University of Minnesota, Morris Campus Resources & Planning Committee Minutes May 6, 1999 Members present: Andy Lopez, Gwen Rudney, Ray Sibul, Brenda Boever, Don Kenning, Tom Johnson, Nat Hart, Lowell Rasmussen. Guests: Sam Schuman, Jim Togeas, Cathleen Brannen. The committee approved the minutes of 4/22/99 and then returned to the NCA5c outline, discussing the revised draft of Tom McRoberts' Criteria One "Purpose" document. Sam Schuman praised the document's accuracy, assuring the committee that it appropriately reflects this educational institution and should satisfy the NCA. Returning to item 4, Lopez reported the contents of an email from Maddy Maxeiner that suggested private gift development is vital to UMM's mission and should perhaps be more thoroughly reflected in 2C or 4B. Lopez wondered how much gifting currently contributes to UMM's financial stability. Tom Johnson suggested it would be appropriate to mention in both places for historical and future significance. Johnson wondered how institutional integrity (item 5) is actually measured. Lopez responded through equality, fairness to vendors, honoring of union contracts, and honesty in recruiting. Boever clarified that item 5 is a new criteria... UMM is one of the institutions developing the response pattern for this criteria. The suggestions will be taken back to the NCA subcommittee and a new draft will be brought for approval at a subsequent meeting. The committee turned to Lowell Rasmussen's presentation of the capital request. Rasmussen reminded the committee that this year is an operations/maintenance request year. Next year will be bonding. If the university gets 132M, UMM will likely get its requested 8.2M. The university is unlikely to seek more than 132M because it is approaching its bonding saturation point. Lopez asked why the standing of projects varies in Rasmussen's charts. Lowell responded that items that are harder to "sell" are positioned as bargaining chips. Why is UMD seeking funding for a hockey facility given its strong relationship with a downtown arena? Rasmussen theorized it may have to do with Title IX requirements. Rasmussen explained that we will not be receiving as much HEAPR money as we could use (25M reduced to 6M). The Camden tunnel replacement will include a tunnel to Social Science and the proposed entrance to the library will eliminate the need to go through the student center. Boever asked about classroom improvement and Rasmussen responded that we'll know in 2000 or 2002 about funding but other funds can be used if necessary. The downgrade in HEAPR funding has resulted in Social Science/Camden renovation requests being pushed back to 2002. The delay of Social Science/Camden renovations disturbed committee members. Lopez wondered if the CRPC should have a subcommittee participating in the creation and rearranging of future capital requests. Johnson, appalled by the way changes in the Twin Cities can radically alter UMM planning, supported the idea. Rasmussen agreed but noted he would not be able to participate until next fall. Lopez added that, painful as the decreases are, at least UMM is getting a fair share. Rasmussen agreed, affirming that the 8M being requested for Science renovation is substantial. Smaller amounts will be easier to acquire down the road. Schuman reminded the committee that there are competing bills in the legislature to fund U of M and it would be a great help if we would e-mail our representatives and senators expressing our preference. Lopez introduced the planning issue. He feels the CRPC has not accomplished as much as he would have preferred over the past year or biennium. For example, despite good cooperation by the administration and staff, it took about two years to approve the three-year plan. At that rate we would need to start working on the next three/five-year plan immediately in order to complete it in a timely fashion, or find an alternate way of doing it. Secondly, Lopez felt that much of UMM's planning is based on the compact, but the CRPC seems to have little influence in its development, especially at the outset. He suggested that we develop a process that would allow a subcommittee of CRPC or the chairperson of CRPC to participate in the early planning stages of the compact (similar to the procedures of the Tuition Task Force). Brannen indicated that the new compact would probably be finalized by August or September. She suggested using that document as the basis for discussing planning early in the fall semester. We can then assess what was accomplished and add what it is perceived as needed for the next round of planning. Schuman cautioned that 'our' compact is not fully our own. President Yuddof sets the goals for the whole university. We are directed as to the areas that our compact should cover. He also mentioned that the compact should not be our only planning document. He went on to say that CRPC may not have much control as to what goes in the compact, but we can reject components we do not think are appropriate for UMM. Brannen added that whatever items are included should contain the desired UMM spin. Hart questioned what we mean by 'we' in responding to the compact. For example, an earlier version of the compact spoke of faculty positions in hypothetical terms, however the lastest version of the compact spells out where positions would be added and it even mentions a new major in Anthropology. Yet the CRPC has not been consulted on these matters. Schuman indicated that he would need to check the language, but that he considered position designations as 'tentative'. Hart thought it would be dangereous to get funding from central administration for a specific position and change the allocation later. Brannen pointed out that UMM got nailed earlier in the process due to the lack of specifics in the proposal. Sibul thought we should consider changes in the way the committee operates. McGrath suggested that the committee is large and it needs a smaller group that can react quicker. He also mentioned that the committee should use other resources such as the Scholastic Committee when dealing with enrollment issues. Schuman indicated that CRPC is responsive, but it only functions as a reactive body. For example, he has issues, like the request for 31 faculty/staff positions that need to be prioritized, but no specific source to bring them to. He would prefer that 'faculty' prioritize faculty requests. It was agreed that the planning issues need further discussion. The CRPC will meet again Thursday, May 20th, at 3 pm in the People Room.