SU [Campus Governance: TITLE]

The meeting was called to order by Jo Laird, Chair, Fiscal Advisory Committee 2004-2005. The student representative was notified via email of the meeting schedule, however, there has been no response. Janet Hornet will be on sabbatical Spring, 2005. Brent Zaprowski, Chair of the Membership and Elections Committee will arrange for a replacement. Jo Laird received access to change the Fiscal Advisory Committee web page yesterday afternoon. Notes, charts, etc. will be posted on the page (http://www.salisbury.edu/campusgov/fiscaladvisory/welcome.htm) which can be reached from the campus governance homepage (http://www.salisbury.edu/campusgov/). The notes of the October 1, 2004 meeting were changed based on a recommendation from Jackie Eberts. After distribution, the notes were approved. A copy will be placed on the web along with the charts distributed by Greig Mitchell.

Greig Mitchell stated that there is still no further information on budget negotiations, etc., thus had no news to report. He related that the University will need to decide how to convert Contingent II employees to comply with Board of Regents (BOR) policy. Contingent II positions were originally planned to be temporary positions without benefits. According to the BOR policy planned to go into effect February, 2005, any contingent II employees with three or more years of service would immediately be converted to regular positions with benefits. However, the BOR said that it could not be done now, as millions of dollars would be necessary and the state was not expected to provide any financial support. A compromise was reached at the October BOR meeting and the policy was updated. Please use this link (http://www.usmd.edu/Leadership/BoardOfRegents/Bylaws/SectionVII/VIII40.html) to read the specifics of that policy. Salisbury University will need a significant sum of money (approximately $500,000) to covert the roughly 50 existing contingent II positions, as we will not likely receive any additional funding from the state. Thus, we will need to provide a plan for the conversions. In the future, Contingent II positions will truly be temporary. If filled, people in those positions will not be able to keep their jobs for greater than 2 years.

Jane Dane, Dean of Enrollment Management gave a presentation concerning the state of scholarship funding at SU. Charts were provided giving 5 year averages for the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002. According to the data, Salisbury University funds set aside by the University per student averaged $818 compared to tuition and fees of $4,160, representing 19.7%. Compared to other institutions in the state, this is the lowest. Summarizing, Towson contributes 32%, Frostburg contributes 40.1%, UMCP contributes 36.6%, and UMBC contributes 43.8%. In addition, SU receives the lowest Federal/State Need-Based Funds. SU students have the greatest loan debt and receive lower levels of Pell Grant funding. The reasons for this situation are complicated (ex. high parental fund base), but to remain competitive, SU needs to be able to offer more financial assistance to interested students.

Freshman application comparisons of in state versus out of state for Fall 2003 and Fall 2004 were presented. Overall, freshman applications fell from 5,549 in Fall, 2003 to 5,068 in Fall, 2004 (a decrease of 8.7%), representing a decrease in 8.6% for in state students and 8.7% for out of state students. Admitted freshmen for the same periods showed a rise by 8.2% of in state students with a rise of 7.7% in out of state students, for an overall increase from 2,881 in Fall, 2003 to 3,113 in Fall, 2004 for a net increase of 18.3%. Freshmen who actually enrolled increased from 951 in Fall, 2003 to 986 in Fall, 2004, an increase of 3.7%. This included a 5.8% increase in in state students, however, the out of state students enrolling dropped by 4.7%. When comparing freshmen non-minority vs. freshmen minority applications, both categories fell, with a 15.2 drop in minorities and a 7.2% decrease in non-minority. This was accompanied by a 4.9% decrease in minority and a 10.7 increase in non-minority freshman who were admitted. Finally, those freshmen that enrolled included a 24.6% decrease in minority and a 9.7% increase in non-minority students.

Two charts were summarized related to SAT’s. The first chart presented percentage of Fall 04 Yield (those that accepted an admission offer) for SAT ranges for Fall, 2003 and Fall 2004. Categories included:

	Fall 2003	Fall 2004
No SAT	29.1%	21.3
Below 1000	37.1	38.4
1000-1040	38.5	42.9
1050-1090	35.5	36.5
1100-1140	34.0	32.8
1150-1190	33.3	30.2
1200-1249	28.7	24.6
1250-1290	27.4	24.5
1300+	30.4	20.4

The third chart related to percent yield, showed that there was an 18.89% yield of scholarship offers for Fall, 2004 compared with a 26.00 % yield for Fall, 2003.

There is a great deal of anecdotal data to support the concept that our offers are inerior compared to other state institutions. However, the good news is that we are doing something about it. By FY, 2006, we will have an additional $600,000 available from tuition increase revenue. It will probably be split $400,000 for need based scholarships and $200,000 for merit-based scholarships. Jane presented a very detailed chart which showed funding approved for FY 2005 along with projected increases for FY 2006. Funds available for transfer students will continue to remain small, because there is still too much need that hasn’t been properly met. Jane presented various models used at other institutions for granting scholarship, however, the ethics of some (such as one that front-loads the money, decreasing the amount as time goes by) were questioned.

It seemed clear that the University needs to find ways to increase scholarship funding . More information may be available when Rosemary Thomas, Executive Director of the Salisbury University Foundation can meet with the committee.