COE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
February 17, 2017
8:00 – 9:30 a.m.
Hill 314
Attendees: Janice Duncan, Brittany Wittenberg, James Meyer, Denise Cunningham, Kim Dubree, Macy Hankel, Jill Martin, Abby Burch, Cathy Pearman, Jon Turner, Steve Jones, Becky Swearingen, Teresa Steele, David Hough, Linda Garrison-Kane, James Satterfield.
The meeting began at 8:00 a.m. with the introduction of our new Student Government Representative, Macy Hankel. Each person attending introduced themselves to her as well.
The first and only topic of the meeting was FY18 budget cuts. The dean reminded the committee that all academic cost centers must submit proposed budget cuts to the Provost’s Office before the end of next week. While the COE 5% cut is $485,491.62, Dean Hough is also submitting 4% and 3% cut scenarios, because he believes the final cut will be somewhere between these latter two. All Budget Committee members were given a hard copy of a spreadsheet detailing line item budget amounts in FY17. The Budget Committee reviewed each line of the spreadsheet, discussed same, and made recommendations regarding potential cuts. The dean noted that he would not recommend cutting individual academic departmental budgets.
The BC discussed reducing Per Course expenditures. It was suggested that if each faculty member volunteered to teach an additional course in either the fall 2017 or spring 2018 semester, COE could save approximately $150,000. However, it was noted that it would have to be voluntary on the part of the faculty, as the Dean pointed out that COE will follow the Faculty Handbook in terms of teaching assignments. If 90% of the COE faculty voluntarily taught one additional 3 SCH course, the saving would be approximately $130,000. BC members did not reach agreement on whether or not they believed enough faculty would volunteer, as it was pointed out that the last time volunteers were solicited to teach an extra class and/or supervise student teachers, only 5 or 6 individuals stepped forward. James Satterfield announced that his EAD faculty have already agreed to supervise student teachers as their contribution.
Discussion regarding cutting the COE Per Course expenditures then focused on program coordination, class sizes, and multiple sections of the same course. Department heads agreed to review all program coordinator positions to determine which ones could be placed on hold for one fiscal year. They also agreed to increase class sizes and drop multiple sections when possible. The Dean stated that he does not micromanage department-level assignments, giving department heads and faculty flexibility to work those out. However, whenever issues arise, he necessarily becomes involved. He strongly reminded everyone to follow the Faculty Handbook, noting he would enforce same, should appeals come to him. Again, Dean Hough urged all to step-up and volunteer to take on additional duties for one year to see us through FY18. He stated that doing so, in his opinion, might result in only a one-year cutback. Not doing so, could result in another cut in FY19. Political pressures and views, perceptions, and misperceptions were mentioned, as well.
The dean suggested cutting each line that was underspent in FY16 and FY17 by the same amount not spent. He directed BC members to the COE web page where policies that read “When funds are available. . .” could be placed on a one-year hold. After the BC’s line by line review and cuts, COE would still need to find approximately $125,000 to achieve a 5% cut. It appears that the only way to come up with the deficit would be to cut staff or have 90% or more faculty voluntarily teach an extra class, eliminate program coordinator positions or not fund them for one year, or eliminate the Internet Incentive Program. The Dean stated that this last option cannot be used in our calculations, because that would have to be a University decision. Cost Centers cannot change University policies. He noted that the University has announced that promotions and the Professor Salary Incentive Program (PSIP) will be funded, but no decision about the Internet Incentive Program has been made.
The focus of discussion then turned to the Internet Incentive Program. Dean Hough reminded the BC of the COE Faculty and Staff meeting in Hill Hall 1 on Wednesday, and referenced the slide that asked, “Does COE want to make a recommendation to the provost and president” regarding the IIP? COE could save almost $300,000 because in addition to what is spent in the budget, $230,000, COE must find an additional $60,000+ from other lines to cover the amount overspent as a result of increased online class sizes times the $55 per head paid to instructors. Jon Turner stated that the EAD faculty were unanimous in supporting the removal of the IIP. Linda Garrison-Kane said the special education faculty had an entire program online and, even so, supports removing the IIP. James Satterfield said he wished he had voted on Wednesday to do away with the IIP, and Denise Cunningham said CEFS would rather be able to complete their 3 searches for elementary education assistant professors than receive $55 per student in online courses, noting that the Elementary Education Masters program is entirely online. The only BC member who spoke against eliminating the IIP was Cathy Pearman, who said she was representing the view of her department and that she and her Literacy faculty were not in favor of eliminating it, because they all now taught a good deal online. Again, the dean reminded the committee that cutting out the Internet Incentive supplemental income would be something that would have to be a university-wide decision. After much discussion, the BC was generally in favor of recommending the discontinuation of the $55 per student supplemental income. However, the BC believes incentives to develop a new online course should stay in place, and the first time someone teaches the course online, perhaps they could receive the $55 per student bonus one time and one time only. Doing so would save staff jobs. The dean will share this sentiment on behalf of the BC with the provost, deans, and president. In the meantime, he would need to develop a 5% budget cut without touching the Internet Incentive account.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Dean Hough agreed to send an email to the COE Budget Committee before day’s end that would have spreadsheets attached, showing three different budget cut scenarios, 5%, 4%, and 3%. He would like BC members’ suggestions to each spreadsheet by noon Wednesday, February 22, 2017, so he can submit COE proposed budget cuts to the provost by Friday, February 24th.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Steele, Budget Officer
Next meeting: March 10, 2017, 8:00 a.m. in Hill Hall 306