Finance and Planning Committee

Academic Senate Finance and Planning Committee September 10, 2014

Call to order by Chairperson Dan Rich

Introductions by committee members

Chairman Rich asked for a volunteer to fill the committee secretary vacancy. Chad Buckly has volunteered for the position beginning with the next scheduled meeting.

Chairman Rich circulated a handout with information on the committee’s schedule and possible topics/speakers. Members should strive to complete the body of work by March 4th of 2015.

The November 2014 responses to the committee’s document may be delayed since the University has new interim Vice Presidents and they made need additional time.

Presentations this fall will try to be held to 35 minutes to allow questions and answers.

The next meeting, September 24, is already planned as a joint meeting with Administrative Affairs & Budget Committee and will be a type of “University Budgeting 101.

A question from Dr. Ellerton—Last year there was a question from the Senate on requesting that the report information be given in priority order. This will be discussed later in other sessions. Also a question on making the V.P.’s reports more available. Brief discussion followed on the possible stifling from contributors due to the more public nature. The will also be further discussed at a later date.

Members were asked to look over the suggested topics or make new suggestions of topics. and give ranking to the subjects. Additions to the presented list included: Retention of faculty and staff (competitive salaries) Student Loans and debt load affordability (revenue through loans)

A recommendation was offered that we could possibly hear two set of speakers in one evening if the subject matter allowed.

Motion to adjourn, Seconded. Motion passed.

Submitted by Lois Soeldner, acting secretary Minutes Planning & Finance Committee

September 24, 2014 6:00 p.m. Founders’ Suite, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Nikki Brauer, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Kevin Laudner, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Stewart Winger, Brock Zimmerman

Members Absent: Nerida Ellerton, Samantha Kubil, Josh Maxwell, Ellen Schumacher, Robert Thurman

Guests: Greg Alt, Sandi Cavi

The meeting was convened at 6:00 p.m.

 This was a joint meeting with the Administrative Affairs & Budget Committee.  A presentation was made by Greg Alt, Sandy Cavi, and Deb Smitley who gave an overview of the university’s budget and the various funding sources which comprise it.  The overall budget consists of General Revenue Funds (State Appropriation and University Income Fund) and Restricted Funds (Bond Revenue Operations, Grants and Contracts, and other local funds). Definitions were provided for each type of funding. General Revenue Funds and Restricted Funds cannot be mixed.  State Appropriations currently make up about 19% of the overall budget.  The State Appropriation and University Income Funds combined currently make up about 60% of the overall budget.  FY15 expenditures by type and the budget process timeline were also shared.  Positive trends (improved state cash flow, smaller backlog of unpaid state bills, and stable enrollment) and future challenges (declining appropriations, possible expiration of temporary tax increase, pension reform, unfunded state mandates, MAP underfunding, and limited revenue growth) were noted.  Trends in declining state appropriations were highlighted.  The university’s FY16 budget request from the State was presented and discussed. The total amount requested is $81.7 million. Specific items included in addition to General Revenue were edTPA, compensation, and deferred maintenance.  Capital requests for FY16 in ranked order were also shared. The total amount requested is $275.8 million. These included Milner Library Rehabilitation, Mennonite College of Nursing Building, College of Education Facilities Rehabilitation and Construction, University High School Replacement, and Williams Hall Renovation. It was noted that these are all part of the campus master plan and dollar amounts have been increased annually to account for increasing construction costs.  Capital renewal Funds have also been requested to replace exterior doors and windows in Metcalf, Fairchild, and Rachel Cooper Halls as well as for replacing emergency generators. The amount requested is $3.1 million.  A number of questions were raised by members of both committees: o Question about bond revenue and the building of non-instructional facilities. o Comment about the need to limit tuition increases and not just shift debt to students and their families. o Question about student housing and meal costs – these were noted to not be increasing as rapidly as tuition. o Comment about the possibility of increasing the size of the university. o Question about whether the state rewards the university’s success and good fiscal management. It was noted that the state appreciates this but recognizes that other schools are needier. o Question about pensions. o Question about the relationship between tax increases and economic growth and their effects on higher education.

Respectfully submitted, Chad Buckley

Approved in Committee xx/xx/xxxx Minutes Planning & Finance Committee

October 8, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Nikki Brauer, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Susan Kalter, Kevin Laudner, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger, Brock Zimmerman

Guests: Jana Albrecht (Director of Financial Aid)

 Jana Albrecht, Director of Financial Aid, gave a presentation about student debt and loans.  With the revenue flip from state support to tuition support, financial aid has become more important as tuition costs increase.  Sources of aid included the following: 1. Scholarships, grants, and employment are free money. 2. Federal loans and private loans must be repaid.  Definitions of need, cost of attendance, and expected family contribution were provided.  The expected family contribution does not indicate what a family will actually pay. Samples for several expected family contribution scenarios were discussed.  The cost of attendance for Illinois State for undergraduates is currently $28,048. This includes the following estimated costs: 1. Direct – tuition and fees, room and board 2. Indirect – books and supplies, miscellaneous (depends on individual lifestyle)  The federal government tracks cost of attendance over time. Illinois State is currently #4 in Illinois among public universities.  Impacts of the 2002-2003 Truth in Tuition law were discussed. Costs need to be projected over a four year period.  MAP funding remains steady per student. Pell grants are trying to keep up and increasing.  MAP funding used to cover 70% of tuition and fees in 2005-06, but is now down to 35%. Illinois State is making up for decreased MAP funding with local initiatives.  Average debt for Illinois State has risen from $14,136 in FY03 to $26,061 in FY13 for graduates who did borrow money. Overall 32% don’t borrow anything, while 68% did borrow money. Interest rates depend on when the money was borrowed.  The default rate on student loans for Illinois State students is 3.6%, while the national average is 14.7%. Illinois State is #2 in the state among public universities behind only UIUC. This indicates students are learning and getting jobs after graduation.  57% of aid processed in 2012-2013 was student loans.  The following questions were raised by committee members: o Are parent loans included in these numbers? No o How does student employment factor into this and the number of years needed to graduate? o How do graduate students compare to undergraduate students? o Work study funds only go to $0 expected family contribution students. o When does it not pay to attend college anymore? What is the return on investment (future income vs. student loans)? It was noted that WGLT did a study on ROI for Illinois State with Country Financial. o What about international students?

The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

October 22, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Ellen Schumacher, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger, Brock Zimmerman

Guests: John Baur (Interim AVP for Research and Graduate Studies) Jason Wagoner (Director, Research and Sponsored Programs)

 Grants and contracts were defined. They involve contracts between ISU and an external entity such as a foundation or government agency. Funding is provided for achieving specific outcomes and usually falls outside normal university instructional activities. All direct costs awarded by the external sponsor are restricted funds.  Grants and contracts can be useful for a variety of reasons including the following: supporting research, purchasing equipment and supplies, providing summer salary support for faculty, developing faculty expertise, involving students in research, funding graduate student stipends (~$800,000 annually), and allowing students better access to improved infrastructure.  Examples of a couple specific recent grants were shared.  Indirect costs support administrative and facilities costs. They are distributed as follows: 32.2% Research Administration 24% College 20% Department 9.7% Provost 8.1% Graduate School 3% Library 3% Principal Investigator  Grants and contract awarded at ISU generally increased from 1986 to 2000, but have leveled off since then at around $20 million. A large stimulus grant for regional broadband bumped that figure up much higher in 2011-2012.  Indirect costs began being factored in around 1985. The amount of indirect costs awarded varies by the funding agency. It’s typically around 45-50% for ISU.  Grants and contracts currently make up about 6.7% ($27.5 million, including student financial aid grants of $6 million) of the FY14 university revenues.  Growth in grants and contracts at the university is limited by the associated infrastructure (facilities, graduate programs, faculty/staff).  The university’s Research Strategic Plan is available at Research.IllinoisState.edu/about.  Intellectual property issues are becoming more common, but staff are available to assist with this.  Questions and comments from the committee focused on: o Export control – when certain technologies are in use in the US, they cannot be provided to others outside the US without a license. ISU now has a dedicated position dealing with export control. Even access to students from embargoed countries to technology on campus can be considered “export.” There is a need to better educate and protect ISU faculty on this issue. o What has changed over the years? There is increased regulation by the federal government related to issues such as financial conflict of interest, responsible conduct of research, data management plans, and open access. o What percentage of grant applications get funded? About 15-20% of the grants submitted by ISU employees are funded. The national average is about 10%. o How can faculty on campus be better informed about what is going on with grants and contracts? Perhaps through better recognition of the outputs of grants. The federal focus is now on dissemination of results. Many grants now have an open access requirement for their results which can require additional costs or an embargo period. o It was noted that since ISU faculty have generally higher teaching loads than some research institutions, there is also much non-funded research taking place at the university in many disciplines. Only 25% of faculty’s time is generally allocated for research. o How do students learn about opportunities to be involved in research? There may be an office of student research some day. Currently ISU is behind other universities in providing services to students involved in research. Students can talk with faculty in their departments, do formal independent study or volunteer, and participate in departmental research symposia or the University Research Symposium. Another possibility would be an undergraduate research journal which could be open access and available on the library’s institutional repository.

December 10, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Nikki Brauer, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger

Guests: Greg Alt, Vice President for Planning and Finance

 Vice President Alt presented an update on the university’s Long Range Financial Plan. He provided context about the initial work and what has happened since the planning was begun.  Phase I was announced in Fall 2012 and started in earnest later that year.  Four working groups focused on: o Expenditure and Revenue Projections o Capital Projects Funding Needs o Optimizing the Alignment of Existing Institutional Resources with Strategic Priorities o Diversifying and Expanding the University’s Revenue Base  The initial focus was information gathering. Work was somewhat suspended before completion because of leadership changes at the presidential level along with working group member attrition with four co-chairs no longer being on campus.  A review of Phase I revealed: o Raised awareness of complexities of funding issues which involve multiple components with lots of restrictions. o Broad scope of the issues involved o No “easy fix” solution was apparent o A longer term process was needed - it was too complex for a quick solution and would take longer than originally anticipated  A new working group was charged to start in January 2015, chaired by Deb Smitley and Troy Johnson.  The scope of Phase II consists of: o Assessing information gathered in Phase I o Identifying critical threats and opportunities facing the university o Developing a 5-year operating and capital baseline if things continue the way they are o Identifying assumptions meriting further investigation, including enrollment levels and tuition pricing for example o Identifying next steps in plan development.  Immediate fiscal challenges are focused on post-election state notifications to date: o FY15 mid-year rescission up to 10% or $7.4 million o FY16 potential 20% ($14.8 million) reduction plan in state appropriations which won’t be known until possibly May 2015 and would impact future years’ funding  Questions from committee members focused on the following: o Have we considered really radical alternative funding/revenue models? Radical approaches at a public institution are limited by bureaucracy o Are there good plans from other universities and institutions we could model? These are not always shared very openly. This type of planning rarely happens ahead of a crisis, rather often in the middle of a crisis with not very clear thinking. Phase I did look at other universities’ ideas for diversifying revenue. o Will students be part of the review of Phase I? The SGA President will be on the steering committee o What are impacts of potential rescissions/reductions on the university? Tuition increases and decreases in MAP funding would be likely o What are the impacts of Truth in Tuition on the overall budget?

January 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Nikki Brauer, Dale Brown, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger

Guests: None

 The focus of this meeting was to review last year’s Institutional Priorities Report along with administrators’ responses from fall 2014 and to begin planning for writing this year’s report.  The committee will aim to vote on amendments and the document as a whole by March 4, 2015.  This may require additional meetings outside of our normal schedule, although the process went pretty smoothly last year with no additional meetings being required.  Administrators’ responses are the background for preparing this year’s report. We will note issues already addressed or needing additional attention.  Student Affairs itemized their responses. o Responses to Sections A.1.1-1.4 included a strong focus on service learning and veterans. Thoughtful responses to detailed points such as affordability were also noted. o Section A.3 was very strong since this is what Student Affairs does on a regular basis. o Responses to Sections B and C included comments only on specific sections that directly related to Student Affairs.  University Advancement’s responses were not itemized within each section and were somewhat general with few details on the number of students helped or dollar amounts.  Planning & Finance’s responses were also not itemized.  In the future, it would be helpful to request that all divisions respond in an itemized manner with “N/A” noted if specific sections are not applicable to their work. An alternative would be for the division to include a preamble to their response indicating which sections pertain directly to them and will be addressed.

Respectfully submitted, Chad Buckley Approved in Committee xx/xx/xxxx Minutes Planning & Finance Committee

February 4, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Nikki Brauer, Dale Brown, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Susan Kalter, Danielle Miller-Schuster, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Ellen Schumacher, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger

Guests: None

 The focus of this meeting was to finish reviewing administrators’ responses from fall 2014 to last year’s Institutional Priorities Report. Academic Affairs was the only division which the committee did not have time to discuss at the previous meeting.  Chair Rich distributed a chart comparing which sections of the IPR to which each of the divisions had responded.  Academic Affairs included itemized responses to all but two points.  It was noted by the committee that longitudinal data showing trends would be useful for sections A.1.1-4. The Provost’s Office will start to collect this for future years.  Responses to A.1.1-4 also don’t really get at the core mission of the university. Perhaps our report needs to emphasize programs at ISU, including program reviews.  For A.2.3, longitudinal numbers of students participating in study abroad would be helpful since there is a strong administrative focus on expanding international opportunities and connections.  For A.3.2 related to academic advising, are there ways for students to provide feedback on advisors’ performance? It was suggested that some departments handle advising very well, and others not so well. We need strategies to deal with this unevenness in advising.  Lost revenue from students taking summer courses elsewhere should be addressed in A.3.3. The state legislature has had an agenda to increase transferability of community college credits to four year colleges.  For B.1.1, the need for tenure track faculty was noted. Students may not be concerned whether faculty are tenure track or NTT, just whether they are good teachers. There are also issues related to research focus vs. teaching as well as salaries. Some accrediting bodies may set standards for tenure track faculty numbers.  For B.2.2, have salary compression and inversion really been addressed adequately?

Respectfully submitted, Chad Buckley Approved in Committee xx/xx/xxxx Minutes Planning & Finance Committee

February 18, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Chad Buckley, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Danielle Miller-Schuster, Ryan Powers, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley, Lois Soeldner, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger

Guests: None

 Proposals for changes were sent earlier to Chair Rich with voting to be held at a future meeting. Chair Rich distributed a compilation of the proposals for changes.  The committee began discussions of what we wanted to keep the same, change, or add to the Institutional Priorities Report.  The need for an additional meeting on February 25, 2015 was discussed.

February 25, 2015 4:30 p.m. Uptown Crossing, Suite B

Members Attending: Nikki Brauer, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Susan Kalter, Danielle Miller-Schuster, Daniel Rich, Deb Smitley

Guests: None

 The committee continued discussion of proposals for changes to the Institutional Priorities Report.

March 4, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spotlight Room, Bone Student Center

Members Attending: Michelle Alvarez, Nikki Brauer, Austin Browder, Chad Buckley, Lucille Eckrich, Nerida Ellerton, Mark Hoelscher, Jim Jawahar, Susan Kalter, Danielle Miller-Schuster, Daniel Rich, Marques Thornton, Robert Thurman, Stewart Winger

Guests: None

 The committee continued discussion of proposals for changes to the Institutional Priorities Report and began voting on the first half of the proposals.

Approved in Committee xx/xx/xxxx