Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee

Voting members present: Dave Feeney, Drew Ibarra, Denise Lach, Corina Rampola
Voting members absent: Gloria Crisp, David Pham, John Talbot
Guests present: Mina Carson, Vickie Nunnemaker, Jeff Sherman

Category I Proposals

• Biological Data Sciences #106498 – New Degree Program
  • Web Proposal
    • What is their teaching load for faculty?
      • Salary still feels rather low.
    • Chair will follow-up and forward an email response to the committee.
• Dual Language #106528 – New Certificate Program
  • Web Proposal
    • Currently delivered.
    • No operating adjustments or costs.
    • Drew Ibarra moved to approve, seconded; motion carries.
• English for Speakers of Other Languages #106509 – New Certificate Program
  • Web Proposal
    • Currently delivered
    • No operating adjustments or costs
    • Drew Ibarra moved to approve, seconded; motion carries.
• Master’s Degree in History #104974 – New Degree Program
  • Web Proposal
    • No commitment for faculty lines
    • Pending approval
    • Support for grad students – a lot of ‘ifs’
    • The funds for students could be used elsewhere and if that occurs there could be not enough funds
    • No library funds budgeted – 700 per year
    • 10,000 for construction – what are they remodeling? Potentially an office pod, but it’s not clear if that is what the budget is for
    • There is a large chance for overspending
    • How is student success measured?
      • The college keeps track of what graduates have gone on to do.
    • Graduate student funding is at .20 but the grad school says a year round contract is required unless it is summer, which allows for hourly
      • There is a lot of issues with their tuition remission, fees and insurance and what their expected FTE will be.
      • Waiting for a response
    • Inaccuracy between narrative and tables
    • Endowment – corpus or earnings?
    • Nothing from 1 time budget was added to the four year budget
    • Grad student hiring practices – hourly, allotted FTE
    • Pending approval
    • Are faculty okay with absorbing additional workload?

Budget Committee

• Introductions
  • Jeff Sherman, Executive Committee Liaison and Mina Carson, Faculty Senate President are joining the discussion.
• University Budget and Fiscal Planning Office Update
  • HECC requires a university-wide budget committee.
  • They make recommendations on tuition and the budget model to the board.
    • Removing incentive for graduation certificates, majors.
      • Short-term programs are developing that are not necessarily relevant so departments can receive more incentive bonuses.
      • Certificates only; degrees are not affected. Nothing has been definitively been put into policy yet.
    • Discussion or short-term and long-term reduction to reduce impact
      • Functionally, what does every office house?
      • How would costs be distributed?
        • Committee to facilities and maintenance of equipment.
      • Should the university invest in the $5mil renewal plan? Or will they need to hold off on it and invest it in other areas.
      • There is a decrease in enrollment.
      • Was there discussion in ‘redistributing the wealth’ in departments who are weighted more and who wind up with more budget than other departments. Are some colleges being over-invested in at a detriment to other departments and students/student resources.
        • There was a response from the Provost, as it has been brought up by other Faculty.
• How does the Budget and Fiscal Planning Committee (BFP) support the mission of the Faculty Senate?
  • The Category 1 reviews are important.
    • With the new budget model, the budget has to be signed by the business office and the dean so does the committee really need to review the budget for new programs?
    • Can another committee focus on that?
    • How much input can the BFP provide?
    • Should a new form be created?
      • How much detail should the committee be requesting?
  • What is the BFP adding? What is the scope of the work?
  • The Office of Academic Programs and Assessments (APA) used to have a committee that reviewed proposals as a board that ironed out most potential issues before the proposal would enter the Curriculum Proposal System.
    • There is not a starting date yet, but the APA is planning to restart this committee.
  • Sherm provides a lot of information on what the university committee has been up to but the BFP doesn’t feel it has much weight with the committee.
  • Many of the standing rules for the BFP are not followed or enforced or acted upon, focusing largely on Category I reviews and leaving some past members feeling a bit let down in regards to the work they anticipated doing.
  • Should the Executive Committee have a discussion about the BFP being folded into another committee, if all they are doing is Category I reviews?
  • Does Sherm have an opinion on what value BFP is adding?
  • How does the committee attend these university budget meetings and then communicate back to the Faculty Senate the committee?

Minutes prepared by Caitlin Calascibetta