 |
||
|
Committees:
|
FISCAL ADVISORY Fiscal Advisory Committee October 7, 2005
Present: Bob Long, Becky Emery, Jerome DeRidder, Sara Pagano, Tim Dunn, Jo Laird, Alan Selser, Greig Mitchell
The notes of the September 28, 2005 meeting were approved as submitted. Greig Mitchell asked for assistance in understanding how the Fiscal Advisory Committee fits in the governance structure of the university. He and Alan Selser have been asked to give a presentation before the Faculty Senate on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. A brief history of the change in the former faculty forum structure to the current senates/forum structure was given. At the time the senates were formed, committees existing under the previous structure were placed either in the Faculty Senate (for example, Promotions Committee and University Curriculum Committee), while other committees remained University Forum Committees (such as Cultural Affairs, Building and Grounds, and the Fiscal Advisory Committee). As a University Forum Committee, the Fiscal Advisory Committee submits its recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Forum (see attached page which represents the bylaws section on forum committees). However, the charge of the committee states: “The purpose of this committee shall be to review the University's fiscal resources and to make recommendations regarding the utilization of these fiscal resources to the President's Administrative Council.” The President’s Administrative Council is now called the President’s Advisory Team (a group composed of the president, vice presidents, assistants to the presidents, senate and SGA presidents, and deans. The deliberations of the Fiscal Advisory Committee are posted within the University Forum’s web pages and a link is provided from the Executive Committee’s home page to the Fiscal Advisory Committee’s reports: see http://www.salisbury.edu/campusgov/executives.htm.According to the bylaws of the Faculty Senate: “Role and Objectives of the Faculty Senate: The Faculty Senate is the representative and deliberative body for conducting the business of the Salisbury University Faculty. In this role the Faculty Senate provides a clear unified Faculty voice to the administration on academic policies and programs Faculty affairs and matters relating to the general academic environment of the institution. In order to fulfill its responsibilities the Faculty Senate shall: Expedite the business of the Faculty in public meetings allowing input by the entire Faculty at all times; Establish ad hoc and Faculty Senate Standing Committees as needed; Inform the Faculty of changes in policies or procedures that impact academic programs or Faculty affairs; and Facilitate communication of concerns between the Faculty and the University's various constituencies; and Perform such other duties as the Faculty directs. (see http://www.salisbury.edu/campusgov/facsenate/html/bylaws.htm). Thus, decisions and recommendations of the Faculty Senate are considered to be decisions of the faculty (Section 5 of the bylaws). The FAC is a committee composed of and representing the interests of faculty, staff and students, not just the faculty. About three years ago, the committee had tried to change the bylaws of the committee (charge and membership), however, the changes were not approved.
Becky Emery asked if faculty salaries would be posted in the library on a routine basis rather than by request. Typically Dr. Dave Parker makes a request annually via the Freedom of Information Act. Since it’s public information, a request was made to post the information in the library without the necessity of a formal request.
There is still no news on projected tuition and fees increases. It was noted that our numbers of non-resident (out of state) students has dropped. While tuition increased overall, the overall dollar amount of increase for in state and out of state students was the same.
At the last meeting, Alan Selser had not been able to finish the presentation. He continued, and a brief summary of each slide is reviewed. The presentation can be found at: http://www.salisbury.edu/admin/budget/budgetpres.htm (select F2005 for pdf file).Slide 6: reiterated changes in state support unrestricted allocations, with plant operations showing a significant increase. Commentary included the need to address parking. Greig Mitchell described some preliminary plans that may address parking, locating lots across route 13. The Dresser plant is still under negotiations, due to complications involving the EPA. No additional news there. However, he indicated that utilization of the shuttle service has increased significantly. Another committee member suggested that the campus should consider becoming more “bike friendly” possibly adding bike racks and other things that would encourage bicycle rather than vehicle use.
Slide 7 (continued): Change in State Support Unrestricted Allocations FY 2005 to FY 2006. This slide showed the change in allocation and listed the distribution of funds to include broad categories: personnel, mandatory costs and institutional initiates. The cost of fuel and utilities for the coming year will be something to monitor. For electricity, we have a fixed price contract for two years that was locked in before the storms. Our heat is primarily natural gas or oil. A performance contract with Pepco will review efficiency and make recommendations.Slide 8: FY 2006 State Supported Summary shows the summary of the state support revenue minus the state support budgeted expenditures and the balance available. Subsequent activity included a 1% state allocation along with additional expenditures which included USM Audit costs, Health Benefits for the full-time non tenure track faculty, recruitment and retention funds which were allocated to increase faculty salaries (judged as inequities by the deans), and also the possibility of converting some of the contingent II positions earlier than mandated by the Board of Regents, leaving an adjusted balance available of $191,751. This figure could change after adjustments are made given revenue and tuition from this fall.
The Chancellor of the USM met with the system presidents about creating a business plan. It was envisioned that campuses could try to project tuition increases over 4 years. Presidents were also questioned about the potential for growth in student numbers. We can grow, however, not without significant funding. The figure of 1500 students over a 10 year period was mentioned. The advantage to using the business plan is that it would allow the university to look beyond 1 year as well as attempt to tie funding with growth.The presentation moved to the last slide which lists the potential impacts of the Institutional Business Plan on Salisbury University. Possible impacts included:• How much growth can we handle? – Additional faculty and staff – Sufficient departmental operating budgets – Impact on facilities • Classrooms • Residential areas • Library/study space • Physical activity space • Parking – Maintain quality • What (if any) initiatives do we pursue? – Institutional based financial aid – New programs • Undergraduate • Graduate • What is an appropriate balance for State Appropriation/Tuition & Fees? – Access – Affordability Comments by committee members reiterated the fact that additional growth could not be considered until issues created by the funding cutbacks of the past were addressed. These not only include “PINs” which represent faculty and staff positions. Funding for increasing salaries as well as departmental operating budgets also must be addressed. Departmental budgets have not increased for years (i.e., flat). The lack of increase in real dollars actually represents a decrease in funding, as the same dollar amounts lack purchasing power of years ago.The use of the Financial and Budget Communication Outline was brought up. Hopefully, this document can serve as a foundation for the committee’s operations, as it provides rough estimates of information that must be given to or received from the campus and the time periods tasks must be accomplished.The new course based curriculum model was brought up. The cost of the curriculum is not know, however, Dr. Kathleen Shannon from the Department of Math and Computer Science (and faculty senator) had calculated that approximately 22(?) new faculty lines would be needed to make the change. This was a statement made in the Faculty Senate meeting on October 4, 2005. Again, it was reiterated that this changes of this magnitude should not occur without a commitment for additional funding.Maarteen Pereboom, President of the Faculty Senate had forwarded a proposal made by Dr. Frank Shipper of the Perdue School of Business. His proposal reads:
Motion for Salisbury University’s Faculty Senate Consideration
I move that a committee be tasked to develop a statement in support of raising the allocation of financial resources to Salisbury University by the State pf Maryland to reflect the institution’s “effective and efficient” use of the System’s and taxpayers’ resources.
In addition, the statement should reflect that Salisbury University more effectively and efficiently fulfills its mission than any other University System of Maryland institution as evidenced by its ranking in U.S .News & World Report, its listings among The Princeton Review’s Best 361 Colleges, The Princeton Review’s Best Northeastern Colleges, Newsweek-Kaplan College Guide, The Princeton Review’s Best in the Mid-Atlantic, Consumer’s Digest “Best Value” institutions (The only one in Maryland), its System’s leading graduation rate, etc., etc., etc.
Moreover, the statement should point out that although Salisbury University fulfills its mission effectively and efficiently and is ranked 7th among 165 public institutions in the North by U.S .News & World Report, it is ranked 140th in financial resources among the same institutions on a per student basis and dead last among the University System of Maryland institutions on a per full-time student basis. Such disparities between performance and financial support can lead to the deterioration of Salisbury University and is not in keeping the Secretary of Education’s promotion of “effective and efficient” use of the System’s resources.
Furthermore, the statement should be (1) developed by the committee tasked, (2) endorsed by the faculty senate and (3) presented in an expeditious fashion to the Governor of Maryland, the Maryland Secretary of Education, the Chancellor, the Board of Regents, and all other parties involved in the allocation and distribution of resources to Maryland institutions of higher learning.”
After considering the proposal, the committee proposed the development of a proclamation that would address issues bought forth. The President has a few testimonials available where this type of information is available. Perhaps this can be reviewed and a document developed which would meet his request. Testimonials on the president’s website are available for review at: http://www.salisbury.edu/admin/prez/.
The next meeting of the Fiscal Advisory Committee will be scheduled for October 21, 2005 at 1:30 in the PCR. Although the members agree that the committee should not meet just for the sake of meeting, there is still significant work that needs to be accomplished in October. Suggestions made at previous meetings which need to be scheduled include: 1. Visit and presentation by Kevin Mann regarding physical plant, renovations, and energy issues 2. update from enrollment management 3. tuition and fees proposals 4. Shipper proposal 5. supplemental funding request process 6. update of Business Plan 7. Keith Brower (Chair of committee on course based curriculum) regarding financial impact 8. development of a process for the committee that can be passed along from year to year
Greig
Mitchell and Alan Selser will be giving the presentation discussed above
to the Faculty Senate on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. Jo Laird will
attend also. Exerpt from the University Forum Bylaws: see http://www.salisbury.edu/campusgov/bylaws.htm
Article V:
Committees
|
|
|
Comments and questions about this page can be directed to jwlaird@salisbury.edu
Copyright © 2005 |
||
