1) CALL TO ORDER:

The meeting was called to order by Dennis Rome, Chair, at 3:39 P.M.  Also attending were members Chris Evans, Farida Khan, and Peggy James.  Catherine Jameson was a guest.  Evelyn Zepp was present as Interim Secretary of the Faculty.

A motion to suspend the agenda was approved 4-0-0.

5) NEW BUSINESS:

     a) Budget Matters—meeting with Catherine Jameson

Prof. Rome explained that the administration is committed to getting out more information and making processes such as those relating to budget matters more transparent.

Ms. Jameson explained that her position has changed and that her new title is Director of Budget & Planning. In her new role, she is also responsible for business process redesign, which aims to make various campus processes leaner, more streamlined, and less expensive.  She remains as the Campus Budget Officer and the Academic Division Budget Officer. The responsibility for Business Services is now in the hands of the Controller (Scott Menke) who reports to V.C. Streeter.

The first two redesign projects include:

(1)     The PIR process—payments to individuals (non-employees)

(2)     The PAR process (with its different categories—classified, faculty, academic staff, etc.)  She is looking at why it takes so long for the PAR process to be completed.

She presented “big picture items”:

(1)     The Interim Chancellor is interested in a transparent budget and financial process.  The Fall Cash Request process was just completed with the Chancellor, Deans, Directors, and Vice-Chancellors. One-time cash requests were submitted and several were funded for this fiscal year only.

(2)     UW System determines our budget total each year, after their budget is determined by the legislature.  Parkside submits our budget request during Jan.-Mar.  We almost never get new S& E money.  In most years, the only new money we get is for the pay plan and for “cost to continue,” such as utilities, fringe benefits, and debt service.  S & E is not considered part of that.

(3)     Every biennium, we submit DINs (decision initiative narratives)—proposals to the

state for additional money.  For 07-09, all campuses submitted their Growth Agenda proposals. The proposals are for funds for the biennium (2 years), but campuses did not receive funds in the first year (07-08.)  The amount received by Parkside was $1,223,500, aimed at student retention and success.  About 25% of the amount is specified for fringe benefits.  Our proposal originated with Rebecca Martin; it included having smaller class sizes for first year, having more advising, and additional institutional research.  We received 14 new positions with that: 3 faculty, 3 lecturers, and the rest academic staff. The Student Success Initiatives were pilots for this DIN.  The whole state is aiming for growth in enrollments—new students, non-traditional students, on-line courses, etc.  The outcomes of Parkside’s Growth Agenda require us to increase student retention and graduation rates within 6 years.  There is flexibility on the positions.  We did not know if we were going to get these additional funds, so it was impossible to plan ahead.  The positions we have been filling are mostly advisors and academic staff. There was also a system-wide Teacher Education DIN that provided one faculty and one academic staff position, as well as LTE and S&E money.  The outcome required is to bring 10 additional TEDU students to our campus.

Prof. Rome asked if this money becomes part of the permanent budget.  Ms. Jameson said that it does. 

She explained how UW-System is trying to keep these funds in the budget in the face of the recently reported state shortfall.  The argument is that it is our chance to increase enrollment, so don’t take away the money.  We can give back one-time money from salary savings.  They can ask us for a lower budget.  We do not have any details about the current year or the 09-11 state budget shortfall at this point; the state is doing a revenue check Nov. 20th.  In January, the Governor’s office will tell System its part of the cuts.  We don’t want to stop the momentum we have started, but…

Prof. Khan asked about the 10% cut mentioned by Chancellor Earns.

Ms. Jameson answered that the budget cut of 10% per agency is an annual exercise that has been repeated for approximately 10 years. It is up to the governor how it is carried out.  It could end up 5% or 30%.  UW-System has proposed some flexibility changes that would help create savings, such as, if we could purchase off of Big 10 contracts instead of state contracts, we could save a million dollars a year, but the state has not agreed to give us that flexibility.  UW-System will also submit an alternate proposal—if the state would leave our budget intact, we could invest it to continue to meet our goals of a higher percentage of baccalaureate degrees in Wisconsin.

Ms. Jameson went on to explain CASH vs. BASE:

Everything we do is based on the base budget we get.  The cash budget is what we don’t use out of that every year—most of it comes from salary savings.  There are positions to fill, but it takes a year before that happens, so we use the money for one-year Lecturers and the rest is savings that are used for other one-time initiatives.  There are also other areas—other vacant positions on the campus as a whole.  The money we take back from departments is used for on-going expenses—institutional advertising (not in base), software expenses, etc.  This comes to about ½ million a year (not in base budget).  It seems that the more economic trouble we are in, the more money is left unspent at the end of a fiscal year, which shows people are being careful.  We can carry this money forward into the next year, but it is not money we can count on to fill positions, for example.  People can only be on base budget.

Prof. Rome said that S&E stays the same year after year.  Would there be techniques similar to the retention and graduation rate proposal that we could do in order to increase S&E? Ms. Jameson said we did get some S&E money with the DIN—software for instructional research, for example.

Prof. Khan asked if money is tied to certain areas. Ms. Jameson said that there was student money for mentoring in the Growth Agenda

Prof. Rome said that he now understood the great emphasis on retention rates.  He asked what faculty could be engaged in, so that we could say: “don’t touch Parkside because…”

Ms. Jameson said that maintaining our diversity will help emphasize Parkside’s importance within UW-System and the State.  We have lower entrance admissions than some other campuses, so we provide opportunities for students who may not be allowed admission elsewhere.  We need services to help these students to be successful to graduation.

Ms. Jameson stated further that with the 09-11 biennium, we had the opportunity to submit a DIN on teaching math.  For the two remedial classes and Math 111, we would look at smaller classes, additional class time, student mentors, and tutoring software.  This request was $745,000 including fringes, but was later reduced to $584,500 including fringes. The legislature will make the decision on funding during the 09-11 budget process.

Prof. Rome asked when there is the call for DINs. Ms. Jameson said that this comes two springs before the new biennium begins.

Ms. Jameson stated that our entire budget is $71,766,000, including grants and Federal financial aid.  The General Purpose Revenue (state taxpayer dollars) portion of the budget is about $27 million.  We receive about $19 million from students for tuition.  Together, these revenues support instruction, utilities, debt service, infrastructure, facilities, administration, student services, etc.  The rest of the budget is for auxiliaries, research, financial aid, gifts and other revenue operations. Students pay a lot of the non-GPR expenses: housing, segregated fees, etc.  Parkside has a slightly higher allocation of state taxpayer money than other campuses, because of our size.  State taxpayer support has declined from about 50% seven years ago to about 40% for 08-09.

Prof. Rome stated that Ms. Jameson’s presentation put things in perspective and suggested that it would be useful for her to do the same at some other meetings.  He questioned what the process would be when we approach making budget cuts—other campuses have committees.

Prof. Khan asked if the DIN is included in the budget figures and Ms. Jameson said yes.

Prof. James asked if DINs have categories.  Ms. Jameson said that System tries to package them—make them joint, like the library one.  They give us a theme—furthering the growth agenda.  UW-System has a political purpose in that they work with DOA and the legislature to make sure that our interests are understood and furthered. They often get a sense of whether certain initiatives will “fly” or not.  Right now we are waiting to see what the Governor and DOA will assign to UW-System as a one-time lapse or as a budget cut.

Prof. Rome asked if she had met with the Foundation.  Ms. Jameson said no, but she has suggested to Lenny Klaver that he report periodically to Cabinet on the additional amounts and numbers of scholarships being donated to the Foundation.

Prof. Rome said that a stronger case would be made through better community-campus initiatives. 

Ms. Jameson said the University Relations works with the Foundation to raise scholarship funds. Since the need for scholarships at Parkside is so great, this is the current focus of our Foundation money.  Perhaps in the future, we can ask for matching money for new initiatives.

Every year, we ask how much worse things can get with the state.  There is, however, some hope behind this.  There won’t be new money from the state unless it is targeted money.  The future for us is in increased enrollment.  We can get base budget for that.  We need to change our thinking and realize enrollment is our future.  Over the last several years, enrollment was not stable.  The last 2 years, we went over our target, and it looks like we will this year.  Once it is pretty certain, we can request a real addition to our base. 

Prof. James asked about being penalized if a campus went too far over its target.

Ms. Jameson said that was called the “bull’s eye” and is no longer in effect.  If we go over our target, we get to keep all that tuition money (and if we are under, we have to do a give back).

Prof. Khan asked about enrollment measures—is it simply the number of students. Prof. Zepp noted that it was the enrollment on the 10th day of the semester.

Ms. Jameson said that enrollment differs every single day; there is a lot of predicting.  Enrollment for teaching reasons is not the same as enrollment looked at for financial reasons (mostly due to the plateau for full-time students.)  We look at patterns from the past: when they are paying, when they sign up, who’s leaving us, the students we want to come, out of state remissions (including Illinois).  We focus on certain areas—i.e. we tried a program with high-end computer students in the high schools.  There will be a reduced high school pool in the coming years—students are not graduating and there are fewer students in this age group.

Prof. Rome stated that he likes Ms. Jameson’s new role.

Ms. Jameson said we have had hard decisions to make.  For instance, faculty have no money to travel on.  We all need to work together to generate and make these budget decisions since there is no benefit in making decisions from the top down without campus support.

Prof. James said that next time she would like to talk about the streamlining of the PAR process.

Ms. Jameson said that many position descriptions come to us poorly written. Prof. James asked if there is a committee.

Ms. Jameson said that this came up in the Chancellor’s Cabinet.  The Chancellor assigned V.C. Streeter, Acting Associate V.C. DeVinny, Eugene Fujimoto of Equity and Diversity, and that V.C. Streeter brought in Ms. Jameson and the new HR Director, Sylvia Coronado-Romero.

Prof. James states that someone from CAP should be on as well.

Ms. Jameson said that she and V. C. Streeter had gone to CAP that morning.

Prof. Zepp said that when the nature of a PAR is changed, this needs to go back to the department and its faculty.

Ms. Jameson said there is a desire to get HR personnel involved up front.  We need to look at how many people have to sign a PAR.  She invited the members to send specific questions.

Ms. Jameson left the meeting at 4:30 P.M.

The agenda was resumed.

2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes OF November 4, 2008 were approved as amended (3-0-0; Prof. Kahn had not been present).

3) ANNOUNCEMENTS:

There were no announcements. 

4) UNFINISHED BUSINESS:            

     a) Replacement for Maria Martinez (resigned) on the Risk Assessment team.  Response from Mary Lenard on appeal to W.S.?

Prof. Rome stated that he had had a discussion with Profs. Lenard and Gonzalez and that Prof. Gonzalez has agreed to serve on the committee.  The Secretary will convey this to V.C. McLaughlin.            

      b) Changes to the Program Appraisal Framework developed by the Affirmative Action Council—further discussion?

Prof. Rome said he had had further pleasant conversations with Prof. Gee.  She will return to speak to the committee about some specific items.  Among other things, the creation of an ombudsman has been discussed.  This could possibly be the Secretary of the Faculty.

Prof.. Zepp said that it is essential that Ms. Schmidt be returned to at least ½ time.

      c) Chancellor Search Committee (on original draft of agenda; removed and restored at Prof. Rome’s request, since action had been taken)

The Committee members have been chosen and the letter announcing this from System will be posted as part of the minutes.

The Committee members felt strongly that members of the previous Search Committee deserved thanks and recognition for their service and agreed to draft a letter doing so. 

5) NEW BUSINESS:  

      b) Faculty Advocacy Committee request (see Prof. Rome’s e-mail distributed          last meeting.

The members approved the idea and agreed to do further work on it. 

     c) Director of CTS (CIO) revised position description

Action on this was tabled until members could compare the original position description, which the Secretary will resend.

     d) Interim Chancellor’s survey

Prof. Rome will have copies of the survey; there were some items of concern he would like to discuss further and possibly take to the Senate.

     e) Ballots for spring semester

Prof. Rome stated that with the current ballot, new people, especially, don’t know who anyone is.  This may account in part for the number of ballots not returned.  He suggested have a couple of short sentences describing each person on the ballot.  He also suggested that it is time to make the voting electronic.  The people who did the Chancellor’s survey can control the returns—i.e. one vote per person.

6) MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:

a)     Next meeting

Profs. Mayer, James and Colston have a 2-4 meeting Nov. 18th for the Chancellor’s Search Committee.  However, the Senate agenda must be approved by the U.C. at the Nov. 18th meeting.  Therefore, THE COMMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 4:00 P.M. in order to approve the Senate agenda and deal with any other short matters of business. 

The invitation to Mr. Fujimoto to meet with the committee will be postponed.

b) E-mail from Dean Cress on revision of UWPF

Profs. Mayer and Rome agreed to work with Dean cress on this.  Prof. Zepp suggested that the Secretary of the Faculty should participate as this is part of the position description.

c) Late items received from CAP

The members approved adding (i) the HPEA name change and (ii) the change to the existing sport and fitness management major to the Senate agenda.  No action is required from the U.C. or Senate at this time for the Entitlement to Plan the Collaborative Online Bachelor of Science degree in Sustainable management.

7) ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 5:31 P.M.

Submitted by Evelyn Zepp, Interim Secretary of the Faculty