Draft Draft Draft (01nov28mins)



Present:          Bryant, DiMagno, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller, Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt, Wolf


Absent:           Prochaska-Cue, Scheideler


Date:               Wednesday, November 28, 2001


Location:        201 Canfield Administration Building

1.0    Call to Order

         Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.


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 11/14/01 Minutes

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 4:55 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, December 5th at 3:00 p.m. in the Academic Senate Conference Room, 420 University Terrace.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and James King, Secretary of the Executive Committee.