8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams
Attendees
Voting Members
Martin Abraham
Lorraine Acker
Mike Andriatch
Qudus Bawa-allah
Monica Brasted
James Cordeiro
Frances Dearing
Michael Doyle
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Stephanie Learn
Theresa Martinez
Skye Paine
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Jamie Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Non-Voting Members
Julie Caswell
Eileen Daniel
Keith Davis
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Gary Morog
Logan Rath
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Robert Wyant
Guests
Michael Baird
Thomas Chew
Tammy Gouger
Jennifer Green
Scott Haines
Jennifer Haytock
Julie Letourneau
Brad Menear
Tyler Moesle
Brittany Narburgh
Oana Prajitura
Darson Rhodes
Janet Roy
William Ruiz
Katherine Schaal
Rey Sia
Bonnie Swoger
Christine Walterick
Regrets
Voting Members
Jennifer Blood
Tom Hernandez
Carl O’Connor
James Onley
OhioHen Uzebu
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the October 31, 2024, meeting minutes. Mr. Harper motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Raczkowski seconded the motion. 12 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following:
- A story on the radio regarding SUNY stated that SUNY, as a whole, had a growth of 2.5% in enrollment. The narrative pointed out that this is the first time that SUNY, as a whole, has seen back-to-back enrollment growth in over 15 years.
- The Working Group for Investment Funds met last week, and we are at point where we are ready to start drafting a report. This group will not have to meet as the rest of the work can be completed by email. The report is estimated to come to JPBC early in the spring semester.
Five-year Model Update
Mr. Harper provided an update on the Five-year model. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding the typo about the operating expenses of $75.4 million and what it is supposed to be. It was stated that the baseline is $72.4 million. The way the budgeting works is it takes the prior year’s operating expense total and that becomes the baseline start for the next year.
- The question was raised regarding the temporary adjustments that includes the Athletics relief and is it an unusual expense or an ongoing annual expense. It was stated that it is an ongoing annual expense. When we look at the focus on enrollment, there is a lot of focus around Athletics and the programs. This fall intake we have our highest athletic student body. This has been something we have been focused on for a period of time as we have been growing it. The way that the budget has been allocated, the Athletics department has been running in a deficit. This is something the campus absorbs so that is why you see it under the temporary adjustments. It has been there for a number of years.
- The question was raised regarding the deficit in Athletics is operating costs that are not covered by the Athletic fee. It was stated that it is correct.
- The question was raised regarding the reserves and the structural deficit. Over the last five years our structural deficit has been substantial, but our reserves have ended the year higher or marginally lower. It seems as though we ended the year in a strong financial position even when we had projected a substantial deficit largely because of the unprojected savings that have been achieved through staff and faculty salary savings. Savings that are consistent annually should be a part of the projection and if not should be a part of the temporary adjustment being projected in years out. The slope of the reserves does not seem to conform to the performance of the reserves in the past few years. It was stated that there have been salary savings which materialized from the $10 million challenge that we put in place. Whether it was through capturing retirement eligible savings or managing attrition. When we look at the out years in terms of the 5-year model the amount of savings that are coming from retirement eligible is reducing. In 2023-24, we had about $1 million and in 2024-25 it moderates to about $900,000 in savings. By the time we get to 2028-29 the retirement savings are zero. The impact of those savings is material in prior years and is reflected in the reserve balance, but in the out years it goes to moderate and then goes down to zero. When you see the reserve balance starting to shift down that is reflective in the investment we are making in scholarship that we had mentioned earlier. It was added that we are discussing potentially modelling a higher amount of salary savings per year going forward. That does mean a higher level of risk, because if we bank on savings we don’t achieve, we have a budget gap. Our general practice has been to budget in line with what we know we can achieve, versus what we might achieve.
- The question was raised regarding the increase in the expenses in the model from May and how do we account for that. It was stated that there are two factors. We budget for expenses by using the prior year’s baseline and then we build the investments on top. When we closed the prior year, the expense total was higher than we had assumed when we built the model in May. We had to reset our baseline. In addition, I mentioned the increase in utilities, and we had to absorb an extra million for that. Basically when you look at the 72 to 75, $1 million is coming from the baseline reset, $1 million is coming from increased utilities and about $500,000 in hiring salary assumptions and there are some other pieces that fill the gap.
- The question was raised regarding the in excess of $400,000,000 in capital need and deferred maintenance and it says an allocation of $100,000,000 is the allocation amount we have been promised for the next five years. It was stated that it is correct. We have discussed the projects with SUNY and have agreed to the prioritization of the projects. Our list of projects totals about $400,000,000 and each university has a list of projects. SUNY reviews the lists and the demands, and they allocate it out to the universities. It is a five-year period so items will shift around in the timeline. Items may get deferred or escalated or there may be unforeseen items that we need to address.
- The question was raised regarding the deterioration of the reserve balance with increased enrollment and whether we have detailed projections on staffing similar to the projections we have on enrollment and do those projections inform the model. It is stated that the funding for the scholarships is coming out of reserves. This is why you see the reserve balances come down because that is funding the scholarships that are fueling the enrollment which is providing stability for the university going forward. The five-year model, when we look at the assumptions around the first-year enrollment, we are holding it static at 1200. When we look at the last two years, we have achieved higher than 1200. What we need to prove to ourselves is that the higher to the 1200 performance has been attributed to the scholarships. If that is the case, there is an upside potential for future enrollment numbers and therefore the revenue associated with it. It is an investment we are making for the long term and we would have to prove that out. That would be subject to another agenda item. When we look at the model, we take the budgeted headcount and we pretty much roll that forward. We do have some conversations around where we need to make some investments to increase headcount, and we will add that to the model.
Retention and Persistence Presentation
Mr. Chew, Ms. Prajitura, Dr. Haytock and Dr. Kelly provided a presentation on retention and persistence. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding whether there are increases in medical/mental health leaves. It was stated that the answer is no and yes. Those leaves were much higher during COVID. Between last year and this year, they have gone up a little bit. What we know through Student Accessibility Services and what we know in general about these students is that they are much savvier when it comes to mental health by seeking out support and utilizing support. Those medical reasons, physical and mental health, are steady. There is not a clear sign that there is a concern about the increase, but it is a factor that we deal with every year that there are students that cannot be here because of their mental health or medical issues for themselves or their family.
- The question was raised regarding Engaged Eagle and whether we currently have a mechanism of tracking where we can try to get all of the information in one place. It was stated that right now the software is in procurement status. Once we get over this hump, we will be able to track the data a little bit better. That is one of the goals for the upcoming year to be able to track engagement over time.
- The question was raised regarding whether the goal is to eventually merge the data sets and be able to tie retention to engagement. It was stated that is the goal.
- The question was raised regarding whether the University still uses Suitable or is it being phased out. It was stated we no longer have access to Suitable and that it has been phased out.
- The question was raised regarding when looking at survey results, are we assuming that we follow a bell curve where a lot of people are in the middle or do any of them have extreme weight responses where they are very positive or negative. It is stated that most are in the middle with a bell curve. In our overall slide deck, the range is 0 to 10 for almost all of them. There are certainly those people where everything is amazing or awful, but the vast majority are in the bell curve.
- The question was raised regarding if the committee has seen any examples that might be considered here of summer academies for incoming first year with a mix of academic and cocurricular activities or in semester one or year one using an academy model in which instead of block scheduling students in one or two classes, there is an attempt to create a complete schedule or partial schedule for a cohort of students to move through that the instructor and or the topic of those classes might engage students and be a pilot case to see if there is a higher retention rate in that kind of model. It was stated that Dr. Kelly, Dr. Daniel, Ms. Jones and Ms. Rickman have discussed how to look at those development math and english courses over the summer to get toward that summer academy approach. We are looking toward to putting forward a pilot proposal for this coming summer. Definitely for EOP students for their summer academy and potentially for other students. There are other models that schools use like a STEM academy over the summer. These models are definitely something we should look at. It was added that the Provost was interested in piloting going back to the block scheduling that we haven’t had for quite some time. Pam Setek did a lot of work with putting students into cohorts. It is a difficult process to do because so many students come in with some credits and they have different needs for what courses they need to take. There is a pilot going on with this now and we may have more information to share in the spring. In addition, we were really surprised at the orientation when we were talking about the EOP summer bridge of how many regular admit students and their families said they would love to do that. Students are really self-aware. We have had a lot of first year students say they don’t feel prepared for this or that and I am going to ask for help right away. We have heard this more than we have ever heard at orientation this summer. This is not something that we have not specifically looked into, but it is an idea. We moved away from the block scheduling model because so many students were coming in with credits and changing their majors consistently over the summer. We are trying to figure out ways we can keep things consistent, which are early advising and collaboration with academic departments and Ms. Rickman’s team in Academic Advisement.
- It was stated that we should have Mr. Chew, Dr. Haytock, Ms. Prajitura and Dr. Kelly back in the spring to talk about retention and persistence further.
Additional Items from the Committee
Dr. Weininger made the following announcements:
- The Budget Townhall is tomorrow at 11:10am in 103 Edwards. Members were encouraged to attend for JPBC representation.
- Our last committee meeting for the semester will be November 21.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.