UB Faculty Senate

FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes of April 11, 2007
(unapproved)

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee met at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, in 567 Capen Hall to discuss the following agenda:

Approval of the Minutes of March 21, 2007
Report of the Chair
Report of the Provost
Update on the Faculty Senate Budget Priorities Committee
Sean Sullivan, Associate Vice-President for Academic Planning and Budget
Resource Management: Process and Principles
Proposal for a Volunteer Tutoring Program
Jerry Linder, Human Resources
Adjournment

Item 1: Approval of the Minutes of March 21, 2007

The Minutes of March 21, 2007, were approved as submitted.

Item 2: Report of the Chair

The Chair announced that the Student Association is today recognizing the winners of the Milton Plesur Award; he would need to attend the ceremony at 4 PM.

A proposed name change for Women’s Studies (to Global Gender Studies) had not yet come before the CAS Policy Committee; consequently, the FSEC could not vote to approve the change. Should problems arise, the FSEC would refer the issue to the Academic Planning Committee.

The Affirmative Action Committee met yesterday and made corrections to the handbook on recruitment and retention; the Committee is scheduled to report to the FSEC next week.

The Academic Planning Committee will meet with the Provost on Friday to talk about how the faculty can be pro-active in academic planning.

Item 3: Report of the Provost

Provost Tripathi provided an update on the Empire Innovation Program, a SUNY-level effort to attract top-notch faculty, especially those who are recognized scholars in their fields and who can bring in significant research funding. The Program also attempts to recruit faculty from outside the United States, and not from sister institutions. A committee of distinguished professors submitted a proposal to SUNY. Of the $6 million available, UB will receive a larger portion than the previous year ($1.6 vs. $1.4 million); this will suffice for another 10-15 new hires.

For ground and context for the report in Item 4, the Provost reported that UB’s current annual budget of about $1 billion will increase over the next few years to between $1.2 and $1.5 billion. In the next 5 to 7 years, about $100 million will be freed from vacated faculty and staff positions. UB will shift from a more unit-centered budget process to an institutional-wide one, with the monies to be distributed in accordance with UB’s strategic strengths. The University leadership is committed to implementing a predictable, annual budget process that provides a vehicle to continually determine new forms and sources of support and evaluate the deployment of institutional resources to achieve University objectives. All of the activities of the past 2-1/2 years are building to this outcome.

Part of the complexity of the $1 billion, Vice-President Willis added, were the cross-multiple fund sources. State support (State taxes and tuition dollars) is roughly 35% of the overall budget; other significant sources flow to the campus from the UB Foundation, from restricted and unrestricted returns on our endowment, from direct and indirect costs due to Research Foundation, the clinical practice plan, and other agencies.

Item 4: Update on the Faculty Senate Budget Priorities Committee

Sean Sullivan, Associate Vice-President for Academic Planning and Budget, pointed out that the change from a formulaic, distributed budgeting system to a centralized one designed along strategic strengths entails a significant change in the mechanics of budgeting, as well as a much greater demand for information supporting budget decisions. The information systems available have proven insufficient, and thus the new budgetary process is taking time, but “we’re taking the time to do it right”.

He first summarized the work of the Budget Priorities Committee. The purpose was to engage in dialogue that creates understandings of University resource management directions and decisions for Committee members, and to enable strategic faculty engagement at key points in University resource management decision-making.

The framework for the dialogue consists of three tiers of resource management:

University Advocacy with External Sponsors, including:
- SUNY --- BAP [Budget Allocation Process], Financial Plan, Tuition/Fee policy, advocacy with the State legislature;
- The State University Construction Fund (SUCF) --- the Capital Plan, State legislative project advocacy with the State legislature;
- Federal Advocacy --- research policy and sponsorship, as well as earmarks for program initiatives;
- Philanthropy --- corporate / foundation / individual donor relations;
- Other sponsor relations.
UB Resource Management (across units) --- The Annual Cycle for Cross-University Budget Making

Overall University funds management;
Unit resource management plans and investment initiatives;
Strategic strength planning;
Revenue generation and management --- research income, fee income, philanthropy, etc;
Academic support cost management and funding;
Auxiliary services management (housing, parking, food and dining, etc.);
Transformation initiatives --- Human Resources, Instructional Technology, Voice-over-IP, Systems Initiatives;
Relationship between core State funding and revenues from self-sufficient programs (such as continuing education, practice plans, fees for service programming);
The UB 2020 growth modeling process;
Capital master planning and capital budget management.

Unit budget decision-making process --- through which each unit will set its own priorities;
Relationship of core State support with other revenue streams --- philanthropy, fees for service programs (e.g., executive education programs), research income (e.g., salary offset), and others;
Impact of University transformations (IT, Human Resources) and collaboration initiatives;
Unit Compact development in the UB 2020 process, with each compact specifying expected strategic outcomes and financial plans and arrangements.

For each tier, there were specific topics for Committee review during the 2006-2007 academic year. In Tier I, these included the 2006-2010 Mission Review, a multi-year needs analysis (reflecting budgetary needs over the next five years, assuming enrollment grows by about 3,000 FTE), a review of the Budget Allocation Process, the University legislative agenda, and tuition policy recommendations. This last point forms a major aspect of the funding associated with the University’s planned growth. UB has been requesting a more rational tuition policy, differentiated among different institutions within SUNY. Currently, State law requires that like degree programs be charged the same tuition; UB would like instead to establish a market-driven ceiling for specific professional programs. Vice-President Willis added that “high tuition does not limit access, does not limit quality”, since this could be offset with scholarship support, and often ensures high-quality education for high-quality students; thus, “charging a fair market rate is not necessarily bad”. For undergraduate tuition, the sticking point is not that a rational tuition policy doesn’t make sense, but rather securing the guarantee from the State that increases in tuition will not be offset by decreases in State tax support.

Tier II topics included the Provost’s Strategic Academic Overview, an All-Funds budget profile review, resource management principles (discussed below) and process, an evolving academic budget model, a compact outline review, and the capital master planning process. Discussion topics for Tier III, Unit Resource Management, included a review of two units’ budget requests, reviews of two compact agreements, and a survey of the units’ internal budget-making processes and the extent of faculty engagement.

Professor Bradford questioned the assumption of a growth by 3,000 students over the next five years, given some data which suggest a decrease in the area’s population. Provost Tripathi pointed out that statistics indicate that an ever greater percentage of students are attending college, and the number is likely to increase; also, our efforts to attract out-of-state students should help offset the expected local population decline. Vice-President Willis added that the overall national population growth offers a substantial market from which to draw.

Professor Rittner asked what efforts were being undertaken to attract graduate students by offering more support in the form of TA-ships and GA-ships. Provost Tripathi responded that UB definitely includes this in its planning documents; the problem is how to secure the resources for this purpose. The University is working aggressively toward getting the necessary resources.

In response to Professor Brazeau’s question about having adequate facilities for the anticipated additional 3,000 students, Vice-President Sullivan said that UB does have, in the short run, space opportunity, but that the University would indeed have to figure out a short-term facility strategy “while we get the capital facilities support in place”. Professor Brazeau warned that, while promises are fine, if we do not have adequate facilities in place, in time, this would adversely affect quality of student life and our reputation.

Item 5: Resource Management: Process and Principles

Vice-President Sullivan then outlined the five steps in the resource management process:

Resource Profile Verification for each academic unit;
Unit Resource Management Plans;
Campus Dialogue on the Resource Management Plans;
The development of 3-year rolling Compact Agreements;
Budget Implementation.

The overall guiding ideas underlying the process are the direction of the University, and how best to achieve strategic goals with the resources we have.

The discussions are all guided by several resource management principles:

All resources are University resources.
Measurable outcomes and goals should be factored into resource allocations; the Compact process identifies expected outcomes sand the financial plans necessary to achieve them.
Internal reallocation is an important part of effective resource management, whether for strategic strengths, academic unit priorities, or transformative and maximally supportive infrastructures.
Institutional support services and auxiliary activities are aligned with academic goals, and are optimized for cost-effectiveness.
The resource allocation processes should be well defined and understood; this is a work in progress. The Provost and Executive Vice-President for Finance and Operations will be convening senior officers for intensive discussion about budget-making that will focus on several key issues ---- budget process streamlining and a predictable annual calendar of activity; further evolution of the academic budget model; formalizing faculty/staff hiring plans utilizing State funds and position management practices; rationalizing fee rate structures, overhead cost recovery from non-State revenue sources and internal recharge systems and how all these processes inform the budgeting of academic support units; clarifying management of research cost recovery income; capital budget development and management.
Resource use should align to the purposes for the respective revenue stream --- State funds for State purposes, minimal or no subsidy for revenue programs without strategic intent, and the use of infrastructure funds to create effective physical environments for the program.
Resource plans should be multi-year plans to promote flexibility and predictability --- thus the rolling 3-year Compact agreements to be reviewed annually.
Resource policies should encourage the creation of new revenue sources where possible.
The campus will use resources to support the health and safety of the University community
The campus will maintain the control environment needed to meet its fiduciary responsibility in an exemplary fashion.

Sullivan presented some examples of outcomes to date. These include: 35 additional faculty hired from 2004/05 to 2006/07 (of 100 total planned by 2008/09); 3-year budget agreements for all units by the end of the 2006/08 fiscal year; a 30% savings on phone expenses via the voice-over-IP implementation; a 10%-15% projected savings in administrative overhead costs resulting from transformation initiatives; and the identification of key strategic resource management issues for resolution.

In conclusion, he outlined the agenda for UB Resource Management and the Faculty Senate Budget Priorities Committee, namely, streamlining the budget cycle/process, resolving key issues of resource management, drafting a Budget Principles and Process Manual, modeling and planning University growth, developing an extended growth advocacy strategy, and revising compacts in envisioning growth scenarios.

Item 6: Proposal for a Volunteer Tutoring Program

Jerry Linder, Vice-President for Human Resources, presented a proposal to establish a volunteer program which would focus on providing tutorial assistance to elementary and high-school students, with the aim of increasing the number of high-school graduates and reducing the number of drop-outs. The primary target would be the Buffalo Public School (BPS) students.

The idea originated in 2004 as part of the historic partnership of UB and the Buffalo Public Schools, and as part of Human Resources’ vision of UB becoming one of Fortune 500’s 100 Best Companies to Work For, while simultaneously recognizing the need for additional learning resources.

The program would provide tutorial assistance, free of charge, in the basic courses of English, reading, math, science, and social studies within the BPS curriculum. It would also assist students in preparing for college, and seek funding from the federal, state, and county governments as well as from corporations. It would offer this assistance year-round, 3-9 PM Monday thru Friday and 9 AM – 5 PM on Saturdays during the school year (September through June), and from 12-4 PM in July and August. The program will provide a more focused approach to the currently existing volunteer efforts, and will market ass available only to serious-minded students who need academic assistance and want to expand their learning experience. Volunteers would be solicited from a various group --- UB and BPS retirees, alumni, and current faculty, staff, and students.

Challenges exist in recruiting enough volunteers to serve the huge need, screening volunteers, securing start-up and grant funding, coordinating the new program with existing programs, sustaining the program, and locating space for tutoring.

Initial steps underway include: continue gathering information, conducting a survey to find out who would like to volunteer and in what capacity, composing a steering committee, meeting with UB’s liaison to the BPS, and developing the program.

Dr. Durand suggested that the program be made available to ALL students who want help. He also pointed out that tutoring as it is now conducted in the public schools, is reserved for students who are considered failing or at risk of failing; this creates a stigma which causes students to refuse the tutoring service. Furthermore, he said he is not aware of a high school in the State that teaches study skills; students --- even the good ones --- consequently enter college lacking these. Vice-President Willis suggested not restricting the volunteer initiative to tutoring, but rather to expand it as well to other skills the volunteers may possess.

Item 7: Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Hoeing,
Secretary of the Faculty Senate

Attendance (P = present; E = excused; A = absent)

Chair: P. Nickerson (P)
Secretary: R. Hoeing (P)
Architecture & Planning: GS. Danford (P)
Arts & Sciences: M. Churchill (A), J. Woelfel (P), K. Tekeuchi (P), D. Street (E)
Dental Medicine: R. Hall (A)
Education: T. Schroeder (P)
Engineering & Applied Sciences: S. Batalma (E), S. Dargush (A)
Public Health & Health Professions: P. Horvath (P)
Law: J. Milles (A)
Management: W. Lin (P)
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: William Fiden (A), M. Dayton (E), James Springate (P), J. Hasset (E)
Nursing: P. Wooldridge (A)
Pharmacy: G. Brazeau (P)
Social Work: B. Rittner (P)
SUNY Senators: W. Baumer (P), H. Durand (P), H. William Coles III (P), P. Bradford (P)
University Libraries: JA. Volpe (P)

Guests:Satish Tripathi (Provost), J. Willis, Executive Vice-President (Finance & Operations), S. Sullivan, Associate (Vice-President Academic Planning & Budget), J. Linder (Vice-President Human Resources), B. Burke (EDAAA), L. Labinski (Professional Staff Senate), M. Cochrane (The Reporter)

Tel: 716-645-2003
Fax: 716-645-2717
Email: facultysenate@buffalo.edu
Contact Us

FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes of April 11, 2007 (unapproved)

Minutes of April 11, 2007
(unapproved)