Faculty Senate

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on October 5, 2000, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Gordon Matzke. There were no corrections to the minutes of June 2000.

– Discussion Items: Central Oregon, H. Sayre & G. Matzke; Legislative Issues, J. Mills & W. Lunch
– Committee Report: Bylaws & Nominations, K. Williamson
– Action Items: None
– New Business: None

Members Absent Without Representation:
Anderson, Arp, Bliss, Bontrager, Braker, Brooks, Cornelius, Cromack, Daniels, De Carolis, deGeus, Downing, Gamroth, Green, Gregory, Hamm, Hardin, Horne, Jepson, Kerkvliet, Kesler, King, Merickel, Mix, Peters, Powelson, Raja, Rosenberger, Sanford, Stang, Strik, Trehu, and J. White.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
G. Matzke, President; H. Sayre, President-Elect; K. Williamson, Immediate Past President; S. Coakley and T. White, Ex-officios; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.

Guests of the Senate:
R. Banning, L. Burns, V. Djokotoe; S. Francis, J. Ellingson, B. Warren, and A. Young.

OSU Central Oregon Campus

President Matzke explained that the issue of a Central Oregon Branch campus arose during the summer and over 50 faculty have been preparing information for the Request for Proposal (RFP), and felt it was important to discuss the proposal with the Senate. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee discussed the issue and arrived at three principles they felt the faculty would want if OSU were to participate in a Central Oregon campus: 1) faculty, rather than administrators, should decide the curriculum; 2) OSU should be held blameless for the cost - additional revenue should be allocated for Central Oregon; and 3) the quality of programs and faculty at a branch campus should be essentially equivalent to those on campus.

President-elect Henry Sayre, who is also chairing the curriculum committee for the RFP, explained that the cost of a branch campus would be $7.2 million per biennium. He noted that $3.6 million per year is the equivalent of a large department on campus. The budget forces OSU to think creatively about the possibilities for a meaningful branch campus which includes the need for an interdisciplinary campus since no unit could or would be self-sufficient. It is anticipated that there would initially be about 8 FTE the first year with 30-38 FTE in five years with all sharing curriculum and students.

Three core curriculum areas have been identified, with other degree areas dependent on the core:
1) Social Sciences
2) Humanities
3) Biological Sciences

The idea is that the proposed curriculum be as responsive as possible and reflect the needs and interests of the Central Oregon community and Central Oregon Community College (COCC) students. Since the curriculum also tries to play to the many strengths of COCC's existing lower division offerings, there is almost no need for COCC to develop any other lower division courses.

OSU is considering including EOU, OIT and, possibly, OHSU as partners in the RFP. OSU would exercise some quality control over programs with partner institutions, which would be written into the contract with them, and reviews will be performed.

Additionally, Bend would like graduate program offerings on site, however, OSU will continue to offer graduate programs via distance at this time. All 400 level courses will be 400/500 level.

Sayre noted that COCC is constructing a $7 million plus building that should be completed in 2002-03 to house the upper division campus.

Senator Thies, Science, questioned the U of O's involvement in Bend. Sayre responded that the U of O has two $400,000 entitlements that will continue for three to five years. He noted that the U of O is preparing a counter-proposal to OSU's RFP.

Senator Lee, Science, asked about the budget and whether OSU has decided to go ahead with the proposal regardless of the cost. Sayre indicated that the budgeted amount must be approved at $7.2 million. Matzke noted that this is a political gamble since they could add the $7.2 million to OSU's budget, but reduce other portions of the budget by the same amount.

Senator Woods, Engineering, questioned if $7.2 million was in addition to tuition and state general funding. Senator Sorte, Agricultural Sciences, responded affirmatively and thought that the ongoing budget figure was about $5 million.

Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, made two cautionary notes: 1) the enrollment at Washington State University's tri-cities campus is significantly lower than anticipated; and 2) if Ballot Measures 91 or 8 pass, none of this will be possible.

Sayre responded that faculty whose curriculum is included in the RFP should be discussing the proposal at the college/departmental level.


Legislative Issues

Jock Mills (Legislative Liaison) and William Lunch (Political Science) outlined November ballot measures that may have higher education implications. A hand-out was also distributed that described the ballot measures.

BM 86 - (income tax kicker) less likely to have funding for higher education if the excess income tax kicker funds are rebated
BM 91 - (tax deduction) probably takes kicker away in the first year which results in a 20% reduction in funding to K-12 and higher education
BM 92 - (dues deduction) reduces funding to the labor force
BM 93 - (government fees) retroactive
BM 95 - (teacher pay) not resolved if it would affect higher education
BM 1 - (school funding) focus is on K-12, but unclear what it would do to other state funding
BM 2 - (administrative rules) could make rule-making more difficult for higher education
BM 8 - (state spending limit) since it doesn't have to be State of Oregon derived funds, it would affect grants coming to higher education – this would include private funds raised by the Foundation

Senator Winner, Science, questioned current poll standings. Mills didn't have current standings, but responded that BM 91was compelling at first but, once voters understood the measure, they were generally opposed. Because BM 8 is complicated, voters are inclined to vote no if it's not understood.

Mills noted that the Committee For Our Oregon has been formed to fight measures 91, 93, and 8 which would have the most impact on higher education. He encouraged faculty to call him after hours if they have questions about specific measures or how to contribute to the above committee.


COMMITTEE REPORT

Bylaws & Nominations Committee

Ken Williamson, Chair, discussed the nomination process for Faculty Senate President-Elect, Executive Committee members and Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Senator. A slate of nominees for each office will be presented at the November Senate meeting. If someone is nominated from the floor at the November meeting, the nominator must have received prior approval from the nominee.

INFORMATION ITEMS

– Faculty Senate Fall Elections - Nominees for President-Elect, Executive Committee and Interinstitutional Faculty Senate should be forwarded to Ken Williamson no later than October 6.

– Faculty Senate Calendar - Senate meetings begin at 3:00 PM, normally in the LaSells Stewart Center: November 2, 2000; December 7, 2000; January 11, 2001; February 1, 2001; March 1, 2001; April 5, 2001; May 3, 2001; and June 7, 2001

– Creating and Sustaining a Quality Learning Environment - A forum on this topic was held October 2.

– Curriculum Proposal Workshop - A workshop was held on October 6.

– Central Oregon Faculty Forum - A forum was held October 12.

REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST

Provost White began by commenting that he viewed University Day differently this year in his new role, and noted that the event seems to get better each year.

Searches -