8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams
Attendees
Voting Members
Martin Abraham
Lorraine Acker
Qudus Bawa-allah
Jennifer Blood
Monica Brasted
Frances Dearing
Michael Doyle
Tom Hernandez
Stephanie Learn
Skye Paine
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Jaime Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Non-Voting Members
Julie Caswell
Steve Cook
Damita Davis
Keith Davis
Eileen Daniel
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Gary Morog
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Robert Wyant
Guests
Jennifer Green
Scott Haines
Julie Letourneau
Jose Maliekal
Tammy Jo Manz
Frank Mancini
Brad Menear
Darson Rhodes
Janet Roy
William Ruiz
Bonnie Swoger
Christine Walterick
Susan Wielgosz
Regrets
Voting Members
Mike Andriatch
Sara Kelly
Non-Voting Members
Logan Rath
The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the November 14, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Dr. Spiller seconded the motion. 14 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the November 21, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Mr. O’Connor seconded the motion. 14 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following:
- There are three projects we will be working on this semester in addition to the regular items we work on. They are:
- Staffing Trends and Levels
- Scholarship Spending
- Working Group on Trends in Budgets supported by Broad-based fees
Discuss and Vote on Report from Working Group on Investment Funds
Members reviewed the report. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- The concern was raised regarding the need to use investment funds to fund the critical needs of the campus. It was stated that the critical need may not be the correct terminology. Some of the things that would go towards the “critical needs” side of the investment funds would be for example for admissions to run an advertisement campaign in a part of a state where they do not normally advertise. It was added the these would be items that arose after the budget was developed. Such as legislation that is passed and we need to implement it or equipment that failed that was not expected. In addition, we need to fund the unexpected items that come up, but we need to find ways to continue to fund them. For example, developing preventive maintenance or an equipment replacement system. What we have done since starting the investment fund process is we have started an asset replacement fund for campus. It is not as much as we need so we are prioritizing items. The funds give an opportunity to discover a need that needs to be budgeted for. The reality is there are needs that Cabinet or Deans may not be aware of. It is a way of surfacing the need to a higher level.
- The question was raised regarding whether there will be room in next year’s budget for investment funds. It was stated that is a good question and something Cabinet will need to address. Whether there is room next year or the year after, what this proposal does is give us a formula and a version to look at the possibility. Cabinet will take the proposal into account at the next budget retreat. Cabinet is always looking for areas for investment.
- The question was raised regarding whether in recent years there has been an urgent need for the critical funds or was it that the investment fund application process was not yielding the intended applications. It was stated that it was both. In preparation of the working group’s first meeting, Dr. Weininger had conversations with various individuals who had served on the sub committee in the past and there were various issues, and President Macpherson echoed many of them. One of the issues that came up repeatedly was that it was not entirely clear what the criteria were that we should be using to evaluate the applications, and it wasn’t clear what proposals we should be encouraging through our guidelines. People were applying for distinct reasons. On the one hand, we had critical needs where a piece of equipment broke or maintenance needed to occur that people did not know about, and on the other hand, we had people proposing experimental projects. This will streamline the proposal and evaluation process and allow us to evaluate the proposals more cleanly.
- It was stated that the working group reviewed the past year’s applications for investment funds and the majority of the proposals were for the critical needs category, and the others were the innovative category. It was confirmed that is usually the case in all of the years that investment funds have occurred.
Dr. Peterson put forward the motion to accept the report as written and send it on to the President as a recommendation; Mr. O’Connor seconded the motion. The following are the voting results from the present voting members:
Approve – 14 Not Approve – 0
Discuss and Vote on JBPC Membership
Members reviewed the new proposed committee membership due to the Academic Affairs reorganization that starts in Fall 2025. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:
- It was stated that there is an edit needed to the proposal as it is the School of Education and Health and not the School of Education and Health Professions as listed on the proposal.
- The concern was stated that the representation of dean and faculty should be the same across the colleges and schools. It was added that deans have a different level of needs and thoughts than faculty do so it is important to have representation from all schools and colleges. In addition, it was added that it is important to have all deans as representatives as it is important for absorbing and distributing information.
- The suggestion was made that it should be added as a requirement or a preferred criterion that faculty and staff have professional tenure. This helps people feel more secure with speaking about ideas during deliberations. It was proposed that if this was added as a criterion, it would not apply to positions that are not eligible for tenure.
- The concern was stated that professional staff do not have a permanent appointment until after seven years. There are positions that need to voice concerns on certain matters, for example finances, and do not have a problem doing so in their job or on the committee without permanent status.
- It was stated that directors do not have a permanent appointment option. They are given five-year contracts.
- It was suggested that the preferred criteria for tenure/permanent appointments should only apply to faculty and not staff.
- It was stated that as a professional staff member, there is not a concern to speak out when we are discussing a controversial issue or something that needs to be weighed in on, but sometimes it is just as important to listen to the conversation and learn about different aspects of the campus.
- It was stated that non tenured faculty bring value to the committee as well because they bring new ideas, energy and things they have learned somewhere else. It was added that the concern about security on speaking out has only been voiced in the School of Business and Management by tenured faculty and not non tenured faculty. If a non-tenured faculty member did not feel comfortable speaking out, then they should not agree to be on the committee.
- It was stated that the security of non-tenured and tenured faculty concern should be addressed as a campus climate issue. There is a concern that a commentary is being reiterated without a basis of fact. The President has asked for examples over the years has almost never gotten any.
- It was stated in the history of JPBC that on average faculty members have been more vocal than non-faculty members. This may be due to the fact that faculty members have a level of job security that most non-faculty members do not.
- It was stated that having tenure as a preferred option isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is just another way to protect and help junior faculty.
- The concern was stated that if there is faculty and dean representation across all colleges and schools in addition to the faculty at large position for librarians to serve, this would alter the equity of representation of professional staff and faculty as faculty would have one more representative than the professional staff.
- It was stated that it is important not to lose the faculty representative that the library staff could serve in. It is not a requirement to be from the library staff to be the faculty at large position.
- The concern was stated with the implementation of a new membership structure, we need to be mindful of the timeline of the end of terms.
- It was suggested that this decision be tabled, and a small group be formed to discuss this and come back to the committee with a recommendation.
- It was stated that the process has already been delayed and delaying this decision another two weeks could be an issue. President Macpherson agreed to wait another two weeks so that a small group could discuss the representation concerns further and present a recommendation at the next meeting.
Dr. Spiller put forward the motion for an ad hoc group of faculty and non-faculty members to meet to discuss the membership and the preference of tenure for faculty representatives; Dr. Peterson seconded the motion. The following are the voting results from the present voting members:
Approve- 14 Not Approve - 0
Discuss Working Group on Broad-based Fees
Dr. Weininger stated this group will discuss and examine data pertaining to the issue of broad-based fees and the budgets that are based on those fees. The group will look at trends with regards to the budgets and consider the viability of the budgets over the medium to long term future. The group will meet on alternate Thursdays of JPBC meetings. It is anticipated that it will take three to four meetings for the working group to complete their work.
The following members will be in the working group:
James Onley
Jamie Spiller
Skye Paine
Theresa Martinez
Yin Liu
Co-Leads: Elliot Weininger and Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Additional Items from the Committee
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m.