University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire University Senate

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

VOL. 44, NO. 6

December 11, 2007

Members Present:

Rose Battalio, Ned Beach, Judy Blackstone, Janice Bogstad, Jacqueline Bonneville, January Boten, Jennifer Brockpahler, Michael Carney, Barbara Davis, Patrick Day, Margaret Devine, Gary Don, Michael Dorsher, Leslie Foster, Mitchell Freymiller, Andrea Gapko, Robert Hollon, Rosemary Jadack, Jeffrey Janot, Debra Jansen, Dale Johnson, Lia Johnson, Harry Jol, Fred Kolb, Heather Kretz, Amanda Krier, Kate Lang, Brian Levin-Stankevich, Tim Lippold, Bruce Lo, David Lonzarich, Barbara Lozar, Brian Mahoney, Karl Markgraf, Sean McAleer, Mike Morrison, Jill Pastrana, Geoffrey Peterson, Jill Prushiek, Donna Raleigh, Rick Richmond, Scott Robertson, Sherrie Serros, Earl Shoemaker, Nick Smiar, Linda Spaeth, Laurie St. Aubin-Whelihan, Jan Stirm, Steve Tallant, Charles Tomkovick, Charles Vue, Scott Whitfield, Marty Wood, Deborah Wright

Members Absent:

Robin Baker, Jeff Erger, Susan Harrison, Ann Hoffman, Larry Honl, Robert Hooper, Sue Moore, Tarique Niazi, Mehdi Sheikholeslami, Troy Terhark, Sharon Westphal, Rebecca Wurzer

Guests:

Mary Jane Brukardt, Margaret Cassidy, Don Christian, Bernard Duyfhuizen, Chip Eckardt, Deborah Gough, Stephanie Jamelske, Carmen Manning, Andy Nelson, Andrew Phillips, Kathy Sahlhoff, Andrew Soll, Robert Sutton, Aaron Wingad

The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order by Chair Wood at 3:07 p.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center.

Minutes of November 27, 2007 University Senate meeting approved as distributed

Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Levin-Stankevich
Wonderful concert at Zorn arena
Board of Regents meeting
La Crosse Plan

introduced by Doug House
purpose was to increase tuition and use as Institutional Financial Aid to offset low income students who couldn’t afford that tuition
used as part of UW-La Crosse Growth Agenda as a Decision Item Narrative (DIN)
ended up being portrayed in media as taking from white students and using towards minority students so was killed in legislature
La Crosse then given $700 thousand as part of their Growth Agenda on a Base Budget basis to add faculty or staff and in return, increase enrollment
A few years ago La Crosse purposely decreased freshman class in order to up the profile of freshman class
La Crosse came back with raising tuition with a Differential Tuition package

Over 2 years, increase tuition by $1000 per student
So in 2 years freshman will begin paying $1000 more than they are right now
Increased tuition to be used towards hiring faculty and academic staff
In return for hiring additional faculty and academic staff enrollment would increase by 500 students
this package would give UW-La Crosse close to an additional $10 million per year
Over the past few years UW-Eau Claire had to do without $5.7 million per year
We’ll have to see how UW-La Crosse’s plan plays out because if State funding doesn’t increase then we may have to look at other routes

State Funding of Higher Education Institutions

Michael Falbo (new Regent) asked the question: The Boards distribution of funding isn’t based on enrollment
It hasn’t been
If it is, the funding formulas change very quickly and not in our favor
If it comes back to the Board of Regents it will likely be in the Legislature as well

Visit from Chancellor David Wilson (Chancellor of UW Colleges and Extension) and David Skilbo

Adult Student Initiative and early stage rumblings in UW Colleges about offering limited Baccalaureate Degrees out of the UW Colleges

Brought up to the Chancellor’s meeting a few weeks ago and got a cold reception particularly from schools that have significant vacancies in the Resident Halls and looked at the demographic downturn over the next 10-15 years as directly targeting them
Keeping more students for a longer time in UW Colleges is not something they see as productive to their financial or educational well being
Resources that can help us in Adult Student Outreach and Adult student education – including developing online courses and course development funding and support from UW Extension
Our Growth Agenda talked about preserving selectivity at freshman level in order to do that growing at other areas in Graduate Studies and Adult Student Outreach among other areas

Mark Bradley (President of the Board of Regents) to visit campus on Thursday, December 13^th, 2007

To meet with students, Senate Leadership and Shared Governance

Judith Crane to visit in January or February 2008
Visit from WiSys which is a branch of WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) that supports comprehensives

WiSys is there to help assist in technology transfer between the Comprehensives and industry in the business world
WARF builds all the buildings that you see going up in Madison like the Microbial Science Building
State distributes $74 million in GPR state funding for research
Last year 77% went to Madison, 20% to Milwaukee and remaining to all other comprehensives
Chancellor is lobbying to push for greater percentage for Comprehensives
UWEC has 2 patents with WiSys between faculty and faculty/student collaborative research

UW Planning Committee works on the writing of a draft of the strategic plan we initiated; the next step is linking the budget to the Strategic Planning process

Fred Kolb to chair that group

Kolb stated that we have moved into a new environment in terms of budget
Must be able to read things effectively and adjust and that requires a budget process that allows input, allows decisions and allows reallocation
Can trace budget we have today and the allocations on Campus back to 1971
We have been losing money since the late 1970’s
Committee will not be suggesting what the changes are in terms of where the money goes but rather a process so that good decision makers applying that process can lead to good results
Strategic plan work group #5 did a nice critique of the current budget system

III. Unfinished Business

Second Reading – Motion 44-AP-02 from Academic Policies Committee

Goals of the Baccalaureate

The Goals of a University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire Liberal Arts Education include:

Knowledge of Human Culture and the Natural World
Creative and Critical Thinking
Effective Communication
Individual and Social Responsibility
Respect for Diversity among People

Continued Debate

the 5^th goal is adequately summed up by the first 4 goals, although he is not proposing that the 5^th goal be removed
blue information sheet the Senators were given on their name tags is a letter from the Chairs and Deans of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences who endorse the proposal as it stands
Student Senate overwhelmingly voted to recommend our adoption of the goals
it wasn’t clear where numerical understanding was among goals
concern as to how the goals would be used with syllabi
are they supposed to specify which goals were met by which assignment as the proposed goals are more broad
Regarding the appearance of the Baccalaureate Goals on a syllabus was thought to be more necessary by this body when there were 11 of them, divided up almost by discipline in some cases. Maybe we should revisit this question as a body to see if we still want to mandate that notation on every syllabus.
if the language was going to be incorporated about being a Liberal Arts Institute versus having these as the goals and wants to know if it came up in Academic Policies Committee
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire introductory statement says that the existing University Baccalaureate Goals be replaced by the following five learning goals and that includes an introductory statement
The goals of the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire Liberal Arts Education include and then it lists those five

Vote on Motion 44-AP-02: Motion PASSED by University Faculty Senators

New Business

First Reading – Motion from the Compensation Committee

Report on Resolution in Support of Higher Salaries for Faculty and Academic Staff – Vice Chair Gapko

The Board of Regions has stated that we need a 7.35% salary increase each year of this biennium. Last December they recommended a 5.23% of the biennium for four years for Academic Staff

Motion 44-CP-01

MOVED and seconded by Compensation Committee that the Senate pass the attached resolution supporting continued efforts of the Board of Regents and UW System administration to secure adequate salary increases for all faculty, academic staff, and senior academic leaders.

Resolution of the Combined Faculty and Academic Staff University Senate

at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

December 11, 2007

Whereas, the University of Wisconsin system wide Compensation Advisory Committee reviewed salary data from established peer groups and national reports on faculty salaries and reported that the data indicate:

faculty will enter the 2007-09 biennium 8.5% below peer group medians;
academic staff are nearly 12% behind market median salaries; and
senior academic leaders are, on average, over 16% behind predicted peer group median salaries; and,

Whereas, the Board of Regents considered those factors and concluded that to recruit and retain faculty and academic staff a salary increase of 7.35% each year is needed; and, cognizant of the difficulty of funding the needed pay plan in the current fiscal climate, proposed that a 5.23% increase each year over two biennia will begin to close the gap between median salaries and peer median salaries; and,

Whereas, President Reilly submitted 2007-09 pay plan recommendations, as adopted by the Board of Regents on December 8, 2006, for UW System faculty, academic staff, and senior academic leaders to the Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) Director, Karen Timberlake, to recommend to JCOER a salary increase of 5.23% each year; and,

Whereas, the Consumer Price Index over the past 12 months ending in October 2007 has been increasing at a rate of 3.74%; and,

Whereas, salary increases less than the rate of inflation are actually salary decreases; and,

Whereas, all unclassified staff—faculty, academic staff, and administrators—contribute to the university education of students; and,

Whereas, there is discussion of separating some academic staff from faculty as further salary increases are considered,

Be it therefore resolved, that the University Senate at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, support the Board of Regents and the UW System President in their continued efforts to ensure salary increases greater than 2% in the first year and 3% in the second year of the 2007-09 biennium in order to obtain fair and competitive salaries for ALL academic staff, faculty, and senior academic leaders; and,

Be it further resolved, that upon passage of this resolution, University Senate Chair Wood transmit copies to UW Eau Claire administrators, UW System President Reilly, Board of Regents President Bradley, OSER Director Donnelly, and Governor Doyle.

Debate

a discussion at system level about dividing academic staff
Regents have approved 2 plus 2 plus 1

Still discussion about possibility of raising tuition at the Institutions and using the revenue from that increased tuition to fund a larger percentage salary increase

When faculty representatives last met in Madison during a presentation form Al Christ said that Governor is interested in proposing this tuition funded increase for Faculty only. The Faculty Representatives in attendance pointed out that they have never supported the decoupling of the two categories and are unlikely to support it again.
Vice Chancellor Soll to clarify the reference to raising tuition to fund additional salary adjustments when in reality the Regents set tuition in July
When setting tuition they didn’t know what the pay plan was going to be so they had to make assumptions and that was that the pay plan would be 4% and that it would be funded 65% by the State and 35% by tuition
Legislature only approved 2 percent salary increase so at this point we are generating money through tuition to cover 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 %
System suggestion to supplement the 2% increase pay plan with what we have already collected as there is no discussion to raise tuition to increase the play plan
Kevin Reilly and Mark Bradley have continued to pursue the supplement is needed for all
Motion and Resolution read
stated that actually there was a larger range in pay discrepancy but board didn’t feel comfortable going above the numbers that the board had in front of them
Propose editorial – to add two “whereas” at the end, putting the word all in bold/cap letters and expand who it would go to

doesn’t think the CPI numbers are right and that they are too low
came up with 3.5
Provost Tallant suggests change that Karen Timberlake is listed as Director of OSER but it is now Jennifer Donnelly
why was the comparison in January 2006 instead of last salary adjustment made
question asked if move to suspend do we need another reading Response: we can vote on it today if the body considers the changes as editorial as well as we will distribute the new text

MOTION by Senator Stern that we suspend the rules to vote on this today seconded and PASSED by two-thirds vote.

Continued Debate on Motion

None

Vote on Motion 44-CP-01: Motion PASSED as edited without dissention

University Senate Chair’s/Faculty Representative’s Report – Senator Wood
Although it will formally go to the Regents for approval the Chancellor has signed the proposal for functional alternatives for DPC

Academic Staff Representative’s Report – Senator Brockpahler
no further report but there is a teleconference coming up on December 13, 2007

Reportable items from Committees
Compensation Committee – Vice Chair Gapko

Board of regents approved at or above 2% for merit

Compensation Committee discussed briefly but did not make recommendation to change
Should some further chunk of pay plan come along that will be handled as a separate chunk and the 2% will be distributed across the board
Nominating Committee – Senator Don
None

Special Reports – Report on Current Budget Process – Vice Chancellor Soll
Chancellor ‘s brief introduction

In order to have an understanding about the budget we need to have information and a common set of terminology and understanding on how money comes in, how money sits and how it gets spent

Budgeting Process Task Force
Power Point provides overview
Willing to bring Power Point presentation to any building/college
All input and questions are of great interest
Vice Chancellor Soll
Handouts given
Budgeting Process Task Force wants to help the campus gain a better understand of the budget situations we face and some of the issues involved in funding of the University as well as the processes we use to determine how those funds are distributed and allocated to the various departments and units on campus
Some possible different budgeting models that might come into play and some questions that we expect the Budgeting Task Force will be asking as they go about their work so this Power Point is meant to set a context
Power point Presentation on Budgeting Process

University Budget: $159 million
percent provided by state: 28%

the rest provided thorough general purpose revenue (tax dollars), academic fees (tuition), operational receipts (housing, centers, food service, segregated fees), gifts and grants (any money coming from outside sources such as federal government, financial aid and private sources)
Another way to divide budget is by activities: Financial Aid: 21.2%, Auxiliary Operations: 10.6%, Physical Plant: 9.4%, Institutional Support: 5.1%, Student Services: 10.3%, Academic Support: 9.4%, Public Service: 1.1%, Research: 0.5%, Instruction: 32.3%
Financial Aid money does not necessarily count towards university operations as the money is also used towards housing, food and etc.

Total Budget vs. General Operations Budget

Total Budget: Funds from all sources for all purposes, restricted and unrestricted, including: General operations, Auxiliary Operations, Gifts and Grants and Financial Aid
General Operations Budget: Unrestricted funds used for educational & general activities, including: Instruction, Academic Support, Student Services and Physical Plant

General Operations Budget

Percent of the University's general operations budget provided by state in 2006/2007 was 44%
56% through tuition and other academic related fees
In 1979 the state provided almost 75% of the University’s general operations budget
Impact of Budget Cuts (FY1999-00 through FY2008-09)

One time Cuts/Lapses $5,024,161
Total Annual Base Cuts $5,727,842
Cumulative Impact * $36,664,525 * The cumulative total of funds not available for UW-Eau Claire as a result of one-time and base cuts from FY2000 through FY2009 based on recently approved 2007-2009 budget.

$5.7 million has been removed from our base budget over the last 7 years

Not only do we report Auxiliary but by Statute as well as Regent Policy we are prohibited in using the money generated through Auxiliary operations or segregated fees to pay for instruction and other instruction related expenses

Budget Operations Budget by Activity

Instruction: 55.9%, Research: .1%, Public Service: .2%, Academic Support: 14.8%, Student Services: 9.6%, Institutional Support 9.1%, Physical Plant: 9.8%, Financial Aid: .5%

Budgeting Flexibility

Nondiscretionary Costs

Directed by Legislature: Fringe benefits, utilities, debt service and financial aid
Controlled by contracts: salaries

Discretionary Costs

Determined by University: Services and supplies, some equipment and travel/professional development

General operations budget of $82 million

percent considered non-discretionary: 92%
General operations Budget by Expense Class: Salaries: 60.5%, benefits: 26%, Utilities: 3.6%, Services and Supplies: 8.3% Permanent Property: 1.6%, and Student Aid: .1%

Between 1995 and 2005 how many academic programs were added and dropped: +34 (43 added and 9 dropped)

Program is a new major or certificate
If continue to face financial constraints then we may need to look at this more carefully to bring that net increase down

UW System Budgeting Process

Generally incremental
Generally distribute cuts across-the-board
New funding generally targeted
Not enrollment based

Biennial Budgeting Process

2 major components
Cost to Continue

Budget component that covers ongoing costs at previous level of operation, including expense items such as annualized salary increases, health insurance increases, utility costs and debt service (Does not include general inflation on Services and Supplies)

Decision Item Narrative (DIN)

A document used by the University or other state agency to present a funding proposal for a new or expanded initiative above and beyond the cost to continue
UWEC DIN History

Library Reference Materials: 1999-01 Funded through system-wide initiative
Academic Advising: 1990-01 Funded through system-wide initiative
Chippewa Valley Initiative: 2001-03 Funded
CVI Phase II: 2003-05 Not funded
Nursing-Marathon County: 2005-07 Not funded
NanoSTEM: 2007-09 Funded
Teacher Education: 2007-09 Funded through system-wide initiative
Nursing: 2007-09 Funded through system-wide initiative

UWEC DIN History Conclusion

DINs are not a reliable funding strategy for new or expanded campus initiatives
Face challenges on how it allocates money

Budgeting Issues

Alignment of budget with strategic priorities
State support not likely to improve in coming biennia
Limited control over tuition levels
Limited discretionary spending categories
Centralized vs. decentralized budgeting decisions
Role of growth in strategic planning and budgeting
Need to be effective in use of available resources
Need to be more entrepreneurial

Budgeting Models

Incremental: All budgets adjusted by percentage
Formula: Allocations driven by agreed upon factors
Zero-based: Budget built from zero
Responsibility Center: Centers own and must fund all expenses
Initiative: Funds off the top reallocated for priorities
Performance: Resources to those that achieve levels of performance
Hybrid: Combination of two or more models

Budgeting Models: The Strategic Budgeting Process Task Force will ask:

What are we already doing?
What features of a budgeting model could help us meet our planning goals more effectively?
What features would not be a good fit?

Miscellaneous Business
None

Announcements

None

Without objection, meeting adjourned at 4:55p.m.

Submitted by,

Tanya Kenney

Secretary to the University Senate

Related Links: