8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Seymour Union, Room 220
Attendees
Voting Members
Lorraine Acker
Mike Andriatch
Jennifer Blood
Susan Butler
Denise Copelton
Jana Craft
Frances Dearing
Scott Haines
Tim Henry
Tom Hernandez
Sara Kelly
Stephanie Learn
Theresa Martinez
Nautica Queen Murray
Kathy Peterson
Heather Raczkowski
Logan Rath
Jamie Spiller
Elizabeth Thorpe
Non-Voting Members
Thomas Chew
Steve Cook
Eileen Daniel
Keith Davis
Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
Ian Harper: Co-Chair
Mike Harrison
Rachael Killion
President Macpherson
Paul Montanaro
Elliot Weininger: Co-Chair
Melissa Wight
Guests
Don Bigelow
Brian Guarino
William Ruiz
Rey Sia
Bonnie Swoger
Regrets
Voting Members
Steve Barber
Monica Brasted
Robert Wyant
The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m.
Announcements
Dr. Weininger announced the following items:
- Members were encouraged to attend the Budget Townhall later today at 1:00pm.
- The next JPBC meeting scheduled is for December 18th. This was scheduled on an if needed basis. After careful consideration, it was determined that this meeting is not needed. The meeting will be removed from calendars and today’s meeting will be the last one of the fall semester.
Five-year Financial Model Update
Mr. Harper provided an update on the Five-year financial model. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:
- Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
- The question was raised regarding whether the focus campus designation comes with SUNY imposed blocks on spending. It was stated that it depends on the level of deficit the campus is in. It was added that it is a very difficult place to be in. They are very limited on the things that they can do and there is a lot of SUNY involvement in decisions that the campus is making.
- The question was raised if there has been any decision from Albany or SUNY on retrenchment of services and/or personnel at these focus campuses. It was stated that yes, but not across all of them from what we are hearing. Some of them when it comes to OTPS spending, it gets scrutinized heavily like travel and conferences. Our cost base is 85% personnel. Therefore, you have to believe that other campuses’ cost base is in that range. Hence, when you are having to find ways to reduce deficit and that is your biggest cost base spend item eventually it will lead you there. We are not there and we are not going to get there.
- The question was raised regarding the 2025 temporary adjustment number standing out as very different than the ones projected going forward and is that due to the assumption regarding the reduction of incremental state support funding. It was stated that we have the scholarship program and how the scholarships are being funded is split between support from our DIFR funds and through the University funds. When we look at the way scholarships have been landing and the support that DIFR has provided, the amount of support they will provide us is going up but it is going to go up for one year. When you sift through everything in the temporary adjustments, we are getting an extra $1 million through DIFR funding but to be prudent we have not assumed that extra funding in the future years.
- The question was raised regarding what the distinction is between student engagement and student support. It was stated that we put some more money towards student engagement which involved going out and engaging with prospective students. Whether it is putting on events or having food. Therefore, we made some investments in that area. We did increase the number of individuals in the Athletics department to support the growing enrollment of athletes. When we look at student support, there has been a big initiative that Dr. Acker has been driving around mental health so in terms of being able to support our students from a mental health perspective we have added some investments to support this program as well as some personnel investments.
- The question was raised regarding as we grow programs, how important is summer enrollment? In other words, should we have more summer programs or programs that are 12 months? It was stated yes. If we look at the amount of income we get from summer session, it is pretty robust. The income is in the millions of dollars. It is about 3-4 million in total. Whatever we can do to find ways to augment and grow the revenue. It was added that from a SUNY Academic Momentum (AcMo) Standpoint with students needing 30 credits a year, leveraging summer and winter is important to help students achieve that credit total. It is a big focus to SUNY as to how campuses use winter and summer session to increase students completing the four-year scheduled degree requirements.
- An explanation was requested as to how special sessions are looked at differently than the regular semesters. It was stated that special sessions revenue gets identified in the temporary adjustments line and not in the revenue line. This is due to the revenue being deemed more temporary than permanent. It was added the winter and summer headcounts are not part of the projections to SUNY. They are not built into the financial plan amount in the revenue line. They are seen more as a self-supporting budget and any surplus at the end of the year is returned to us. That is why it is reflected as a temporary adjustment.
- The question was raised whether Brockport is yielding more revenue per credit enrolled in a special session course than credits during other parts of the year. It was stated that is correct.
- The question was raised regarding if there is a demand for more special sessions offerings among Brockport students or other students through the open SUNY network. It was stated that we have been using the demand model and data to help develop the offerings. Unfortunately winter and summer sessions are not financial aid eligible and that is an issue.
- The question was raised regarding what pitch can be made to people when they ask if we are doing so well, why is there still a deficit and why aren’t we investing in certain items? Also, people are used to getting a no, so they do not ask and it is leading to a worried negative undertone. It was stated we were in a $10 million deficit, and we have made great progress over three years to reduce the deficit, but we are still in a structural deficit. We recognize the good progress we have made, and it gives us a little bit more flexibility. I would encourage people to come forward and ask regarding their investment ideas, and we can have a conversation. Cabinet does their best to collect the investment ideas and discuss investment options. The ideas will go through a prioritization and affordability lens. This point leads back to Dr. Copelton’s similar question at a previous meeting that led to a conversation with the President regarding how can we on a regular basis provide this information across campus. We are still working out the right way to do this whether it is a newsletter, a town hall, or some other way.
- The statement was made that in the communication that is shared, it should be a balanced message of showing the growth of where we came from but that we need to still be mindful of our spending because there is still a deficit we need to reduce. Emphasizing that this is the reason budgets have not been increased.
- The suggestion was made to share an itemized list of the investments so that faculty and staff can see where the funding is going and what items have been approved to help build confidence in their investment ideas.
- The concern was stated that in the projection, we could become a focus campus in the future. It was stated that we can only focus on what we can control, what we can see and what we can influence.
- The question was raised regarding the better than anticipated reserve funding and whether the uncertainty in out years is due to expense measures and savings due to personnel. It was stated that there can be a lag when an individual leaves a position and a replacement is found, but that is the hiring cycle. The key element that has driven the better amount in reserves is because typically when we do our revenue projection, we are more cautious. Also, the enrollment usually comes in higher and that helps us. When you do the projections and you are making assumptions around how many credits students are going to take and when you true up that, it tends to be favorable for us. The difference is more on the revenue side as a driver than managing on the cost base. In the out years, it is hard to project where the enrollment, retention and revenue lines are going to go. The cost base is easier because we know what the cost base is today and that 85% of the cost base is labor and contractual salary increases of 3% each year.
- The question was raised regarding how international students are factored into the enrollment projections for 2026 and beyond and whether we are seeing a stabilization, increase or decrease. It was stated that we are being cautious because we are not expecting a huge growth in international student enrollment because of what is happening globally. It was added that the original goal was to reach an enrollment of 200 international students by fall 2026 but we are waiting on the spring announcement of status changes that could increase the requirements for students to have to reapply for their visas after four years. This will really deter enrollment, and we do expect to see a decline in students.
- The question was raised regarding what is defined as retirement eligible. It was stated that for some individuals it is 55 years of age and 5 years of service or 55 years of age and 10 years of service. That is because the eligibility changed a few years back.
- Clarification was requested regarding Enrollment Management and Student Affairs on the Headcount – Hires slide and why it is duplicated and separated at the same time. It was stated that it was done that way to continue to show the comparison.
- Clarification was still requested on the Enrollment Management and Student Affairs data because there is still data showing up in the Enrollment Management and Student Affairs column for 2025 and it also showing the data split. It was stated that Human Resources may have pulled the data based on the calendar year and the split occurred in the fiscal year that is probably why there is still data listed for the combined area.
- Clarification was then requested as to how the combined 2025 hires would be split out amongst Enrollment Management and Student Affairs. It was stated we would have to look at the breakdown data and share that later.
- The question was raised regarding whether the Enrollment Management hire data includes the part-time employees like coaches. It was stated that the part-time coaches are included in the data, but temporary employees are not. Another look at the data will be needed to ensure the numbers are reflecting correctly in all areas.
- The statement was made that a question might come up in the Town Hall regarding why there have been staff increases in areas other than Academic Affairs. It was stated that one of the reasons is when we have done budget cuts in the past, Enrollment Management and Student Affairs took cuts in personnel and Academic Affairs did not take faculty lines out, they took their cuts in OTPS. Every division was allowed to choose how to get to their budget cut goal and for many divisions it was personnel. Once we came out of COVID, we had to re-establish some positions. Therefore, that is why you are seeing the change reflected on the chart and it is partly a timing thing.
- The question was raised regarding the fact that the hires reflected on the chart are not new lines, they are for vacancies. It was stated that is correct, so it is offsetting the attrition.
Additional Items from the Committee
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.