Date: 
04/03/2013 11:00 am to 12:30 pm
Location: 
109 Gilkey Hall
Agenda: 

1. Discussion about what we want the BFP group to deal with during Spring Term.

  • We are not likely to have many Cat. I proposals to process and we can devote the time to discussing whatever fiscal issues we think are important for the faculty. Some possible examples are:
  • The nature of the "reserve fund" and what it is intended to be used for
  • Are there budget reductions or savings that could be used it we don't get the requested tuition increase other than firing people?
  • What is the financial status of Ecampus and its’ forecasted budget?
  • Can we re-think the funding of the SWPS?


But the real issue is what people are interested in discussing.

Minutes: 

1. Discussion about what the Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee will deal with during Spring term.
The group engaged in an extended discussion about the fiscal issues of concern to the faculty. The following items, not necessarily in order of priority, were endorsed as being worthy of further extended discussion:
The group also felt that further meetings should involve Category I approvals and that discussion of these issues should wait until there is a need to deal with Category I approvals.

  • A universal campus wide policy on returned overhead. At present, the policy differs from college to college as to whether the PIs are given a fraction of the returned overhead to spend on local needs. The group felt that consistent with general budgeting principles in higher education some portion of the “revenue” should return to those who generated it. While everyone understands the need for strategic investments for the “common good”, it is increasingly essential for PIs to receive some discretionary funds to meet local needs.
  • A thorough accounting of the INTO program is needed. Faculty in Business and Engineering are facing a number of problems dealing with INTO students in the form of academic dishonesty and poor preparation for advanced classes. Is the program worth the extra effort required and what could be done to decrease the problems?
  • An accounting of the cumulative effect of “re-organization”. The BFP group has dealt with the Cat. I proposals for re-organization and collectively sees no savings associated with the restructuring. We propose to examine all the approved Cat I proposals for re-organization, sum up the savings and increased expenditures, make a cost estimate of the effort involved and report what we find.


The group also felt that further meetings should involve Category I approvals and that discussion of these issues should wait until there is a need to deal with Category I approvals.