Date: 
01/31/2013 10:00 am to 11:30 am
Location: 
128 Kidder Hall
Agenda: 

1. Consideration of an MOU to Establish a BS in Computer Science with an Applied Option at Cascades #85405 – Dorthe Wildenschild

2. Consideration of an MOU to Establish an Accountancy major at OSU Cascades #85404 –Luke McIlvenny

3. Consideration of Category I proposal to rename B.S. in Forest Management to B. S. in Forestry #85162 – Walt Loveland

Minutes: 

1. Consideration of an MOU to establish a BS in Computer Science with an Applied Option at Cascades #85405 – Dorthe Wildenschild
This proposal was approved with the following note: "We are approving this proposal but we would like to note two possible corrections to the budget that the proposers may wish to investigate further. The first is that of the projected RAM revenue. Dr. Bloomer, the Director of the OSU Office of Budgets, does not think you will see an increase in RAM monies that is proportional to the increased number of students in the program. The program has sufficient revenue from tuition to be sustainable, so this is not an issue. The second matter concerns a budget note about hiring a Coordinator at 0.30 FTE, $106,120.80. It appears this person has already been hired and thus, properly, is not included in the incremental budget. It might be clearer to drop this budget note."

2. Consideration of an MOU to Establish an Accountancy Major at OSU-Cascades #85404 – Luke McIlvenny
The proposal was returned to the proposers with a request that they clarify the salary in the budget for the tenure track faculty member where there is a discrepancy between the tabulated values and the budget notes. Also, the budget seems to imply hiring a fixed-term accounting faculty member at a salary of $30,000, which is below the minimum salary for such positions at OSU.

3. Consideration of a Category I proposal to Rename B.S. in Forest Management to B.S. in Forestry #85162 – Walt Loveland
This proposal was returned to the proposers with the following note: "The BFP group is confused by some details of the proposal. They are:
(a)    The budget appears to be the total budget of the re-aligned program, not the incremental cost of the re-alignment. If this is correct, then the budget needs to be changed to just reflect the incremental costs.
(b) The conversion of the program to a PPM model is supposed to be in another Cat I proposal but appears to be the subject of an extensive set of budget notes. Can the proposed changes occur without the PPM model being implemented? If so, we suggest deleting references to this model and presenting this change as a stand-alone change.