UNIVERSITY PLANNING AND POLICY COUNCIL

2004-05 Chair:  Marjorie Pryse

 

September 27, 2004

Meeting Minutes

 

Present:          R. Baum, N. Claiborne, J. Hanifan, F. Hauser, T. Hoff, S.B. Kim, J. Langer,

                        K. Lowery, C. MacDonald, D. McCaffrey, J. Mumpower, M. Pryse,

                        J. Ryan, S. Stern, E. Wulfert

 

Guest:             R. Farrell

 

Minutes:         The minutes of April 30, 2004 and May 7, 2004 were approved as amended.

 

President’s Report -  Presented by Interim Provost Jeryl L. Mumpower:

 

Executive Budget:   Interim Provost Mumpower deferred to Vice President Lowery for the Budget report.  VP Lowery reported that while the Executive Budget released in January did not include additional funding, neither did it contain any cuts.

 

Budget Allocation Process (BAP):  The BAP has several components, including money from state taxes and tuition.  Last year, SUNY raised tuition, and thus UAlbany will experience an increase in the BAP because the University collects about 60% of its income from tuition.  The University would have received 3.7 million dollars because of the tuition increase, but received less than that because of a cut in state support taxes this year.  To date, the University has received one-third of that 3.7 million dollars and the Chancellor is working on having some of the residual released.  The University’s operating budget increased by 2.9 million dollars, although the University still must address a seven-million dollar deficit from prior years.  Deans have been notified that they should prepare for 2.75% in cuts this year and possibly another 2.75% for next year.

 

Capital Budget:  This year, the campus lobbied very strenuously for a $100 million increase for specifically targeted projects.  Instead, the legislative budget included $80 million for items other than those requested, and these were then vetoed by the Governor.  However, there will be another chance to return and attempt to lobby for the lost funding.

 

The NYS Legislature views us differently than the other three centers.  It uses a formula driven by square footage, which essentially penalizes the University annually for a long-past lack of capital funding.  A major purpose of the Mission Review II document will be to demonstrate these very obvious and damaging discrepancies.

 

Mission Review Process:  Interim Provost Mumpower explained that the importance of the Mission Review process is that it leads to a MOU between SUNY System Administration and each of the 64 campuses.  It is the five-year strategic plan.  It is written by the Provost’s office with input from Vice Presidents and Deans.  It is a draft document at this point and can be accessed on the MyUAlbany web site.  The document needs to reflect the voice of the community, and the Provost will meet with senate councils for their input.  This will be a provisional document that will be revisited once a permanent president is named.

 

Chair’s Report – Presented by Professor Marjorie Pryse:

 

·        A very important item on the UPC agenda is to work on how UPC will respond to the Mission Review process.  She asked that the members read the Mission Review document and come prepared to the October 11th meeting ready to discuss it.  Mission Review will be the main agenda item for the October 11th meeting. 

 

·        A parking issue item was forwarded to UPC from a faculty member; Chair Pryse will refer that to the committee responsible for parking issues.

 

Report from University Resources Priorities Advisory Committee (URPAC) Representative, Professor Hoff:  Professor Hoff reported that discussion needs to be had about the structure of consulting with URPAC.  Last year’s changes in leadership were problematic to the consultative process, and the plan for this year is to return to at least the level of consultation experience felt during prior years.

 

Old Business:

 

OurUAlbanydata web site and Budget Analysis Discussion:  Dr. Bruce Szelest reviewed the OurUAlbanydata web site and indicated that it has not changed since the Council reviewed it last spring.  It was suggested to announce its availability at the October 4 Senate meeting. Dr. Szelest agreed to do a presentation on the site at the Senate meeting. 

 

New Business:   

 

·        Election of new UPC Representative to URPAC:  It has been the practice that EPC/UPC sends two representatives to URPAC, with staggered terms so there is overlap.  Professor Hoff is currently a representative and there is a need to elect a second representative.  Chair Pryse opened the floor for nominations: 

 

o       Professor Kim nominated Professor Wulfert, and she accepted the nomination

o       Professor MacDonald nominated Professor McCaffrey, and he declined the nomination because he has recently served on URPAC

o       Professor McCaffrey nominated Professor Hauser, and he accepted the nomination

 

A ballot will be sent out by email to all UPC members this week for the vote.

 

·        Proposed Amendment to the Charter:  Professor MacDonald introduced a proposal on behalf of UPC:  “Additional Membership on Councils and Committees.”  UPC is proposing that the UPC composition section of the Senate Charter be amended to include the elected representative of the Council of Deans, ex officio.

 

All members present were in favor of bringing the proposal to the Senate at the next Senate meeting.  The bill will then be voted on three weeks later in accordance with the Charter of the University Senate requiring three weeks notice before a vote takes place. 

 

·        Formation of subcommittees:  There was discussion on whether or not it would be in the best interest of UPC to have the subcommittees made up of the whole Council.  Professor Wulfert mentioned that the Resource Analysis and Planning Committee (RAPC) is a continuation of the previous Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) and it may not be necessary to form a smaller committee; because of its importance, last year it was made up of the whole Council.  Chair Pryse suggested constituting the two committees now, and then asking the members at their first meetings to recommend what they think could be accomplished in a small group and what would be best handled in UPC as a whole.  The group decided to think about the best way to constitute the committees and defer further discussion to the next UPC meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Jayne VanDenburgh, Recorder