OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
SOUTHWESTERN OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
NEWMARK CENTER--2ND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
COOS BAY, OREGON

July 16, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

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

ROLL CALL

On roll call, the following answered present:

Dr. Herb Aschkenasy
Mr. David Koch
Mr. Jim Lussier
Ms. Gail McAllister
Dr. Geri Richmond
Mr. Jim Willis
Ms. Diane Christopher

Absent: Mr. Tom Imeson (business conflict) and Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg (family emergency).

Mr. Don VanLuvanee connected by telephone following the Executive Session and approval of the June 18, 1999, Board meeting minutes.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board, after agreeing to the reasons for an Executive Session as described in ORS 192.660(1)(d), for the purpose of deliberations with its labor negotiator, dismissed themselves between 10:05 and 10:40 a.m.

MINUTES APPROVED

The Board dispensed with the reading of the June 18, 1999, Board meeting minutes. Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. McAllister seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

Ms. Christopher asked Executive Committee members if there were any corrections or questions to the June 17, 1999, Executive Committee minutes. Ms. McAllister moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded approval of the Executive Committee minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor:  Directors Aschkenasy, McAllister, and Christopher. Those voting no:  none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Dinner
Vice President Christopher explained that she would be facilitating the meeting in the absence of Mr. Imeson, who was unable to attend the meeting. She reported that Southwestern President Kridelbaugh hosted a memorable dinner the prior evening, and thanked him for his hospitality.

Geri Richmond
Congratulating Dr. Richmond on her July 2 confirmation, Ms. Christopher asked her if she would like to make any remarks. Dr. Richmond said that she was honored to be serving on the Board, as Oregon has allowed her to have a successful career. She explained that she has been a faculty member at the UO for 15 years, originally hired with centers of excellence monies allocated by the legislature. "I care deeply about education, and it's time for me to pay back," Dr. Richmond shared.

OIMB Tour
Ms. Christopher reported that she had participated in a tour of UO's Oregon Institute of Marine Biology the day before. Publicly expressing her appreciation to OIMB Director Lynda Shapiro, Ms. Christopher said that she learned a great deal about the facility, including details about some of the current research underway and OIMB's continuing efforts to secure both public and private funding.

Meeting with SWOCC Board of Directors
Following the tour, Board members convened with the Southwestern Oregon Community College Board of Directors to initiate a dialog about how programs offered through the University Center can better serve the South Coast region. The meeting concluded with a tour of the new University Center facilities by its new director, Dr. Andy Duncan.

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

Retiring Board Members
Chancellor Cox noted that both Ms. Christopher and Ms. McAllister were honored for their service as members of the Board at dinner the prior evening. "I think we surprised both of them with marvelous pieces of art, which are appropriate to the regions in which they reside, and we intend to come visit you often to see them," said Dr. Cox. He explained that Ms. Christopher and Ms. McAllister have agreed to remain on the Board until their replacements are confirmed. Furthermore, he said, a new student Board member to replace Ms. Van Patten was expected to be named in the near future. The Chancellor expressed his gratitude to President Kridelbaugh and his staff for hosting the dinner, as well as the Board and Board-related meetings, all of which were deemed successful.

Legislative Session
The Chancellor reported that HB 5061, relating to the higher education budget, passed the House on July 15. He viewed this as a positive sign that the legislature would soon adjourn.

Student Health Insurance
Due to the increasing concern over the rising cost of student health insurance, the Chancellor explained that he intends to coordinate a special task force of campus representatives to review the range of options. He said that he hoped to report the task force's findings and recommendations later in the year, or by January 2000 at the latest.

Applauding Chancellor Cox's willingness to delve into the issue, Mr. Koch suggested that community college representatives be involved in the discussions. He observed that as part of the overall goal of seamlessness and transferability, it would be logical to include them at the table.

OSA Concerns
The Chancellor referred to a letter recently sent to him by Oregon Student Association Director Ed Dennis. There were also several attached letters from students at various OUS institutions, each voicing concern over student fees. Dr. Cox said he expected to discuss the issue in further detail during the discussion of the 1999-00 Academic Year Fee Book.

IFS Report

Substituting for IFS President John Cooper was former IFS President Paul Simonds. Following is an excerpt of his remarks:

"The Interinstitutional Faculty Senate has not met since we last reported to you in June. We wish to congratulate the Board and Dr. Geri Richmond on her appointment and confirmation to the Board. As you know, the Senators of IFS consider this event a milestone in the evolution of the Board and we expect that you will find Dr. Richmond a source of valuable insights and a strong contributor to Board processes.

"As the Board has reworked the System of higher education in the last few years, we of IFS have watched, participated in discussions, and have mulled over the changes taking place in a number of our own meetings. One continuing concern has been defining the new role of the Board itself. We see the benefits of a degree of decentralization, handing decision making and responsibility to the individual campuses. On the other hand, we are concerned that the pendulum not swing so far in that direction that the System is fragmented and goes to the state as a series of separate agencies asking for funding.

"The success of higher education in the public arena during the last two legislative sessions owes much to the Board as the single coordinating voice speaking for the System. It has been an active Board, and stood for an organized and integrated public system of higher education. It has responded to the major changes sweeping higher education by restructuring the System and thereby gaining the confidence of the people of Oregon, legislators, and business to a degree we thought impossible less than a decade ago.

"The Board should remain the major point of contact between OUS and other institutions: the community college system, private higher education, K-12, the legislature, the Governor, the business community at various levels (large, small, intermediate), and the public-at-large for those issues that relate to higher education as a whole.

"Several of the immediate issues, with which you are wrestling, are examples of this point:

1. Having the mission statements of each institution dovetailed into the overall mission of OUS is a key to the Board leading a coordinated system while giving each institution the opportunity to maximize their strengths. This makes the development and review of mission statements much more than an exercise. It becomes a major tool for defining the System.

2. The proposals to make it easier for students to use credits earned at one of our institutions at another have more importance than just easing the student's schedule and speed to graduation. If the transfer of credit works, it will make it possible for more diverse programs to be worked out for students, using the resources of several campuses when no one has a program for special situations. It will also give quicker flexibility in meeting new challenges (for example, combining new technology with established disciplines or creating new integrations between established areas of study).

3. We have moved, in recent decades, from relying more on individual willingness to do the job without great supervision to an era of greater and greater demand for accountability. This has led to post-tenure reviews, periodic reviews of administrators (as you are doing just now for the presidents) and, in effect, a report card on the System to the legislature. The push on performance indicators, combining several across the System indicators with indicators for individual campuses, is another case of keeping a force for integration of the System, as well as giving the campuses the opportunity to excel in their specialities.

"As a related issue, faculty share with the provosts a concern that these performance indicators, which will undoubtedly be quantified and used for budgeting purposes, be carefully analyzed to separate true causal or functional relationships from strictly statistical ones.

"We urge you to keep working to refine these and other processes that keep a strong center while giving greater freedom at the institutional level."

Following Dr. Simonds' report, Dr. Aschkenasy urged faculty members to continue their review of the Board's activities and think about how they can assist in the building of the future of the System.

RESOLUTION HONORING ROGER BASSETT

Acknowledging the many years of service of Community College Services Director Mr. Roger Bassett, Mr. Lussier proposed to recognize him in the form of the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and the Oregon University System hereby recognize Mr. Roger Bassett upon his retirement for his dedication to the development of postsecondary education in Oregon and nationally. His outstanding leadership has particularly contributed to the development of Oregon's community college system, its partnership with Oregon's universities, and the innovative improvements in higher education he developed and promoted. The value of his wise counsel is reflected in an improved community college system and the University System for which he so advocated.

Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion that the resolution be adopted as read. The following voted in favor:  Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no:  none.

AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD HONORARY DOCTORATE, EOU

Staff Report to the Board

The Board of Higher Education permits institutions, with the concurrence of their faculty, to award honorary degrees. Each institution wishing to award honorary degrees must adopt criteria and procedures for selection that will ensure the award honors distinguished achievement and outstanding contributions to the institution, state, or society. Criteria and procedures for selection must be forwarded to the Chancellor or designee for approval.

The Board typically considers campus recommendations for honorary degrees 90 days before the award date, which is generally spring commencement. Eastern Oregon University requested authorization to award an honorary doctorate to James Lavadour at a special event--Eastern's fall 1999 Academic Honors Convocation.

James Lavadour

James Lavadour is a self-taught visual artist of international stature who has a record of working tirelessly to benefit the quality of reservation life in his eastern Oregon community. Lavadour is a Walla Walla Indian who grew up on the Federated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, where he resides today.

Lavadour emphasizes that his region and community are the sustaining elements of his work: "Living in an isolated rural community far away from anything that resembles an art scene, I have had to develop my own reasons for pursuing contemporary art. My family, community, and mountains have all been fundamental in shaping my art and how I see the world." The critic D.K. Dow puts it this way: "If there's an artist who embodies the region's finest energies--an earnest beauty allied with an authentic passion underneath the provincial surface--it is Lavadour."

Focusing on the local and regional has not in any way limited Lavadour. He is the recipient of dozens of awards, fellowships, and commissions. In 1994, he became one of the few eastern Oregonians to receive the Oregon Governor's Award for Art. More recently, he is the recipient of the prestigious Joan Mitchell Foundation Award, which previously had been awarded to only East Coast artists. His work has been represented by many renowned galleries such as the Elizabeth Leach Gallery and the Quintana Gallery in Portland, as well as galleries in Seattle, San Francisco, and Santa Fe. His solo and group exhibitions range far and wide around the Pacific Rim and American West. His work is part of more than 20 major collections. Lavadour's shows are regularly reviewed and his work discussed in its broader context in notable publications such as Artweek, Art in America, ARTnews, Christian Science Monitor, New Art Examiner, Art Journal, and Native Peoples Magazine, among many others.

But these considerable artistic accomplishments aside, Lavadour's concerns are less with himself than with others. His financial success has enabled him to found and support a truly remarkable experiment in art and economic development -- the Crow's Shadow Institute. His goal is educationally and economically complex, even bold: He recognizes not only the necessity of economic development on the reservation, but also the economic primacy of art in the lives of Native Americans. Crow's Shadow creates a nurturing environment for young Native Americans to study both traditional arts and the broader world of contemporary American, European, and Asian art--by means of visiting artists, musicians, and writers--while also helping the students find a viable market for their work beyond the reservation.

The cultural blossoming that is evident today on the Umatilla Reservation is in no small part due to the selfless sacrifice of James Lavadour. Eastern Oregon University believes Lavadour clearly demonstrates the values and principles appropriate for this honor to be bestowed.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended Board authorization to Eastern Oregon University to award an honorary doctorate to James Lavadour at its fall 1999 Academic Honors Convocation.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. McAllister shared that she owned two of Mr. Lavadour's paintings and has followed his work for several years. She added that she was thrilled by his nomination for an honorary doctorate.

Ms. McAllister moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the authorization as requested. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

CENTRAL OREGON UNIVERSITY CENTER BUILDING LEASE

Summary

The Oregon University System currently offers programs through the Central Oregon University Center (COUC), established in 1994 on the campus of Central Oregon Community College (COCC). At the May 15, 1998, Board meeting a report was presented showing the growth in programs of the COUC. OUS and COCC are now prepared to expand the programs further and are working on a project to provide a new 36,000-gross-square-foot building to be used for OUS/ COUC on the COCC campus. As part of this commitment, OUS needs to enter into a long-term lease agreement for the new facility so that COCC can sell the necessary 20-year Certificates of Participation for construction.

Staff Report to the Board

Staff requested approval to negotiate a 20-year lease of the new building to be built on the Central Oregon Community College campus in Bend. The 36,000-gross-square-foot building would provide office, classroom, and laboratory space for OUS/COUC programs and programs of COCC and other cooperating institutions. The building is expected to cost approximately $5 million with the debt service to be paid through the rental income provided by OUS. Such rent shall be based on two factors: 1) the annual debt service on the debt incurred by COCC for construction of the building, 2) and a maintenance and repair reserve fund. This repair reserve fund shall be used exclusively for building repair and maintenance of the new facility.

OUS/COUC shall use the premises for the purposes of conducting instructional and administrative programs associated with the delivery of upper division and graduate-level postsecondary education. OUS began serving the Central Oregon area through COUC in 1994; since then, the number of degree programs has expanded from seven to 23, the number of classes has grown from 35 to 240, and enrollments have increased from approximately 540 to over 2,000. When COUC first started its programs it had surplus space and the program was easily accommodated. Since 1994, the demand for space on campus has risen substantially and there no longer is surplus space available for COUC programs and no room for expansion. This new facility will meet the pressing space demands of COUC and provide new up-to-date facilities for the programs offered by both OUS/COUC and COCC.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended the Board authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to negotiate a long-term lease agreement (20 years with provisions for extensions, if needed) with Central Oregon Community College on behalf of the Oregon University System.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow and Associate Vice Chancellor Lanier highlighted the conditions of the lease proposal. Mr. Lussier commented that the space was necessary, not only for the growth of the University Center, but for the community college. He added that the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board recently identified increased visibility for the University Center as a priority. The location of the new building would meet that objective.

Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the lease agreement as submitted. The following voted in favor:  Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no:  none.

PURCHASE OF CARSON PROPERTY, OSU

Summary

OSU University Housing and Dining Services has been negotiating for the purchase of the last parcel of non-university owned land within the Orchard Court apartment complex on the OSU campus from Floyd and Evelyn Carson. An agreement was reached on this .264 acre parcel, which contains a duplex, and which was needed by the University to provide for the planned addition of up to 12 housing units within the complex.

Staff Report to the Board

The primary student family housing at OSU is the Orchard Court apartment complex. The complex currently has 94 apartment units and three single family houses located along Jackson Street. The houses and the duplex to be purchased will be moved or demolished to allow OSU to build the new family housing units. The development of these new units is especially crucial to meet ADA compliance requirements for the student family housing program. The ground floor apartments would be designed to meet ADA requirements because no Orchard Court apartments are currently accessible.

Without the purchase of this additional land within the complex, OSU would only be able to build approximately six apartment units (two- story construction) on the Jackson Street site. With the purchase of the duplex site, OSU may be able to double the number of units, depending upon layout, design and size. The increased units will provide for greater cost efficiency for construction and generate more revenue through increased rental units.

OSU historically has had a shortage of student family housing, with wait lists ranging from six months to two years. Many of the older homes that were acquired and used for student family housing over the years have been phased out and demolished due to their poor condition and the need to use the land for other university purposes.

The final offer of $205,000 by the Carsons exceeds the appraisal value of the property of approximately $170,000, but OSU officials are willing to pay the higher price due to the critical location of the parcel and the importance it has in the expansion plans of the Orchard Court apartment complex. An environmental assessment is being conducted on the parcel and the purchase will be contingent upon the result of the study, which is expected to be favorable. The parcel would be paid from funds received in the Adult Student Housing (ASH) settlement.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board grant approval to purchase the Carson duplex within the OSU Orchard Court apartment complex site for a price not to exceed $205,000 plus closing costs.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Lussier moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to approve the purchase. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

ACQUISITION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF GROUND LEASE FOR UNIVERSITY CENTER BUILDING, PSU

Summary

Portland State University proposed to acquire the improvements and assume the long-term lease for the ground under the University Center Building located at 1881 SW 5th Avenue in Portland. This project was discussed in a report to the Board in June 1999. The ground lease runs for 24 years, with an option to extend for an additional 20 years. The University also has the right of first refusal to purchase the land from the lessor at any time during the lease term should it be offered for sale. The price for the improvements (84,490 square feet of office, retail, and classroom space, plus a 250 space parking structure with City permission to park up to 380 vehicles) would not exceed $5.2 million. The University proposed to finance the acquisition and estimated $800,000 of tenant improvements through the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds for a maximum term of 30 years in the total amount of $6.0 million. Debt service would be paid from parking charges and rents. Approval was sought from the Board to request authorization from the Emergency Board for the Other Funds Limitation required to conclude this transaction and to issue the Article XI-F(1) bonds needed to finance it.

The University Center Building would address the University's immediate parking needs and longer-term requirements for general purpose classroom and office space. These uses are consistent with the City of Portland's University District Plan.

Staff Report to the Board

As discussed with the Board in June 1999, PSU is expected to increase its enrollment by about five percent per year for the next two years, and by 15 percent over the next five years. Lack of parking has been a limiting factor to PSU enrollment growth and has been identified in student surveys as a major source of dissatisfaction. Through its transit pass subsidy program and its participation in the transit mall extension and central city streetcar projects, PSU has encouraged students, faculty, and staff to use alternative modes of transportation. About 35 percent of students and 30 percent of faculty and staff currently use public transit, one of the highest rates of transit use among major metropolitan area institutions. Even under current conditions, PSU officials estimate that they have only about half the parking spaces needed to serve their students, faculty, staff, and visitors adequately.

Further, the local transit agency will soon discontinue the transit pass program used by PSU. The City of Portland limits severely the number of parking spaces the University can build. The cost of building parking (which must be in structures to meet City codes) is in excess of $20,000 per space, plus land costs. However, the City permits the acquisition and retention of existing parking spaces.

The growth of PSU's enrollment and the redesign of its curriculum have meant that general purpose classroom and office spaces are at a premium. The University has calculated that it will make maximum use of current classroom spaces, plus those to be added in the new Urban Center facility by fall term 2000. This means that further enrollment growth will be hampered by a lack of classroom spaces.

Further, the Graduate School of Social Work, which has occupied rented space in the University Center Building since 1987, has seen marked enrollment growth over the past few years. Through its Regional Research Institute, it has become one of the main research units on the campus. Acquisition of the building would permit co-location of the entire school and provide it with growth opportunities. The University currently rents about one-third of the office space in the University Center Building (28,000 square feet). This amount excludes the 9,500-square-foot space occupied by the Math Learning Center, a PSU affiliate, and the nearly 19,000 square feet currently used by the PSU Bookstore, an independent cooperative associated with the University.

PSU proposed to purchase the building for a maximum of $5.2 million and assume the underlying ground lease. Upon the conclusion of the ground lease and any extensions to it (currently slated for the year 2043), the building's ownership will revert to the landowner. Thus, the transaction takes on some aspects of a long-term lease, although the University would have the right to remodel the building as it saw fit, within the constraints of City codes. In addition to the need for parking and space for PSU, the structure of the proposal has certain financial advantages, compared to a strict lease. If the current PSU leases in the building (now slated for the year 2008) were to be extended at their 2008 rates until 2043, PSU would pay more in lease payments for the 28,000 square feet it already occupies than it would pay in debt service by acquiring the entire building and its attendant parking structure for a period of 30 years.

Environmental assessments and building reports have been conducted. The current building owner will remove oil tanks and any associated contamination in the summer of 1999, prior to closing. There is about $500,000 of repairs likely to be needed in the building. An appraisal has been received and a value in excess of $5.2 million has been indicated for the improvements.

PSU proposed to request approval from the Emergency Board for the acquisition of the building, subject to the underlying ground lease, and to issue $6 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds (net proceeds after costs of bond sale) to finance the acquisition and $800,000 of improvements to meet repair and build-out requirements associated with bringing additional University or other tenants. The rental structure of the building, supplemented by parking charges, will be sufficient to meet debt service requirements. Depending on the timing of the 1999 fall bond sale, PSU may seek short-term interim financing in order to close by November 1999, as required by the March 30, 2000, earnest money agreement.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff concurred with the request of Portland State University officials and recommended that the Board approve the acquisition of the University Center Building. Staff further recommended the Board authorize the Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration to request State Emergency Board approval for expenditure limitation in the amount of $6.0 million for the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds for the acquisition and improvements of the University Center Building. In addition, staff recommended that the Board approve the long-term ground lease for the property underlying the building, which is required to be executed as part of the transaction for acquisition of the building.

Board Discussion and Action

Associate Vice Chancellor Lanier reviewed the information in the lease proposal. Mr. George Pernsteiner, PSU vice president for Finance and Administration, highlighted the reasoning behind the request, reiterating his comments from the report he provided at the June 1999 meeting.

Ms. McAllister asked if there was any caution from the Emergency Board or others in regard to monies being used for improvements rather than an actual purchase. Mr. Pernsteiner responded that the Bond Council indicated there would not be a problem, but was unsure about the Emergency Board's reaction, since it has not been proposed to them.

Mr. Pernsteiner explained that the lease proposal is a common arrangement in the downtown Portland area, but not something OUS has been involved with before. Ms. Lanier supported Mr. Pernsteiner's statement, adding that the main concern of the Bond Council was that the lease agreements be worked through the term of the bonds so that there be some guarantee of the rental stream to enable repayment of the debt.

Ms. McAllister moved and Dr. Richmond seconded the motion to approve the acquisition as requested. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

RESOLUTION FOR THE SALE OF ARTICLE XI-G & ARTICLE XI-F(1) BONDS

1999 Fall Bond Sale for Capital Projects
Six Campuses Served with Fourteen Individual Projects; Four Systemwide Allocation Programs
A Total of $100,882,276 Recommended for Sale, Plus Issuance Costs for Article XI-F(1) Bonds

Summary

Contingent upon adoption by the legislature and signature of the Governor of the required 1999-2001 biennial budgets for OUS capital construction, operations, and appropriate bond authorization, as well as Emergency Board approval when needed, staff recommended the Board approve a request to the State Treasurer to issue $28,186,476 of bonds for construction projects under authority of Article XI-G of the Oregon Constitution and $72,695,800 of bonds under authority of Article XI-F(1) of the Oregon Constitution. This sale is currently scheduled to be held in late September 1999. The total sale requested is for $100,882,276, plus estimated issuance costs of $1,455,000 for Article XI-F(1) bonds.

Staff Report to the Board

Background. The 1999 Legislative Assembly had specific legislation pending authorizing the Board of Higher Education to issue general obligation bonds, with the proceeds to be used to finance capital construction and facilities repair and renovation projects in higher education. These bonds were authorized under two sections of the Oregon Constitution, Article XI-G and Article XI-F(1).

Article XI-G bonds are issued to construct and repair facilities classified as Education and General use, including classroom facilities, libraries, teaching laboratories and general administrative space. These bonds are matched by an appropriation from the state General Fund and are general obligations of the state; the debt service is paid from the General Fund. The legislature established a mechanism whereby the General Fund match may be generated through gifts and/or federal and local governmental funds. These are first deposited to special project accounts in the Treasury and then treated as General Fund monies for purpose of the match. In 1997-1999, the legislature established and approved accounts for the UO Campus Development Project (Phases II and III); PSU Urban Center, Phase I; the WOU Library; and the SOU Center for the Visual Arts.

Article XI-F(1) bonds are issued to construct and repair facilities that are self-financing and self-supporting as determined by the Board, in accordance with Article XI-F(1) of the Oregon Constitution. Bonds of this type have been issued to cover projects for the construction and renovation of auxiliary enterprises space (such as parking facilities or student housing) where the source of debt service is from auxiliary funds. Bonds have also been approved for projects in student facilities (such as student unions, student health facilities, or student recreation facilities) where the debt service is repaid from the Student Building fee or from a special fee approved for this purpose by the Board. The preponderance of bonds sold for capital construction in higher education has been under Article XI-F(1).

1999-2001 Higher Education Bond Bill Authorization. If approved, Senate Bill 5502 would authorize a maximum issuance of $37,705,276 of Article XI-G bonds and a maximum issuance of $134,268,293 of Article XI-F(1) bonds in 1999-2001.

Request for Board Authorization to Issue. Contingent upon adoption by the legislature of the required 1999-2001 biennial budgets for OUS capital construction, operations, and appropriate bond authorization, as well as Emergency Board approval when needed, the institutions sought authorization from the Board to issue a total of $100,882,276 in bonds plus estimated issuance costs of $1,455,000 for Article XI-F(1) bonds, as part of a sale currently planned by the State Treasurer for September 1999.

Of this amount, a total of $28,186,476 is requested in Article XI-G bond authorization and a total of $72,695,800 in Article XI-F(1) bond authorization, plus Article XI-F(1) bond issuance costs.

Bond issuance costs estimated at two percent ($1,455,000) will be charged against each project for which bonds are sold under this sale. Prior to sale, the Board's bond counsel may designate a portion of the sale as taxable, due to space utilization by private entities in the projects to be financed under this sale. At present, the percentage of the total square footage for private use affected under this sale is not sufficient to cause any portion of the sale to be taxable.

Several tables are provided herein:

Table A, included in the resolution, identifies the Article XI-F(1) projects recommended for the Fall 1999 Bond Sale.

Table B, also included in the resolution, identifies the Article XI-G projects recommended for the Fall 1999 Bond Sale.

Four tables are provided after the resolution to display information on debt service issues:

Table C displays the amount of Article XI-F(1) bonds to be sold as well as the estimated annual debt service requirements associated with the projects proposed to be included in the Fall 1999 Bond Sale, by campus and Systemwide.

Table D compares the total Article XI-F(1) bonded debt projected to be outstanding as of June 30, 1999, fiscal year end, to the increment associated with the Fall 1999 Bond Sale, by auxiliary category and repayment sources.

Table E displays information on Article XI-G bonded debt, beginning with 1991-1993, through 1997-1999. It compares the amount of the debt service paid with the total biennial budget for E&G all sources and General Fund E&G.

Table F projects annual Article XI-G bonded debt outstanding and annual debt service beginning with the 1997-1999 biennium through 2004-2005, assuming approval of the proposed Fall 1999 Bond Sale.

In addition, summary information on each of the projects included in the proposed sale is provided in a supplement to this item (on file in the Board's office).

Resolution for the Sale of Bonds for Capital Projects

Contingent upon adoption by the legislature of the required 1999-2001 biennial budgets for OUS capital construction, operations, and appropriate bond authorization, as well as Emergency Board approval when needed, the resolution before the Board authorized staff to pursue the sale of bonds for all projects currently identified by the campuses as needing bond financing consistent with the overall bond limitation imposed by the legislature for the period 1999-2001.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended the Board: 1) find that the projects for which Article XI-F(1) bonds are proposed meet the self-liquidating and self-supporting requirements of Article XI-F(1), Section 2, of the Oregon Constitution; and 2) adopt the following resolution for authorizing the sale of Article XI-G and Article XI-F(1) bonds for capital projects.

RESOLUTION FOR THE SALE OF BONDS FOR
CAPITAL PROJECTS

WHEREAS, ORS 286.031 states, in part, that the State Treasurer shall issue all general obligation bonds of this state after consultation with the state agency responsible for administering the bonds proceeds; and

WHEREAS, ORS 286.033 states, in part, that the state agency shall authorize issuance of bonds subject to ORS 286.031 by resolution; and

WHEREAS, ORS Chapters 351, 288, and 286 provide further direction as to how bonds are sold and proceeds administered; and

WHEREAS, if Senate Bill 5502, Oregon Laws 1999, now pending before the Oregon Legislature, is enacted, it would authorize limitations on the amount of bonds that may be sold pursuant to Articles XI-G and XI-F(1) for the 1999-2001 biennium; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 254, Oregon Laws 1995; Chapter 584, Oregon Laws 1997; and House Bill 5021-1, Oregon Laws 1999, now pending before the Oregon Legislature, lists those projects that may be financed pursuant to Articles XI-G and XI-F(1) of the Oregon Constitution; and

WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this Board to authorize the State Treasurer to issue bonds for projects authorized by previous legislation and pending bills, once adopted by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor, and in amounts not greater than authorized by the pending bond bill and for other projects as may be provided by law and as otherwise required by law for the 1999-2001 biennium without requiring further action of this Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the State Board of Higher Education of the State of Oregon as follows:

Section 1. Issue. The State of Oregon is authorized to issue general obligation bonds (the "Bonds"), in such series and principal amounts as the State Treasurer, after consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration of the Department of Higher Education, shall determine are required to fund projects authorized by Oregon law. The Bonds shall be designated, dated, authenticated, registered, shall mature, shall be in such denomination, shall bear such interest, be payable, be subject to redemption, and otherwise contain such terms as the State Treasurer determines, including the designations as Oregon Baccalaureate Bonds, after consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration. The maximum net effective interest rate for the Bonds shall not exceed ten percent per annum.

Section 2. Article XI-F(1) Projects. Bonds are authorized to be sold to provide funds to pay the cost of issuance of the bonds and for projects as may be authorized by the Oregon Legislature and as may be revised by the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration as authorized by Oregon law.

Table A - Article XI-F(1) Projects Recommended for Fall 1999 Bond Sale

Article XI-F(1) Projects

Estimated Bond Cost, Excluding Issuance Costs

Maximum Term

Systemwide: Academic Modernization and Repair

$3,000,000

30 years ($1 million)
20 years ($1 million)
15 years ($1 million)
Systemwide: Campus Master Plans 2,000,000 15 years
Systemwide:  Miscellaneous Small
Capital Projects
(to be repaid by Student Building Fee)
3,050,000 30 years ($1.55 million)
15 years (1.5 million)
Systemwide: Small Capital Projects 3,000,000 20 years
OSU: Buxton Hall Remodeling 6,890,000 30 years
OSU: Student Family Housing
(1995-1997)
8,400,000 30 years
OSU: Student Family Housing Incremental (1999-2001) 2,000,000 30 years
OSU: Sackett Hall Domestic Water System Replacement 3,180,000 15 years
PSU: Department of Environmental Quality Laboratories 17,060,000 30 years
PSU: Smith Memorial Center, Phase II (to be repaid by Student Building Fee) 1,000,000 30 years
PSU: University Center Acquisition 5,200,000 30 years
PSU: University Center Remodel 800,000 30 years
PSU: University Student Housing 15,500,000 30 years
UO: Campus Development Project, Phase III (Gilbert Hall Remodel) 100,000 30 years
UO: Recreation and Fitness Center 1,515,800 30 years
TOTAL XI-F(1) Projects $70,695,800 NA

In accordance with past practice, approximately two percent issuance cost for Article XI-F(1) bonds will be added to the total project cost at the time of issuance to cover underwriting and other costs associated with the sale.

Section 3. Article XI-G Projects. Bonds are authorized to be sold to provide funds for projects previously authorized or as may be authorized by the Oregon Legislature and as may be revised by the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration as authorized by Oregon law.

Table B - Article XI-G Projects Recommended for Fall 1999 Bond Sale

Article XI-G Projects

Estimated Bond Cost

Maximum Term

Systemwide: Academic Modernization and Repair $11,596,476 30 years
EOU: Natural Resources & Health Services - Planning & Design $500,000 20 years
SOU: Center for Visual Arts $5,620,000 30 years
UO: Campus Development Project, Phase II (Grayson Hall) $2,250,000 30 years
UO: Campus Development Project, Phase III (Gilbert Hall) $3,450,000 30 years
WOU: Library $4,770,000 30 years
TOTAL XI-G Projects $28,186,476 NA

Section 4. Maintenance of Tax-Exempt Status. The Board covenants for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to comply with all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), that are required for Bond interest to be excluded from gross income for federal income taxation purposes (except for taxes on corporations), unless the Board obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required in order for the interest to be paid on the Bonds to be so excluded. The Board makes the following specific covenants with respect to the Code:

(a) The Board shall not take or omit any action if the taking or omission would cause the Bonds to become "arbitrage bonds" under Section 148 of the Code, and shall assist in calculations necessary to determine amounts, if any, to allow the State to pay to the United States all "rebates" on "gross proceeds" of the Bonds that are required under Section 148 of the Code.

(b) Covenants of the Board or its designee in its tax certificate for the Bonds shall be enforceable to the same extent as if contained herein.

Section 5. Sale of Bonds. The State Treasurer, with the concurrence of the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, shall sell the Bonds as the State Treasurer deems advantageous.

Section 6. Other Action. The State Treasurer, the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, or the Controller of the Department of Higher Education is hereby authorized, on behalf of the Board, to take any action that may be required to issue, sell, and deliver the Bonds in accordance with this resolution.

Additional Information on Debt and Debt Service

Table C - Fall 1999 Bond Sale for Article XI-F(1) Bonds:
Magnitude of Bonds to be Sold and Associated Annual Debt Service
(dollars in millions)

Institution Article XI-F(1) Bonds Estimated Annual Debt Service
Systemwide 11,050,000 800,000
OSU 20,470,000 1,480,000
PSU 39,560,000 2,861,000
UO 1,615,800 117,000
Total Debt Association with Fall Bond Sale 72,695,800 5,258,000

Table D - Comparison of Total Article XI-F(1) Bonded Debt Outstanding
by Auxiliary Category and Repayment Sources,
June 30, 1999 to Fall 1999 Bond Sale

(dollars in millions)

Auxiliary Bonds Outstanding as of 6/30/99* Annual
Debt Service as of 6/30/99*
Fall Bond Sale Increment of Bonds Outstanding Fall Bond Sale Increment of Debt Service Revenue Available for Debt Service
1997-98

**

Dedicated Revenue Source

**

Consolidated Dorms and
Independent Dorms
$ 39.7
&
14.1
$3.8
&
1.0
10.1 0.7 ***$42.1
(for all dorms)
Residence & Dining Hall
Parking 14.4 1.5 ***5.7 Parking Fees
Auxiliary Programs 119.1 8.8 58.6 4.3 12.4 Housing Rental Income, Lease Payment, User Fees, Transfer from E&G
Student Building Fee Program 61.5 7.1 4.0 0.3 8.9 Student Building Debt Service Reserve
TOTAL DEBT OUT-STANDING $248.8 $22.2 $72.7 $5.3

* Excludes OHSU debt outstanding of $43.0 million. Debt service is paid by OHSU per OUS/OHSU Debt Service Agreement.

**The majority of the projects to be included in the Fall 1999 Bond Sale would generate additional revenue necessary to make the projects self-liquidating and self-supporting. Building fee debt service would be covered under existing revenue streams.

***Includes revenue for operations.


Table E - Article XI-G Bonded Debt Historical Trends
(dollars in millions)

Biennial E&G
All Sources*
Debt Service
Percent of E&G Total
General Fund
E&G
Debt Service
General Fund
1991-1993 $ 818 1.55% $515 2.46%
1993-1995 866 1.47% 482 2.64%
1995-1997 991 1.67% 422 3.79%
1997-1999 1,062 1.73% 496 3.69%

E&G = Education & General

* Excludes non-limited funds (such as sponsored programs).

Table F - Article XI-G Bonded Debt Outstanding Actual and Projected
(dollars in millions)

Beginning
Bonds
Outstanding
Annual
Debt Service
Biennial
Debt Service
1997-1998 $ 64.2 $8.5 $18.0
1998-1999 73.6 9.5
1999-2000 75.8 10.3 20.4
2000-2001 97.8 10.1
2001-2002 92.4 10.1 20.2
2002-2003 87.0 10.1
2003-2004 81.7 8.3 16.3
2004-2005 76.5 8.0


Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow directed Board members' attention to Table A, which included $2 million for a Systemwide Campus Master Plan. He said that the project cannot be bonded, therefore the action would be for $2 million less than proposed. He reminded Board members that their action was contingent on legislative approval and gubernatorial signature.

Following a review of each of the projects identified in the bond sale, Associate Vice Chancellor Lanier noted that the overall debt issuance in higher education was lower than most states at 3.69 percent. Mr. Anslow added that a major reason for the conservative approach is embedded in Oregon's Constitution, which requires a 50 percent match amount in order to borrow the other 50 percent of the cost of a building by selling bonds.

Mr. Lussier asked what the average state might run in debt service. Mr. Anslow replied that methodology varied considerably between states, and that Oregon was definitely at the lower end of the spectrum, which is considered positive.

Mr. Koch remarked that he saw that debt service was increasing in both biennial and General Fund budgets. He asked Vice Chancellor Anslow for his perspective on the probable implications of the trend. Mr. Anslow responded that capital needs for new buildings would require greater attention, along with plans for repairs and renovations necessary to existing facilities, then determining if there is an adequate financing structure to accomplish those needs. Complementing those projections, said Mr. Anslow, would be the campus master planning process, which he felt was critical, yet extremely time consuming.

Agreeing with Mr. Anslow's assessment for addressing master plans over the coming biennium, Ms. Lanier said that the kinds of information resulting from master plan studies are also helpful when explaining projects to state lawmakers. She reported that campuses have initiated the master planning process in the past six months. As a part of that, campuses are conducting space utilization and capacity studies.

Mr. Willis moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to approve the bond sale proposal as amended, reducing the total XI-F(1) bond sale request to $70,695,800. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

ACADEMIC YEAR FEE BOOK 1999-00, TUITION & OTHER FEE POLICIES

Staff Report to the Board

The Academic Year Fee Book contains the proposed fees and associated policies relating to all mandatory charges required of students enrolled within the regular, on-campus, academic year programs of the Oregon University System. The Chancellor recommended the Board adopt these fees as submitted. Each fee proposal has been tested against a set of criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of any fee increase. This criteria included:

Staff believed that each proposed fee meets this test and warrants the favorable action of the Board.

Tuition and fees represent the mandatory enrollment fees assessed to all students in the regular academic year program of OUS institutions. The mandatory enrollment fees are comprised of the following separate fees: Tuition (formerly referred to as Instruction fee), Resource, Building, Incidental, and Health Service fees. The Board has authorized that the term "tuition" be used in lieu of "instruction fee" to conform to general usage. It should be noted that certain fee increases may be expected and are consistent with the Board's budget submission and the Governor's and the legislature's expectations. There has been considerable publicity about the legislature's action to maintain tuition at the 1996 rate for resident undergraduate students only. Tuition, formerly referred to as Instruction fee, is only one of several components that make up the total tuition and fees amount. The revenue generated by each element of the tuition and fee schedule is dedicated to a specific purpose, independent of the other components.

Comparisons of tuition and fee charges among representative Western public institutions, shown in Schedules 1(A), (B), and (C), depict the relationship of annual charges and percentage changes of Oregon institutions versus others in the West.

Tuition: Tuition for all institutions within OUS are generally increasing at the same rates. Pending 1999 legislative action, the 1999-2001 budget stipulates that tuition for resident undergraduate students at all institutions remains at the 1996-97 rates. The 1999-00 resident and nonresident graduate tuition and the nonresident undergraduate tuition are increasing 5.25 percent over 1998-99 at all institutions except Eastern Oregon University and Portland State University. Board policy calls for Eastern Oregon University nonresident undergraduate tuition to be the same as for resident undergraduates. Portland State University is recommending all graduate and nonresident undergraduate rates increase three percent over 1998-99 rates.

Tuition rates, shown on Schedule 2, generate revenues that apply toward support of the Education and General Services component of the Oregon University System expenditure budget. Tuition is part of the biennial budget funding package proposed by the Board and addressed by the Governor and legislature.

Fees are assessed within undergraduate and graduate fee structures by resident and nonresident student classifications. The residency classification applies to all admitted students. Non-admitted students enrolling under the part-time student policy are assessed a fee appropriate to the level of the course taken, without regard to residency status.

The full-time tuition rate for undergraduates is assessed for all credit hours between 12 and 18. The full-time tuition rate for graduates is assessed for all credit hours between nine and 16. The fees for eight credit hours or less are prorated for the hours enrolled. If students take credit hours above the plateau, they are assessed an additional amount for each hour taken.

Building Fee: The building fee, summarized on Schedule 3, is the same for all institutions. The rate remains at $25 per term per student. This fee generates monies to finance the debt retirement for construction associated with student centers, health centers, and recreational facilities constructed through the issuance of Article XI-F(1) bonds. It is historically set by the legislature through ORS 351.170. The Board was initially presented with a proposal to increase this fee in July 1996 with the approval of the 1997-1999 Capital Construction Budget Request. The 1997 Legislature approved the Board's request to authorize an increase in the student building fee to $25 per term, which is unchanged for 1999-2001. A pro rata fee is assessed on part-time students.

Incidental Fee: Incidental fee changes are described below for each institution and summarized on Schedule 3. This fee recommendation is, for the most part, initially made by student committees in accordance with a Board-approved incidental fee policy (OAR 580-010-0090) on each campus. In some instances, the student committee recommendations are supported by general campus student referenda. The funds generated by this fee are, as specified by the OAR, to be used for "student union activities, educational, cultural, student government activities, and athletic activities." The president of each institution reviews the student committee recommendations. Once satisfied with the proposal, the president submits the recommendation to the Chancellor, who in turn, after a review submits the proposal to the Board.

Health Service Fee: Institution recommendations for Health Service fees are described for each institution below and summarized in Schedule 3. This fee is used to support the student health services of each institution, which are operated as auxiliary services. Generally, rate increases reflect the institutions' efforts to maintain the self-support nature of these services. Health insurance policies may be included in this fee by some institutions. Broader health insurances policies are also made available by some institutions on a student option basis.

Resource Fee: Resource fee changes recommended by the institutions are described below and shown on Schedule 3. Resource fees provide funds for specific programs to assist with faculty salaries, resource materials, equipment, and specialized services. The fees are assessed only to targeted student populations admitted to, or generally understood to be enrolled in, specific programs, and are not paid by students in other programs who might incidentally take a course offered by one of these specified programs. Students enrolled under the part-time student fee policy are subject to the resource fees appropriate to specific courses taken. The Technology Resource fee is assessed to all students. Resource fees may be proposed by institutions for approval by the Board. The estimated income of all such fees may be no more than five percent of the total budgeted state general fund and tuition.

For those students on Board-approved fee remission programs, Resource fees will be covered by the fee remission.

All institutions assess some set of Resource fees. Some are increasing rates and/or adding new Resource fees. All the dollar amounts are on a per-quarter basis unless otherwise noted. Most fees are prorated for part-time hours.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total tuition and fee rates for each institution compared to 1998-99 are summarized on Schedule 4. This reflects the sum of Instruction, Building, Incidental, Health services, and Technology/Resource fees and, in the case of the University of Oregon, the Recreation/Fitness Center fee.

Note that the legislature increased state funds by an amount that offset an anticipated increase in resident undergraduate tuition only. These incremental state funds do not offset the legislatively approved increase in the Building fees, nor the increases in Incidental, Health Services, or Resource fees. To demonstrate what the tuition increase would have been had the resident undergraduate instruction fee not been frozen, Schedule 5 compares the 1999-00 tuition with and without a 5.25 percent increase to the 1998-99 instruction fee totals.

The following are explanations for each institution-generated fee recommendation. Each proposal has been reviewed by the Chancellor's staff. Staff believe each proposal has met the criteria outlined at the beginning of this item.

Eastern Oregon University

Tuition: EOU tuition for resident and nonresident undergraduates is the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for all graduates will increase 5.25 percent.

Resource Fees: EOU proposed no increase in its Technology fee at $50 per term for all students, nor in its one time Matriculation fee of $50 for new students.

Incidental Fees: EOU Incidental fees are increasing 3.9 percent to $186 per term to partially offset the effect of a potential decline in enrollment. The Incidental Fee Committee also reduced the total incidental fee budget below the 1998-99 amount.

Health Service Fees: EOU basic Health Services fees are being increased 10.8 percent to $72 per term. Of this $7 fee increase, $1 is to cover inflation while $6 are to partially offset the affect of a potential decline in enrollment.

A new Health Insurance fee of $17 per term is being added at EOU to provide health insurance to students. Students who can verify outside health insurance coverage may secure a waiver of this fee.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for EOU are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 2.8 percent to $1,122 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 2.8 percent to $1,122 per term; resident graduates by 6.0 percent to $1,883 per term; and nonresident graduates by 5.7 percent to $3,290 per term.

Oregon Institute of Technology

Tuition: OIT tuition for resident undergraduates is the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates will increase 5.25 percent.

Resource Fees: OIT proposed to increase its Technology Resource fee $4 per term to $28 to help address the demands for technology services.

In addition, OIT proposed a new Matriculation fee of $25, to be paid one-time by new students for student orientation and related activities.

Incidental Fees: OIT Incidental fees are increasing 1.7 percent to $117 to cover inflation.

Health Service Fees: OIT basic Health Services fees will remain the same as the previous year at $75 per term.

A new Health Insurance fee of $17 per term is being added at OIT to provide health insurance to students. Students who can verify outside health insurance coverage may secure a waiver of this fee.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for OIT are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 2.1 percent to $1,126 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 5.5 percent to $3,812 per term; resident graduates by 5.9 percent to $1,845 per term; and nonresident graduates by 5.6 percent to $3,262 per term.

Oregon State University

Tuition: OSU tuition for resident undergraduates is the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates, including Veterinary Medicine, will increase 5.25 percent.

A new tuition schedule was proposed for students admitted as of fall term 1999 to the Oregon State University Pharmacy Pharm D four-year undergraduate program. The tuition rates will be $2,270 per term for residents and $4,900 per term for nonresidents. There will not be a Pharmacy Resource fee on these students. Students previously admitted to the Pharmacy programs will continue under those policies until their graduation.

Resource Fees: OSU proposed to increase two of its Resource fees and create an additional one. The Pharmacy fee, for current students, will increase 5.0 percent to $1,092 to support that program's operating budget. The Engineering fee will increase by 7.7 percent to $140 to help with increased computer laboratory cost and expansion.

The MBA Resident fee will remain at $130 per term; the MBA Nonresident fee will remain at $315 per term; and the Technology fee will remain at $52. The one time Matriculation fee assessed to all new students will remain the same at $75.

A new Resource fee of $25 per term will be assessed to students admitted to the University Honors College to support the UHC Student Learning Center and other Honors College student service activities. This fee is supported by the University Honors College students.

Incidental Fees: OSU Incidental fees are increasing 2.3 percent to $133 per term to cover inflation.

Health Service Fees: OSU basic Health Services fees are being increased 1.3 percent to $79 per term to cover inflation.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for OSU are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 0.3 percent to $1,187 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 5.0 percent to $4,135 per term; resident graduates by 4.7 percent to $2,167 per term; and, nonresident graduates by 4.9 percent to $3,691 per term.

Portland State University

Tuition: PSU tuition for resident undergraduates are the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates will increase 3.0 percent.

Resource Fees: PSU proposed no increase in any of its Resource fees. The MBA fee will remain at $120; the Engineering program fees will remain at $130; the Technology fee for undergraduates will remain at $48 and for graduate students will remain at $49.50. The one-time Matriculation fee of $30 will remain the same.

Incidental Fees: PSU Incidental fees are increasing 8.6 percent to $126 per term to support expansion of existing services to speech forensics, student publications, and the Smith Memorial Center. In addition, funds will support new programs for the Pre-Med Society, Chamber Choir travel, and minor equipment. A $72,000 subsidy of the Childcare Center is no longer needed and has been dropped. Students have set aside $50,000 for subsidy of the wrestling program.

Health Service Fees: PSU Health Services fees are the same as the previous year's rate.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for PSU are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 0.9 percent to $1,156 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 3.1 percent to $3,887 per term; resident graduates by 3.1 percent to $2,097.50 per term; and, nonresident graduates by 3.1 percent to $3,588.50 per term.

Southern Oregon University

Tuition: SOU tuition for resident undergraduates are the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates will increase 5.25 percent.

Resource Fees: SOU proposed an increase in its one-time Matriculation fee assessed to all new students of 60 percent from $25 to $40 to cover costs for a student handbook and day planner for each student, in addition to ongoing costs of new student orientation and various testing and placement services. The Master of Management fee increases five percent to $105 for residents and remains at $150 for nonresidents for expanded services. The MBA Resource fee remains at $100 per term for residents and $150 for nonresidents. The Technology fee will increase 25 percent to a maximum of $30 per term to address increased demand for technology services.

Incidental Fees: SOU Incidental fees are increasing 3.6 percent to $114.50 per term, restoring the fee to its 1997-98 level after being reduced in 1998-99. The increase will aid the Schneider Child Care Center and student organizations as well as cover inflation on ongoing service levels.

Health Service Fees: SOU basic Health Services fees are being increased 3.0 percent to $68.50 per term to cover inflation and other operating costs.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for SOU are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 1.1 percent to $1,078 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 5.3 percent to $3,299 per term; resident graduates by 5.3 percent to $1,820 per term; and, nonresident graduates by 5.3 percent to $3,238 per term.

University of Oregon

Tuition: UO tuition for resident undergraduates is the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates will increase 5.25 percent.

Resource Fees: UO proposed changes in three of its Resource fees. All continuing or returning students matriculated prior to fall 1998 will continue to be assessed $15 for a Matriculation fee. This is the second of a three-year phase-in of this fee. As a result, for first term undergraduates participating in the IntroDUCKtion orientation program, the one-time fee will be increased by 33 percent to $200. The one-time fee is increased by 50 percent to $150 for undergraduates who do not participate in the IntroDUCKtion program; and by 100 percent to $100 for graduate students.

The Resource fee assessed students enrolled in the Honors College will increase by 100 percent to $100 per term for students admitted fall 1999 but will remain the same at $50 per term for students admitted between fall 1997 and fall 1999. This increase is part of a four-year phase-in to increase the Honors College Resource fee to $300 for newly admitted students by 2002-03. The concept has been endorsed by Honors College Student Association. The income generated by this fee increase will permit completion of the expansion of the faculty required by the decision to increase Honors College enrollment from 400 to 600 to maintain intensive small enrollment offerings. It is anticipated that the new scholarships for high GPA students will substantially mitigate the impact of this fee on students.

The Law Resources fee increases by 6.4 percent to $2,075 to continue support of a number of student services of the Law School, including career services, technology support, clinical placements, adjunct faculty, and expected increased demands for support services with the completion of the Knight Law School building.

The Resource fee on all students admitted to the Architecture and Landscape Architecture programs remains at $30. The College of Business Administration fees remain at $100 for undergraduates and $500 for master's degree students. The Technology fee remains at $65 for all students.

Incidental Fees: Incidental fees are increasing 3.8 percent to $163.75 per term. In addition to inflation on existing programs, three ballot measures were passed by student vote to support student activities and services in the amount of $11.39.

Health Service Fees: UO basic Health Services fees will be increased 8.6 percent to $88 per term. Of the $7 increase, $5 are to maintain basic student health center operations as recommended by the Student Health Advisory Committee and $2 are for support of counseling services.

Recreational Center Fee: The UO Recreational Center fee will remain at $15.25 per term.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for UO are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 1.0 percent to $1,270 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 5.1 percent to $4,399 per term; resident graduates by 5.0 percent to $2,250 per term; and, nonresident graduates by 5.1 percent to $3,803 per term.

Western Oregon University

Tuition: WOU tuition for resident undergraduates is the same as the previous year's rates. The tuition rates for nonresident undergraduates and all graduates will increase 5.25 percent.

Resource Fees: WOU proposed to increase its Technology fee for undergraduates by 16.7 percent to $28 per term and by 55 percent for graduate students, also to $28 per term, to meet inflation and provide additional computer labs and additional dial-up services. A new $75 one-time Matriculation fee is assessed all new and transfer students to replace other fees for a variety of new student orientation programs.

Incidental Fees: WOU Incidental fees are increasing 2.5 percent to $122 per term to cover inflation.

Health Service Fees: WOU basic Health Services fees are being increased 3.5 percent to $60 per term to cover inflation.

A new Health Insurance fee of $17 per term is being added at WOU to provide health insurance to students. Students who can verify outside health insurance coverage may secure a waiver of this fee.

Total Tuition and Fees: The total basic tuition and fees for WOU are increasing as follows: resident undergraduates by 2.4 percent to $1,092 per term; nonresident undergraduates by 5.7 percent to $3,431 per term; resident graduates by 6.4 percent to $1,834 per term; and nonresident graduates by 5.9 percent to $3,252 per term.

Other Significant Policy Changes

Several policy changes are noted in Academic Year Fee Book under the "Summary of Fee and Policy Changes of 1999-00." Below are highlights of the more significant of those changes:

Special Fee Adjustments

OIT students taking courses covered by the Memorandum of Understanding with the Klamath Community College Service District are no longer being assessed a differential rate. With the shift in the 1999-2001 biennial budget of community college partnership funds, OIT will assess full tuition for all courses covered in the Memorandum of Understanding with the Klamath Community College Service District. For students who enroll in these courses directly through the community college, the community college will pay OIT the differential to cover the full tuition.

SOU's fee for courses covered by the Memorandum of Understanding with Rogue Community College is being increased by $5 per credit hour to $45 per credit hour to match Rogue Community College rates.

A new tuition category for Western Undergraduate Exchange (WUE) replaces the previous fee remission category. The tuition for WUE will be 150 percent of the given institution's resident undergraduate tuition rate.

Tuition for courses at the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science will be set at $204 per credit hour.

Tuition for the Master's of International Management through the Oregon Joint Graduate Professional School of Business is set at $18,500.

The maximum fee for examination for credit will increase to $60 per course, up from $40 per course. This maximum fee has not been adjusted for several years. Each institution must still follow administrative rule change procedures to set their respective fees.

Policies Related to Resource Allocation Model Implementation and Year 2000 Transition

Funding of fee remissions under the new Resource Allocation Model require they be supported from institution funds and no longer from Board income.

The policy on concurrent enrollment was revised to accommodate the Resource Allocation Model policy of each institution retaining its tuition income. Since tuition is no longer pooled at the system level, institutions will share the full-time tuition income of a student, prorated to the number of credit hours a concurrently enrolled student carries at each institution.

A special provision for 1999-00 will allow institutions some discretion to accommodate the transition to the year 2000 and in implementing the new Resource Allocation Model. Of particular concern is the beginning of winter term 2000, in which institutions will be allowed, if necessary, to extend the refund schedule should administrative systems due to Year 2000 transition cause delays beyond the student's control. The institution discretion is directed to ensure students are not disadvantaged due to the transition to Year 2000 or to the new Resource Allocation Model.

Residence Hall and Food Service Charges

Institutional residence halls and food services operate as auxiliary services. As such, their fees and charges cover the cost of their operations. In recommending residence hall room and board charges for 1999-00, institution administrators estimated residence hall occupancy in relation to enrollment projections and present occupancy patterns.

Recommended changes for 1999-00 in room and board rates are reflected in the examples given in Schedule 6. These rates are only examples, since each institution offers various room and board combinations; most basic room and board rates will increase between 3-12 percent. The rates are detailed in the Academic Year Fee Book.

Not covered by this action are rates for the PSU campus. Student Services Northwest, Inc., a private corporation, operates the residence halls at PSU and establishes the rates as specified in a service contract. The rates require approval by PSU officials.

Report of Public Hearing on Academic Year Fee Book

Summary of Testimony Received

The public hearing on the 1999-00 Academic Year Fee Book was conducted on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, from 10-11 a.m., in Room 121 of Susan Campbell Hall, on the University of Oregon campus. No one presented testimony at the public hearing, nor was any written comment received. A second public hearing was scheduled for Thursday, July 15, 1999, from 10-11 a.m., in Room 121 of Susan Campbell Hall, on the University of Oregon campus.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board amend OAR 580-40-0040 as follows:

(Underlined material is added; brackets denote deletion.)

OAR 580-040-0040 Academic Year Fee Book

The document entitled Academic Year Fee Book, dated July 16, 1999 [July 16, 1998], is hereby amended by reference as a temporary rule. All prior adoptions of academic year fee documents are hereby repealed except as to rights and obligations previously acquired or incurred thereunder.

Through the amendment, the Board adopts, as a temporary rule, the document entitled Academic Year Fee Book, memos of attachment amending the draft document, and other amendments and attached schedules noted in this agenda item. Consideration of the permanent rule will occur at the earliest possible meeting of the Board of Higher Education consistent with permanent rulemaking requirements.

Board Discussion and Action

Vice Chancellor Anslow explained that the temporary rule was effective for 180 days. The Fee Book amendments were proposed as a temporary rule due to the delay in the approval of the higher education budget by the legislature. Additionally, a third public hearing was scheduled for August 17, 1999, in an effort to receive as much input as possible from concerned parties, he said.

Referring to the letter from OSA Director Dennis, the Chancellor noted how he addressed concerns outlined by Mr. Dennis in a response to him dated July 13, 1999. The first, related to opportunities for public input, was responded to by creating an additional public meeting on August 17, as noted above. Furthermore, a lengthy discussion pertaining to fee structures took place on June 18 in a joint Budget and Finance Committee meeting, indicated Dr. Cox.

Turning to Mr. Dennis' second concern regarding differential tuition, the Chancellor said that, in the case of the fees noted (WOU; one-time Matriculation fee, UO; IntroDUCKtion Orientation fee, and PSU; one-time Matriculation fee) as well as with all other fees, there are services rendered, so if there are differentials in cost, it translates to differentials in service. He added that analyzing specific fees was probably not the best use of the Board's time, as it transitions to a more policy-oriented governing body.

Mr. Koch asked if Mr. Dennis felt his concerns were adequately addressed, indicating that he would have preferred a more detailed summary. Mr. Dennis expressed concern over the increases in student fees of the past several years, as articulated by the letters from students that he attached to his letter to the Chancellor. He shared that the level of frustration is increasing among students about the increased fees, saying that they negate the tuition freeze.

Chancellor Cox said that the question of differential tuition and fees would be an appropriate policy question for the Board. Dr. Aschkenasy pointed out that similar discussions have taken place in prior Budget and Finance Committee meetings. Vice Chancellor Anslow agreed, saying that the Board would annually review the issue of individual campuses' proposed tuition and fees, and expected there to always be some kind of differential in fees because of differences in costs and competition. He indicated that campus representatives were prepared to respond to any concerns regarding a particular fee.

Mr. Lussier said that he felt there were policy issues the Board could address, the first being a definitive statement from the Budget and Finance Committee. In that statement, he indicated there should be specific information on how student input is sought. A final point, he said, would be addressing the level of fees and their increases, and how that fits into the total cost of education in the state.

In further defining the scope of a future discussion, Mr. Koch observed that intrainstitutional differential tuition required attention as well, or that between undergraduate and graduate tuition. "If we are going to be creating a policy on the issue, we need to include this," he said. Ms. Christopher recalled a discussion in a past Budget and Finance Committee meeting. She said that policy decisions were put on hold until the level of funding was determined.

Mr. Willis shared that he recently received a paper written by students on the input process. It reported that students felt largely isolated from campus leadership, and that the level of engagement was low. "If we are going to be creating a policy on this, then this is an important piece," he remarked.

Mr. Willis moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to approve the temporary rule to the 1999-00 Academic Year Fee Book as submitted. The following voted in favor:  Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no:  none.

Provost Moseley asked to clarify a couple of points made in the students' letters attached to Mr. Dennis' letter to the Chancellor. In the case of UO, Dr. Moseley reported that two fee increases applying to all resident undergraduate students were submitted, one of which students voted in favor of (Incidental) and the other was deemed necessary due to increased health service costs. Other fees, including the Matriculation fee, was a consolidation of fees that were phased in over three years. The proposed increase in Honor's College fees was approved and encouraged by the Honor's College Association, said Dr. Moseley, adding that all incoming students automatically receive merit financial aid amounting to more than the increase.

Annual Tuition Rates and Fees in Representative Institutions - 1999-00*
In Descending Order of Resident Undergraduate 1999-00 Rate
Schedule 1 (A)
Public Colleges/Universities in the West

Institutions Year Res U/Grad Nonres U/Grad Res
Grad
Nonres
Grad
Western Oregon University 1999-00 3,810 13,197 6,756 11,409
1998-99 3,771 12,555 5,169 10,857
% Change 1.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
Western Washington University 1999-00 2,991 9,993 4,641 13,617
1998-99 2,867 9,560 4,445 13,025
% Change 4.3% 4.5% 4.4% 4.5%
Eastern Montana College 1999-00 2,921 7,884 3,344 8,329
1998-99 2,809 7,569 3,215 7,975
% Change 4.0% 4.2% 4.0% 4.4%
Northern Arizona University 1999-00 2,259 8,375 2,259 8,375
1998-99 2,160 8,076 2,160 8,076
% Change 4.6% 3.7% 4.6% 3.7%
Boise State University 1999-00 2,644 8,524 3,216 9,096
1998-99 2,472 8,352 3,020 8,900
% Change 7.0% 2.1% 6.5% 2.2%
West. St. Coll. Colorado 1999-00 2,221 7,733 -- --
1998-99 2,173 7,553 -- --
% Change -2.2% -2.3% -- --
Chico State University 1999-00 2,030 7,934 2,108 6,536
1998-99 2,030 7,934 2,108 6,536
% Change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Southern Utah State College 1999-00

Data not Available

1998-99 1,910 6,016 2,054 6,578
% Change ---- ---- ---- ----
Western New Mexico University 1999-00 1,768 6,456 1,888 6,576
1998-99 1,710 6,206 1,830 6,326
% Change 3.4% 4.0% 3.2% 4.0%
University of Hawaii, Hilo 1999-00 1,466 7,082 -- --
1998-99 1,394 7,010 -- --
% Change 5.2% 1.0% -- --

* NOTE: Many of the 1999-00 numbers are tentative pending approval by policy-setting body. Institutions without 1999-00 data are placed in relation to 1998-99 rates and fees.

Schedule 1 (B)
Public Universities in the West

Institutions Year Res
U/Grad
Nonres U/Grad Res
Grad
Nonres
Grad
University of California, Berkeley 1999-00 4,190 13,758 4,416 13,800
1998-99 4,176 13,750 4,408 13,793
% Change 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
University of Oregon 1999-00 3,810 13,197 6,756 11,409
1998-99 3,771 12,555 6,429 10,857
% Change 1.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
University of Washington 1999-00 3,639 12,030 5,583 13,872
1998-99 3,486 11,508 5,424 13,470
% Change 4.4% 4.5% 2.9% 3.0%
Oregon State University 1999-00 3,561 12,405 6,501 11,073
1998-99 3,549 11,817 6,207 10,551
% Change 0.3% 5.0% 4.7% 4.9%
Colorado State University 1999-00 Data not Available
1998-99 3,080 10,664 3,440 11,094
% Change ---- ---- ---- ----
University of Hawaii, Manoa 1999-00 3,141 9,621 4,149 10,077
1998-99 3,045 9,525 3,962 9,890
% Change 3.2% 1.0% 4.7% 1.9%
University of Colorado, Boulder 1999-00 3,093 15,855 3,915 15,628
1998-99 2,945 15,145 3,729 14,927
% Change 5.0% 4.7% 5.0% 4.7%
University of Montana 1999-00 2,911 8,020 3,286 8,890
1998-99 2,777 7,676 3,136 8,507
% Change 4.8% 4.5% 4.8% 4.5%
University of Alaska, Fairbanks 1999-00 2,755 6,384 4,000 7,180
1998-99 2,680 6,376 3,844 6,616
% Change 2.8% 0.1% 4.1% 8.5%
University of Wyoming 1999-00

Data not Available

1998-99 2,330 7,418 2,816 7,906
% Change ---- ---- ---- ----
University of Utah 1999-00 2,351 7,118 2,104 6,812
1998-99 2,284 6,913 2,045 6,219
% Change 2.9% 3.0% 2.9% 9.5%
University of Idaho 1999-00 2,348 8,348 2,888 8,888
1998-99 2,136 8,136 2,676 8,676
% Change 9.9% 2.6% 7.9% 2.4%
Utah State University 1999-00 2,313 7,003 2,501 7,659
1998-99 2,245 6,802 2,427 7,439
% Change 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
University of New Mexico 1999-00

Data not Available

1998-99 2,242 8,461 2,442 8,690
% Change ---- ---- ---- ----
University of Nevada, Reno 1999-00 2,260 8,492 -- --
1998-99 2,184 7,855 -- --
% Change 3.5% 8.1% -- --
Arizona State University 1999-00 2,259 9,411 2,259 9,411
1998-99 2,160 9,112 2,160 9,112
% Change 4.6% 3.3% 4.6% 3.3%
University of Alaska, Southeast 1999-00 2,016 5,724 4,008 7,824
1998-99 1,945 5,448 3,888 7,584
% Change 3.7% 5.1% 3.1% 3.2%

* NOTE: Many of the 1999-00 numbers are tentative pending approval by policy-setting body. Institutions without 1999-00 data are placed in relation to 1998-99 rates and fees.

Schedule 1 (C)
PAC-10 Public Institutions

Institutions
Year
Resid
U/Grad
Nonres U/Grad Res
Grad
Nonres
Grad
University of California, Berkeley 1999-00 4,190 13,758 4,416 13,800
1998-99 4,176 13,750 4,408 13,793
% Change 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
University of California, 1999-00 3,863 13,437 4,594 13,978
Los Angeles 1998-99 3,863 13,431 4,550 13,939
% Change 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.3%
University of Oregon 1999-00 3,810 13,197 6,756 11,409
1998-99 3,771 12,555 6,429 10,857
% Change 1.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
University of Washington 1999-00 3,639 12,030 5,583 13,872
1998-99 3,486 11,508 5,424 13,470
% Change 4.3% 4.5% 2.9% 3.0%
Oregon State University 1999-00 3,561 12,405 6,501 11,073
1998-99 3,549 11,817 6,207 10,551
% Change 0.3% 5.0% 4.7% 4.9%
Washington State University 1999-00

Data not Available

1998-99 3,523 10,681 5,461 13,507
% Change ---- ---- ---- ----
Arizona State University 1999-00 2,259 9,411 2,259 9,411
1998-99 2,160 9,112 2,160 9,112
% Change 4.6% 3.3% 4.6% 3.3%
University of Arizona 1999-00 2,259 9,411 2,259 9,411
1998-99 2,158 9,110 2,158 9,110
% Change 4.6% 3.3% 4.6% 3.3%

Schedule 2
Tuition Recommendations
Full-Time Student
1999-00 Academic Year

Institutions 1998-99 1999-00 % Change
EOU
Undergraduate Resident 2,316 2,316 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 2,316 2,316 0.0%
Graduate Resident 4,371 4,599 5.22%
Graduate Nonresident 8,379 8,820 5.25%
OIT
Undergraduate Resident 2,592 2,592 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 10,119 10,650 5.25%
Graduate Resident 4,512 4,749 5.25%
Graduate Nonresident 8,550 9,000 5.26%
OSU
Undergraduate Resident 2,694 2,694 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 10,962 11,538 5.25%
Graduate Resident 5,352 5,634 5.27%
Graduate Nonresident 9,696 10,206 5.26%
PSU
Undergraduate Resident 2,694 2,694 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 10,569 10,887 3.01%
Graduate Resident 5,352 5,514 3.03%
Graduate Nonresident 9,696 9,987 3.00%
SOU
Undergraduate Resident 2,520 2,520 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 8,724 9,183 5.26%
Graduate Resident 4,509 4,746 5.26%
Graduate Nonresident 8,550 9,000 5.26%
UO
Undergraduate Resident 2,694 2,694 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 11,478 12,081 5.25%
Graduate Resident 5,352 5,634 5.27%
Graduate Nonresident 9,780 10,293 5.25%
WOU
Undergraduate Resident 2,520 2,520 0.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 9,060 9,537 5.26%
Graduate Resident 4,509 4,746 5.26%
Graduate Nonresident 8,550 9,000 5.26%
Other
OSU Vet Med Res 8,940 9,408 5.23%
OSU Vet Med Nonres 18,234 19,191 5.25%
OSU Pharm D Res 4-yr UG -- 6,810 --
OSU Pharm D NonRes 4-yr UG -- 14,700 --
UO Law Resident 5,352 5,632 5.23%
UO Law Nonresident 9,100 9,578 5.25%

­ Denotes program nonexistence.

Schedule 3
Building, Incidental, Health Service, and Resources Fee Recommendations
Full-Time Student

1999-00 Academic Year
1998-99 1999-00 % Change
Building Fee
All Institutions 75.00 75.00 0.0%
UO Law (Semester) 75.00 75.00 0.0%
Incidental Fee
EOU 537.00 558.00 3.9%
OIT 345.00 351.00 1.7%
OIT Metro Center 6.00 6.00 0.0%
OSU 390.00 399.00 2.3%
PSU 348.00 378.00 8.6%
SOU 331.50 343.50 3.6%
UO 473.25 491.25 3.8%
UO Law (Semester) 474.00 491.00 3.6%
WOU 357.00 366.00 2.5%
Health Service Fee
EOU 195.00 267.00 36.9%
OIT 225.00 276.00 22.7%
OSU 234.00 237.00 1.3%
PSU 177.00 177.00 0.0%
SOU 199.50 205.50 3.0%
UO 243.00 264.00 8.6%
UO Law (Semester) 243.00 264.00 8.6%
WOU 174.00 231.00 32.8%
Resource Fees
EOU:
Technology Fee - All 150 150 0.0%
OIT:
Technology Fee - All 72 84 16.7%
OSU:
Technology Fee - All 156 156 0.0%
MBA Residents 390 390 0.0%
MBA Nonresidents 945 945 0.0%
Engineering 390 420 7.7%
Pharmacy 3,120 3,276 5.0%
Honors College -0- 75 ---
PSU:
Technology - Undergraduates 144 144 0.0%
Technology - Graduates 148.50 148.50 0.0%
Sch. of Bus. Masters 360 360 0.0%
Engineering 390 390 0.0%
SOU:
Technology Fee - All 72 90 25.0%
MBA Residents 300 300 0.0%
MBA Nonresidents 450 450 0.0%
MM Residents 300 315 5.0%
MM Nonresidents 450 450 0.0%
UO:
Technology Fee - All 195 195 0.0%
Law Residents 3,900 4,150 6.3%
Law Nonresidents 3,900 4,150 6.3%
C. of Bus. U/G Residents 300 300 0.0%
C. of Bus. U/G Nonresidents 300 300 0.0%
C. of Bus. Master Residents 1,500 1,500 0.0%
C. of Bus. Master Nonresidents 1,500 1,500 0.0%
Honors C. Fall 97 admits 150 150 0.0%
Honors C. Fall 99 admits --- 300 ---
Rec/Fitness Ctr Bond Fee 45.75 45.75 0.0%
Matriculation Fee 45.00 45.00 0.0%
WOU:
Technology Undergraduates 72 84 16.7%
Technology Graduates 54 84 55.6%

Schedule 4
Total Tuition and Fees Recommendations
Full-Time Student
1999-00 Academic Year
Full-Time Combined Tuition and Fees

Institutions 1998-99 1999-00 % Change
EOU
Undergraduate Resident 3,273 3,366 2.8%
Undergraduate Nonresident 3,273 3,366 2.8%
Graduate Resident 5,328 5,649 6.0%
Graduate Nonresident 9,336 9,870 5.7%
OIT
Undergraduate Resident 3,309 3,378 2.1%
Undergraduate Nonresident 10,836 11,436 5.5%
Graduate Resident 5,229 5,535 5.9%
Graduate Nonresident 9,267 9,786 5.6%
OSU
Undergraduate Resident 3,549 3,561 0.3%
Undergraduate Nonresident 11,817 12,405 5.0%
Graduate Resident 6,207 6,501 4.7%
Graduate Nonresident 10,551 11,073 4.9%
PSU
Undergraduate Resident 3,438 3,468 0.9%
Undergraduate Nonresident 11,313 11,661 3.1%
Graduate Resident 6,100.50 6,292.50 3.1%
Graduate Nonresident 10,444.50 10,765.50 3.1%
SOU
Undergraduate Resident 3,198 3,234 1.1%
Undergraduate Nonresident 9,402 9,897 5.3%
Graduate Resident 5,187 5,460 5.3%
Graduate Nonresident 9,228 9,714 5.3%
UO
Undergraduate Resident 3,771 3,810 1.0%
Undergraduate Nonresident 12,555 13,197 5.1%
Graduate Resident 6,429 6,750 5.0%
Graduate Nonresident 10,857 11,409 5.1%
WOU
Undergraduate Resident 3,198 3,276 2.4%
Undergraduate Nonresident 9,738 10,293 5.7%
Graduate Resident 5,169 5,502 6.4%
Graduate Nonresident 9,210 9,756 5.9%
Specific Institution Programs
OIT Metro U/G Resident * 2,745 2,757 0.4%
OIT Metro U/G Nonresident * 10,272 10,815 5.3%
OIT Metro Grad Resident * 4,665 4,914 5.3%
OIT Metro Grad Nonresident * 8,703 9,165 5.3%
OSU MBA Resident 6,597 6,891 4.5%
OSU MBA Nonresident 11,496 12,018 4.5%
OSU Engineering U/G Resident 3,939 3,981 1.1%
OSU Engineering U/G Nonresident 12,207 12,825 5.1%
OSU Engineering Grad Resident 6,597 6,921 4.9%
OSU Engineering Grad Nonresident 10,941 11,493 5.0%
OSU Pharm D Res- 4-yr Prog -- 7,677 --
OSU Pharm D NonRes- 4-yr Prog -- 15,567 --
OSU Pharmacy U/G Resident 6,669 6,837 2.5%
OSU Pharmacy U/G Nonresident 14,937 15,681 5.0%
OSU PharmD Resident 9,327 9,777 4.8%
OSU PharmD Nonresident 13,671 14,349 5.0%
OSU Vet Med Resident 9,795 10,275 4.9%
OSU Vet Med Nonresident 19,089 20,058 5.1%
OSU Honors College UG Resident -- 3,636 --
OSU Honors College UG Nonresident -- 12,480 --
OSU Honors College Grad Res -- 6,576 --
OSU Honors College Grad Nonresident -- 11,140 --
PSU MBA Grad Resident 6,460.50 6,652.50 3.0%
PSU MBA Grad Nonresident 10,804.50 11,125.50 3.0%
PSU Engineering U/G Resident 3,828.00 3,858.00 0.8%
PSU Engineering U/G Nonresident 11,703.00 12,051.00 3.0%
PSU Engineering Grad Resident 6,490.50 6,682.50 3.0%
PSU Engineering Grad Nonresident 10,834.50 11,155.50 3.0%
SOU MBA Grad Nonresident 9,678 10,164 5.0%
SOU MM Grad Resident 5,487 5,775 5.2%
SOU MM Grad Nonresident 9,678 10,164 5.0%
UO CBA U/G Resident 4,071 4,110 1.0%
UO CBA U/G Nonresident 12,855 13,497 5.0%
UO CBA Grad Resident 7,929 8,250 4.0%
UO CBA Grad Nonresident 12,357 12,909 4.5%
UO Law Resident 10,236 10,898 6.5%
UO Law Nonresident 13,984 14,844 6.1%
UO Honors Coll Res UG 1997 admits 3,921 3,960 1.0%
UO Honors Coll NonRes UG 1997 admits 12,705 13,347 5.1%
UO Honors Coll Grad Res 1997 admits 6,579 6,900 4.9%
UO Honors Coll UG NonRes 1997 admits 11,007 11,559 5.0%
UO Honors Coll Res UG 1999 admits -- 4,110 --
UO Honors Coll NonRes UG 1999 admits -- 13,497 --
UO Honors Coll Grad Res 1999 admits -- 7,050 --
UO Honors Coll UG NonRes 1999 admits -- 11,709 --

Note: Tuition and fees includes Tuition, Resource, Building, Incidental, and Health Service fees at all institutions, plus the Recreation Center fee for UO students.

* At the OIT Metro Center only the Instruction fee, Building fee, and a special $6 annual Incidental fee are mandatory; other fees are optional.

­ Denotes program nonexistence.

Schedule 5
Resident Undergraduate Tuition and Fees
Comparing Relative Increases
With and Without a 5.25 Percent Tuition Fee Increase

1998-99 Total Tuition & Fees Proposed 1999-00 @ 0% Incr Tuition Freeze Percent Increase 98-99 to 99-00 Tuition & Fees 1999-00
@ 5.25%
Tuition Fee Increase
Percent Increase 98-99 to 99-00
EOU 3,198 3,366 2.8% 3,486 6.6%
OIT 3,309 3,378 2.1% 3,514 6.2%
OSU 3,549 3,561 0.3% 3,702 4.3%
PSU 3,438 3,468 0.9% 3,609 5.0%
SOU 3,198 3,234 1.1% 3,366 5.3%
UO 3,771 3,810 1.0% 3,951 4.8%
WOU 3,198 3,276 2.4% 3,408 6.6%

Schedule 6
Oregon Department of Higher Education
Comparison of Basic Residence Hall Rates 1998-99 to 1999-00

Below are comparative samples of room and board rates for a basic dorm room with double occupancy and the student on a 19 meal-per-week plan. Each institution offers a variety of room and meal options at rates above and below these listed. Refer to the Fee Book for a more definitive schedule of rates.
1998-99 1999-00 % Change
Eastern Oregon University
Basic multiple, 19 4,475 4,615 3.10%
Oregon Institute of Technology
Basic multiple, 19 4,605 4,839 5.10%
Oregon State University
Basic multiple, 19 5,102 5,295 3.80%
Southern Oregon University
Basic multiple, 19 4,605 4,928 7.00%
University of Oregon
Basic multiple, 19 5,100 5,690 11.60%
Western Oregon University
Basic multiple, 19 4,506 4,695 4.20%


STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Introduction

The Oregon University System retained the consulting firms of Robertson, Grosswiler & Company (RGC) and Davis & Hibbitts, Inc. (DHI) this year to assist the vice chancellor for Corporate and Public Affairs and the individual institutions in the development of a strategic communications plan.

In developing the plan, Davis and Hibbitts, Inc. conducted qualitative and quantitative opinion research with the dual purpose of verifying the key messages for OUS and updating opinion research conducted earlier in the decade. Team members from Robertson, Grosswiler & Company participated in the qualitative executive interviews and also conducted interviews with communicators from other public university systems in the United States.

Based on the research, key messages were developed and refined, then provided in draft form to OUS. This plan incorporates the key messages and details target markets with recommendations for who should deliver the messages and how.

RGC and DHI also are charged with developing and testing printed copy and visual support to deliver the key messages to target audiences. Initial testing has been completed on some preliminary concepts. Separately, these concepts will be reviewed and tested with communications staff at OUS and its campuses.

Objectives

The objectives of this communications plan are to assure that OUS is communicating clearly and consistently to its key audiences the messages that accurately describe the University System. The communications objectives support the overall objective of continuing to build a System that will:

Achieving these objectives will result in growing support for public universities with its key constituents, including the legislature and other key elected officials; community and business leaders; and internal advocates such as faculty, staff, students and alumni.

Key Messages

Key messages are based on the research and the goals of OUS. Communicating the key messages consistently and repetitively will build a strong foundation of public support from the target audiences. Not all the messages will be effective with all of the audiences.

Oregon is starting from a good base, but can do a better job in providing quality higher education at its public universities. (Effective with all audiences.)

OUS has adopted several new approaches to strengthening the individual institutions while efficiently using public monies. (Effective with public officials, community and business leaders, and internally.)

Oregon's public universities are judging themselves on their performance. (Effective with public officials and community and business leaders.)

Providing a quality education for students is paramount for OUS. (Effective with all audiences.)

Oregon's public universities recognize the importance of preparing students for success in their careers and the contribution this makes to a strong economy and the resulting quality of life in Oregon. (Effective with all audiences, especially public officials, community and business leaders, and students.)

Oregon's public universities are reaching out to communities throughout Oregon, delivering lifelong education and providing community services and assistance. (Effective with public officials, community and business leaders, and internally.)

Oregon's public universities are retaining increasing numbers of the state's best and brightest and are also attracting the best from outside the state. (Effective with all audiences.)

Delivering the Message

The survey of Oregon registered voters conducted by DHI clearly demonstrates that the best messenger for the public universities is one of their own. The public regards as most credible testimony by people with direct and recent university experience. News media reports were considered the least credible.

Ranked at the top in the survey in believability at 90 percent is someone who graduated from an Oregon public university. Furthermore, 92 percent of those surveyed who graduated from an Oregon institution had good feelings about their experience.

The qualitative research, interviews with people closely associated with each of the institutions, corroborated the view of registered voters. Each of the participants, most of them graduates of the institution, provided thoughtful and critical commentary in the interviews.

Following closely in the rankings of potential messengers with greatest credibility were a college professor, then a student at an Oregon public university. Next is order of believability were the Chancellor or a president of a public university, a local community college president, the Governor, a small business owner, and a business executive from a major corporation. Television news, newspaper stories, and editorials ranked last.

The Medium for Delivering the Message to Target Markets

In assessing the various media available for delivering the public universities' messages, RGC focused on targeted communications to the key audiences as the most cost-effective and productive. In part, this is premised on the constraint of resources for paid advertising in the general circulation print and broadcast media.

By carefully targeting four markets and communicating consistent messages, OUS can effectively and consistently reach almost a third of Oregon's population. Most importantly, this targeting will enable OUS to reach all the state's decision makers, ranging from parents and high school students making choices about where to enroll, to the Governor, to the legislature deciding on the higher education budget.

By definition, target markets exclude the general public. The general public will be exposed to higher education to the extent the key messages reach general circulation newspapers and broadcast media and the involvement the general public has with internal advocates for public universities.

While the medium for reaching target audiences differs for each group, the following summarizes the various media available and how RGC recommends they be used in reaching the key audiences:

General Circulation and Specialty Media

By the nature of its size and policy mission, higher education will gain attention in the general circulation media. The key messages should be in the minds of all who communicate on behalf of OUS and its institutions.

OUS should continue to develop relationships with editorial writers, reporters and other newspapers and broadcast commentators. Support from these independent observers is important for policymakers as well as the other target markets.

OUS can directly communicate using its most effective spokespersons through the general circulation and specialty media in two ways: (1) opinion articles and (2) the equivalent for broadcast and paid advertising. In both cases, the primary target will be policymakers, rather than the general public.

Using the general circulation media in this fashion differs from trying to reach the general public, which would require extensive repetition of the messages at a high cost. Policy makers get the message repetitively in a different fashion. They see it or it is brought to their attention by their staffs through a clipping service. The printed piece or an audio commentary can be reproduced and delivered to policy makers during a personal visit and supporters can cite the material in their individual communications.

The specialty media includes broadly circulated publications such as the Portland Business Journal, Daily Journal of Commerce, Oregon Business Magazine, Willamette Week and others as well as trade association newsletters and websites.

Printed Materials

The messengers for public universities require a common page in the form of a general purpose flier or brochure--a leave-behind piece. The same piece can be used to respond to inquiries. It should describe OUS in the context of the key messages, with key facts and figures, how to get more information and, most importantly, include a call to action. The brochure should be supported by talking points for internal advocates.

Separate print materials are needed for individual key audiences, ranging from Systemwide information on offerings by OUS institutions used for prospective students, to a brochure on the System's strategic plan (updating "Education Unbounded"). As this plan recommends, it would also include an accountability report card, quarterly and annual president and Chancellor reports, and others.

Direct Mail and Telemarketing

With databases available on the identified target markets, direct mail and, on carefully selected occasions, telemarketing can be a cost-effective and productive means of communication.

State level policymakers and community and business leaders, for example, can be selected to receive any material related to policy development, such as the accountability report cards; quarterly and annual reports, and copies of speeches or opinion articles made by messengers for public universities.

The effectiveness of direct mail already is demonstrated in mailings to alumni for fundraising, legislative support, and other activities.

Prospective students, especially those in high school and community college, should receive an OUS brochure outlining all the programs offered by the public universities. The brochure should have a response card to enable prospective students to obtain additional information.

Telemarketing may have limited application, but can be effective in gaining quick response from key audiences when, for example, the legislature is voting on the budget for higher education.

The Internet

With the growing percentage of households owning computers and connected to the Internet, a separate study is warranted to examine the potential for reaching key audiences in this manner. Internally, the use of e-mail on the Intranet can tie all together all faculty and staff of OUS, for example.

Direct Personal Communication

As noted throughout this report, personal communications remains the most effective and persuasive means of communications. This can range from individual meetings with policy makers to major speeches to civic gatherings, commencements or smaller groups. Distributing copies of edited versions of major speeches bolsters their effectiveness.

Target Markets

This section identifies the groupings in four target markets and recommends messengers and medium to be used for each.

State Public Officials

This group includes the Governor, legislators and selected staff, and members of the Boards of Higher Education and Education, the Economic Development Commission, other selected state boards and commissions.

The most effective communication of information to this grouping occurs in one-on-one meetings, a practice firmly in place both at the System and University level, at least with the Governor, legislators and selected staff, and the Board of Higher Education. The Board of Higher Education is having increasing interaction with the Board of Education.

Interaction with the Economic Development Commission and selected other state boards and commissions is useful not only for substantive reasons, but because board and commission members are influential members of the community at both the statewide and local levels.

Beyond simply providing information, the most persuasive communicators to this grouping are likely to be from outside the leadership of OUS or the Board of Higher Education. These sources likely will be prominent alumni, current students, or faculty communicating one-on-one with the target market.

Much of the formal communication with policymakers will involve detailed information presentations, all of which should incorporate the key messages. However, for less formal and more persuasive meetings with policymakers, such as a prominent alumni lobbying for more higher education funding, OUS should develop a brochure focusing on the key messages to leave behind with the policymaker. This will be especially effective for legislators and policy makers who do not have a direct role in the higher education budget, but will vote on the budget or be involved in another manner.

In circumstances where broader communications are needed, the most effective medium, given the complexity of public policy issues, is likely to be opinion articles or advertising in key daily newspapers. During a legislative session, for example, cost-effective advertising can be purchased in The Oregonian or The Oregon Statesman. Again, the most effective carrier of the message will be prominent alumni, faculty, students, university presidents, and the Chancellor.

Community and Business Leaders

Community and business leaders are an excellent source of third party support for higher education, especially for the institutions in their community. As with the state level grouping, the most effective approach is direct communication, although to groups rather than one-on-one. RGC suggests involving a variety of university leaders to reach various groupings of community and business leaders. This section suggests how presidents might work with top level community and business leaders. Separately, deans could develop a list of community and business leaders with a focus on the deans' academic areas.

University presidents can build a core of support within the community through a quarterly shareholders' breakfast or lunch, inviting small groups of 25 to 50 business executives and community leaders within the service area or primary targeted industries. They could develop a database of shareholders and, in addition to the breakfast or lunch meeting, send a quarterly report to the list, plus the local news media.

The quarterly shareholder report could cover:

The Chancellor can identify community and business leaders with a statewide perspective and also hold quarterly shareholder meetings, inviting one or two presidents each quarter. Using the quarterly reports of the presidents, the Chancellor issues a statewide quarterly report, mailing it to the combined database of the universities. Further distribution can be made to business editors and trade association newsletters. The quarterly report can be compiled as an annual report, both by the individual university presidents and the Chancellor.

Other means of reaching community and business leaders include opinion articles in general circulation newspapers and specialty publications such as the Portland Business Journal, Oregon Business magazine, and articles and opinion pieces in trade association newsletters such as AOI Business Viewpoint.

Speaking at regular meetings of civic organizations and business conventions can reach larger numbers of community and business leaders. Careful attention should be paid to assuring that a sufficient number of people attend the event to justify the time invested.

Prospective Students and Parents

Key messages can be communicated to this audience, primarily high school and community college students and parents, through recruiting materials. As materials are revised annually, they should be evaluated to assure key messages are included.

A more valuable subset of this grouping is those who have been admitted to an OUS institution. Additional materials containing the key messages can be prepared and sent directly to incoming students and their families.

Advocates--Including Alumni, Faculty, Staff, and Students

The objective for this market is to convey the key messages so the advocates, in turn, are communicating the key messages to the other target markets as well as the general public.

The task here is primarily assuring that everyone receives and understands the key messages in a manner they can use.

The largest group in this category is alumni. Most campuses have an ongoing direct contact program for their alumni, using direct mail and other means of communication. The institutions have successfully rallied alumni in support of higher education initiatives in the legislature.

The opinion research conducted in conjunction with development of the strategic communication plan revealed two significant statistics about alumni:

As a result, alumni should be the most potent set of messengers for OUS and its institutions.

Students and faculty also rank highly on the believability scale in opinion research, as do university presidents and the Chancellor.

The challenge, however, is assuring that all these messengers receive and understand the key messages. Alumni already receive a significant amount of direct mail and, as indicated earlier, this appears to effective in gaining help to advance higher education initiatives.

Faculty and staff can be reached by internal mail. Most also can be reached by e-mail.

Students and other direct beneficiaries of higher education present a special communications challenge because of their large numbers, but databases should exist to enable direct mail to this group in special circumstances.

This group includes enrollees in continuing education and those who benefit from agriculture extension programs and the full range of community outreach programs.

The internal advocates should have a set of talking points, distributed by direct mail or e-mail, for use with external audiences. The talking points should incorporate the key messages and support the basic brochure used as a leave-behind piece.

Regular publications, sent either by direct mail or e-mail and focused on issues involving the key messages, will reinforce the messages. Other communication devices include:

Board Discussion

Ms. Christopher asked that the report be highlighted prior to the consent items, as the presenter was scheduled to leave. Dr. Vines invited Mr. Ed Grosswiler to review the findings in the research conducted by his firm and that of Davis and Hibbitts, Inc.

As Mr. Grosswiler reviewed the communication tools he felt necessary to increase awareness of the System, he indicated that a Systemwide recruiting brochure was vital for prospective students and parents. Although such a document exists, it doesn't address OUS from a public policy standpoint, which he felt was a key component of an effective communications plan.

In concluding his presentation, Mr. Grosswiler observed, "I think that you have a lot of accomplishments from which to build, and there is no reason to focus on anything that is negative. In doing that, you build increasing support from the opinion leaders, the media, and ultimately, the public."

Dr. Richmond said that in her travels around the country, she often hears somewhat negative comments about the higher education situation in Oregon. The negative perception, she said, impacts the lives of those on OUS campuses, both in recruitment and federal funding.

Responding to Dr. Richmond's assessment, Mr. Grosswiler agreed that out-of-state recruitment should be focused and intensified. He said that the successes of the 1999 Legislative Session could be filtered to federal funding agencies in such a way that their perceptions shift to a more positive view of state support for higher education.

"It takes a long time to overcome the kind of negative press that has occurred over the past several years," remarked Chancellor Cox. "We need to use the kind of positive information outlined in Mr. Grosswiler's report and work to gain back what we've lost."

Building on the Chancellor's comments, Mr. Willis said, "We are turning some of the perceptions in the state around. I know that campuses have worked on it, and now the legislature has addressed the budget issues in a substantial way. You have to take advantage of every success."

The Chancellor agreed, adding that now the System will need to deliver the accountability it has promised to the legislature. Mr. Grosswiler said that it would be important to maintain the lines of communication with lawmakers, provide the accountability, and finally, have them go into the 2001 Session feeling positive about the investment they made in higher education.

B.S., INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OIT

Staff Report to the Board

Oregon Institute of Technology proposed to offer an instructional program leading to a B.S. in information technology, effective fall 1999. This program draws from OIT's undergraduate programs in management information systems (which emphasizes solving business problems by using application software) and software engineering technology (which emphasizes development of system-level software for use in engineering and business environments). The former degree is heavily management-oriented, and the latter is oriented toward engineering. The proposed new program seeks to blend attributes of these two programs, emphasizing the development of business software (especially management and accounting) primarily using desktop and several programming tools. The program objective is to appropriately prepare students for careers such as systems analyst or computer programmer.

The majority of the courses necessary to offer this degree are currently being offered. Coursework includes microcomputer applications, business application programs, computer organization, hardware/software integration, decision support systems, and project management. In addition, extensive mathematics and technical writing courses are required. The proposed program will also emphasize laboratory-based, hands-on experiential learning and will include a project-based capstone course.

Employment prospects for graduates of this program are bright. Adept with computer program-development tools, these graduates will be prepared to work in any number of venues--business, government, or education--to tailor software solutions to specific information resource needs. For instance, they might develop user interfaces for large mainframe database applications or integrate databases with accounting programs.

Although the program is formally housed in the Department of Management, the advising, curriculum coordination, and scheduling will be shared by both departments (Management and Computer Systems Engineering Technology).

As described in the proposal, this program will be offered at both the Klamath Falls campus and at the CAPITAL Center in Beaverton. No new resources are needed to implement the program in Klamath Falls. At the CAPITAL Center, funds would be required to hire a full-time, tenure-track program director; purchase computers and address some minor facilities' needs; and, in the third year, add one support staff member. If sufficient funds are not forthcoming, the program will be implemented only in Klamath Falls. Because most Oregon community colleges offer some type of computer information program, OIT intends to partner with the community colleges as much as possible to allow for smooth student transfer into the OIT program.

OIT anticipates 20 new student majors per year in Klamath Falls, with approximately 80 graduates at the end of five years.

Academic Council members positively reviewed this program at the May 1999 meeting.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board authorize Oregon Institute of Technology to establish a program leading to the B.S. in information technology. The program would be effective fall 1999, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2004-05 academic year.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Lussier moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to approve the program as requested. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

GRADUATE EDUCATION CERTIFICATES, UO

Introduction

In 1997, the University of Oregon developed and approved a policy on graduate certificates for specific academic and professional subjects.

All such certificates require the completion of a minimum of twenty-four (24) graduate credits with grades of B or better, or Pass. Students studying for a graduate certificate must be admitted to the University, but are not required to be degree-seeking. There is no residency requirement for graduate certificates, but certificate students are subject to all other general policies governing the master's degree.

The following proposed graduate certificates are in the field of education and, with Board approval, will be effective summer 1999. These certificates represent packaging of a coherent body of coursework and practica that are parts of established, previously Board- and TSPC-approved education programs. In other words, although the "certificate" designation is proposed, these are not new academic programs. Rather, the certificates will formally acknowledge completion of a subset of academic requirements for Oregon teacher licensure that also form the majority of the requirements for the University of Oregon's master's degree in educational policy and management (about four-fifths of the work for the degree).

Because students complete the program requirements for teacher licensure before finishing the remaining requisites for the degree, UO wishes to provide them with a certificate formally marking completion of the licensure portion. This is especially appropriate, given that student decisions about "next steps" vary considerably. Some students continue pursuing the master's degree, some pursue the degree only part-time, and others choose not to continue their graduate studies until a later date.

There are no significant resource implications because these are parts of current teacher education programs. Both certificates were approved by Academic Council in May 1999.

Integrated Teaching

The graduate certificate in integrated teaching represents the second part of a two-part process, the first of which is at the undergraduate level. The graduate component--the integrated teaching certificate--comprises three parts: (1) 17-18 credits of graduate foundations courses, including research; (2) 16 credits of licensure coursework, including student teaching; and (3) 15-20 credits in an emphasis area. Students select one of the five following emphasis areas: basic mathematics, behavioral supports, early intervention, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), or technology. Students selecting early intervention or ESOL will gain an additional endorsement in these areas.

Oregon needs teachers who are prepared to teach in the new K-12 climate, which must be responsive to issues such as the state's educational reform activities, inclusion of students with disabilities, and the infusion of technological advances in the teaching/learning process. The proposed certificate program is designed to produce graduates with the knowledge, skills, and expertise to be able to function and contribute in this evolutionary educational environment.

Only enrolled students pursuing the UO baccalaureate in educational studies are eligible to apply for, and be admitted to, this graduate certificate program. Of the cohort of enrolled students in the integrated teaching program, approximately 60 students per year are expected to apply for the certificate.

Middle/Secondary Educator

This proposed program is part of a fifth-year course of study resulting in a master's degree in educational policy and management and endorsement in one or more content areas. The certificate requires 50 credits of graduate work beyond the baccalaureate and includes 19 credits of practicum and accompanying professional practice seminars. The objectives of the program are to: (1) enable students majoring in English, social sciences, sciences, math, or foreign languages to teach effectively in middle and/or high schools; (2) develop competent teachers able to support school improvement efforts and a standards-based educational system; (3) train teachers to understand and work with new technologies; and (4) prepare teachers to understand and work with a culturally and academically diverse population.

Concerns in Oregon expressed by state and regional school administrators focus on two major areas: (1) that secondary teachers are being hired to teach subjects outside their major area of study, and (2) that teachers need to be prepared to teach and evaluate student performance in a standards-based system. The proposed UO program is designed to address both concerns. The middle/secondary program requires that students demonstrate effective teaching through job performance on-site and provide unit analyses of teaching as well as evidence for the professional portfolio.

Staff Recommendation to the Board

Staff recommended that the Board authorize the University of Oregon to establish a program leading to graduate certificates in integrated teaching and middle/secondary educator. The program would be effective summer 1999.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Lussier moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to approve the program as requested. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Koch, Lussier, McAllister, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Willis, and Christopher. Those voting no: none.

FOLLOW-UP REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN 1998-99 OF SELECTED PROGRAMS

Staff Report to the Board

In November 1990, the Board approved a policy directing the OUS Office of Academic Affairs to conduct a follow-up review of each degree program or significant new option within an existing degree program approved by the Board since January 1, 1983. The purpose of the follow-up review is to describe the status of the programs five years after their full implementation. For each program, institutions have reported briefly on major modifications in the program, enrollment, degree production, accreditation (when applicable), resources, and student outcomes.

During the 1998-99 academic year, the following programs were reviewed:

Oregon Health Sciences University

Oregon State University

Portland State University

University of Oregon

Joint Program--OSU, PSU, and OHSU

Summaries of the nine program reviews follow.

M.A./M.S. AND PH.D., APPAREL, INTERIORS, HOUSING, AND MERCHANDISING, OSU

In January 1993, the Board authorized Oregon State University to offer an instructional program leading to the M.A./M.S. and Ph.D. in Apparel, Interiors, Housing, and Merchandising (AIHM). The master's offering replaced OSU's master's program in Apparel, Interiors, and Merchandising. The new degree programs were products of restructuring in the College of Home Economics and re-evaluation of the organization of graduate-level offerings.

Scholars in AIHM apply concepts and theories to design, production, and distribution channels for products/services involving human's "near environment" (i.e., textiles, apparel, interiors, and housing). The objectives of the program are to:

All students complete a core of 13 credits. Master's students also complete 17 credits in their major and 15 credits in their minor for a total of 45 credits. The doctoral students complete 135 credit hours beyond the baccalaureate, including 9 credits of advanced statistical and/or research methods, 45 thesis credits, and major and minor credits. The minor must include a minimum of 30 credit hours.

Only minimal changes have occurred in the AIHM program; several new courses have been developed, and some existing courses have been modified slightly. Such modifications are appropriate, given the dynamic nature of the discipline. Factors prompting change are both internal (e.g., resource allocation, enrollment trends, policies) and external (e.g., industry trends, technological developments). The department will continue to monitor the AIHM graduate program and make revisions periodically. However, no major modifications are anticipated at this time.

Currently, 18 students are majoring in AIHM--nine in the master's program and nine in the Ph.D. program. The number of students completing these programs is within the projected range. Since program implementation, nine students have graduated with a master's degree and two with a doctorate. Outcomes of the nine master's graduates include:

The two Ph.D. graduates are both in college teaching positions.

B.S., ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, OSU

In October 1992, the Board authorized Oregon State University to offer an instructional program leading to the B.S. in Environmental Sciences, effective winter 1993. This degree program evolved from reorganization within OSU and the subsequent elimination of the Department of General Science. Prior to the reorganization, students could pursue an environmental sciences option within the framework of the general science degree. Students in the "pipeline" were allowed to complete their studies, but that degree option was phased out with the implementation of the B.S. in Environmental Sciences.

The environmental sciences interdisciplinary curriculum provides breadth in the natural sciences, mathematics, and relevant social sciences and humanities. Depth is acquired by students specializing in defined fields (27 credits). This part of the program has been modified slightly in the last five years. As originally proposed, students would choose one of four specialty options: aquatic systems; environmental policy; ocean, atmosphere, and land systems; and terrestrial ecosystems. Those option choices have been expanded. The aquatic systems option has been broken down into three options: aquatic biology, aquatic chemistry, and aquatic physics. Other new options include environmental communication (designed for those who want to pursue careers in environmental education or interpretation), environmental geosciences, environmental engineering, forest ecology, environmental chemistry, atmospheric processes, and environmental sociology.

In addition to selecting a specialty area, students are required to complete an observational experience. This requirement may be met by completing an approved internship, research experience, or a course that involves "hands-on" experience through observation and data collection. An increasing number of students are electing to participate in an internship experience. For example, 51 students completed internships between June 1997 and June 1998. Faculty advisors in the program assist students in locating appropriate placements with state and federal agencies, schools, industry, and nonprofit organizations.

Besides expanding the options, the only other program modification relates to staffing. As originally conceived, advising would be performed by the program directors and OSU faculty from various departments who participated in program delivery. As student enrollments grew, faculty struggled with both the heavier workload and the advising complexities of this interdisciplinary program. Furthermore, students increasingly have been interested in international and internship experiences, areas not uniformly part of a faculty advisor's expertise. Consequently, in 1995, an advising specialist was hired. In fall 1997, a second advising specialist was hired. (Both split their time with the biology programs.)

Interest in this program remains robust. Currently, 298 students are enrolled in this major, and more than 200 degrees have been awarded since 1993. Results of three surveys of graduates six months after graduation indicate up to 55 percent are either employed or pursuing graduate work in an area related to their major.

This program has been instrumental in attracting a substantial competitive federal grant, which is funding a new minor in North American Environmental Studies. As part of that program, students will complete coursework in marine coastal environments at the Guaymas campus in Mexico.

Resources continue to be sufficient to offer this program. The one area of need relates to administrative computers (upgrading, repair) and more adequate office space.

B.S., NATURAL RESOURCES, OSU

In October 1992, the Board authorized Oregon State University to offer an instructional program leading to a B.S. in Natural Resources, which was implemented fall 1993. This interdisciplinary program utilizes faculty from the Colleges of Agricultural Sciences, Forestry, Liberal Arts, and Science. The main objective of the program is to provide a broad education in natural resource management. Students will complete the general education core coursework, natural resources core (51 credits), breadth requirements (21 credits), and specialty coursework (50 credits). Natural resources core coursework includes mathematics, statistics, biology, ecology, watershed, earth and atmospheric science, resource economics, and public policy. For the breadth requirement, students complete one course from each of the following areas: fisheries and wildlife, range, forestry, resource values and philosophy, land and water, social and political, and amenity uses. Examples of specialty areas include natural resource administration/finance, agroforestry, land resources, and water resources.

This program has been well-received by students. Currently, 132 students major in Natural Resources. Fifty-two degrees have been awarded since program implementation, and 16 more were to be awarded in June. To date, only limited information is available on outcomes of graduates from this program.

No significant modifications have been made in the program. One minor curriculum change involved adding some introductory-level courses and some "skills" courses (e.g., surveying, mapping, geographic information systems).

Because this is an interdisciplinary program with extensive academic choices from which to choose, advising is complex and time-consuming. Also, securing faculty to teach NR 455, Natural Resource Decision-Making (which is designed to be the senior capstone), has been a year-to-year challenge.

Although this program has not directly attracted grants, the OSU Statewide Distance Education program recently received $3 million in federal funding; the Natural Resources baccalaureate is a major component of this new project. A new faculty position (1.0 FTE), in the Rangeland Resources department, will be located in Bend to support this effort.

B.A./B.S., CHILD & FAMILY STUDIES, PSU

In October 1993, the Board authorized Portland State University to offer an interdisciplinary undergraduate program leading to a baccalaureate degree in Child and Family Studies. The program was implemented in fall 1993. Students develop a broad understanding of child development, family systems, and the diverse socio-cultural contexts in which children and families develop. Six concentration areas are emphasized: human development, families in society, children in society, administration of programs for children and families, preparation for early childhood education, and preparation for early intervention settings. The program focuses on young children (i.e., birth to eight years).

The program was developed partially in response to information gathered in 1989 by the Consortium for Children and Families. The need for this type of major was further supported by such documents and initiatives as the Oregon Benchmarks, the 1992-93 education goals of the City Club of Portland, and the Leaders Roundtable Action Plan for 1991-92 on "behalf of children and youth."

As originally designed, the course of study consists of 24 core credits; specialization options, each requiring a minimum of 15 credits; 15 practica credits; and two capstone courses. Only two program modifications have been made: slight changes in some of the core courses and reduction of the practica requirement from 15 to 10 credits. The rationale for the practica change is that all students must complete the senior capstone required in University Studies; this capstone requires students to work together in interdisciplinary teams, whereas the program practicum is completed by individual students.

In the original program proposal, 80 graduates were anticipated at the end of five years. Reality has exceeded those expectations. To date, 83 students have graduated, and 19 more are pending. Currently, 81 students have declared Child and Family Studies as their major.

This program was designed to prepare students for employment in preschool or Head Start programs, human services programs, or community programs (e.g., public library). Students would also be prepared to pursue graduate studies in such areas as teacher education, social work, counseling, or special education. Actual outcomes of program graduates are consistent with those original intentions. Of the 36 program graduates for whom PSU has data, 12 have pursued advanced education (7, teacher education; 3, conflict resolution; 1, urban studies; 1, counseling), and the remaining 24 are employed in related fields (e.g., preschool or Head Start teacher/administrator, case worker, family support assistant, instructional aide).

PH.D., COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, UO

In July 1993, the Board authorized the University of Oregon to offer an instructional program leading to a Ph.D. in Communication and Society, which was implemented in fall 1993. The focus of the program is analysis of mediated communication and development of understanding regarding the structure, meaning, and effects of mediated communication and its interconnectedness with culture and politics. The program is designed to develop teachers, researchers, and policy analysts who can engage in spirited analyses and, where appropriate, criticism of U.S. and international communication institutions.

This 72-credit program emphasizes both qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Students are trained to conduct research in a broad array of interdisciplinary questions related to communication and society. Only students who have already completed a master's degree are admitted to the program. Originally, a "Seminar in Teaching" was required of all students who held teaching fellowships and strongly recommended for those who intended to pursue an academic career. After the first year of program implementation, the course "Teaching & Professional Life" was required for all student --a change that was meant to stress the importance of teaching. Students are also required to develop a field outside the school (minimum of 18 credits); this may consist of courses within a single department (e.g., history) or related classes in various disciplines (e.g., history, political science, women's studies).

Currently, 12 students are enrolled in the program. Seven degrees have been awarded to date (spring 1997 through spring 1999). Five of the graduates currently hold university teaching positions and one is employed as an executive producer with Time-Warner/Turner Broadcasting. Employment prospects for graduates with this degree are expected to remain robust.

In the original proposal, four new faculty members were to be added to the School of Journalism and Communication, for a total of 18 faculty involved in this program. That has been done, and all faculty hold an appropriate terminal degree. Resources have been adequate to support this program.

Some modest course modifications have been made to strengthen the program (e.g., required teaching course) and to appropriately utilize faculty expertise. The School plans to invite external reviewers to visit next academic year; further changes may be made based upon their recommendations.

M.S. & PH.D., EARLY INTERVENTION, UO

In July 1993, the Board authorized the University of Oregon to change the emphasis area of Early Intervention into a full graduate-degree program, effective fall 1993. (The Early Intervention area was initiated at the UO in 1978.) Early Intervention is a field of study and applied practice that focuses on children, from birth to age six, who are disabled or at risk of developing a disabling condition. There is great diversity in terms of etiology (e.g., children with biological/medical problems, learning/educational problems) and behavioral repertoires (e.g., from mildly to profoundly impaired; from children who are hyperactive to those who exhibit few responses). In addition, the families of these children also represent great diversity (e.g., income, educational attainment, culture, value systems).

Early-intervention programs and personnel conduct research, develop a knowledge base, and deliver services to disabled or at-risk infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children and their families. This includes, at the master's level, assessing children and family progress and program effectiveness. At the doctoral level, students are prepared to provide leadership, particularly in the areas of development and implementation of program and policy; design and execution of applied research and instruction at the college/university level; scholarly research; and development and dissemination of model projects and materials.

Currently, 21 students are enrolled in the master's program and nine in the doctoral program. Since the change to a full major, 60 master's degrees and four Ph.D.s have been awarded. An additional 20 students are on track to complete the M.S., and three the Ph.D., by August 1999.

The 60 master's graduates have obtained teaching licenses, and the four doctoral graduates currently hold positions in institutions of higher education.

The program is supported primarily by federal grant dollars, which includes support of 2.6 FTE faculty/research associates. Only 1.0 FTE faculty, who serves as director of the program, is supported with state funds. Since fall 1994, the program has attracted nearly $850,000 in federal grants.

M.A. & PH.D., EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES & LITERATURE: JAPANESE & CHINESE, UO

In May 1993, the Board authorized the University of Oregon to offer instructional programs leading to the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in the languages, literatures, and cultures of East Asia, with emphasis on Japan and China. These programs were designed to prepare students to work in academic and professional fields as well as to enrich teacher education programs in Chinese and Japanese. The three major areas of specialization were (1) Japanese Language Pedagogy, (2) Japanese and Comparative Literature, and (3) Chinese and Comparative Literature. These last two have been slightly modified and are now Japanese Literature and Chinese Literature.

The master's program was implemented in 1994-95, and the doctoral program in 1996-97. To earn a master's degree, students complete 45-54 credits, depending on the area of specialization. In the Chinese Literature area, master's students must either pass a comprehensive written examination covering three areas (periods or genres) at the end of their study or write and defend a thesis based on original research. Master's students in Japanese Literature must either take a two-part comprehensive examination (one part general information; the other, specific) or take the general part of the examination and defend a thesis. Master's students in Japanese Language Pedagogy have three options for completing their program: examination, project, or thesis. In this strand, the examination contains essay questions about Japanese linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language pedagogy. The project option is designed for students whose primary interest is teaching. They must develop innovative, original teaching materials, curriculum, or thematic units that reflect an understanding of principles of Japanese linguistics, second language acquisition, and pedagogy. The materials developed must be accompanied by a report explaining the rationale and objectives. In all three specializations, the thesis option primarily targets students who intend to continue their graduate studies in pursuit of a doctorate. Consistent with UO requirements for all M.A. degrees, students must demonstrate competence in a second language.

To earn the Ph.D., students are required to complete an additional 36 credits of graduate coursework beyond the master's students in the two literature strands, who must write and defend a substantial dissertation prospectus, then write and defend the dissertation. After completing all coursework, students in Japanese Language Pedagogy must write a paper suitable for publication and pass a qualifying exam. Following that, they must write and defend their dissertation. All of the Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs) receive intensive, closely supervised teaching experience, both as language instructors in drill sections and as discussants in discussion sections of the undergraduate literature courses.

Only minor modifications of the program have been made. One additional change is anticipated; because the Japanese Language Pedagogy specialization has a substantial foundation in Japanese linguistics, the department has begun the process to change the name to Japanese Linguistics and Pedagogy.

Currently, 27 students are enrolled in the program. Nineteen master's degrees have been awarded to date, with six more scheduled to have been awarded spring and summer 1999. Because the Ph.D. program was implemented in 1996-97, no doctoral degrees have been awarded yet. However, 11 of the enrolled students are in the doctoral program.

Graduates of this program have found success in their subsequent professional and academic endeavors. Some of the graduates are:

Resources continue to be sufficient to offer this program. A US WEST grant, received in 1993-94, funded a new tenure-track faculty position in Japanese Language Pedagogy. A grant from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation provided seed money for a new faculty position in modern and transnational Chinese literature. Knight Library's East Asian Collection and holdings in English on China and Japan have grown. The collection now has 84,000 volumes and maintains subscriptions to 440 journals. A $15,000 grant supported purchases for modern and transnational Chinese literature. The Yamada Language Center provides language laboratory facilities (audio and video) for students. In the Japanese Language Pedagogy strand, the one area of resource need relates to Graduate Teaching Fellows; more office space and computers are needed to fully support the GTFs.

B.S., RADIATION THERAPY TECHNOLOGY, OHSU

In February 1993, the Board authorized Oregon Health Sciences University to offer an instructional program leading to the B.S. in Radiation Therapy Technology, effective fall term 1993. This program was an outgrowth of the long-standing certificate program in Radiation Technology, which has been in existence since 1971. Radiation Therapy Technology is a specialized area of oncology utilizing high-energy ionizing radiation in the treatment of cancers. The radiation therapist is responsible for using highly sophisticated equipment to deliver treatment prescribed by a radiation oncologist. Graduates of this program are professionals who are qualified (1) to pass the national certifying examination, administered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, and (2) to accept entry-level positions in the field.

In this "2+2" program, students complete two years of college study (including general education prerequisites) before entering the OHSU program. During a student's final two years, a range of major-specific courses are prescribed. Students start clinical rotations beginning in their first quarter at OHSU and continue them throughout their course of study; a variety of opportunities are available that lead to a strong clinical education. The curriculum calls for each student to design and complete a research project in Radiation Oncology. The construction of a treatment-planning portfolio is required during a student's final quarter of academic work.

No major modifications to the program have been made since the initial proposal. Interdisciplinary courses in geriatrics and ethics have been developed as originally proposed. A course in research and biostatistics has also been developed.

The Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology, or JRCERT, accredits such programs. The OHSU Radiation Therapy Technology program received the maximum accreditation award of five years in 1994 and is currently in the process of reaccreditation. During the past five years, 100 percent of OHSU graduates have passed the national certification exam, with the Oregon score averaging in the top ten percent for the nation.

The original estimate of enrollment in the program was six to seven students per year, with the projected degree production in five years of 35 graduates. To date (1995-98), 19 students have received degrees, with eight students currently enrolled in the program. OHSU's expectation is that program enrollment will rise because of a current shortage of radiation therapists that is nearing critical levels.

M.P.H., MASTER'S OF PUBLIC HEALTH, OHSU, OSU, PSU

In September 1993, the Board authorized Oregon Health Sciences University, Oregon State University, and Portland State University to offer a joint instructional program leading to the Master's of Public Health (M.P.H.). The program became operational on January 1, 1994. This cooperative program had its origins in a 1989 Board of Higher Education request for the development of a coordinated plan for the delivery of health administration and public health programs.

Public health, as a field, is devoted to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease through identification of the factors affecting the health of population groups. As these factors are identified, the mission of public health is to plan, develop, implement, and evaluate preventive health strategies designed to bring about the changes necessary to ensure the maximum quantity and quality of life for all people. The Master's of Public Health program prepares students for careers as public health professionals in seven specialty areas: (1) epidemiology and biostatistics, (2) gerontology, (3) health administration and policy, (4) health education/health promotion, (5) health policy and management, (6) public health nursing, and (7) public health promotion and education. Students pursuing an M.P.H. degree are admitted to one of these seven tracks at one of the three participating institutions.

The program as offered today is very similar to the one described in the initial proposal. The major difference is the number of specialty tracks being offered. Originally, OSU had planned on offering seven speciality areas. However, in 1995, upon consultation with the public health accrediting body, several of the tracks were placed on hold because of limited resources. At the present time, OSU offers three of the speciality tracks listed earlier (gerontology, health policy and management, public health promotion and education). When resources become available, OSU plans to implement the other tracks initially approved.

The core curriculum for the program is offered, according to the original plan, both in Corvallis (at OSU) and Portland (either PSU or OHSU, with students commuting between campuses as necessary). The M.P.H. Coordinating Council continues to be the governing body for the program, the Academic Program Committee provides day-to-day oversight of program activities, and a Deans Oversight Committee has been formed and charged with ultimate accountability for any issues that may not be resolved within the Coordinating Council. The Coordinating Council has discussed the merits of an External Advisory Committee and such a group will be formed in the coming months. The External Advisory Committee will provide an outside perspective to the Coordinating Council to support the development and ongoing operation of the program. The position of Program Coordinator (.20 FTE) was established in January 1998. Some new course offerings have been established because of faculty turnover and changes in faculty expertise. As curricula have evolved, a detailed effort directed at the assessment of program outcomes has been developed.

The M.P.H. program currently has preaccreditation from the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), the recognized accrediting body for schools and programs of public health. CEPH considers preaccreditation as a status of accreditation; thus, graduates of the program are entitled (as of October 1996) to claim that they have graduated from an accredited program. The program is now in its second cycle with CEPH and an updated self-study was submitted in February 1999. A site visit was conducted in April 1999 and the accreditation decision is expected at the September 1999 meeting of the Council.

Field placements and experiential learning are important facets of the M.P.H. program, with responsibility for the coordination of field placements delegated to the individual speciality tracks. Each track has some form of culminating experience, with most including an internship experience. However, students in the epidemiology/ biostatistics track must complete a thesis; students in the PSU health education track have the option of completing a fieldwork placement or a thesis; and the OSU public health promotion and education track has three options: project, internship, or thesis.

The original projection of enrollment in the program was 300 students (i.e., the anticipated total number of students at the time the program is fully implemented) with all tracks up and running. Enrollment numbers, to date, have not met these expectations, though the program has attracted a robust enrollment in spite of the smaller number of specialty tracks than originally planned. Enrollment during 1996-97 was a total of 187 students (104.6 FTE) and during 1997-98 was 235 students (127.7 FTE). In 1996-97, the program graduated 41 students, and in 1997-98, the program graduated 43 students. From 1994 to 1998, a total of 104 students have graduated with the M.P.H. degree.

A formal survey of program alumni is planned for the near future to assess employment outcomes of graduates. It is known that many students in the program are working while enrolled, so graduation does not always mean a change in position; it may instead lead to a redefinition of a current position. In some cases, students have changed positions after graduation. Informal reporting indicates that most graduates are finding positions within the broad area of public health practice, both within and outside of Oregon (a majority are believed to be staying in Oregon).

Board Discussion

Noting that all programs are doing well, Vice Chancellor Clark pointed out the joint campus Masters of Public Health program as an example of a collaborative program with nearly 300 students participating. "The faculty has governed and managed this program very well to accommodate a large number of students," observed Dr. Clark, adding that it is in the process of achieving the full accreditation that is necessary in that field.

Responding to a question from Chancellor Cox regarding any concerns over the livelihood of the programs, Dr. Clark said that, while some programs are smaller, they are not considered to be candidates for suspension. She added that some of the programs have established innovative internship programs that make them very attractive, particularly in the case of undergraduate students.

STATUS OF THE WESTERN UNDERGRADUATE EXCHANGE PROGRAM

Staff Report to the Board

This was the annual report on Oregon's experience with the Western Undergraduate Exchange Program (WUE), established by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) in 1988. In 1989, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education approved a staff recommendation for OUS institutions to begin participating in WUE.

The goals of WUE are to increase student access and choice while enhancing the efficient use of educational resources among the western states. The basic assumptions underlying WUE are (1) that most institutions have some programs that can accommodate additional students at little or no additional cost, and (2) that additional nonresident students can be attracted to those programs by offering a tuition discount.

Following are the Board guidelines for OUS participation in WUE:

A WUE program must be able to accommodate a limited number of additional students without requiring additional resources;

WUE admissions must be on a space-available basis and limited to the programs approved for WUE participation by the OUS Office of Academic Affairs;

Nonresident students previously or currently enrolled at OUS institutions will not be allowed to convert to WUE status;

WUE students who change majors to a non-WUE program will lose their WUE status;

WUE students enrolled in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines shall continue to be eligible for the WUE tuition rate for the duration of their undergraduate academic program, even if that program is removed from the approved list; and

Institutions participating in WUE are required to provide an annual report to the OUS Office of Academic Affairs reflecting the number of WUE students enrolled by program, together with the students' states of origin.

Nonresident WUE students pay 150 percent of resident tuition if they apply and are admitted to one of the designated WUE programs; they receive a fee remission for the difference between 150 percent of resident tuition and nonresident tuition. WUE tuition is significantly less than nonresident tuition at institutions in all participating states.

In the past nine years, total WUE enrollment in all participating states has grown from just under 4,000 students to more than 10,000. Last year (1998-99), 867 Oregon residents participated in the WUE program, and Oregon institutions received 783 WUE students. The net outflow of students from Oregon has decreased (154 students in 1997-98, 84 students in 1998-99).

Two WUE program changes have occurred in the past year. First, Arizona will begin receiving WUE students in fall 1999, with full-scale participation (i.e., Arizona sending and receiving WUE students) in fall 2000. At this time, Arizona is not imposing an enrollment limit; WUE students will be admitted on a space-available basis. Second, Washington State University and Central Washington University will begin participation in WUE. Last year, Washington began participation and Eastern Washington University received 139 WUE students.

The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, receives the most students (more than 1,100 in 1998-99). The states that receive the most Oregon students are Idaho (298), Nevada (185), and Montana (101).

Board Discussion

Dr. Clark reviewed the WUE program and highlights over the past year. She indicated that the net outflow of Oregon students has decreased in recent years, adding that could change because of the new way of funding WUE students using the new budget model. She shared that campuses are seriously considering the number of WUE students that can be accommodated from other states.

Dr. Clark described the Professional Student Exchange Program (PSEP), for which there is a limited number of student support allocations and a reserve budget for programs, such as Physical and Occupational Therapy, Optometry, Podiatry, and a handful of other professional programs not offered by any OUS institution.

Table 1
Students from WUE States
Enrolled at Oregon Institutions

Institution
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

EOU -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
OIT 32 33 55 58 67 70 55 54 102
OSU 9 21 34 46 79 112 180 265 329
PSU 3 4 3 2 5 6 7 8 19
SOU 7 14 36 37 34 66 87 174 253
UO 11 16 28 52 84 56 63 43 20
WOU 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 32 60
TOTALS 62 88 156 195 271

313

395 576 783
% Change 42% 77% 25% 39%

15%

26% 46% 36%

Table 2
Oregon Students Enrolled at
Institutions in WUE States

State

1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

Alaska

1 15 13 27 25 34 14 13 12
California -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 2
Colorado 10 13 17 28 39 50 55 57 63
Hawaii 4 3 1 3 6 4 11 21 31
Idaho 147 352 285 305 327 288 226 223 298
Minnesota 12 15 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Montana 87 131 247 269 215 140 114 87 101
Nevada 0 0 13 62 73 135 163 201 185
New Mexico 1 2 4 6 5 4 4 2 4
North Dakota 11 18 19 16 37 34 29 33 37
South Dakota 2 8 8 12 12 17 19 21 26
Utah 7 6 17 20 32 31 34 46 48
Washington -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21
Wyoming 6 5 11 17 13 27 20 24 39
TOTALS 288 568 635 765 784 764 689 730 867
% Change 97% 12% 20% 25% -3% -10% 6% 19%


OUS EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY INITIATIVE PROGRAM UPDATE

Summary

(Note: October 1997 Board minutes indicate that an update of the Educational Diversity Initiative would be provided to the Board in July 1999. A subsequent directive received from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) during March 1998 instructs the Chancellor's Office to provide a review of the initiative to OCR on or by September 1, 1999. In order to provide OCR and the Board with comprehensive information, including an overview of 1998-99 and preliminary 1999-2000 awards, the full report will be provided to the Board in advance of the Executive Committee meeting in September.)

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) received a complaint alleging the Underrepresented Minority Achievement Scholarship (UMAS) program violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because waivers were available only to those student from racial/ethnic groups that were underrepresented within OUS. The Board had adopted the UMAS program in 1987 to increase racial/ethnic diversity throughout the System, which the Board found to be at unacceptably low levels. Under the original UMAS program, high achieving students who were members of racial/ethnic minority groups whose members did not attend OUS institutions at a rate that would be expected based on secondary school demographics, could be awarded tuition and fee waivers.

In 1994, OUS entered into a conciliation agreement with OCR in which OUS agreed to review the UMAS program to ensure it was in compliance with regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education for scholarship programs that were targeted for racial/ethnic minorities. After completing that review, OCR and OUS began further negotiations regarding the changes that OCR believed were necessary to the UMAS program.

In October 1997, the Board approved the planned revision of the UMAS program to ensure that the program was in compliance with directives issued by OCR. The details of the proposed changes were provided to OCR in November 1997. Changes involved (1) making the UMAS program more tailored to each institution's specific educational diversity needs rather than the previous approach of evaluating Systemwide underrepresentations and (2) broadening the definition of diversity using race and ethnicity only as needed to meet educational diversity needs. Under the modified program, now known as the Educational Diversity Initiative, each campus has a program of its own design. Also, each institution may consider different factors in making awards and may offer one or more tuition waiver programs as long as it maintains its commitment to diversity. OCR and OUS agreed that modifications to the program would apply to students enrolling in fall 1998, and that continuing UMAS students would not be affected by the modifications.

Information received from OCR in March 1998 requires the Chancellor's Office to provide a review of the modified programs to OCR by September 1, 1999. In order to provide OCR with a comprehensive review regarding the enhancement of the programs at each institution, including 1998-99 and 1999-00 information, the Chancellor's Office will develop a report to meet the OCR deadline and share this summary report with the Board in advance of its September 1999 meeting.

Board Discussion

Vice Chancellor Clark reviewed the Educational Diversity Initiative, and the reasons behind postponing preparation of a final report to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) until September 1.

Mr. Koch asked how the program fits into a Systemwide plan toward promoting greater diversity on campuses. Dr. Clark responded that OCR has not sought to involve itself in other campus endeavors, nor would they be a part of the report. She asked Dr. Yvette Webber-Davis, OUS policy associate for affirmative action and diversity, and UO Provost Moseley to respond more specifically to other campus programs.

Dr. Webber-Davis explained that each campus has numerous programs and activities aimed at enhancing diversity. In her opinion, the Educational Diversity Initiative is a stellar diversity program, because it seeks to focus on the individual or specific needs of the campus environments. Citing examples, Dr. Webber-Davis said that bilingual students, students with disabilities, and older students are all served by the program.

Provost Moseley briefly described the Diversity Building Scholarship program at the UO, which he deemed to be extremely successful, and a positive change for the University.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board
Chancellor Cox reported that the group recently organized itself into working committees, one to review program development, both near- and long-term, another focusing on communications, and a third charged with long-range planing.

Economic Development Joint Boards Working Group
Mr. Willis said that at a July 8 meeting, several presentations on research and development/knowledge transfer activities were made by OUS campus representatives, as well as a presentation that outlined a successful model used in Pennsylvania, the Ben Franklin model. He said that Oregon's similarity to Pennsylvania may make the model one to replicate in this state. Dr. Vines added that there would likely be recommendations to the Board by the Working Group on policy issues in the future.

Executive
Ms. Christopher said that the Committee received President Risser's goals and objectives for 1999-00. The Executive Committee met in Executive Session earlier in the day to conduct its annual performance evaluations of Chancellor Cox and President Risser. All remaining evaluations and goals and objectives discussions will be held on September 17.

OHSU
Provost Hallick shared that OHSU was awaiting final outcome on the budget, and it appeared that the current service level budget would not be met for the sixth year. As a result, she indicated that possible program cuts may be necessary. However, Dr. Hallick said that the nursing and dental programs received an allocation, providing aid to the current service level and faculty salaries.

In what she described as a "torturous process," Dr. Hallick announced that assistance for medicaid reimbursements from the federal government was recently awarded, easing the impact of costs incurred for under-reimbursed patients.

System Strategic Planning
Mr. Willis briefly reviewed the meeting held earlier in the day, in which institutional mission statements and preambles were reviewed. He pointed out that, in terms of policy discussions, it was probably "the tip of the iceberg." He expressed his appreciation to the presidents for their input at the meeting, adding that he felt they should be included at the table for policy-related meetings more frequently.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

Matt Swanson and Shane Jordan
Mr. Matt Swanson, representing Oregon postsecondary education students, explained a proposal under consideration in the legislature that would eliminate eligibility for full-time students (approximately 1,700, including students in OUS institutions, as well as those enrolled in private institutions and community colleges) from the Oregon Health Plan.

Mr. Shane Jordan, a student eligible to obtain health care services through the Oregon Health Plan, said that he would be greatly affected if he was deemed ineligible.

Mr. Lussier commented that including students on the Oregon Health Plan allows them a road to get off of it at some point and time. Further, he said students typically are not high users of health care, and therefore making them ineligible would not necessarily save a great deal of money.

Sue Bettin Martinez
Ms. Martinez, representing OPEU employees, described concerns related to collective bargaining activities.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

As it was possibly Ms. Christopher's final Board meeting, she expressed her appreciation to fellow Board members. "I hope that my actions have shown you that I really have valued this association. In the more than six years that I have had the honor of serving on this Board, we've hired seven new presidents and a Chancellor, all of whom are fantastic to work with. This it an extraordinary group of people," she observed.

Ms. McAllister, also leaving the Board after four years of service, said that she was "profoundly grateful" to all those associated with OUS for what she had learned and for the challenging work that was accomplished during her tenure. "It's very good to see the direction we're going. I view this as kind of a relay, where the baton is passed. Diane [Christopher] and I each picked up a baton, and did our part--now it's time to pass it on."

Board members praised both Ms. Christopher and Ms. McAllister for their years of service, noting that it could still be several months before their replacements are named.

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

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

"Pursuant to Article II, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Board of Higher Education, the Board delegates to the Executive Committee authority to take final action as here designated or deemed by the Committee to be necessary, subsequent to the adjournment of this meeting and prior to the Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for October 21, 1999. The Executive Committee shall act for the Board in minor matters, and any matter where a timely response is required prior to the next Board meeting, including any urgent grievance procedure or temporary rule amendment."

Board members agreed to the delegation of authority as stated.

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Tom Imeson
President of the Board