APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ORS 526.225 specifies that the Board of Higher Education shall appoint a Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee composed of 15 members, nine of whom are to be individuals engaged, actively and principally, in timber management of forest lands, harvesting, or processing of forest products; three individuals who are the heads of state and federal public forestry agencies; and three individuals from the public-at-large. Although the statute does not prescribe the terms of the Committee members, the practice has been to make appointments for a period of three years. Traditionally, those who are performing actively and effectively have been recommended for reappointment to a second three-year term, with all members replaced at the conclusion of a second term.
Dr. George W. Brown, director of the Forest Research Laboratory, with the concurrence of President Paul Risser, has made the following recommendation:
Appointment of Duane C. McDougall, newly appointed president and chief operating officer of Willamette Industries, as an industry representative to replace Steven Rogel. Mr. Rogel recently accepted the position of president and chief executive officer of Weyerhaeuser Corporation, and is unable to complete the final year of his three-year term.
Mr. McDougall has been with Willamette Industries for 19 years, most recently serving as the executive vice president of the building materials group. He is an OSU alumnus and former president of the Portland Rotary Charitable Trust Foundation.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the appointment of Duane C. McDougall to the Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND INDICATORS: 1998 INTERIM SYSTEM REPORT
The performance measures and indicators initiative is a statewide effort to refine priorities, strengthen quality, and improve the productivity of the Oregon University System (OUS). Launched by the Board of Higher Education in January 1997, it identified four goals -- access, quality, cost effectiveness, and employability -- as a basis for transforming public higher education and meeting the needs of the state of Oregon.
Context for the Initiative
The Governor and legislature have endorsed these four goals for OUS. Oregon law now supports development and implementation of performance indicators for public higher education. Furthermore, the Governor favors both greater autonomy and accountability in campus operations to meet the educational needs of the state.
Several reports reflect these needs and priorities, including the strategic plan for the state, Oregon Shines II (1997). For example, the document states that by the turn of the century, 33 percent of Oregon adults should have at least a bachelor's degree, with that figure increasing to 45 percent by 2010. As the public provider of higher educational services in Oregon, this OUS accountability initiative is critical to increasing the quantity and quality of Oregon adults with bachelor's and advanced degrees.
With the adoption of the performance indicator initiative, the Board recognized the presence of fiscal constraints for the indefinite future, asserted the importance of addressing quality and productivity, set a long-term agenda for change and reinvesting in higher priorities, and recognized the importance of achieving support from the Governor and legislative assembly.
Proposed Performance Measures
Since the November 1997 meeting of the Board, Chancellor's Office staff have
consulted with campus leadership to refine the list of indicators. The nine
proposed performance measures are as follows:
|1.||Degree completion (graduation rate)||Quality||Output|
|2.||Graduate abilities at degree completion||Quality||Output|
|5.||Student quality and diversity||Access||Input|
|6.||Graduate success and state needs||Employability||Output|
|7.||External resources and entrepreneurship||Cost||Mixed|
These measures provide the basis for the Board and System administrators to emphasize results achieved by the institutions, while empowering institutions to select the means of achieving these goals and meeting the needs of the state. This approach will help OUS advocate more effectively for public higher education.
The purpose of the performance indicators is to improve what each institution does in comparison to its past performance and external standards (based on institution's peers). This process prompts two questions: (1) how well are we doing compared to others? and (2) how good do we want to be? Based on analysis of ten-year performance trends and peer data for benchmarking the proposed measures and indicators, institutions will set realistic yet challenging improvement targets for 2005 and 2010. These targets will include interim targets for the odd-numbered years between 1997 and 2010 showing progress toward the 2005 and 2010 targets. Chancellor's Office staff recommends the adoption of the target-setting methods used by the Oregon Progress Board in establishing Oregon Benchmarks.
Reports to the Board
Baseline data for the performance indicator initiative will be presented to the Board in two installments, a System report in March 1998 (on file in the Board's office) and campus reports in June 1998.
This interim report contains information about current results and performance over ten years, where available, for the nine indicators for OUS. The campus reports in June 1998 will provide for each indicator: (1) a brief analysis of institutional and peer performance data, (2) improvement targets set for 2005 and 2010 and interim targets working toward the stated 2005 and 2010 targets, and (3) a brief outline of process interventions or strategic decisions to meet performance goals.
Thereafter, institutions will report annually on their accomplishments and the Chancellor's Office will track achievement of goals.
Staff Recommendation to the Board
Staff recommends that the Board adopt for the Oregon University System the target-setting methods used by the Oregon Progress Board in establishing Oregon Benchmarks; staff further recommends that the Board direct institutions to return in June 1998 with performance data and improvement targets.