Oregon University System logo

CONFIDENTIALITY RULES FOR CAMPUS NEGOTIATION OAR 580-001-0030 AND 580-021-0047

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

The rules proposed to the Board, OAR 580-001-0030 and 580-021-0047, are the Department of Justice's model rules. Adoption of these rules will permit mediations to occur in confidence. The need for these rules stems from the current state of Oregon law on public records. At present, the public records law would permit the disclosure of a wide range of public documents-including those used in mediation processes.

Since disclosure will often times defeat the benefit of mediation, and the public records law has great value to Oregon, the most feasible solution was for a special exemption approved by the Governor. This was the same process utilized by virtually all other state agencies. The Governor's approval has been secured. Following is the text of each rule:

Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications

OAR 580-001-0030
(1) The words and phrases used in this rule have the same meaning as given to them in ORS 36.110 and 36.234.
(2) Nothing in this rule affects any confidentiality created by other law. Nothing in this rule relieves a public body from complying with the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to 192.690. Whether or not they are confidential under this or other rules of the agency, mediation communications are exempt from the disclosure under the Public Records Law to the extent provided in ORS 192.410 to 192.505.
(3) This rule applies only to mediations in which the agency is a party or is mediating a dispute as to which the agency has regulatory authority. This rule does not apply when the agency is acting as the "mediator" in a matter in which the agency also is a party as defined in ORS 36.234.
(4) To the extent mediation communications would otherwise compromise negotiations under ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), those mediation communications are not admissible as provided in ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in section (9) of this rule.
(5) Mediations Excluded. Sections (6)-(10) of this rule do not apply to:
(a) Mediation of workplace interpersonal disputes involving the interpersonal relationships between this agency's employees, officials or employees and officials, unless a formal grievance under a labor contract, a tort claim notice or a lawsuit has been filed; or
(b) Mediation in which the person acting as the mediator will also act as the hearings officer in a contested case involving some or all of the same matters;
(c) Mediation in which the only parties are public bodies;
(d) Mediation involving two or more public bodies and a private party if the laws, rule or policies governing mediation confidentiality for at least one of the public bodies provide that mediation communications in the mediation are not confidential;
(e) Mediation involving 15 or more parties if the agency has designated that another mediation confidentiality rule adopted by the agency may apply to that mediation.
(6) Disclosures by Mediator. A mediator may not disclose or be compelled to disclose mediation communications in a mediation and, if disclosed, such communications may not be introduced into evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding unless:
(a) All parties to the mediation and the mediator agree in writing to the disclosure; or
(b) The mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding as provided in subsections (c)-(d), (j)-(l) or (o)-(p) of section (9) of this rule.
(7) Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications. Except as provided in sections (8)-(9) of this rule, mediation communications are confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person, are not admissible in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent proceeding.
(8) Written Agreement. Section (7) of this rule does not apply to a mediation unless the parties to the mediation agree in writing, as provided in this section, that the mediation communications in the mediation will be confidential and/or nondiscoverable and inadmissible. If the mediator is the employee of and acting on behalf of a state agency, the mediator or an unauthorized agency representative must also sign the agreement. The parties' agreement to participate in a confidential mediation must be in substantially the following form. This form may be used separately or incorporated into an "agreement to mediate."

Agreement to Participate in a Confidential Mediation

The agency and the parties to the mediation agree to participate in a mediation in which the mediation communications are confidential and/or nondiscoverable and inadmissible to the extent authorized by 580-001-0030(7) and this agreement. This agreement relates to the following mediation:

a)_______________________________________________________________
(Identify the mediation to which this agreement applies)

b) To the extent authorized by OAR 580-001-0030(7), the mediation communications in this mediation are: (check one or more)

____confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person

____not admissible in any subsequent administrative proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent administrative proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent administrative proceeding

____not admissible in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding, or introduced as evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding

c)______________________________________
Name of Agency

_______________________________________; ______
Signature of Agency's authorized representative; Date
(when agency is a party) or Agency employee acting
as the mediator (when Agency is mediating the dispute)

d)______________________________________
Name of party to the mediation

_______________________________________; ______
Signature of party's authorized representative; Date

e)______________________________________
Name of party to the mediation

_______________________________________; ______
Signature of party's authorized representative; Date

(9) Exceptions to confidentiality and inadmissibility.
(a) Any statements, memoranda, work products, documents and other materials, otherwise subject to discovery that were not prepared specifically for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding.
(b) Any mediation communications that are public records, as defined in ORS 192.410(4) and were not specifically prepared for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential or privileged under state or federal law.
(c) A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed by any person receiving the communication to the extent that person reasonably believes that disclosing the communication is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in death or bodily injury to any person. A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed in a subsequent proceeding to the extent its disclosure may further the investigation or prosecution of a felony crime involving physical violence to a person.
(d) Any mediation communication related to the conduct of a licensed professional that is made to or in the presence of a person who, as a condition of his or her professional license, is obligated to report such communication by law or court rule is not confidential and may be disclosed to the extent necessary to make such a report.
(e) The parties to the mediation may agree in writing that all or part of the mediation communications are not confidential or that all or part of the mediation communications may be disclosed and may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential, privileged or otherwise prohibited from disclosure under state or federal law.
(f) A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person if the party's communication with that person is privileged under ORS chapter 40 or other provision of law. A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person for the purpose of obtaining advice concerning the subject matter of the mediation, if all the parties agree.
(g) An employee of the agency may disclose confidential mediation communications to another agency employee so long as the disclosure is necessary to conduct authorized activities of the agency. An employee receiving a confidential mediation communication under this subsection is bound by the same confidentiality requirements as apply to the parties to the mediation.
(h) A written mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding at the discretion of the party who prepared the communication so long as the communication is not otherwise confidential under state or federal law and does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party who does not agree to the disclosure.
(i) In any proceeding to enforce, modify or set aside a mediation agreement, a party to the mediation may disclose mediation communications and such communications may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of mediation communications or agreements to persons other than the parties to the agreement.
(j) In an action for damages or other relief between a party to the mediation and a mediator or mediation program, mediation communications are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of the mediation communications or agreements.
(k) When a mediation is conducted as part of the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement, the following mediation communications are not confidential and such communications may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding:
(A) A request for mediation; or
(B) A communication from the Employment Relations Board Conciliation Service establishing the time and place of the mediation; or
(C) A final offer submitted by the parties to the mediator pursuant to ORS 243.712; or
(D) A strike notice submitted to the Employment Relations Board.
(l) To the extent a mediation communication contains information on the substance of which is required to be disclosed by Oregon statute, other than ORS 192.410 to 192.505, that portion of the communication may be disclosed as required by statute.
(m) Written mediation communications prepared by or for the agency or its attorney are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding to the extent the communication does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party, except for those written mediation communications that are:
(A) Attorney-client privileged communications so long as they have been disclosed to no one other that the mediator in the course of the mediation or to persons as to whom disclosure of the communication would not waive the privilege; or
(B) Attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial; or
(C) Prepared exclusively for the mediator or in a caucus session and not given to another party in the mediation other than a state agency; or
(D) Prepared in response to the written request of the mediator for specific documents or information and given to another party in the mediation; or
(E) Settlement concepts or proposals, shared with the mediator or other parties.
(n) A mediation communication made to the agency may be disclosed and may be admitted into evidence to the extent the Chancellor, University President or their designees determines that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious danger to the public's health or safety, and the communication is not otherwise confidential or privileged under state or federal law.
(o) The terms of any mediation agreement are not confidential and may be introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding, except to the extent the terms of the agreement are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505, a court has ordered the terms to be confidential under ORS 30.402 or state or federal law requires the terms to be confidential.
(p) The mediator may report the disposition of a mediation to the agency at the conclusion of the mediation so long as the report does not disclose specific confidential mediation communications. The agency or the mediator may use or disclose confidential mediation communications for research, training or educational purposes, subject to the provisions of ORS 36.232(4).
(10) When a mediation is subject to section (7) of this rule, the agency will provide to all parties to the mediation and the mediator a copy of this rule or a citation to the rule and an explanation of where a copy of the rule may be obtained. Violation of this provision does not waive confidentiality or inadmissibility.

Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Workplace Interpersonal Dispute Mediation Communications

580-022-0047
(1) This rule applies to workplace interpersonal disputes, which are disputes involving the interpersonal relationships between this agency's employees, officials or employees and officials. This rule does not apply to disputes involving the negotiation of labor contracts or mattes about which a formal grievance under a labor contract, a tort claim notice or a lawsuit has been filed.
(2) The words and phrases used in this rule have the same meaning as given to them in ORS 36.110 and 36.234.
(3) Nothing in this rule affects any confidentiality created by other law.
(4) To the extent mediation communications would otherwise compromise negotiations under ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), those mediation communications are not admissible as provided in ORS 40.190 (OEC Rule 408), notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in section (9) of this rule.
(5) Disclosures by Mediator. A mediator may not disclose or be compelled to disclose mediation communications in a mediation and, if disclosed, such communications may not be introduced into evidence in any subsequent administrative, judicial or arbitration proceeding unless:
(a) All the parties to the mediation and the mediator agree in writing to the disclosure; or
(b) The mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding as provided in subsections (c) or (h)-(j) of section (7) of this rule.
(6) Confidentiality and Inadmissibility of Mediation Communications. Except as provided in section (7) of this rule, mediation communications in mediations involving workplace interpersonal disputes are confidential and may not be disclosed to any other person, are not admissible in any subsequent administration, judicial or arbitration proceeding and may not be disclosed during testimony in, or during any discovery conducted as part of a subsequent proceeding, or introduced into evidence by the parties or the mediator in any subsequent proceeding so long as:
(a) The parties to the mediation and the agency have agreed in writing to the confidentiality of the mediation; and
(b) The person agreeing to the confidentiality of the mediation on behalf of the agency:
(A) Is neither a party to the dispute nor the mediator; and
(B) Is designated by the agency to authorize confidentiality for the mediation; and
(C) Is at the same or higher level in the agency than any of the parties to the mediation or who is a person with responsibility for human resources or personnel matters in the agency, unless the agency head or member of the governing board is one of the persons involved in the interpersonal dispute, in which case the Governor or Governor's designee.
(7) Exceptions to confidentiality and inadmissibility.
(a) Any statements, memoranda, work products, documents and other materials, otherwise subject to discovery that were not prepared specifically for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding.
(b) Any mediation communications that are public records, as defined in ORS 192.410(4) and were not specifically prepared for use in the mediation are not confidential and may be disclosed or introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential or privileged under state or federal law.
(c) A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed by any person receiving the communication to the extent that person reasonably believes that disclosing the communication is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in death or bodily injury to any person. A mediation communication is not confidential and may be disclosed in a subsequent proceeding to the extent its disclosure may further the investigation or prosecution of a felony crime involving physical violence to a person.
(d) The parties to the mediation may agree in writing that all or part of the mediation communications are not confidential or that all or part of the mediation communications may be disclosed and may be introduced into evidence in a subsequent proceeding unless the substance of the communication is confidential, privileged or otherwise prohibited from disclosure under state or federal law.
(e) A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person if the party's communication with that person is privileged under ORS chapter 40 or other provision of law. A party to the mediation may disclose confidential mediation communications to a person for the purpose of obtaining advice concerning the subject matter of the mediation, if all the parties agree.
(f) A written mediation communication may be disclosed or introduced as evidence in a subsequent proceeding at the discretion of the party who prepared the communication so long as the communication is not otherwise confidential under state or federal law and does not contain confidential information from the mediator or another party who does not agree to the disclosure.
(g) In any proceeding to enforce, modify or set aside a mediation agreement, a party to the mediation may disclose mediation communications and such communications may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of mediation communications or agreements to persons other than the parties to the agreement.
(h) In an action for damages or other relief between a party to the mediation and a mediator or mediation program, mediation communications are not confidential and may be disclosed and may be introduced as evidence to the extent necessary to prosecute or defend the matter. At the request of a party, the court may seal any part of the record of the proceeding to prevent further disclosure of the mediation communications or agreements.
(i) To the extent a mediation communication contains information on the substance of which is required to be disclosed by Oregon statute, other than ORS 192.410 to 192.505, that portion of the communication may be disclosed as required by statute.
(j) The mediator may report the disposition of a mediation to the agency at the conclusion of the mediation so long as the report does not disclose specific confidential mediation communications. The agency or the mediator may use or disclose confidential mediation communications for research, training or educational purposes, subject to the provisions of ORS 36.232(4).
(8) The terms of any agreement arising out of the mediation of a workplace interpersonal dispute are confidential so long as the parties and the agency so agree in writing. Any term of an agreement that requires an expenditure of public funds, other than expenditures $1,000 or less for employee training, employee counseling or purchases of equipment that remain the property of the agency, may not be made confidential.
(9) When a mediation is subject to section (6) of this rule, the agency will provide to all parties to the mediation and to the mediator a copy of this rule or an explanation of where a copy of the rule may be obtained. Violation of this provision does not waive confidentiality or inadmissibility.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends Board approval of the new administrative rules, as approved by the Governor.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

VISION FOR ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE IN OREGON

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

In 1996, the State Board of Higher Education created a vision for enhancing engineering education in Oregon to support the state's expanding high technology industry and contribute to Oregon's long-term economic and workforce development. That vision stimulated the enactment of Senate Bill 504 by the 1997 legislature and led to the establishment of the Engineering and Technology Industry Council (ETIC) and the Engineering Education Investment Fund (EEIF). Those efforts have helped to increase Oregon's educational capacity in engineering and computer science and have increased the collaboration between industry and higher education to further advance the enhancement of engineering and computer science education in the state.

Today, Oregon faces new educational demands in engineering and computer science as the state's dynamic high technology industry experiences rapid growth and expanded challenges along the new frontiers of technological development. Those changes call for an updated educational vision to lead Oregon and its public universities into a position of prominence and leadership for the next decade and beyond.

At its October 2000 meeting, the State Board of Higher Education approved a far-sighted budget plan to achieve new standards of excellence for engineering and computer science. To provide the appropriate long-term policy perspective for this effort, the following is proposed as an updated description of OUS's vision for engineering and computer science.

Vision for Engineering and
Computer Science Education in Oregon

Oregon's public universities will become pre-eminent locations for engineering and computer science education in the United States by establishing a top-tier College of Engineering at Oregon State University and building programs with nationally recognized excellence in engineering and computer science education throughout the campuses of the Oregon University System.

In their quest for excellence, OUS campuses will:

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommend Board approval of the revised 1996 vision statement.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD HONORARY DOCTORATES, PSU

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Portland State University requests authorization to award honorary doctorates to Deog Ryong Kim and Yul Ja Kim at a special ceremony in January or February 2001.* These two individuals 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.

Mr. Deog Ryong Kim is a well-known advocate for political reform in the Republic of South Korea and for improvement of international relations. A member of the National Assembly, he has been active in his country's political life for nearly four decades. An outspoken advocate of government reform, Mr. Kim was imprisoned four times between 1964 and 1983 for expressions of political views. He was invited to speak in the United States six times during the past decade by the U.S. State Department, the National Press Club, and other organizations. In 1993-94, Mr. Kim established the Federation of Korean Trade and Industry, and the USA-ROK Exchange Association. He has published several works dealing with political reform and the improvement of international relations.

Dr. Yul Ja Kim is a respected researcher in the area of kidney disease, diabetes, and hemodialysis. A member of both the International Nephrology and American Nephrology Associations, Dr. Kim has served as director of the Hemodialysis Unit at the National Medical Center in Seoul, and as Chief of Internal Medicine at Hanhyo General Hospital, also in Seoul. Aside from her medical practice and research, Dr. Kim has worked to improve public health through volunteer activities with the Korean Red Cross and is a member of the Commission to Help North Korean Refugees.

The PSU President's Executive Council has reviewed and approved these nominations for award of honorary degrees.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends Board authorization to Portland State University to award honorary doctorates to Mr. Deog Ryong Kim and Dr. Yul Ja Kim at a special ceremony in January or February 2001.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

* The Board of Higher Education permits institutions, with the concurrence of their faculties, 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 and, when approved, filed with the Secretary of the Board. Institutions are required to forward their recommendations for honorary degrees for the Board's approval 90 days before the award date.

PH.D., CIVIL ENGINEERING, PSU

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Portland State University proposes to offer the Ph.D. program in Civil Engineering, effective winter term 2001. Oregon State University is the only other OUS institution with a civil engineering doctoral program. OIT, OSU, and PSU offer baccalaureate degree programs in civil engineering, and OSU and PSU also have master's programs. In addition, PSU offers the M.Eng. degree in Civil Engineering and Civil Engineering Management.

Currently, the civil engineering departments at PSU and OSU share courses in environmental engineering. There have been areas of cooperation in instruction, research, and service between these two departments and such cooperation is expected to continue with the implementation of this program.

The proposed doctoral program will build on PSU's existing Ph.D. programs in Systems Science and Environmental Sciences and Resources. The academic area of civil engineering includes analysis and design of structures, applied hydraulics and hydrology, ocean engineering, surveying and mapping, geotechnical design, project management, transportation engineering, and environmental and water resources engineering. The proposed program will offer four subspecialty concentrations: (1) environmental/water resources engineering, (2) geotechnical engineering, (3) structural engineering, and (4) transportation engineering. Students will complete two years of full-time graduate work beyond the master's degree, pass a comprehensive examination, and write and defend a dissertation.

The need for this program is well documented. The condition of air, water, land, transportation, housing, power, and communications systems is central to the state's economic, societal, and environmental well-being. The heightened focus on environmental activities (e.g., retrofitting infrastructure for earthquake safety) is increasing the demand for civil engineers. The proposed program intends to educate professionals to work at the most advanced level of their profession. Graduates will be able to integrate all the engineering functions required to enhance infrastructure and regional livability. They will find employment opportunities with local and state agencies, consulting firms, and industries related to construction, water resources, transportation, environmental, structural, and geotechnical engineering.

Students in PSU's Civil Engineering Department conduct research and solve real problems that exist in Oregon and the Northwest. Examples include:

The proposed program is designed specifically to facilitate the educational needs of working professionals and individuals returning to obtain an advanced degree, particularly by scheduling classes late in the day to accommodate currently employed engineers. PSU anticipates serving three to five new students per year in this program.

PSU's Civil Engineering Department currently has 12 full-time faculty (including a recent hire, Dr. Bertini, an expert in transportation engineering who joined the department in fall 2000). PSU concurs with the analysis of the external review team that one to two more faculty members should be hired in the geotechnical area and one more in transportation; PSU has committed to funding two additional faculty positions should ETIC funds not be forthcoming for this purpose. The proposed program has other modest budgetary requirements for such things as services and supplies, clerical support, and graduate assistantships. Those needs will be met through a combination of ETIC funds and departmental reallocation. After four years, PSU expects the program to cover its own costs via increased enrollment and research activity. The facilities are adequate to offer this program. The STAR Lab is undergoing its second upgrade, and the Transportation Lab is being expanded and outfitted with new equipment.

The proposed program has been positively reviewed by the appropriate institutional committees. With the exception noted above, the external review of the program was positive. The reviewers noted that "[o]ne of the strengths of the program is that the funded research projects address local and regional needs of the Portland Metropolitan Region and the State of Oregon. The healthy collaboration that most of the faculty has with such agencies as the City of Portland, the Corps of Engineers, and the Bonneville Power Administration, provides the faculty and students with the opportunity to solve real-world problems related to the well-being of the local and regional infrastructure." The OUS Academic Council has also reviewed this program proposal and supports its implementation.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish a program leading to the Ph.D. in Civil Engineering. The program would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

M.S., SYSTEMS SCIENCE, PSU

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Portland State University proposes to offer the M.S. degree in Systems Science, effective winter term 2001. PSU will be the only OUS institution to offer this program, which will complement PSU's current baccalaureate- and doctoral-level degree programs in Systems Science.

Systems science is the study and application of general methods of problem solving and general principles governing systems of widely differing types. Systems concepts and techniques are used extensively for both applied and research purposes. Students will focus on foundational courses in systems science theory and methodology and will add approved courses in associated disciplines from nine academic units, as is appropriate in this interdisciplinary master's. Areas of concentration within the major are: Systems Theory/Systems Approach, Adaptation and Complexity, and Information Processing. A significant way in which the master's program differs from the doctorate is that the former has a greater applied emphasis rather than a research emphasis.

Students will be required to complete 28 Systems Science credits, eight electives credits, and nine credits of thesis or approved additional electives. Students writing a thesis will be required to pass an oral defense. Those students selecting the nonthesis option must pass written comprehensive examinations that cover two major coursework areas of Systems Science.

Social, economic, and environmental challenges are generally complex and interdisciplinary. Graduates of the program will be able to address these challenges by applying a wide variety of systems ideas and methods such as dynamic modeling, computational methods, and data analysis, tapping into any number of disciplines and performing as integrative thinkers.

The proposed program targets working professionals. Classes are scheduled primarily in the late afternoon and early evening to accommodate business hours. PSU anticipates up to 25 students will be admitted to the program each year.

Evidence of need is supported both by student demand and business/industry interest. A number of local public and private organizations (e.g., PGE, Intel, Kaiser Permanente) have employed students from the Ph.D. program. Nationally, research advances and successful activities of organizations such as the Santa Fe Institute (a multidisciplinary research and education center) point to the need for such versatile thinkers.

Because the M.S. program utilizes the first two years of the existing Ph.D. program, no new courses will be required. Consequently, current faculty and facility resources are sufficient to offer this program. Modest computer and software needs will be met through PSU's ongoing computer technology enhancement program.

The proposed program has been positively reviewed by the appropriate institutional committees. An external review of the program was generally positive. In its concluding remarks, the review stated that the program is "desirable" and that it will "play an important role in the relationship between the university and the local industries."

The review team recommended some minor modifications, to which PSU has responded. For example, the reviewers cited as a weakness the lack of a "written research program developed by consensus of the faculty." Subsequent to the review, a written Systems Science Research Agenda has been developed. A second recommendation of the review team was to permanently support the position of program director. PSU has made clear its commitment to support that position at a minimum of .5 FTE.

The Academic Council has also reviewed this program proposal and supports its implementation.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish a program leading to the M.S. in Systems Science. The program would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

GRADUATE CERTIFICATES, PSU

Introduction to PSU's Proposed Graduate Certificates

Across the country, the development and implementation of undergraduate and graduate certificate programs have escalated. This renewed interest in certificates started in the mid- to late-1990s. (In fact, in 1998-99, the Council of Graduate Schools hired a dean in residence specifically to study graduate certificate programs and related issues.) Higher education researchers and writers attribute the increased focus on certificates to a number of factors: greater interest in lifelong learning; more nontraditional students attending college; more students enrolling in higher education, overall; greater employer demands for specific skill sets; and a different work environment in which job change is more likely than job security. In Oregon, as elsewhere, many individuals seeking to enhance their career opportunities do not have the time or goal of pursuing a full graduate degree. Nevertheless, they wish to gain focused, additional education. Universities have responded to this new environment by packaging clusters of subdegree activities that will likely yield specific competencies that are highly valued in the workplace; these are certificates. And across the country, the certificate is becoming a recognized credential that is valued in professional settings.

At this time, OUS institutions and OHSU have over 150 undergraduate and graduate certificate programs. The majority are in the fields of education, health care, and business. PSU and UO have in place and OSU is finalizing formal guidelines for graduate certificate development and approval on their campuses. PSU requires that all graduate certificates consist of a minimum of 15 credits and be subsets of existing programs; students are required to attain a cumulative GPA of 3.0 in all certificate courses.

The following proposed graduate certificates have been approved by appropriate PSU committees/councils and were reviewed by the OUS Academic Council in October 2000. If approved by the Board, the certificate programs will be implemented winter term 2001.

Applied Energy Economics (16 credits)

The proposed program will offer students a broad working knowledge of the energy industry and provide them with the necessary analytical tools to understand the structure of the industry, its functional elements, and the regulatory environment in which it operates. Students are expected to concentrate on a particular research area closely related to microeconomics, data gathering, model building, project evaluation, and policy design. They will be required to complete a one-term practicum, which is designed to allow students to carve out their research area and apply it in a professional setting. The courses will be scheduled two evenings per week to accommodate working professionals.

PSU anticipates serving between 20 and 30 students each academic year. No new resources are required for this program; rather, indicators are that the program will be substantially supported over time by leading professionals in the energy industry. There are no similar certificate programs offered by OUS institutions.

Systems Engineering Fundamentals (16 credits)

This proposed certificate responds to a recommendation by the external review team of the Systems Engineering graduate program. The four core courses from the master's degree, which emphasize concepts, modeling, and tools, will constitute the proposed certificate. Students will learn how to apply what they learn to engineering life cycles, encompassing customer needs from design to manufacture to operation. All courses will be offered on the Internet to allow students flexibility in terms of course time and delivery.

Approximately ten students will be served over a two-year period. This program is operated on a self-support basis, so no new resources are required. There are no similar certificate programs offered by OUS institutions.

Earth and Space Sciences for K-12 Educators (20 credits)

The proposed certificate is designed for practicing teachers to upgrade their geoscience credentials while they continue to hold their full-time jobs. Students will complete eight credits in earth processes and society, six credits in field science, four credits in space science, and two credits in independent study (either reading and conference or practicum). This program will provide teachers the opportunity to develop skills and knowledge to effectively teach the new content area Earth and Space Science.

PSU expects to serve ten students per year; however, enrollments will likely increase as the Science Content Standards are phased into Oregon schools. No new resources will be required for implementation of this program. A number of OUS institutions offer a certificate in integrated science; the proposed certificate differs slightly in its coupling of and focus on earth and space sciences.

Applied Statistics (24 credits)

This certificate was developed by an interdisciplinary group of PSU faculty who share a common interest in the application of statistical methods to the analysis of data and the solution of problems. Students will complete a three-term core course sequence in statistics, 12 additional credits in interdisciplinary courses, and three terms of statistical consulting (practicum, total three credits). Students will be expected to develop both a depth of understanding of methods and a breadth of application across disciplines. It is assumed that most students will pursue this certificate program in conjunction with a disciplinary graduate program. The program will be offered with existing faculty and no new resources are required. PSU will be the only OUS institution to offer a graduate certificate in applied statistics.

Computer Modeling and Simulation (16 credits)

The primary focus of this proposed certificate will be the student who is not pursuing a Ph.D. in Systems Science. Students will complete five courses in simulation, modeling, and systems as well as classes in psychology, factor analysis, and covariance structure modeling. Students will be expected to maintain a minimum GPA of 3.25. The program will likely attract students from local manufacturing and high-technology companies, as well as government agencies such as TriMet. PSU anticipates two to three students per year participating in this program. Current resources are sufficient to offer this program. No similar certificate program is offered by OUS institutions.

Computational Intelligence (16 credits)

The proposed certificate program will provide students with introductory-level exposure to new computing paradigms, yielding a basic skill set for application of the methods. The paradigms will include neural networks, evolutionary computing, fuzzy set theory, and artificial intelligence. Typical application areas for these new computational paradigms include pattern recognition, control, signal processing, optimization in nonlinear system, and simulation. Approximately ten students per year can be accommodated in this program with current resources; consequently, no new resources are needed for program implementation. PSU is the only OUS institution to offer this certificate.

Professional Communication (24 credits)

This program is directed toward the advanced communication needs of students not currently seeking a master's degree in speech communication. The program, which was developed specifically to address identified communication needs of working professionals in diverse fields, provides a set of advanced communication theories and skills to enable students to perform more effectively in their current positions or make strategic career moves or advances. Students will complete six graduate courses: one course in communication theory; one advanced skills course; two 500-level speech courses such as organization communication, urban communication, or advanced interpersonal communication; and two elective courses. Three to seven students per year will be served in this program. No additional resources are required for program implementation, and this will be the only certificate of its kind in the Oregon University System.

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends that the Board authorize Portland State University to establish programs leading to graduate certificates in Applied Energy Economics, Systems Engineering Fundamentals, Earth and Space Sciences for K-12 Educators, Applied Statistics, Computer Modeling and Simulation, Computational Intelligence, and Professional Communication. The programs would be effective winter term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

THE STATUS OF 1998-99 OUS BACCALAUREATE GRADUATES: ONE YEAR LATER

Executive Summary

In 1997, the Board adopted four overarching goals to guide (and against which to measure) the work of the Oregon University System (OUS) institutions: access, quality, employability, and cost-effectiveness. These goals were codified in SB 919, in which the Board was directed to develop measures and indicators of public higher education performance. This survey of 1,245 1998-99 baccalaureate alumni from all seven institutions presents information relative to some of those performance indicators: employability, graduate abilities, internships, and customer satisfaction.

Findings

The vast majority of respondents are faring well after graduation. Eighty percent are employed, 12 percent are enrolled in further education, five percent are unemployed by choice (e.g., retired, traveling), and three percent are unemployed and seeking work. Other information about the employed graduates includes:

How well did their education prepare them for employment? Fifty percent of respondents completed an internship, practicum, or other employment-related experience, and 71 percent completed at least one course requiring them to address complex real-world problems. Graduates were asked if their education helped develop specific skills identified by employers as important in the workplace. Those who responded their education helped "a lot":

Overall, student satisfaction with their education was high. The majority (77 percent) stated they would select the same university if they had to "start over." Thirty-six percent rated the education they received at an OUS institution as "excellent" and 55 percent as "good."

(No Board action required)

REVISED PERFORMANCE FUNDING AND REPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS

Background

The Emergency Board in September 2000 raised issues about the limited number of performance indicators tied to performance funding, the improvement targets set by the campuses, and the method used to allocate performance awards. Between September and the first of December, the provosts and presidents met with Chancellor's staff several times to discuss the issues raised by the E-Board and propose revisions that were responsive to their challenges. The proposed revision of the performance indicator and performance funding policy is the result of this iterative process that involved campus leadership. This draft is presented as a discussion item. Staff solicits the reactions of the Board's Strategic Planning Committee before the full Board reviews the policy in February 2001.

Revised Performance Funding Policy

Rationale. To meet the demand by the public and policy makers for greater accountability in Oregon public higher education, we propose changes to the performance indicator and performance funding policy approved by the Board in January 2000.

Proposed Changes. The proposed changes include five features:

Indicators Tied to Performance Funding. In the first year of implementation of performance funding, OUS tied only two indicators to funding. The proposed revision to the policy ties two kinds of indicators to performance funding. First, staff proposes that OUS provide incentives for performance growth for five indicators the institutions share in common. Second, staff proposes OUS provide incentives for performance growth to indicators that are specific to an institution given its mission, circumstances, and strategic directions. Depending on the number of indicators selected by an institution, OUS will tie incentives to seven to nine indicators beginning in 2000-01.

Shared Indicators. Each campus will share indicators in common tied to performance funding. OUS will tie funding to five shared indicators:

Institution-Specific Indicators. These shared indicators are enhanced by a minimum of two but no more than four institution-specific indicators. These yet-to-be-determined indicators take into account the mission, vision, and circumstances appropriate to each campus. The Chancellor or designee reviews and approves the institution-specific indicators selected by each campus.

Improvement Targets. Institutions will establish improvement targets for the seven to nine indicators tied to performance funding depending on whether the campus selects two, three, or four mission-specific indicators. Productivity growth will be expressed as percentage changes in performance compared to improvement targets as one-year, two-year, five-year and ten-year averages. Two-year performance averages will be compared against the target in a given year. Numerical data will also be available.

Both an internal view and an external view of excellence are needed to set goals for improvement. Consistent with the approach used to set benchmark goals in Oregon Benchmarks, campuses will set targets that represent improvement against their baseline performance (usually 1987-88 through 1997-98) and take into consideration the current performance of a subset of their peer institutions. Campuses will set targets for a total of seven to nine indicators-for the five shared and the two to four institution-specific indicators for 2004-05 (and all interim years between 2000-01 and 2004-05). Once fixed, improvement targets would be changed only with expressed agreement with the Chancellor or designee.

For positive trending indicators, institutions should establish a percentage change using the longest data-time series available used to create the baseline (usually 1987-88 through 1997-98) and then set two targets-one to sustain growth at the current pace and the other to accelerate growth above the current pace.

Sustain growth target. Campuses should determine the percentage change in the baseline data for positive trending performance to set the 2004-05 target to sustain the current rate. They can assume a straight line between 2004-05 to the data for last baseline year (usually 1997-98) to set annual interim targets to reach the 2004-05 target. When an institution is performing at or above 90 percent on a given indicator, the a target should be to sustain excellence.

Accelerate growth target. Campuses should also create a challenge or stretch target for 2004-05 by accelerating the current growth rate in relation to its statistical peers.

The target for 2004-05 should close the gap between its performance and the best peer institution. Additional incentives will be given to institutions that meet or exceed the performance of the highest performing institution in their peer group on a given indicator. If the OUS campus is already the top performing institution among its statistical peer institutions, the campus will be rewarded for achieving additional incremental improvements against aspirational peers as negotiated with the Chancellor or designee.

For negative trending indicators, institutions should set one target based on turning around performance by 2004-05.

Turnaround targets. For negative trending or erratically fluctuating indicators, campuses should return to best level-in-time series (usually 1987-88 through 1997-98) by 2000-01 and improve by ten percent between 2001-02 and 2004-05. There will be no performance awards available to an institution for a given indicator until its performance exceeds the best level-in-time series.

Campus Incentive Award. Pending the availability of performance funding, OUS will base the incentive award for each campus on improving performance against 2000-01 targets for a total of seven to nine indicators (five shared and two to four institution-specific). The incentive award will be distributed evenly between shared and institution-specific indicators -- 50 percent for the shared indicators and 50 percent for the institution-specific indicators.

In 1999-00, OUS allocated the largest portion of the incentive fund pools to all campuses for meeting (or nearly meeting) improvement targets and a smaller portion to bonuses to two campuses for exceeding their targets. The Emergency Board asked that OUS turn this approach upside down. The legislators did not believe rewarding every campus for every indicator is a credible process. We anticipate that each campus will be a winner on some indicators, but rarely all. It is even possible that a campus may not receive any performance reward in a given year. Consistent with Board policy to reward improvement against past performance, we will propose the proportion of a reward a campus would receive when it falls short of an accelerated growth target but performs better than the sustain growth target for a given indicator.

The indicators tied to performance funding are a subset of indicators that will be reported annually to the Board and biennially to the legislature. The full set of indicators is reported below.

Annual Reports of Institutional Performance and Effectiveness

The annual reports of institutional performance and effectiveness will include 13 to 15 indicators--the five shared indicators tied to performance funding, two to four institution-specific indicators tied to funding, and six shared indicators not tied to performance funding.

Shared indicators (tied to funding) include five indicators as follows:

Institution-specific indicators (tied to funding) include two to four indicators the institutions will identify by December 31, 2000. These will be reported to the Board in January 2001.

Shared indicators reported (but not tied to performance funding) include six indicators as follows:

Continued Development. OUS will continue its development work on other indicators (e.g., internships, distance education/technology courses and enrollments, employer satisfaction) and begin development of indicators of the cost effectiveness goal. (Currently, there are no "pure" indicators of cost effectiveness. For example, the sponsored gifts and contracts indicator also reflects entrepreneurship, faculty quality, and mission differences.) The development work for the cost effectiveness indicators will be completed by Vice Chancellor Tom Anderes and the Administrative Council.

Timeline. Campuses will propose the two to four institution-specific indicators to the Chancellor by January 15, 2001. The Chancellor will approve the selection by each institution before the Board meeting scheduled February 16, 2001.

Campuses will revise improvement targets for the five shared indicators and propose targets for the two to four yet-to-be-determined campus-specific indicators by March 1, 2001. Institutions will set challenging 2004-05 targets for these seven to nine indicators as well as for the interim years beginning in 2000-01.

Action on this item will be recommended at the February 16, 2001, Board meeting.

(No Board action required)