Minutes of February 20, 1995 Meeting The meeting convened at 2:08 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral of Learning. UPBC members present were: Thomas Anderson, Toni Carbo Bearman, James Cassing, Ronald Gardner, Darlene Harris, James Holland, Randy Juhl, Peter Koehler, James Maher, Glenn Nelson, Joan Slezak, Michael Stuckart, Bruce Williams, Philip Wion, and Judith Zimmerman. Also present were: Ann Dykstra, Michael Gaber, Joseph Gil, Jeffrey Liebmann, William Madden, and Robert Pack. UPBC members not present were: Nitin Badjatia, Jacob Birnberg, George Chambers, Thomas Detre, James Isaacs, Franklin McCarthy, Jeffrey Romoff, Ben Tuchi, and Julius Youngner. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 9 meeting were approved. Update on Attribution Methodology Efforts Wion summarized changes being adopted in the 1995 attribution methodology over that used to produce the 1994 report. The most significant change involves shifting indirect costs from the "General" category to either the "Traceable" or "Assignable" categories. Recent efforts have focussed on the costs associated with Facilities Management, Computing and Information Services, Institutional Advancement, and the University Library System. As an example, Wion showed how the 1995 methodology will distribute the approximately $7.7 million in costs associated with Institutional Advancement (reported in 1994 as General costs) into $1.2 million of Traceable costs, $3.5million of Assignable costs, and only $3.0 million of General costs. In addition, Wion explained that attribution summaries will be produced for University support units using a step-down approach. That is, the costs associated with Facilities Management will first be attributed to all academic and nonacademic units. Next, the costs associated with Computing and Information Services will be attributed, and so on until all support unit costs have been attributed. Wion also stated that costs associated with debt service will, over time, be attributed to appropriate units' Traceable and Assignble categories, thus serving to integrate the University's operatingand capital budgets more effectively. He added that attributing debt servicewill move the University away from the perception that utilization of space by a unit carries no cost. Wion also detailed the Attribution Methodology Subcommittee's efforts to improve the manner in which the Commonwealth appropriation is attributed to units. Whereas two levels of weighted student credit hour production were used in 1994, eight levels will be used in 1995. Wion indicated that there is still discussion regarding the attribution of appropriation revenues. Academic Planning Proposal Review Process Pack explained that the previously distributed draft process will be incorporated into a larger document replacing the old Planning Resource Management System (PRMS) process. The current draft specifically articulates the role of the UPBC in reviewing academic planning proposals. Nelson asked whether UPBC review of proposals causing a "fundamental change of a unit" also included program eliminations. Pack responded that the UPBC will review any academic proposal being submitted to the Chancellor for action involving significant changes to a unit's mission which may include establishment, merging, or termination of departments or centers or involving significant additional expenditure of University funds. Other proposals requiring the Chancellor's signature shall be reported to the UPBC, but will ordinarily be viewed as routine management adjustments within the current fiscal year. 20 Members expressed no further concerns, so that the document will proceed toward final implementation. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.