skip to main skip to secondary navigation
Navigation

JPBC Minutes: September 14, 2017

Time & Location: 8:30 – 10:30 a.m., 220 Seymour 

Attendees

Voting Members

  • Mike Andriatch
  • Joy Bhadury
  • Davida Bloom
  • Steven Breslawski
  • Scott Haines
  • Jim Haynes
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Shanelle Hodge
  • Debbie Jacob
  • Sara Kelly
  • Kadathur Lakshmanan
  • Teresa Major
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Chantelle Nasri
  • Cherise Oakley
  • Summer Reiner
  • Sandeep Singh
  • Kathryn Wilson

Non-Voting Members

  • Denise Copelton: Co-Chair
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • Kathleen Peterson
  • Karen Riotto
  • Melissa Wight
  • James (Beau) Willis: Co-Chair

Guests

  • Rey Sia

Regrets

Voting Members

  • Brad Menear

Non-Voting Members

  • President Macpherson

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

Committee Introductions

Committee members completed brief introductions.

Overview of Campus Planning and Assessment Process

Dr. Willis provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overview of the campus planning and assessment process to the committee. The presentation can be found on the Blackboard site.

A discussion occurred during the presentation the included the following:

  • Dr. Maliekal asked Dr. Willis to state the lessons that have been learned regarding increasing the funds in the College Reserves. Dr. Willis discussed the following lessons.
    • Creative Use of Funds – We were able to find ways to use different funds to eliminate some of the College’s debt.
    • Increased Student Enrollment – Between the academic year of 2015-16 and this fall, we increased our student enrollment by approximately 300 students.
    • Personnel Management
  • Another reason why the College needs to increase the reserves is due to the SUNY requirement. SUNY requires schools to have 10% of the school’s operating cost in reserves. Based on operating costs totaling over $70 million. This total factors in our State, IFR and SUTRA budgets.

Dr. Willis reviewed the committee’s annual agenda. This agenda can be found on the
Blackboard website. During this review, the following clarifications were requested:

  • The Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Committee is not a subcommittee of the Joint Planning and Budgeting (JPB) Committee. It is one of the few committees that will feed into the JPB. Their responsibility will be to evaluate the risks we have on campus and the measures we have in place. This committee will also be developing the College’s Risk Registry. The committee is made up of administrative staff who have responsibilities in broad areas such as Human Resources, Facilities, Student Life, Environment Health and Safety, etc.
  • One subcommittees of the JPB is the Campus Based Fee Review (CBFR) Committee. The CBFR will be co-chaired by Karen Riotto and Kathy Peterson. This committee will be working with policies regarding the fee-based budgets, reviewing the fee-based budget presentations and developing appropriate fees for online students. The CBFR’s recommendations will be presented to the JPB and then as a committee, we will provide our recommendations to President’s Cabinet.
  • The other subcommittee is the Investment Fund Committee. They will review the Investment Fund proposals and present their recommendations to the JPB and then as a committee, we will provide our recommendations to President’s Cabinet.
  • In regards to the International Tuition Gain Shares, the following clarifications were stated:
    • International tuition contributes to the College’s revenue target.
    • The task force charged with the International Tuition Gain Shares initiative will have to determine if non-academic departments that contribute to the recruitment of international students will be eligible to participate.
  • The committee will only make funding recommendations on requests that go beyond an area’s allotted budget. These requests could involve equipment needs or new personnel.

Orientation to the Strategic and Operational Plan

Dr. Kelly and Dr. Wilson presented the model that EMSA is currently utilizing for divisional assessment and planning in relation to the Strategic and Operational Plan. This model will most likely be the template that will be adopted by all divisions. The documents shown in this presentation can be found on the Blackboard website.

Review Investment Fund Process

2016-17 Process

Dr. Willis and Dr. Sia presented on the process that was completed during the last year’s Investment Fund proposal review. Last year there was about $600,000 in funding available for the Investment Fund proposals. The BRC received 65 proposals for a total request of over two million dollars. During this review, it was discovered that some of the proposals could be funded by other funding sources. In the end, we were able to fund about 35 proposals using the other sources in addition to the Investment Fund for a total of about $734,000.

2017-18 Recommendations

Dr. Sia presented the following information regarding the recommendations for the 2017-18 Investment Fund review:

  • During the last year’s review process there were topics that came up that the review committee could not address and therefore adequately fund. This lead to the development of a work group to complete the following:
    • Create guidelines for this year’s review process.
    • Restructure the call letter and proposal application to help eliminate the issues that were discovered during last year’s review. Dr. Willis stated that with the restructuring of the application, included in this year’s application will be an area asking if this proposal involves facilities alternations or technology and if the appropriate personnel have been consulted. This will help proposals to be connected to the right individuals that may be able to fund the proposal from another funding source instead of the Investment Funds.
    • Develop a new scoring rubric, as the one used last year was based on last year’s application and the new one will have to be based on this year’s application.
    • Create a template for an awarded department to supply the committee with a six-month and 12-month post reward progress report post reward.
    • Develop a better timeline. Dr. Copelton stated that last year the call was sent out in December and applications were due two months later. This did not provide the review committee much time to review the proposals.
    • The membership of the Investment Fund committee will consist of the four faculty members, the six professional staff members, the three student representatives that currently serve on the JPB. Dr. Copelton informed the committee that two more faculty members would be added to the subcommittee to balance out the group.

Discussion: Funding of personnel/stipends

Dr. Haynes stated that a justification form is going to be developed for stipend requests that coincide with Investment Fund requests. These are for tasks that are outside of the faculty member’s obligations. The Investment Fund guidelines will state in some format that stipends are not to be included in the proposals, but there are exceptions. The process is that the Dean’s Council will be designing the stipend request form and this form will need to be completed and approved by a Dean before they can submit an Investment Fund proposal that includes a stipend.

The Internal Loan Fund

Dr. Willis provided information on the Internal Loan Fund. This information can be
found on the Blackboard website.

Review & Acknowledge Budget & Resource Committee’s May 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes

Dr. Willis motioned to the review and acknowledgement of the meeting minutes from the May 11, 2017 Budget and Resource Committee meeting and Dr. Bhadury seconded. Dr. Breslawski asked about the motion embedded in the minutes that referred to the request for a summary of a cost benefit review to be included in the budget presentations. Dr. Singh stated that this agenda item could be tabled to a future meeting when the committee is discussing the templates. Dr. Willis suggested that when the call and budget presentation templates are developed that the element of cost savings be added to them.

Other Items from the Committee

  • A few committee members asked that we address concerns regarding our faculty and staff resources as we work towards our SUNY Performance Improvement Program (PIP) goal of 8600 students.
  • Dr. Reiner provided a suggestion for the ERM to review the cost versus risk to a department when a staff member leaves, for example a secretary. Dr. Willis stated that this is to be included in the business continuity and succession planning areas that the ERM committee will review.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 a.m.
Next Meeting: September 28, 2017, 8:30 -10:30 a.m.