UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Nitin Badjatia, Toni Carbo Bearman, Jacob Birnberg, George Chambers, Thomas Detre, Ronald Gardner, Darlene Harris, James Holland, James Isaacs, Randy Juhl, Peter Koehler, James Maher, Franklin McCarthy, Sharon Nelson-Le Gall, Jack Ochs, Joan Slezak, Ben Tuchi, Philip Wion, Julius Youngner, and Judith Zimmerman. Also present were: Ann Dykstra, Rhonda Gross, Bruce Hutchinson, Jeffrey Liebmann, Jeffrey Masnick, and Paul Stieman.
UPBC members not present were: Dennis McNair, Richard Nelson, and Jeffrey Romoff.
Maher stated that a sincere attempt was made to solicit UPBC input and that the process of creating Toward the 21st Century was a good example of the need for the UPBC to prioritize its long-term agenda. Bearman agreed, stating that the document was better than could have reasonably been expected given the existing time constraints, but that several issues could have received further discussion. Wion emphasized the visible contributions of the UPBC subcommittees within the document and called for continuing the present operational structure. Wion suggested revisiting the Planning and Budgeting System document to identify future UPBC priorities. Ochs recommended that before the next meeting the Provost distribute a list of essential items for UPBC attention as well as defined subcommittee charges. McCarthy added that an annual schedule of UPBC reviews and events is needed to avoid circumstances that prevent necessary dialogue.
Maher agreed that the UPBC has a role discussing long-range budgets and the consideration of various institutional parameters and criteria. He warned against UPBC involvement in specific unit negotiations, such as those the Provost's Office will have with deans, center directors, and campus presidents. Wion added that another important appropriate area for UPBC examination is the movement of resources from administrative to academic functions, thus reversing the trend of recent years. Maher suggested that a small working group be formed to examine UPBC priorities for the coming year.
McCarthy moved that the UPBC accept the document and approve the process by which it was generated, understanding that that process was followed to the extent possible given very demanding time constraints. Wion seconded. Nelson-Le Gall asked whether the UPBC should approve the process conditionally, based upon available knowledge of how the plan was developed. Maher explained that, just as each unit and senior vice chancellor area has written a plan, so Toward the 21st Century represents the Chancellor's long- range plan. As such, the document includes input from every unit and senior vice chancellor area and will be the basis upon which unit plans are reviewed in the coming months. During that review, any relevant process concerns will be examined and resolved. The motion was approved unanimously.
The enclosed projections make clear that we will have to make significant increases in our net operating revenues via program changes in order to meet the costs of past commitments to capital spending and to maintain our existing plant in reasonable condition. In light of these projections we recommend that (1) an appropriate amount, not to exceed 1% of the replacement value of existing facilities, be budgeted on a regular basis for plant renewal and replacement; (2) that a list of renewal and replacement projects be established, reviewed for consistency with the long-range plans of the University and be prioritized; and (3) that no other capital project not already identified as "committed" be approved unless (i) it can be demonstrated to produce increases in net operating revenues (via cost savings or revenue increases, or both) sufficient to cover its capital costs and (ii) is demonstrated to be required for the operation of programs identified in the long-range program of the University.
Birnberg expressed concern that the recommendation did not go far enough to ensure that future integration of capital and operating budgets would control the approval of capital projects. Wion cited the recent approval by the Board of Trustees' Budget Committee of Athletics Department capital projects without an explicit mandate to implement UPBC-recommended conditions to their approval. Gross cited the need to refine long-term budget scenarios to examine more realistic operating assumptions.
Birnberg also suggested instituting a post-audit of the capital process, especially relative to projects being funded from gift sources. McCarthy clarified that the intent of the recommendation was to address the University's investment decision in a project. Further examination is needed relative to capital project financial decisions. Maher asked the Subcommittee to examine the post audit function and financing decision concept.
Holland moved that the UPBC approve the Subcommittee recommendation. McCarthy seconded. Detre expressed concern that the discussion lacked a discourse on academic priorities, which requires a different set of assumptions than those used when discussing financial considerations. Ochs responded that nothing in the current recommendation precludes such a discussion from taking place. The motion was approved 18 to 1.
He provided several workload ratios describing service request activity such as installer to telephone sets (1 to 1,900); software specialist to telephone sets (1 to 3,500); and repair personnel to telephone sets (1 to 4,000). He added that revenues from the Computing and Network Services student fee are used only for capital acquisitions, not operating expenses. There being insufficient time after the presentation, questions were deferred to a future UPBC meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m.