Budget Planning Council

February 23, 2007

M I N U T E S

 

Present:  Bill Decatur, Kathy Krendl (co-chairs), Darrell Winefordner, John Day, Gail Houlette, Wendy Merb-Brown, Morgan Vis, Joe McLaughlin, Dominic Barbato, Morgan Allen, and David Thomas

Absent: Greg Shepherd, Phyllis Bernt, Richard Irwin, Rich Carpinelli, Aimee Howley and Gary Neiman

 

Faculty Compensation Task Force Report) 

  • Provost Krendl distributed copies of the Faculty Compensation Task Force report. Provost Krendl emphasized that she was committed to this increase in faculty compensation.  She also emphasized that “faculty who are most effectively serving the University will be rewarded/eligible for the structural realignment funding…i.e. differentially to individual faculty who have demonstrated sustained past performance in achieving college and institutional goals over the previous five years.”

BPC Meetings

  • Please note the listing of future meetings; recommendations from this group will form the plan/information to be presented to the Board of Trustees at the April meeting
  • Provost Krendl indicated that Student Financial Aid needed to process packages by mid-March.  After discussion, BPC recommended that Student Financial Aid assume a 3% increase in order to package the financial aid offers. Student Financial Aid will provide analysis for future use.

 

1.  Draft Guiding Principles (based on brainstorming) BPC discussed the guiding principles document that Darrell had E-mailed members prior to the meeting.  Provost Krendl emphasized that these principles were usually included in the University’s budget book and would become a part of the Committees official record.

  • There was a discussion on the need to have quality metrics to measure the “productivity” term in principle #8.  Provost Krendl indicated that the Deans were working on these measured.
  • Members were requested to have any suggested revisions to Darrell by next Wednesday, February 28, 2007.

 

2.  Student Fee Process A member of BPC raised concern that departments that previously had held fees stable now will not able to institute new fees.  The term “moratorium” was emphasized.  While we will not accept new fees now, we will begin process in the Fall that will require that we develop parameters (guidelines).

  • Student representatives alerted the BPC they were endorsing a student activity fee.  A discussion of this topic included advisement that any fee charged to all students would be subject to the cap.
  • The committee noted that the need for guidelines would especially be needed, given the incentives to generate revenue under new RCB.

 

3.      Establishing a primary scenario and developing a plan to close the budget gap

 

The committee discussed a document that outlined a process to lead discussions regarding the development of a primary scenario to take to the Board of Trustees in April. Included in our discussion were:

 

Enrollments and Revenues

  • John Day, Mike Williford and Darrell  Winefordner are in the process of revising enrollment numbers and developing a more comprehensive understanding  of how those revenues ultimately are deposited (central university vs. departmental).
  • BPC discussed that there would be various enrollment estimates; (a) conservative estimates that we will use to budget on, (2) projected based on our goals and aspirations.  We will report actual enrollments against each of these estimates.
  • We discussed whether to use a 4 % or 3 % tuition increase.  We will hope for a 4 % increase but use the 3 % for our base model, and prioritize how we would use additional funding if it becomes available.
  • BPC recommended that Darrell use the 3% undergraduate instructional fee, 6% graduate instructional fee, 3 % General Fee, and 0% non-resident surcharge to create the model for the April BOT meeting
  • We agreed that under an RCB model each College would be able to value graduate education by “buying down the fee”.  
  • There was consensus that further study is needed to develop a tuition and pricing strategy at all levels and categories.

 

Planning unit targets

  • Need to provide planning units with their reductions soon 
  • Contingency Planning (Planning unit reductions)
  • For next meeting we will discuss:
    • Planning unit reductions and budgets to provide a context of historical actions.
    • A list of standard exemptions and the dollars produced by various exemption scenarios.
  • We discussed the need to define the amount of budget reductions would be necessary.  A suggestion was made that these reductions would need to in the range of $8 million.

Cost savings and revenue enhancements

  • Identify “low hanging fruit” with savings/revenue enhancements that can be accomplished in FY 2008
  • Review university wide and business process savings or revenue enhancements
  • Review Early Retirement (Phased Retirement) program for faculty and define expectations (3 year window)

 

Other revenue and savings ideas offered by BPC members at the meeting

  • Freeze administrator salaries
  • Implement the manner that Hudson Health Center is funded and operated
  • Can we restructure or eliminate University College?
  • A discussion of Anthem as the University’s Third Party Administrator and long-term health care savings.
  • King Air and University Airport Deficit (sell King Air $5M)
    • Airport and Avionics have moved to a business model to assist with the deficit
  • ICA deficit; specifically football.

o       Morgan Vis indicated that she was a faculty representative on a committee that is reviewing  ICA’s operation and that it will provide a report to the President

  • Is a SIS purchase needed at a cost of $20M?

 

4.      BPC had a brief discussion of the resolution from Student Senate outlining 11 recommendations from students, based on responses from a Student Senate sponsored forum to seek student perspectives about diversity and solutions for overcoming the University’s retention shortfalls.  Each member of BPC will be forwarded a copy of the resolution.

 

Handouts for today’s meeting