EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt,
Wolf
Absent: Prochaska-Cue,
Scheideler
Date:
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Exemplary Service
to Students Award Committee
Bryant asked the committee to submit names of
faculty who might be willing to serve on this committee.
2.2 Academic Planning Committee Schedule
Bryant reported that the APC will be very busy
in the upcoming months with the review of pre-proposals requesting funding
for identified priority programs and the budget reduction process.
He stated that in January the committee will be discussing Chancellor
Perlman’s identified areas for budget reductions.
He noted that in February, public hearings would be held by the APC
regarding these reductions.
3.0 Chancellor
Perlman
3.1 Budget Reductions
Chancellor Perlman distributed a list describing where the budget cuts
would be made for this year. He stated
that he would make the list public once President Smith has had the opportunity
to review it. He noted that the total
reductions would come to $1,813,453. He
pointed out that the largest cuts were made in areas where the funds have not
yet been spent.
Bryant asked what kind of summer sessions courses would be cut. SVCAA Edwards stated that classes with low
enrollment for the past 3 years would be cut.
He noted that courses that have special circumstances, such as field
schools that can only meet during the summer, would be exempt from the
cuts. He pointed out the elimination of these
summer courses would not delay anyone from getting a degree or damage
programs. He stated that the cuts would
be spread broadly across the campus.
Whitt asked if the cuts to the library would be significant enough to prevent
us from catching up later on. SVCAA
Edwards stated that the cuts would come from decreased support for the purchase
of monographs and computer support. He
noted that the cuts to library computing will affect future plans to activate
some ports and that the cuts should not have a serious impact on existing
services.
Wolf noted that the reductions were better than what was expected. Chancellor Perlman stated that the budget
reductions for next year will be more difficult and look considerably
different.
Chancellor Perlman stated that he would be showing the list of reductions
to the Academic Planning Committee in a meeting immediately following this
meeting with the Executive Committee. They
would then go to President Smith. He
noted that the APC has raised some concerns with the general budget
framework. He stated that most of their
concerns can be addressed and accepted, but there are two issues that need to
be resolved. He stated the first issue deals
with the request for areas to develop a scenario of a 5% reduction. He noted that the APC suggests instead a 4%
reduction. He pointed out that while we
are currently only being asked for a 2.5% reduction, he is concerned about
several things that could have an impact on our budget. He stated that some of these considerations
are the cost of utilities which is projected to be $1 million more than what was
expected. He stated that property
liability is up $300,000 due to September 11th. He noted that administration is concerned
about a $700,000 shortfall in tuition revenue and that there is the possibility
that in January, the legislature could request more than a 2.5% reduction. He stated that another concern of the APC is
whether or not they will have hearings on 2.5% or the full 5% reductions being
requested. He pointed out that he does
not want to publicly surface programs for reductions that ultimately won’t be
reduced. He noted that he would be
discussing these issues with the APC.
3.2 Issues on the Horizon
No issues were discussed.
4.0 SVCAA Edwards
and VC Owens
4.1 Quality Indicators
Chancellor Perlman stated that he and the Vice Chancellors have been
working on a draft of the quality indicators for the campus. He pointed out that the development of these
indicators has been directed by the Board of Regents. He noted that they would be presented as a
tentative document to the Board on December 8th. He stated that they will ask the Board if
they are on the right track in developing these indicators, and if so, they
will request that they be allowed to take them back to the campus for further
development and faculty input.
SVCAA Edwards stated that they have identified 43 indicators, 13 of which
are considered primary indicators. He
noted that there are five basic areas:
Undergraduate Instruction; Graduate, Professional, and Post-doctoral
Education; Research and Creative Activity; Outreach and Engagement; and Other
Contributors to a Profile of Excellence.
The primary indicators for each section are:
Undergraduate
Instruction:
- 6
year graduation rate
- the
number of national competitive awards won by undergraduates
- the
percent of graduating students who had a meaningful research or creative
activity experience
Graduate, Professional, and Post-doctoral
Education
- the
number of nationally competitive awards won by graduate students
- an
index of success at licensure exams
- the
number of presentations, publications, or invited exhibitions made by graduate
students
Research and Creative Activity
- federal
research dollars expended
- index
of national scholarly work
- number
of honor awards or high recognition
Outreach and Engagement:
- number
of participants in non-residential educational programs (includes distance
education)
- quality
of direct interactions between faculty and outside community
- economic
impact from direct faculty-private interactions
- narrative
vignettes
Other Contributors to Excellence
- number
of students of color in overall percentage of campus population
- index
of faculty diversity
The committee discussed what defines a
“meaningful research experience or creative activity” for students. DiMagno suggested that the term positive
experience be used instead of meaningful.
Chancellor Perlman pointed out that they hope to see a unifying theme
that students learn to solve problems in a rational way. DiMagno asked if the information was going to
be used as a platform from which to make budgetary decisions or whether it will
be used to see if trends exist.
Chancellor Perlman stated that the data can not be used to compare
numbers with different kinds of programs.
He noted that the information would allow departments to see if they are
functioning in their own context.
SVCAA Edwards stated that they eventually
hope to make information regarding the index of national scholarly work
public. He pointed out that the colleges
would define the criteria for this index.
Miller stated that this would be valuable information because it would
show the public the work that is being done by the university. SVCAA Edwards stated that they are making an
effort to insure that research is not measured in terms of amount of grant
funding received.
VC Owens noted that the Outreach and
Engagement indicators where difficult to determine. Bryant pointed out that the cost of acquiring
much of this information could be very labor intensive. SVCAA Edwards stated that they do not want to
wind up with a long list of tasks that need to be completed and that they hope
to have much of the data already available.
Siekman noted that extension personnel already keep data on much of the
information being requested. He asked
when the quality indicators would be made available to the faculty. SVCAA Edwards stated that they would be
available after December 8th.
He noted that they hope to present the indicators with the understanding
that they would like to develop them further with the input of the
faculty. Fuller noted that the faculty
are concerned with how the data will be used.
She stated that there is concern that they will be used to micromanage
the budgets of colleges and departments.
Bryant noted that many of the indicators do not apply to particular
units. Fuller pointed out that if units
do not fit the indicators they could be viewed as not contributing to the
quality of the institution. SVCAA
Edwards stated that they developed 43 indicators specifically to try to cover
all units. Bryant asked if the data
would be made public to the colleges.
SVCAA Edwards stated that he hopes they will eventually have all data on
a website, particularly data pertaining to the number of awards won.
4.2 Issues on the Horizon
SVCAA Edwards stated that while there is currently a hiring close down in
most areas, administration would be looking at critical positions that need to
be filled or where there is a great opportunity hire. He stated that some departments might be able
to hire but that this number would be small.
DiMagno suggested that when the budget reductions are presented to
President Smith that information be provided on the number of searches that
were being conducted before the hiring close down, as well as historical
information, regarding the number of faculty hired over the last few
years.
SVCAA Edwards stated that the APC is in the process of reviewing the
pre-proposals for additional funding submitted by the identified priority
programs.
5.0 Approval of
Fuller moved and Wolf seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
6.0 Unfinished
Business
No unfinished business
was discussed.
7.0 New Business
7.1 Pepsi Quasi Endowment Funds
Bryant reported that Scheideler will continue to serve on the Pepsi Quasi Endowment Fund Advisory Committee. He stated that the committee has not met to determine the allocations for this year. Wolf stated that there is concern with the procedures for applying for these funds and the process used to determine the allocations. He suggested that the Executive Committee should issue a formal request for proposals, an explanation of the kinds of projects funded, and the criteria used in awarding these projects funding. Bryant suggested that the Executive Committee meet with Vice Chancellor Jackson to discuss these concerns.
The meeting was adjourned at