A report released Wednesday by a former president of the University of Oregon recommends that the state convert one or all of its three largest universities, including Oregon State, into public corporations, a move the report said would help the universities become more financially independent and better structured to meet future challenges.

The report, written by Dave Frohnmayer at the request of Oregon University System Chancellor George Pernsteiner, calls for the Legislature to pass at its February session a bill that would allow the State Board of Higher Education to designate OSU, the University of Oregon and Portland State University public corporations, similar to Oregon Health & Science University.

It's not a new idea: Presidents of Oregon's seven universities - including, at that time, Frohnmayer - made a similar pitch in 2002. But in his report Wednesday, and in a subsequent visit with the editorial board at the Gazette-Times, Frohnmayer said that the state's financial support for its public universities has only continued to erode since then; in fact, his report said, measured in constant dollars, state funding for the university system has declined 44 percent from the 1989-1992 period to 2005-07.

His report warned of "serious dangers in Oregon's struggle to provide adequate higher education opportunities for our deserving citizenry. We are currently on course to lose that struggle."

Under his proposal, the public corporations that would govern OSU, the University of Oregon or Portland State would have their own governing board, responsible for overseeing all university operations, including setting tuition rates, admission standards and managing its own costs and revenues. The State Board of Higher Education would "insist on measurable goals for improved performance by the entities it would bring into existence," Frohnmayer's report said.

The public corporations would have much broader latitude than the universities do now in managing state money: The report noted that state money meant for its universities is divided among more than 6,300 budgetary lines, leading to frustrated campus officials who cannot always "steward scarce public dollars effectively," the report said.

The report also recommends giving the public corporations bonding authority, incentives for philanthropic support or even a local or regional tax base - all potential methods to improve a university's finances.

The report and its recommendations are worthy of serious debate and discussion in Salem and throughout the state. Whether the Legislature will be inclined to give them the attention they need in its February session - a session that likely will be dominated by continued budgetary shortfalls - is another question entirely.

Already, one key legislator has questioned whether the February session is the right place to discuss such potentially far-reaching changes.

Richard Devlin, the Senate majority leader, told the Oregonian on Wednesday that "I don't think we should rush to judgment on something so big without consulting Oregonians about what direction they want to go."

But that comes with a touch of irony: The budget worries that likely will consume much of the Legislature's time in February could well continue to slash away at the state's support for higher education. And putting it off in February means that the Legislature wouldn't return to the issue until 2011.

The key issues Frohnmayer raises might sound familiar to anyone who's been watching the debate over the "OSU 2025" initiative on campus. In fact, it's worth remembering that the entire rationale for OSU President Ed Ray's initiative is to make OSU less reliant on volatile state funding.

Those underlying issues aren't going away; if anything, they've been building for the last quarter of a century. The economic downturn has only brought them into sharper focus. We're kidding ourselves if we think they'll be improving by 2011.

The Legislature needs to carve out time in February to take up Frohnmayer's recommendations.