Meeting Date: 
May 22, 2017
05/22/2017 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm
Kearney 201C
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

  1. Cat 1 Proposal

BS in Design and Innovation

  1. University Budget Discussion

Voting members present: Kate Hunter-Zaworski, Michelle Kutzler, Denise Lach, Walt Loveland
Voting members absent: Dave Feeney, Seunghae Lee
Ex-Officio members present: Sherm Bloomer
Guests present: Jon Dorbolo


  1. Cat 1 Proposal
  • BS in Design and Innovation
    • The proposal is for a name change to the Interior Design program. The College of Business is proposing to rename the program to Design and Innovation. Some other Colleges are not pleased with the name change, as it may infringe on their own Design programs.  It was discussed that the job of the committee is to validate and approve the budget. Kate proposed putting in a note about the proposed name change for the Curriculum Council to address.  One concern with the budget forms is that there is no internal liaison listed but the rest of the form is filled out correctly and accurately.  
    • Kate motions to approve the budget for the BS in Design and Innovation, seconded, approved.
  1. University Budget Discussion
  • The Provost is working on sending out communication to unit leadership, premised on rejecting expenditures vs projected revenue.  Currently, there is a 20 million dollar gap. Some of the President’s suggestions to reduce spending include reducing commitments, reducing contingency funds, finding things that can be deferred or put off, reducing facilities and supply spending by 5 million dollars and reducing the number of vacancies filled.
  • Budget allocation includes incremental raises, mid-year raise pools, budgeting 5 million dollars to units for PERS rate increases. Some international student tuition will also be reallocated.
    • None of these allocations are dependent on any pending legislature
    • INTO OSU – 60% of the gross revenue went to academic units, but at the time, things like fees were not taken into account.  There are plans to flatten the bid in growth and reallocate some of those funds to the College of Engineering.
    • For Academic Units, services and supplies spending has increased significantly.
      • Academic units will be asked to cut their services and supplies spending by 5%.
      • Other units will be asked to cut their services and supplies spending by 8%.
    • Other cuts will range from 1-3% for academic units and 2-4% for other units.
      • Reductions will be based on College/Unit needs
    • Personnel cuts will be looked into, not by non-renewing employees, but by reducing the number of vacant positions filled.
      • It will be at the discretion of the Unit head, but they are hoping to avoid non-renewals as a source for reducing spending.
        • How units meet reduction goals is up to the unit heads
  • The budgets office is looking into possible services or programs that can be cut to reduce spending, and they will also be going over wants and commitments to decide what can be deferred and what simply cannot be done. 
  • The Student Success Initiative will receive a budget of 2.5 million dollars, plus another 5 million to Capital Renewal and deferred maintenance.
    • The goal for Capital Renewal is 5 million every year, for 8 years.
  • If the state is able to come through with more money, it will be held by the provost office and allocated based on needs of the school.
  • It was suggested that the Budgets Committee put together a large, diverse group, to lay out a variety of plans and options liked they did with the LINC building to brainstorm ideas about handling spending and budgets needs.
  1. Other Budgetary Discussion
  • There’s been quite a lot of power issues on campus this year.  The electrical grid is being looked at but the campus is currently at a standstill with the power company.  The electrical grid is old and needs maintenance.
  • There is some concern about the costs of new building projects when the college is already struggling with debt.  Cost over time was brought up and it was stated that deferred maintenance funds are now being addressed during the planning stages.
  • In regards to not filling vacancies, there was some concerns over growing class size and a decrease in quality if they are unable to hire more instructors, or have to let some go.  A cap on in-state enrollment was brought up as a possible solution. This would lead to smaller and more manageable class sizes.