The role of students in institutional governance, planning, budgeting and policy development is made clear and public; students are supported in fulfilling that role.

• Associated Students of Portland State University

ASPSU appoints student members for Faculty Senate committees and standing administrative committees. The president of ASPSU serves as an ex-officio member of the Faculty Senate. Student members are also often appointed to ad hoc committees and are represented on most search committees for administrators and faculty. While the structures are in place for students to participate along with faculty in the formal governance structure of the University, student participation in Senate committees has been minimal in recent years.

State statutes and administrative rules mandate significant involvement of students in determining the amount and distribution of the incidental fee, which is the source of funding for co-curricular activities. The chairperson and members of the Student Fee Committee are elected in the general student elections. The committee reviews requests for funding, and upon confirmation of its recommendations, forwards them to the president of the university.

• Student Fee Committee

Policy 6.1. Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination

Portland State University supports equal opportunity in admissions, education, employment, and use of facilities by prohibiting discrimination in those areas based on age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or creed, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or veteran status. This policy implements state and federal law (including Title IX).

Compliance with Portland State’s affirmative action statement is monitored through the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (OAAEO). The office pursues the following mission.

• Promote a campus environment that supports and celebrates the diversity of our community.
• Ensure a good-faith affirmative action effort and equal opportunity in all aspects of employment and education.
• Ensure equitable and non-discriminatory treatment for all Portland State community members.

Every two years, OAAEO updates the Affirmative Action Plan, which details the legal basis for nondiscrimination, identifies who is responsible for implementation, problem areas, goals, and specific actions. Data on underutilization (the term used to identify what groups are underrepresented) is provided for the University as a whole, and for each college, department, and certain cross-sections of the university, such as social science.

• Affirmative Action Plan

OAAEO has detailed procedures that must be followed in every faculty search. Each search committee must meet with OAAEO staff to go over these procedures before the search begins. Search committees are advised about appropriate interviewing approaches, including consistency in interview schedule and structure among candidates, and avoidance of certain questions that could be construed as discriminatory. Also, the position description has to be written in a way that is nondiscriminatory, and an outreach plan is developed to reach underrepresented communities. The job description and outreach plan must be approved by OAAEO. Before permission is granted to invite applicants for interviews, OAAEO reviews the list of invitees and compares it with the diversity represented among the applicants. In some cases, the search committee will be asked to reconsider the pool of applicants. A similar review takes place before approval is granted to extend an offer.

One of the four presidential initiatives is Diversity. The Diversity Action Council was established in 1999, with a charge to prepare a Diversity Action Plan. One of the plan’s goals addresses under representation.

Increase the number of persons from underrepresented groups in the faculty, staff, and administration so that they are represented in proportion to their current availability in relevant job pools and/or their representation in the region.

Actions to achieve this goal include the creation of a Diversity Hiring Resource Team (DHRT) to serve as a resource for administrators, hiring supervisors, and search committees; and continue implementation of the President’s Diversity Incentive Plan for instructional faculty from underrepresented groups. DHRT was established in 2001 and has now been institutionalized.

The incentive plan provides a financial contribution to a department that hires a person of color for a tenure-track position. The funds are the equivalent of 25% of the faculty member’s salary each year for a three-year period. Six positions were supported under this program in the 2000-2001 academic year, eight in 2001-2002, and eight in 2002-2003. A faculty mentoring program for new faculty and staff of color was developed in 2004-2005 and is slated for implementation in the 2005-2006 academic year.

From 1994 to fall 2003, the percent of full-time instructional faculty who self-identified as members of ethnic minorities increased from 6.0% to 13.3%. In 2003, Asians constituted 5.3% of the faculty, Blacks 4.2%, Hispanics 2.3%, and Native Americans 1.0% (7.9% of faculty declined to respond). The percent of full-time female instructional faculty increased from 29% in 1990 to 42% in fall 2003.

• Affirmative action search procedures
• Faculty diversity
• Additional OAA services
• Diversity Action Plan
• Diversity Hiring Resource Team
• Diversity Incentive Program
• Fall 2003 Diversity in Administration
• Commission on the Status of Women Annual Report

Policy 6.2. Collective Bargaining

Portland State employees are organized under three collective bargaining units.

• SEIU Local 503, Oregon State Employees Union, representing classified employees SEIU Local 503, OPEU
• Portland State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, representing faculty and academic professionals with FTE appointments of 0.5 or more American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
• American Federation of Teachers (AFT), representing adjunct faculty with FTE appointments of less than 0.5 American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

The Faculty Senate and Portland State chapter of the AAUP have coexisted at Portland State for a number of years. While the community represented by the Senate is broader than that represented by the union, the distinct role of each has been clarified. Faculty compensation and working conditions fall under the purview of the union.

For much of the time that the self-study was conducted, negotiations with one or more of the unions were occurring simultaneously. The self-study involved the participation of employees represented by all three unions. The self-study subcommittee for Standard 6 included a Portland State-AAUP representative. There was no evidence that the collective bargaining processes impeded participation, nor is there any concern that collective bargaining negotiations impaired the self-study or that they will affect the effectiveness of the evaluation committee visit.

Challenges and the future:

Portland State has historically enjoyed a structure that facilitates shared governance, where faculty and students have the opportunity to participate in decision-making. The governance structure has several strengths, one being the wide range of professionals in the Faculty Senate who contribute to student learning, including instructional faculty, student affairs professionals, administrators, and other academic professionals. In addition, the Faculty Senate has exercised primary influence over the direction of curricular matters.

In the ten years since Portland State’s last accreditation visit, the institution has seen a strengthened participation of faculty and students. Portland State faculty participates as OUS members of OSBHE, and in joint meetings of the Board and IFS. In addition, within the last ten years a second board position has been designated for an OUS student.

Nevertheless, Portland State is faced with challenges to the spirit of shared governance. One of the greatest challenges is maintaining a culture of faculty, staff, and student engagement. The changing roles of faculty, with additional expectations, and additional work loads as a result of budget cuts, and for students managing multiple roles and increased costs of attending Portland State, all strain the degree of involvement in governance. Portland State needs to examine those mechanisms through which constituents participate to ensure that they are efficient as well as effective, worthwhile, and acknowledged by leadership of the University. The Faculty Senate’s recently appointed ad hoc committee on governance is a beginning step in this examination process.

Another issue confronting the University’s governance and administration is the implications of changes at OSBHE and the Chancellor’s Office. As the Board continues its examination of the role of the Chancellor and the Chancellor’s Office, questions surface about what the relationship of Portland State will be to the Board in the absence of the mediating force that the Chancellor’s Office has represented in the past.

In addition, the University has just completed the process of searching for individuals to assume two key leadership positions: the provost and the vice president for finance and administration. Change in these leadership positions potentially involves new directions for the University’s vision and priorities. Both individuals selected, however, have had many years of experience with Portland State prior to assuming these leadership positions.

The challenges of current changes can only be anticipated. In other areas, there are recommended actions the University should take to improve governance and administration standards. First, while the evaluation of the president is a matter of Board policy and is conducted on a regular basis, no comparable system of evaluation is in place for other senior administrators. Portland State should develop a process for periodically evaluating senior administrators, with input from key campus constituents. Second, the position descriptions of the senior administrators were used when searches were conducted for those who currently hold these positions. These documents should be updated and used in conjunction with the evaluation process.