Download Campus Council on Planning and Budget Meeting November 22

Campus Council on Planning and Budget Meeting
November 22, 2016
Present: Bill Erdly, CCPB Chair, Christian Adams, Russ Cannon, Emily Christian, Rajib Doogar, VCAA
Jeffords, Segan Jobe, Mark Kochanski, Casey Mann and Pierre Mourad
Absent:, Sarah Leadley, Casey Mann and Gowri Shankar
Adoption of Agenda/Approval of Minutes
The agenda was adopted, CCPB minutes from November 8, 2016 were approved as amended.
Chair Report – Bill Erdly
Erdly reported to the CCPB on the EC statement to the campus in support of the UWB campus mission.
The CCPB has a responsibility in actively supporting the campus through our role in the budgetary process.
Current issues facing the campus:
 Support services for students
 Diversity issues.
We need to address these issues and core priorities, put a system in place to assure good outcomes in
these areas and continued success over the long term.
Academic Affairs and Reinvestment Fund budget changes - Susan Jeffords
VCAA Jeffords thanked the CCPB for opportunities to meet and discuss ongoing issues. Ruth Johnston,
acting VCAP is forming a budget group to work on a process to determine the best budget model for this
campus. We are currently operating on an incremental budgeting model, we now need to look to the future
for a sustainable and effective model to guide strategic planning and help inform budget planning across
the units. A full budget recalibration process in December 2016 through the Office of Planning and
Budgeting. The budget steering committee will lead the process to consider, review and develop a budget
model. The GFO leadership was asked to serve on the committee, School Deans have also been invited to
sit on the committee.
VCAA Jeffords updated the CCPB on the UWB budget and enrollment status and measures that have been
taken over the summer to address the budget shortfall that was presented last year. We had projected a
7% enrollment growth; we enrolled students at 4.9% which created a shortfall of our budget target. A
slowdown in enrollments called for an adjustment in fiscal processes to manage a budget shortfall for 2016
and 2017. We are working on ways to re- structure our projection of enrollment growth and implement a
more conservative long-term planning process.
Christian Adams presented a report on the UWB budget and re-investment plan and FY 2017 Operating
Budget Shortfall.
Budget Shortfall Context
 Previous growth plan had student enrollment targets of 4665 in FY 2016 and 4992 in FY 2017, with
continued growth in the following years.
 Annualized enrollment for FY 2016 was approximately 4560, creating a FY 2016 deficit of $615K
 Based on adjusted growth trajectory, UW Seattle is giving UW Bothell spending authority based on
4661 FTE for FY 2017.


In the previous budget plan (based on 4992 FTE), UW Bothell had allocated $1.04M for new
faculty, $800K for new staff and could cover the costs associated with the employee merit
increases and inflation for FY 2017
With the reduction of spending authority to 4661 FTE, UW Bothell is:
o
o Filling and funding the faculty positions hired for FY 2017, as faculty were already in the
process of hire
o Overall, UW Bothell faced a $2M budget shortfall for FY 2017
o The Division of Academic Affairs was charged with providing $1.7M of the funding
Covering the Budget Shortfall
 To cover the VCAA’s portion of the deficit:
o Swept vacant faculty and staff positions
 $2.1M of faculty and staff position lines were identified
 Funds swept to the division in excess of budget shortfall remained with the division
to be allocated in support of divisional strategic priorities
o Taxed unused FY 2016 GOF funds and unused biennium 15-17 DOF funds in Operations
budgets
 Tax funds collected are being used to:
 Support division-level strategic priorities
 Support lost positions affected by the above sweep that support division
strategic priorities
o 30% flat tax, with an exemption for summer quarter revenue, was applied across the
division
 Vacant lines
o
Faculty: $1.17M (11
positions)
o Staff: $0.96M (21 positions)
Re-investment Process
 Six identified priorities
o Mandated positions (e.g. Title IX)
o Faculty hiring packages
o Student time-to-degree or retention
o Achieving enrollment targets
o Operational effectiveness
o Key operations or infrastructure support whose absence could significantly impact faculty
or staff
 Requests received
o Permanent: $2.52M
o Temporary: $1.36M
 Academic Affairs Leadership Council (AALC) and Council of Academic Deans (CAD) voted to
recommend approval of requests
 Vice Chancellor allocated funds based on recommendations, university and division priorities
CCPB discussion points
 Tax funds collected used to be allocated at the division level.
 September 1, 2016 there were 32 vacant lines: 11 faculty lines for $1.17 million and 21 staff
positions for $.96 million.
 Recommended tax model: 30% flat tax to be returned to Schools, Summer Quarter is the
exception.
 Ongoing division of tax rate is to be decided.
 Six priorities have been established.
 No faculty offers were rescinded or searches cut this year.
 $21 million was permanently swept and $1.7 million returned to UWS.
 Fiscal 2017 – readjusted our enrollment projects downward, solved the problem by re-allocation
process.
 UWB is at a stage where we are facing a need for maturity in operations and growth. We need to
support the infrastructure for policy development in critical areas:
o Re-investment
o Sustainable budget
o Predictable, measurable budget model
o Documentation
 There is a lack of documentation on processes and procedures across this campus, we rely on
tacit knowledge.
 We fund practices, not policies. Faculty salary funding policy, how do we fund faculty lines?
Funding comes back to division for review. Sweeping faculty line funds has an impact on Schools,
it creates uncertainty at an operating level.
Delaware study presentation/discussion - Russell Cannon
Cannon opened discussion on the Delaware Cost Study with the CCPB. The Delaware Cost Study is an
analytical tool for benchmarking instructional costs and productivity. This comparative analysis shows how
our yield rates have dropped over the years, examining this transition highlights the realities of the budget
in supporting institutional long range planning. The goal is to provide a cost study methodology overview
by sharing peer data. The study follows instructional costs; the data base can yield information on:
 How teaching loads of tenured faculty in your academic programs compare to peer institutions.
 What proportion of undergraduate teaching at your institution is done by regular faculty.
 What does it cost to deliver a student credit hour of instruction at your institution?
 How does externally funded research and service within your academic departments measure up
against your competitors?
UWB program cost decisions:
 Cost of programs within Schools, long-term costs of new programs
 Use of resources within Schools and across the campus
 How faculty time gets allocated
 How we staff programs
 UWB is benchmarked along with UWS
CCPB discussion points
 There are multiple dimensions of quality at the institutional level, types of courses, classroom size,
faculty/student ratio, etc.
 There are variations of cost at the division level.
 How do we access the data sets in the study? Is there open access for the CCPB?
 What variables impact cost per student and faculty to student ratio:
o Class size
o Increase seats in classroom at capacity
o Increase enrollment in classes not at capacity
o Teaching load
o Number of faculty
 We could do a comparison of space utilization between UWT and UWB.
 Is there a trade-off of pedagogy against financial sustainability?
 Do we have the infrastructure to support more students, classrooms, parking?
 How do we get there and how do we fund growth?
The next CCPB will continue discussion on the Delaware Cost Study and begin discussion on the Campus
Master Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 pm
Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant
The next meeting will be December 6, 2016