Meeting Date: 
December 8, 2022
12/08/2022 9:00 am to 10:00 am
Zoom Meeting
  1. Visit from Wade Marcum, Senior Associate Dean, College of Engineering (9:05-9:20 AM)
  1. Visit from Alix Gitelman, Senior Vice Provost (9:25-9:40 AM)
  1. CIM Proposals (9:45 AM)
    • Science and Technology of Alcoholic Beverages Certificate, Key #725 – New Undergraduate Certificate
  1. Motion for College of Education Restructuring (9:50 AM)
  1. Report Back from University Budget Advisory Committee (9:55 AM)
  1. Adjournment

Voting members present: Frank Chaplen, Mary Gardner, Jeff Luck, Filix Maisch, Joseph Page, Shawn Tucker, Yvette Spitz
Voting members absent: No members absent
Ex-Officio members present: Budget & Resource Planning Office - Sherm Bloomer
Guests present: Alix Gitelman, McKenzie Huber, Wade Marcum


Visit from Wade Marcum, Senior Associate Dean, College of Engineering (9:05-9:20 AM)

  • Provided some perspectives on how the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee (BFP) might better review cross-college programs.
  • BFP role – advisement of budgets as it relates to colleges, specifically.
  • College of Engineering (COE) has a number of new programs they are working on. Some are intercollege collaborations
  • Nuances come up as to how students are supported by cross-cutting programs.
  • Wade believes it would a good role for the BFP to fill in reviewing these intercollege collaborative programs. The committee could offer different perspectives.
  • Example: two colleges set up a program that is mutually beneficial; it appears to be a win for both programs involved. But depending on the nature of the program, students will require specific services. How will those services be offered? Within which college will they be offered? Having another set of eyes in the process to ensure that the university or a particular college is not overburdened would be beneficial to all parties.
    • If the committee were to be included in this process, sufficient context would be needed within the budget narrative to ensure an informed decision is being made.
    • How does this differ from the current review process?
      • It is somewhat done by the committee, but not with intention – the intent would be to add more of a decentralized approached to the review process.
      • Some sort of MOU or agreement between the colleges included in the budget narrative would facilitate things down the road.
        • MOU’s are not legally binding, but they create transparency and institutional knowledge that allows for new people coming into roles to understand the processes in place.
  • Would the BFP need to do any kind of follow-up to ensure that agreements are being followed? Should audits or a review process be put in place?
    • Such a thing would likely require a change in the committee charge.
    • A new process would need to be put into place so information could be sent to the committee.
    • A report at some point in the future may be beneficial to the colleges or the committee from a review standpoint.
      • The Curriculum Council does program reviews every 10 years. Could a budget component be included in the review process?

Visit from Alix Gitelman, Senior Vice Provost (9:25-9:40 AM)

  • What is the committee’s understanding and intention behind the White Paper?
    • Overlap between the BFP and the Bacc Core Gen Ed Budget Implementation Committee at this time is unclear
    • One of the earlier recommendations was to modify the charge of the BFP – the chair feels it is, at times, it is unclear how the committee can best serve the university.
      • There is little knowledge on campus of the committee and what its duties entail.
    • Is the committee better structured as an ad hoc committee?
    • It was noted that colleges will often already do financial analysis before putting a program forward.
      • The cross-college accounting issue was offered as a task suited to the BFP, rather than having the committee focus on program proposals.
      • They could also be a mechanism for a comprehensive budget review for existing programs going through major structural changes.
        • Example: The Ecological Engineering program is moving to another option format and would like to incorporate other courses from outside the program. A budget review for the program change could be beneficial.
    • It was noted from a faculty standpoint that the budget is often written with the best expectations in mind but some programs have wound up underbudgeted with faculty struggling.
      • Could the BFP have caught this issue?
      • Biochemistry & Biophysics was adding the Cascades Campus as a location and the BFP had some concerns about the funding of a key piece of equipment that seemed very under budgeted. The BFP caught that and went back to the originator to discuss the budget for this item and encourage conversation.
      • What can be included in proposal documents that would make things more effective and efficient for all involved?
        • Allow originators to include the BFP in the workflow for change program proposals.

CIM Proposals (9:45 AM)

  • Science and Technology of Alcoholic Beverages Certificate, Key #725 – New Undergraduate Certificate
    • Review the proposal via email. If there are no serious concerns, it can be approved before the holiday.

Action: Frank Chaplen motioned to review this proposal over email and shelve until the next meeting; seconded. Motion passed with 7 votes in favor, 0 votes opposing and 0 votes in abstention.

Motion for College of Education Restructuring (9:50 AM)

Action: Frank Chaplen motions to accept the following: The Faculty Senate Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee supports the College of Education restructuring plan and was particularly appreciative of level of detail provided in the budget Narrative. The Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee further appreciated the willingness of the Originator (Dean Gardner) and Finance Manager (Leroy Fenn) for the College of Education to visit and answer questions regarding the underlying assumptions of the budget documents; seconded. Motion passed with 7 votes in favor, 0 votes opposing and 0 votes in abstention.

Report Back from University Budget Advisory Committee (9:55 AM)

  • Tuition cohorts – once a student enrolls, they will only see their tuition rise at the inflation level. There is a discussion about putting a limit on that – tuition will rise at the inflation level for 6 years.
    • Would it make sense to sync the tuition roll with the catalog change? The BRPO is not familiar with the catalog rollover but does not necessarily see a need to sync them up.
  • The Budget Model Revision Advisory Committee has been meeting and is zeroing in on some recommendations to changes to the Budget Model.
  • Discussions on how much to increase tuition for new students vs current students. Discussions about raising the tuition for incoming students a bit more to aid in the development and support of new programs.