A New Governance Model for Portland State University Presentation to the Faculty Senate President Wim Wiewel, October 7, 2013

Christine Vernier, Co-founder and CFO, Vernier Software & Technology

Swati Adarkar, President and CEO, Children’s Institute

Gale Castillo, President, Hispanic Metropolitan Chamber

Paul J. De Muniz, Former Chief Justice, Oregon Supreme Court

Sho Dozono, President and CEO, Azumano Travel

James Francesconi, Attorney; Member, Board of Higher Education

Fariborz Maseeh, Founder, IntelliSense Corp., Massiah Foundation

Thomas J. Imeson, Member, PSU Foundation Board; Public Affairs Director, Port of Portland

Rick Miller, Founder and Chairman, Avamere Group

Pete Nickerson, Co-founder and Principal, Chinus Asset Management; Past Chair, PSU Foundation Board

Peter Stott, President, Columbia Investments, Ltd.; Member, PSU Foundation Board

Maude Hines, PSU Associate Professor of English

Pamela Campos-Palma, Student, Veteran and Reservist

Erica Bestpitch, Administrative Program Assistant, Women’s Resource Center

Wim Wiewel, President, Portland State University

The  Board’s  Responsibili2es  

•  Determining  the  mission  of  the  University  and  ensuring  that  the  mission  is  kept  current  and  aligned  with  public  purposes.  

•  Establishing  the  University’s  strategic  direc2on.  •  Charging  the  President  with  the  task  of  periodically  leading  a  strategic  planning  process;  

par2cipa2ng  in  the  strategic  planning  process;  approving  the  strategic  plan,  and  monitoring  its  effec2veness.  

•  Selec2ng,  suppor2ng,  and  evalua2ng  the  President  and  reviewing  the  President’s  compensa2on.  •  Ensuring  the  University’s  fiscal  integrity;  overseeing  the  University’s  financial  resources  and  other  

assets;  and  preserving  and  protec2ng  the  University’s  assets  for  posterity.  •  Ensuring  and  protec2ng,  within  the  context  of  faculty  shared  governance,  the  educa2onal  quality  of  

the  University  and  its  academic  programs;  and  preserving  and  protec2ng  the  University’s  autonomy,  academic  freedom,  and  the  public  purposes  of  higher  educa2on.  

•  Ensuring  that  Board  policies  and  procedures  are  current  and  properly  implemented.  •  Engaging  regularly,  in  concert  with  senior  administra2on,  with  the  University’s  major  

cons2tuencies.  •  Conduc2ng  the  Board’s  business  in  an  exemplary  fashion  and  with  appropriate  transparency,  

adhering  to  the  highest  ethical  standards  and  complying  with  applicable  open-­‐mee2ng  and  public-­‐record  laws.    

•   Ensuring  the  currency  of  Board  governance  policies  and  prac2ces.  •   Periodically  assessing  the  performance  of  the  Board,  its  commiLees,  and  its  members.  

Shared  Governance  “The  ul2mate  responsibility  for  the  ins2tu2on  rests  in  its  governing  board.    Boards  cannot  delegate  their  fiduciary  responsibility  for  the  academic  integrity  and  financial  health  of  the  ins2tu2on.    Tradi2onally,  and  for  prac2cal  reasons,  boards  delegate  some  kinds  of  authority  to  other  stakeholders  with  the  implicit  and  some2mes  explicit  condi2on  that  the  board  reserve  the  right  to  ques2on,  challenge,  and  occasionally  override  decisions  or  proposals  it  judges  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  mission,  integrity,  or  financial  posi2on  of  the  ins2tu2on.”  “Governing  boards  should  state  explicitly  who  has  the  authority  for  what  kinds  of  decisions—that  is,  to  which  persons  or  bodies  it  has  delegated  authority  and  whether  that  delega2on  is  subject  to  board  review.    For  example,  curricular  maLers  and  decisions  regarding  individual  faculty  appointments,  promo2ons,  and  contract  renewal  normally  would  fall  within  the  delegated  decision-­‐making  authority  of  appropriate  faculty  and  administra2ve  en22es  opera2ng  within  the  framework  of  policies  and  delega2ons  of  the  board.”  “Boards  and  chief  execu2ves  should  establish  deadlines  for  the  conclusion  of  various  consulta2ve  and  decision-­‐making  processes  with  the  clear  understanding  that  failure  to  act  in  accordance  with  these  deadlines  will  mean  that  the  next  highest  level  in  the  governance  process  may  choose  to  act.    While  respec2ng  the  some2mes  lengthy  processes  of  academic  governance,  a  single  individual  or  group  should  not  be  empowered  to  impede  decisions  through  inac2on.”  

From:  AGB  Board  Basics—AGB  Statement  on  Ins2tu2onal  Governance  and  Governing  in  the  Public  Trust:    External  Influences  on  Colleges  and  Universi2es  

Post-­‐SB  270  Structure  

The  Higher  Educa2on    Coordina2ng  Commission  

The  HECC  is  responsible  for:  •  Development  of  a  consolidated  higher  ed  budget  request,  a[er  

receiving  the  budget  requests  from  each  ins2tu2onal  Board  of  Trustees;  

•  Alloca2ng  legisla2vely  approved  resources;  •  Review  and  approval  of  ins2tu2onal  requests  for  state  bonds  for  

capital  projects;  •  Review  and  approval  of  significant  changes  to  the  academic  

program  of  universi2es  and  community  colleges,  such  as  new  schools,  colleges  or  campuses;  

•  Approval  of  new  degrees;  •  Approval  of  university  missions  statements;  and  •  Approval  of  any  proposed  tui2on  increases  of  more  than  5%  for  

resident  undergraduate  students.