The University Senate took its first step towards appraising the New Partnership during Wednesday’s meeting, issuing a notice of motion that Senate members will vote whether to endorse the controversial finance and governance plan during their upcoming Mar. 9 session.
Motion US10/11-10 solidifies the Senate’s stance in support of University President Richard Lariviere’s restructuring proposal.
The president’s plan, currently working its way through Salem’s legislature, alongside a rival bill proposed by the Oregon University System, calls for the creation of a localized governing board autonomous of the State Board of Higher Education, in addition to a $1.6 billion public-private endowment comprised of state-backed bonds and matching private donations.
Though the enterprising proposition has received flak lately from both student groups and higher education officials, University faculty and staff members had remained largely silent until yesterday.
Before the 2011 Legislative Session last month, the OUS’ State Board, proposing its own restructuring plan, warned Lariviere that multiple bills could divide lawmakers’ attention and tempt Oregon politicians to push higher education reform to the legislative back burner.
Now, in preparation for its upcoming March endorsement vote, the Senate decided to assess the contentious plan in a positive light.
Last year, University Senate President Nathan Tublitz requested two New Partnership analyses from the Academic Council and the Senate Budget Committee. The SBC’s preliminary report, released last November, dealt largely with the financial implications of Lariviere’s plan, concluding that the investment-driven endowment would be more reliable than state funding.
The Academic Council’s Jan. 24 report, examining the proposal’s possible effects on academics, found that stabilizing the University’s funding stream by means of the new endowment’s creation would have a “highly significant positive impact” on the school’s academic mission.
Ian McNeely, Academic Council chair, presented an overview of the report’s recent findings at the meeting, asserting that the new plan could move the school onto a more even funding keel, despite its questionable governance provisions.
“If we would have had this endowment plan in place earlier, we would be better off than we are now,” McNeely said. “(However), there are not a lot of checks and balances built into the governance structure. That was an initial concern I had.”
Leading the discussion, Tublitz advised Senate members to research the complicated provisions contained in the New Partnership in order to submit more informed votes come March.
[email protected]