Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee

Voting members present: Gloria Crisp (remote), Dave Feeney, Drew Ibarra, Denise Lach, Corina Rampola
Voting members absent: John Talbott
Guests present: Julie Gess-Newsome (remote), Christine Pollard (remote)

Undergraduate Certificate in CyberSecurity #105390 – New Certificate Program

• Proposal
  • Voting took place via email and was approved

Doctor of Physical Therapy #103179 – New Degree Program Proposal

• Proposal
  • Expedited request to match Western Oregon University’s proposal
    • Questions were sent back to the originator during Fall term. A vote could not take place due to a lack of a quorum.
    • Most of the cost estimates seem rather low and the committee is concerned that the budget allocated for the build out will not be enough.
    • What will the faculty be doing during the 3 years prior to opening the program to students?
      • From years 1-3, faculty will be assisting with the application process and creating internship partnerships.
    • Does the accrediting body require accreditation before student enrollment?
      • The accrediting body does not allow the matriculation of students until the application is submitted.
      • It will be made clear to the students that the program is in the process of being accredited.
        • What is the likelihood of the accreditation falling through?
          • 85% of programs get accredited
          • If the program is not accredited, is the program required to shut down? Or can students who continue with the program, still work as therapists?        
            • Due to the University’s reputation, it is very unlikely that the program will not be accredited.
            • The program cannot run without the accreditation, but the originators are confidant that the program will be approved. If necessary, there is always the option to reapply.
        • Is it within the committee’s purview to question whether the decision to fund, despite any inherent risk? Or just to decide whether or not the budget they’ve submitted is appropriate?
          • Committee members feel it is appropriate at least raise the questions to the originators. The committee can approve, but would like the originator to acknowledge the risk to the budget, should the program not be accredited.
    • The committee has questions as to why the request is being expedited?
      • Other institutions are now planning to create competing programs and there is concern that HECC will not approve multiple programs.
        • Cascades has a good argument for its location compared to other programs, which are located at private institutions in the western half of the state.
      • Where are these other institutions in the planning process?
        • Other institutions are just floating the ideas, so far
    • In the external report, there were two major concerns:
      • The Faculty are not being paid enough.
        • The originators stated that it is the average national salary.
        • The committee would like them to focus on a more localized average to see if the numbers change.
      • The accrediting body requires the program to have 500 internship partnerships. The report expresses concern that this number is not possible to reach.
        • The creators of the program are already reaching out to form partnerships all over the state and will also be reaching out in neighboring states.
          • Students will be informed beforehand that their internship may require some travel.
          • Staff are also planning to fundraise for housing funds for students who take their internship out of state.
      • The students may be required to travel for their internships.
      • As long as the students are aware that they may have to travel, it should be okay.
    • There doesn’t seem to be anything on differential tuition?
      • Cascades is using a different budgetary model.
      • The committee will get the specifics from the Budget Authority at Cascades.
        • Cascades confirmed that they use a different budget model
  • For graduate students in the program, the return per credit hour is very low. They will not be getting the big pay out until Year 5.
    • It is unclear where they are getting their 1.2 million dollars in tuition; there is no formula or anything listed to explain it.
    • How are they getting to the 1.2 million? The differential tuitions of other programs were looked at and a model was determined based on those comparisons. The increase was then set to 3% for each year.
  • One committee member noted that there is not enough information in the proposal, and that this lack of information is something that the committee has to deal with frequently, making it hard to make informed decisions.
  • The meeting concluded at 11:15 AM without a vote, due to a lack of information.
    • More information was provided via email on January 10, 2019, after the meeting had concluded.
    • A vote was taken via email, with the committee voting to approve at 3:02 PM on January 10, 2019.

New Business

• None