University of Minnesota, Morris

Campus Resources and Planning Committee

 

April 15, 2004

 

 

 

 

Members Present:       Andy Lopez, Ken Hodgson, Tammy Faux, Bryan Herrmann,

Mark Fohl, Mike Sullivan, Annie Olson, Lowell Rasmussen,

Maddy Maxeiner, LeAnn Dean, Arne Kildegaard, Ferolyn Angell

 

Guests:                        Sam Schuman, Jim Mootz, Leslie Meek, Gary Strei,

Sandy Olson-Loy, Paula OıLoughlin

 

 

(In these minutes:  State of UMM, Update on budget, Early Alert Policy for Students at Risk)

 

State of UMM

 

Sam Schuman reported that applications are running virtually the same from last year at this time although confirmations and deposits are down.  He believes itıs prudent to build to a budget for next year based on a student population of 1805, down from 1875 this year.  He also reported that in response to his report from the Budget Task Force, he has not received an e-mail, phone call, letter or any communication regarding the decisions.  He believes the Bio-mass plant is still very much alive in the bonding bill as well as the football field.  He continues to work in the halls of the legislators in Washington, DC to secure recurring funds to cover the Native American Tuition Waiver mandate, which is a little over one million dollars.  He continues to want to do something at UMM to build an endowment that would supplement faculty salaries because we will need to find a way to address the problem ourselves.  If the proposal for a Faculty Affairs Committee passes at Assembly, he will discuss this endowment with that group.  If the proposal doesnıt pass, he will discuss it with CRPC.  He believes our transition to Division III has been very successful, thanks to Mark Fohl and others who made that happen.  Itıs difficult to overstate how important that shift has been:  crowds are louder and more enthusiastic and our athletes have a better chance of being competitive.   Our relationship with the senior leadership group in the Twin Cities campus appears to be one of more good will and less consultation.  They have a bubbling affection for Morris.  Schuman believes an important part of his job is to work on that relationship at all times and to try to turn the good will into good deeds.  As the year winds down, Schuman commented that all the challenges, victories, defeats and fretting that he does really arenıt very important to the on-going life of the campus. What he remembers as an undergraduate, is that happened in the classroom and thatıs what our undergraduates will remember.  What really counts is taking place in our classrooms and hallways.

 

Update on Budget

 

Strei distributed a copy of the O and M balance estimate projected out to June 30, 2004 as outlined below and gave a brief summary of the items listed.

 

 

Description

Budgeted

Actual

Comments

 

 

 

 

Carry forward

$  1,123,510

$1,123,510

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues

 

 

 

  Central Allocation

$13,767,591

$13,767,591

 

  Compact Funds

$0

$166,500

 

  U Fee

  $1,100,000

$975,000

We have been assured this will get adjusted in FY05

  Tuition Revenues

$10,650,000

$10,300,000

This reflects approximately 50 fte students short

  Miscellaneous

$764,570

$750,000

 

  Transfers In/Out

$1,707,949

$325,000

This is a netting between our transfers in and out

Total Revenues

$27,990,110

$26,284,091

 

 

 

 

 

Expenses

 

 

 

  Compensation

$19,793,703

$19,300,000

 

  SEE

$6,663,331

$5,800,000

Based on past histories

  Enterprise Tax

$191,639

$185,000

 

  IRS Tax

$2,004,012

$1,900,000

Based on lower revenues

  IRS Rebate (FY01-03)

$0

($179,869)

Adjustment from IRS on Minnesota State Grants

Total Expenses

$28,652,685

$27,005,131

 

 

 

 

 

FY 04 Totals

($662,575)

($721,040)

This is the net income for 2003-04 transactions only

 

 

 

 

Estimate Balance (6/03/04)

$460,935

$402,470

 

 

He also distributed a copy of the Projected Budget Estimates based on Phase II budget information for 2004-2005 as lined below and gave a brief summary of the items listed.

 

Description

FY2004

Amount

PCT

Increase

Actual

Increase

Amount

Returned

Enroll.

Adjust.

Net

Increase

FY2005

Amount

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Tuition

$10,317,968 

11%

$1,126,638

$0

($344,606)

$782,032

$11,100,000

  University Fee

$975,000

33%

$325,000

($243,750)

$0

$81,250

$1,056,250

  Prelim. Base Reductions

n/a

n/a

n/a

($197,000)

$0

($197,000)

($197,000)

                 Net Revenues

$11,292,968

$0

$1,451,638

($440,750)

($344,606)

$666,282

$11,959,250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Academic Salaries

$9,413,136

2.5%

$235,328

$0

$0

$235,328

$9,648,464

  Academic Fringes

$2,508,612

1.0%

$102,274

$0

$0

$102,274

$2,610,886

  Staff Salaries

$5,428,488

2.5%

 $135,712

$0

$0

$135,712

$5,564,200

  Staff Fringes

  $1,530,467

1.5%

$59,411

$0

$0

$59,411

$1,589,878

  IRS Fees

$1,700,000

1.0%

$265,000

$0

$0

$265,000

$1,965,000

  Enterprise Fees

$180,000

n/a

$4,700

$0

$0

$4,700

$184,700

                 Net Expenses

$20,760,703

 

$797,726

$0

$0

$797,726

$21,378,429

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected Shortfall

 

 

 

 

 

($131,444)

 

 

Note:  This estimate is based on the assumption that there will be no new funds allocated centrally to provide financial relief from additional costs incurred.

 

Lopez asked Strei to give another update at the April 29 meeting.

 

Early Alert Policy for Students at Risk

 

Leslie Meek reported that the retention task force charged with investigating the issues surrounding retention of enrolled students found a strong positive correlation between cumulative GPA and student retention, with those with the highest GPAs more likely to graduate from UMM.  Although other factors obviously influence studentsı decisions to leave, low GPA was found to be one of the strongest predictors of a studentıs decision to leave.  This suggests that providing early, proactive academic help to struggling students may aid greatly in our retention of those students.  In addition, good academic standing is necessary for receiving federal financial aid (SAP guidelines) and we have recently lost a significant number of academically struggling students because they cannot afford to attend UMM without financial aid.  For these reasons, we believe that our students in academic difficulty need a significant amount of intervention and that that effort will directly and positively affect the retention of students.

 

A subcommittee was formed that includes Ferolyn Angell, Katie Gonier-Klopfleisch, Paula OıLoughlin, Sandy Olson-Loy, and Leslie.  They examined several models of academic intervention and the one that seems to fit UMM best is from Edgewood College in Wisconsin.  Edgewood is a small, undergraduate college, about the size of UMM.  Beginning in Fall 2001, Edgewood instituted an early-alert system towards freshmen in academic difficulty (this was later expanded to include sophomores also).   Two years after they began the program, over 90% of the students identified at being at-risk at the beginning of the semester were in good standing at the end of the semester.  The Dean of Students reported a strong increase in retention and credits the program.  In the first year, only 30% of faculty participated, after two years of effort and education, approximately 2/3 of the faculty now participate.

 

The subcommittee proposes a three-year pilot program based on the Edgewood model at UMM in the fall of 2004, that is focused on all students, not just freshmen and sophomores.  This program would be based in the Academic Assistance Center.  The Edgewood Model was implemented with no increase in personnel, but rather a focusing of existing resources from underutilized programs to more coordinated intervention.  They envision the same process for UMM; it should require no increase in personnel, but will undoubtedly require a restructuring of current duties and efforts of the AAC staff. 

 

The timeline would be as follows:

 

Spring 2004:

 

- Appoint the Early Alert Committee and appoint a chair.

- Promote discussions about the plan with involved parties such as:  Vice Chancellors Group, Division Chairs, MSP, Advising, the Registrar, Counseling, the Scholastic Committee, CPRC, the Retention Task Force, Residential Life, Writing Room, etc.

- Determine how AAC can be restructured to accommodate this plan.

 

 

Fall 2004:

 

- Design a pilot program that will fit UMM and complement existing services/alerts/ intentions.

- Enlist a number of concerned and involved faculty to participate in the program and to act as active promoters of the program.

- Design the automatic email system and the record-keeping system in AAC.

 

 

Spring 2005:

 

- Restructure AAC along with restructuring of all Student Support Services.

- Begin the pilot collect data for 2 years.  At the very least, data collection would consist of the number of students determined to be at risk at the beginning of the semester compared to those at risk at the end. 

 

Lopez said he was very excited about this and sees this as a good way to address enrollment.  LeAnn Dean said she would offer the resources of the Library to help in any way.  Ken Hodgson made a motion to support the initiative, second by Bryan Herrmann.  Motion passed.

 

Adjourned at 9:00 a.m.