Oregon University System logo

Oregon State Board of Higher Education
System Strategic Planning Committee
Room 1025, CAPITAL Center
Beaverton, Oregon
December 15, 2000


Committee members present: Shawn Hempel, Leslie Lehmann, Jim Lussier (arrived at 7:50), Phyllis Wustenberg, Jim Willis

Absent: Herb Aschkenasy

Chancellor's Office staff: Shirley Clark, Joseph Cox (arrived at 8:22), Vicki Falsgraf, Nancy Goldschmidt, Grattan Kerans, Ben Rawlins, Lynda Rose, Diane Sawyer, Diane Vines

Others: Ron Adams (OSU), Dan Bernstine (PSU), Phillip Creighton (EOU), Martha Anne Dow (OIT), Lesley Hallick (OHSU), Neil Kunze (SOU), John Minahan (WOU), John Moseley (UO), Paul Risser (OSU), Wendy Robinson (DOJ), Bruce Shepard (EOU), Mary Kay Tetreault (PSU), Gary Tiedeman (IFS/OSU)

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:45 a.m. by Chair Willis.

Grievance Process Options: OARs 580-021-0050, 580-021-0055, and 580-021-0390

Director of Legal Services Ben Rawlins reviewed the rules and the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, which were based on suggestions from the Committee at its October 20, 2000, meeting. The proposed amendments reflect a shift in the final authority for hearing grievances to institution presidents, while allowing for Board oversight and intervention when it feels compelled to do so. This would likely occur in cases where a tenured faculty position is jeopardized, or if the System is somehow implicated. An annual report of grievances filed at each institution will also be generated for Board review. Concluding his report, Mr. Rawlins recommended that the Committee approve repealing OAR 580-021-0390 as a housekeeping measure. He explained that the rule was no longer necessary, as all aspects of it are covered in both 580-021-0050 and -0055.

Mr. Lussier asked for an estimate of how many grievances would have made it to the Board level over the past two years had the recommended procedures been in place. Mr. Rawlins felt that approximately one would have met the criteria.

Mr. Rawlins described the formal administrative rule process if the amendments are approved by the Committee and Board. While already presented to the appropriate OUS councils, comments would be received during the process and a public hearing would be held. Final review and subsequent approval by the Board of the permanent rules is scheduled for April 2001. Faculty groups, said Mr. Rawlins, have not had an opportunity to review the proposed amendments, but the permanent rulemaking process will allow ample time for them to do so. He added that some level of review of institutional procedures will be mandated based on the proposed amendments.

Ms. Lehmann asked Mr. Rawlins about the events that would trigger Board involvement. Emphasizing the requirement for an annual report, Mr. Rawlins said he felt the Board could use it to identify trends, and determine whether the process is working effectively. The other way the Board might become involved, he said, is by the retention of Board authority in paragraph 11 in OAR 580-021-0050, which reserves the right of the Board to review cases.

Mr. Willis asked if there were any comments from the institution presidents attending the meeting. President Risser asked to clarify the number of review stages that would take place with the proposed changes. Saying that his rationale for taking the case to a grievance officer was to allow for the same number of reviews, Mr. Rawlins indicated the shift would not affect the number of opportunities for a grievant's case to be heard. Dr. Vines noted that it could be an issue that comes out in the hearing process. President Risser asked about the possibility of reducing the number of steps.

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to approve the OARs as submitted and proceed with formal permanent rulemaking processes. The motion unanimously passed and was recommended to the full Board for final approval.

Approval of Minutes

Realizing the October 20, 2000, Committee meeting minutes still required approval, Mr. Willis asked for a motion to do so. Ms. Lehmann moved and Mr. Hempel seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion unanimously passed.

New Administrative Rules: OAR 580-001-0030 and OAR 580-022-0047, Relating to Confidentiality and Mediation

Mr. Rawlins explained the reasoning behind the new rule proposals, which would be initially submitted as temporary rules to the Secretary of State's Office. All state agencies are being asked to include comparable rules in their OARs, as a method of exemption in the public records laws for keeping records related to mediation confidential. Mediation, noted Mr. Rawlins, is being used increasingly as a way to resolve disputes and grievances. By adopting such rules, assurances can be given that conversations and documentation used in resolution processes will remain confidential. Since temporary rules can remain in effect for up to 180 days, the anticipated date for presentation of the permanent rules to the Board is late spring 2001.

Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the temporary rule proposals as submitted. The motion unanimously passed and was recommended to the full Board for final approval.

Vision for Engineering and Computer Science Education in Oregon

Vice Chancellor Dryden explained the reasoning behind the amendments to the 1996 Board-approved vision statement, which was discussed at the October 20, 2000, Board meeting. The proposed revised statement, he pointed out, includes words describing intent and prominence, as desired by Board members.

Looking for key differences in the proposed statement from the 1996 version, Ms. Lehmann asked Dr. Dryden for a comparison. Dr. Dryden explained the 1996 statement is much longer, and is less focused on exactly how the vision is achieved. He added that an attempt was made in the proposed statement to clarify that there is an aspiration to achieve national prominence.

Mr. Lussier asked who initially reviewed the proposed statement. Dr. Dryden indicated that the Chancellor, four industry representatives, and himself were the primary people involved in the rewrite. He said that institution presidents did not see it prior to being sent in the docket materials on December 6, but that he had not received any feedback from them since that time.

Several suggestions were made about how to better describe in spirit the context of the agreements made at the October Board meeting. President Risser, when asked for his thoughts, indicated that he didn't feel the statement was broad enough. His comment prompted changes that broadened the vision's scope.

Chancellor Cox, who entered the room midway through the discussion, said that if the Committee felt it was a better statement, then it should be recommended to the Board as such. "My concern is not doing anything that sends a different signal than making OSU a top-tier engineering college," he remarked. Continuing, the Chancellor observed, "I think that would be very disruptive to the efforts we are engaged in, in terms of raising private dollars."

Concluding the discussion, Mr. Lussier, sensing that the process for creating any revised vision statement was backwards, encouraged that discussions related to vision occur prior to other decisions related to systems design and budgetary considerations. Dr. Vines reminded him and others that the Board supported that process at its recent work session. Ms. Lehmann agreed with Mr. Lussier in his perceptions, and hoped that the paradigm shift can ultimately occur.

The revised vision statement reads as follows:

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

In their quest for excellence, OUS campuses will:

Ms. Lehmann moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the statement as amended. The motion unanimously passed and was recommended to the full Board for final approval.

Consent Items

Authorization to Award Honorary Doctorates, PSU

Vice Chancellor Clark highlighted the request to award honorary doctorates to Deog Ryong Kim and Yul Ja Kim at a special ceremony in January or February 2001. Both have made significant contributions to the development of the Republic of South Korea through their dedication to public service careers in government/politics, and medicine and research, respectively. President Bernstine has been particularly active in furthering relationships with the South Koreans as Korean studies flourish at PSU.

Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, PSU

Explaining that both graduate program proposals submitted by PSU have been in the planning stages for some time, Dr. Clark reported that the Board-mandated external review yielded positive results. One concern about faculty resources was voiced, but PSU has agreed to hire additional faculty necessary for the program to move forward.

M.S. Systems Science, PSU

Since a Ph.D. program in Systems Science was already in place at PSU, Dr. Clark said that it was easier to organize a pathway for the proposed degree, which responds to interest by students. The external reviewers made suggestions for improvement, but were supportive of the degree program.

Graduate Certificates, PSU

The seven graduate certificate proposals (see below), pointed out Dr. Clark, are part of a nationwide trend to induce more flexibility for students or those wishing to pursue graduate studies without entering a full-fledged master's degree program. Dr. Clark explained that, at OUS campuses, the certificates are still considered an experiment and will be evaluated based on need. Under consideration by the Committee were:

Referring to the two proposed graduate programs at PSU, Mr. Lussier asked about assessments of other current programs, specifically noting that there is a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering offered at OSU. Dr. Clark said that information on numbers of students in a specific graduate program could be provided, but it would be in the form of a rough estimate. She explained that there are locational issues in the delivery of programs that act as a counter to capacity in a given site.

Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded approval of all items on the consent agenda. The motion unanimously passed and all items were recommended to the full Board for final approval.

The Status of 1998-99 OUS Baccalaureate Graduates: One Year Later

Dr. Clark introduced Dr. Nancy Goldschmidt and Ms. Vicki Falsgraf from the Office of Academic Affairs, who presented the findings on the recent survey of graduates from the class of 1999. Dr. Goldschmidt noted that this was the third survey of its kind, which is conducted in response to the legislative mandates relating to the System's four overarching goals: access, cost-effectiveness, employability, and quality.

Ms. Falsgraf highlighted some significant findings, including an 80 percent employment rate among graduates. Only three percent were unemployed and seeking work, while the remaining graduates were engaged in other activities, such as travel. One area that Ms. Falsgraf pointed out as requiring continuing diligence based on employer surveys was in second language instruction and proficiency, while currently 13 percent of 1999 graduates were using another language to complete their work.

Real-world experiences by recent graduates, Ms. Falsgraf explained, coincide with Board's desire for such events, as more than 70 percent of graduates reported that they took part in at least one course addressing complex real-world experiences, and 50 percent participated in an off-campus (internship, externship, practicum, etc.) program, and nearly 40 percent said they participated in both. Ms. Falsgraf concluded by reporting that 77 percent of OUS graduates said they'd choose the same university again.

The extent to which students' educational experiences developed certain capabilities and skills was a new line of questioning in this survey, said Dr. Goldschmidt. Most graduates reported varying high levels of satisfaction. However, Dr. Goldschmidt said there appeared to be a slight disparity between how recent graduates generally feel about their competency in a chosen field versus how employers perceive them. Dr. Goldschmidt said she hoped to initiate an evaluation process for employers to rate OUS graduates on their competency, in order to better determine reasons for the deviation.

In terms of benefits to higher education (economic and social), Dr. Goldschmidt said the performance indicators are helping to better focus on the overall variety of benefits and the positive result to constituents.

Ms. Wustenberg, referring to a presentation at the November 17 Joint Boards meeting, recalled that 25 percent of the best education graduates quit their job within three years. Dr. Clark explained that there has historically been extremely high mobility within the teaching profession. Further, she indicated that a data problem exists in terms of how teachers are tracked. Currently, they are counted as leaving the profession when they simply transfer to a different school, a system that portrays an inaccurate picture of how many are actually quitting the profession altogether. Ms. Wustenberg encouraged looking for ways to determine why teachers quit when they do.

Noting the time, Mr. Willis asked to postpone several agenda items, including the performance funding policy, campus safety issues, and a discussion on policy relating to business practices.


The Committee meeting adjourned at 8:48 a.m.