Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, George E. Boulukos, Mary Louise Cashel (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), Rita Cheng (ex officio) Tsuchin Chu, Bruce A. DeVantier, Anthony T. Fleege, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, David M. Johnson, Farid Kadyrov (for Blaine Bartholomew), Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes (ex officio), Punit Kohli (for Qingfeng Ge), Meera Komarraju, Douglas W. Lind, Nancy L. Martin, Diane Muzio, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Matthew Schlesinger, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Gray Whaley (for Holly S. Hurlburt), Rachel B. Whaley, Terri S. Wilson.

Members absent: Scott Ishman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Ira J. Altman, Terry Clark, Mark J. Dolan, Carolyn G. Kingcade, John T. Legier, James A. MacLean, Nicole K. Roberts, Mingqing Xiao.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), Philip Howze (Library Affairs), Vicki Kreher (Journalism), Matt Paray (Daily Egyptian).

REPORTS

M. Komarraju reported that this special meeting is being held at the request of Faculty Senators to allow the Chancellor to answer some questions that were raised at the Senate meeting on November 13. Chancellor Cheng mentioned that she and Provost Nicklow received messages that many Senators did not feel they had enough information about the budget and the work that has been underway for the last approximately eight months, responding to both the state appropriation reduction and the enrollment shortfall. She then made a presentation which outlined the budget expenses, expenditures and shortfalls. [For a copy of the presentation, contact the webmaster]. She explained that over the last three years, there has been a $15.5M decline in state appropriations, and income (tuition) has declined by $6.3M (net), causing a total decline in the budget of $21.8M. Additionally, there have been faculty and staff promotions and salary increases, which have had to be self-funded. In FY11, there was no salary increase, but there were promotions; last year, there was a 1% midyear raise that was not budgeted and that needed to be budgeted this year, as well as $2.1M for the 1% salary increase that went into effect July 1. Other increases that were necessary included the O and M on the new Technology building (approximately $1M that was not budgeted by the state) and increases in student financial aid. Focusing only on FY13, there is a shortfall of which they have been aware for quite some time. There have been multiple conversations with the deans and the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (CPBAC) that required her to address $12.8M in this fiscal year. The $7M appropriation decrease this year and the tuition shortfall (enrollment) net basically wiped out any increase that would have come from the 5% tuition increase as a result of two years of salary increases, the general cost increases on the Technology building and the required scholarships.

Work began in the spring on how to address the shortfall since she was aware the state was going to be cutting the budget. There are mitigating factors they have been working on for some time: re-working the group health insurance; a use tax for the School of Law; increasing charges to the auxiliaries; closing Pulliam pool, etc. By doing these things, they were able to reduce the $12.8M by $3.2M, leaving $9.5M to adjust on campus. Half of the $9.5M is being taken care of by all the open positions left as a result of the recent retirements; the other was self-funding of salary commitments across the campus. Those funds were distributed across the campus based on where employees were, the need for their departments, colleges and units (non-academic and academic) to handle their salary increases. The only area that did not have enough in open positions to handle its shortfall was academic affairs. The CPBAC made a recommendation on how the enrollment shortfall, the $1.2M, would be distributed among the colleges. Chancellor Cheng noted that if there had been enough in the Provost salary sweep, they would not have necessarily had to do this; although, there were units not seeing enrollments but declines. Others had increases, but were not getting any resources to help them with the teaching capacity. The CPBAC had a subcommittee that worked hours on end to try and get this done.

Chancellor Cheng reported hearing comments that faculty are being cut, but cuts are not being done across campus. In fact, the numbers show that A/P and civil service have declined by 1.5 times that of faculty. Faculty numbers were at a high point in 2009, but have declined by 9% over those four years. A/P and civil service have declined by 13.7%. What this means is that the student to faculty ratio has actually improved from a high point of 17 to 1 in 2010 to 15.3 in fall 2012. A/P to civil service ratios have gone up, but only slightly. Enrollments declined during that time, so the declines in staffing have gone along in that regard. The University compares favorably to its peers in the state, so there has been no reduction of the quality of [faculty/staff] interactions with students. Chancellor Cheng noted that she used the IPED's definitions for US News, so it is an "apples to apples" comparison. She ended her presentation by stating that it is her understanding at this point that the University will be able to handle every personnel action, with the exception of 1.25 FTE that may be subject to layoff. There are term appointments that were not made last August for spring, and there will be term appointments that likely will not be made for spring. The University is down 1,000 students from last year, so expecting things will be as they were is unrealistic; however, they are working very hard to be respectful of people and work through this fiscal challenge.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. G. Boulukos thanked the Chancellor for meeting with the Senate and for her presentation. However, he is still not convinced that it all makes sense, so he would like to be walked through a portion. He commented that these are all shortfalls, and he is unclear about what that means. Technically, it can mean money that has declined or is a negative figure somewhere; but he is unclear as to how they all fit into the big context. For instance, why are there two years of salary and promotion increases included in a one-year budget cut? What is the relationship to the overall budget line for salaries? He indicated the Chancellor gave a total reduction of $4.5M [after the enrollment shortfall]. But, a one year increase of $2.1M actually is not a deficit but an increase. If the campus lost people who were being paid a total of $4.5M, and there is an increase of $2.1M, then as far as he can tell, that would mean the budget line for salary gets $2M of relief. He asked how this works on a statistics line in the budget. [Not every negative number] produces a negative overall figure in their specific context. The $775,000 for tuition relief [is important for the campus, as is the 0.1 decrease in actual tuition income, which he assumes is after the $775,000 in relief is taken out]. His question is, what is the actual change in the salary cost total, and [why is the target the same for FY12 and FY13]? Chancellor Cheng responded that there are several things happening. Those open positions ($4.479M) could be considered positives, and they used every cent they could in addressing the budget. The salary commitments for two years in a row happened because [collective bargaining] contracts were negotiated last year. The salary increases were not budgeted, so there was no money to fund them. This year, money was put into the salary increases using one-time funds. They were able to do this because there was a slight growth in freshman enrollment last year, and tuition increases were higher than the enrollment decline; so, there was a net positive. Additionally, faculty and staff continued to leave campus, and those open positions helped fund [the increases] for half a year. The reason it was half a year is because they knew it was going to be a problem, and if they had gone retro back, it would have eaten a big hole in last year's budget. It was put in the base because by July, it became a 2% positive in everyone's paycheck, but there was not that 1% for six months one time [pay].

G. Boulukos commented that the overall budget line for salaries appears to actually be much smaller than last year. Chancellor Cheng responded that yes, they only needed $3.9M for everyone. G. Boulukos asked if less is being spent overall from last year, and the budget line for salaries is smaller this year, from what is the shortfall coming? A projection? An operating budget? Against last year's budget? Chancellor Cheng responded that they had anticipated paying for salary increases from the tuition increase of 5%; that would have been fine if enrollment had been flat. However, the unexpected enrollment decline of 1,000 students wiped out all the tuition revenue from the 5% increase, so there was nothing left to fund those increases. They had to be funded from within.

2. J. Kapur commented that faculty hear a lot about the money spent on advertising and marketing. Where are those [activities] in this? Chancellor Cheng responded that there were six staff reallocated from the marketing and communications department; private and local dollars are being used, not state dollars. The Lipman-Hearne contract is $2M for five years and is in its second year.

3. G. Boulukos expressed his frustration with the word "shortfall." He believes the common understanding of a shortfall is that there was an expectation that was not met. The presentation budget document indicated there is a $12.4M shortfall, meaning the University is in the hole for that amount. However, when looking at the big picture document, there is not--and has not been--a hole. It is very confusing; from what is it a shortfall? Reductions? Last year's figures? What is needed in order to once again have a clear bottom line? The bottom line is just fine, according to the audit. Chancellor Cheng pointed out that he is looking at all dollars--the School of Medicine, School of Medicine practice plan dollars; auxiliary dollars; required reserves from bond holders; funds accumulated for the Student Services building before construction began. All of those things are managed in a nearly billion dollar budget for the entire system. What she is referring to is the state appropriations and the income fund [only], which is $220M. There were adjustments made for the Law and Medical Schools and the auxiliaries to bring more money into the income fund, the state appropriation and the tuition dollars that are supporting the academic and non-academic areas. She explained that there are two sides to a budget; one is the expenditures that were built into the budget; the other is the money that comes in to support those expenditures. The term "shortfall" can impact either of those. It could mean less money coming in, but could also mean more expenditures than what a flat budget considers. G. Boulukos expressed confusion because, as the Chancellor is aware, a budget is a collection of credits and debits. He is frustrated because [there is a list of debits], but the credit side is an unknown. She indicated he was looking at the overall picture, but he is not. He looked in the audit where there is a breakout by campus and by [section] of the campus. According to an independent auditor, on June 30, 2011, the academic support line had a $5M excess; that is not a deficit. The system is doing very well. Even when looking at very specific lines, there is a positive number. If the budget came out with a positive last year, he would like to know [to what is the shortfall relative]. Chancellor Cheng responded that it could be a positive in a moment in time. There are bills that come in the next day. There is not a financial statement that would not have required reserves. It would be an interesting conversation to have, but it does not have much relevance to what is being discussed. The simplest explanation is that there was not enough revenue for all the expenditures that were built into the budget. Those expenditures that were built in were done by professional staff from across the campus. The CPBAC has combed through these with committees and professional staff, and because of the shortfall in revenue, both in tuition dollars and state appropriations, they have had to reallocate in to finance those items that were set as priorities. Salaries were a priority, which is fine; but there should be no arguments about how painful it is to reallocate to fund those salaries. It was not just faculty salaries, but salaries across the campus. If enrollment had been flat, then that portion of the budget would have been fine, though they would still have had to deal with the $7M less from the state.

4. M. Cashel asked if it would be possible to sell or lease the Carterville campus to make up some of the shortfall regarding the Technology building and its costs. She also asked how the growth indicators are defined in terms of deciding which colleges took the cuts. Chancellor Cheng responded that first, the University is not allowed to sell state property; if it was sold, it would go to the state and not the campus. The property is going to be ceded to Redco, which is a regional authority. All but a small square of land on which the Coal Research Center sits will be ceded to that company. There are no revenues, and it does not affect expenditures because there are no expenditures out there now. In answer to the second question, Chancellor Cheng responded that there were several different models built, and the final model was built on new student head count and credit hour generation; 30% based on new students because they are needed, and 70% on retention and patterns toward graduation.

5. T. Wilson asked about the rationale for applying specific cuts to the different colleges. Chancellor Cheng responded that the tuition increase was pretty much wiped out by the decline in enrollment. They worked very hard not to have that $5M at play; what was at play was $1.156M and the model with the 30/70. They looked at the difference between the new students from the previous year to this year and weighted that and then looked at the difference in the credit hour generation of the college from last year to this year and weighted that (the 30/70). A determination was made based on not letting the model stop at zero. So, the average played out to $1.1M [in cuts].

6. A. Fleege asked why the three previous years were not looked at for enrollment rather than one year. If the same model is used next year, the same colleges that received money back this year may lose next year. Why was it not a three year average? Chancellor Cheng responded that there was some growth in schools, and they needed to adjust to that. This was done in the last budget cut as well, except there was not as much differential. It was stopped on either end so this is consistent with what was done in that exercise. Also, there were schools that had declines for many years and no adjustment in the budget, and when some of that was gone, it was even more dramatic for some of the declining colleges. A. Fleege indicated he was concerned because his department is down three students overall, but had to return $180,000. Provost Nicklow responded that the College of Applied Sciences and Arts (A. Fleege's college) as a whole was down over 100 students.

7. S. Grave expressed concern about some of the colleges getting doubly hit because they had large scale retirements and have taken large cuts. She asked what the plan is for pulling those departments that have taken such large cuts. How do we increase enrollment if they have 10-12 open faculty lines. Chancellor Cheng responded that she asked for an FY12 retirees list by college and was surprised that, with the exception of Curriculum and Instruction, it was so balanced across the campus. She is not a "sky is falling" type of person, but she does want to say that the forces on higher education today are different than they have ever been; there are federal and state fiscal and attitudinal issues that are very difficult to phantom and very difficult to manage because they do not have much control over that. There were some difficult times this year, and the University is not out of the woods by any means; but, she would say the institution is moving forward.

8. J. Kapur commented that the Senate is very concerned about layoffs and is something they cannot accept. This is a small community, and she would not want to meet a neighbor who has lost a job or losing health benefits. She finds it confusing that there is money for advertising, but that it comes from this other side; yet, there is no money to keep faculty. Questions are raised as to why there are new structures being built when the University is not able to pay salaries. What faculty desperately need is to not have layoffs. Chancellor Cheng believes the deans, associate deans and department chairs should be commended because with a $12.8M budget issue, the campus is at a 1.25 FTE that will be reduced in the spring from continuing appointments. It could be two people, or it could be four, depending on how that works out. These are in programs that have lost significant numbers of students. She is surprised that there are rumors about widespread layoffs when none of that was ever being discussed in Anthony Hall.

9. D. Johnson asked how many of the cuts in staff over the past year were of A/P and civil service. Chancellor Cheng responded that the way the CPBAC put it together was that they reclassified people back and forth; it was very hard to do. D. Johnson commented that the bottom line is that enrollment is down. He then provided a graph that showed A/P has gone down, noting most occurred before the Chancellor arrived on campus; however, in the 2003, there was a massive increase in the number of A/P staff on campus and a large increase in professional civil service staff. For a number of years, the faculty grew as well, but that stopped. He agrees that higher education is facing very difficult times, but what reassurance can she give faculty that when cuts are being allocated that instruction be considered the last thing to go rather than administrative staff. Chancellor Cheng responded that the campus has maintained student ratios, and the fact that support staff has been cut one and a half times that of the faculty. She is looking to Information Technology to save the day on work flow so things can be done with fewer people. She believes this and the student ratios do tell the story about priorities. Whether that can be maintained is something that will require some discussion with respect to how to maintain quality for the students. She wants students to come here because it is a quality education; she wants great research to be done here. There needs to be more than just faculty; there has to be staff to support all that.

10. K. Anderson commented that the Chancellor has been discussing the budget situation in terms of the changes that are going on in higher education in general. In reading around that subject, one of the issues over the last decade and a half or so has been a shift in the perception of higher education in the U.S. from being a societal benefit from being an individual one. As a result, there has been a shift away from public funding of education to private funding, while student debt numbers seem to be rising. Assuming that analysis is correct, the demographic that is going to be hardest hit first is the demographic this University serves: the relatively low income families, the first generation students and the families that do not have much in private resources to pay for a higher education. What is the University going to do to position itself to be able to function over the next decade to five decades in an environment where education becomes a privately-funded enterprise? Chancellor Cheng responded that first, faculty have to work with colleagues across the country to try and change that conversation; and work through the various organizations to get the state to step up again. Having an uneducated population is very bad for moving forward. The University needs to be much more aggressive about the value statements it offers. That is where the marketing, branding, etc., come in because the institution absolutely has to continue reaching out to people about opportunities. The University has been very aggressive with financial aid, particularly for higher achieving students. The Pepsi contract provides $1M up front and $250,000 a year in scholarships. The Chancellor full ride scholarship is moving from $25,000 to $35,000; there are 100 full tuition scholarships and 150 half-tuition. All this came out of that contract.

11. D. Muzio commented that the letter she received as a non-tenure track faculty indicated that continuing appointments such as hers were going to be laid off if notified by November 30 and the [non-teaching] NTTs by December 15. Does that mean by December 15, they will have a number? Provost Nicklow responded that the term contracts not being renewed will receive those notices that day.

12. G. Whaley asked Chancellor Cheng how the allocations she made were divvied up. How does it make sense to plan for a flat budget when there was a decrease in enrollment? Then, there is long term planning, which is how they account for all the construction. He understands the idea of two piles, but what is being done to change the level of those piles; or, is anything being done? Is the priority construction, the athletics stadium and infrastructure? It seems that the faculty ratios are skewed at the moment, likely because of all the retirements; morale is down. How is she accounting for all that? Chancellor Cheng responded that capital dollars also come from the state. The University went through about a 10-year period when there were no capital dollars; then, the state realized that the deferred maintenance on the college campuses throughout the state were at a critical level and actually went out and borrowed for capital projects. As a result, the library and Technology building were all state-funded projects. This campus also has approximately half a billion dollars in deferred maintenance (mold, leaky roofs, etc.) because all the buildings were built in the glory days of the 1960s when colleges expanded all over the country. As good stewards of this University, it is as important as the day to day operations. Much more has been spent on academic buildings than has been for Saluki Way. She emphasized that there really are not operating dollars being spent there. Those funds are from private donations, student support and the city of Carbondale. Chancellor Cheng indicated G. Whaley is questioning whether the campus should be fixed up because of the concern about the reduction in faculty lines. This would be an issue if the campus was facing massive layoffs or if there was enrollment growth but no growth in faculty; but, there has to be student growth in order to have a growth in faculty, and that is not going to happen if students are going into buildings where the water is leaking. She noted that the Agriculture building needed to be rehabed, and Faner needs to be rehabed.

13. K. Asner-Self indicated she understands the concept of different pots, as well as the time and energy that went into raising private funds for Saluki Way. Her concerns are what is being done to raise private funding for scholarships, faculty chair positions, etc. She realizes they are not as "sexy-looking," but they could be if they were well marketed. She asked what percentage of time, when these funds are being raised, is going towards offsetting the money the state will not pay. Chancellor Cheng responded that the new vice chancellor for development starts on December 12. She was very careful about that selection, noting that the fund-raising activity on this campus is not where it needs to be. She had charged each of the deans in the spring to give her their fund-raising strategies in four areas: student support, programmatic support, faculty and infrastructure. Some of the material was not realistic, so it was sent back to the deans with a request that they work with the staff from the Development office so the new vice chancellor could be presented a road map of where she wanted to see the priorities for the campus. The activity for each of the deans and then their performance review includes an expectation of fund raising; however, it is not a well-geared machine at this time. The development side of the house is not doing very well, as they have around eight open positions that they have to determine how to fund.

14. P. Howze asked how spring enrollment is looking. Chancellor Cheng responded that she expects to be down. The students did not come in the fall, so they cannot be retained for spring. The University gets very few new students in the spring and very few transfers; all eyes are on fall. P. Howze asked about MAP grants. Chancellor Cheng responded that MAP grants are down $52M. P. Howze asked how much the state still owes SIU for FY12. Chancellor Cheng responded that the total is approximately $76-78M [for FY12 and 13]; but, the FY12 component is only several million, which she believes the campus will receive. G. Boulukos asked if the contingency fund has been released. The Chancellor responded that it is part of this; it is not there anymore.

15. K. Anderson asked if the student/faculty ratios vary by college. Chancellor Cheng responded she does not have that data, but it can be obtained. She believes it probably does, even within programs in colleges. That would be consistent with national norms because some accredited programs--for example, in the health care area--have certain ratios they have to maintain to be accredited. Overall, in the colleges it should be pretty steady.

16. B. DeVantier asked, with the move towards reducing to 120 credit hours, if they are budgeting for the reduction of tuition income as a result. Chancellor Cheng responded they are not; it is strongly believed that students leave because of the time to degree. There is so much fluidity that it would be very difficult to predict that. B. DeVantier indicated the expectation then is that it will not have a negative effect. Chancellor Cheng responded that this is what the academic side of the house has said.

17. S. Graves returned to the comment about faculty to student ratios per program or per college. She wondered if it seems like it would be beneficial to have both those numbers, but also an ideal for each program and each college on which to strive--not a baseline, but an ideal, a standard for excellence]. Chancellor Cheng responded that most of the colleges were able to use what is termed "local money" to offset any reduction in staff. Local money might be distance education or off-campus program funds that were accumulated and considerable and would be in the end of year balances. The College of Applied Sciences and Arts, in particular, was able to do a lot of that and was able to avoid layoffs, though there are open lines.

18. D. Johnson ask whether any thought was being given to charging Athletics rent, as is being done with the School of Law. Chancellor Cheng responded that they were; their budget is about $20M, and they get $1.7M in state dollars, most of which is used to pay tuition for their athletes. Also, most of the staff in Athletics are funded by other sources-- mostly student fees--which is a different bucket. The Athletics Department had an approximately $100,000 reduction on their state fund. The other reduction on their budget was the same as all the other auxiliaries. With a thousand less students and the resulting loss in fees, they got hit. Other auxiliaries such as the Recreation Center and Housing are all dealing with reductions as a result of the enrollment decline and the hit on the little bit of state money they receive.

19. D. Muzio asked the Chancellor what dollar amount she is expecting to save in the budget with the NTT layoffs. Chancellor Cheng responded that she did not have a figure. G. Boulukos explained that the enrollment shortfall is billed back to the units through the 70/30 formula and the funds are redistributed to the colleges. The reason the Chancellor does not have a figure is because colleges are given a dollar figure to cut, and the results of that dollar figure go down the line to the units that then have to take that money out of their budgets, either by laying off NTTs or by some other way. Chancellor Cheng added that there are also unexpected retirements or leaves for the upcoming spring that are on the list. People are being put on local money, distance education-type money, and people on grants are being put more on the grant, all in order to retain these positions. There are a lot of strategies taking place, and she does not have that detail.

20. S. Graves asked the Chancellor if she would provide a copy of her presentation so that when colleagues ask questions, Senators will have something to back their notes. Chancellor Cheng responded that the presentation will be posted online.

21. K. Anderson commented that at the last Senate meeting, there was brief discussion that if in order to avoid layoffs, the money had to be raised elsewhere. He asked if furloughs have been a part of the discussion. Chancellor Cheng responded it has not. They created such fervor last time; plus, she believes the University has several years to get out of this budget crisis. After 300 retirements, she believes the campus is in good shape.

K. Anderson asked about the possibility of allowing faculty to volunteer to give up a half a day to protect the 1.25 FTE. G. Boulukos pointed out that there are term faculty included in that number. Chancellor Cheng responded that if furlough days were taken to make up some of the shortage, then what would they teach? There are programs with significant declines in enrollment and no course in the spring to be listed; that is what the deans have expressed to the Provost. It is about enrollment declines at the same time there is less money. G. Boulukos asked for clarification on the budget, where was the decrease in funds coming from, and what was the initial figure? If there is a shortfall, then there must have been an initial pot. What was that ?

J. Allen commented that 52% of the University's operating budget is driven by student tuition and fees; that means the campus is increasingly dependent on enrollment to keep its doors open. If anyone wants to get a very rough feel for how difficult it is to work without sufficient enrollment and the revenues brought in by enrollment, they need only look at the Fact Book published by Institutional Research. There are a number of degree programs that are in the single digits and are clearly unsustainable. The vast majority are at the graduate level, but they are not countered enough by the large enrollments that depend on the support of undergraduates. J. Allen urged Senators to look at the Fact Book to see how many degree programs have lost students over the last 10 years (almost every one).

22. S. Graves mentioned that one issue the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee has been dealing with, and that came up at the last meeting, is the number of new certificate- type programs that are being offered by departments (whether 18 hours or 30 hours). Students in those particular programs are not majors in that program; they are enrolled students. She asked how they will be counted in this kind of budget. Chancellor Cheng responded that they would be counted as credit hours generated, not as new students if they are not new headcount students. For students taking extra courses, it is generated by that student credit hour metric. S. Graves asked if non-declared students are counted in the metric. Chancellor Cheng responded that non-declared would not be new students, but faculty teaching those students would get the credit for the student credit hour. N. Martin commented that most of the certificates in her college's online programs were not in the credit hour generation formula for online students. Chancellor Cheng responded that online was separate because [ASA] already received 70% of that revenue in its programs. She believes the split was already 70/30, and that is a different bucket. The programs that have had online activities for a number of years have significant dollars they are generating to put back into their departments. She encourages people to do that quickly because there is significant demand for online courses, which can help fund traditional faculty.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:49 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba