Elizabeth Uhlig:  [This is an oral history with] Bob Ackerman.  Today is November 18, 2003.  We are in the president’s office at Lane Community College. My name is Elizabeth Uhlig.

[0:00]

Bob, I thought we’d start with your background. Where were you born and raised? Where did you receive your education?

Bob Ackerman:  Well, I think I can remember that.  I was born in San Francisco, California, on March 31st of 1937.  I lived in the San FranciscoBay area until about 1954 when I graduated from high school.  I then went to the University of Oregon from 1954 to 1958; got a degree in economics.  Let’s see, that was ‘58, I went back to the University of Oregon Law School in 1960 and graduated in 1963 with a doctorate jurisprudence and was admitted to the Oregon State Bar in early October 1963. And I have been a member of the Oregon State Bar continuously and practiced law continuously since then.

[1:00]

EU:  Your biography on the Legislature website lists your occupations as attorney, mediator, and arbitrator.  Could you talk about your law practice and your career as a mediator and arbitrator?

BA:  Mediation and arbitration came into focus in the legal field maybe in the past 15 years. I was always interested in other ways of solving disputes rather than going to court.  Training as a mediator was not necessary but I served an mediator in adjudicating many kinds of legal disputes.  It formed a small but significant part of my practice before I went to the Legislature in 2001.

EU:  Have you always lived in Springfield or the Eugene area?

BA:  Well, since I started law school in 1960, I’ve always lived in Springfield or Eugene, yes.

[2:00]

EU:  With your long career in public service, how did you become interested in politics or public service?  Did you always know that you would become involved in public service?

BA:  Yes, I always knew since 7th or 8th grade - I was fascinated with history, our constitutional process, how our government worked, how it made decisions. I had that formation in my head rather early. It wasn’t a straight line from the 8th grade to public service – had to have education, and an economic base.  When Lane Community College School District was formed in 1964, I was out of law school for 1 year and I was about 27 years old.  I participated in some political events and activities when I was in law school, mostly as a diversion, because I didn’t like law school. When the district was formed it had a lot of publicity and the idea of a comprehensive community college as distinct from a junior college was really fascinating to me.  I thought that was a great educational niche that should be filled.  And I followed the political process and decided I would file for a board seat when that opportunity came.

[3:30]

EU:  Can you expand on that.   Why were you drawn to community colleges? How did you become an advocate?

BA:  Probably because my background was primarily blue collar.  I was the first person on either side of my family to go to college and get a university degree.  And, I had to fight for that.  Economically sometimes it was difficult.  I thought I could have been the typical community college student and I could have received a better and more comprehensive education had I gone to a community college rather than going immediately into the University of Oregon.  I felt there were thousands and thousands like me and that is where my personal interest was.  I think I was also a member of a trade and I was very aware that the technical - vocational programs that would be offered at Lane Community College would be of benefit to many, many students to provide them with an education and a family-based job in the community.  All these things merged I my head when the district was formed, it was a natural fit for me.

EU: 

BA:  I wasa journeyman meat-cutter – learned that trade in high school.  As university student and in law school worked at that trade part-time and in the summer full-time.  Because I had the benefit of union wages I could almost self-finance my own education.  A great upward mobility step, cc offering technical and vocational programs could offer programs to other people like him.

[6:00]

EU:  another part-time job told about at the Board meeting.

BA:  It was probably the summer of 1957.  I had to go to summer term.  I missed a term - I was in a very severe automobile accident and had to lay out a term and I had to make that up in summer school so I stayed here.  And a friend of mine and I got a job with the Gonyea family which owned all the property that the college is on right now. In fact the Gonyea house is still on this property, or on their property.  And the job was what we call bucking bales.  It was going through the fields.  The bales of hay were already in the field and it was our job to buck them, basically put them onto the back of a pickup truck and to take them and stack them in the barn.  So we did that part of the summer.  That was my first communication with LCC even though it was many years before the district was formed.  I never envisioned I’d be back out here in the capacity of a Board member or that there’d be a community college here in 1957.

EU:  When you look at the buildings now at LCC it’s hard to imagine what it was like.  So what did the land look like here?  Was it all agricultural fields?

BA:  Just rolling hills with grass growing on them.  It was not forested.  It’s much like, if you look to the south a little bit where the Gonyea house is, up on that little knoll.  It was rolling hills like how it comes down from there.  There were no trees that I recall, no trees at all until you get way in the back.  It was all open fields.

[7:30]

EU:  Were you involved with the Bert Dotson when he helped to establish the college in 1964?

BA:  No, I met Bert and when I was campaigning for the office I met college officials and I met Bert Dotson, but I was not instrumental in the formation of the district. It was an in-house deal between Dale Parnell, Bert Dotson, and a few other community leaders.  I was not a community leader, I was a 27-year-old lawyer, one year out of law school.  I was not the person they would call at that time. 

EU:  People who influenced you in your thinking about cc?

BA:  Actually not. I influenced myself – it was such a natural educational fit for this community and the students of this community. I really think that it was the most significant event in the history of Lane County.  And I think the community college, even today and certainly then, is the greatest institution, public or private, in this county and that includes the University of Oregon, Sacred HeartHospital and anything else that people say produce great benefits for the public.  I think it is a great institution.

[9:00]

EU: So you decided to run for the Board in 1965, that was the second Board.

BA:  There were seven Board seats.  The initial Board members ran for the seven slots.  They had staggered terms.  And the first seat that was up for election in ’65 was the Springfield zone seat.  So I ran against that incumbent and won.  So I was not on the original or the charter Board, but I was the first one to beat an incumbent and joined the other charter Board members for about eight years.

EU:  How was it working with them?  Were there some strong personalities on those Boards?

BA:  I think we were all pretty strong.  I remember them all well. I remember them by name and occupation.  We all had substantial positions in the community. We had two dentists, we had a medical doctor, labor leader, former county clerk, and myself, and a business executive.  I think that was a pretty good blend of talent.  I think we were all pretty strong-minded, but I think we were able to always put the public interest first.  Wasn’t a partisan battle.  We worked hard to together,  Disputes were very minimal.

[11:00]

EU: today, there’s work on the college’s mission and vision statement – core values – comprehensive.  What were some of the guiding principles that defined your work on those Boards.

BA:  Priorities – when the college came into existence when I came on the Board in 1965 – this campus wasn’t here.  Was ETVS on North Monroe – had to rent facilities for the college transfer courses; vocational classes were at the 4th and Monroe address.  Was very small.  Did not think about our core values – hadn’t even hired instructors yet.  Our priority was building the campus; capital construction. Passing a great deal of the bond issue, building the campus, and hiring the staff.  Those were our priorities, not what is diversity, what our mission or our core values were.  Against the background of a clean slate, we had no precedent to guide us in this venture. We took instructors from the local school systems and the university, administrators from various educational institutions here and around the state and country.  We had to sit down with a clean slate and develop what is now this campus and what is now our core values. That all came as we grew

[13:30]

EU:  How did you make the decision to move out here to 30th Avenue?  How did you make the connection with Mr. Gonyea to donate the land?

BA:  I’m not aware of how that connection was made.  I know what some of the incentives were. This was a well-located site, it was close to the freeway, was off 30th Avenue, the price was right.  I think one reason it was so cheap was that they wanted to develop this land and property and they wanted a piece of our sewage facility, there is no sewer out here.  I two time when we purchased property we reserved a portion of the sewage facility for Gonyea use.  Fortunately or unfortunately, the surrounding land was not suitable for development because it was too hilly and too rocky, so the developer basically gave up and the college made a good deal in my opinion.

EU:  Do you think there might be development around the college in the future?

BA:  That’s really a land use problem and I don’t know if we’re inside or outside the urban growth boundary. It will be difficult to do.  The infrastructure sewers, electricity is already here, sanitary sewers will be so expensive I think it would deter any development.
[15:00]
EU:  Were you involved with the actual design of the campus, the CenterBuilding and the facilities that were in there and how the buildings…

BA:  It’s really a fascinating story.  I go back to my clean slate, how do you build a campus from scratch.  Who do you talk to?  We took two trips to California and visited dozens of community colleges, actually junior colleges. Took a ten day trip – went as far as Southern California and northern San Diego.  Also stopped at Stanford University and talked to a group that we hired that specialized in drafting educational specifications for campuses.  And we came up with a lot of conclusions.  #1 was that we wanted to a make sure that our technical / vocational programs were not subservient to our academic transfer courses. How that replicated itself in the design was that we brought those buildings into the campus core conceptually. 

The second conclusion we made and I think it was unique was merging the Center Building with the Library.  The Student Center, all the food services in the same building as the library – it would increase foot traffic, not into the food services because that’s automatic, but into the Library and academic facilities, I think Counseling was also here – a student oriented building.  Student Services was also unique. 

I think it was also unique that we were advised to go for the largest bond issue we could possibly go for, rather than build the campus piecemeal.  It was more efficient, we got a better interest rates.  We were riding high on public acceptabilities.  So we felt we could pay it off, and we did.  Those were the things that occupied out time for about 3 years until this campus got built and people got here – both the  students, faculty, and administration

In the meantime we kept renting facilities for academic transfer courses.  We knew the demand was out there for this campus.  So the campus was built.

[18:00]

EU:  What were some of the decisions that you made in relation to the faculty – the academic offerings?

BA:  I think the academic offerings were really deferred to the president and his staff that was basically their job.  We knew that by statute that as a comprehensive community college that we were mandated to do academic transfer courses, we were mandated to do professional / technical courses, and we were mandated to provide those services at a reasonable cost.  I think that is what drove us.  I don’t think a Board member ever came in and said I think we should have such and such a course on campus.  We viewed that as a strictly administrative matter. We did approve the catalog, approve the offerings.

[19:00]

EU:  Dale Parnell was the first president, from ’65 to ‘68.  What was it like working with him?

BA:  He was an extraordinary man, a visionary, a great leader. Someone that probably was one of the most dynamic people I’ve ever met, and I’ve met a few.  He was certainly the best.  He was fair.  He was considerate.  He was strong.  He was firm. He was open.  He would consider alternatives.  He was just an outstanding performer and outstanding president. When he accepted the job as Superintendent of Public Instruction, it was really a visible loss for a while.  I don’t think we really did recover from that very well for three or four years.  Dale actually as I recall, was being groomed to be governor of this state. And the appointment for Superintendent of Public Instruction was part of that agenda.  In my opinion, what I used to hear.  What I think, going on hearsay and rumor, is that Dale decided he was not suited for political life and decided he wanted to stay within the community college area.  He became a nationwide leader in the community college movement.

[21:00]

EU:  Did you talk about shared governance in those days?

BA:  We didn’t call it shared governance.  I didn’t hear that phrase until maybe five or ten years ago.  I think we practiced shared governance.  I don’t think we tried to define it by writing it down.  By that I mean that Dale was a person who would consider any idea or any suggestion.  I think that was part of the way the Board functioned by allowing senior staff to be at the Board table, student body president to be at the Board table, and the faculty representatives (there weren’t unions then) at the Board table, allowed them equal access to the Board as well as access by the community to the Board.  I do think all of our decisions were made on a shared and open basis.  Had consensus on many different issues.  The mood was toward consensus. Tremendous amount of enthusiasm for this institution.
[22:30]
EU:  When we think back on the 1960s, we think about the civil rights movement, War in Vietnam, music, the counter culture.  Were those kinds of historical, social, or cultural events reflected here at Lane?

BA:  That’s a good question.  I did a lot of work at the University of Oregon at that time as a lawyer and defended many civil rights protestors and anti-war protestors.  So I was really very, very well acquainted as to what was going on campuses not only at the University of Oregon but nationwide.  I attended a number of nationwide conferences on those issues. 

The mood at Lane was certainly much more subdued. I think we had more of a serious type student.  I think we had an older student.  I think we had students that were financially pressed.  They had to put their education first and demonstrations second. I’m not saying these folks didn’t have concerns, and I know they did.  But for them I think it was more a quetion of their own priorities. Just a different type of student from the University of Oregon.  I’m convinced that our students just did not have time to protest to the extent which the students at the University of Oregon did.  Mainly because we had a lower social-economic class of students over here and survival was more important than protesting.  They just couldn’t afford it.  But the concern was here.  I’m trying to think of any instances that may have been troublesome.

I know in Larry Romine’s book he relates how Dale Parnell conferred with a number of students in the Black community and he was able to get a handle on it.

[24:30]

EU:  Getting back to the campus, to the dedication of the campus in 1968, Tom McCall was out here. I’ve seen pictures of him with…

BA:  ..a chain saw.  He cut a log which was a symbolic ribbon. I remember him with his hard had. Terraces.  February of 1968.  Freezing cold day. 

EU:  timber industry

BA:  I don’t know how that program was put together

[25:30]

EU:  You served with five other presidents.  Who were some of the more memorable ones.

BA:  Bob Pickering – there was a nationwide search with a poor result.  One Board member was particularly fond of this man, advocate in our executive sessions, defered to that type of reasoning.  Would never do that again.  An ethical, principled person, overt Christian.  Unfortunately, did not understand where Dale and the Board was taking the college.  Lost the support of the administrative staff.  Essentially a communication problem, not into the ‘shared governance’ philosophy, made autocratic decisions, lost his support.  I was vice-chair at that time, Dr. Matson was Board chair– authorized us inform Dr. Pickering that his contract would not be renewed.  He refused to believe it, a total shock, went into denial, was going to call out the community.  But eventually he left.  We made a poor choice and our selection reflected that.

[28:00]

The second person to pick up the presidency was Eldon Schafer.  Eldon was a cc president at Linn-Benton,  Wife was in law school here at the University of Oregon, was a good fit.  Interesting story is how he was selected.  Had a student body president whose name was Omar Barbarossa, Hispanic, very dynamic, charismatic, articulate.  Somewhat short in stature.  Always wore an orange serape with a black design.  We called him our “Super Mex”. Dynamic student, dynamic personality. Good to see students with that nature. At a campus meeting, Board members, senior staff, probably 70-80 people – an open forum on what type of president we should have.  Omar said he had just spent a day at Linn-Benton Community College, and had met Eldon, had met his wife Lucy (used first names) toured the campus with Eldon, talked with Lucy.  I was convinced that the reason he was chosen.  Omar hastened the process with his enthusiasm about this very dynamic couple.  And he was right.

[32:00]

After that, I left the Board then.  When I came back it was Jerry Moskus and on to Mary Spilde. I think Jerry probably knew his contract was coming up and maybe it would not be renewed and an incentive for early retirement.  He chose early retirement option.  Had a nationwide search and pulled one of our own.  One of the best top three decisions we made.  I think she’s dynamic, I think she’s great.  She knows the community colleges in Oregon.  I think she was a great choice.

[33:00]

EU:  3 top decisions.

BA:  The first decision was to form the district, the second was to build the campus at once, the best 3rd and 4th decisions were to hire Dale Parnell and Mary Spilde.

[33:30]

EU:  So you were on the Board for 8 years and then you left.  And you came back 25 years later.  What did you do in between?

BA:  I practiced law, I raised a family.  I moved from Springfield to Eugene. I served on the Springfield City Council.  For a while I served on the Citizens Utility Board for four years – it was a rate payers’ watchdog group formed by a vote of the people.  It had status as a state agency and I was it’s first chair.  So I was always somewhat indirectly involved in politics.  This seat came up and I guess my heart never left LCC and I decided to run again.  A lot happened in that 25 year period.

EU:  Was there one particular event that caused you to want to be involved with Lane again?

BA:  Pure political opportunity.  My heart was here, my head was here.  I missed the action that made this a great institution, and I wanted to come back. That opportunity came and I said let’s do it.

[35:00]

EU:  What were the differences between that first Board twenty-five years later and when you started serving again.  How did the Board change?

BA:  I don’t think the Board changed.  I think that over time that we had a pretty good idea of administrative matters – leaving administrative matters to the discretion of the president and staff. That line moved once in a while. The Board would get involved in administrative matters when there is a weakness in the administration or when something is not being done well.  We did that with President Moskus on a number of decisions – had some crisis situations when things were being handled poorly and the Board had to take more direct action. I think the Board senses that, if there is a power-void the Board steps in. 

[36:30]

I don’t think our basic philosophy has changed. Our issues today are more complicated and the consequences are greater.  And I think we are forced into more adm. matters than we were in the past.  For example, collective bargaining, budget crisis.  To department level analysis – want an open and clear decision making process.  Board is here to govern and governing means sometimes to sit down with the president and say ‘where are you coming from” – never had to do that with Mary Spilde.  Had a lot of long discussions with acting president Marie Matsen, when Mary came back about how to solve the issues.  A transition between Jerry Moskus and  Mary Spilde.

[37:00]

EU:  Have you noticed any differences with the students, faculty, staff?

BA:  Student are the same as I remember them 40 years ago – focused on their education, financially strapped, can’t afford to spend lot of time here, many will transfer to uo, are older, have family responsibilities.  More serious about academic mission.  one of early decisions was not to encourage football, didn’t want to be a farm team for the UO.  The play fields were set up for soccer, not football.  I think the students are the same. Hold them in highest regard. People come to me to say ‘thank you’ to LCC for changing their lives.  They are making twice or three times as much money.  Lot of touching stories.  UO can’t say that.

[40:30]

Changes of faculty and staff dynamic is the most change.  Collective bargaining and strategy involved in collective bargaining.  As a long-time union member, I agree with collective. Bargaining.  When I came back in 1999 it became extremely adversarial, very personal, lacked focus and directions, mainly an exercise of power rather than an exercise of community spirit.  At the beginning bargained directly with faculty. Maybe not any easier, but spirit and technique was different.  I encouraged Mary to put away the 1930s model where you had to threaten strike.  I think that is demeaning to faculty.  If they want to be treated as professionals, they have to act as professionals. 

[44:00]

In 1960s, another example of how ensitivities were different - we moved into this campus before it was completely finished. We were teaching here but weren’t done. Students trudged through mud, never had a complaint – about mud, parking, noise.  Looked at school as a matter of pride.  Just went through capital construction – but sensitivities are different.

Turned tape over.

[45:00]

EU:  stories about some of the students

BA:  Here is my best story.  This is about a man who is fifty-five-years-old. He had a wife, child going to high school ready to go away to college.  Working at a movie theater at minimum wage, no benefits.  Has that job for 20 years.  Wife works sporadically.  Drive old beat-up pick-up truck. Uses wood as a heating source because electricity is too expensive.  Nice people, but in dead end jobs.  Has one talent, artistic ability.  Comes to Lane for the graphic design program.  Because he has to work, it takes him four years to get through a two year program.  Makes a portfolio, immense success here on campus, gets his degree.  Goes back to his dead end job.  Should get out and sell yourself, get out there and try to get work.  So he says OK, I’ll do that. First job he interviews for is Country Coach in Junction City, gets hired immediately as a graphic designer.  I’m sure making good money, good benefits, job of a lifetime.  Now he said, thank you.  The reason that story is so poignant is that he’s my brother.

[47:30]          

Typical story – guy is working as desk clerk, 3 kids, struggling, getting a divorce.  He decides to make a break.  Found a program at OSU, fast track to get an education degree, needed to come to Lane to get some basic stuff first.  And he did complete that.  Day he got his first teaching job, a client of mine.  Came and said thank you’.  People can basically double their income by coming out here – nursing program is renowned.  Can’t get enough welders out here to train.  Great turn around.  So many parents want their kids to become doctors and lawyers when maybe they aren’t suited for that and there are so many opportunities available – and that’s what we’re here for.  And I have many many more – I have students who go to the UO and pop up in the Legislature as lobbyists.  These are primarily people in student government.

[50:00]

EU:  Legislature – you served in the State House since 1999 or 2000

BA:  Yes, I was in the 2001 and 2003 sessions.  I’m running for reelection for the 2005 session.  So I’ve had 2 sessions behind me  - 2 general sessions and 5 special sessions.  So I’m somewhat of a veteran even though I’ve only been there for two terms.

EU:  Why did you run for the House – what was your motivation?

BA:  I was always interested in doing that.  Again it was a question of timing and opportunity.  I was phasing down my legal practice and a seat came open where I lived, in former district 39, my predecessor was term-limited out, and the party thought I was a natural person to take that one on.  I stayed on the Board during that first legislative session / term, I was Board chair.  The Eugene Register/Guard did an editorial on me saying I should resign, I shouldn’t hold two elected positions. I kind of agree with a little bit. Three reasons why I stayed on.  (1), we were at the mid-point of our capital construction program, which I thought had been delayed too long, and we were going on a nationwide search for a president because Dr. Moskus was going to retire, and I felt that the Board would have continuity for me to be there.  The other reason was that a Board member told me he didn’t think I couldn’t physically or mentally do it, and that pissed me off, so I said, I’ll show you. So many, many times when there was a Board meeting and my day would go like this – I would have to be in the Capital by 7:30 or 8 for a committee meeting, then a floor session at 10:00, eat off a tray, go to a committee meeting from 1-3 or later if necessary, get in a car and drive to LCC to get to a 4:30 work session and be here until 10 or 11 at night.  Go home that night. Then drive up the next morning at 6:00 to be in place by 8:00 o’clock.  So I put in some very, very long days.  But I did it. And I resigned because the reasons for me to stay were no longer relevant.  The capital construction was winding down and everything seemed to be in place. President Spilde had been here for quite a considerable period of time and I thought the extent that she relied on me at the beginning, it was not necessary to do that any more.  So it was time to leave.

[54:00]

EU:  The political climate and the fiscal realities of the state, in Oregon in the past couple of years.  How has that impacted on the challenges facing community colleges.

BA:  It’s been astronomical.  I still think that the public sector is in denial.  I think the Legislature has softened or masks the extent of budget crisis. I think that you will feel the full brunt of our fiscal crisis if the current tax measure gets on the ballot and fails.  We will have to disappropriate $ 800 million out of the budget and the cuts will be significant.  The only reason we kept things afloat so well is because we made selective cuts.  And against my vote the Legislature authorized $450 million of borrowing in the special session on ’01 and that mitigated the impact of our cuts.  I think the philosophy may be, if this tax measure fails, that the Legislature will not have any income sources to meet this, the full brunt of this crisis will be felt, particularly on the public sector.  The private sector has already felt that impact.  I think the public sector is more insulated, I think the public sector people have an unrealistic idea of how bad the crisis is. 

[55:30]

EU:  How have the fiscal challenges impacted the community colleges?

BA:  Negatively and what’s happened again, against my vote, was hat we are balancing our budget off of the backs of our students who are low income by definition, so our students are accumulating more and more debt because tuition is increased and loan repayment rates and see there is a very high default rate.  So we are financing our public institutions by exorbitant tuition increases forcing our students into debt.  I don’t think that is good public policy so I think we need to cut some programs, or raise revenue modestly, or ask our school boards to be more prudent in restricting budgets. I tried to do that for 4 years when I was on the Board. Institutions are by nature very protective of their resources. When I asked at a Board meeting for a breakout about how much we spent on consultants and out-of-state travel the immediate administrative response was that we cannot provide that to you.  They said our computers don’t pick that up or some lame excuse.  And I said, get it.  Because what we found is that about $700,000 was being paid for consultants and out-of-state travel and I thought a lot of that could be avoided. 

There’s also a sleight of hand goes on in accounting – not illegal – an accounting technique.  We’re talking fiscal crisis at the college level.  What intrigued me one night we’d get the budget document and it would have so much for income and so much for expenses and they would always balance out, so it always looked like we had a zero balance at the end of the year.  And if you looked at the audit it showed a great cash flow coming in more than anticipated.  I couldn’t make the connection between why the budget zeroed everything out, and the audit said at the end of the year you had an extra $7 million.  I eventually figured it out – if department A was given the authority to spend say a million dollars and the budget document assumed that that money was spent, but what was happening was that departments were only spending a portion of their allocation and that was carrying a cash carryover that was never shown in the public budget.  So we tried to flush out some of that money back into the general budget.

Those kind of hard decisions have to be made on an institutional-wide basis and the Board is the only one to do that.  I think the staff and faculty is too protective of its prerogative.  I suggested one way to raise money very quickly would be to raise food prices at the food center  - you get twice as much on your plate as you do downtown and it costs less.  It might be another million dollars.  Nobody wanted to go there because that’s a perk everyone enjoys.  But they didn’t want to go there.  Those are some of the realities I tried to pursue to get a greater deal of accountability.

[60:00]

EU:  How will Lane change in the next five years?

 BA:  I think institutions are basically incapable of change until there is a crisis and until they feel the full brunt of the crisis I don’t think there will be change.  The only change I see are less opportunities for less increases in salaries and fringe benefits.  About 80% of your costs are tied up in personnel costs and I think we’re going to reach the time when we can’t raise tuition any more and there will be a full freeze on salaries – we almost have that in effect now.  I don’t see the institution changing that much.

[60:30]

EU:  Looking back over the last 40 years, what do you think are the main strengths of Lane?

BA:  I think it’s overall educational offerings, everything from academic transfer to technical/vocational, to all the outreach programs.  I think that’s the greatest strength.  I think there’s a real effort on the Board’s part to do more in terms of diversity.  I think overall those were the strengths 40 years ago and those are still the strengths now, and they should be.  It’s too bad in light of our budget cutbacks we had to shut down some of the outreach centers, but I would certainly think that if there are real changes that we might have more changes telecourses, where people can basically take their course work home and work on the internet.  Unions will resist that because it will take away individual instruction.  If faculty price themselves out of the market that would be the next step.

[62:30]

EU:  What do you think Lane be like in the next forty years?

BA:  Next forty? Well, maybe I’ll just add  - more and more offerings on the internet where folks can stay home and do work on their personal computer, take test on the computer. Instead of coming to campus 3 days a week, to meet maybe once a week to dialog with the teacher Most of the course work would be on personal computers. I don’t think that it’s a better way to go.  I think individual instructors are extremely, extremely important.  But I do know that I use the computer a lot.  I had 2 legal projects due this week and I just didn’t want to go downtown to the library and risk a parking ticket and all that.  So maybe I can just work it out on the computer. I resolved both of my problems just on the internet.

[64:00]

EU:  What would you like your legacy to be?

BA:  I don’t think of that.  I don’t know what a legacy is. I really don’t know.  I haven’t thought of that.  I don’t think of myself as a historic figure.  I think maybe as an educational activist - I’d like to be known as that. I think there should be more educational activists particularly at the Board level.  I think we have to inquire.  I don’t mean to say that everything the administration does is suspect or wrong.  But we have to be in the dialog as to how decisions are made.  And be able to be creative and critical constructively at times we think that’s necessary.  I think that gives a better result.  I’ll settle for that.

EU:  Is there anything else?  Any questions I haven’t asked?  Any areas you would like to go into, to put it into perspective of forty years?

BA:  I don’t think so.

EU:  More stories to tell?

[66:00]

BA:  Oh, I’ve got lots of stories.  I can’t think of anything that we haven’t covered in one fashion or another.  I’m cranking it around in my head.  I’ll repeat that I think community colleges are underrated. I don’t think our staff, our faculty, and leadership on campus or statewide knows that.  I think we are intimidated by the four-year institutions, by the University of Oregon.  I think are intimidated.  I think we feel that we are the ugly step-sister.  I think we sometimes feel that we are inferior.  And none of those things are true. 

I gave a speech like that during the Legislature. The OCCA invited the Board up, I guess it was a convention, the Board members were having a convention and senior staff people and some faculty.  We invited 3 or 4 legislators who were doing work in the educational field and that included me because I was doing work in educational advocacy.  I gave a speech pretty much just like I gave to you and I told them it was time for them to step up and get rid of the inferiority complex. It was the first time in my life when I ended my speech nobody applauded.  I don’t know that they were stunned, or mad, or in disbelief.  I have no idea.  I still to this day I cannot figure out what happened.

[67:30]

I’d like to give you an example locally on campus. In my last year because of the funding crisis I felt the our Foundation here should crank up and I don’t say they do a bad job, they do an adequate job, and go on a year-long in perpetuity fund raising campaign, much like the University of Oregon does.  They raise a huge amount of money.  I even went to talk to the auditors of the Foundation.  We were administering four or five trusts and the University of Oregon had something like a thousand.  I was convinced that we could really supplement our general fund by a sustained capital program.  The administrative response was to hire a consultant for $15,000 and the consultant comes back with the answer everyone wants to hear, well it’s too early, we’re competing with the University of Oregon, were competing with Peace Health because they’re just building a new hospital, ya da da da.  I said that’s not the way it was forty years ago, we were willing to take a chance.  We were willing to go for it if it was necessary.  Particularly with the bond issue on the ballot -we we willing to go for the whole thing and the public gave it to us.  I think there was intimidation.  I think that something was built in there.  I had a hard time believing that the consultant would say that. I’d probably find that the consultant did not know the community attitude.  They took surveys, they took opinion polls, and da da da.  The general fund subsidizes the Foundation, pays some of their expenses.  So as long as they are subsidized, there’s no incentive to move.  That’s the kind of inertia that I’ve been trying to overcome and its really been hard.  The institution doesn’t want to move.  I don’t know where it is now – maybe the Foundation hides behind the consultants report and says it’s too early or too late.  And I think they could do much more than they are doing.

[70:00]

BA:  Anything else you need from me?

EU: That’s the end of my questions.

BA:  I just want to say that in conclusion.  I’m not the kind of person that goes along, but on the other hand I hope that sometimes I’ve been inquisitive or adversarial.  That I was trying to seek a more constructively based result.  I know I didn’t get personal at any time with any one person.  If we or I as a Board saw that things were not happening – at least what my expections were regarding our educational landscape, it certainly became a Board issue with me.  I hope that in that respect we made a difference.  I think the current Board will be less activist and there’ll be less incentive to change as a result.  I’m not saying thats good or bad, but because of the financial situation that’s the only stance they can take right now.  We’re lucky that we have a good staff to deal with some of the problems that the college will be facing during the financial crisis. 

Otherwise, I don’t know – it will take another 2 hours – 1 hour – two hours.

EU:  Over an hour and fifteen minutes.

BA:  an hour and a half.  Anything else you want to talk about?

EU:  That’s it for me.

BA:  That’s enough.  OK. Good.

EU:  Thank you very much.                                                  [End:  72:00]