College of Forestry Reorganization--- 1
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Abbreviated Category I Proposal to
Reorganize the College of Forestry
CIP Numbers: 140899, 143401, 030509, 030506, 030599, 030201, 310101
Current Structure and Department Names: The College of Forestry is currently
organized into four academic units:
Department of Forest Engineering
Department of Forest Resources
Department of Forest Science
Department of Wood Science & Engineering
Proposed Structure and Department Names: A reorganized College will house three
academic units:
Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society
Department of Wood Science & Engineering
A. Describe the reasons for the proposed change.
There are two primary reasons for proposing this change in organizational structure: a)
the need to significantly reduce administrative expenses, and b) to better position the
College for future success in a changing environment.
a) The past five years or so have been extraordinarily challenging to the financial health
of the College of Forestry. At almost every turn we found that our revenue stream was
incrementally diminishing while personnel costs were rising. This is a common story
across the university but it has hit us harder because of our status as a state-wide public
service agency. In a nutshell, Oregon Legislative Forest Research Laboratory (FRL)
appropriations have been flat for several biennia excepting a modest increase in 2007.
We have no tool such as raising tuition to cover the increased cost of doing business.
Receipts from our other major hard funding source, the Forest Products Harvest Tax,
have also been flat except for a match of the small appropriation increase. These
increases fell 70% short of an OUS proposal that did not cover current faculty and staff
capacity. The effects of University budget rebasing, self-funded salary increases,
reductions in federal formula and special grant funding, and literally dozens of small
nicks here and there have resulted in a multi-million dollar gap between College
expenditures and income. Fortunately, our reserves allow for some time to resolve this
imbalance and the College is actively reducing expenses and seeking to increase revenues
while maintaining high quality and a proud international reputation. Reducing
departmental administrative expenses and consolidating from four to three departments is
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 2
essential to that balancing effort and is expected to save as much as $380,000 per year
from an FY07 baseline level.
b) The second major factor is that the world in which we and our major stakeholders
operate is changing quite dramatically. These changes impact our revenues as well as
strategic plans. The past 10 years have seen patterns of private forestland ownership in
Oregon change significantly. Most large vertically-integrated forest-sector companies are
no longer forest landowners, but many still operate manufacturing facilities. Management
of federal forest-lands has become more passive and focused on fire and watershed
restoration. Major concerns with climate change, forest fragmentation, land-use issues,
water quality, forest health, rural economy, and increased global market competition are
at the fore. Reorganization will position us to manage downsizing while creating new
opportunities through program integration, and will demonstrate to the Legislature and
our stakeholders that we are serious about fiscal responsibility and organizing to better
meet their needs. These changes are critical to any new future investment in the College
of Forestry. This is described in more detail in Section C.
B. Organizational Structure Before and After Reorganization
Figures 1 and 2 show the proposed structural change in the College. Effectively, three
departments are being dissolved and two new and very different departments are
reconstituted. One department, Wood Science & Engineering, is unchanged.
C. Rationale and development process for the proposed structure
Like many OSU units, the structure of the College of Forestry is a product of many
decades of decisions. The College has reinvented itself many times over its 100 year
history, but has seen no substantive organizational change for the past 20 years. In early
2007, the Dean and Forestry Executive Committee (FEC) began identifying alternative
reorganization models. Faculty consultative groups were formed and they identified a
variety of initial strategic and tactical concepts and desired outcomes in spring 2007. As
a result of those efforts the FEC considered a) elimination of all departments, b) a twoschool or department model and c) a three-department model. In July 2007, the Dean
charged a faculty Reorganization Advisory Committee to develop multiple alternatives of
a 3-unit structure using three different potential strategic foundational principles and a set
of six criteria. That committee developed seven alternative models for organizing subdisciplines, degree programs, research thrusts and outreach programs. Those were
presented at a public forum and then further revised. A faculty survey was conducted to
gain input from faculty, staff and students. Multiple all-college meetings were held in the
fall of 2007, and we also met with key stakeholders through the FRL Advisory
Committee and other venues to identify potential external concerns with different
models.. The FEC recommended a specific model to the Dean in early December and the
Dean announced his decision to accept that recommendation in January 2008.
Current College of Forestry faculty and staff were tentatively assigned to the proposed
three units and counterproposals were considered for a period of two weeks. At the end
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 3
of that time, transition leaders were appointed by the Dean to begin the process of
managing change and forming new units.
The full history of the decision-making process and all of the intermediate supporting
documents are found at http://www.cof.orst.edu/realignment/index.php.
The proposed structure was selected for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The model creatively structures faculty expertise formerly in three departments
into two new units. One unit will emphasize all aspects of active forest
management from seedling through harvest or restoration following undesired
disturbance and for multiple land-use objectives. These objectives will include
wood production and forest management or conservation for values other than
wood. The second unit addresses knowledge necessary to understand forest
ecosystems and their varied interactions with human society. These missions were
formerly diffuse within the existing three departments. The redistribution of
faculty disciplines is expected to generate new synergies and collaborations in
teaching, research and outreach.
Maintaining the Department of Wood Science & Engineering retains its unique
identity as a premier national program with high international visibility. It has a
distinctly different mission, industrial and public stakeholder base and
disciplinary focus than other College programs. Merging this unit would not
create significant synergies with other College units.
The selected model best achieves the strategic goals of protecting our capacity to
deliver undergraduate degree programs while retaining key current strengths. It is
judged to result in fewer transition challenges than other organizational
alternatives.
It reduces administrative expenses, while providing for logical groupings of
disciplines that position the college well to meet current stakeholder needs and
future challenges.
Administrative savings of approximately $380,000 over a FY07 baseline are
expected as a result of the reduction of the salary and OPE for 1.0 FTE
Department Head, 1.0 FTE Office Manager and 2.5 FTE Office Specialist 2. Two
OS2 positions have already been eliminated; one current Department Head
(Forest Science) will retire July 1 and will not be replaced; and the office manager
and half-time OS2 have been notified of the end of their positions and have other
plans. As a result of these moves, we have a very high confidence that the
projected level of savings will occur. The current Forest Resources Department is
led by an interim Head who will step down once a leader of the new FERM
department is selected from the current faculty of the new unit. The future leader
of the FES Department will be chosen in a national search. We forecast that this
leadership change will approximately break even cost wise. The exact balance is
uncertain but controllable.
This model protects our capacity to offer the current undergraduate programs and
results in a more even distribution of responsibility for undergraduate and
graduate degree programs among departments than is currently the case. It gives
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 4
•
•
•
each department a role in both undergraduate and graduate teaching and degree
programs.
Missions of the two new departments are clearly defined which will help to
maintain strong program identities and stakeholder support while encouraging
interdepartmental collaboration.
It provides for a logical alignment of research cooperatives with departmental
missions.
It better positions the College for federal grant funding and for meeting natural
resource agency research needs as they are evolving, especially with the
integration of social science and ecology.
D. Objectives, functions and activities of the proposed units.
The missions of the proposed College departments are described by:
Forest Engineering, Resources and Management: Develop, communicate, and teach the
science, knowledge and engineering necessary for the sustainable management of forest,
land, and water resources that will achieve economic, environmental, and social
objectives.
Forest Ecosystems and Society: This department brings together biological and social
scientists to seek integrative approaches to the sustainability of forests and the services
they provide.
Wood Science & Engineering: to advance science, engineering and business that help
society produce and use renewable wood-based products that sustainably enhance
human life and enable Oregon’s industry to be successful in a global market.
Leadership: Searches have been opened for permanent leaders for each of the two new
departments. In the interim, Transition Leaders are organizing the new departments and
will lead them until new Department Heads are in place.
Each new unit anticipates identifying an Associate Dept Head (ADH) from their faculty
ranks. Two of the four current departments have ADH’s with differing duties. Since
both of those faculty will now be in one unit it is expected that the new Department
Heads will define new position descriptions for their ADH and have an open internal
search for those positions.
Impact on Undergraduate degree programs
One goal for reorganization is to protect College capacity to deliver the current
undergraduate degree programs. There are no planned changes in either the current
degree requirements or in the current portfolio of course offerings resulting from
reorganization. We do not see significant potential impacts on class size, student clubs or
other activities as a result of reorganization. It is reasonable to expect that the curricula
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 5
will eventually change as a result of the mixing of faculty, but that will be a normal
evolutionary process.
Several degree programs will be taught by faculty located in both new departments thus
providing students the background to meet the growing challenges in forestry and natural
resources. Over time we expect that this reorganization will have a desired effect of
broadening and deepening the curriculum related to management of natural resources and
specifically the BS in Natural Resources degree program.
The administration of those programs, including responsibility for assessment plans,
catalog maintenance, curricular bureaucracy, etc. will change as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BS in Forest Management will be administered through the Department of Forest
Engineering, Resources and Management. However, accreditation, curricular
decisions and management will be made by program faculty drawn from both of
the new departments. Those faculty members will be led by a Forest
Management Degree Program Leader. The current faculty members responsible
for this degree program are about evenly divided between the new departments.
BS in Recreation Resource Management will be administered through the
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society with all curricular development and
management to be the responsibility of a Forest Recreation Resources Program
Faculty led by a faculty Program Leader.
BS in Natural Resources, will continue as an interdisciplinary program jointly
supported by the Colleges of Agriculture, Forestry, Liberal Arts, and Science, and
will remain unchanged from its current structure. The Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society will provide administrative support for the program,
while the Program Leader will report to the Deans of the four supporting colleges.
BS in Forest Engineering and the double BS in Forest Engineering/Civil
Engineering will be administered through the Department of Forest Engineering,
Resources and Management. Accreditation, curricular and management decisions
will be made collaboratively by Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and
Management and by School of Civil and Construction Engineering faculty led by
a faculty FE/CE program Leader.
BS in Forest Operations Management will be administered through the
Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management. Accreditation,
curricular and management decisions will be made by Forest Operations
Management Program Faculty from the two new units led by a faculty Program
Leader.
BS in Tourism and Outdoor Leadership will be administered through the
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society. This program will continue to be
managed through the Cascades Campus and will otherwise remain unchanged.
BS in Wood Science & Technology will remain unchanged.
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 6
Impact on Undergraduate Advising
Undergraduate advising in the professional degree programs is currently delivered by a
mix of department faculty and College staff. That will not change and we do not believe
that students will see any material differences in the roles of those key players for some
time. Students, however, have come to lean on some clerical staff for elements of
advising assistance. With changes in staff duties, those relationships will change but
should be replaced by other processes. This will be one of the transition issues to work
out over the summer of 2008. The leadership and advising of the Natural Resources
degree program will be unaffected by this change and will continue as currently
constituted.
Impact on Undergraduate Admissions
There is no anticipated impact on undergraduate admissions to Forestry undergraduate
degree programs. The College will continue to aggressively recruit highly qualified
students into the core professional degree programs. The degree programs will remain
unchanged and retain their current names.
Impact on Graduate Degree Programs
Graduate degree programs in the College will remain unchanged as a result of
reorganization. They will likely evolve in future years, but that path is yet to be
determined by the faculty. Degree requirements, admissions criteria and process,
curricula and courses will continue to be the purview of the graduate faculty associated
with each degree program; those are now, and will continue to be, scattered among a
number of administrative units. Administrative oversight and support will be as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
MS, MF (General, Silviculture), PhD in Forest Resources—Department of Forest
Engineering, Resources and Management
MS, MF (Silviculture), PhD in Forest Science—Department of Forest Ecosystems
and Society
MS, MF, PhD in Forest Engineering—Department of Forest Engineering,
Resources and Management
MS, MF (Forest Products), PhD in Wood Science—Department of Wood Science
& Engineering
Graduate Certificate in Sustainable Natural Resources- Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society
The specific impact of reorganization on graduate admissions will be difficult to assess
for several years. There will be some restructuring of the administration of admissions in
each of the new departments, but the majority of students are recruited by individual
faculty. Students will continue their research programs, albeit from a different unit, and
that individualized aspect of recruitment will probably not change.
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 7
Impact on Accreditation
The reorganization will not impact current accreditation. The professional undergraduate
programs will continue to be accredited as follows:
Χ Engineering Accreditation Committee of the Accreditation Board of
Engineering and Technology (ABET-EAC)—BS in Forest Engineering, double
BS in FE/Civil Engineering.
Χ Society of American Foresters (SAF)—BS in Forest Management, BS in
Recreation Resource Management, BS in Forest Engineering, Master of Forestry
(General, Silviculture), BS in Forest Operations Management
Χ Society of Wood Science and Technology (SWST)—BS in Wood Science &
Technology
Reorganization will be disclosed in significant change reports to those bodies. All
currently accredited programs are slated for formal reaccreditation review between
AY2009 and AY2011. We anticipate that most transition issues will be resolved before
those evaluations.
Course Designators
The course designators of all courses currently offered in the College of Forestry will
remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. Administration of those designators and
courses will be as follows:
FOR, FE—Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management
FS, SNR—Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society
WSE—Department of Wood Science & Engineering
NR—Natural Resources Interdisciplinary Degree Program
Outreach Programs
The outreach programs in the College that are Extension-based are led by an Associate
Dean and Forestry Extension Program Leader. Campus-and field Extension faculty are,
and will continue to be, integrated throughout the College. All existing outreach
programs will continue as at present, as best we can see at this point. Department-based
outreach efforts will evolve as the new organizations take shape.
Research Cooperatives
The formal Research Cooperatives and Centers in the College of Forestry will be
administratively assigned as follows:
Wood Science & Engineering: Wood Utility Pole Research Cooperative / Oregon Wood
Innovation Center
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 8
Forest Engineering, Resources and Management: Nursery Technology Cooperative /
Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative / Vegetation Management Research Cooperative /
Watersheds Research Cooperative / Center for Intensive Planted-Forest Silviculture.
Forest Ecosystems and Society: Tree Biosafety and Genomics Research Cooperative /
Hardwood Silviculture Cooperative / Northwest Tree Improvement Cooperative / Pacific
Northwest Tree Improvement Research Cooperative.
We anticipate that there will be little impact of reorganization on the operation of these
cooperatives. In some cases, the mission of the new “home” department for a program
may be more in line with the objectives of some cooperatives.
Assessment Plan
Success of this plan will be measured by achieving the necessary cost savings while
maintaining the high quality and productivity of College programs. Those metrics will be
quantified annually in the Dean’s report to the Provost. The student learning outcomes
assessment plans for degree programs will be a continued gauge of success with the
teaching mission. As always, exit interviews and alumni surveys will be used as
information sources.
Assessment will also be made by the Oregon Forest Research Laboratory Advisory
Committee and, informally, by the forest landowners who indirectly support faculty
salaries through the harvest tax. Each new unit will consider how to best acquire input
from employers and other stakeholders; current advisory groups will be maintained in the
short term, but new advisory groups will be considered.
E. Changes in resources needed.
No additional recurring resources will be needed for this transition beyond minimal
administrative expenses. Once the transition is completed we anticipate administrative
savings through elimination of one Department Head, one Office Manager and 2.5
clerical FTE. Retirements by administrators and staff will reduce the number of
necessary personnel actions required by reorganization. The College has a central
business office, a College operations director and facilities manager who currently
support department operations. That won’t change. We do not project any changes in
space, facilities or other similar resource needs.
Faculty and other support: Reorganizing units with 30-60 years of history is traumatic
and stressful. This is a significant change and will cost many faculty and staff time and
energy to make this a successful transition. The faculty, staff and students actively
participated in developing alternative models and in the the debate about alternative
organizational models. Their input was central to shaping the model that was selected.
As might be expected the response to the Dean’s decision was not unanimous; no one
outcome could satisfy everyone and initial responses ranged from enthusiasm to
acceptance to skepticism. A key sticking point for some was a desire to see a merger of
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 9
departments rather than creation of new units. The rationale for the decision was fully
explained (see FAQ on transition web site) and transition planning initiated.
Since January, the new departmental faculty and staff have met on numerous occasions to
develop missions, programs and structure for these new units. Search committees have
been organized and the nitty-gritty details of new units are being ironed out. It is clear
that the financial need for reorganization and the rationale for the chosen model are
widely understood. Based on the Dean’s recent meetings with the members of each new
unit the faculty and staff are moving forward and are actively working toward a
successful launch of these new units. This transition will take several years, and there will
be bumps in the road, but the positive engagement and attitude of the faculty, staff and
students in the three departments signal a positive outcome. The Forest Research
Laboratory Advisory Committee and various industry and landowner groups were
consulted on the reorganization and are fully supportive
F. Funding sources
There will be no change in the sources of funding for programs in the College of
Forestry. The annual budgets of the two new units will be the sum of the essential
budgets of the three existing units less anticipated administrative cost savings.
G. Relationship of the proposed units to the institutional mission.
a.) How will the proposed program or unit support OSU's mission and goals?
The College of Forestry will continue to directly support the Land-Grant mission of the
University and all OSU goals. Forests and the forest-related industrial sector will
continue to be very important to Oregon for reasons of lifestyle, standard of living and
economics. The Departments of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management and
Forest Ecosystems and Society will support the teaching, research and outreach missions
of the University in similar ways to the existing departments. Their missions will support
the institutional goals and, more specifically, the strategic themes of 1) Managing natural
resources that contribute to Oregon's quality of life, and growing and sustaining natural
resources-based industries in the Knowledge Economy, 2) Understanding the origin,
dynamics, and sustainability of the Earth and its resources, and 3) Optimizing enterprise,
technological change, and innovation.
b) Describe potential positive and negative impact of the proposed change on the
program(s) or unit(s) involved. Identify other OSU programs or units which may be
affected, and describe the potential positive and negative impact on their mission and
activities.
The positive aspects of reorganization are anticipated to be cost savings and integration
of faculty and disciplinary programs in new ways. These new integrations will be
inherent to each new unit, but will take time to mature. In the Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society we anticipate that this integration will facilitate new federal
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 10
funding opportunities in programs that seek understandings of human activity on forest
ecosystems. In the Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management we
anticipate a more holistic view of active management of forests for a variety of land-use
objectives. All three departments will focus on educating the next generation of natural
resources managers, scientists and leaders.
The principal negative effect of reorganization will be the time and energy required to
affect significant change in cultures, long-standing practices and administrative systems.
Learning new ways and building new relationships takes effort that will, in the short run,
reduce some productivity. Longer term, however, new collaborations and synergies
developed in the new departments will pay dividends.
We do not anticipate that any other OSU unit will be materially affected by this
reorganization since there will be no immediate change in the instructional program.
Individual working relationships with faculty and programs in other units should remain
intact. We will take care to maintain close curricular relationships with the Colleges of
Agricultural Sciences, Science, Liberal Arts, Engineering and Business, and close
accreditation relations with the College of Engineering.
H. Long-range goals and plans for the unit.
This reorganization will help position the College of Forestry to continue as the premiere
University forestry and wood science program in the US. It is part of a larger strategy to
balance the College’s expenses with revenues and to reposition College programs to
serve Oregon and our key stakeholders in a rapidly changing environment. The extent to
which we are successful with this larger strategy will ultimately determine the long-term
potential for achieving these goals and plans. The College is currently operating with a
strategic plan that will be reevaluated in AY09.
Each unit is in the process of defining itself and will also spend the next year developing
plans and goals.
I. Relationship of the proposed unit to other OUS programs and external
constituents.
The College of Forestry is a unique unit in the OUS and offers programs that are unique
in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. It enjoys a very strong national and international
science and engineering reputation; our graduates are in high demand, especially in the
Pacific Northwest. This reorganization will not affect other OUS programs, nor will it
change our ability to deliver high quality graduates to meet the needs of Oregon’s
employers.
There will a period of adjustment with some constituencies who have a long heritage with
individual departments. However, change is well known to most of those stakeholders
and they will adapt as long as we continue to meet their needs. Meeting those needs will
continue to be of the highest priority for the College.
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 11
FIGURES and APPENDICES
Fig. 1 Current Organization
Fig. 2 Proposed Organization
Budget Form
Liaison Information
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 12
Provost
Fig. 1 Current Organization
Dean’s Office
Support Staff
Exec. Assoc. Dean
Assoc Dean Academic
Affairs
Assoc. Dean Extended Ed.
Dean
College of Forestry
Student Services
College
Forests
Head, Department of
Head, Department of
Wood Science &
Engineering
RA’s – 2
FRA’s – 8
GRA’s - 34
Faculty
T/TT - 15
FT – 0
I–1
PF - 1
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (2)
RA’s – 1
FRA’s – 3
GRA’s - 24
Forest Science
Forest Resources
Director
Nat. Res.
Degree
Program
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (2)
Head, Department of
Interim Head, Department of
Forest Engineering
Faculty
T/TT - 11
FT – 1
I–2
PF 0
College
Operations/
Business Office
Assoc.
Head
(0.25 FTE)
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (2.5)
RA’s – 2
FRA’s – 3
GRA’s - 25
Faculty
T/TT - 22
FT – 0
I–5
PF - 3
Notes:
1)
TT
= tenured/tenure-track professorial faculty (campus and field)
FT
= fixed-term professorial faculty
I
= essential budget instructors
PF = professional faculty (other than Office Mgr.)
2)
Does not include Affiliate, Courtesy and Adjunct faculty
3)
Does not include research coops and other grant or service fee operations
Assoc.
Head
(0.1 FTE)
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (2)
RA’s – 14
FRA’s – 37
GRA’s - 33
Faculty
T/TT - 18
FT – 4
I–0
PF - 10
3/17/08
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 13
Provost
Fig. 2 Proposed Organization
Dean’s Office
Support Staff
Exec. Assoc. Dean
Assoc Dean Academic Affairs
Assoc. Dean Extended Ed
Dean
College of Forestry
Student Services
College
Forests
Head, Department of
Wood Science & Engineering
Head, Department of
Forest Ecosystems and Society
Head, Department of
Forest Engineering,
Resources and Management
Assoc. Head
(0.25 FTE)
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (2)
RA’s – 2
FRA’s – 8
GRA’s - 34
Faculty
T/TT - 15
FT – 0
I–1
PF - 1
College
Operations/
Business Office
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (3)
RA’s – 2
FRA’s – 11
GRA’s - 38
Director
Nat. Res. Degree
Program
Faculty
T/TT - 24
FT – 1
I–5
PF - 0
Notes:
1)
TT
= tenured/tenure-track professorial faculty (campus and field)
FT
= fixed-term professorial faculty
I
= essential budget instructors
PF = professional faculty (other than Office Mgr.)
2)
Does not include Affiliate, courtesy and adjunct faculty
3)
Does not include research coops and other grant or service fee operations
Assoc.
Head
(0.25 FTE)
Support Staff
Office Mgr (1)
OSII (3)
RA’s – 15
FRA’s – 32
GRA’s -44
Faculty
T/TT - 27
FT – 4
I–2
PF - 13
3/17/08
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 14
Category I Proposal Budget Outline
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for the Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
See "Budget Outline Instructions" on the OUS Forms and Guidelines Web site: www.ous.edu/aca/aca-forms.html
Oregon State University
Category I Proposal Name: Reorganization of the College of Forestry
Academic Year: AY09
Institution:
Completed by:
FTE
Operating Year: FY09+
R. Admiral
(indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year--prepare one page for each)
Column A
Column B
Column C
Column D
Column E
Column F
Column G
From Current Budgetary
Unit
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary Unit
From Special State
Appropriation Request
From Federal Funds &
Other
Grants/Contracts
From Fees, Sales, &
Other Income
Endowment
LINE ITEM TOTAL
Dept
College
Personnel
Faculty (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
*OPE: Faculty
Staff
GTA/GRA
Nonrecurring
Personnel Subtotal:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Travel
Other Expenses
Other Resources Subtotal:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Physical Facilities
$0
$0
$0
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
GRAND TOTALS:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Percentage of Total
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 14
LIASION REQUEST AND RESPONSES
From: Salwasser, Hal
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:36 AM
To: Dutson, Thayne; Adams, Ronald Lynn; Kleinsorge, Ilene - COB; Bloomer, Sherman - COS;
Abbott, Mark Richard; Roper, Larry D; Clarke, Cyril; Kradjan, Wayne; Bray, Tammy; Stern, Sam;
Francis, Sally K.
Subject: Category I proposal for reorganization
Colleagues,
The attached Abbreviated Category I Proposal describes a proposed reorganization of the
College of Forestry from four academic departments into three. However, no degree programs or
course offerings will be changed and we anticipate no impact on existing relationships with other
Colleges across campus.
In accordance with the liaison criteria in the Curricular Procedures Handbook, this message
serves as notification to your College of our intent to make this organizational change on July 1,
2008 or as soon as possible thereafter.
Please review the attached proposal and send your comments, concerns, or expression of
support to me by April 14. Your timely response will be appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your time and input.
Hal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Kradjan, Wayne
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:27 AM
To: Salwasser, Hal
Subject: RE:
Hal
Thank you for sharing this information. It must have been a much more painful process than that
document describes. Best wishes for a successful transition.
Wayne
********************************
Wayne A. Kradjan, Pharm. D., BCPS
Dean and Professor
Oregon State University College of Pharmacy
203 Pharmacy Building
Corvallis, OR 97331-3507
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Clarke, Cyril
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Salwasser, Hal
Subject: RE: Category I Proposal
Hal,
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 15
This proposal clearly is the product of a comprehensive consultative process and is well justified
by both budgetary and mission imperatives. Although this change appears not to impact the
College of Veterinary Medicine directly, I nevertheless support it.
Cyril
----------------------Cyril R. Clarke, BVSc, MS, PhD
Diplomate ACVCP
Lois Bates Acheson Dean
College of Veterinary Medicine
200 Magruder Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331-4801
Phone: (541) 737-2098
Fax: (541) 737-4245
E-mail: [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi Katherine,
I would like to provide you with two concerns that I have regarding this proposal.
1. The proposal mentions student involvement in the process, but I don't clearly see the extent to
which students were involved in this process. For example, the following link to comments made
during this process does not distinguish which of these comments came from staff, faculty and
students.
http://www.cof.orst.edu/realignment/show-comments.php?page=4
I would like to see the number of folks solicited for input in each category as well as the response
rate in each category. Of most interest to me is the specific student responses (with confirmation
that comments were solicited from the entire student body of the College of Forestry) to these
proposed changes. I would like to see them included as part of the liaison.
2. The proposed significant cost administrative savings argument is likely not going to come to
fruition, as has been demonstrated following other similar mergers/reorganizations. I believe this
claim is becoming a cause for skepticism from numerous members of the faculty at large. In fact,
this just may become THE topic on which most faculty focus during the discussion of this
proposal in the faculty senate, following approval by the curriculum committee.
Sincerely,
Deb Pence
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Member: Faculty Senate Executive Committee
(541 737-7018
College of Forestry Response:
1) Students have been heavily involved in our planning of this event for over a year. We
have met with them individually and collectively at several points in the planning process,
especially as we explored several organizational models. They attended our meetings and
forums and have not been shy in sharing their questions and concerns. We sought their
feedback in various ways but did not poll each and every one. We will not eliminate any
degree programs or courses or instructors as a result of reorganization, nor do we plan to
revise the curriculum. The faculty are committed to minimizing the impact of
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 16
reorganization on students, but there will be some transition, especially for graduate
students. Our transition leaders are now meeting with the faculty and students who will
be involved with the new units and various transition committees are working away,
including one for graduate education. No one likes change and not all are happy about
having to deal with it, but we, including students, are successfully moving forward.
The link you included in your comments is from archived feedback that we received in
response to questions asked about some early proposed models as part of the many
steps in our planning process. We did not quantify that feedback on those proposals in a
way that would be meaningful at this point.
2) We are very sensitive to the issue of cost savings and have been conservative in
estimating what can be achieved. Reducing administrative expenses is not an optional
outcome from this reorganization. We are trying to close a $2 million gap between
revenue and essential expenses and have carefully identified the savings described in our
proposal. Some positions have already been eliminated and other reductions are in
process. With the retirement of two department heads we have a clear view of what
realistically can be achieved and when.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Gonzalez, Raquel
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:19 PM
To: Morris, Katherine
Subject: FW: Rqs't for your College Faculty Input!
Raquel Gonzalez
Office Manager
Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management
Oregon State University
202 Strand Agriculture Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone: (541) 737-1616
Fax: (541) 737-0504
From: Buckhouse, John
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Gonzalez, Raquel
Cc: Borman, Mike
Subject: RE: Rqs't for your College Faculty Input!
Mike and Raquel,
I have no heartburn with Hal doing this. Apparently he has the degree programs covered.
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Kleinsorge, Ilene - COB
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Matson, Susan - COB; COB - Faculty & Staff
Subject: RE: Rqs't for your College Faculty Input!
At the College level we have no problem with this proposal—Ilene
Ilene K. Kleinsorge, Ph.D.
Dean
College of Business
Oregon State University
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 17
From: Francis, Sally K.
Sent: Sat 4/12/2008 12:39 PM
To: Salwasser, Hal
Cc: Fisk, Martin; Francis, Sally K.; Garagnani, Rosemary; Morandi, Janet K; Serewis, Helene;
Strickroth, Mary
Subject: RE: Restructuring proposal
Hal,
I support your proposed reorganization. On first reading, the names chosen for the new
departments are not quite as intuitive as they were previously. Our leadership team had difficulty
immediately recognizing where faculty expertise and focused areas of sub-specialization will be
housed. The college obviously engaged in a significant consultative process and the names are
probably most meaningful to those within the College and your constituents. We wonder if the
distinction will be less obvious to a student who may be shopping for a degree. Again, we trust
your judgment on this.
Since the graduate degrees will remain intact at least initially, the only significant change appears
to be departmental reorganization. We will need to revise our Graduate School web site, including
the admissions page, to cross-walk these degree offerings within the new departmental
structure. In the relative near-term, pending approval of the Category I, the graduate faculty
department affiliation will need to be sorted out to reflect the new structure.
Otherwise, I see no issues and am pleased to offer my support.
Sally
College of Forestry Response: The point about names is well taken and was carefully
considered by the members of the future departments. Many alternatives were
considered for what will be unique departments in the US. Those names were selected by
the faculty, staff and students to be the best descriptors of the nature of the future units.
They resonate with students familiar with forestry and forest ecosystems, and are fine with
stakeholders. The name of the graduate degrees is probably the more important issue
with students and is a key to attracting new students. Those names will not change in the
near future, but will likely evolve with time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Thomas G. Dietterich [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:04 PM
To: Hall, Jennifer; Morris, Katherine
Subject: RE: [eecs-faculty] FW: Rqs't for your College Faculty Input!
This looks ok to me. I have collaborations with some of these folks, but that will not be affected.
Also, the connection with COE via the FE/Civil Engineering double major is unaffected.
--Tom
Thomas G. Dietterich
Voice: 541-737-5559
School of EECS
FAX: 541-737-1300
1148 Kelley Engineering Center URL: http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/~tgd
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-5501
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Karow, Russell
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:53 PM
To:
Morris, Katherine
Subject:
reorg plan
Katherine,
I quickly reviewed the plan and am supportive, but as always, the devil is in the details.
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 18
When Crop Science and Soil Science merged in 1990 there was little immediate cost savings but
handling of finances and personnel has changed significantly over the past 18 years, so this may
work.
Russ Karow, Head
CSS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Tara Bevandich [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Morris, Katherine
Subject: FW: category I proposal
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for the opportunity to review the Forestry Reorganization plan. I sent this out to our
Zoology Faculty. Barb Taylor, Zoology Executive Committee and Joe Beatty, Interim Chair agree
that this reorganization is a good plan. Thank you.
Tara
From: Barbara Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:28 PM
To: 'Tara Bevandich'
Cc: 'Joe Beatty'
Subject: category I proposal
Hi Tara,
I wanted to respond to the Cat I proposal about the reorganization of the College of Forestry. It
seems to me that this is a good plan and I have no objections to the proposal.
Barb
Barbara J. Taylor
Professor
Department of Zoology
Director, Molecular and Cellular Biology Graduate Program
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Phone: 541 737-5344
Fax: 541 737-0501
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom,
We talked about the proposal at faculty meeting yesterday and the only comment we would like to
make is that we would expect to be consulted on any future curricular changes that affect either
our majors or majors in the re-constituted College of Forestry who intend to incorporate some of
our courses into their degree programs.
Otherwise, it we have no other concerns, and extend our best wishes for the transition to a more
streamlined and effective College.
Sally K. Gallagher
Professor of Sociology and Chair
College of Forestry Reorganization--- 19
From: Sloane, Diana
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:08 PM
To: Hobbs, Stephen
Cc: Shellhammer, Gina; Hacker, Marla E
Subject: RE: Abbreviated Category I Proposal
Stephen, Looks like a well‐intentioned and positive change. Diana Sloane From: Hobbs, Stephen
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Sloane, Diana; Hacker, Marla E
Cc: Shellhammer, Gina; Morris, Katherine
Subject: Abbreviated Category I Proposal
Diana and Marla, the attached Abbreviated Category I Proposal describes a proposed
reorganization of the College of Forestry from four academic departments into three.
However, no degree programs or course offerings will be changed and we anticipate no
impact on existing relationships with other Colleges on the Corvallis campus or with the
Cascades Campus.
In accordance with the liaison criteria in the Curricular Procedures Handbook, this
message serves as notification to you of our intent to make this organizational change
on July 1, 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter.
Please review the attached proposal and send your comments, concerns, or expression
of support to me by May 6. I would also appreciate you copying Gina Shellhammer who
will make sure the appropriate Facutly Senate Committees receive your response prior
to their May meetings.
Thank you in advance for your time and input.
Steve
From: Hacker, Marla E
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:49 AM
To: Hobbs, Stephen
Cc: Shellhammer, Gina
Subject: RE: Abbreviated Category I Proposal input from Cascades
Thanks Stephen for including Cascades in the communication process. Diana Sloane and I have reviewed
the proposal. Ron Reuter and Kreg Lindberg have confirmed that the proposal does not present concerns
to their respective programs at Cascades. Net, Cascades has been consulted and does not have concerns.
marla
From: Hobbs, Stephen
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Sloane, Diana; Hacker, Marla E
Cc: Shellhammer, Gina; Morris, Katherine
Subject: Abbreviated Category I Proposal
Diana and Marla, the attached Abbreviated Category I Proposal describes a proposed
reorganization of the College of Forestry from four academic departments into three.
However, no degree programs or course offerings will be changed and we anticipate no
impact on existing relationships with other Colleges on the Corvallis campus or with the
Cascades Campus.
In accordance with the liaison criteria in the Curricular Procedures Handbook, this
message serves as notification to you of our intent to make this organizational change
on July 1, 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter.
Please review the attached proposal and send your comments, concerns, or expression
of support to me by May 6. I would also appreciate you copying Gina Shellhammer who
will make sure the appropriate Facutly Senate Committees receive your response prior
to their May meetings.
Thank you in advance for your time and input.
Steve
From: Barte Starker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:50 AM
To: Hobbs, Stephen
Cc: tom mclain; Morris, Katherine
Subject: COF reorganization
Steve,
I just wanted to let you know that we at Starker Forests have been following the College of
Forestry reorganization proposal with great interest. I have (as have others in our company)
taken various opportunities recently to discuss the reorganization with Hal and others in the COF
leadership and we have offered encouragement and advice. Although the move to reorganize
and consolidate the College has been motivated primarily by fiscal responsibility, my expectation
is that it will lead to increased cooperation and collaboration in forestry research, teaching and
Extension outreach...the three cornerstones of the OSU College of Forestry foundation. I support
the COF reorganization effort and you can count on Starker Forests to help in any way that we
can.
Barte Starker
Starker Forests
-----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:06 AM
To: Hobbs, Stephen
Cc: McLain, Tom; Morris, Katherine
Subject: Support for the College of Forestry Reorganization
Steve:
I have reviewed the proposed College of Forestry Reorganization and have been briefed
on this in great detail at the FRL Advisory Committee meeting and was able to ask
questions and make comments. From my perspective, your committee working on the
reorganization has done of a good job of putting together a package that will meet the
needs of the stakeholders in the Colleges programs.
Change is never easy, but we are all experiencing the reality of fiscal constraints and the
growing need to manage our programs with this in mind.
I'm convinced that your proposed changes will continue the excellence we expect from
OSU.
Ed Shepard
OR/WA State Director, Bureau of Land Management
(503) 808-6026
From: Jennifer Phillippi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:45 AM
To: Hobbs, Stephen
Cc: McLain, Tom; Morris, Katherine
Subject: College of Forestry - reorganization
Dear Steve,
At our last two FRL Advisory meetings, I appreciated the review of the proposed reorganization of
the College of Forestry. As a private business owner, it’s heartening to see a public entity
recognize the need to periodically review costs—and to go through the same belt tightening
exercises that we must undergo in private industry to stay lean and competitive. Even though it is
difficult, I find that kind of process tends to inspire creative solutions; and that is what I see that
you have accomplished at the College of Forestry.
At the last meeting it was helpful to see more detail about the reorganization plan, and to have
the opportunity to have my questions answered and suggestions considered. It was particularly
helpful to be part of that broadly represented group because I got to hear discussions stimulated
from others that I wouldn’t have thought of from my perspective. It gave me a deeper
understanding of the reorganization plan, and of how critical you are to a broad range of
interests. I am a member of the Oregon Board of Forestry, and we depend heavily on OSU
research as we craft forest policy. My family-owned company also relies on the College of
Forestry for assistance in many aspects of our business—forest management, manufacturing,
lumber drying, etc. I think that the proposed reorganization will assure more efficient and
effective operations. It seems that you are headed in the right direction. Good work!
Warmly,
Jennifer
Jennifer Phillippi
Rough & Ready Lumber Co.
Perpetua Forests Company
541 592-3116
541 592-3221 facsimile
From: LORENSEN Ted L [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Morris, Katherine; McLain, Tom
Cc: Hobbs, Stephen
Subject: College of Forestry reorganization
Dear Steve:
The Oregon Department of Forestry has appreciated the opportunities the College of Forestry
has provided to us to learn about the proposed reorganization within the College. The past two
Forest Research Laboratory Advisory Committee meetings have allowed us to ask questions,
make our views known, and offer suggestions. We understand the fiscal challenges facing the
College. We believe the proposal responsibly addresses these challenges while ensuring that
students and stakeholders will continue to be served by a College that will create a well-educated
workforce. In addition, the reorganization appears to offer some additional synergies that can
enhance the collaborative research among the three core departments.
The Department of Forestry looks forward to continuing to work closely with the College as the
proposal is implemented.
Sincerely,
Ted Lorensen
Private Forests Division Chief
B&FP Committee CAT I Proposal Review
1
Faculty Senate Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
2007-2008
Review of Abbreviated CATEGORY I PROPOSAL
Reorganize the College of Forestry - College of Forestry (COF)
May 8, 2008 meeting
Committee Members Present:
Frank Bernieri, Chair
Jeff McCubbin
Robert Frost
Hillary Egna
Rebecca Warner * (contributed via email)
Committee Members not Present:
Nancy Heiligman
Kate Peterson
B&FP Committee Review of abbreviated CATEGORY I PROPOSAL, Reorganize the College of
Forestry - College of Forestry (COF)
Summary:
This proposal seeks to reorganize COF from its current 4 academic departments into three by replacing:
Department of Forest Engineering
Department of Forest Resources
Department of Forest Science
with
Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society
Department of Wood Science & Engineering (remains unchanged)
The motivation to do this is two fold. The proposal states that a principle objective is to compensate for
revenue reductions that are believed to the new reality for the college. The proposed changes were
designed to produce $380,000 in savings. The other principle objective is to better position the college
for its continuing mission.
Note: The committee abstained from reviewing this proposal at its April 17th meeting because it did not
have the completed proposal at the time it met. The B&FP Chair was present at the April 25 meeting of
the Curriculum Council to hear the presentation by Stephen Hobbs. This review took place after the
committee was informed of the content of that presentation.
Review action:
Approve. The reorganization appears to generate some administrative cost savings if
implemented exactly as planned.