Student Conduct Code

Recent events have led faculty to call the office to ask about the student conduct code, potentially violent students, and how to file complaints.

Student Conduct is governed by the Student Code of Conduct policy, which can be found at http://www.pdx.edu/dos/conduct. Therein lies the procedure for any member of the community to address student misconduct issues.

The procedure requires the complainants to identify themselves; the online Student Conduct Complaint Form (https://pdx-jams.symplicity.com/public_report/) explicitly states that the form will be read by the student. Unfortunately, there are no provisions for confidentiality, nor are there exceptions for complaints against students who are potentially dangerous and who may retaliate for the filing of a complaint. While the procedure has specific provisions for sexual offenses and academic dishonesty, there is no special provision for offenses that involve weapons or violence.

When a complaint is filed, it is reviewed by a “Senior Conduct Officer.” If this individual does not find the complaint “reasonable,” it is dismissed. After the filing of a complaint, the policy does not provide for the complainant to get any feedback or response from the university regarding outcomes, including whether the complaint has been dismissed. A complainant trying to address a potentially dangerous student will never know if the danger was contained or dismissed. While the process is supposed to “make an effort to consider the rights and needs of the Complainant in decisions related to sanctions such as restitution,” it is not required to communicate about those efforts. This is disturbing when one considers there appears to be no prohibition against retaliation for the filing of a complaint. Further, the policy does not guarantee or even speak to the safety of the Complainant.

There are procedures for emergency action “if the Dean of Students determines that a Student presents a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the Student or others.” (577-031-0138)In light of recent campus violence across the country, the Association is concerned that “significant risk of substantial harm” may no longer be a reasonable measure to contain potentially dangerous students. Is a significant risk acceptable if the harm is not substantial? The parents of our students would expect that threshold to be any harm, and the risk threshold to be substantially lower than significant.

Ballot Measure Deadline Approaching

The Mail-in ballots for the special election on January 26, 2010 are due in 5 days. We encourage all members of the bargaining unit to mail their ballots as soon as possible.

There is a ballot drop box not far from campus for those on campus that are worried about their ballot not reaching the elections office by the cutoff. The location is

Pioneer Courthouse Square-
700 block of SW Broadway
(next to Starbucks and across from Nordstrom).

Interview with Wiewel

The Oregonian interviewed Wim Wievel when PSU released the white paper last week, and it's also worth reading. As a tease, I'll quote the piece that most intrigued/alarmed me:

"Ultimately my model is to have quality education; it's not to have cheap education. Given the conditions we are in, we have no choice but to look at tuition as revenue source. And I think we can be more creative about charging more where the market will bear it and where people have very good earning opportunities in their careers, and then using some of that money to provide financial aid to more low-income students."

Go have a look.

The White Paper

Last week, PSU released a white paper outlining several reforms it recommends to governance. There is much to appreciate and something to worry about, too. The whole report--relatively brief and readable--is available here in .pdf. The six central principles are as follows:

1. State funding floor: Because state funding has continued to decline steadily, it will be important to stop the hemorrhaging. Establishment of a floor below which funds cannot drop is a logical way to achieve this goal. In exchange, PSU would agree to specific performance and accountability goals designed to ensure the university continues to meet the needs of Oregonians and provide the state a good return on its investment.
2. Tuition Flexibility: With 28,000 students, tuition plays a very important role in determining what programs and services PSU can offer. With greater local control, PSU could more strategically set tuition levels to reflect both costs and market factors and to provide students greater access to scholarships and other financial aid. Increasing the availability of scholarships and financial aid is essential given the number of economically disadvantaged students attending PSU.
3. Bonding Authority and Assumption of Debt: With the fastest growing student population of any university in the state system, PSU needs the ability to control capital expenditure decisions and issue its own bonds. It will be important, however, that the state continue to repay existing debt that it has issued on behalf of the University over time. Given the tight financial circumstances PSU has faced over the past two decades, absorbing the old debt would compromise its chances of success. A continued partnership with the state on capital projects of mutual interest will also be important. California has been successful in operating under this model, with the University of California system taking responsibility for issuing the majority of its own debt while having the authority to approach the state to obtain state-backed bonds for projects that the Legislature and electorate have a particular interest in moving forward.
4. Access to the Ballot for Funding Initiatives: Community colleges in Oregon have the authority to appeal directly to voters for funding support. With state support continuing to trend downward, it is important that PSU have similar access to voters. Remaining a traditional state agency could prove an impediment to success at the ballot, however. In informal conversations earlier this year, metropolitan area business leaders expressed interest in helping PSU achieve its goals, but were skeptical about approving local funding for the University as long as it remains a state agency. Many cited the basis for their concern as past experiences in which the legislature had reduced funding for programs in response to such local initiatives.
5. Student-based Funding Model – Funding should be based on the number of students educated. OUS’s Resource Allocation Model (RAM), which allocates funding based on a combination of student levels (undergraduate and graduate) and cost adjustments for various disciplines (cell values) is one method for accomplishing this goal. Other states employ simpler models which might be more easily understood. Regardless, the chosen model should be statutorily or constitutionally authorized.
6. Operational Flexibility – Accountability and responsibility for managing operational functions such as information technology services, purchasing, vendor relations, auditing, financial reporting, personnel and benefits are key to PSU’s ability to function in an efficient and cost-effective fashion. OHSU’s experience is instructive. Since converting to a public corporation in 1995, OHSU has realized significant savings and enhanced revenues through its ability to control operations and act quickly to take advantage of marketplace opportunities. Direct management of personnel matters has also proven valuable to both OHSU and its employees, allowing workplace issues and employee benefits to be addressed in a manner responsive to the unique needs of an academic health sciences environment.

In addition to these points, the paper outlines various models of governance that could accommodate these. The whole piece is worth a read. Huge implications should these get further than recommendations.

Frohnmayer's Report

As a follow-up to yesterday's post about Dave Frohnmayer's report to the Higher Board of Education, here's the document he submitted:

Frohnmayer%20Report.pdf

Happy reading.

Frohnmayer Calls for Universities to Become Independent

An interesting development from former University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer. Tasked by OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner to write a report for the legislature's February session, Frohnmayer recommends making Oregon's public universities autonomous entities like OHSU.

His plan proposes that the 2010 Legislature give the State Board of Higher Education authority to convert one or all of Oregon's three largest universities into public corporations that would have more control over their budgets and operations. In exchange for that freedom, they would be held accountable to rigorous performance goals aimed at better results on outcomes such as student retention and graduation rates.

The Oregonian article also notes that state support for higher ed has declined by 44% in the past 15 years. And in a rather shocking comment on the future, there's this:

The state higher education board has set a goal that by 2025, 40 percent of Oregonians will have a bachelor's degree or higher, 40 percent will have an associate's degree or certificate and 20 percent will have a high school diploma. To meet that 40 percent goal by 2025, Frohnmayer writes, the Oregon University System would have to increase enrollment by 72,000 students to 164,000, which would require three more universities with the capacity of Oregon State.

Change is in the air.

Economic Impact of Higher Education

I ran across an interesting study recently released by the University of Virginia that traced the impact of higher education in that state. While it was state-specific, the results are pretty eye-popping:

Every dollar spent by the Commonwealth of Virginia on higher education produces more than $13 in job-creating economic activity, says a new study conducted by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia.

Each higher education dollar also results in $1.39 in increased tax revenues that flow back to the state's coffers.

The methodology included measuring "the impact of higher education expenditures as well as the economic benefits that flow from investing in human capital (the increased earning power and spending by college graduates)." This latter point (my bold) is an important point for PSU AAUP to highlight: fully a third of the Oregon students educated in public universities in Oregon are educated right here at PSU. Portland State is the main engine for educating Oregon students--those same students who go on to enrich the state for decades to come after leaving college.

That value flows directly from the quality of the teaching and research that goes on here at PSU--and which the state needs to support to maximize this economic boost.