99 assumes instruction fees for resident undergraduates will remain at the 1997-98 rates and that nonresident undergraduate and all graduate/professional instruction fee rates will increase three percent over 1997-98 rates.

The Allocation Process

OUS institutions generate and retain directly about 64 percent or $729 million of the $1.14 billion in annual revenues. Campus revenues include sponsored programs and sponsored gifts, grants, and contracts; designated operations including distance education, community workshops, and other self-sustaining public service and education activities; and auxiliary activities (student housing, parking, food service, athletics, and incidental fee activities). Under the present funding model, the majority of tuition revenues and state tax dollars are pooled and then allocated to campuses and central services.

The 1998-99 budget continues to reflect the Budget Allocation System (BAS) methodology. BAS is driven by several factors including: biennium midpoint enrollment distribution, discipline categories and level of instruction, differences in faculty salaries by discipline, and the other allocation targeting methods used in the current formula (dollars per square foot for facilities, percentages of funding for research and administration, etc.)

The 1998-99 allocation continues the 1997-98 allocation, adjusted for all salary requirements and inflationary cost estimates. It presumes that campuses will continue to serve students within the midpoint enrollment and targets previously set for the 1997-1998 biennium. The 1998-99 allocation reflects the distribution of salary dollars to finance the unclassified salary plan in 1998-99, as approved by the Board at the January 1998 meeting, and the classified salary plan consistent with the Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) contract agreed to in September 1997 (see below for summary description).

When the 1997-98 budget allocation recommendations were proposed in September 1997, it was expected that the 1998-99 allocations would be determined using a new allocation methodology. At this juncture, it is known that the introduction of a new funding method will not be possible until the 1999-2001 biennial budget is acted upon by the Legislature.

The 1997-1999 funding allocations included certain exceptional adjustments beyond the basic funding allocation model calculation. These included: small school equity adjustments for EOU and OIT, funding for the OSU Veterinary Medicine program; and the SMILE/MESA programs at OSU and PSU. These funding allocation decisions are carried forward in 1998-99.

In addition, the 1997-98 budget recommendation included a special distribution to OIT to lessen the impact of what would otherwise have been a $3.2 million reduction due to past declines in enrollment levels. Instead, OIT's 1997-98 budget was reduced by $1.6 million, with the difference covered by lower allocations to campuses experiencing enrollment increases, and an across the board reallocation from other campuses and the central activities budget. The intent of the additional $1.6 million distribution was as a temporary "bridge" support until OIT would be able to improve its enrollment levels and/or otherwise make further reductions. OIT's enrollment picture is improving as a result of several new programs being added and expanded enrollments in programs sited in the Portland area. While OIT has not gained sufficient enrollment to fully offset the remaining budget cut assigned using the BAS model, most recent reviews indicate that to assign a further $1.6 million cut would lead to program instability and further enrollment loss. The 1998-99 budget recommendation, therefore, reflects a $200,000 reduction in OIT's budget to partially address its obligation.

Education and General Services

Base Budget (Current Service Level)

The Base Budget recommendation for each institution has been established to reflect "current service level" requirements prior to any adjustments for enrollment changes. The 1998-99 current service level is defined as the 1997-98 allocation adjusted for inflation and the annualized resource requirements for any programs phased in during 1997-98. The 1998-99 current service level components are as follows:

The current service level adjustments initiated in 1997-98 are continued as permanent allocation adjustments in 1998-99. The 1997-1999 Legislative General Fund appropriation provides the General Fund portion necessary to finance all of the current service level adjustments except for the roll-forward costs of the 1995-1997 classified salary increases, which have been absorbed by the institutions.

Enrollment and Revenues

Revenue estimates for instruction fees are based on the two year average of projected enrollments for each biennium. In the development of the 1997-1999 biennial budget, the 1995-1997 previous midpoint enrollment targets, which were used in the allocation process, were analyzed and reprojected for each campus. Chancellor's Office staff then met with institution presidents and campus staff to review the enrollment level that would be budgeted for the 1997-1999 biennium. A new budget enrollment midpoint was established for each campus in June 1997. Under the BAS allocation methodology, this midpoint enrollment target is central in determining campus resource requirements. Table 1 compares the new budget enrollment midpoint established for each campus with that of the previous biennium.

Table 1:
Comparison of 1995-1997 and 1997-1999 Budget Enrollments by Institution




Institution

1995-1997 Budget

1997-1999 Budget

% 97-99 Over/(Under) 95-97

Target

Midpoint

Target

Midpoint

Headcount

3-term FTE

Headcount

3-term FTE

3-term FTE

EOU

2,020

1,624

1,975

1,620

-0.25%

OIT

2,583

2,070

2,364

1,718

-17.00%

OSU

14,756

12,702

14,114

12,000

-5.53%

PSU

15,045

8,815

15,431

9,872

11.99%

SOU

4,634

3,729

5,168

3,910

4.85%

UO

18,013

15,100

17,814

15,085

-0.10%

WOU

3,861

3,284

4,178

3,503

6.67%

Total

60,912

47,324

61,044

47,708

0.81%


The enrollment mix by student classification (undergraduate/graduate and resident/nonresident) has a considerable impact on revenue generation. The mix of actual enrollment compared to the budgeted enrollment can significantly alter outcome of revenue realized.

As Table 2 indicates the System total three term FTE for each year of the biennium is projected to meet the original midpoint totals. However, a closer review of the enrollment mix indicates offsetting shifts between resident and nonresident students, most significantly at the undergraduate level. With nonresident undergraduate tuition generating three times more revenue than resident undergraduate rates, it takes three resident students to produce the same tuition income as each nonresident. This shift is most heavily felt at the UO, under the policy by which it retains 90 percent of its nonresident undergraduate income. This loss of nonresident enrollment and resulting reduction in revenue has been reflected in the 1998-99 budget for the UO. All other instruction fee revenue is still pooled within the System and redistributed to the institutions on the basis of the enrollment midpoint for each campus. These pooled revenue projections appear to be stable for 1998-99.

Table 2:
Comparison of Enrollment Mix by 1997-1999 Original and Revised Midpoints of
Enrollment by Student Classification

 

Midpoint Comparison

1997-98 3 Term FTE

1998-99 3 Term FTE


Student
Classification


Orig. Midpt 97-99


Proj'd
2 Yr Avg 97-99


FTE Diff


Budg Proj'd


Rev'd Estim.


FTE Diff


Budg Proj'd


Prelim Rev'd Proj'd


FTE Diff

Res Undergrad

33,546

33,659

113

33,097

33,198

101

33,997

34,120

123

NonrUndergrad

7,338

7,151

(187)

7,423

7,287

(136)

7,251

7,014

(237)

Resid Grad

5,259

5,232

(27)

5,222

5,253

31

5,293

5,210

(83)

Nonres Grad

1,010

1,051

41

999

1,059

60

1,021

1,043

22

Res Lw/VetMed

289

332

43

289

332

43

289

332

43

NonrLaw/Vet Med

266

238

(28)

266

238

(28)

266

238

(28)

Tot 3 Tm FTE

47,708

47,663

(45)

47,296

47,367

71

48,117

47,957

(160)


The enrollment corridor policy continues in effect for 1998-99. This policy sets an upper and lower threshold of enrollment within which revenue distribution remains unchanged. If an institution's enrollment exceeds or falls below this threshold, an appropriate budget adjustment is made during the fiscal year. Table 3 compares the midpoint and revised projected two year averages for each institution. In the beginning of fiscal year 1997-98, each institution could opt to retain its previous enrollment corridor number or reset its corridor level to 1.5 percent of midpoint. OSU was the only campus to choose the 1.5 percent option. OSU is expected to exceed its enrollment corridor of 150, as it has in 1997-98.

Table 3:
Comparison of Enrollment Mix by 1997-1999 Original and Revised Midpoints of Enrollment by Institution

   

Midpoint Comparison

1997-98 3 Term FTE

1998-99 3 Term FTE


Student Classification


Enrol Corr


Orig. Midpt 97-99


Rev'd 2 Yr Avg 97-99


FTE Diff


% Diff


Budg Proj'd


Rev'd Estim.


FTE Diff


% Diff


Budg Proj'd


Prelim Rev'd Proj'd


FTE Diff


%
Diff

EOU

100

1,620

1,579

(41)

(2.5)

1,614

1,551

(63)

(3.9)

1,625

1,607

(18)

(1.1)

OIT

125

1,718

1,852

134

7.8

1,708

1,805

97

5.7

1,727

1,899

172

10.0

OSU

180

12,000

12,373

373

3.1

11,855

12,236

381

3.2

12,145

12,511

366

3.0

PSU

350

9,872

9,676

(196)

(2.0)

9,791

9,594

(197)

(2.0)

9,953

9,757

(196)

(2.0)

SOU

200

3,910

3,899

(11)

(0.3)

3,907

3,844

(63)

(1.6)

3,912

3,953

41

1.0

UO

350

15,085

14,796

(289)

(1.9)

14,954

14,812

(142)

(1.0)

15,216

14,780

(436)

(2.9)

Nonres UG

0

4,136

3,794

(342)

(8.3)

4,205

3,943

(262)

(6.2)

4,066

3,644

(422)

(10.4)

All Other

350

10,949

11,002

53

0.5

10,749

10,869

120

1.1

11,150

11,136

(14)

(0.1)

WOU

200

3,503

3,488

(15)

(0.4)

3,467

3,525

58

1.7

3,539

3,450

(89)

(2.5)

Tot 3 Tm FTE  

47,708

47,663

(45)

(0.1)

47,296

47,367

71

0.2

48,117

47,957

(160)

(0.3)


Special Allocations

The 1998-99 Annual Allocation Plan continues the following elements that were initiated in 1997-98 through either the original budget or Emergency Board action.

Faculty Recruitment and Retention: $7.5 million of state appropriation for the biennium has been allocated using guidelines approved by the Board in January 1998, and to equate to one percent of each institution's unclassified base salary budget for each fiscal year. The actual disbursement of the these funds is to be targeted to academic positions based on salary adjustment plans submitted to and approved by the Chancellor. In providing these funds, the Ways and Means Committee included the following Budget Note: "The Department of Higher Education, in preparing its budget presentation to the 1999 Session of the Legislative Assembly, shall include in its current service level projection, the amount that reflects the ongoing costs (including roll-ups) of the $7.5 million academic salary supplement for recruitment and retention, calculated as if a one percent general salary increase was awarded on July 1, 1997 and a one percent general academic salary increase was awarded on July 1, 1998."

Unclassified Salary Adjustments: $10.7 million of state appropriation has been earmarked for unclassified salary adjustments for this biennium. The funds were released by the Emergency Board in January and have been allocated to the institutions according to the guidelines adopted by the Board in January 1998. Allocations were made on the basis of a 3.5 percent general salary increase in September 1998 and a 2.5 percent general salary increase in February 1999. Each institution has submitted a campus specific unclassified salary plan for approval by the Chancellor.

Classified Salary Adjustments: The $2.7 million of state appropriation for the biennium was released by the Emergency Board in January 1998. These monies are allocated to the institutions on the basis of a two percent increase January 1998 and a four percent increase in March 1999, in accordance with the OPEU contract agreed to in September of 1997.

Regional Access: $5.8 million of state appropriation for the biennium was authorized specifically for Regional Access programs through EOU, OIT, and SOU. Each institution has entered into agreements with local community colleges to expand access for students in their respective regions. The annual allocations for 1998-99 are as follows:

$1.2 million for EOU;
$1.0 million for SOU; and
$700,000 for OIT.

Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science: The $5 million of state appropriations for the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science (OCECS), approved by the Emergency Board in November 1997, are allocated for the biennium as follows:

$2,250,000 for the Master of Software Engineering;
$2,250,000 supporting a Continuing and Professional Education Program; and
$500,000 for the OIT Opt for Co-op program.

OWEN/NERO: $1,430,000 of state appropriation was authorized at the November 1997 Emergency Board for operation of the communications network partnership among several public agencies. The Emergency Board did specify that this adjustment could not be incorporated in the 1999-2000 base budget, but would require submission of a specific funding package.

Western Governor's University: $100,000 was approved by the 1997 Legislature as a one time expenditure for Oregon's contribution to this multistate endeavor. This payment was made in 1997-98 and is not continued in the 1998-99 budget.

Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) Food Safety & Environmental Stewardship: $300,000 of state appropriation for the biennium was authorized to the AES to develop programs in these areas.

AES Cereal Wheat Research: $750,000 of lottery monies were allocated for the biennium to the AES for construction of a greenhouse and establishment of a research facility for cereal wheat.

AES Watershed Improvement: $500,000 of other funds limitation for the biennium was authorized by the January 1998 Emergency Board for limitation associated with Watershed Improvement Grant Fund for research efforts in watershed improvement.

Extension Service (ES) Groundfish Stock Assessment: $143,500 of state appropriation was authorized for the biennium in the November Emergency Board through a Department of Fish and Wildlife request, for a contract with the OSU Extension Sea Grant to assist with groundfish stock assessments and conduct research.

ES Watershed Enhancement: $128,205 of state appropriations was authorized for the biennium in the January 1998 Emergency Board meeting through a Department of Administrative Services request.

The 1998-99 Operating Budget for OUS is summarized in Table 4 . All institutions are experiencing budget increases of between 3.5 and 4.5 percent. The notable exception is the UO with a $700,000 reduction. This is primarily a result of the projected reduction in nonresident undergraduates and the policy by which the UO retains 90 percent of the income generated through this student classification. The projected enrollment in this category has a direct impact on its budget.

Table 4:
Summary Comparison of 1997-98 Budget to 1998-99

Institution

1997-98

1998-99

$ Change

% Change

Eastern Oregon University

$15,809,055

$16,403,529

$594,474

3.8%

Oregon Institute of Technology

18,779,905

19,448,244

668,339

3.6%

Oregon State University

140,825,137

147,053,367

6,228,230

4.4%

Portland State University

91,022,815

94,453,046

3,430,231

3.8%

Southern Oregon University

28,936,674

30,272,735

1,336,061

4.6%

University of Oregon

150,030,078

149,317,563

(712,515)

-0.5%

Western Oregon University

25,472,387

26,387,466

915,079

3.6%

Total Institutions

470,876,051

483,335,950

12,459,899

2.6%

         
Ore Coll of Eng'g & Cmptr Sci

5,047,494

5,103,661

56,167

1.1%

Chancellor's Office Operations

13,996,553

13,882,438

(114,115)

-0.8%

Systemwide Expense

4,489,893

4,482,109

(7,784)

-0.2%

To Be Allocated-Pending Plan

2,911,784

2,709,004

(202,780)

-7.0%

Undistributed Limitation

23,935,836

31,065,104

7,129,268

29.8%

Total Education & General

521,257,611

540,578,266

19,320,655

3.7%

         
Agricultural Experiment Station

27,084,331

28,141,168

1,056,837

3.9%

Extension Service

25,059,002

26,093,590

1,034,588

4.1%

Forest Research Laboratory

5,916,231

6,122,357

206,126

3.5%

Total Statewide Public Services

58,059,564

60,357,115

2,297,551

4.0%

Total Expenditure Limitation

$579,317,175

$600,935,381

$21,618,206

3.7%

         
Non-Limited Operations        
Budgeted        
Self Support Activities

177,850,000

190,691,519

12,841,519

7.2%

Gifts Grants & Contracts

241,270,000

250,920,800

9,650,800

4.0%

Sports Action Lottery

3,280,000

2,067,000

(1,213,000)

-37.0%

Nonbudgeted        
Student Aid/Loans

55,450,000

57,668,000

2,218,000

4.0%

Debt Service        
General Fund Debt Service

8,466,303

9,529,151

1,062,848

12.6%

Other Fund Debt Service

28,392,745

30,796,865

2,404,120

8.5%

Total Debt Service

36,859,048

40,326,016

3,466,968

9.4%

Total Non-Limited Operations

514,709,048

541,673,335

26,964,287

5.2%

Total Operating Budget 1998-99

$1,094,026,223

$1,142,608,716

$48,582,493

4.4%

*To Be Allocated - Pending Plan

 

98-99 Budget

Joint Business Program  

$907,934

Joint Engineering Program  

907,934

Endowment Match
(Pr Yr Bal)
 

280,673

Faculty Diversity  

500,000

Undistributed Balance  

112,463

Total Amounts to be Allocated

$2,709,004


Table 5:
Summary Comparison of Changes from 1997-98 Budget to 1998-99 Budget

 

Inflation/ Assmt

New Bld'g O&M

Classified Mgt Svc Pay Adj UnFunded

Funding For Enroll Changes

Instit'n Income Adjust

Pay Adjust

Other Budgeted Adjust

Total Adjust 97-8/ 98-9

Eastern Oregon University

114,485

0

(5,746)

0

0

474,729

11,006

594,474

Oregon Institute of Technology

155,967

0

(6,464)

(200,000)

38,500

668,371

11,965

668,339

Oregon State

University

1,298,719

123,012

(41,837)

0

0

4,647,448

200,888

6,228,230

Portland State University

848,042

(271,063)

(21,321)

0

0

2,740,876

133,697

3,430,231

Southern Oregon University

217,668

50,530

(8,734)

0

0

982,853

93,744

1,336,061

University of Oregon

1,490,058

149,287

(46,688)

(6,942,985)

0

4,502,073

135,740

(712,515)

Western Oregon University

186,103

 

(9,076)

0

0

717,850

20,202

915,079

Total Institutions

4,311,042

51,766

(139,866)

(7,142,985)

38,500

14,734,200

607,242

12,459,899

                 
Coll of Engineering & Computer Sci

37,294

 

(2,261)

0

0

18,872

2,262

56,167

Chancellor's Office Operations

154,413

 

(5,865)

0

0

 

(567,685)

(419,137)

Systemwide Expense

0

   

0

0

 

(7,784)

(7,784)

To Be Allocated

71,585

   

200,000

0

(150,983)

(323,382)

(202,780)

Undistributed Limitation

466,479

   

6,942,985

(38,500)

 

(241,696)

7,129,268

Total Ed & General

5,040,813

51,766

(147,992)

0

0

14,602,089

(531,043)

19,015,633

Agricultural Experiment Station

150,477

82,357

(15,053)

 

0

628,375

210,681

1,056,837

Extension Service

275,138

 

(10,576)

 

0

583,379

186,647

1,034,588

Forest Research Laboratory

44,319

 

(1,305)

 

0

119,252

43,860

206,126

Total Statewide Public Services

469,934

82,357

(26,934)

0

0

1,331,006

441,188

2,297,551

Total Adjustments to Expenditure Limitation

5,510,747

134,123

(174,926)

0

0

15,933,095

(89,855)

21,313,184

Definitions

Inflation/Assmt: Adds inflation adjustment of approximately two percent and resets the allocation for state and System assessments.

New Building O&M: Provides funding for operation and maintenance costs of new buildings coming on-line in 1998-99.

Cl/MgtSvc Pay Adj Not Funded: Reflects removal of General Fund Support for the January 1997 pay adjustment for classified and management service.

Funding for Enroll Changes: Adjustment for changes in enrollment and other allocation model redistributions.

Institution Income Adjustment: Distribution of limitation for institution generating more income than originally predicted.

Pay Adjustment: Distribution of faculty recruitment and retention and general pay adjustment allocations for classified and unclassified.

Other Budget Adjust: Sum of all other adjustments including technical adjustment and special allocation to a specific institution.

Travel Reimbursements

The Board of Higher Education approves the travel reimbursement rates for all employees, as well as nonemployees. The following travel reimbursement rates are recommended for 1998-99 and are effective the first day of the month following Board approval.

In-State: Meals and Incidental Expenses and Lodging

Standard: Per diem using High-Low classification. Ashland, Bend, Portland metropolitan area, and Oregon coastal communities are classified as "high." All other Oregon cities are classified as "low." For "low" cities, the per diem for meals and incidental expenses is $30, and lodging (including tax) is $70. For "high" cities, the per diem for meals and incidental expenses is $30, and lodging (including tax) is $81. Receipts are not required for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses.

Exception (e.g., conferences): Per diem for meals and incidental expenses of $30 and lodging at actual and reasonable cost. Lodging receipts are required. Deductions are required for meals provided. Institutional policy applies regarding necessary pre-approvals. Institutional policy applies regarding exceptions for reimbursement of lodging at actual and reasonable costs for the Portland metropolitan area, and lodging receipts are required.

Out-of-State (Continental U.S.): Meals and Incidental Expenses and Lodging

Standard: Per diem using Federal High-Low Schedule. Cities are classified as either "low," with meals and incidental expenses of $32 and lodging (including tax) of $81; or classified as "high," with meals and incidental expenses of $40 and lodging (including tax) of $140. No receipts required for lodging, meals and incidental expenses.

Exception (e.g., conferences): Per diem for meals and incidental expenses of $40 and lodging at actual and reasonable cost. Lodging receipts are required. A deduction is required for meals provided. Institutional policy applies regarding all pre-approvals.

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Possessions, and International: Meals and Incidental Expenses and Lodging

Standard: Per diem for meals and incidental expenses as well as lodging using the Federal Specific Locality Table. Receipts are not required for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses.

Exception: (e.g., conferences): Per diem for meals and incidental expenses using the Federal Specific Locality Table and lodging at actual and reasonable cost. Lodging receipts are required. Deductions are required for any provided meals. Institutional policy applies regarding pre-approvals.

Private Vehicle Mileage: Reimbursement is at $0.28 per mile.

Vehicle Rentals: Receipts are required for vehicle rentals.

Noncommercial Lodging: When using noncommercial facilities, the per diem for lodging is $25.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that (1) the Board of Higher Education approve the budget recommendations and allocations for 1998-99 as discussed above and as summarized on Tables 1 and 2, and that (2) the Board approve the 1998-99 travel reimbursement rates shown above.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow indicated that the 1998-99 budget presented to the Board was essentially an extension of the 1997-98 fiscal year budget carried into the second year of the biennium. He pointed out that the budget would maintain the same biennium mid-point enrollment goals originally set a year ago and is built on the same funding methodology. "We expected a year ago to be able to move to a new funding methodology. That work is progressing, but we are not at a point of introducing that as a part of this submission," he reported.

Continuing, Mr. Anslow highlighted some of the characteristics of the current methodology including small school adjustments, separate support for Veterinary Medicine, and the SMILE and MESA programs. He pointed out several details relative to enrollment targets and their impacts on the budget.

Chancellor Cox asked if the budget reflected the recent Emergency Board allocations. Mr. Anslow responded that those had not been captured at this point.

Chair Aschkenasy observed that one of the items that goes up substantially is the amount of debt service and asked if there were some point at which the Board should begin to start thinking and worrying about it. Mr. Anslow said, "I think the Board needs to be concerned about the amount and level of debt service that it has. However, I don't think at the moment, as I have mentioned to you previously, it is in the risk area yet. But I think one of the items you'll deal with in the 1999-2001 biennium is the issue of deferred maintenance in the capital budget. We have a baseline study in progress that signifies a fair amount of maintenance requirements. And we need to convince the legislature and the Governor to support that on an ongoing basis rather than just issuing debt to do what is essentially building rehabilitation and modernization. I would say that we should try to aggressively seek current revenues, state support, for those state facilities that have a replacement value of $1.6 or $2 billion of state assets that need regular repairs.

"Again, I would urge the Board to try to get current revenues in for ongoing maintenance rather than to borrow money for even a ten-year period. If you are replacing a roof that has been on for 40 years, and it is going to have a 15, 20, or 30-year life, it is reasonable to borrow for it. But some of the other things, such as repairs, rehabilitation, and technology improvements that have a seven-year life, we need to try to get more current revenues to support them," Mr. Anslow urged. He added that at the moment the OUS is low in the amount of debt burden it carries compared to other institutions and systems.

Finally, Mr. Anslow reminded the Board that it must also take action on various rates for travel reimbursement, both in-state and out-of-state.

Mr. Willis moved and Mr. Whittaker seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

APPOINTMENT TO THE FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ORS 526.225 specifies that the Board of Higher Education shall appoint a Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee composed of 15 members, nine of whom are to be individuals engaged, actively and principally, in timber management of forest lands, harvesting, or processing of forest products; three individuals who are the heads of state and federal public forestry agencies; and three individuals from the public-at-large. Although the statute does not prescribe the terms of the Committee members, the practice has been to make appointments for a period of three years. Traditionally, those who are performing actively and effectively have been recommended for reappointment to a second three-year term, with all members replaced at the conclusion of a second term.

Dr. George W. Brown, director of the Forest Research Laboratory, with the concurrence of President Paul Risser, has made the following recommendation:

Appointment of Richard E. Hanson, vice president of the Western Timberlands team at Weyerhaeuser Corporation to be appointed as an industry representative to replace Norman E. Johnson. Mr. Johnson has served on the committee for 13 years and recently retired from Weyerhaeuser.

Mr. Hanson has been with the Weyerhaeuser Company since 1969. In his career there, he has held positions as a timberlands financial analyst; raw materials manager in western Oregon; lumber and logging operations manager in Springfield, Oregon; general manager of the Willamette operations (for logging and lumber) and, since 1989, vice president and mill manager, Springfield Containerboard. A University of Oregon graduate, Mr. Hanson has a degree in industrial management. His current responsibilities include harvesting and forestry operations, log marketing, western regeneration and the pole business of the newly formed Western Timberlands team.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended that the Board approve the appointment of Richard E. Hanson to the Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

THIRD QUARTER REPORT ON INVESTMENTS

Staff Report to the Board

The third quarter investment report of the Pooled Endowment Fund of the Oregon University System for the period January 1 through March 31, 1998, prepared by R. V. Kuhns and Associates, investment consultants, is included in the supplemental materials.

Board Discussion

Due to time constraints at the Board meeting, the third quarter investment report was deferred to a later meeting.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Board Governance and Structure

Mr. Willis called attention to the report of the Committee that had been distributed. He indicated that no Board action would be taken at the meeting. However, he urged Board members to review the document carefully. "We want all the Board to be comfortable with the recommendations, in particular the one that deals with the concept of University Advisory Councils. It is very important that people think about it and continue to talk to one another before the July meeting."

Budget and Finance

Mr. Imeson indicated that the Committee had met the day before and would need to meet again the week of July 6 to finish in sufficient time to have a recommendation by the July meeting. "I would just say, when you add together the work of our Committee and that of Jim Willis, in six months time we have made a lot of progress since the Governor met with us. Now is the time, frankly, when it gets very difficult. I think that we all need to keep in mind what the Governor asked us to do and why, and then be able to do it. We are a little later than we wanted to be, but we are staying in touch with his [Governor's] office and I think they are very comfortable with where we are," Mr. Imeson said.

Joint Boards Working Group

Ms. Puentes indicated that the Joint Boards Working Group has not met for several months. However, a meeting is planned for July 8 with the primary topic being distance learning technology information.

OHSU Board

Mr. Imeson reported that the OHSU Board had recently convened. "The major action we took was on the budget for the next fiscal year," he reported. "There was a large item in the budget relating to the year 2000 and technology implications. It is very important for OHSU, and much work needs to be done before January 2000. It is very expensive. Another major decision made was a resolution necessary to move ahead with the OHSU/Primate Center merger.

Nominating

Ms. Wustenberg reported that the Nominating Committee, composed of Ms. Puentes and Mr. Whittaker, had met two times. They recommended the following slate of officers for 1998-99:

Tom Imeson: President
Diane Christopher: Vice President
Executive Committee: Tom Imeson, Diane Christopher, Herb Aschkenasy, Gail McAllister, and Phyllis Wustenberg

Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Van Patten seconded the motion to approve the slate of officers as presented. Those voting in favor: Directors Christopher, Imeson, Lussier, McAllister, Puentes, Van Patten, Whittaker, Willis, Wustenberg, Wykoff, and Aschkenasy. Those voting no: none.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Because of the length of the meeting, President Aschkenasy dispensed with comments from Board members. He said, "As I turn over the gavel to Tom, I want to add that there is a lot of gratification in these kinds of activities, aside from the fact that the work is important in its own right. There are great people with whom to work. I have completed a couple of years as president and I want to thank the Board members for their support, good humor, and friendship."

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Herb Aschkenasy
President of the Board