UPBC AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 14, 1994
- September 8 and 26, 1994 Meeting Minutes
- Toward the 21st Century Document
- Strategic Issues Report and Recommendations
- Telecommunications Concerns and Issues
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 MEETING
The meeting convened at 10:04 a.m. in room 2428 Cathedral of Learning.
UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Jacob Birnberg, George
Chambers, Ronald Gardner, Darlene Harris, James Holland, James Isaacs, Carol
Kenderes, Peter Koehler, James Maher, Franklin McCarthy, Richard Nelson,
Sharon Nelson-Le Gall, Jack Ochs, Ben Tuchi, Philip Wion, and Julius Youngner.
Also present were: Ann Dykstra, Joseph Fink, Michael Gaber, Rhonda Gross, Leon
Haley, Thomas Hussey, Bruce Hutchinson, William Laird, Jeffrey Liebmann,
William Madden, Jeffrey Masnick, Robert Pack, Art Ramicone, Paul Stieman, and
Lawrence Weber.
UPBC members not present were: Toni Carbo Bearman, Thomas Detre, Randy
Juhl, Dennis McNair, Jeffrey Romoff, and Judith Zimmerman.
Approval of Minutes
The UPBC approved the August 1 minutes.
Report of the Strategic Issues Subcommittee
Ochs reported on the status of various information requests regarding
capital projects, the growth in staffing levels in recent years, and the
impact of positional control efforts. He distributed new long-term budget
projections based on five different assumption scenarios. The assumptions
used in the scenarios varied relative to the manner in which capital projects
will be funded in the future, the volume of capital projects approved, and the
University's commitment to facilities renewal and replacement.
Each of the five scenarios project annual budget deficits in the coming
years, ranging between $8.7 and $34.6 million by FY 1999. Ochs also
distributed a recommendation of the Subcommittee calling for the establishment
of bounds on the types of capital projects approved in order to reduce future
deficits. He recommended widespread distribution of the scenario report to
make clear that the University must increase revenues to meet current
facilities commitments and perform necessary renovations. Formal action on
the recommendation was postponed to give Committee members time to review the
report.
Birnberg expressed concern over the need for additional net projection
information assessing the impact of future capital decisions and a mechanism
to monitor outstanding capital commitments. Wion agreed that the UPBC needs
more feedback relative to the conditions it has placed on certain capital
proposals, such as those from Athletics. Wion added that the FY 1996
Parameters Subcommittee would soon produce projections requiring new iteration
of long-term budget projections.
Commonwealth Capital Request
Hussey distributed copies of the capital request instructions from the
Commonwealth Bureau of Budget, the University's FY 1995 request, and the draft
FY 1996 request. Dykstra explained that the process consists of:
- institutional requests;
- authorization of a small number of requests by the General Assembly;
- review by the Governor; and
- eventual assignment of funds by the Budget Secretary and the Governor,
which could take anywhere up to 10 years to occur.
She added that the Governor can also reduce the amount of funds provided for a
project, forcing institutions to resubmit a Phase II request. Hussey
explained that, historically, projects have been fully funded and that the
Operation Jump Start was actually the first instance of project funding being
released conditional on institutions sharing the cost. Gross added that the
longer an authorized project remains unfunded, the more out-of-date cost
estimates become.
Members discussed the draft FY 1996 capital request list, which includes
the following projects.
- Deferred maintenance projects, all campuses ($7.0 million)
- Replace chillers containing CFC refrigerants ($5.0 million)
- Replace and upgrade electrical system components ($3.15 million)
- Titusville Campus underground telecommunications system ($2.0 million)
- Trees Hall renovations and addition -- Phase II ($10.0 million)
- Benedum Hall renovation and new construction ($14.0 million)
- Salk Hall -- Phase II ($5.0 million)
- Chevron Science Center renovation ($19.0 million)
- New Basic Sciences Complex -- Phase I ($25.0 million)
- Graduate School of Public Health addition and renovation -- Phase I ($12.8
million)
Birnberg requested information on what University projects already have
received authorization, but have yet to receive funding. Anderson expressed
concern that new University revenues may be consumed by the operating costs
associated with expansion created by the approval of funding for further
capital projects not included in the long-range plan. Wion suggested that the
projects included should be drawn from the existing list of capital projects
and that projects on the proposed list be included in the capital budget
process. McCarthy responded that items included in the Commonwealth request
should be lower priority projects as the University will want to ensure
funding for high priority projects. Dykstra added that the list responds not
only to University priorities, but also to stated priorities of the
Commonwealth.
Anderson expressed concern that the projects included on the draft list
would not generate new revenues, but were mostly expansion using valuable
University resources. Members suggested referring the capital request list to
the Capital Projects Subcommittee for review. Koehler and Birnberg stressed
the importance of reviewing proposed capital projects relative to long-range
goals and objectives. Wion added that the Subcommittee should also review the
list of authorized projects that have yet to receive Commonwealth funding.
Proposed Changes to the FY 1995 Capital Projects List
Gaber presented four proposed changes to the FY 1995 list of approved
capital projects, including Salk Hall security ($150,000); Greensburg
dormitory ($2.7 million); WPIC Child and Youth Center ($18.0 million); and
UPMC Preservation Projects ($1.0 million). Gaber explained that the UPG
dormitory will be funded from a combination of Greensburg auxiliaries and debt
service paid by the Campus. The WPIC and UPMC projects were unintentional
omissions from the previously reviewed list. The former is a Jump Start
project originally projected at $23.0 million, but which was renegotiated with
the Commonwealth to now consist of $9.0 million of state funds matched by $9.0
million from WPIC. Chambers moved to accept the additions to the FY 1995 list
of approved capital projects. Koehler seconded. The motion was approved 15
to 1.
Proposal for a New Telecommunications Switch
Stieman presented information justifying the need for the University to
invest in a new telecommunications switch. The current switch, which
processes telephone line usage, will soon reach 91% capacity as a result of
the increasing number of lines for faxes, modems, and new telephones. He
explained that when this level of capacity is exceeded, the quality of
telephone service will decline. Stieman explained the history of the
acquisition of the current switch and the options for its replacement. The
two primary options include purchasing a new switch with twice the capacity of
the current switch, or returning to the lease-type, centrex arrangement used
prior to the Campus of the Future initiative. While not at liberty to
disclose exact estimates because of ongoing vendor negotiations, Stieman
indicated that the purchase option would cost significantly less than the
lease option.
In response to Wion's question, Hutchinson indicated that the original
$6.0 million estimate for the project was still accurate and that the
remaining debt from the current switch could be bridged into required new
debt. Youngner moved that the telecommunication switch project be added to
the FY 1995 list of approved capital projects. Wion seconded. The motion was
approved unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 MEETING
The meeting convened at 2:15 p.m. in room 2428 Cathedral of Learning.
UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Toni Carbo Bearman, Jacob
Birnberg, Thomas Detre, Ronald Gardner, James Holland, Randy Juhl, Carol
Kenderes, James Maher, Franklin McCarthy, Dennis McNair, Richard Nelson, Ben
Tuchi, Philip Wion, and Judith Zimmerman. Also present were: Rhonda Gross,
Jeffrey Liebmann, William Madden, and Robert Pack.
UPBC members not present were: George Chambers, Darlene Harris, James
Isaacs, Peter Koehler, Sharon Nelson-Le Gall, Jack Ochs, Jeffrey Romoff, and
Julius Youngner.
FY 1996 Commonwealth Capital Request
Juhl reported that the Capital Projects Subcommittee met to review the
FY 1996 Commonwealth capital request and that the group recommended approval
of the request with three suggestions.
- Budget information associated with the projects listed on the Commonwealth
capital request should include operating costs associated with each project.
- The deferred maintenance project (priority number one) should be expanded
to include all buildings, not just state-owned buildings, which is now
permissible.
- The UPBC should ask the Chancellor to work with the heads of other major
universities in Pennsylvania to promote funding of deferred maintenance as a
high priority of the Commonwealth.
McManus confirmed a discussion held at the Subcommittee that the University
could actually decline funding for a particular capital project if the
financial circumstance warranted. He stated that the political ramifications
of such an action are not as problematic as what was once thought.
Toward the 21st Century Document
Pack detailed changes made to the document since the previous version
was distributed to the Committee. He described the process by which the
document would provide the context for the review of individual units plans
resulting in the identification of priorities and resource allocation
decisions by April, 1995 for implementation in FY 1996. Detre stated that the
document represented the best current thinking and recommended remaining
flexible so that the University could respond to future trends.
In response to Birnberg's question, Pack explained the numbering of the
strategies contained in the document. Specifically, strategies one through
three represent the traditional university missions of teaching, research, and
public service. Strategy four focuses on those core areas and high quality
programs, both institution-wide and within units, that are key to making
responsible resource allocation decisions that will promote excellence.
Strategies five through nine detail how the University will accomplish the
first four strategies, namely through improved academic/student affairs
linkages, better integration of the five University campuses, better faculty
policies and procedures, improved management structures and processes, and
continued maintenance and development of the physical infrastructure.
Strategy ten, which addresses the institution's reputation and potential for
fund raising, represents the logical conclusion of the preceding strategies.
Zimmerman expressed concern over the identification of core academic
areas. Bearman stated that some areas not specifically listed among the
identified core areas are among those high quality programs also slated for
maintenance or enhancement. Maher emphasized that the document affirms that
the University has an academic core that is crucial to the institution's
reputation and overall quality. He stressed the need for all units to examine
their activities and the quality of each. Bearman expressed concern that the
document focuses more on Pennsylvania and less on national and international
issues. Maher responded that, while not a separate strategy, the
international focus is significant in every strategy. He added that the
emphasis is more global than simply stressing the study of individual
cultures.
Pack explained that Appendix C to the document contains one-page
summaries of the academic unit plans. While these plans have not yet been
approved, the summaries state current planned directions. He emphasized the
dynamic nature of the long-range planning process and that annual and other
ongoing reviews of the external environment and institutional aspirations will
direct future revisions. Detre agreed that the University must develop a
mechanism for responding quickly to environmental initiatives. Maher stated
that this document helps the University begin a rational decision making
process by examining possibilities and using resources well within an
identified framework. He expressed the hope that units will read this
document, reexamine the plans they submitted in the spring of 1994, and when
necessary aggressively rewrite them.
Tuchi cautioned that certain Trustee committees will not see the
document as sufficiently detailed. Pack responded that people must first
believe that the decision making process is fair and should agree to the
fundamental issues identified in the document. Then, the University will make
the necessary decisions, both at the institutional and unit levels, on an
aggressive schedule.
Maher explained that the document would be mailed to the trustees on
October 7 and that members could provide comments up until that time. Bearman
expressed concern over the perceived lack of UPBC discussion of the document's
contents. Birnberg responded that the task of the UPBC may be monitoring the
implementation of identified strategies rather than discussing the actual
identification of strategies. He stated that the UPBC is not a strategic
planning committee and stressed the value of the document in reducing
confusion.
FY 1996 Commonwealth Appropriation Request
Madden distributed a list of assumptions discussed by the FY 1996
Planning Parameters Subcommittee to be used in developing the University's FY
1996 appropriations request. The primary logic is to build a projected budget
upon a low tuition increase contingent upon a 6% increase in Commonwealth
appropriation.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.