Skip to content
  • Print

March 8, 2018

Academic Council Meeting
Library Community Room
3:00-5:00 pm   

MINUTES   

Attendance:            
Business:
J. Herche(a), J. Miles(p)            
Conservatory:
P. Shands(p), A. Miller(p)
College: A. Lenzi(p), J. Hetrick(p), C. Dobbs(p), L. Fox(p), J. Hole(p), S. King(p),  J. Becker(p), B, Swagerty (p), P. Meyer(p), S. Jensen(p), J. Lu (p)            
Dental:
S. Gupta(p), A. Gluskin(p), P. Subar(a)t, S. Sadowsky(a)            
Education:
L. Webster(a), M. Draheim(p)            
Emeriti:
Roland. di Franco(p)            
Engineering:
 S. Gulati(p), J. Shafer (p)            
Law:
J. Sims(p), R. Salcido(a)            
Library:
M. Maloney(p)            
PHS:
 C Peterson(p), X. Guo(p), D. Vyas(p), R. Halliwell(p)J Livesey(p)            
SIS: S. Mathis(p)            
ASUOP:
C, Styc(p)            
Graduate Student Assoc: C. Cannon(a)
Ex-Officio:  P. Eibeck(p), H. Escalante(Ombuds)(p), M. Pallavicini(p), D.Kelly(Athletics)(a), Joel Lohr(a), Peggy Kay (p)            
Guests:
Wes Yourth, Louse Stark, Lou Matz, Balint Sztaray, Holly Trexler, Wendy Cornwall, Eric Sonstroem, Jeff Miles, Cindy Ostberg, Craig Vierra   

Call to Order @ 3:04 by Chair, Jeff Becker J
eff advised the order of the agenda would be altered in order to accommodate the guests from Athletics. He welcomed all guests to the meeting.   

I.      Consent Agenda 
A.  February 8, 2018 Minutes
Motion to approve:

Motion Second Action
Cathy Peterson Sharmila King Passed, 2 Abstentions


II.        Action Items
A.  Student Academic Grievance Board Replacement - Leili Javadpour
Motion to approve nomination by Professional Relations Committee (PRC) of Leili Javadpour as Spring 2018 replacement for Delores McNair who is on Faculty Development Leave, Delores will resume her position in Fall 2018, terming in Spring 2019:

Motion Second Action
Sharmila King John Sims Passed, 20 Yes, 0 No, 2 Abstentions


B. Library By-laws - Veronica Wells, Library Faculty Chair

Veronica Wells, Library Associate Professor and Faculty Chair gave a brief summary of the revised Library by-laws.  She explained the change involved the role of Faculty Chair, previously called Convenor. The Faculty Chair role would be a more robust role and would review librarians. She confirmed the chair reports to the Dean of the Library and the term of the chair is three years with allowance for another three years. Veronica explained under the revision all librarians whether tenured, tenure track (TT) or non-tenure track (NTT) are eligible to serve as chair since there are very few tenured, TT library faculty and no new tenured lines have been opened.  An AC member asked if a NTT faculty chair would then be evaluating tenured or TT faculty.  She answered yes, according to the revised by-laws and because there are only two tenured faculty librarians, if the old by-laws are not revised they would rotate the chair position.  An AC member asked if it was against the University promotion and tenure policies and Chair Becker confirmed it was.  AC member noted there may be other similar situations (MSAT) where NTT faculty are going to evaluate tenured or TT faculty.  AC member offered the item should be looked into more in terms of violating the faculty handbook to bring clarification.  Veronica confirmed the faculty chair does receive additional compensation.
Motion to table for one meeting and bring back to the April AC meeting to ensure compliance with the Faculty Handbook, Chair Becker asked AC members to send any questions to Veronica so she would have the opportunity to answer them:

Motion Second Action
Bill Swagerty Cathy Peterson Passed, 25 Yes, 0 No, 2 Abstentions


C. Shorelight Foreign Credential Evaluation - Thomas Naehr, Dean of the Graduate School

Thomas Naehr, Dean of the Graduate School provided background on the item.  Until last semester when a foreign graduate student applicant applied to Pacific they had to provide an evaluation of their foreign transcript and degree, the sole evaluator was WES. In the fall the list of evaluators was expanded (and approved by AC) to a list of additional firms.  Shorelight is a recruiting partner with the University and since Pacific's I-17 was adjudicated in December, Shorelight has asked to evaluation in-house transcripts of applicants that come in through their program since they have their own evaluators.  The Graduduate School, Registrar and Admissions considered this and saw that Shorelight's process was very similar to the other services and they will report a US equivalent GPA and degree comfirmation. The request before AC is to allow Shorelight to evaluate graduate applicants that arrive through the Shorelight pathway. AC member asked who evaluates the student's TOEFL scores.  Dean Naehr answered the scores are sent from the TOEFL testing service and not evaluated further because they come directly to Pacific as part of the application. An AC member asked if there were safeguards to avoid conflict of interest.  Dean Naehr answered the safeguard was the pre-defined entry requirements, because it's an objective way to see if the students have passed the courses for their undergraduate degree.  AC member felt it was a different function, as opposed to Shorelight's own assessment of the quality of courses it has provided. Dean Naehr answered Shorelight is assessing the undergraduate transcript and GPA as outlined in the Pacific/Shorelight admissions documents, there's little subjectivity.  The only area of trust is Shorelight is their confirmation the student has received a degree with US equivalency. This is not different than WES or the other evaluator agencies.  Dean Naehr offered to send the list of courses and scores required for entry that show there is less subjectivity for Shorelight than the other evaluators.  AC member noted to protect the university from the appearance of a conflict of interest it would be better to have a separate evaluator in the event Shorelight is not trustworthy.  Dean Naehr answered the relationship could be re-evaluated in a year.  AC member noted if we enter into the agreement with Shorelight, Pacific carries the risk and asked what we get out of it.  Dean Naehr answered the agreement with Shorelight includes shorter turnaround times (students get acceptance quicker) and prevents in-house evaluation delays. 
Motion to approve:

Motion Second Action
Cathy Peterson John Livesey Failed, 9 Yes, 10 No, 6 Abstentions


D.  FHB 6.2.6 Faculty Compensation Committee - Jeff Becker

Chair Becker explained the change is to add a member from SF and SAC to the Faculty Compensation Committee, changes S (Stockton) to U (University).
Motion to approve revision of FHB 6.2.6:

Motion Second Action
Lydia Fox Xin Guo Passed, 19 Yes, 3 No, 1 Abstention


E.  FHB Addition of Policy on Minors - Jeff Becker, AC Chair and Jianhua Ren, Chair, Academic Affairs Committee on Undergraduate Studies (AACU)

Jianhua Ren, AACU Chair reminded AC members they considered this item at their October meeting and sent it back to AACU for additional review and updating.  The policy was established by the Academic Affairs Committee in 1986, revised in 2006 and 2008, however never added to the Faculty Handbook.  AACU carefully discussed each item and October 2017 comments from AC members.  The revision adds text for the definition of a minor from the undergraduate catalog and removes the limitation on the number of minors. 
The Provost asked AC to consider the impact on the four year graduation rate if students are allowed to take as many minors as they wish. She explained the need to improve our four year graduation rate.  AC member asked if there was financial incentive for students to finish sooner.  The Provost answered we have a 45% four year graduation rate.  AC member felt students that were taking on additional minors are not those who aren't graduating in four years, they are the bright, motivated students.  Jianhua told AC members of AACU felt the student's faculty advisors would advise them on taking additional minors.  It was noted there is no evidence to suggest students with multiple minors are slow to finish and there is currently no policy in place, so students are/have been able to take as many minors as they wish.  The Provost feels a responsibility to put in place procedures and policies that are going to encourage students to be engaged, focused and improve our graduation rates.  AC member noted many Phi Beta Kappa's have two minors.  AC member asked if there were financial implications to the university and are multiple minors impacting how programs are designed.  Jianhua answered that Finacial Aid had not been questioned. Anecdotally, one student in the last ten years has taken over two minors.  Chair Becker reiterated that the item brings the minor policy into the Faculty Handbook.  AC member stated they saw no connection between grad rates and students taking minors. 
Motion to approve addition of the Policy on Academic Minors to the Faculty Handbook

Motion Second Action
Scott Jensen Lydia Fox Passed, 27 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstentions


III.      Reports

A.    Chairperson's Report - Jeff Becker
Jeff thanked Kimberly Lynn, Staff Advisory Council Chair for inviting the Athletics staff to join the meeting.  He mentioned the Budget Town Hall on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 from 3-5 pm in Grace Covell.  He recognized all Stockton faculty members of the Institutional Priorities Committee were in attendance. Jeff shared the Provost's Office has advanced language on joint appointments, a step reward system for full professors, and a document to define the work of department chairs with PRC and will be brought to AC before the end of the year.  He announced nominations are out for AC Chair-elect, AC representatives and faculty, joint and university committees.

B.   
ASuopRepresentative Report -  Caroline Styc
ASuop Student Senate voted to approve an ASuop student fee increase by $75, bringing the fund to 1.2 million.  It will allow ASuop to start a grant fund for student improvements on campus similar to the Third Space initiative.  She reported ASuop elections are coming up and asked AC members to encourage student involvement. 

C.    President's Report - Pamela Eibeck
President reported on her visit to Washington, meeting with California's elected representatives and senior staff.  She and her colleagues were struck by the unprecedented skepticism on college affordability.  It was a discouraging visit, regardless of party affiliation (democrat or republican).  She reported the Board of Regents (BOR) approval of a strong plan for the Law School, developed by McGeorge faculty and the Dean. There will be voluntary faculty and staff departures along with operational changes. The President shared IPC is grappling with Pacific's institutional budget, looking at projections of revenues and expenditures. IPC will be sharing recommendations at the Budget Forum March 20th with the President and VP Ken Mullen.  Even with structural changes at the Law School and the control of Athletics spending in place there are fundamental challenges for the annual budget. We have strong financial health, (endowment, debt and viability ratio).  Next year we face very little income to the annual operating budget, we're spending more than we bring in due to lower tuition increases, growing financial aid, and flat enrollment.  The incremental funds will not cover medical benefit increases, promotions pool and annualizing last year's salary adjustments.  At the Budget Forum IPC and the President will address the actions need to be financially sustainable and address under target salaries with conversations continuing into next year.  This is happening throughout higher education, there are less college age students and even less that can afford it. Students are questioning the return on investment. Federal and state governments are pulling back support.  There are an increasing number of competitors creating nimble educational models.  These are unsettling times for all at Pacific and no easy answers.  The President encouraged faculty to work together for a strong Pacific and find creative solutions to serve our students well, be affordable and grow.  We have to pioneer or perish.  She reminded AC of Pacific's history in difficult times.  The President believes in our strategic directions.  She mentioned a recent Wall Street Journal article on winners and losers in higher education, we are ranked 117 out of 1042 schools.  We have a strong reputation based on student input, outcomes (salary), etc.  She thanked faculty for being open to hard choices.

D.    Provost's Report - Maria Pallavicini
The Provost agreed there will be hard actions, but we must remember students are at the center.  She spoke of institutional lethargy and the need to be creative.  Last week she was at CSU Dominguez Hills for a reaccreditation visit.  She observed a strong student success effort and faculty/student interactions.  She thought they (CSU Dominguez Hills) were doing what we say we're doing but are not doing as well as we could.  They have in place structures and support systems to ensure student success and have increased their retention rates 10% in two years.  Their student population is similar to ours and their strategy is to serve the students who come.  We talk about and are known for student support in our rankings. We have to think our students are first and do the very best we can. We have to ask if we are really using our student's tuition dollars in the best way.  We have to look out of the box and at other institutions so that students feel their price point is absolutely worth it.  We also must improve four and six year grad rates.
The Provost stated we have NTT faculty on this campus, yet they are not treated evenly, the FHB prohibits service, but when convenient they serve.  We must value them, but the FHB is silent on NTT (the grievance procedure leaves them out). She urges AC to take on the value of NTT faculty.
The Provost mentioned the WSCUC self study will be ready in a few weeks. The document reflects who we are, where we are going, and what we are doing.  She thanked faculty for their work on the document and asked AC members to review it. Updates: Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs - there is a good pool of applications, internal & external. A search firm was deemed too expensive.  The search committee is comprised of Julie Davies (Chair), Cyndi Lyons, Keith Hatschek, and Lydia Fox. This is a key position, faculty resource, and key academic role and there will be an open forum with applicants.  In the Status of Women report one of the recommendations was HR should have a "go to" person for faculty.  Linda Jeffers has been assigned.  There is a 25% position open for Academic Chair of UOPI. Also, it will be announced Monday that we have a new Dean of Eberhardt School of Business, starting on July 1st.  

IV.      Discussion on Reports
Chair Becker advised discussion of reports would be combined with the Athletics and IPC Budget discussion.  

V.       Discussion/Information Items           
A.  Athletics Budget Update - Wes Yourth (WY), Interim Athletics Director, Louise Stark (LS), Faculty Athletics Representative, Lou Matz (LM), Athletics Advisory Board Chair, Pamela Eibeck (PE), Maria Pallavicini (MP)
Wes Yourth: Wes expressed appreciation for the invitation from AC, and Staff Advisory Council's invitation to the Athletics employees.  He distributed the following documents; 1) West Coast Conference FY16 Benchmarking (FY17 will be available in June) and, 2) Athletics All Funds Revenue & Expense Summary, which outlines 2016, 2017 and current 2018 Athletics budget.
Wes shared the day-to-day Athletics operations which includes approximately 10% of the undergraduate student population. Athletics is about 5-7% of University's budget. Wes stressed the importance of the Athletics programs, its people, places, and relationships.
Q:  On the Benchmarks for WCC, does revenue include Financial Aid?
WY:  Yes. It includes operational dollars, salaries and financial aid.
Q:  The university contribution on the All Funds Summary does not include Financial Aid. ($7M vs $17M).
A: WY: This year the financial aid budget is roughly around 9.6M. The one page document is strictly operations and salaries.
Q:  Are overages included in final figure (the bottom line). Do they include the overage of 2M from the previous year, and reflected in the university contribution? Not sure how the overage is upheld. 
A: PE: If you look at the bottom the revenue total includes the university contribution. 1.9M in FY16 and 4M FY17. 
Q:  For the total expense, Pacific reported to Federal Government (required by Title IX) was $24.6M.
Q:  Chair Becker asked Wes to explain what led to the overages and what has changed once the overspending was discovered? What has changed from last year to this year?
A: WY:  We are much more aware of the financial structure; monthly reports and meetings between coaches and financial personnel. "Real time" spending estimates (includes about a 6 week lag time); Wes and the Athletics Business Manager meet with the VP of Business and Finance, Ken Mullen and Controller, Ron Ellison every two weeks on operations spending, which includes recruiting, conferences, game travel, uniforms and supplies, and technology.  They are also discussing recruitment of an Athletics Budget Director.
Q:  Looking at $1.9M to $4.2M overage, what resulted in this large increase in overspending?
A: WY:  Several teams traveling internationally during that year: Men's BB, Women's BB in FY17; Field Hockey in FY16; the WCC changed their policies on contributions: previously they paid, but no longer cover officials fees and championship game travel; also, legal required costs such as FLSA, and the shift of some staff from exempt to non-exempt classification with resulting overtime costs.
Q: With the exception of international travel those costs will continue so how will we ensure we're within budget?
A: WY: Planning ahead for FY19 and beyond, reducing financial aid for fifth year and summer school and reducing operational costs. We're doing a benchmarking exercise that uses FY16 numbers aligned with the WCC and benchmark against the median. 
Q:  Are you using FY16 budgeted or actual? 
Q:  The concern is more long term.... Div-I budgets going up 10-11% per year as reported by NCAA; VP Ken Mullen said two months ago "you just can't keep track of an Athletics budget"; how do we keep up with those 10-11% increases?
A: WY:  There are multiple levels of Division I athletics. We're Div-I-AAA (non football school), men's basketball is our highest revenue sport; programs at this level aren't necessarily 10-11%.
Q:  It still outpaces what the university increases per year are.
A: PE: We're not keeping up and we're not going to, we're not the only school facing this same situation. Collegiate athletics money at the big power 5 conferences is going to be diminished as media rights will decrease; we're cutting back and we'll play Div-I at a level we can afford.
Q:  We aren't going to keep increasing? How do you manage to do that?  Can you keep track of an athletics budget?
A: WY: Yes, although it's not an easy process.  The banner text file needs to be transformed to an Excel file.  We're looking to track the financial aid in a better way, specific to individual student athletes, depending on their scholarship, housing, books, and Pell grants.  To create a budget and track it is a lot of manpower, we're working on solutions.
Q:  It's a big mess is what you're saying.
A: PE: What had happened is all divisions throughout the university have someone keeping shadow spreadsheets to compare expenditures and revenues. Athletics let that process lapse for a number of years but they're now tracking. The summary sheet is built upon pages of thousands of transactions, meticulously sorted to create the summary.  By giving that information to people they can change the nature of their spending, then make cuts based on targets.
Q:  In the past, you couldn't reconcile budget and now it's done with a 6 week lag. In other units it's done monthly by the first week of the month. Athletics must be using another system, not sure why.
Q:  $21-24M that the University contributes provides about 80% of budget; other is donors, foundations and tickets? Is that correct?  How do we compare with aspirational peers?
A: WY: In FY16 yes, we're about the average for endowment yield.  In FY17 we don't have the benchmarking data.
Q: Has membership in the WCC been worth it? It costs so much... How does the University assess this change? And how do we compare?
A: PE:  Being affiliated with premier peer institutions is a big advantage. Pacific receives free media and reputational benefit. The WCC guarantees a certain amount of televised games for us.  We have other sports that WCC doesn't sponsor that are performing well.
A: WY: We had a great fall/winter season. Overall we started out low but we've trended upward toward being in the middle of the conference over multiple sports.
Q:  There has developed a mindset for overspending in athletics (≥ 1M/year as far back as has been revealed). Why is there a difference? How will we change?
A: PE: How about if I answer a different question? One major part of overspending is financial aid; but no more. Summer financial aid was always available; now it's allocated and capped; we are transitioning down financial aid. Wes and Lynn Fox are developing a control mechanism. Ken Mullen and I are checking this monthly.  It's not going to happen quickly but it will happen.
Q:  If membership in WCC is worth the cost, are there any data to show effect of Athletics on admissions? How is this quantified? They're not paying for championship travel or referees.  I'd prefer the money goes to our students.
A: PE: WCC was much more generous than other conferences previously; they cut back because of diminishing income to conferences; they changed their policies due to this shrinking revenue.  Now university presidents are saying they will have to find the funds somewhere else to cover costs.
Q:  If At the Townhall we're going to be talking about significant cuts and this is a major budget overrun. The WCC has shrinking revenue, the costs are rising, how is it sustainable?  Why aren't discussion taking place on feasibility of Div-III or Div-II.  , What would be the costs and is the marginal benefit for Div-I vs Div-III greater than the financial cost of remaining Div-I? VP Mullen says this is a "Pam" question.
A: PE: It is a "Pam" question. We care about getting the budget under control and hiring a new AD; Wes has done an incredible job.  We'll be interviewing AD candidates in April; Peg Ciccolella is on search committee. Worth having a discussion on the value of Athletics, bringing in experts and understanding the associated rewards and costs of Div-I vs Div-III, scholarships and other options. Where NCAA is going, and NCAA recognizes that schools are getting caught between a hard place.  We love our athletics and student athletes, it brings a real value to an institution.  I'd rather it be something we do next year over a year or more, where we have time to plan and seek out experts.  We need a new AD who is willing to take the lead on this question.
Q:  Are you committing to doing this (discussing the question of Athletics' value)?
PE: Is AC willing to have faculty participate in it?
A: Chair Becker: Oh sure.  Other members: Yes... YES.
Q: Are you saying yes? (to President Eibeck)
A: PE: Yes
Q: Budget for COP is less than University contribution to Athletics. On the handout it says "AllFunds" but does not include financial aid.  Why is "All Funds" not all funds (why does it not include Financial aid?)
A: WY:  It's two different systems. One operating one financial aid.  The financial aid system is not as developed.
Q:  So The money being spent on financial aid is greater than the operating contribution. So, you're doing a better job at keeping track of the smaller amount of money ($7M vs $17M). It seems we're having the same degree of overages in financial aid as operating, correct?
A: PE: I'll do my best to be accurate, we allocate a certain amount of financial aid for the NCAA equivalencies, setting aside summer; Coaches like to recruit smart players, this serves the athletes well and the university.  They get merit and NCAA aid, we need to figure out how much of the overage is because athletes are getting extra aid.  How much can Athletics work with the central financial aid office so we reach our target for total NCAA aid for our athletes. We can't say how much we're over because of how much central also contributed to financial aid. 
Q: Could we agree that if we're going to talk about Athletics overages all funds should be included?
A: PE: Yes
Q: What are the expenses and revenues per student (not per athlete but per student?) Since UOP is a much smaller school than some competitors if we spend more per student it's harder on us that a school that has 10 to 20K students.
A: MP: Mike Rogers (Institutional Research) has that information.
Q: I would like to know what are spend per athlete is compared to other schools and what is the graduation rate of our athletes?
A: MP: It's about the same as the general student population.
Q: What is the cost/ benefit of NCAA? What is the total financial aid at Pacific per non-athlete student compared to athletes?
A: The information is not readily available at this moment.
Q: Chair Becker asked if the Athletics budget has been shared with Athletics Advisory Board and IPC as promised.
A: Chair of Athletics Advisory Board, Lou Matz answered that President Eibeck was planning to address the committee this month (March).
Q: Chair Becker noted Lou is also on the AD search committee. He thanked all guests from Athletics.

B)  IPC Faculty Chair Resignation and IPC University Budget Issues/Concerns
Chair Becker confirmed that AC member Jeff Miles has resigned as Chair of the  Institutional Priorities Committee. Jeff Miles (JM) spoke briefly on the antecedents  to his resignation from IPC:

  • Challenges will require true shared governance and transparent financial data 
  • In December Jeff asked AC for help in seeking improved data be provided by the Administration; nothing has changed or is scheduled to change.  He did not feel he could make important budget decisions without the data 
  • Coming together as a cohesive unit needs better cooperation 

Q: On how many occasions were you asking for information, what type and how  was it stymied?
JM: Many requests for data from across campus... there were many occasions, both oral and written. The AC Executive Board also requested Athletics data. We were told we would not get any more data.
Q: Yes, I know you brought this to AC Executive Board as well. With four faculty members now on IPC, there seems to be an assymetrical representation.        
A: PE: I think there are two issues: what extent of detailed data do we have that's easily accessible; Jeff has provided the detailed example of Rutgers, which is a public university that must publish its financial information. We have not typically done that as a university, we could. I spent 25 years in public universities and am used to that model. I would prefer before we do we must consider the implications - possibly revealing salaries. Another challenge is the charge and scope of IPC. I've tried every year to expand the amount of understanding that IPC and the University community can have around the budget. Information on every budget line isn't necessarily understanding. Understanding is in trends, patterns and benchmarks, it's understood by local experts. An example of my commitment to transparency is the budget proposal we created last year for the Board of Regents; sent out to AC.  It looks at trends, financial aid and factors that drive our financial health, trends and expenditures, also challenges and opportunities of the University. We now have Athletics Budget as an appendix and I would like to have every school's budget as an appendix.  The work of IPC...I went back to the charge and it's a mixture of strategic planning and budgeting, although a good amount of strategic planning has been taken on by the SPC.  Here is what the charge says about establishing the institutional strategic budget; a) recommend strategies to achieve strategic planning priorities (SIF), b) formalizing budget assumptions, providing assumptions of enrollment, discount rates, reasonability of growth rates, recommendations of tuition rates, c) review recommendations of the draft annual budget.  This is looking at the budget for next year,   IPC has always worked at a "high instutional level" and we've provided information at appropriate to that "high level". It's not worked at the details of an organization's budget; it's difficult to make good decisions when outside that organization. I don't want to dismiss the value of IPC or another central group looking at how we spend our money, but ultimately what we need is a way to process a lot of information, make sense of it, and do benchmarking and make comparisons.
Q:   If, as you say, IPC isn't the right forum for budget detail (and I'm not saying it isn't), then where does shared governance fit into the process as you've outlined it? Because we HAVE a role in budgeting the funds of the university.
PE:  I think you'd like to see an expanded role for IPC or another group? I think we will be, as Cindy made reference to, but much of that work will be school and college based. We can have a central group that is engaged and weighing in on that work; it would be a very appropriate shared governance work; I might recommend that it not be the same as IPC, because IPC has a series of decisions to make on cyclical events
Q:   As a follow-up... You mentioned the Strategic Priorities Committee. I just sent out the call for nominations for the various faculty and joint committee assignments and was told that the SPC is "inactive." IPC is either the right or the wrong committee for budgeting or the right or the wrong committee for planning. The faculty have a legitimate role in both budgeting and planning, so where, in your view, is the right home for these activities?
MP: It was the recommendation of IPC to put SPC on hold. Two committees doing strategic planning.
Q:   Yet, the fourth item in SPC's charge includes reviewing the progress on the plan, so it's not just plan construction.
PE:  This was also a consideration of faculty time and effort.
Q:   Was that ever acted upon by AC and was the handbook changed? Because, if not, that was an inappropriate and improper governance action.
MP: I have no idea... Discussion of history & structure of IPC vis-à-vis SPC
Q:   We're trying to help and that's why we need to see budget numbers.
Q:   The University's budget is about $320M/year [PE: that is both restricted and unrestricted]. COP budget is between $17M and $20M/year, which is a fairly small percentage, for such an important unit. One might say, "What on earth is happening with the rest of the money?" I want to know that **some faculty member** has an idea. I don't need to know, but I want to know that someone who represents me has that information. I want to know, from an independent source, that when you ask us to make 10% cuts across budgets, that that's a reasonable thing to do. Without that, it's pretty difficult to have any confidence; I think all of us are on board with trying to help, but making difficult decisions when we're in the dark about the majority of the money, we have no way to make sense of those decisions.
Q:   Jeff, did you ask for specific information and what is the reason that our faculty representatives don't have access to that data?
Q:   I would like to apply that to the Faculty Compensation Committee... why cannot the FCC (confidentially and as representatives) see salary data as we used to do in previous decades? Q:   It would be like doing Promotion & Tenure without being able to see the portfolio. You've got to have data to make decisions and make recommendations.
JM: We've asked specifically for all-funds income and expenditures and been told that because of the Banner system, that's not going to be available. As the president said, they're working on the Chart of Accounts and it will take some years to make that happen. Right when we need to make really important budget decisions, we don't have the data.
Q:   Is it that we really don't have that data or we're not willing to provide it to IPC?
PE:  There is not information, other than individual compensation breakouts, that we would not be willing to provide to the IPC. Will not debate prior communications; deeply appreciate Jeff Miles' commitment to understand the budget; also recognize the need to be as transparent as possible but we also want to have information in ways that inform understanding.
PE:  College budget vis-à-vis the University budget: IPC is about to complete its recommendation and is looking at benchmarked data to compare expenditures against standard and aspirational peers also information on administrative costs relative to our peers. We have this information and will share it - we're not hiding it. A legitimate question is how much does this full AC want to be involved? (versus IPC [only])
Q:   I'd reiterate the idea that the faculty on IPC could be our representatives to let us know that they have examined the budget and "it's ok". I'm also concerned when I hear that the faculty representatives on IPC vote one way and Cabinet votes another way. That's the bigger problem that leads to overall disagreement.
PE:  Absolutely! Our first semester didn't start out well, but we've improved the situation and a frank conversation helped to reach the same commitment. That has made a real difference. Haven't seen that block voting since this frank conversation.
MP: I'd like to say that during that early time period last fall, athletics budget clouded everything. Athletics overshadowed all else, fomenting distrust. We also have to ask ourselves, "so if you see budget detail, like the athletics travel budget, what do you do with that information?"  Are you going to say, "I don't think they should travel so much"... or if Student Life has three counselors, will you say, "I don't think they need that much." What is the purpose of knowing that information. Are you wanting a broad overview such as we've provided or will you say, "I don't think that Division should do that." That would be like the administration telling the faculty, "you've got to teach that way." So we need discussions about how much detail do you want and what will you do with that detail. Is it broadening your horizon about how money is being spent or will IPC tell Divisions how to spend their money. That's not their expertise. Q:   So you're saying that numbers require interpretation... that's what we do in the humanities - facts and interpretation. The former questioner framed an interesting question: The Athletics budget is roughly equivalent to the COP budget, a unit that houses half of the instructional faculty of the University. The Values Initiative defined our institutional values and I'm cynical about those values in light of these budget numbers, with spending equivalence between ½ of our faculty and 1/10th of our students (student athletes). We're askew; we've lost our way! This is an institution about education. I don't care how much advertising we get from athletics; why are we spending so much on something that isn't even mentioned in our mission?
C:    In asking for the data, we're asking for a fuller picture to make better decisions. A lot of things you've mentioned are incremental (Div-I to Div-III). I just came from the Strata Conference where the titans of Silicon Valley were presenting the future.  There's disruption everywhere and we need a non-determinative solution to this and the only way to obtain that solution is to see a full picture - granular level data to get the full picture. We need a non-incremental solution; we have an opportunity because every other smaller liberal arts university with an athletics program is facing the same problem. We have an opportunity to solve this for ourselves and others... that's the reason people are asking for the data.
MP: That's a good and wise thing to look at - where are we spending our money generally. It's in how far do you want to go... looking at efficiencies in the units or the big picture.
PE:  I'm not surprised that the conversation is going to the point of whether we should have athletics at all here at the University. It's an understandable question, given the pressures on us. I'm happy to engage in an analysis of this next year so that we can bring to bear facts and analysis from scholars who have actually studied this. There is a real value that athletics brings to the out- of-the-classroom experience, extraordinary for the 10% of students who participate in intercollegiate athletics, and it's the experience for all students as part of the University community, a sense of spirt, a sense of belonging, a sense of having a premier residential experience, both in the classroom and outside of the classroom. Athletics has brought value almost from the beginning of the University, so let's be careful about making too rapid a decision. Very happy to engage in the dialog; very happy to look at comparison data, so we can rationally understand the tradeoffs.
Q:   Getting back to asking for the data. This is an issue that has been around for years. We're trying to help; going back to your opening remarks, we need to trust and not be divisive like the prevailing mood in the country. We need that trust both ways; you need to trust that we'll be part of the solution.
C:    The invitation for the athletics staff to attend today was to put faces to the name; who are we talking about when we say, "Athletics."
PE:  Example of data request from Miles to Mullen; we don't have that data in a form that is accessible; We're not trying to hide data...
Q:   We're getting ready to make some serious cuts to the budget... Under FOOF we made a 6% cut, mostly across the board, then ~1% and last year 2.5%; some units are so strapped that they may not function with across the board cuts; without data we can't strategically be able to assess impact on various units and help you construct a plan to achieve minimum harm.
PE:  The cuts we're talking about will extend beyond FY19 and over 12 month period; working with IPC to get a plan to the Board that is as informed as possible.
C:    Based on many decades of experience, today's discussion is a whole new breed of discussion between faculty and administrators; fine job of explaining the difficulties that you all face; hope you can build on today's discussion.
Q:   One last thing... Why are we making cuts in a rapid manner?
PE:  We need to be "fast" in FY19 only; can be more measured and considered in the coming year.  

Meeting Adjourned at 17:25.   

Wes Yourth
Passed out two documents
What is Athletics -
350 student athletes - people, places, relationships, programs. Coaches/educators through their sport.  Engage with SF & SAC. 10M in Athletics facilities in the last 10 years - shared with academics and student life.  Collaborative relationships on campus and in the community.  Programs = dreams.  Student athletes want to play Div I sports and academics.  Hall of Honor - yearly inductees. 
JB: What has changed?
WS: More awareness, sports supervisors, monthly meeting and report.  Business Manager is meeting with Controller, VP Mullen.  Recruitment awareness.  Five major categories: 1) Misc travel 2) away game 3) recruiting 4) uniforms and supplies and 5) technology. 
Q: What accounted for the FY17 overage?
WS: M & W BB, and Field Hockey, WCC Conference change in contribution for referees, WCC travel, labor and overtime changes went up. Now benchmarking with FY16 numbers. 
Q: Long term: Div I are going up 10-11% yearly increases. 
WY: We are Div I, 3a - non football school - we can't keep up
PE: not the only school that is facing it - major distruption due to cable
Q: Aren't going to keep increasing - how will
WY: Yes, we can - not easy to transform a banner text file to an excel spreadsheet
Q: Big mess is what you're saying?
PE: Athletics bookkeeping lapsed for several years
Q: Couldn't be reconciled, now you can in six weeks.  Why different from other departments? Of the 24M - University provides 82% of Athletics budget.  How do we compare with aspirational universities? 
WY: Don't have benchmarking from FY17
Q: Is WCC worth it? How does University assess this?
PE: Being affiliated with premier institutions is a benefit for us. Free media, televised games Q: Other departments that overspend are penalized, why is Athletics allowed to continue to overspend?
PE: Major area of overspend is FA - we must have a cap.  Wes and Lynn Fox are developing a control mechanism. Also, operations are being checked monthly. Transitioning down FA (under fund operations)
Q: WCC membership - data from admissions - measuring WCC positive revenue impact.  We know they aren't paying for championship travel or referees. Rather have money go to FA instead of travel and referees. 
WY: This is evolving with WCC. 
PE: Diminishing funds led to policy
Q: If we went to Div 3?  Is this worth it.
Q: Significant cuts at town hall.  It's not sustainable - we must change.  Resistance to II or III. Why aren't these discussion taking place.  Is there BOR pushback?  Think out of the box. PE: We care about budget under control and hire a new AD.  Interviewing first week of April, identified search committee member Peg C. - sure Div III will come up.  Year long study - to examine pros/cons.  Wants to do it next year.
Q: Will we do that next year?
PE: Yes
Q: COP budget is less than Athletics - this was eye opening.  Doc says all funds revenue but doesn't include FA (why?)
WY: due to VP Mullen, FA is a different system
PE: Doing her best to be accurate. 
Q: What are the numbers per student?  

Institutional Priorities:
Jeff Miles -
We need transparent data and true shared data.  Nothing has changed since December and a point to make serious decisions, Jeff cannot make these decisions without these things.   

Q: specifically when and for what data was asked for and not given
PE: Two issues - what extent of detail data do we have?  Rutgers line item budget.  Public do publish, Pacific hasn't typically done it, we could.  Challenge of charge and scope of IPC - difficult for this committee, each year she has tried to expand the information.  Example of her commitment of being more transparent, budget created last year for the BOR.  Trends and enrollments              

VI.      What's on your mind?

Adjournment