Administrative Affairs Committee
Indiana State University
Annual Report to the Senate, 2009-2010
The 2009-2010 Administrative Affairs Committee (AAC) has had 9 meetings this year.
Membership and attendance of the 2009-2010 Committee is listed below:
S. Frey (chair)
F. Lai
R. Lotspeich (vice chair)
C. Olsen
B. Phillips (secretary)
M. Sterling (scheduling conflict)
D.C. Yaw
9
9
7
7
9
0
9
Ex-Officio member was: E. Kinley (Office of the Provost and Vice President of Academic
Affairs).
B. Evans was the Executive Committee Liason in 2009; D. Richards was Executive Committee
Liason in 2010.
The AAC addressed the following charges:
1. Review & recommend changes, as appropriate, to academic calendar (2 years needed)
The Committee unanimously approved the 2009-2010, and the 2010-11 calendars. Discussion
about the summer schedule revolved around three main points: (a) concern for whether a 3-week
session can realistically provide a 3-hour course. (b) Concern that the Registrar has only one
deadline for the whole summer, so that students in the second summer session have only 1 day
for a full refund if they decide to drop a class. (c) Concern that there should be a complete reevaluation of how summer session is run, including minimum class size being enough the cover
the cost of instruction (7 students), consistency of offerings, and helpfulness to students.
2. Examine administrative structure relating to student success (summer reading program
through GE, Orientation through First Year Program, Student Academic Services Center
through AVP, and Math & Writing centers through Chairperson & Deans) and make
recommendations.
The Committee met with Jennifer Boothby, the newly appointed Associate V.P. for Academic
Affairs to discuss the structure and purview of the Student Success Council, which Boothby
chairs and which looks at broad issues; First Year Programs, which includes enrollment
management, with Joe Thomas currently in charge of some of it before admission and Boothby
in charge of anything after the school year begins; Office of Admissions, including their work
with high schools, 21st-Century Scholars program being in Boothby’s office; New Student
Orientation (which used to be called Sycamore Advantage); and Enrollment management, which
1
is part of First Year Programs. Discussion focused on duplication of effort as well as
collaboration between these various initiatives. J. Boothby stated that goals are to improve
student retention between Freshman and Sophomore years by 10% within 5 years, and to
improve graduation in 5 years by 3-4%. The Committee decided to table this charge since J.
Boothby was still new to this position.
3. Examine campus emergency shut-down policy and make any recommendations
the Committee reviewed the university’s shut-down policy documentation, and discussing shutdown procedures with Robert English, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and
William Mercier, Director of Public Safety. In a memo sent to Senate Executive Committee on
March 24, 2010 the Committee stated that it found that the current emergency shut-down policy
satisfactorily addresses the needs of the campus community.
4. Examine the administrative structure of Distance education programs (including
Correctional Education Program and web-based programs) and consider whether structures
are adequate. (As part of this charge the Committee gave feedback to the creation of a new
position, Dean of Extended Learning.)
On October 12, the Committee met with Nancy Rogers to hear the proposal to create a new
position of Dean of Extended Learning and to review the document provided to them by Senate
Executive Committee entitled, Rationale for Creation of a Dean of Extended Learning (dated
September, 21). The Committee was quite active in engaging Dr. Rogers on the issues and
details of this position. Action: In a memo sent to Senate Executive Committee on October 16,
the AAC recommended against this proposal. In this memo the Committee noted the merit in
addressing several points raised in the rationale document for the position, particularly for
developing distance education. The Committee concurred that creating a full-time position to
oversee distance education efforts is warranted, but believes this could be adequately addressed
by a lower level professional position that would cost far less. (Although the rationale memo did
not provide any expected salary for the proposed position, in response to the Committee Dr.
Rogers suggested the salary would be on the order of $100,000). The other activities presented in
the rationale document for a new position can be managed with existing positions. In addition to
this activity the Committee engaged in lengthy discussion concerning the loss of revenue related
to courses taught through the ICN (Indiana College Network).
5. Request additional information from the administration regarding the Great Places to Work
(Chronicle) survey results and report to the SEC.
The Committee reviewed the survey results and reported its reactions to the Senate Executive
Committee in an eleven page memo, dated March 24, 2010. (This memo is available under the
employee tab on the MYISU Portal.) AAC member Lotspeich also met with the Senate
Executive Committee (on 16 February) to discuss the memo, provided a summary of the memo
to the full Senate (on 18 March) and responded to questions in both meetings.
2
6. Evaluate potential usefulness of a separate faculty budget committee or subcommittee
working in concert and business finances and academic affairs.
R. Lotspeich agreed to chair an ad hoc committee to look into establishing a faculty standing
budget committee called SCUBA. Members of this committee comprise each of the major
campus units. The proposed purpose of the committee is to be well-informed on ISU’s financial
status and the broad structure of the University budget and to examine budgets of particular units
or activities. To date, SCUBA has met twice. In the most recent meeting the committee member
from the College of Business Finance program presented a brief overview of financial
statements, with focus on the ISU Financial Report. Other meetings have been scheduled
SCUBA members are currently looking for similar committees at other universities and how they
are structured. It is hoped that the proposal for a standing committee will be brought to the
Senate next year. (A report of work completed by SCUBA is attached.)
7. Restructuring of Student Affairs Committee (additional charge in April).
The Administrative Affairs Committee met on April 12 to discuss the proposed reorganization of
the Student Affairs Division and unanimously approved of the proposed reorganization.
Additional: The Committee discussed the issue of ISU diplomas not indicating specific areas in
which degrees were offered (e.g., “Nursing” rather than “Master of Science”). The lack of such
designations can cause problems in establishing credentials for some professionals. Discussion of
this issue will most likely continue next year.
Attachment:
Special Committee for University Budgetary Affairs (SCUBA) report dated 4-11-10
3
To:
Standing Committee for Administrative Affairs (AAC)
From: Richard Lotspeich,
Chair of Special Committee for University Budgetary Affairs (SCUBA)
Date: 11 April 2010
Re:
Report on SCUBA activities
The necessary work leading to a proposal to create a new standing committee of the ISU Senate
that would be concerned with financial and budgetary matters has not been completed, but some
progress has been made. This report summarizes SCUBA’s work during this spring semester.
The report consists of the following:
1. The memorandum approved by the AAC on 7 December 2009 that initiated SCUBA.
2. Reports of the three meetings SCUBA held during this spring semester.
3. Four case studies completed by SCUBA members on faculty budget and finance committees
at other universities.
Beyond this work, SCUBA has two more meetings scheduled for the spring semester and
expects to complete a draft for a proposal to create a new Standing Committee for University
Financial Affairs (SCUFA). This will be forwarded to the Administrative Affairs Committee
for possible consideration in the fall semester.
4
Plan for Proposal to Establish New Standing Committee
A Standing Committee for University Financial Affairs
ISU Administrative Affairs Committee
Approved 7 December 2009
Background
In response to concern for a stronger representation of faculty in shared governance at ISU, the Senate Executive
Committee has charged the Standing Committee for Administrative Affairs to develop a proposal to establish a new
standing committee that would be concerned with broad budgetary and financial affairs at ISU. Effective shared
governance requires faculty input on such matters, yet at ISU the faculty voice in this area has been weak or nonexistent. Largely this is because responsibility for budgets has been one of many assigned to the Administrative
Affairs Committee.
Article II, Section 3 of the Faculty Constitution conveys advisory authority on University budgets to the faculty, and
this function is delegated to the Standing Committee for Administrative Affairs as duty number 3 (Bylaws, Article
II).
The problem with this structure is that budgetary and financial matters for a university like ISU are complex, and the
Administrative Affairs Committee is charged with many other matters of both a recurring and occasional nature.
Most universities that function under principles of shared governance have separate faculty committees for
budgetary and financial matters. ISU is unusual in not having such committees. By removing this responsibility
from the Administrative Affairs Committee and assigning it to a new committee, there is no fundamental change in
the existing authorities at ISU. What this move would accomplish is to establish a more realistic governance
arrangement to fulfill existing responsibilities.
Strategy
To fulfill this charge, the Administrative Affairs Committee chose to establish an ad hoc committee to develop the
proposal (a Special Committee for University Budgetary Affairs – SCUBA). It was felt that faculty from all the
major units of the University should have representation on SCUBA, and the effort would be coordinated by
Richard Lotspeich, currently a member and co-chair of the Administrative Affairs Committee. Here is the current
membership of SCUBA:
College of Arts and Sciences
College of Business
College of Education
Admin. & Foundations
Graduate Council for
(provisional)
College of Graduate & Prof. Studies
College of Nursing, Health and Human Services
College of Technology
Library
Services
Liaison with Admin. Affairs Committee
Kathleen Heath, Anthropology
Mahfuzul Haque, Finance
Will Barratt, Educ. Leadership,
Tim Demchak, Athletic Training
Roseanne Fairchild, Advanced Practice Nursing
Cindy Crowder, Technology Management
Elizabeth Lorenzen, Library
Richard Lotspeich, Economics
Preliminary Outline of Proposal
5
Formulating a detailed and specific proposal for the new standing committee will be the work of SCUBA. The
points listed below are merely a suggested structure for the proposal and contain a number of important issues that
any proposal should address. These points are suggestions from the Administrative Affairs Committee for
directions that SCUBA should consider. The product of SCUBA will be a proposal returned to the Administrative
Affairs Committee, which will consider the recommendations and either accept the proposal or request revisions on
specific matters and language. The final version will be presented to the faculty Senate.
As preliminary guidance from the Administrative Affairs Committee, SCUBA should:
1. Provide a brief rationale justifying a separate, new committee for budgetary and financial matters as part of the
shared governance structure.
2. Specify a structure of the committee and a mode of selecting members.
3. Establish a set of on-going responsibilities (standing charges). These should include:
a. To be well-informed on ISU’s financial status and the broad structure of the University budget.
b. To advise the Senate and Senate Executive Committee on proposals for significant changes in expenditures and
revenue sources.
c. To provide expert advice to the faculty leadership on budgetary and financial matters.
d. To examine on request budgets of particular units or activities.
Specific Tasks for SCUBA
1. Become familiar with overarching philosophical issues and administrative best practices having relevance for a
faculty role in budgetary and financial matters as part of shared governance in higher education.
2. Review the experience of a handful of similar universities with regard to shared governance structure and
experience in budgetary and financial matters.
3. Draft handbook language for the new Standing Committee and amendments in other sections of the Faculty
Handbook as needed for consistency with a new Standing Committee.
4. Write a proposal to establish the new Standing Committee and present it to: a) the Administrative Affairs
Committee; b) the Senate Executive Committee; and c) the full Faculty Senate.
6
SCUBA Meeting Reports
Meeting 1 - 17 February 2010
Attending: Will Barratt, Mahfuzul Haque, Cindy Crowder, Elizabeth Lorenzen, Rick Lotspeich
Points of Discussion & Action
1. Committee elected Rick Lotspeich as committee chairperson. Unanimous vote.
2. Purposes and tasks of SCUBA were described by Lotspeich and generally discussed. One key point was a
request of SCUBA members to speak with colleagues in their units about this effort to obtain their views and ideas
about faculty roles in budgetary matters. This will inform the final proposal for a standing committee, which should
have input from all units in the University.
Materials were passed out, including the most recent ISU Budget and most recent Financial Report.
3. Mahfuzul Haque agreed to prepare a brief primer on financial statements to present to SCUBA at our next
meeting.
4. Responsibility for four case studies on other universities’ faculty committees on budgetary and financial matters
was assigned:
Will Barratt: Arizona State University and Wright State University
Elizabeth Lorenzen: Eastern Illinois University
Cindy Crowder: Illinois State University
Meeting 2 - 3 March 2010
Attending: Cindy Crowder, Roseanne Fairchild, Mahfuzul Haque, Elizabeth Lorenzen, Rick Lotspeich
Points of Discussion & Action
Mahfuzul Haque presented a brief primer on financial statements. This included a short handout and illustrations
using the ISU Financial Report for 2009. Mahfuzul noted important distinctions between concepts in financial
statements for profit-making enterprises and the analogous concepts for non-profits, like ISU.
While elementary, we believe this was a very useful presentation for accounting novices. It seems to me that a
regular standing committee should be required to have at least one member who is faculty in either the Finance or
Accounting program in the College of Business.
This took up pretty much all of our time. Elizabeth Lorenzen and Cindy Crowder had information to report on their
case studies, but we did not have time to consider their contributions.
Meeting 3 - 17 February 2010
Attending: Cindy Crowder, Roseanne Fairchild, Mahfuzul Haque, Will Barratt, Rick Lotspeich
Guest: Kevin Bolinger – Chairperson, Faculty Economic Benefits Committee (FEBC)
Points of Discussion
1. FEBC in relation to a new standing committee
7
The central purpose of this meeting was to learn from Kevin Bolinger details about the functions and practices of
FEBC toward assessing how a new Standing Committee for University Financial Affairs (SCUFA) would relate to
FEBC.
Bolinger noted that consideration of health insurance benefits has been reassigned away from FEBC to a new
University committee – University Health Benefits Committee. This leaves FEBC with consideration of salary and
retirement policies. He noted that President Bradley has been especially active in seeking the input of FEBC with
respect to policy initiatives. While he seems to be in search of endorsement for new plans, President Bradley has
also adjusted his proposals in response to reactions of FEBC, which are only advisory in nature. So there is genuine
give and take in that relation.
With respect to SCUFA, Bolinger suggested the FEBC functions could be wrapped into the broader mandate
envisioned for the new standing committee. Alternatively, both committees could operate simultaneously, but there
should be some kind of formal connection between the two since the charges to FEBC have financial implications,
and consideration of the wider picture of ISU finances should be included in FEBC deliberations.
2. Discussion then turned to whether SCUFA would be largely a reactive committee, providing information to
faculty on financial matters, or whether it would seek to have significant influence on formulating budget priorities.
The sense of the committee was that SCUFA should have both kinds of functions, and that it should engage in both
short-term and long-term consideration of budgetary matters. The case studies reveal that other universities include
long-term perspectives in their budget and financial committees.
3. Discussion of case study reports
All four case studies of faculty committees dedicated to budgetary or financial affairs at other universities are
completed. Most of this meeting was taken up with items 1 and 2, but we did spend about ten minutes discussing
the case studies.
It was noted that the composition of the committee for Arizona State University included two professors of
accounting and one from their school of management. This supports the idea that inclusion of ISU faculty expertise
from the Scott College of Business on SCUFA would be advisable.
It was also noted that Wright State University specifies that each unit of that university having representation in their
faculty senate also has representation on their financial affairs committee – something that has been recommended
by SCUBA members for ISU.
Professor Bolinger also suggested that an ISU SCUFA should include faculty representatives from different stages
in their career, since the concerns of senior faculty may be different from those of junior faculty.
8
SCUBA: Case Studies of Faculty Committees for Finance/Budget at Other Universities
Case Study 1: Eastern Illinois University – two committees
a) Faculty Senate Budget Transparency Committee
Functions
The Budget Transparency Committee is a sub-committee of the Faculty Senate at EIU. Their goal is to make sure
that budget items and changes are made transparent for faculty and staff around campus. This committee has no
advisory role; they just make sure that all budget items are clarified by line (personnel, commodities, etc.)
Authority
Committee of Faculty Senate.
Staffing - Three members of the Faculty Senate.
Comments
This committee has a very limited role to play in budgeting issues.
b) Council on University Planning and Budgeting (CUPB)
Functions
- The President shall report to the Council as to the final disposition of all planning and budgeting recommendations.
- The Council shall participate in making recommendations to the President with respect to:
- The setting of program priorities in the University budget.
- Periodic review of the University budget.
- Transfers of significant amounts among internal budget items.
- Overall review of the University planning process.
- The Council shall receive periodic reports from the Administration on the status of budget requests, appropriations,
and internal budgets, and shall render any advice considered appropriate. Specifically excluded from consideration
are matters related to collective bargaining and routine budget administration.
- The Council shall evaluate administrative proposals for dealing with externally imposed budget reductions and
render appropriate advice.
- The Council shall provide any advice on planning and budgeting which may be requested by the President
Authority
This committee functions in an advisory capacity directly to the President. It seems to have much broader authority
than a standing committee of the University Senate.
Staffing – 23 voting members and 5 to 8 non-voting members
Faculty: The chair of the Faculty Senate (or designee); 6 faculty members representing each of the major
units of the university – selected by elections in their units.
Students: 4 students selected by four student governance bodies.
Staff: Chair of the Staff Senate (or designee) and one representative from the Staff Senate
9
Administrators: 1 Dean (selected by Council of Deans); 1 academic chair (selected by University Council of
Chairs); 1 representative from housing (selected by VP for Student affairs); 1 representative from Minority
Affairs (appointed by President); 1 representative from Facilities Planning & Management (appointed by VP
for Business Affairs); 5 President & VP representatives from the following areas (all appointed by President
& VPs): Academic Affairs, Business Affairs; Student Affairs; External Relations; President’s Office.
Non-voting: President, Vice Presidents, Director of Planning & Institutional Studies, Director of Budget,
Executive Secretary to President.
Comments
This committee is quite extensive in its staffing and functions. It seems to be a central authority for both faculty and
administration with respect to financial affairs at EIU.
By-laws specify an Executive Committee for CUPB consisting of 7 elected and voting members and 3 ex-officio
members. Voting members of the Executive Committee are selected from the voting members of the CUPB. The
bylaws have several other provisions for operation of the Executive Committee.
The bylaws also specify authority to create subcommittees and ad hoc committees and six designated subcommittees
for particular functions. These include several Vice Presidential/President’s Advisory Subcommittees for each of
the areas (presumably one for each VP and one for the President) and a Budget Transfer Subcommittee. The latter is
required to review budget transfers of $250,000 or more.
Case Study 2: Arizona State University - Financial Affairs Committee
Functions
The matters addressed by the Financial Affairs Committee include: Strategic planning, annual budget planning,
allocation of university resources, insurance, salary schedules, patents and copyrights, compensation review,
acceptance of endowments/donations affecting the university's reputation, and legislative action.
Authority
The Financial Affairs Committee is created by the ASU University Senate, which represents the Academic
Assembly and is subject to the authority of the ASU Board of Regents.
Staffing - Seven Members
In spring 2010 the chair of the committee was from Accountancy. Departments of other six members were: Public
Affairs, Management, Accountancy, Math & Natural Sciences, History and an Emeritus faculty member from the
College. There was no indication of how members are selected or whether administrators sit on the committee.
Comments
There are no minutes and little record of their activities. The Committee was re-constituted in 2008 after having
been inactive, then merged with another committee.
Case Study 3: Wright State University – Faculty Budget Priority Committee
Functions
Request information from the university budget director and the university administration regarding university
income and expenditures and all other items of budgetary concern, including projected and actual budget reports.
Examine all fiscal affairs of the university.
Recommend fiscal priorities to the Faculty Senate and university administration.
10
The chair of the Budget Priority Committee shall attend the Board of Trustee's Finance and Audit Committee.
Authority
Not specifically referenced. Presumably the authority of this committee is derived from the Faculty Senate at
Wright State University.
Staffing - Ten Members
These include the Faculty President and Faculty President Elect. The Wright State Handbook specifies that the
committee shall include one member from each college or school that has representation on the Faculty Senate.
Comments
There are no minutes available and only limited reference to this committee’s action in the general minutes.
Case Study 4: Illinois State University – two committees
a) Administrative Affairs and Budget Committee
Functions
Review and advise on administrative policies and “annual budget concerns.
Conduct analysis of costs, staffing and enrollment data.
Provide oversight of the Academic Impact Fund.
Meet with a variety of administrators with financial responsibilities to obtain and discuss reports, including the total
athletic budget.
Provide review of annual capital planning and budgeting in close collaboration with Facilities Services.
Collaborate closely with the Planning and Finance Committee toward integrating annual and long-term plans and
budgets.
Authority
Standing committee of the Academic Senate.
Staffing – 10 members
The Vice President for Finance & Planning is an ex officio non-voting member; the other 9 members are 5 faculty
and 4 students.
Comments
This committee functions in the realm of short-term planning and oversight of budgetary matters. Long-term
planning is the province of the other committee at Illinois State University. The bylaws specify a great deal of
informational exchange between a variety of administrators and this committee.
a) Planning and Finance Committee
Functions
Provide recommendation to the Senate on all proposals having a broad or long-range budgetary impact.
Evaluate sources of funds available to the University.
Participate in formulating the Strategic Plan for the University.
11
Review reports from the other committee (Administrative Affairs and Budget Committee).
Participate in formulating the Master Plan.
Review overall institutional planning, including staffing plans, external relations, athletics and student life.
Meet with the President (or designee) to discuss long-range plans of various types (academic, administrative, capital
expenditures, fiscal).
Authority
Standing committee of the Academic Senate.
Staffing – 17 members
Vice President for Finance & Planning is an ex officio non-voting member; the others are 6 faculty members, 5
students, Chairperson of the Senate, Secretary of the Senate, Provost (or designee) and two employee council
representatives.
Comments
This is a committee dedicated to examination of a broad range of budgetary affairs from a long-term perspective.
Members are pulled from all major groups of stakeholders (faculty, students, administrators and staff). This
committee has responsibility for evaluating both spending and revenue sources, and the structure makes specific
provisions for interaction with administrators having financial responsibilities as well as with the other budgetary
committee described previously.
12