Educational Policy Council

Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2003


Jean-François Brière, Frank Hauser, Timothy Hoff, Sung Bok Kim, John Logan, David McCaffrey, Jeryl Mumpower, Carlos Santiago, Stacy Stern, Edelgard Wulfert (Chair)

Approval of Minutes:

A motion was made to approve the July 16, 2003 minutes, it was
seconded, and the minutes passed unanimously.

Discussion: Resurrection of the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC)

Professors Logan and McCaffrey distributed a document containing the proposed charge of LRPC for discussion (which also included the previous charge of the committee). It was decided that the LRPC would be made up of all members of EPC. Additional meetings would be set aside to discuss LRPC issues.

A question arose as to the interpretation of charge number 1.32 [The council shall review…the budget…] Professor Logan pointed out that the source of information needs to come from the Office of the Provost and/or the Division of Finance and Business. Professor McCaffrey explained that it is not the intent of the Council to report on the existing/present budget. The Committee's role will be retrospective in that budget trends over time, e.g., the last five years, will be reviewed. The intent is to anticipate where the University may be heading; in effect, LRPC will be taking a more long-term approach. The matter was discussed and it was agreed upon that the Council would work with its representatives to URPAC and the deans in reviewing the necessary budgetary information.

Chair Wulfert asked that the Council determine what trends they wish to examine first and what information should be requested and made accessible to Committee members. Through discussion, it was suggested to make up a form, similar to one that IVP Mumpower has developed for information about major campus research initiatives, formulating the questions prior to looking for answers. Professor Hoff agreed that the mission and goals needed to be specifically clarified up front, he would like the committee to be as specific as possible and start with one issue and follow it through. Discussion followed on issues that are important to the Council and it was agreed that key budget issues are very complex and that some faculty as well as Council members may not have a solid understanding. It is, however, important to understand these issues in order to formulate adequate questions about budget trends.

Provost Santiago suggested that URPAC could make an introductory presentation to the Council that focuses on the organization of the University's budget, by functional, operational, and divisional category. The EPC representatives on URPAC could also help the Council in a presentation of this type.

A motion was made, and seconded, to accept the description of the functions of LRPC as handed out in the document presented by Professors Logan and McCaffrey (see document attached); the motion passed unanimously.

Chair Wulfert announced that she invited Christopher D'Elia and John Welch to the next EPC meeting to inform the Council about forensic issues.

Professor Hoff suggested new business for the next meeting: rotating EPC representatives on URPAC.

Respectfully submitted,
Jayne VanDenburgh

Long Range Planning Committee: a proposal for discussion.
John Logan and Dave McCaffery, 9/25/03

The Long Range Planning Committee will function as a committee of the whole of EPC. It will be chaired by the EPC chair, and all EPC members will be members of the committee. It will meet monthly. It's agenda will not include regular business items of EPC. The committee will focus on carrying out EPC's charge of budget evaluation under the bylaws:

The council shall participate in the formulation and execution of the campus budget.
  1.31  The President shall have the responsibility for preparing the budget.
1.32  The council shall review and give its advice on the budget prior to its submission to the state-wide university administration.
1.33  The council shall review and give its advice on the proposed monetary allocations after the campus budget has been authorized and appropriated.

EPC has previously recognized that this language does not correspond to current conditions. The campus budget is not submitted to the state-wide administration. URPAC has assumed principal responsibility for recommendations about the upcoming year's budget, and EPC fulfills its role in this respect mainly through its representation on URPAC. Therefore EPC has proposed (meeting of April 26, 2002) to accomplish its charge in the following way:

The council shall participate in the formulation and execution of the campus budget.
  1.31  The President shall have the responsibility for preparing the budget.

1.32  The council shall review and give its advice on the long-term budgetary planning and on the annual budget as it is prepared and implemented. As part of this process, the Council shall seek formal representation on budget advisory bodies established by the President and Provost, and its representatives shall report to the Council in order to facilitiate the Council's review and advice.

1.33  The council shall report to the Senate and the faculty on its sense of budgetary trends and their relationship to the educational program of the University and its instructional, research and service programs.

The Long Range Planning Committee will have the specific task of developing the report to the Senate and the faculty on budgetary trends. Its role will be retrospective -- to gather and assess information on how the university has allocated resources in the past, including decisions made in the previous year for the current year -- and prospective -- to anticipate where these trends are taking the university in the future.

The work of the Long Range Planning Committee will enhance EPC's ability to make other decisions related to its principal charge: "the oversight of campus planning and for the establishment of educational priorities."