Final Report of the 2005-2006 Planning and Resources Committee

May 16, 2006

Committee Members: Kissan Joseph (Chair)

Bill Crowe, John Hachmeister, Kathy Jansen,

Kathryn Nemeth-Tuttle, Bob Parsons, and Deb Teeter

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This document constitutes the final report of the 2005-2006 Planning and Resources Committee and is divided into two sections. The first section describes specific outputs. The second section delineates a suggestion from the P&R committee following participation in the budget calls of the various units. (An Appendix contains minutes of P&R committee meetings.)

1: SPECIFIC OUTPUTS

1.1: Endorsement of the Faculty Services Offices

The committee reviewed the proposal regarding the Faculty Services offices and drafted the following statement:

The Planning and Resources Committee, a University Senate Standing Committee, with faculty, staff, and student membership, endorses the Faculty Council “Rationale for a Faculty Services Office” statement issued on March 10, 2005. Members of the Planning and Resources Committee unanimously agreed at their January 27, 2006 meeting that the proposal for consideration of a Faculty Services Office at the University of Kansas has merit. Such an office would broadly benefit the University by supporting faculty recruitment and retention. The Planning and Resources Committee (P&R) supports the idea of developing these services, as needed, for both faculty and staff members. Also, P&R recognizes that grant funding to support some of these services is currently being pursued by a KU faculty member, with the involvement of the Provost’s Office. But in addition to these efforts, P&R agrees with Faculty Council that use of Tuition Enhancement funds to establish a Faculty Services Office is appropriate.

1.2: Endorsement of Guaranteed Base Tuition Plan

The committee discussed and reviewed the fixed tuition proposal. Inputs /viewpoints of student representatives, implementation issues, and overall goals of the University were carefully weighed in formulating the following statement:

The Planning and Resources Committee, a University Senate Standing Committee, with faculty, staff, and student membership, endorses the Guaranteed Base Tuition Plan. The basic purpose of the guaranteed tuition plan is to provide certainty in tuition expenses. As such, it has broad appeal both among students and families.

2: Committee Suggestion: Space Management

Members of the P&R committee participated in the Budget Call presentations of the various units, and contributed towards the budget allocations suggested in the Provost’s April 21, 2006 meeting.

In addition, after participation in the budget calls, members of the P& R committee strongly feel that an overarching need for the University is to direct some attention to the “physical space management” needs of the University. In particular, our impression is that:

Ø Several units have pressing needs for space.

Ø Some units have initiated planning for a new building (Pharmacy) while

other units are actively seeking a new building (Business).

Ø Security is going to be an increasing concern in space management.

Given these concerns, a committee that offers some centralized oversight and long-range vision regarding space management could prove to be a very useful body.

Appendix

MINUTES OF P&R COMMITTEE MEETINGS, 2005 - 2006

(meetings with Provost not included )

P&R Committee Meeting

October 13, 3:30 – 4:30

33 Strong Hall

MINUTES

(submitted by Kissan Joseph)

Members Present:

Crowe, Jansen, Joseph, Nemeth Tuttle, Parsons

Committee members discussed possible charges for 2005 – 2006. In addition to ongoing charges, three items emerged as worthy of committee attention

1: (Charge 7 of Sen Ex, June 14, 2005 memo) All members viewed the proposed faculty-staff services office to be of great value, and were eager to further the initiative. General consensus was that the investment in this office could yield high return for KU.

To move this initiative along, Crowe agreed to ask Deb Teeter information regarding faculty demographics to better understand retirement trends at KU. Retirement trends, in turn, would influence hiring of new faculty / staff, the key group to which the services of

faculty/staff office is targeted.

Nemeth Tuttle agreed to ask Lisa Wolf-Wendel for insights about the value / best practices related to such a faculty / staff service.

Jansen will ask HREO abut current practices / services.

2: (Charge 5 of Sen Ex, June 14, 2005 memo) Crowe highlighted the need for KU to have a summative perspective on the five-year tuition enhancement plans. More importantly, he suggested that the University needed to have a pro-active vision for future years / plans. Committee members agreed that such a vision was particularly important given the transition in the Provost’s office. General discussion suggested that this could be a fruitful charge for the committee to adopt.

3: Nemeth Tuttle suggested that the committee continue to clarify / review the fixed tuition proposal.

The meeting concluded by finalizing the time for the next meeting which includes Dr. Shulenburger, Kathleen McCluskey-Fawcett, and Lindy Eakin: Monday, November 7, 3 – 4 pm. The committee decided to meet subsequently on Thursday, November 17, 3 - 4 pm.

P&R Committee Meeting

November 17, 3:30 – 4:30

Regents Room

MINUTES

(submitted by Kissan Joseph)

Members Present:

Jansen, Joseph, Hachmeister, Nemeth Tuttle, Teeter, Parsons

Committee members discussed issues related to the fixed tuition proposal. The broad agenda for the committee in this regard is to provide the next level of specificity for the proposal (FAQs, outstanding details).

The discussion centered around two broad themes, Implementation Issues and Communications Issues. Items discussed under these themes include;

Implementation Issues

· Should students be given a choice (fixed or year-to-year)?

Committee member Parson suggested that students may prefer a choice. Joseph

responded that if “graduate in four” is an underlying objective, choice would not

be most appropriate. There was input about the difficulties of providing a choice by Teeter. In the end, the committed preferred to focus on providing only the fixed option for the most part.

· Plan needs to be tied to the broader objective of student success (implicit contract)?

Nemeth Tuttle emphasized that the fixed tuition should be part of a larger plan that facilitates timely graduation. This would, of course, require commitments both from the University (course availability, advising) and students (following through).

· Financial support to bridge the initial hike?

Jansen and Hachmeister raised the point of providing financial support to students to bridge over the one-time large, tuition hike that would be encountered at the start of the fixed plan.

· Five and Six Year Programs?

The committee also discussed the most appropriate plan for students enrolled in five and six year programs. For example, a student in a six year program could join the cohort at Year 1 and pay a fixed tuition for two years. He/she would then join the incoming Cohort at Year 3 and pay the fixed rate for this cohort for the next four years (2 + 4). Alternatively, the student could join the cohort at Year 1 and pay a fixed tuition for four years. He/she would then join the incoming Cohort at Year 5 and pay the fixed rate for this cohort for the next four years (4+2).

Parson agreed to examine the present value of the 2 + 4 versus the 4+2 plan.

Communication Issues

· Committee members noted that communicating the fixed plan would be most challenging at the start

The challenge is partly due to the large initial increase as well as the mechanics of making sure that the plan is understood. Members also noted that the TE plan was favorably received by the University’s constituents. A similar underlying positive sentiment may receive the fixed tuition plan.

· Other Communication Concerns

Members noted that the plan would be in effect Fall 07 but final approval would be received only in June 07.

Members noted that a firm dollar number could not me communicated for the fixed tuition rate in early communications.

At the end of the meeting, Jansen noted that HREO had little by way of a co-ordinated effort regarding a faculty-staff services office. Nemeth Tuttle indicated that Lisa Wolfwendel is applying for a grant towards such an office, and that she has consented to update the committee on her efforts in the Spring of 2006.

P&R Committee Meeting

January 27, 10:00 – 11:30

Strong Hall

MINUTES

(submitted by Kissan Joseph)

Members Present:

Jansen, Joseph, Nemeth Tuttle, Teeter, Parsons

Students: Nick Sterner, Arthur Jones, Josh Bender, Steve Munch, and Katie Lloyd.

1: Committee members discussed issues related to the fixed tuition proposal. In particular, several mechanics of the plan such as dealing with transfer students, readmitted students, spring entry, policy regarding UG courses at Regents Center, plan for five and six year programs, communicating the program to the public, etc., were discussed.

It was noted that guaranteed tuition would not provide a 100% guarantee since DT, fees, etc., would still be variable and additional. As such, the committee feels that the nomenclature Guaranteed Base Tuition seems more appropriate.

Kathy Jansen agreed to craft a paragraph reflecting the P&R committee’s endorsement of the fixed tuition plan. Deb Teeter agreed to keep a list of items related to the mechanics of the fixed tuition plan.

2: The committee discussed the merits of the Faculty Services office, and agreed unanimously to endorse it. Kathryn Tuttle agreed to craft the first draft of P&R’s formal endorsement.

3: Based on a suggestion from Faculty Council, the committee examined suggestions for modifying the Senate document delineating charges to the P&R. The following changes were suggested to the document approved by Sen Ex, June 14, 2005:

Item 1 b: “Holding regular meetings…. instead of “Holding monthly meetings…..

Item 2: Delete “including teaching loads, class sizes, and faculty salaries.” The rationale is that P&R may utilize the full technical support of OIRP, as needed.

4: The committee next discussed scheduling for budget meetings. Kissan Joseph agreed to co-ordinate scheduling electronically.

The meeting adjourned at 11:15. It was decided that the next meeting would be set after the meeting with the Provost.

P&R Committee Meeting

April 20, 4:00 – 5:00

Strong Hall

MINUTES

(submitted by Kissan Joseph)

Members Present:

Jansen, Joseph, Nemeth-Tuttle, Teeter, Parsons

1: Committee members discussed over-arching themes emerging from the review of budget calls. One issue that seemed to emerge was the inadequacy/lack of space across various units. The committee concluded that the University might benefit from a body that offers some centralized oversight and long-range vision regarding space management.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00. It was decided that Kissan Joseph would write the initial report of the committee and forward it among committee members.