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.