U
NIVERSITY
P
OLICY AND
P
LANNING
C
OUNCIL
2006-07 Chair: Steven Messner
September 21, 2006
Meeting Minutes
P RESENT : Roger Bisbing, Katharine Briar-Lawson, Maria Chau, Randall Craig,
Jil Hanifan, Jon Jacklet, Cliff Kim, Matthew Martens, Melinda Spencer, Edelgard
Wulfert
G
UEST
: Marjorie Pryse
M INUTES : No Minutes from May 22 – Special Meeting
Report from Academic Affairs:
Steven Messener indicated that due to the University’s unusual circumstances and Susan
Herbst’s additional commitments, she is unable to meet with the Council on a regular basis. She has requested that Melinda Spencer, Vice Provost for Administration and Planning, be her representative at the UPC meetings and that the agenda item for “Provost’s Report” be renamed
“Report from Academic Affairs.”
N EW S TAFF M EMBER
VP Spencer introduced Cliff Kim, Assistant to the Provost, from NYU. He started working in
Academic Affairs last week and is a good person to contact regarding Susan Herbst. He will also be attending UPC meetings.
S
ELECTIVE
I
NVESTMENT
C
OMMITTEE
VP Spencer indicated that the Selected Investment Guidelines have been distributed. Provost
Herbst met with her Executive Committee, the Executive Committee of the University Senate, and the Council of Deans about what can be done this year during this interim period realizing that a new president will have his/her own approach. The approach for this year is:
Keeping with $1 million as one-time funds and $800,000 for new faculty hiring (same as what was budgeted last year).
Instead of 20 junior faculty lines, proposals may be made for faculty positions at either the junior or senior level, depending on units’ needs, and positions will be fully funded
(rather than the successful unit being expected to pay a portion of the salary as was done this past year). This may result in fewer than 20 faculty lines, depending on requests and budgetary needs.
Do not expect the volume of proposals as last year, given that we are focusing on selective investment, although all units are encouraged to submit proposals.

Generally, the Provost’s Office will work through the Dean’s in putting proposals before the Selective Investments Committee since they are the respective leaders of their colleges and schools and represent their faculty. The Selective Investment Committee is charged with making the final recommendations. Bruce Szelest will be the staff person.
Steve Messner indicated that last year UPC had a formal role in the Selective Investment process. His conversations with Provost Herbst indicated she anticipates the process to proceed in the same way as last year. Thus, UPC will have the opportunity to provide formal input to the
Selective Investment Committee before the Committee begins deliberations.
During the discussion, it was noted that successful proposals will be collaborative faculty efforts for the common good.
Chair’s Report
UPC M
EETING
S
CHEDULE
The Chair indicated that there is no specific day/time slot that UPC can meet and accommodate everyone’s schedule. The meetings will be held on a rotating basis in order that all members will be able to attend some meetings:
Thursday, 3-4:30 pm – Tuesday, 3-4:30 pm – Thursday, 10:30 – 12 noon.
B
RIEFING AT THE
S
ENATE
’
S
E
XECUTIVE
C
OMMITTEE
M
EETING

Provost Herbst reported on the Selective Investment process.

She indicated that there is considerable continuity in the initiatives of President Hall. The
University Administration is generally following the priorities that had been set by him with some adjustments on the margins, e.g., the China initiative.
Briefing on Guidelines for the Allocation and
Award of Graduate Student Support Funding – 2007-08
Marjorie Pryse, Director of Graduate Studies, began her presentation with some background information. She indicated that the materials that she has distributed are not “etched in stone”.
Some changes are starting to be implemented with the knowledge that additional discussions are necessary.
H
IGHLIGHTS OF
P
RESENTATION
 The low level of doctoral stipends is an unresolved campus problem that doesn’t allow us to be competitive with other schools. However, the campus doesn’t have any new resources. Statistics from the Performance Dashboard show that the level of support received for stipends at both masters and doctoral level for the past five years has remained flat without any prospect of increases. This situation, combined with an increase in graduate tuition both in-state and out-of-state, has greatly affected the graduate program.


Dean Pryse, with the permission of the Provost, started to research the problem last fall by meeting with Deans, Assistant Deans, financial staff, and graduate program directors.

We fund approximately 550 doctoral students a year on the state-side. If stipends were increased by $1,000, approximately $600,000 would be needed to raise stipends in 2007-
08.

A model plan is a collective approach to solving the current problem. At the request of the Provost, approximately seven faculty members worked with Dean Pryse this summer on the guidelines. Follow-up conversations were held or are scheduled with the Deans,
Doctoral Program Directors, Chairs, Executive Committee of Senate and the Graduate
Academic Council.

Highlights of the Snapshot chart:
 Increase competitiveness using existing resources.
 $600,000 will be obtained by limiting our Master’s funding to Professional Master’s students (with some exceptions).

Returning uncommitted Presidential Fellows money for 2007-08 to the central pool.

The Budget Office is working very close with Dean Pryse.

Increase all doctoral stipends including continuing students by $1,000 (some flexibility in actual dollar amount).

Selectively increase by $1,000 per average doctoral program for 2008-09 in demonstrably strong programs.
 Increase in stipends linked to doctoral programs’ success in achieving overall graduate enrollment targets, which will eliminate incentive for admitting fewer students.

Hopefully the increase in stipends will reduce students working extra jobs.
 Maintain funding for Professional Masters’ programs to be able to use as a recruitment tool. Initially for 2007-08, Dean Pryse will be working with the Deans to identify what portion of their funding for this year went to Professional Masters students and use those funds as a sub-account with total flexibility. The plan is to protect that pool of money, but it can’t be increased at this time.

Offer doctoral funding only to full-time students, which will create a savings and increase the size of the central pool.

Expectation that faculty in the physical and natural sciences will move doctoral students onto grants to the extent possible.

Only fund international students who have a TOEFL/IELTS score that meets the
University’s minimum.

Funding Model is explained in detail in snapshot. Where possible (in all but the clinical programs) separate out the money the units receive to retain their continuing students from the money, lines, and offers they get for new students. Manage the first-year offers out of Graduate Dean’s office in order to benefit from a “campus-risk pool” to recruit our best applicants from very early in recruiting season.

Encourage departments to extend offers to the best students based on their historical
“offer-to-accept” ratio. The Graduate Dean’s Office will work with programs and
School/College deans to establish the “offer-to-accept” ratios, then absorb the risk campus-wide if some ratios aren’t on target – either over or under.


There will be an incentive for bringing in Masters students even though they cannot be funded for the most part if they’re not Professional Masters. Those Masters students will provide a cushion for shortfalls in the doctoral pool.
Open Discussion on the Graduate Dean’s Presentation:
A question was raised regarding Doctoral programs that don’t have Masters programs, e.g., the
Psychology Department. In these cases decisions would be made on the basis of the Doctoral programs. Dean Pryse reiterated that this funding model isn’t a “one size fits all” model. In the past the targets have always been imposed; this new model will give a better understanding of how the pieces fit together.
A member indicated the framework of the funding model is excellent, however, expressed a concern that there tends to be a “dance” between State funding and research grants, which makes the process difficult. Dean Pryse emphasized that it is not the model’s intention to create any disincentive for securing external funding and encouraged the member to meet with her to continue the conversation for further insight.
A concern was raised about whether the $1,000 increase in stipend would really be enough incentive for a student to stop seeking outside employment to supplement their stipend. Dean
Pryse responded that a $1,000 increase might not be effective initially, however, in the strongest programs, where investments can be made selectively, the increases might make a difference over time.
A question was brought up concerning some exceptions for the Clinical Programs. Dean Pryse responded that Clinical Psychology and Counseling Psychology may not be able to participate in the first-year campus risk pool. Those programs are so labor intensive with mentoring and also nationally very successful in recruiting new students; the danger is that these programs might actually over-enroll if they went out with more offers than they could afford to mentor.
Therefore it is likely that Counseling & Clinical Psychology programs will not be placed in the campus risk – details will be worked out with the respective Dean and Program Chair.
A concern was raised that funding decisions occur very late in the process, which makes it more difficult to attract outstanding students because they cannot wait to see what UAlbany will be able to offer. Dean Pryse explained that there was delay in the funding last year. She wanted to meet with UPC first this semester, and then meet with the Programs and the Deans in order to begin to implement the funding model. She will be working with Kim Murray in the Budget
Office with the goal of making allocations by the end of December.
The point was raised that the Average Ph.D. Stipend Chart in Dean Pryse’s handout does not correctly reflect an average stipend in the Sciences, which is approximately $18,000, and is just barely competitive compared with stipends being offered by other colleges. Since this amount is above the average stipend from the chart – money must be coming from external funds, or fewer students might be receiving higher stipends. Dean Pryse reported that the figures on the chart were from Institutional Resources data. The member also presented documentation that external funds are “drying up” and shared the statistics. Other Council members also noted the difficult challenges their departments are facing of competing with other universities.
Dean Pryse agreed that it’s easy to get discouraged; however, to improve the situation there has to be a start by “getting out of the basement” and getting us in the right direction. She will work

with this model until everyone is on board over the next two years, under the structural deficit model, and then present to the President at the time a request for new money to address the next set of problems. UPC will have to determine what the priorities will be, i.e. 5 th year support, dissertation year fellowships, etc. Dean Pryse emphasized that this is the first year in a multi-year process. She also indicated that UPC needs to be an ongoing part of the process and encouraged everyone to keep the lines of communication open. Her next step will be in the outreach mode, visiting units to start work for 2007-08.
The Chair thanked Dean Pryse for her presentation and willingness to tackle this important problem. Another Council member indicated she will share a list of concerns with Dean Pryse that weren’t appropriate to address at this time. VP Spencer indicated that this is a huge task that
Dean Pryse has agreed to work on and she very much appreciates any feedback to help her with this process.
Old Business
A D H OC C OMMITTEE ON S TUDENT S ATISFACTION
Elga Wulfert, Chair, of the ad hoc committee, gave an overview of the purpose of the
Committee. In the past, UAlbany, out of the 64 SUNY campuses, has repeatedly scored at the bottom on various categories of the student satisfaction survey. With the support of UPC and
Interim Provost Mumpower, Professor Wulfert volunteered to conduct an interview study with
UAlbany undergraduate students to identify sources of dissatisfaction. The results of the investigation were presented to UPC in a Memorandum dated October 20, 2005. During the past year, UPC had various conversations regarding the survey to determine what to do with the results. A small group of UPC members met during the summer to draft recommendations to be presented to UPC. It was hoped once UPC approved the recommendations they could be presented to the Senate as a resolution or bill.
C OMMITTEE
’
S T HREE R ECOMMENDATIONS :
1.
To create an Ombuds Office for undergraduate students
Identify faculty members who like to interact with students. This would be a mechanism to effectively address some of the students’ concerns. Such an office has been created for graduate students and has proven to be successful.
2.
An independent peer evaluation of teaching be obtained for T&P
Create a mechanism by which an independent external evaluation could be conducted of a faculty member’s teaching in the Tenure & Promotion process. Create a universitywide Teaching Evaluation Committee to oversee an evaluation of teaching
(independently of their academic unit) two years prior to the T&P process. This Teaching
Evaluation Committee would be comprised of Distinguished Teaching Professors and faculty who received Excellence in Teaching Awards. A member of the Committee, possibly in consultation with a faculty member from the candidate’s academic unit, could perform an in-class observation of the candidate’s teaching, review of the syllabi and teaching materials.

This is process is not to be punitive, but to encourage faculty to use mechanisms available on campus, e.g., CETL with their new director, to enhance their teaching skills and be better prepared for the T&P process.
3.
Collect SIRF ratings via the web
The committee was equivocal about this recommendation. Professor Wulfert reviewed possible advantages and disadvantages. a.
One advantage of having a web-based SIRF rating might be a larger number of responses by including students not in attendance during the administration. b.
More cost-effective than current process with paper and scanning. c.
Courses taught and associated with SIRF ratings could be automatically transferred by IR onto faculty activity reports. d.
Could easily be made available to chairs and/or deans and could play a role in discretionary raises as well as the identification of problems and remediation. e.
Could be made available on MyUAlbany and posted on departmental websites to enhance transparency and accountability.
A down-side of this process, as noted by Bruce Szelest, is that other colleges indicated if not mandatory the collection rate is only 25%. Our in-class collection rate is 60-70% and
85-95% in the graduate courses.
If information were requested to be imported into the activity report, this would require additional effort and money. Bruce Szelest noted that some of what is recommended could actually be accomplished with paper and pencil input. He indicated that
Institutional Research can produce for every department special reports in Excel with enrollment, number of responses received, instructor over-all rating, and course over-all rating. He also suggested that UPC talk with Bill Hedberg.
Elga Wulfert indicated this recommendation will need more thought and discussion.
Steve Messner indicated that there was frustration among the UPC members last year that many times a study is conducted and nothing happens. UPC wanted to be proactive and propose legislation that addresses some of the issues raised by this excellent report.
A discussion was held with various observations and comments.
C ONCLUSIONS RESULTING FROM D ISCUSSION :
1. Ombus Office for Undergraduate Students
Motion made by Elga Wulfert:

To endorse the recommendation for the creation of an Ombus Office for undergraduate students and to transmit this endorsement to UAC in anticipation of a joint resolution.
Jon Jacklet seconded the motion. A unanimous vote carried the motion.
2.
Independent Peer Evaluation of Teaching
A recommendation was made that as a new faculty member is hired, the person be encouraged to build a teaching portfolio – invite people to attend your class, seek letters of recommendations on observation of teaching that becomes a process over a period of time. This portfolio can be a part of the T&P packet along with the person’s research and service record. This portfolio would capture the spirit of this recommendation.
Professor Messner suggested that continued discussions and more input from the
Council are needed. Once UPC has formulated a proposal, it should be submitted to the CPCA for their reaction. It is very important to get input from a arge segment of the faculty before anything is forwarded for consideration by the
Senate.
After further discussion on this point, Professor Messner suggested that we plan for the next meeting to start with this item with the objective of finalizing a proposal to transmit to CPCA for their reaction. This document might include alternative scenarios including pros and cons.
New Business
F
INALIZING
C
OMMITTEE
M
EMBERSHIP
Steven Messner referred to the list of committee assignments. Anyone not assigned to a committee should see him after the meeting for an assignment.
The committees will be “up and running” as needed.
Motion made to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Kathleen Spawn