INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
3:30pm, HMSU 227, January 20, 2015
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V.
Sheets, K. Yousif
Member Absent: S. Lamb
Ex-Officio Present: S. Powers
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: R. Gonser, D. Hantzis, L. Maurer
1. Administrative Reports:
a. S. Powers: No Report
2. Chair Report: R. Guell
a. R. Guell:
i. V. Sheets emailed me a question this morning for the Fifteen-Minute
Open. “A member of my search committee heard from a chair in another
unit that positions unhired by the end of February risked being cancelled.
Has such a drop-dead date been put into place or implicated?”
1. S. Powers: No, no such drop-dead date has been put in place by the
administration.
ii. The Temporary Faculty Advocate has resigned. I have called a meeting for
all temporary faculty who wish to attend Friday afternoon to see if we can
obtain some nominations. There is no current process by which this is to
happen, so if we get a small number of people to volunteer I will submit
the names to Exec when we meet again. Those names will be submitted to
J. Maynard and he will appoint. It is my hope that by the end of the
semester FAC will formalize a procedure by which temporary faculty can
choose their own representative.
iii. I received an email late this afternoon regarding an increase in parking
rates. The Parking Committee has not been constituted this year. I would
like this on the February Board agenda. It is a nominal increase. I will
forward you the details.
iv. I also gave you the Provost search calendar. Please block out those dates.
3. Approval of January 13, 2015 Minutes: A. Anderson, C. Olsen. Vote: 8-0-0
4. AAUP Report: Representative Declined
5. MS in Genetic Counseling: R. Gonser, L. Maurer: V. Sheets, C. Olsen. Vote: 8-0-0
a. R. Guell: In deference to R. Gonser’s and L. Maurer’s time we will skip to the
curriculum proposal.
b. R. Gonser: This came out of the Unbounded Possibilities initiative. Part of the
proposal we had was that by year five we would have the Genetic Counseling
program in place. Resources went first into infrastructure. We have five biology
faculty lines as well as lines in other programs. Across campus there exists
expertise in this field already. At the time we began, there were 23 programs in
the United States, and now there are 27-30. It predicted to have the largest job
market growth; 900-1500 new Genetic Counseling positions have been created in
that time frame. With the advent of 23 and Me—a DNA service that provides
genetic reports on ancestry and family history—many counselors are needed there
alone due to Federal mandate to provide understanding to consumers related to
their results, including false positives. It has stimulated much growth. Indiana
University is the only other university in the state offering a program, and they
only admit 6-8 students per year. Genetic Counseling programs have become
more competitive than medical school. Our minimum GPA requirement is 3.62
for admission. This program uses courses across campus in Psychology,
Philosophy, Athletic Training, and Biology, among others. We only needed to
create a couple of courses. Faculty were hired to support this initiative. For
example, the Seminar in Genetics course will have a special topics section on
“Issues in Genetic Counseling” for students in the program. Initially we proposed
that we would take 15 students into the program, but after discussion with our
Advisory Board, have decided to start out with eight instead, and build up to 15.
Due to the need for clinical rotations Union Hospital and Hux Cancer Center will
give office space for an onsite clinic. Most rotations are hospital-based and some
are university-based due to the lack of a teaching hospital. Peyton Manning
Children’s Hospital, for example, is accepting interns from as far as the
University of North Carolina. With relationships with hospitals in the Champaign,
IL area as well as Evansville, Fort Wayne, and others throughout Indiana, there
are many opportunities for students to go home during the summer and serve their
clinical rotations there. The program is 62-63 credits, and they are mostly based
on looking across the 23 programs. The accrediting body sent standards and
indicators, and the courses fit those standards. Once we hire a program director—
we have four candidates whom we will see in the next two weeks—they will look
at the curriculum and set it up for accreditation. Revisions will be simple and inhouse. We are working simultaneously on ICHE paperwork and accreditation.
i. K. Bolinger: Will clinical supervision be built into the fee structure?
ii. R. Gonser: Yes. The fee is roughly $2000 per semester. It was $1000 five
years ago. This program now is more technologically advanced. Students
will scan their own genome on 700 different aspects. The mentoring fee of
$500 is part of the $2000 to cover clinical rotations in hospitals, clinics,
industry, etc. We’re looking for rotations in many environments.
iii. K. Bolinger: Will the program director be responsible for establishing
criteria for clinicals, monitoring, supervision, etc.?
iv. R. Gonser: Yes. All of our director candidates have a minimum of eight
years in the field. One has been a clinical director for 20 years. Two have
been on site visits for accreditation, and another is currently at Peyton
Manning Children’s Hospital.
v. R. Guell: L. Maurer, have you anything to add?
vi. L. Maurer: No, just that there aren’t any other new programs being
developed at the Masters level just now. It’s a good niche-type program
that will attract students.
vii. K. Yousif: The paperwork is slightly older. You are currently in the
process of hiring a director? And this is a lot of faculty for beginning a
small program. How do they play into the rest of campus?
viii. R. Gonser: Philosophy has a search for a professor that was going to have
a specialty of medieval studies at this time, but we convinced them to
change the specialty to bioethics. Many programs will need bioethics and
will contribute to the Philosophy department’s growth. Three years ago,
the Biology department hired professors for cytogenics and is now
searching for an embryologist. They would already be teaching
Foundational Studies courses.
ix. K. Yousif: They are integrated into the rest of campus?
x. R. Gonser: Yes.
6. Student Evaluation Questions
a. Student Evaluation Questions 1-7: K. Yousif, A. Anderson. Vote: 8-0-0
i. R. Guell: V. Sheets, did you bring details on the proposed Open-Ended
Amendment?
ii. V. Sheets: It is accurately reflected in the minutes. They were: “What were
the best things about this course?” and “What would have helped you
learn better?” I would make an amendment that we have those two openended items. V. Sheets, A. Anderson. Approved by acclamation.
iii. K. Yousif: Are we including “My instructor demonstrated enthusiasm for
the course content?”
iv. R. Guell: We will leave that one off and debate it later. The seven
universal questions and the two open-ended questions that we have
included by acclamation. Let’s discuss the questions as they are.
v. K. Bolinger: I would advocate strongly for the second to be deleted. There
is no student in my class who has earned an F who would say that I treated
them fairly. If we could find a way to operationalize “fairly” better,
maybe, but it’s a loaded question.
vi. R. Guell: Amendment to strip “fairly” from question? K. Bolinger, A.
Anderson. Vote: 8-0-0
vii. K. Yousif: Should we use the word “respect?”
viii. C. Olsen: The test bank had both of those. It was easier than “My
Instructor treated the students of all religions, races, etc…. with respect.”
It’s okay with me but I don’t know how others feel about it.
ix. K. Bolinger: This question I don’t like, but “respect” is okay.
x. R. Guell: D. Hantzis, do you have any opinion on essentially stripping
“fairly” and adding “with respect?”
xi. D. Hantzis: There needs to be a question that addresses interaction with
students beyond what is there. It needs to be there. We didn’t list all the
variables. “Respect” is okay, or the “me” could be made plural.
xii. K. Bolinger: “Equity” is the same thing, but some may not know what it
means.
xiii. C. Olsen: One version said, “My Instructor seemed to treat all students
fairly or with respect.”
xiv. R. Guell: I would say that the criticism of substituting the plural pronoun
is “How do I know whether others are treated fairly?”
xv. E. Hampton: You could witness an instructor treating others poorly or
unfairly and it’s not about you.
xvi. A. Anderson: But sometimes what you witness isn’t what is really going
on.
xvii. K. Bolinger: Opposite to R. Guell’s point is “if my grade didn’t reflect
what I thought I should have received.” I’m going to answer that question
on my subjective experience and whether I think it’s fair.
xviii. C. Olsen: You can generally use it but make it more specific. Like, “My
instructor treated students with respect in class.” But you get responses
from students who believe their professor was being a jerk in class. There
are several versions of that.
xix. K. Bolinger: Why put, “in class?”
xx. C. Olsen: Then you get at treatment of the group and something that’s not
more personal.
xxi. R. Guell: So, “lack of belittling or presence of it in class” rather than
fairness in grading?
xxii. V. Sheets: That’s different from grade issues. I don’t really have a strong
preference which way we go. I’m wondering about what the failed
students are going to say. I don’t think I’m inclined to grade inflation—if
my whole class says they are treated unfairly there is a problem. Just one
or two is another issue.
xxiii. K. Bolinger: It wouldn’t just be failing students, it would also be ones who
felt they didn’t get the grade they deserved. Questions don’t specifically
say “evaluate,” they just say “treated fairly.” I’m comfortable with
“respect.”
xxiv. D. Hantzis: I don’t think I could emphasize enough how in FAC’s review
and from when the four of us got together, these cannot be the only
questions we ask students. There comes a time when you stop worrying
about that part of it because this is not the only data you will collect. We
can ask more questions at the instructor, department, and college levels.
There should be something in there that asks this and if we need to know
what motivated their responses we will ask.
xxv. R. Guell: “My Instructor treated me with respect?”
xxvi. C. Olsen: “My Instructor treated students in class with respect?” General,
or more specific?
xxvii. R. Guell: From “fairly” to “with respect.”
xxviii. R. Guell: Then you want to change “me” to “students?”
xxix. C. Olsen: “My Instructor treated students in the class with respect.” C.
Olsen, E. Hampton. Vote: 8-0-0
xxx. R. Guell: Remember, this has to cross all platforms. I don’t think “in the
class” has to go because it has to work in an online environment and that
is not a trivial thing.
xxxi. K. Yousif: “All students” means all taking that class.
xxxii. K. Bolinger: They know they’re evaluating this course and not some other
course.
xxxiii. C. Olsen: I am happy to take out “in class.”
xxxiv. V. Sheets: It depends on how the class is constructed.
xxxv. C. Olsen: I don’t think we need “in the classroom.” “My Instructor treated
all students with respect.”
xxxvi. K. Yousif: To replace, “My Instructor treated me with respect?”
xxxvii. R. Guell: Yes.
xxxviii. R. Guell: Any other objections to the list of seven?
xxxix. C. Olsen: Just because that, frankly, is one of the few questions that
students really advocated for and SAC advocated for—it would have to be
limited to in person. No distance courses.
xl. R. Guell: Can we have a motion on question #8 regarding enthusiasm? K.
Bolinger, A. Anderson. Vote: 6-2-0
xli. K. Bolinger: The only caveat is the word “content.” Teaching History for
people who hate history? How to evaluate whether there was enthusiasm
for the course?
xlii. R. Guell: Your motion is without the word “content.”
xliii. E. Hampton: What is the problem with the word “content?”
xliv. K. Bolinger: It’s loaded in terms of how students feel about it.
xlv. S. Powers: I love the topic but hate my class?
xlvi. K. Bolinger: Quite the opposite. Particularly in education I might embrace
pedagogical demonstrations. I do content review for History; they hate it,
but it has to be done. I think “course” is sufficient, but either way…
xlvii. R. Guell: The motion is absent the word “content.”
xlviii. K. Yousif: I appreciate the students’ opinions, but I am not sure judging
“enthusiasm”—not that it’s not relevant—I just think it reduces what we
do to sort of a smiling head. It’s not a question I’d like to see.
xlix. R. Guell: I would argue for its inclusion because I believe that in a
classroom, whether it’s physical or electronic, an Instructor who
demonstrates enthusiasm for the material gives the material its best chance
to connect with the student. Dry presentation, as much as you can still
learn from it, is underperformance, and actually in the classroom as well
as outside of it much of what we do is “sell” our discipline.
l. C. Olsen: There are different versions of this. “My Instructor seemed
excited to teach;” but we liked this one better.
li. V. Sheets: Is the amendment now that this only goes to the traditional
format?
lii. R. Guell: It is listed as traditional classroom format only.
liii. E. Hampton: I would argue whether it should or shouldn’t be there for all
courses. If we value enthusiasm, it should be on this list of questions in
some form.
liv. C. MacDonald: I’m concerned that students wouldn’t know how to
evaluate “enthusiasm” in an online course.
lv. K. Bolinger: Is there an “NA” answer option?
lvi. C. Olsen: There is no “NA.”
lvii. R. Guell: S. Powers, can we ask this question in traditional classrooms
only?
lviii. S. Powers: Yes.
lix. R. Guell: The motion is only for traditional classrooms because that is
what was recommended.
lx. S. Powers: We also have some 500-level sections of MBA classes in
Plainfield; is that a traditional setup as well?
lxi. R. Guell: It’s a human talking to other humans.
lxii. V. Sheets: Where does the hybrid fall?
lxiii. K. Bolinger: Those that use Blackboard at this point.
lxiv. S. Powers: If the course is 75% face-to-face it counts as hybrid.
7. FAC-Overview of 305 Changes
a. D. Hantzis: I appreciate the extension on this due to its complexity. R. Guell
asked if I would give an update. Just to give you an overview, Section 305 has 12
subsections. Subsection .1 has 19 subsections as well, for example…this
document, in the column format that is easiest for us to examine, is 49 pages long.
It’s complex. R. Guell did an excellent job over the summer rearranging the
pieces. We’re really almost finished with the recommendations. The hardest part
is capturing what we’ve done to the document. One of the biggest challenges is it
was written with the assumption that the faculty were only tenured or tenuretrack. Provisions have been cobbled in over time for temporary and non-tenuretrack faculty. We didn’t have parallel language for them in many areas. We are
creating that parallel language throughout, moving things that need to be moved,
and adding things that need to be there.
b. Although the University refers regularly to this concept of a Personnel
Committee, such a committee doesn’t exist in the Handbook, but the Peer Review
Committee does. Sometimes it is referred to as the Departmental Committee, the
Peer Review Committee, etc. It states under Membership that it will only include
tenured and tenure-track faculty. We have eliminated the membership language
from the overarching section and moved it to sections describing the committee
under each rank. We have also made changes in the descriptions of duties. In the
document, Instructors and Lecturers are defined as teaching only. Some are given
different assignments, and some don’t teach at all; we are fixing that.
c. We are also concerned about the status of the letter of appointment in which all
our standards by which we are evaluated should be enumerated, except that that
doesn’t happen. That is invoked throughout 305, except it’s completely out of the
section dealing with Lecturers. S. Powers has been helpful in how we will deal
with this letter of appointment. B. Balch is on the committee, and has suggested
we go back to the idea of a position description. It is developed in consultation
with faculty and chairs, and goes through an approval process.
d. The document as written doesn’t take into account the biennial review or direct
hire policies. What we currently intend to recommend is that they not be added to
the Handbook but are referenced somehow. Ideally, we are trying to make sure
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
faculty are involved in selection, review, and promotion. We are hoping to make
that clear. There is a gap between initial screening and hiring.
We are looking at the appeal process in section ten and we are wondering about
another basis for appeal which is “violation of Handbook policy.” Strengthening
the language by calling for reviews of department and unit promotion and tenure
policies to be done every five years by the Promotion and Tenure Oversight
Committee and a copy of the report will go to Exec.
There is a problem with the criteria section...the criteria for rank states that
everyone needs a terminal degree. It just means for tenured and tenure-track; it
doesn’t specify for others. Instructors and Lecturers need language as well.
Regarding right of rebuttal, some have suggested that only the faculty member
has the right of rebuttal. We want to make that clear. There are three related
secions—Factual errors, negative recommendations, and right of rebuttal that
seem like they don’t belong. They are duplicative, unnecessary and in conflict
with each other. We will need to clarify the overlap.
We have had President Bradley’s words in our heads when we try to write an “or
what” statement. Departments are supposed to have an established standard. What
if they don’t?
There has also been a question about the impact of extension language. The
impact of extension should be immaterial to subsequent review.
i. R. Guell: There are people who find ambiguity in the language?
ii. D. Hantzis: It’s apparently referenced in letters. The fact that it’s
immaterial to most of us means it shouldn’t be referenced. We’re hearing
that faculty have received statements in which the extension is referred to.
iii. R. Guell: Are you worrying about when an imaginary chair puts
something in a letter that shouldn’t be there, and how we can protect the
institution to allow a process by which someone at a higher level says
“you can’t do this—you need to rewrite the letter?”
iv. D. Hantzis: That is what FAC is approaching. We are trying to be good
stewards for the institution, but we are also thinking of the faculty in these
situations.
v. C. MacDonald: It will be a violation of Handbook policy.
vi. E. Hampton: There are more appropriate ways to refer to that. They need
to be immaterial to the decision.
vii. D. Hantzis: I have actually seen documents that state something like,
“although she has met standards for tenure promotion, one can assume that
since she took an additional year, she could have done more.”
viii. S. Powers: We have asked letters to be corrected. For instance, we have
had letters which had the wrong gender included. Using “she” and “his” in
documents, having flat-out wrong facts—we have also had to ask others
who just wrote something like “she should have the promotion because
being a nice person should get you somewhere.” We are working on
writing guidelines to include what should and should not be in these
letters.
j. D. Hantzis: I hope you get a sense of how big this ended up being. We also want
to change the language of campus visits because sometimes candidates don’t
make one. Also, the section at the end of hiring procedures about conditions of
recruitment and timing of hire should be at the top of the section instead of the
bottom. We are recommending we retain suggested language that states
departments should be allowed to determine whether academic advisement counts
toward service or teaching. We are supporting that language but suggest the
decision about where it is defined falls to colleges, not departments. We need to
not skip college when we delegate power.
i. K. Bolinger: You said there is dissention regarding teaching and service;
would you summarily argue for both?
ii. D. Hantzis: It’s nothing we haven’t heard. I am a NACADA acolyte, and
they define academic advisement as teaching. It’s a pedagogical practice.
Others think we can’t quantify it. It really doesn’t help faculty. How many
advisees are counted as teaching a class? One cannot quantify that
workload.
iii. K. Bolinger: It might be helpful if you did count it as teaching.
Particularly among Instructors that have huge advisee loads along with
five classes.
iv. D. Hantzis: Instructors and Lecturers have protections in that regard. Sixty
advisees and four classes is an option for these faculty. Chairs have the
ability to change that.
v. R. Guell: I would ask that you draft this part in a module-type way. What
passes should be easily extracted or replaced.
k. D. Hantzis: A similar challenge for us was changing terms from “two- or threeyear contracts” to “three-year contracts.” We want it to be three-year contracts for
Instructors.
i. R. Guell: I understand that and there is some inconsistency there…we just
created a five-year Instructor.
ii. D. Hantzis: We agreed we have to make policy for the general and not the
exceptional. We are also creating a stipulation that Academic Affairs will
create a master calendar instead of the Provost, Deans, etc. all having
separate schedules will be produced through stewardship and not edict.
One reason that came up is from faculty who have a college in which the
first and second years were given 48 hours notice for portfolio dates. In
terms of Instructors what we are doing is creating the possibility of
conditional reappointment in the first, second, and, I assume, fourth or
fifth years. On the sixth consecutive year they will be promoted to Senior
Instructor, which will come with some kind of change in pay. Currently
almost all colleges do a yearly review of Instructors. Some colleges only
do every third. The right to appeal denial of promotion should go to
Instructors.
iii. R. Guell: What is the realistic expectation for a timeline?
iv. D. Hantzis: We meet again on the 26th and we want to meet the deadline
for February. I am sending the whole document out again and asking them
to highlight what needs attention. Everyone is already mostly in
agreement.
8. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. R. Guell: I want to draw your attention to some numbers today. If you focus on
the table you were given, that is, the Annual FTE Enrollment from 2008-2015,
which you can obtain yourselves on the Institutional Review website—other than
the Fall 2015 number they are indisputably the actual FTE numbers. The annual
enrollment for the 2014-2015 year is the sum of the fall and next spring and
averaged. ISU takes the average of the last three years, but does it in a way that
the previous year is used. It is January of 2015, and the only annual enrollment
numbers we have are from 2013-2014. We are budgeting for the 2015-2016 year
using numbers from two years ago, which means, in a place where we had stable
enrollment, we were 10,000 students—plus or minus 100—and we have been
growing anywhere between three and five percent per year. When you budget
with numbers from two years ago, you are already going to understate enrollment
by six percent. Taking 97% of the last three years yields a grand total of closer to
15 percent because of increasing internationalization of undergraduate enrollment.
If there exists a larger percentage of the student body paying out-of-state fees, you
are understating revenue massively. Audited financial reports of institutional
gross fees are $85,925,155. We budgeted $71,800,000 in gross student fees. You
can say, “you need to think about student aid.” Even with that they are missing
the budget by 19.6%. This process that we have been using since 2008, when
President Bradley arrived, that I objected to last year and I think two years before
that, is being overly conservative. I finally got FTE histories and audited financial
reports, and it angered me because we are talking about cutting another $1
million. My job is not to nod and agree. I am purposely burning through the
political capital I have on this, which I can do since I know I’m not running for
Senate Chair again. Moreover, other than 2011, when understatement was 14.5%,
the understatement is growing by the year. It’s wrong, and increasingly wrong. I
know personally it’s frustrating at least one administrator who is being compelled
to offer up cuts they view as unwise and unnecessary, but we live in a onedecision-maker world, and he likes his process.
i. E. Hampton: One problem might be that it’s doubly conservative. They
should do one or the other. If you are counting on an increase and use
expected for next year it would be more accurate. You know the
methodology leads to an underestimation.
ii. R. Guell: It’s triply conservative. Moving averages make a lot of sense in
underlying stable data, not in unstable data or data with a trend. D.
Bradley’s argument is always the same: “It has always worked.” The
tripod he works under is, “This has always worked;” “We are able to do
things we couldn’t normally do;” and “At any moment’s notice, ten to
twenty percent of the undergraduate population could just go home.” It is
worth a lot of political capital to say this at the Senate meeting and the
Board meeting. If he insists on lopping off this $1 million I will put this to
the Board.
iii. E. Hampton: The $1 million will allow us what?
iv. R. Guell: The officers and one member of FEBC met with the Vice
Presidents, the officers of SGA, and the officers of the Staff Council. D.
McKee runs the meeting, but D. Bradley runs the show. D. McKee
presents assumptions like, “We have to come up with $3 million more for
healthcare and $1 million for energy…” whatever. D. Bradley imposes a
raise typically in the two- to two-and-a-half percent range. He doesn’t
budget biennial review bumps or equity adjustments. There is, in my
estimation, about $4 to $5 million of stuff we always spend money on
that’s not in the budget such as the Writing Center—there was never a
line-item in the budget for it, but they always had what they needed. A
pool, a reasonable reserve is needed to operate. D. McKee needs to specify
how big that pool needs to be and budget that. Budget what you think
enrollment is going to be. Use the reserve if we’re under enrollment,
because we’re so monumentally in debt now, every time we approach a
bonding company they want to see either a budgeted reserve or a
consistent excess in revenues over expenditures. We’re always able to
show that, but we underspent as well as took too much out in loans. We
spent $12 million less than we budgeted and took in $14 million more than
we budgeted last year. It’s a big profit at a public institution—that is not
saying, “We need to cut $1 million.”
v. C. Olsen: It has gone into the reserves? The reserve was always healthy
when I was on FEBC. So now we are much healthier.
vi. R. Guell: In a sense we need to be healthier, because we continue to
borrow a lot of money. The total non-instructional debt for the
institution—that is, not borrowing for the College of Ed building, dorms,
rec center, etc.—before we build the Student Recreation Center we had
something like $15 million in non-instructional debt. It was old debt from
renovating the dorms. The debt is now at $150 million.
vii. C. MacDonald: Asking us to cut $1 million doesn’t go anywhere near that
debt and does real harm to departments who are already close to the bone.
viii. R. Guell: I am personally turning up the temperature. I hope you support
me when I do so.
ix. E. Hampton: Are you arguing basically for cutting $1 million is not
necessary, or that we should change the model?
x. R. Guell: I would like D. Bradley to change the model, but he won’t. I will
simply ask for “Don’t take out $1 million this year.”
9. Adjournment 4:51pm
When 97% is 10-15% Short
The university has been using a “97%” rule for budgeting revenue since Dr. Bradley became President in
2008. It has been responsible for good things and bad. The good things include the ability to withstand
the rescissions of millions of state allocation dollars and the ability to generate space for raises that have
beaten inflation by so much that ISU salaries now exceed those at Ball State. The bad things are also
important as well. We (and by we I mean the ISU VPs) have been forced to cut millions out of academic
and nonacademic units. ISU’s student faculty ratio continues to rise and our academic and nonacademic
personnel have been cut so much that we are now in a position where we are each teaching more
students and there are fewer support personnel to back us up.
The table below represents the actual enrollment in each term since 2008 (Fall 15 is an estimate based
on 2% enrollment growth and Spring 15 may change by a few). Since we budget using past enrollment
data to estimate revenue, when budgeting for 2015-16 and 16-17 what we have available to us is
enrollment data from 2013-2014 and prior years. So if we are sitting in January 2015 trying to get a 1516 budget we are budgeting based on two year old enrollment data. Moreover, because we budget
using a moving average and because enrollment is growing, we miss two years of growth. Were there no
growth, this wouldn’t be an issue. With growth, using a moving average bakes underestimation into the
proverbial cake. So if we grew at a consistent 2% we would underestimate enrollment by 4%.
To make the ridiculous absurd, we use 97% of that figure. That means we consistently plan on
underestimating enrollment by 7%. With enrollment growth beating even our 2% goals (thanks to
Enrollment Management) the result is we have underestimated actual enrollment by 10.7% to 14.5%.
Average of
Fall
Spring
Annual Last 3
97% Underestimation
2015 11500.1 10291.9 10783.3
9761.5 9468.6
13.9%
2014 11274.6
9715.2 10243.5
9426.2 9143.4
12.0%
2013 10771.8
9271.8
9777.0
8976.6 8707.3
12.3%
2012 10282.1
8790.8
9264.0
8624.9 8366.2
10.7%
2011
9737.2
8790.6
9237.7
8318.6 8069.0
14.5%
2010
9684.7
8017.8
8428.2
2009
8838.5
7700.0
8209.0
2008
8718.0
7760.9
Source: http://irt2.indstate.edu/cms/ir/isu-data/enrollment-summary/
To make the absurd, downright silly, with the increasing internationalization of that enrollment we
missed “Gross Student Fees” by 19.6% in 13-14. See the screenshot on the reverse side of the October
agenda for the BoT.
http://cms.indstate.edu/sites/default/files/media/Documents/PDF/10Oct2014%20Agenda.pdf
Computing Net Student Fees changes nothing (13-14 gross tuition of $86M – student aid of $15M =
$71M; 9% of which is $6M).
Unless the President at least restores the $1 million in compelled cuts during the budget meeting on
Thursday morning, I will be making this point at that meeting, on Thursday afternoon during my Senate
report, and will devote much of my Board time to the consequences of this massive and systemic
underestimation of revenues.