Oregon State Board of Higher Education
System Strategic Planning Committee
Willamette Room, Werner University Center
Western Oregon University
April 20, 2001
Committee members present: Herb Aschkenasy, Shawn Hempel, Leslie Lehmann, Jim Lussier, Phyllis Wustenberg, Jim Willis
Chancellor's Office staff: Jim Arnold, Bob Bruce, Shirley Clark, Joseph Cox, Vicki Falsgraf, Nancy Goldschmidt, Dick Markwood, Ben Rawlins, Lynda Rose, Diane Sawyer, Diane Vines, Yvette Webber-Davis
Others: Bob Barber (COCC), Dave Frohnmayer (UO), Lesley Hallick (OHSU), Linda Johnson (OSU), Neil Kunze (SOU), John Leahy (UO), John Minahan (WOU), John Moseley (UO), George Pernsteiner (PSU), Paul Risser (OSU), Barbara Schenck (former member of the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board [CORAB]), Bruce Shepard (EOU), James Sinks (Bend Bulletin), Tim White (OSU), Dan Williams (UO)
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. by Chair Willis.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the approval of the February 16, 2001, Committee meeting minutes as submitted. The motion unanimously passed.
Central Oregon Branch Campus: Working Plan for Implementation
Vice Chancellor Clark briefly reviewed the history of the Central Oregon branch campus plan. Since the Board approved OSU as the branch campus manager on February 16, 2001, she said there has been very energetic activity on the part of OSU and its partners, including COCC. Within the implementation plan being presented, she pointed out that two action items, including the naming of the branch as well as the title of the executive officer, both of which required Board approval.
Provost White summarized the highlights of the Oregon State University-Central Oregon (OSU-CO) plan (a copy of Dr. White's overheads, as well as the draft implementation plan are on file in the Board's office). The concept OSU created was based on a 21st century university, focusing on many of the attributes that lend themselves to a successful and sustainable community by using the existing infrastructure at OSU. Provost White explained that the Central Oregon branch campus will be a learning community that is integrated in time and space across the region. As far as academic programming, he said there will be an integrated curriculum where areas of study overlap each other, with a liberal arts core that supports many other programs.
In terms of branch campus evolution, Provost White described the structure of several levels of decision-making bodies-the Steering Committee, which will ultimately transition to the campus executive officer (CEO), is currently comprised of the presidents of the partnering campuses-OSU, EOU, OIT, and COCC. The role of this group is that of decision making and leadership. A Board of Advisors that will guide the direction of the campus for the longer term will act as the community portal and devise resource development strategies. An Implementation Council will be the campus' consultative body. Representing a large group of interests, its role will be advisory. All OUS provosts will initially be invited to serve on the Implementation Council, in order to assure input from all campuses as the branch campus is created. Transition teams have been divided into subgroups, said Provost White, and include a combination of university and faculty leadership, who are charged with addressing day-to-day campus development.
Implementation plan highlights include five major elements, including:
1. Design (maximizing cooperative partnerships)
2. Collaborative efficacy
3. Resources (all will flow through the OSU branch campus, and will remain in Central Oregon)
4. University programs (if selected programs are outside the branch campus purview they will not be supported)
5. Academic program process (mindful of the mission and model of the branch campus, which is different from any other campus in OUS)
Chancellor Cox asked how an independent institution might propose a program for the branch campus. Provost While said it would follow the same guidelines as other OUS institutions. Responding to a question by Ms. Wustenberg about timelines for bringing on courses, Provost White explained there are already 110 available courses in fall 2001. Saying that he felt comfortable with the immediacy of meaningful offerings, he noted that no requests for new degrees are being accepted until the new CEO is in place. However, existing programs that are grandfathered would not be subject to the initial review process.
If a particular program is not included in the branch campus curriculum, Mr. Willis asked how it would fit into the model. Provost White indicated that care needs to be taken not to divide the student base, adding that the situation needs to be treated with "kid gloves," particularly during the start-up phase. Vice Chancellor Clark pointed out that there is a review process already in place for campuses desiring to propose programs at off-site locations in Oregon. This process would be utilized for programs not selected to be part of the branch campus curriculum.
Ms. Lehmann asked about student response to data. Provost White reported that 700 applications have already been mailed, prior to any advertising on the part of OSU.
Ms. Wustenberg pointed out that it is imperative that the branch campus be set up so that it is able to survive financially. While admitting that early on it will be challenging, Provost White said he was confident that the way the model was designed ensured financial viability.
While fully supporting the spirit of the model, Mr. Lussier said he felt that as policies are identified, there should be Board involvement leading toward implementation. "Because we are looking toward the future, meaningful partnerships are vital. This is the first test case. We're breaking molds. In places where we can help that collaboration or clarity, the Board should be involved," he observed. Dr. Aschkenasy urged that it be made clear whose advice is being solicited and who has the decision-making power.
The Chancellor asked if there might be opportunities for institutions to test market courses prior to mounting a full program. While conceptually acceptable, Provost White said that any programs would need to support the model.
UO Provost Moseley reported that the modifications to the implementation plan and program process are changes the provosts are comfortable with, including participation by all provosts on the Implementation Council. One issue that is still unclear, he said, is the actual financial cross-budgeting process. Stating that he is in agreement with the principles outlined in the plan, Provost Moseley said he believes there needs to be a model that ensures financial viability. The Implementation Council, explained Provost White, will create the mechanisms to establish such systems. Vice Chancellor Clark reminded members that the Chancellor's Office should participate in decisions about financial arrangements, which should eventually move the branch campus toward the RAM. "We need to be able to present a clear and acceptable means of doing this to the legislature," she pointed out.
Moving to the two staff recommendations included in the implementation plan, Vice Chancellor Clark explained that the name of the branch campus and the title of the chief executive officer of the branch campus required Board approval. Mr. Lussier said that he had concerns about the name of the branch campus and suggested either the Cascades Campus or Campus of the Cascades. Vice Chancellor Clark explained that, for accreditation purposes, OSU should remain in the name. Mr. Lussier asked COCC President Barber and former CORAB member Barbara Schenck for their opinions. From a marketing standpoint, Ms. Schenck said that she preferred using Cascades in the name versus Central Oregon. President Barber said he would be fine with either, but was slightly troubled by the word "campus" as it did not sound "whole" to him. Provost Moseley supported using the word Cascade in the title as well. Vice Chancellor Clark felt that OSU-Cascades might be a reasonable compromise.
Ms. Wustenberg, still supporting OSU-Central Oregon as the name for the branch campus, moved to accept the staff recommendation to leave the name as such. Mr. Hempel seconded her motion.
Feeling that a larger regional approach was important, Mr. Lussier disagreed with the motion. Another way to think about the name, remarked President Risser, is that it is a different kind of campus, a learning community, so "Cascades Campus" included in the name might work.
After further discussion, Ms. Wustenberg withdrew her original motion and Mr. Hempel withdrew his second of the original motion. Ms. Wustenberg then moved to accept Mr. Lussier's amendments to name the branch campus OSU-Cascades Campus. Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.
Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Lussier seconded the motion to name the lead branch campus administrator the campus executive officer. The motion was unanimously approved.
Confidentiality Rules for Campus Negotiation, OARs 580-001-0030 and 580-022-0047
OUS Director of Legal Services Ben Rawlins briefly reviewed the administrative rules, which were approved as temporary rules by the Board in December 2000. They were drafted by the Department of Justice and approved by the Governor, and have been adopted in essentially the same form by virtually every other state agency. Mr. Lussier moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to approve the permanent rules as submitted. The motion was unanimously approved.
Grievance Procedures: OARs 580-021-0050, -0055, and -0390 (Repeal)
Mr. Rawlins explained that since the rules were first presented to the Committee in December 2000, some minor amendments were made based on input from OSU, PSU, UO, and the AAUP at PSU. Institutions felt they should have an option to appoint a hearings officer and that decision could be appealed to the president. Campuses will need to review their internal policies to ensure they are consistent with the amended OARs.
Ms. Wustenberg referenced the term "meaningful opportunity" in OAR 580-021-0050 section (5)(a), and noted that it seemed somewhat arbitrary when dealing with grievances. Pointing out that it was a carry-forward from the original language of the rule, Mr. Rawlins said that he interpreted it as saying that a genuine good-faith effort should be put forth in receiving comment. In the context of grievances, he added, much of grievants' feelings about not having a meaningful opportunity are generally inherent in the nature of the process. Ms. Lehmann pointed out that much of the language below the term "meaningful opportunity" is fairly specific.
Ms. Wustenberg moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the amendments and the rule repeal as submitted. The motion was unanimously approved.
B.A./B.S., Information Systems, WOU
Vice Chancellor Clark noted that the program proposal was related to but different from the current information systems program at OIT, in that WOU's program will be conducted primarily by computer science faculty. Following up on a comment by Vice Chancellor Clark relating to a high need for the program, Mr. Lussier asked if all campuses might eventually offer information technology degrees. Dr. Clark said that appeared to be the trend, pointing out that the degree lends adaptability to the skill set for students, as well as employability.
Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the program proposal as submitted. The motion was unanimously approved.
OUS Diversity Report: National Trends, and Racial/Ethnic Diversity Among OUS Students, Instructional Faculty, and Staff
Vice Chancellor Clark introduced Dr. Yvette Webber-Davis, OUS director of diversity planning and special programs, who highlighted the report. She noted that between 1995-2015, there will be an estimated nationwide increase of three million students in higher education, and 80 percent of those will be students of color. In the K-12 system in Oregon, there has been an increase of more than eight percent of students of color between 1990-2000.
Continuing to summarize the latest figures in OUS, Dr. Webber-Davis said that students of color represent 13.5 percent of the undergraduate population, and 78 percent of those are Oregon residents. Also, these students are earning degrees in larger numbers. In the context of diversity, she said that 1) it is important to provide educational and employment opportunities for all, and 2) it is necessary to provide the environment where there are opportunities for growth, diversity, self-awareness, different points of view, etc.
Faculty of color in OUS represent about 9.7 percent of the faculty population. Provosts are committed, Dr. Webber-Davis reported, to seeing those numbers increase. Ironically, at the same time there is growth in the student population, there will be large numbers of faculty retirements, so the provosts are looking at sustained and comprehensive approaches to attracting faculty of color.
Concluding her remarks, Dr. Webber-Davis pointed out several recommendations included in the report: (1) more involvement with existing diversity councils on campuses to enhance broad institutional planning efforts; (2) greater state funding, outreach, and federal grants to encourage populations to be better prepared for the college experience; (3) expanded opportunities for research into the benefits of diversity; and (4) more opportunities for discussion and engagement of faculty surrounding diversity issues.
Ms. Lehmann remarked that virtually every time she has visited with students in her role as a Board member, they say that OUS recruitment efforts are generally good, but faculty issues remain a concern. Also very important, she said that students say programs that provide support once they arrive on campus could be enhanced. Dr. Webber-Davis said that staff are seeking to open that dialogue, particularly with faculty.
Mr. Rawlins provided context for the campus safety discussion. In an effort to gain a better understanding of the Board's role in campus safety and following the Board's desire to engage in a more proactive process, Mr. Rawlins requested reports from all OUS campuses (on file in the Legal Services office) that included information about the current status of public safety on each campus. Mr. Lussier, wanting more information on the level of safety on campuses, issues, types of crimes, etc., requested copies of the complete reports. In terms of monitoring, Ms. Lehmann suggested tracking specific trends in relation to national norms as a way of further engaging the Board.
The Committee meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.