November 16, 2001


A meeting of the State Board of Higher Education Executive Committee was called to order by President VanLuvanee at 7:32 a.m.


On roll call, the following Executive Committee members answered present:

Mr. Tom Imeson
Ms. Leslie Lehmann
Mr. Jim Lussier
Mr. Don VanLuvanee
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg

Other Board members present: Mr. Roger Bassett, Dr. Geri Richmond, Ms. Erin Watari, Mr. Tim Young

Staff: Tom Anderes, Bob Bruce, Shirley Clark, Joe Cox, Ben Rawlins, Alayne Switzer and Diane Vines (departed after OAR discussion and returned for the report on the OSU building)

Others: Ron Bolstad (SOU), Lesley Hallick (OHSU), Theresa Hogue (Corvallis Gazette Times), Sara Hopkins-Powell (SOU), Mark McCambridge (OSU), Les Risser, Paul Risser (OSU), Les Ruark, Tim White (OSU), Craig Wollner (IFS), Elizabeth Zinser (SOU)


Staff Recommendation to the Executive Committee

OUS Director of Legal Services Ben Rawlins, noted that the Board authorized the Executive Committee at the October 19, 2001, meeting to consider this action. He explained that, in the July, 2001 meeting, the Board approved adoption of two OHSU programs by OIT. The programs were expected to run concurrently for a short integral period but the integration requires affected personnel to transfer effective immediately. In order to move ahead with the transfer, the Board needs to amend the current rules so that transferred personnel will not lose any accrued sick or annual leave. The current rule, which was established when OHSU was one of the sister institutions, allows employees within OUS to transfer leave between institutions. Since then, OHSU has changed its relationship with OUS to that of an affiliate, consequently, no longer entitling employees transferring to or from OHSU under the existing rule. The amendment presented will allow OHSU to again be included in the transfer policy. Staff has reviewed the amendment and recommends Board approval.

Executive Committee Discussion and Action

Mr. Lussier moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the amendment to the OAR as submitted. On a roll call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Wustenberg, VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.


Naming of Committee Chair; review time line and future meeting dates; opportunities for input; draft position announcement and description; and next meeting

Chair VanLuvanee reported that he has been attempting to contact a former Board member to serve as chair of the Search Committee, however, until he receives an answer from the individual, he is not prepared to announce the chair. Once the individual has either agreed or declined to chair, Chair VanLuvanee will inform the committee.

Chair VanLuvanee reiterated that his intention is not to conduct a closed search process, but to ensure confidentiality of qualified candidates who don't wish their names to be publicized in the early stages.

Ms. Lehmann asked whether Chair VanLuvanee would continue to serve on the Search Committee. Chair VanLuvanee replied that he will be part of the process and be available to participate, however, he recommends an outside chairperson, citing his inability to dedicate the time needed to chairing the committee. Mr. Imeson asked whether other Board members not on the Executive Committee would be able to be briefed and provide feedback during this process. Chair VanLuvanee stated that it is his intention to work with the chair of the committee to regularly brief Board members. However, he cautioned that the caliber of people OUS would like to attract would most likely be gainfully employed and have good positions elsewhere, thus the need to protect the confidentiality of potential candidates. Mr. Imeson stated that all Board members would be bound by the confidentiality agreement.

Chair VanLuvanee cautioned that OUS would not attract strong candidates if the process becomes a public process. Mr. Imeson suggested that each Search Committee member be assigned to act as a conduit to another Board member not on the Search Committee. He pointed out that, ultimately, the decision for hiring a Chancellor will be the responsibility of the full Board.

Ms. Lehmann suggested a schedule be developed clearly specifying the opportunities for input. Chair VanLuvanee noted that the chair should be included in the process of developing the schedule. Ms. Wustenberg asked at what point in the search process is the confidentiality no longer an issue. Chair VanLuvanee estimated that it would be between the first cut of the top 25 and the final cut of three to four candidates. He pointed that, if none of the candidates express concern, he has no problem in publicizing the list from the beginning. However, he has received advise from search firms cautioning about opening the process too early even though we have the ability to have it open from the very beginning. He argued that to do so would jeopardize the search and be fundamentally wrong.

Chair VanLuvanee said that he has asked the Chancellor to step in and be part of the search process. Chancellor Cox explained that the custom has been that the names are kept confidential unless the person chooses to have their name publicized. The custom has been to protect the confidentiality until the finalist stage, at which time all constituents will be invited to public events in the state which will be widely publicized. He explained that they have customarily tried to protect the confidentiality to that point, but noted that there have been situations in the past where candidates themselves have publicized their candidacy.

Ms. Wustenberg stressed the need to respect the candidates if we expect to get quality applicants and expressed the importance of looking at it from their standpoint.

Chancellor Cox shared, as an example, a situation where the name of a candidate in a past search had gotten out and, when the candidate returned to Tennessee, he was met at the terminal by the Chairman of his Board who questioned whether he would stay or not. Subsequently the candidate withdrew from the search.

Mr. Lussier agreed with the process but argued that we need to address the perception that this is a closed process and to be sure that people know when they have an opportunity to provide input. Chair VanLuvanee assured Board members that the search will be as open as possible and that one area that will be open is the position description announcements, and the process itself.

Chancellor Cox referred to the draft description packet dated November 12, 2001, regarding the position description and position announcement, citing the legal requirements. He explained that the Committee needs to determine whether the position description and announcement are acceptable or need changing. He stated that, upon approval, the Chancellor's Office will make the documents broadly available to the other Board members as well as individuals who have expressed an interest in receiving that information. Chancellor Cox noted that, once the description and announcement have been fine-tuned, they will be brought back before the Executive Committee in a public session to finalize the documents, which will then be forwarded to the search firm.

Chancellor Cox referred to the draft which states the applicant should have an earned advanced degree. He suggested that they not limit it to a doctorate, pointing out that increasingly, individuals who don't have traditional academic career paths are entering higher education, and he cautioned against limiting the pool. As an example, he suggested that someone who has had a distinguished career in public service in Oregon may decide to become a candidate and that person might be a very effective Chancellor. Chancellor Cox explained that he has tried to offer a description that incorporates much of what he has heard from Board members, the Governor and other interested individuals.

Ms. Wustenberg asked whether the document specifically states that the Chancellor is the Board's representative in the state governmental system and is recognized as such. Reviewing the portion of the description which refers to public service, Chancellor Cox agreed that they should probably more carefully articulate that section to indicate that the individual serves as a member of the Governor's cabinet and on other such bodies as assigned.

Chair VanLuvanee asked if they could expect a revised copy by next Wednesday. Chancellor Cox stated that he will prepare a new draft and asked the Board members to provide him with feedback between now and Tuesday so that he can revise the current rough draft.

Ms. Lehmann acknowledged that the categories given are appropriate but could to be more descriptive. She expressed the importance in emphasizing the leadership responsibility and being able to lead for change. Chair VanLuvanee directed the committee to get the changes to Chancellor Cox by Monday at 5 p.m. so that Chancellor Cox has an opportunity to provide the redraft to the committee before the holiday.

Mr. Lussier asked whether this document could serve as a guide in the candidate review process and agreed that some of the areas are too wide and should be more explicit.

Chancellor Cox stated information will be broadly distributed and staff will work to compile the feedback for Committee review. He asked the committee to commit to one more public Executive Committee meeting which, if necessary, could be by telephone, but preferably would be in person. The meeting would be held to publicly act upon the position description which is the legal statement that would be in the position advertisement, as well as the accompanying position announcement which will describe more carefully the characteristics and qualifications being sought in a candidate. Once that is finalized, the documents would be turned over to the search firm, as yet to be named.

Chancellor Cox informed committee members that two of the firms have withdrawn from consideration because they only conduct academic searches and not private sector searches. He noted that the committee, in an effort to broaden the search, had requested they look at search firms that do not only academic searches, but also conduct searches in the private sector.

Dr. Richmond pointed out that none of the Search Committee members are directly involved in teaching. She expressed concern in hiring a search firm that doesn't have an academic perspective. Chancellor Cox assured Dr. Richmond that the firms currently on the list do both types of searches very well and are not predominantly private sector search firms. Chair VanLuvanee assured everyone that they wouldn't compromise academic ability but that they are only trying to broaden the search. Mr. Imeson expressed concern that limiting the search firms to only those who have experience both in the private sector and public sector could prevent them from hiring the best firm. Ms. Wustenberg stated that she has no objection to hiring a firm with limited private sector experience as long as they are qualified to conduct the search to the Board's satisfaction. There was general agreement that the strictly academic search firms could be considered as long as they can do the job.

Ms. Lehmann requested a list of specific groups or individuals who will be solicited. Chancellor Cox emphasized the importance of having the presidents meet the semi-finalists because they must work together. Also, once the finalists are determined, public forums should be held, probably in Portland, and candidates would be invited to make a presentation. The public forums will be open to everyone and all interested groups will be notified of the forums.

Mr. Lussier and Ms. Lehmann requested a document specifying the time-lines of when interested groups and parties will be included in the process and what their roles will be.


Vice Chancellor Anderes explained that OSU is requesting changes be made to their engineering project that had been approved by the Board at the last meeting. The changes consist of a request to be included in the bond sale in December to address the condition of a donor that bonds be sold prior to the donation of private funds. The donation was $20 million, which is a substantial share of the cost. The request would also alter the time-line for construction to begin July 2002 rather than February 2003 and revise the square footage slightly to accommodate a change in the cost. The cost was $45 million and has been reduced to $43.6 million. Given that there is not sufficient General Fund debt service capacity within the System for this building to go online during this year, OSU will take funds from the donation to support the debt service from the point of construction through the remainder of this year. The normal debt service would then begin. The project in its revised form was approved by the Emergency Board November 15, 2001. The changes do not alter the substance or the intent of the project and address an important donor requirement.

Chair VanLuvanee stated that the item was well presented yesterday and the Emergency Board unanimously supported this change.


The Executive Committee meeting adjourned at 8:18 a.m.

Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Don VanLuvanee
President of the Board