39th Faculty Senate
Vol. 39, No. 5
October 21, 2004
I. Roll Call.
Present: Beck, Choy, Clow, Cravins, Dixon, Galbraith, Gendreau, Grunwald, Hench, Kernozek, Kraemer, Krajewski, Maher, Majak, Poulton, Ragan, B. Riley, D. Riley, Shanks, D. Sullivan.
Excused: Gongaware, Heim, Johnston-Rodriguez, Shillinger.
II. Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the September 30, 2004, meeting were approved as distributed.
Chancellor Hastad reviewed his priorities for the upcoming year which are about resources. The three issues he is focused on are: secure pay plan for faculty/academic staff that moves to or above peers; budget item that is supportive of financial aid for students – specifically lower 25%; working with UWS Building Commission to receive planning money for new academic building. Beyond that he is very supportive of academic initiatives, general education, and an international experience for students.
In response to an earlier question regarding the international experience, Dr. Hastad confirmed that he believes it is personally in best interest long-term on campus to make it a requirement – say entering date of freshman Class 2006. This experience could include a variety or menu of options including a 3, 4, 5 day experience or tailored to students needs. He believes this particular initiative will increase number of students who are interested in this campus. Senators responded that they hope there will be correspondence between what happens in classroom/link between academic experience and not be just an opportunity to have students study abroad. Also concerned about students from low income background – don’t forget them. Chancellor Hastad indicated it is imperative to find a way that no student is left out. The UW-L Foundation has also indicated an interest in helping fund international travel.
UW-System is seeking input about type of pay plan or percent as well as a commitment for catch-up pay. Interest is moving in this direction but if there is a will that remains to be seen – too early to predict. Would like to believe Governor recognizes this biennium was challenging of university system – Regents are also very supportive. What is State’s proposed budget? Nobody is saying what numbers are yet. Hastad thinks Governor knows system took big cut last biennium.
Q. What about planning money for academic building?
A. Our project ranked third for planning in 05-07, which puts us on the bubble – reasonable opportunity to make this happen.
Chair Riley updated Senators on several Search/Screen Committee activities: Members of the Search/Screen Committee for the Director of the School of Education (Tracy Carvalla, Barbara Chaney, Georges Cravins, Ray Martinez, Joyce Shanks, Don Campbell, Sandra Keller, Robert Seaquist, Ryan Kockler, Dick Swantz and Clifton Tanabe) will convene next week. Institutional Research – extended verbal offer but not received a response yet. Campus Climate Coordinator – interviews next week. Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management – candidates being invited to campus over next couple weeks. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in a similar place as Enrollment Management. EESHR Dean Search application deadline is December 10th with on-campus interviews anticipated to occur at the beginning of the Spring Semester.
The SEC has drafted the following motion for Senate consideration at its November 4, meeting. The SEC will refine the motion during the next two weeks, Chair Riley encouraged Senators to contact a member of the SEC if they have concerns/suggestions regarding the motion:
As the main charge for the General Education Committee for 2004-2005 is to assess the current General Education program, the Faculty Senate expects the General Education committee to devote its time and efforts this year primarily to this charge, in addition, of course, to considering whether to add additional courses to the current program. The results of all of these assessment efforts need to be conveyed to the Faculty Senate in the form of a report on the current status of General Education. This report should come to the Faculty Senate by early spring 2005 for Faculty Senate deliberation. The Faculty Senate has not requested that the General Education Committee propose a major revision of the General Education program. After deliberating on the General Education Committee’s assessment report the Faculty Senate will then consider whether revisions in the current General Education program are appropriate.
Budget review committee handout: Redbook budgets from 1989-90 and 2002-03, 03-04, 04-05.
Provost/Vice Chancellor Hitch focused her remarks on the issue of Student Credit Hours. While she was unable to find any written policy, she was able to tap into institutional memory through her conversations with Ron Lostetter and Ron Rada. For years there was a system we referred to as weighted student contact hours and was designed to link positions to student credit hours. However, Sharon Radtke (Director of Business Services) reported that in 10 years we only reallocated one position following this method. The current model is based on an historical system, looking at data over the past five years and sitting down with the academic deans to determine where we need to be as an institution in terms of meeting the needs of students. John Tillman went on to explain that the procedure in place now is to divide credits across departments looking at it in comparison with the FTE. Then see what numbers look like: are they out of line? in line? have they changed at all? Then sit down with deans and try to get whatever it is that doesn’t look right. Nothing very scientific like weighted student contacts, which was too complex and fell under its own weight. The real question is workload requirements.
Senators responded with a variety of comments including concerns about major changes in the general education program and what happens to academic staff who serve important functions within departments. In tight budget times we can’t decide that a budget will remain static because budget isn’t static.
Vice Chancellor Lotstetter distributed documents related to UW-La Crosse FY04 Fee Income Shortfall, Average Funding Comparison Pre/During EM21, and Differential Tuition Funding Scenario. (see attached)
There was no report from the UW-L Student Association Representative.
IV. Items from Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Ron Lostetter’s September 30 Report on 10 Budget Questions Responses.
Vice Chancellor Lostetter provided the answers to the remaining questions 4-10 (below). Copies of the documents are available on the Faculty Senate web site:
4. Is there a plan to develop additional financial resources that can be used to recruit the required number of non-resident students?
As the recruitment plans in # 3 above are developed, financial needs will be identified. The resources to meet the needs will come from several sources. For example, the Student Academic Initiatives identify resources to pay stipends to international students as a way to help meet their costs of attending UW-L. This will amount to $ 45,000 with an additional $ 45,000 match from UW-L. The Board of Regents has approved the “Return to Wisconsin Program” that reduces non-resident tuition 25% for non-residents who had a parent or legal guardian graduate from UW-L. The Foundation is awarding “Chancellor’s Scholarships” for non-residents who meet certain criteria. Additionally, the campus may re-allocate non-instructional funds to further meet recruitment expenses as long as there is a positive pay-off for doing so.
5. Is there a plan to coordinate the various student recruitment targets across UW-L Offices?
Yes, this will be part of the recruitment plans mentioned in # 3 above.
6. Is there a plan to predict and compensate for fluctuating student FTE?
The campus has many student FTE targets. There is an overall FTE target which is now set for the next three fall sessions. That target # is 8075 pending no major budget issues or other surprises. The campus has taken a position to build its budget tuition model using “liberal” estimates to have the base budget from UW System be as large as possible. The idea is that it would be easier to “give money back” than to “ask for it.” The campus also has a $ 400,000 “clearing account” to help absorb tuition shortfalls. Funds from this pool that are not expended by about March in any given year are used to fund one-time academic needs in academic units such as capital items or carried-over for use in academics such as funding ad hoc instructors to meet section needs. Certainly the new Assistant Vice Chancellor working with the Enrollment Management advisory group, the campus Institutional Researcher, and the Chancellor’s Staff will play a large role in helping “smooth” campus FTE enrollment figures.
7. Will the proposal for matching differential tuition adversely affect instruction?
The proposal for matching differential tuition (see Attachment B) identifies matching funding sources which are all non-instructional sources. Certainly these funds could be used to supplement instruction. However, the students felt, and administration agreed, that the differential tuition programs are academically related and will benefit student (and faculty) experiences at UW-L.
8. Is the proposal for matching differential tuition viable in the long term?
Attachment B contains the funding sources for matching differential tuition. There are five sources. The administrative salary savings is a “base reallocation” from administration to the academic initiatives and is viable for the long term. The second source is vending revenue which averages about $ 100,000 per year and, as you can see, the portion allocated to funding the Academic Initiatives is actually reduced in year two by $ 10,000 to $ 31,900. The match also calls for 10 new international students to allow a match of $ 100,000. Considering the fact that $ 90,000 is being used to partially fund “in-bound” international student stipends, this is nearly a wash. The benefit, of course, is that the long-term increase will be beyond 10. The result will be funds for other strategic purposes and a greater diversity of our student body. A fourth source is work study match funds. This source is solid as long as there is federal “Campus Based Aid.” And lastly, the “fringe benefit pool” will fund nearly $ 95,460 in match. This is a function of placing the academic initiative positions in GPR and how salary/fringe benefits are paid.
9. How do other campuses provide financial incentives to non-resident students?
All campuses have some “common” sources. Non-resident waivers, federal financial aid, work programs, etc. would form the basic sources. From there, outside sources would take over. These include Foundation-funded scholarships or commitments from other private sources for scholarships and/or work opportunities. What is different among campuses is the number of non-residents that they have. Over the last four years, we lost well over 100 non-residents. Many campuses in the UW System, some larger than UW-L, had less than 50 non-residents in total four years ago. We need to return to and exceed the numbers we had previously. This will further diversify our campus which is critical to our future as well as deriving economic benefits.
10. Are there differences between UW-L and other system campuses in terms of the way the AFIR reports are structured?
No, all system campuses use the same AFIR report form. There certainly would be differences related to specifics such as numbers/types of differential programs and/or service-based pricing programs which would impact tuition. But the same basic reporting format is used by all campuses.
Finally, the Faculty Senate made a second motion on April 29, 2004, related to recommending that university funds used to match differential tuition not come from instructional budgets. As outlined in Attachment B, no funds listed are from instructional budgets. It has been and is the students’ and our intent to enhance students’ academic experiences with the differential tuition funds. Reducing instructional budgets for this activity would not accomplish this goal.
03-05 Biennial Budget Reconciliation
Campus 03-05 Budget Reduction w/o FB $ 2,392,835
Less Actual 03-05 Budget Reduction
With FB - 1,692,900
Difference $ 699,935
Plus Campus FB Effect + 396,206
Funds Available $ 1,096,141
Less Amount Held For Tuition Revenue
Shortfall - 800,000
Less Amount for FY 04 ACT 33 Veto Reduction
Related To Health Insurance Coverage For
Part Time Employees - 100,337
Funds Available $ 195,804
Funds Released FY 04 To Provost For Adding
Funds Available (From Above) $ 195,804
FY 05 ACT 33 Veto Reduction Related To
Health Insurance Coverage For
Part Time Employees - 199,556
Budget Shortfall FY 05 $ - 3,752
April 2003, R. L.
Year 1 Year 2 And
(FY 04) Beyond
Tuition $ 297,500 $ 387,500
Pool 95,400 95, 400
Match 120,140 120,140
Portion of Incremental
Interntl. Stu. Tuition 100,000
Vending Revenue 41,900 31,900
Salary Savings 40,000 40,000
Sources $ 297,500 $ 387,500
Total All Sources $ 595,000 $ 775,000
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.