Meeting Date: 
November 10, 2022
11/10/2022 9:00 am to 10:00 am
Zoom Meeting
  1. CIM Proposals (9:05 AM)
    • Toxicology Graduate Certificate, Key #786 – New Graduate Certificate
  1. Report Back from University Budget Advisory Committee (9:20 AM)
  1. College of Education Restructuring (9:30 AM) – Leroy Fenn, Susan Gardner
  1. Other Business (9:50 AM)
  1. Adjournment (9:55 AM)



  • Access program proposals online at (copy and paste into your browser, clicking directly leads to a stale login error) and search via the Key number
  • You can also click on Workflow on the header to sort all pending proposals in CIM and search for proposals listed under ‘Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee Chair’

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: Leroy Fenn, Susan Gardner


CIM Proposals

  • Toxicology Graduate Certificate, Key #786 – New Graduate Certificate
    • Questions were well addressed by the originator.
    • Faculty on 12-month appointments and 9-month appointments have the same FTE assigned, which seems odd, but may just be an editorial issue.

Action: Frank Chaplen motioned to approve the proposal with a note thanking the originator for their detailed proposal; seconded. Motion approved with 5 votes in favor, 0 votes against and 1 vote in abstention. The abstention was due to a conflict of interest.

Report Back from University Budget Advisory Committee

  • Jeff Luck will take on the role as the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee (BFP) representative on the University Budget Committee (UBC).
  • Tuition for AY 23-24 was the primarily discussion item
    • Increases due to inflation
      • Projected inflation is 3.9%
      • How will it be applied to incoming and continuing students?
        • Keeping the 3.9% for continuing students
        • Potentially raising the cost for incoming students to about 4.9%
          • Tuition will largely remain in line with inflation
    • Another due to state funding changes
    • Growth in student credit hours

College of Education Restructuring – Leroy Fenn, Susan Gardner

  • What are the main drivers behind the restructuring? Administrative efficiencies? Potential accreditation issues down the road? Or are the budget savings ($45k) a major factor? Budget is not a main driver behind the restructuring – it’s more faculty and student need driven
  • Supervisory structures – The administrative structure is too flat.  The Dean and Associate Deans typically supervise but there is some concern over the lack of distance between the Dean and faculty to allow for meaningful personnel reviews.
  • If faculty have concerns, there is no escalation structure
  • Six program chairs that are overworked and often do not communicate so there is occasionally overlap or confusion from students.
    • Leads to human resource and fiscal inefficiencies
  • Promotion and Tenure has been somewhat complicated by the lack of structure and the differences between College of Education and the University as a whole
  • 75% of students are through Ecampus
  • Will help facilitate with accreditation requirements – there was confusion from the accreditation bodies over the current structure.
  • Determining FTE and true program costs is also difficult due to the current structuring
    • Some lead faculty are noted in the proposal as losing pay due to the restructuring. Does the college anticipate anyone leaving the university? Will funds be needed for a search for new faculty?
      • The lead faculty are some of the ones who have been pushing for this the most.
      • An anonymous survey was taken by faculty – the majority requested change as they felt the current structure was not working.
    • The faculty largely agreed in the survey that departmentalization was in the best interests of the college.
      • Faculty have been tasked with developing department names. It has spurred great conversations and the faculty seem excited for the change.
    • Handling inefficiencies could be a budget positive change, but the departmentalization could incur some cost. Due to this, the dean is anticipating the cost to be budget neutral or for there to be little cost overall.
  • How will the budget of each department be managed? How will it be distributed?
    • One of the few Colleges on campus have not had a budget surplus. The changes are intended to better their budget. A financial manager has been brought in to assist with managing the budget.
    • They are meeting with the department leads to determine if the excessive activity codes for the college are being used/are needed. Currently they are simply going over their current college costs to determine where cuts can be made and reduce inefficiencies. They are also determining which programs bringing in revenue and which are not.
    • These conversations with department leads will hopefully lead to a consensus on how the budget is managed and distributed to the departments.
  • Does the restructuring better serve the mission to students and other stakeholders both within and outside OSU?
    • Yes. As an example, there are four distinct programs with four different research courses, which are essentially the same course. If some of these courses could be combined, the inefficiencies removed, faculty could be freed up for other programs and courses, giving students more opportunities in the college.
    • The four program leads are primarily research faculty; restructuring would allow them to engage in more research.
  • How does the admin to faculty ratio compare to other units across campus?  Are there factors that might dictate major differences or similarities?
    • The last question was deferred and will be answered via email.
  • The savings may be short term – what are the costs estimates for the future?
    • Budget estimates are currently quite conservative.
    • Some of the FTE will be moved into research, which would generate income through grants.
  • The committee was pleased to learn that the restructuring was largely faculty driven and it eases some concerns over some of the items noted in the narrative.
  • A motion of support will be drafted to be discussed at the next BFP meeting.

Other Business  

  • Frank Chaplen was serving on the Share Responsibility Budget Model (SRBM) advisory committee as a FS representative and is stepping down. Sherm Bloomer will reach out to the Faculty Senate to see about inviting a new faculty member to fill his seat.
  • How much revenue is being lost by grants not being properly filed? Shawn has noticed that OSRA has been contacted multiple times about invoices not being filed.
    • It has been acknowledged and there is a cushion built into the budget to account for post awards not being filed. It is typically not a large dollar amount.


  • Meeting adjourned at 9:56 AM