University of Minnesota, Morris

Campus Resources and Planning Committee


March 8, 2005




Members Present:       Sharon VanEps, Arne Kildegaard, Mark Fohl, James Carlson,

LeAnn Dean, Sara Haugen, Bryan Herrmann, Sarah Mattson

Maddy Maxeiner, Lowell Rasmussen


Guests:                                    Sam Schuman, Fritz Schwaller, Sandy Olson-Loy, Peter Wyckoff



(In these minutes:  Faculty Salaries, Getty Grant)




Andy commented that he had not communicated our response to the Executive Committee regarding campus wide meeting time.


Faculty Salaries


Jim Carlson said that he brought this item up so that we could discuss whether there was anything this committee could do to help this issue; he just wanted it to be explored. 


Sharon Van Eps asked for an update as to what was happening with the budget this year.  Sam Schuman shared that with reasonable success in the legislature the projection are, tuition will be increased by 5.5% and salaries by 2.5.  This projection is tentative and subject to whatever choices President Bruininks makes regarding tuition/salaries.  Sam expects that we will again be asked to self-fund a portion of the salary increase ­ it is assumed that this will come from tuition income.


Sam explained that it is important to him and Fritz that we create budget resources to make progress in the salary area above and beyond the central administration salary mandates.  They have considered starting an endowment with the interest providing a pool of dollars to supplement faculty salaries.  The Twin Cities is ok with this idea.


Jim asked if there was anything else this committee could do.  Fritz and Sam have already made real efforts to address this, we want to be sure that we do not go around them or diminish their efforts.  Should we send a memo to Bruininks from this committee?  Sam and Fritz thought it was a fine idea, but cautioned that a response, if any, would not likely come with financial assistance, but rather suggestions to look at our own resources.  How critical is this?  Would we consider sacrificing a position for the salary?  Our current student/faculty ratio is 14:1, the best that it has been in years.  In the last decade our faculty size has been growing and our student enrollment has been shrinking.


Arne Kildegaard wondered if doing that would show how committed we are to improving the salary situation.  Can we do that without hurting programs?  Sara Haugen cautioned that salary doesnıt always drive a personıs decision to work.  Remember that if we reduce positions, there is more work for others and that can also create hard feelings.  Sam echoed that remark, noting that the 5-6 course option was offered for this same reason and it was not supported.


We do have one division who has tried this approach.  Science and Math chose to reduce their staff by one position and the salary was returned to other staff.


LeAnn asked for information about establishing this endowment.  Maddy explained that there is a $25,000 minimum (established by the foundation), currently with a 5% payout rate.  The endowments are invested for growth.  Sam felt he could get this started.


Arne asked about other schemes in the works.  Fritz explained that we could find additional funds in unused sabbatical replacement funds, other projects or grants.  Sam continued that it is conceivable that those funds might not be found in any given year and a better way to manage the issue of additional funds would be to invest them in the endowment.


Sam talked about the culture at UMM.  Consider the statistics from the last round of U budget reductions, Morris really stands out with their commitment to retain people.   


(The figures below illustrate how the Civil Service and bargaining unit staff size has changed on each campus in the last year:)

            Morris                -1.0%                        Overall University change    -7.3%

            Duluth               -5.8%

            Twin Cities        -7.6%

            Crookston        -10.1%


It should be noted that these numbers do not reflect early retirements or positions that remain unfulfilled.  UMM may have been more strategic in saving resources in this way.  Andy suggested that someone might want to draft a document for consideration and signatures of this committee.


Getty Grant


Lowell Rasmussen shared information about the Getty Grant and shared handouts of the ³Implementation of the Preservation Plan².  He shared that it is sometimes difficult to establish and acknowledge the history of UMM and at the same time maintain/sustain a state of the art campus.  They are working with a tight timeline of presenting to the Regents in May, for approval at the June Regents meeting.  He mentioned that the students from the History Club are trying to get the grant to include non-intrusive signage for the campus.  He would like to hear comments and suggestions from the committee on the plan, it is a 300 page document that will be available on-line soon.  He will notify us when it is available.


Other updates


1.     Handout with bonding bill status ­ encouraged people to send emails to the conference committees that are considering these items. Now is crunch time. 

2.     Would like to meet with CRPC to discuss pre-design status of Briggs Library and Blakely Hall.

3.     Social Science building ­ Lowell and Sam are meeting with TC Project Planning committee this week to review a plan for us to continue with that project.

4.     WCROC has asked UMM to partner with them to establish additional walking trails. They want to make a path that extends 2nd street to WCROC.  WCROC is pursuing a grant.

5.     Wind turbine should be turned on Wednesday.


Next meeting


March 21st at 3:30pm. Talk about endowments.  James Carlson and Mark Fohl will not be here.