26 April 2004
3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
Cazier Science Technology Building Room 120
| AGENDA PACKET | ||
| 3:00 | Call to order Approval of Minutes - 5 April, 2004 |
Kevin Kesler |
| 3:05 | Information Items Committee on Committees Report Link on Syllabus |
Marv Halling Stephanie Kukic |
| Consent Agenda EPC Business Calendar Committee Report Committee on Committees Report | ||
| 3:30 | Key Issues and Action Items HDA Committee Candidates Research Policy #306 Tuition Task Force Budget and Faculty Welfare Report New Resolution |
Marv Halling Brent Miller Russ Price Glenn McEvoy Stephen Bialkowski Kevin Kesler |
| 3:50 | University Business |
Administration |
| 4:15 | New Business | |
| Adjourn | ||
|
Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes for April 5th, 2004 Call to Order Kevin Kesler called the meeting to order at 3:02 pm. Minutes Bruce Miller made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 1st meeting. The motion, seconded by Vicki Simonsmeier was passed. Information Items Honorary Degrees and Awards Tyler Bowles presented the selected recipients of the Honorary Degrees and Awards Screening Committee. Receiving the awards for this commencement are Merlin Olson, Ruth Novak and Booth Wallentine. The Commencement Speaker is Jane Clayson. Domestic Partner Benefits Pat Lambert explained the issue of domestic partner benefits. This proposed policy is currently being refined and will be presented to the Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee, and then to the Faculty Senate in the Fall. Evaluations on the Internet Craig Simper reviewed a letter of explanation that there is no privacy law currently in place which would keep the University from posting teacher and course evaluations on the internet if they choose to. Since there is no formal law restricting the posting of what is essentially a "customer satisfaction" survey, the University chooses to use the internet for its convenience of disclosing this information. Committee on Committees Business Marv Halling announced the Senate election results for committee assignments, and new senators and alternates. He then explained the Committee Selection Survey. Senators are to fill out the committee selection survey and indicate which committees they would be willing to serve on, representing the Faculty Senate. The survey will be sent out to members of the senate later this week. Now that the elections are finalized, college caucuses need to take place to determine new members of the Executive Committee replacing those whose term is expiring. He then asked for nominations for President-Elect for the next school year. Pat Lambert was nominated but declined to accept the nomination. No other nominations were offered in the meeting. Further nominations will be accepted until Friday, April 9th. Consent Agenda Carol Kochan moved to accept the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Darwin Sorensen, passed. Key Issues and Action Items Syllabus Addition Karla Petty and Stephanie Kukic presented a request from the ASUSU to place a link on all course syllabi which would send students to the grievance process of the Student Code. This would not only educate students of their rights, but also to further promote the ideals of academic freedom at Utah State University. The motion to accept the request to place this link on all syllabi was made by Stephanie Kukic. The motion, seconded by Karla Petty, passed with one dissenting vote. University Business Stan Albrecht presented the latest in University Business. He had Joyce Kinkead explain the need to implement a tuition surcharge to students who exceed 135% credit hours necessary for graduation, which is set at 170 credits. The surcharge is set to the out of state student tuition, and will apply the semester after students reach the 170 credit limit. At 150 credits students will receive a warning message. Students may appeal the surcharge. She then announced two student winners of the Barry M. Goldwater scholarships, Stephanie Chambers, and David Robert Hatch. Stan announced the discovery of 5 USU Rhodes Scholars from the 1920's and 30's which brings the total from an assumed 2 to 7. Stan explained the effects of the legislative sessions pertaining to USU. There have been drafted ten top initiatives by the selective investment committee. The top initiative is to get money into graduate stipends. Second was media enhanced classrooms. Third was women in the science and engineering programs. Fourth was helping build the sponsored programs office. Fifth was to find additional dollars for bottleneck courses. Sixth was increasing enrollment in Native American programs. Seventh was supplemental instruction. Eighth was the graduate school initiative on recruitment and program evaluation. Ninth was to provide additional dollars to continue research in genomics and bioinformatics in the College of Science. Tenth was to create a doctoral program in the College of Business. He then announced the completion of the second year of the faculty gender and equity study. The next study will also concentrate more on faculty gender equity, as well as step is to look at classified professional staff and female tenure track faculty. The Tuition Task Force report has been completed. One of the highlights of the report is getting more money into operating budgets. The Advising Task Force has also completed their recommendations. One of which is the establishment of a centralized advising office. Adjourn Kevin Kesler called for adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 4:14 pm. |
| Introduction: Educational Policies Committee Report for Faculty Senate 4/19/2004 Joyce Kinkead-Chair, Stanley Allen-Agriculture, Duke DiStefano-ASUSU Pres., Todd Crowl-Natural Resources, Karla Petty,-ASUSU Acad VP, Richard Cutler-Science, Jan Roush-HASS, Stephanie Kukic-GSS, Scott Hunsaker-Education, David Olsen-Business, David Luthy-DEED chair, Weldon Sleight-Extension, Cheryl Walters-Library, Jeffrey Walters- ASC Chair, Paul Wheeler-Engineering Meeting Dates: September 8, 2003, October 2, 2003, November 6, 2003, December 4, 2003, January 8, 2004, February 5, 2004, March 4, 2003, April 1, 2004. Curriculum Subcommittee In April meetings, the Curriculum Subcommittee approved the following reports.
EPC recommends approval of above changes by Faculty Senate. |
| College Caucus Results: Faculty Senate Executive Committee membership for 2004-2005 President - Janis Boettinger President-Elect - Derek Mason Extension - Shawn Olson Libraries - Rob Morrison Agriculture - Bruce Miller Natural Resources - Dale Blahna HASS - Kevin Doyle Education - John Kras Business - David Luthy Science - Stephen Bialkowski Engineering - Gilberto Urroz Presidential Appointee - Brent Miller Committee Selection Results: Athletic Council Janis Hall (05) Barry Franklin Adrie Roberts Academic Freedom and Tenure Paul Barr Budget and Faculty Welfare Lori Roggman Calendar Committee J.R. Dennison Lance Littlejohn Committee on Committees Kathy Riggs Pat Lambert Facilities Naming Committee Darwin Sorensen Honorary Degrees and Awards Committee to be determined Parking Transportation Advisory Committee Todd Moon Professional Responsibilites and Procedures Committee Ronda Callister Research Committee Gary Merkley University Assessment Coordinating Council Kathleen Robinson |
New Senators and Committee members for the 2004-2005 School Year Faculty Senate President-Elect: Derek Mason | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MEMBERSHIP
2004-2005 through 2006-2007
| COLLEGE | THROUGH 05 | THROUGH 06 | THROUGH 07 |
| AGRICULTURE | DeeVon Bailey Janis Boettinger * President Lynn Dudley Ken Olson |
Bruce Miller * Randy Wiedmeier Larry Hipps (a) Ilka Nemere (a) |
Ilka Nemere (a) |
| BUSINESS | Brian Atwater Tyler Bowles James Scott (a) |
Ronda Callister | David Luthy * Bob Mills (a) David Paper (a) |
| EDUCATION | Susan Crowley Kathy Piercy Mark Krumm (a) |
Janice Hall Thomas Higbee John Kras * |
Dave Forbush Barry Franklin Lori Roggman Shellie Lindauer (a) Ed Heath (a) |
| ENGINEERING | Todd Moon Gilberto Urroz * |
Darwin Sorensen Dave Widauf Bill Rahmeyer (a) |
Paul Barr Gary Merkley Mike McFarland (a) |
| HASS | Julie Foust David Goetze Derek Mason * President-Elect Renate Posthafen Richard Sherlock Diane Calloway-Graham (a) Adrianne Moore (a) |
Kevin Doyle * Katherine Fitzgerald Chuck Johnson Pat Lambert Terry Peak Tom Schroeder (a) Greg Schulte (a) David Sidwell (a) |
Maria Cordero Christopher Terry Elizabeth York Felix Tweraser (a) |
| NATURAL RESOURCES | Dale Blahna * Doug Ramsey |
Wayne Wurtsbaugh | Rob Gillies (a) Terry Messmer (a) |
| SCIENCE | Steve Allan Chris Coray Greg Podgorski Scott Ensign (a) Kim Sullivan (a) |
Steve Bialkowski * J. R. Dennison Dave Liddell (a) |
Steve Aust Jim Evans Lance Littlejohn Joe Li (a) Peter Ruben (a) |
| EXTENSION | Jeff Banks Dallas Holmes Adrie Roberts Ross Jacobson (a) |
Shawn Olsen * Kathy Riggs |
Kathleen Robinson Wade Bitner (a) Alan Blackstock (a) |
| LIBRARIES | Rob Morrison * | Jan Anderson Steve Sturgeon (a) | |
| PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES | Caryn Beck-Dudley Noelle Cockett Les Essig - ASUSU President Heidi Evans - ASUSU Academic Vice President Don Fiesinger Juan Franco Ron Godfrey Scott Hinton Thomas Kent Brent Miller * A.J. Rounds - ASUSU Graduate Studies Vice President, GSS President | ||
| Ex Officio | President Kermit Hall * Provost Stan Albrecht * | ||
| * Faculty Senate Executive Committee member (a) Elected Alternates |
Report of the Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee for Academic Year 2003-2004
February 16, 2004, last edited April 9, 2004
Overview The Budget and Faculty Welfare (BFW) Committee is authorized by the Faculty Senate to represent the faculty on key matters concerning the university budget and faculty welfare issues. Below is a description of committee duties and our perception of how well we are able to function with regard to the duties. There are also statements on our concerns regarding our health benefits and retirement. University budget trends are summarized in the charts and tables at the end of this report. As we are all aware, the university operating budget has been under funded for several years, and faculty have not had cost of living adjustments or merit in pay raises for two years. Shortfalls in benefits have been paid by instituting monthly premiums for all employees, increasing deductible expense, and increasing copayments. Retaining faculty has become a serious problem across colleges. Faculty replacements and competitive offers to retain faculty increase average salary levels. E&G money surplus from open positions has apparently been used for operating expenses and wages for temporary employees. As the cost of living and medical costs continue to rise, our out of pocket expenses also continue to rise. This has an obvious impact on the morale of the faculty. Unfortunately, decisions regarding operating budgets, salaries, and health benefits are being made with less input from the faculty. There is often no BFW representation on these committees. The current trend to use ad hoc committees and taskforces to perform functions that are within the BFW's purview, according to the Faculty Senate Handbook, is of concern to the committee. There are now health benefits, compact planning, new programs, etc. committees and taskforces, all dealing with budget, welfare and program items, and without having any representation from this committee. Nonetheless, this committee will continue to gather information and faculty views regarding budget and welfare items which we will communicate to the faculty and the administration through appropriate committees. Since the BFW is the only committee authorized by the Faculty Senate to fulfill this role, we request that the role of this committee be explicitly recognized and accommodated by other faculty senate committees, and ad hoc or standing committees appointed by the administration. This will allow us to better fulfill our obligations to the faculty. Recommendations are given in this report. Budget and Faculty Welfare Description The Faculty Senate Handbook gives the description of the Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee as: The duties of the Budget and Faculty Welfare Committee are to: (1) participate in the budget preparation process; (2) periodically evaluate and report to the Senate on matters relating to faculty salaries, insurance program, retirement benefits, sabbatical leaves, consulting policies, and other faculty benefits; (3) review the financial and budgetary implications of proposals for changes in academic degrees and programs, and report to the Senate prior to Senate action relating to such proposals; and (4) report to the Senate significant fiscal and budgetary trends which may affect the academic programs of the University. (1) Participate in the budget preparation process. The Budget and Faculty Welfare (BFW) Committee did not participate in the budget preparation process this year. The BFW discussed this issue in our February meeting. It was noted that many duties formerly assigned to the BFW Committee have been moved to ad hoc committees. While dedicated faculty members serve on these various committees, these individuals are not authorized by the Senate as representatives of the faculty, nor do they have channels for communicating with the faculty. Given the mandate of the BFW committee, members feel that the committee should be involved in representing faculty views with regards to salaries, health and retirement benefits, and academic programs and operating expenses. We suggest that this can best be accomplished by having representation from our committee on any University committee, ad hoc or not, that is making decisions that affect the budget and faculty welfare. Faculty Senate President Kevin Kesler is aware of the problem this committee faces in trying to get involved in this process. He has been talking to the university President and Provost about ways that the faculty could have a voice, through this committee, in the budget preparation process. This is an ongoing task. (2) Periodically evaluate and report to the Senate on matters relating to faculty salaries, insurance program, retirement benefits, sabbatical leaves, consulting policies, and other faculty benefits. Again, an ad hoc committee, the Health Benefits Committee, has been appointed to perform duties that have previously been part of the BFW purview. Although not actively involved in the decision-making process, the Chair of BFW has collected information about activities in health insurance and retirement benefits. This information is summarized below. Faculty Senate President Kevin Kesler and BFW Chair, Stephen Bialkowski, recently talked with Terry Hodges, Human Resources Director about potential faculty participation in decisions related to faculty health and retirement benefits. Terry Hodges said that these types of decisions were administrative and affected all employees. Thus faculty representation would necessitate representation by staff, etc. Terry Hodges acknowledges that faculty should have access to benefits information. BFW members were recently invited to talk to the new TIAA-CREF fund representative to discuss the health of our retirement funds and changes to the administration structure. There are no problems gathering information regarding the TIAA-CREF retirements. Most recently, Terry Hodges talked to BFW about the current state of our health and dental insurance accounts, and about the administration fee increase requested by Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield. This is also summarized in the sections below. (3) Review the financial and budgetary implications of proposals for changes in academic degrees and programs, and report to the Senate prior to Senate action relating to such proposals. The BFW Committee has not been in a loop to get information on proposals for changes in academic degrees and programs for some time. Paul Wheeler asked that program information given to EPC be routed through BFW for input on the budget implications. This was done with the proposal for a Geology degree, which the BFW reviewed on March 22, 2004. However, BFW did not receive all proposals for academic program changes that month. We still need to determine at what point BFW should receive the proposals, what should be addressed, and how comments are to be input into the process. (4) Report to the Senate significant fiscal and budgetary trends which may affect the academic programs of the University The amount and variety of on-line budget, financial, and assessment information has grown in the past few years. The BFW committee does not have any problems getting information regarding budget, faculty numbers, etc. trends. In addition to public information, the Controller's Office has been helpful and cooperative in sharing budgetary information with this committee. Oversight of fiscal and budgetary trends on faculty welfare issues has become more complex due to recent administrative and organizational changes. The move toward more "transparent" administration and finances is a national trend. Public corporations have made budget and management information available to shareholders for years. The new trend is for all organizations to follow suit. This is part of the national vogue to apply the so-called "business model" to governance of all organizations. The new data allows faculty, staff, and even the public at-large the opportunity to inspect and make recommendations regarding governance. This may lead to more efficient governance since recommendations can be focused toward top-level management. It may also reduce liability of the organizations and their administration in the event of management errors, fiscal or otherwise. But this places additional burdens on individual faculty and staff. Faculty members now have the responsibility to read and understand the operation of different units, and to make recommendations regarding administration operations. This new task may be well outside of faculty areas of expertise. Another business trend is a move toward more choices. We saw this exercised last year with the institution of "blue" and "white" medical benefits plans. Examples of the trend toward management transparency and more flexibility in individual choices are given below. Coincidentally, both of these trends require more personal and/or professional time. The decisions we make may not always be the best and may cost us more money in the end. Health Benefits There are presently two issues pertaining to health benefits; the amount faculty members are spending out of pocket for health care and the proposed cost increases by Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield. This year faculty and staff were presented a choice in health care plans. There about even numbers of persons enrolled in blue and white plans. The plans differ in deductibles and copayments. Information regarding these plans is on the USU web at http://personnel.usu.edu/healthoptions.html. A summary of the out-of-pocket expense increase is shown in the table below.
The employee cost was figured based on an average base salary range of from $30,000 to $50,000 and 3 or more persons insured per employee. The later is consistent with the rule of thumb figure of roughly 3,000 employees and 10,000 insured. Insurance pay out data for the first quarter (starting July 1) of the last three plan years are shown in a table below. The first year shown is 2001-02. This plan had no deducible and relatively low co pays. The University implemented a $100 deductible the following year. Then in 2003-04, the University implemented White and Blue Plan options. Approximately 50% on the employees chose the White Plan, 50% in the Blue. This cost analysis does not include prescriptions. As predicted based on medical premiums plus co-payment and deductible increases, the amount of money being spent out-of-pocket has increasing under the plans. This is most apparent by examining the "Patient Coinsurance, Deductible, etc. as % of Eligible Charges" row. In the 2001-02 plan-year, patients paid 8.7% of the eligible charges. In the current year, patients are paying 17%. This constitutes about a factor-of-two increase in the eligible charges that the insured has to pay out-of-pocket. This figure does not include the monthly premium, which all employees pay out-of-pocket as well. With half of the employees in White, the other in Blue, the average per month premium is $37 per employee. Employees thus paid about $366,300 into the plan this same quarter. In terms of out-of-pocket employees' expenses for medical, employees spent $576,439 for deductibles, etc. in 1st quarter 2001-02. They spent $1,100,273 for the first quarter of the current year. That constitutes a 91% increase alone. If the amount paid for premiums is added, the total comes to $1,466,573 or a 154% increase in out-of-pocket medical expenses in two years. In addition, the total charges submitted against the plan have decreased. This may suggest that the monetary penalties imposed on the faculty are sufficient for them to avoid health care. First, if you look at the details of the two plans relative to that in place in the 2001-02 fiscal year, copayments for routine visits, hearing, vision, etc. tests, and especially laboratory tests, have increased substantially. Now look at the top row labeled "Charges Submitted against the Plans". Charges submitted against the plan actually decreased by 3% from 2001-02 to 2003-04. This is in sharp contrast to the prediction that medical costs would increase by 11% per year. It is also interesting to look at the "Total PAID by PLAN" row. This shows that the insurance has paid out less and less each consecutive year. Yet, the E&G budget shown in the tables below shows that the amount of money put into medical benefits has increased by 16.3% over the same period that Total PAID decreased by 14%. Excess money is apparently going to increase the "medical reserve." The medical reserve is a fund that is held in case of emergency. The University plan includes insurance that will pay if we have charges that are over 25% that predicted for the year. To cover the gap in cases of emergency, our current medical plan has a "reserve." The target for this reserve fund is four months expense, or 33% annual. At the present rate of accumulation, the reserve will be at $5.2M by the end of this fiscal year. The target four-month reserve is $6.8M. Terry Hodges invited the BFW Chair to participate in discussions regarding how the university should respond to an increase in Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield charges to administer our health insurance. Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield will raise health and dental administration costs to USU by about 123% over the next three years. Administration costs are fixed. There was some discussion about the course the university administration might take on this. We could lower some costs by raising cut-off points for catastrophic injury insurance, etc. But it is too early to tell what the outcome of these discussions will be. In the absence of substantive additional benefits funds, this will have to be taken from either our insurance, by decreasing coverage, or our paycheck, by increasing monthly premiums. To summarize, it appears that our health benefits have degraded over the last three years. Out-of-pocket costs have increased and the amount paid out by insurance has decreased. Fewer costs are covered. Also during this same period, E&G benefits funds have increased. And money brought into this university by the faculty for research support has increased as well. The increased research support should bolster medical insurance funding through faculty using support to pay their summer salary. They pay benefits on this additional salary as well. All the arrows are in the right direction for having a healthy surplus in medical insurance funds. The BFW was not represented on the committee who formulated the present medical insurance plan or on the present committee to address cost increases proposed by Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield. Given the present Faculty Senate rules, BFW believes that this committee should be represented in the budget preparation process involving budgets for faculty benefits. We recommend that the Chairman of BFW and a BFW representative, to serve for three years, be appointed to the ad hoc committee(s) addressing university budget and faculty benefit items. Retirement Benefits BFW members were recently invited to talk to the new TIAA-CREF fund representative to discuss the health of our retirement funds and changes to the administration structure. This took place in the backdrop of rather recent news regarding how over 100 national retirement funds went bankrupt last year, and the large fraction (over 300) of Fortune 500 corporations that only have about 20% of future retirement liability in hand. TIAA-CREF is restructuring. It has more mutual fund investment options, institutional retirement funds, and individual retirement account options. The client base is expanding to the public at-large. It is also increasing consulting services. A permanently-staffed office is going to be opening in Salt Lake City to be more accessible to us when we have questions regarding the management of our accounts. TIAA-CREF now offers IRAs and mutual funds, in addition to managing retirement accounts. TIAA-CREF manages three different types of funds; institutional retirement funds, IRAs, and mutual funds. Each type is managed differently, though the overall makeup of the individual funds may be similar. Institutional retirement funds, which make up our retirement, are managed for maximum profit. Since there are no taxes involved in moving these funds, the fund managers have great flexibility and actively manage these accounts. On the other hand, since taxes are paid when transferring mutual funds, these funds are managed less aggressively. The TIAA traditional annuity is the only fund guaranteed to have money when we retire. This fund does not grow very fast owing to the modest interest of about 7% per year on average over the last 10 years. On the other hand, some of CREF funds had high growth performance. For example, CREF Growth funds had over 300% growth (4x) in the five years leading up to fall 2000, while TIAA grew a modest 50% (1.5x) over the same period. Most CREF stock funds have outperformed traditional TIAA annuity even with the huge losses in value of these stock funds over the last three years. But CREF funds are not guaranteed. They could go broke if there was to be a number of bankruptcies. A couple comments are in order. First, one may wonder how much the new services will cost. Second, one should question how shifting emphasis from strictly managing institutional retirement funds to managing a broad range of investments will affect the performance of institutional fund management. We have no answers to these questions nor did we receive guarantees from the TIAA-CREF representatives on these issues. Some TIAA-CREF television commercials have recently been seen on educational channels. They show professors and researchers working while a narrator says 'we worry about your retirement so you don't have to'. These are misleading. While increased flexibility provides greater opportunities to manage investments and to meet personal goals, in fact, the flexibility of having several different TIAA and CREF funds to choose from comes with increased responsibility on the part of the employee. Increased flexibility comes with commensurate decreased accountability on the part of fund managers. Faculty can lose or minimize their retirement funds if they make poor investment choices. The BFW, therefore, encourages faculty to be more active and to be more diligent in managing their retirement accounts especially under the current economic conditions. Budget Trends The university has substantially increased the amount and type of information available to the public. This on-line information reports the number of employees, budgets, sources of funds and expenditures, and trends in "dashboard" metrics, such as; number of faculty employees, student-faculty ratios, tuition, salaries, etc. Many of these are ranked relative to our peer institutions. There are several important trends illustrated by these data. First, the faculty are paid 8%-11% less (compensation) than our peer institutions. This has not improved over the past several years. Of course faculty and staff have not received cost of living adjustments or merit pay raises for two years. The state of Utah issued cost of living increases of 4% in FY 2000 (July 1999-June 2000), 4% in FY 2001, 4% in FY 2002, 0% in FY 2003, and again 0% in FY 2004. Real performance increase is apparent on the part of the faculty. Research funding is up as are the number of patent applications. The following figures and tables illustrate some trends in national health care costs, retirement fund performance, university budget, and E&G (state) budget. Recommendations We strongly recommend that every ad hoc university committee that addresses Faculty interests in any way should have at least one member appointed from the Senate to represent the interests of the Senate and Faculty. Since the BFW Committee is the sole authorized Faculty Representative on matters concerning university budget and faculty welfare, we recommend that members of our committee be selected as members of any University-wide committee organized to address issues impacting budgets and faculty welfare. In particular, we recommend that the Chairman of the BFW Committee be appointed to ad hoc committees addressing university budget and faculty welfare items. In this regard, faculty welfare is defined in the Faculty Senate Handbook as pertaining to "faculty salaries, insurance programs, retirement benefits, sabbatical leaves, consulting policies, and other faculty benefits." In addition to the Chairman, a BFW committee member should be appointed to appropriate ad hoc committees for a three year term. This term should be coincident with their assignment to the BFW Committee. The BFW Committee Chairman and BFW Committee member will represent faculty interests on these committees. We also suggest that when an ad hoc committee assumes duties that had previously been the purview of an established Senate committee, the Faculty Representative should be chosen from that Senate committee's membership. Conclusion The BFW is concerned with the centralization of decision-making by means of transferring duties previously assigned to Senate standing committees to ad hoc committees where the real decisions are made. While we appreciate the Administration's efforts to make decisions in a fully-informed, orderly and efficient manner, we sense that Faculty do not feel that their interests are being represented in accountable ways. We believe that Faculty frustration and low morale in this period of budgetary restrictions could be ameliorated if a representative selected by the Senate to represent and report to the Senate served on the ad hoc committees that address faculty interest. http://www.bls.gov/  It is speculative to say why realized health care costs have risen by about 11% per year in Utah. This trend appears to be national. Nonetheless, the discrepancy it might due to an aging population that is accessing health care more often and for more costly services. Another reason might be due to increases in administration costs. Comparison for 1st Quarter Each Plan Year
Notes: 1: In the 2002-03 Plan year, the University implemented a $100 up-front deductible. 2: In the 2003-04 Plan year, the University implemented the White and Blue Plan options. Approximately 50% of employees selected each of the options. Above data EXCLUDES RxData present by Terry Hodges, Director, USU Human Resources. http://www.tiaa-cref.org/  Trends in our retirement accounts can be seen in the figure. Major CREF and traditional TIAA annuity fund performances are shown from January 1995 through January 2004. This figure shows share values, in dollars of a share bought for $1 in January 1995. Starting from data with the highest value in 2000 and working down, the funds are; CREF Growth, S&P 500, CREF Stock Market, CREF Global Market, CREF Bonds and CREF Money Market funds. The only fund to outperform the Standard and Poor 500 index (S&P 500) over this time period was CREF Growth. Significantly underperforming the S&P 500 were the CREF Bond and Money Market accounts, and TIAA traditional. The TIAA traditional performance is estimated based on the 10-year average interest rate of nearly 7% per year. It is shown as blue diamonds. http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/
 E&G Budget Trends; 1994-95 through 2003-04  
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CALENDAR COMMITTEE to the Faculty Senate 26 April 2004 Committee Members: Sydney M. Peterson, Chair Susan Crowley, Senate [05] Glenn Davis Stacie Gomm, PEA Dallas Holmes, Senate [04] Stephanie Kukic, ASUSU GSS John Mortensen Judy Nielson, CEA Vicki Simmonsmeier, Senate [04] Weldon Sleight Gilberto Urroz, Senate [05] Purpose The Calendar Committee is charged with the responsibility of reviewing, evaluating, and recommending the University's academic calendar. The Calendar Committee determines the beginning and ending days of the academic year and the holidays within each of the semesters. In addition, the committee projects the academic calendar three to five years in advance. The actions of this committee with respect to each annual calendar are ratified by the Executive Committee upon the advice of the Faculty Senate. Committee Actions
Academic Calendar (Revised)
Approved by Executive Committee | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 POLICY MANUAL GENERAL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Number 306 Subject: Research Effective Date: Date of Last Revision: 14 APR 04
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April 5, 2004
Given:
Task Force Recommendations: Assuming Tier I tuition increases of 4% per year for the three academic years beginning 2005 through 2007, the Task Force suggests additional Tier II tuition increases for these three years in the vicinity of 6% per year, for a total Tier II tuition increase over these three years of 18%. The table below shows the projected increase in tuition per semester for a new resident full time undergraduate student. The highlighted portion of the table relates to the recommendations of this task force. Note that this table reports tuition only, not tuition and fees.
Total tuition increase each year:
Portion of tuition increase that is Tier II:
Effect of this tuition increase: Assuming a 5% increase per year in tuition at other universities, this 10% per year recommended increase in tuition at USU would put us at 78% of national and 98% of western states tuition rates by 2008. Of course, it is likely that other universities in other states are facing the same kind of financing dilemma that USU is facing, so the 5% assumption is probably conservative. In the view of the Task Force, it is desirable that USU’s tuition rise in relation to that of the University of Utah without surpassing it. In the most recent year, our tuition actually fell further behind (from 86% to 84%) rather than catching up. As the state’s land grant institution, USU should remain more accessible to low income Utah residents than the U, but in order to meet our strategic objectives, we need to increase our tuition. Further, according to data on the Governor’s website and economy.com, household income in the state of Utah is projected to rise between 4% and 5.3% annually over the next three years. While tuition increases will slightly outpace the growth in household income, tuition as a percentage of household income will not exceed 7.8%. Tuition and fees as a percentage of household income will not exceed 8.8%. For the year 2002-03, the median ratio of tuition and fees to median household income was 7.7%, and the average was 8.2% for 15 western states (WICHE 2002). Therefore, the impact of these tuition increases on the average household should be minimal. Uses of Tier II funds: The task force’s suggested application of Tier II funds for 2005 to 2008 is as follows:
Additional Recommendations of the Task Force: 1) USU tuition and fees should be more transparent.
Other items discussed by the Task Force: The Task Force also discussed the merits of the tuition plateau. There was a sense among some members that the current system forced part-time and graduate students (for whom 9 credits is considered a full load) to subsidize those students taking 18 credit hours. However, there was also the understanding that the plateau was designed to encourage more undergraduate students to graduate in four years. One option is to have the plateau begin at 12 credits, which is the minimum load for undergraduate financial aid availability. Further, there was also the sense that changing to a system without a plateau could have revenue implications to the university that are beyond the scope of the Task Force to estimate. Nevertheless, there may be alternatives to the plateau system that decrease the subsidy while still encouraging full-time enrollments. One such example is a tuition schedule in which there is no plateau but the per credit cost decreases as the total number of credits increases. The Task Force also discussed helping students and families plan for paying rising tuition costs. Transparency of true costs of tuition, fees, and living expenses was discussed. USU may also be able to provide access to information on financial planning for future college costs, including information on tax-free college savings plans. Alternative payment options also should be considered and promoted, such as tuition payment in installments. This can include better advertising of, and reducing (or eliminating) the $50 fee to enroll in, the SPOT program. The Task Force notes that BYU’s tuition has increased more slowly than the public universities in Utah. USU tuition is now about even with BYU, and there is every expectation that with the recommended tuition increases presented here, USU tuition may be as high as 120% of BYU’s by 2008 (BYU has stated they expect to see 4% annual increases in the next year, but future increases are unknown). The enrollment impact of this shift is unknown, but the Task Force believes that such a pricing differential deserves careful attention as the plan rolls out, with the possibility of mid-course adjustments needed in USU’s plan if there are unforeseen negative consequences. More work needs to be done before certain Task Force recommendations can be implemented. Total course fees are not yet known for all degree programs at USU. The exact cost of a guarantee to low income students that Tier II increases will be covered by financial aid is not known. The costs of investments in intelligent infrastructure on campus, enhancements to web pages (e.g., tuition calculator, on-line application), and development of better financial aid information for incoming students are not known. The number and size of graduate student stipends and late bloomer teaching assistantships needs to be estimated. An exact cut off for determining when a student’s family income is low enough to qualify for the “room/board waiver” needs to be determined, perhaps balanced with an indicator of incoming student quality (the admissions index). Going forward, USU staff who are involved in these issues on a day to day basis need to determine more precise data to fold into the Tier II tuition increase application plan. Link to USU’s aspirations: In all cases above, the Task Force has made its recommendations with the following three university goals in mind: Goal #2. Expand and diversify the revenues of the University.As we have seen in the recent economic downturn, USU cannot become “one of the nation’s premier student-centered land-grant and space-grant universities” (USU Mission Statement) by relying only on the state of Utah’s largess. Tier II tuition increases are one of several ways in which USU can control its own destiny, enrich the educational experience for students, and enhance the value of our alumni’s degrees by building the national and international reputation of their alma mater. 1 Newsweek, Feb. 2, 2004. 2 USU Performance Dashboard, Oct. 2003. 3 Deseret News, Jan. 12, 2004. 4 USU Performance Dashboard, Jan, 2004. 5 USU Performance Dashboard, Jan, 2004. 6 USU Performance Dashboard, Jan. 2004. 7 President Hall address, Sept. 12, 2002. 8 For example, students interested in graduate programs at USU cannot apply on-line. 9 USU Performance Dashboard, Jan. 2004. 10 Newsweek, Feb. 2, 2004. 11 Lumina Foundation Focus, Summer 2003. 12 Note: this analysis applies to new students only. The tuition is slightly lower for returning students. 13 This item is listed last because the Task Force believes it is the obligation of the State to fund such increases. However, should the State not be forthcoming with funding, the President should consider using part of the Tier II increases to attract, reward, and retain the best faculty and staff. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proposed Resolution Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of Utah State University recommend that all searches for presidents of this university from this time forward be completely open searches. |