Campus Resources and Planning
Committee
October 26, 2009
Present: Pete
Wyckoff, Bryan Herrmann, Sydney Sweep, Mark Privratsky, Pete Wyckoff,
LeAnn
Dean, Brook Miller, Sara Haugen, Maddy Maxeiner, Sarah Mattson,
Dave
Swenson, Kathy Julik-Heine
Guests: Pareena
Lawrence, Sandy Olson-Loy, Cheryl Contant
Continued
discussion of naming Gateway Building
Pete
reported he had been in touch with Bert Ahern, Becca Gercken and Julie
Pelletier about using the word Anamikaage. Bert suggested using the name Sequoia as a famous, important
native educator. Julie said she
would check with an actual native speaker about the redundancy issue. Sarah suggested that we name it the
Welcome Center and that CRPC suggest a plan for the naming of future
buildings. Mark though we could
include something about honoring a specific person at some point. Maddy said that if we name the building
in connection with a donor, there are standardized guidelines through the
Foundation that we need to follow.
Carrie
reported the name change request requires three letters of support: one from the Chancellor with rationale;
one from the chair of CRPC that the committee supports the name; and one from
occupants of the building endorsing the name. The deadline for submitting nominations is November 13.
Pete did
an informal straw poll with the following two questions: First, by 6-3, committee members
endorsed the idea of a simply descriptive name rather than a name attempting to
honor some aspect of our heritage.
The names offered were:
Community Services, Gateway Center, or Welcome Center. Committee members preferred Welcome
Center by 9-0. It was also argued
that this did not preclude an additional name to be added later. Pete will follow-up with
Lowell Rasmussen.
Future
Financial Planning Report
Jacquie Johnson reported that in addition to the reports requested
by VP Jones, UMM and all units of the University have been recently charged
with preparing reports describing how they will respond to the coming
university financial imbalance outlined in the sobering new study released by
the university-wide Future Financial Resources Task Force. The new charge requests that we produce
a financial plan and academic staffing plan. As a system, tuition revenue will be greater than state aid
for the first time this year. The
report calls for tuition to rise at coordinate campuses slower than the Twin
Cities campus. This will be a
reversal for the first time. The
report also suggests we should pursue other avenues for traditional funding. In addition, every unit must identify
what it will stop doing even if it means eliminating something we currently do
and have been doing for decades.
In the
new charge, Jacquie said she likes the line about practices of the past not
providing a window to the future.
We need to embrace this way of thinking. In one of the memos from Robert Jones, we are asked to
establish a Blue Ribbon Committee consisting of faculty, staff, students, and
outside stakeholders. We can
appoint a committee or we can work with our existing framework. She believes we already in a good place
given that weÕve already done a significant reorganization and
consolidating. We are asked
to come up with an enrollment plan that integrates with a financial plan that
integrates with an academic plan.
Working with CRPC, the division chairs and the vice chancellorÕs, we
will need to think about things weÕre doing now that can be reduced; what
should we stop doing (or keep doing) while at the same time think carefully
about investments that should be made.
Pete
added that the new charge from Robert Jones builds on the charges we received
at the beginning of the semester.
The finance report is due at the end of the semester. Linc Kallsen will be working with the
committee in November.
Model
enrollment plan for next five years
Bryan
Herrmann distributed a handout with enrollment models he put together with
different scenarios based on past performance and our need for marking
sharing. He anticipates a major
shift in demographics in enrollment in the next five years. He also distributed a tuition revenue
by student type handout.
Academic Staffing Plan
Cheryl
Contant reported that she and the division chairs have already spent time
thinking about how to proceed with the academic staffing plan. They will create several scenarios
based on different assumptions, i.e. 1) business as usual, 2) look at areas on
campus where we can become more efficient and then possibly reallocate resources
into existing programs we already have, 3) modest growth scenarios and 4)
aggressive growth scenarios.
Additionally, weÕll want to think about new adventures and directions
and how that might impact our staffing and enrollments. Text will be added to different
scenarios once we have a sense of the direction weÕre headed. Some of the underlying scenarios will
include the following: no
resources for sabbatical replacements; weÕve started new degree programs but
havenÕt hired new faculty; the family medical leave act and other types of
leaves that faculty take in addition to sabbaticals. The key in all of this is to think about how it relates to
the fiscal model as well as the enrollment model.
Pete
would like the committee as a whole to work on the financial planning models
with guidance from Linc Kallsen.
Cheryl Contant will chair the academic staffing planning group in
consultation with the division chairs.
Bart Finzel will serve as the CRPC liaison.