PSU Magazine Spring 1992

Nail--shoe dilemma in Oregon ' A little neglect may breed great mischief. .. for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost. i ) ) ! ) enj amin Franklin u ed this prove rb more than 200 years ago to urge his "courteous reader" to pay attention to the details, avoiding the trap of unintended conse– quences. If the proverb's horse and rider are important, then so are the services critical to keeping them act ive on the field. That advice might be reprinted today in "Poor O regon ' Almanac," because Oregon faces some of the most difficult nail-shoe-horse- rider problems in its history. Instead of a horse and rider, however, Oregon has long-term planning goa ls called the Oregon Benchmarks. And, rather than nails and shoes, the essential building blocks for these benchmarks are provided by a network of state and local services, ser– vices supported by a state general fund under enormous pressu res resu lting from Measure 5. The question facing Oregon is, how to make necessary budget reductions on the one hand, but ensure that critical se rvices still are in place to move us forward toward the goa ls set in the Oregon Benchmarks. The benchmarks (which establish measurable standards for progress such as , "percentage of Oregonians with economic access to bas ic hea lth care") were developed by the O regon Progress Board, a governor-appointed group that helps mold policy for the state's future. The process grew out of an earlier report, "Oregon Shines," a status report on the Oregon economy and a look 12 PSU forward for the sta te, prepared for then Gov. Neil Goldschmidt. But unlike many reports, the process of self evaluation and goal setting that led to "Oregon Shines" was made con– tinuous and self-correcting with adop– tion by the State Legislature and appointment of the Oregon Progress Board. The board, in consultation with citizens across the state, has begun developing strategies to reach the standards established by the benchmarks, which are divided into three major categories: exceptional people; outstanding quality of life; and , diverse, robust economy. Gov. Barbara Roberts has focussed on a sub-set of the benchmarks-the "key and lead benchmarks"-and has required all state agenc ies to develop their budgets with an eye to the strategies necessa ry to advance the state toward these se lected goa ls. She wants to encourage government agen– cies to break with tradition, to broaden their view beyond their individual mis– sions, and to include the contributions of other agencies toward the large r goal. In other words, keep an eye on the horse and ride r, but make certain the shoes and nails are there, too. As the state moves toward the use of benchmarks to guide its strategy fo r developing programs and support ing state services, higher education will need to fo llow su it. This wi ll not be dif– ficu lt for Portland State. The strategic planning and reorgani zation processes instituted at PSU ove r the past 18 months have broken with traditional ways of looking at how higher educa– tion develops programs, interacts with the community, and provides <>erv ices. The goa ls set by the strategic planning process are measurable and can serve as Higher education is facing major challenges and unique opportunities as Oregon cuts state-supported services. By Clarence Hein the sta rting point fo r developing benchmarks for higher education. The PSU Strategic Plan, the report of the Governor' Commiss ion on Higher Educat ion, and the State Sys– tem of Higher Education Portland Action Agenda all reflect the impor– tance of collaborat ion among institu– tions, agencies and the private sector. It is what PSU Pres ident Judith Ramaley ca lls, "the interactive univer– sity," making max imum use of limi ted resources by comb ining efforts, pooling resources and acting in concert. The Portland Agenda, developed by Ramaley and Higher Education Chan– ce llor Thomas Bartlett, and funded by the 1991 Legislature, refl ects the kind of collaborat ive approaches that will be necessary to make progress toward the benchmarks. The Portland Agenda was bu ilt around the idea that only through the pooling of resources and efforts could growing higher educa ti on needs be met in the face of diminishing resources. For example, the Agenda responds to the need for a major comprehensive library in the metropolitan region through development of an electroni – cally linked library system using PSU's Millar Library as the hub. By combin– ing a relatively modest state contribu– tion ($ 1 million over two years) with local library budgets, the state will acquire comprehensive library servi ce for the metropolitan region. The same coll aborative and inter– dependent approach is ev ident in the Portland Educational Network (PEN), another part of the Portland Agenda, which is aimed at improving education– al access and success fo r students of all ages in the metropolitan area. One of the overa ll strategies for achiev ing the