Minutes of February 10 and 19, 2003 Meetings

	The February 10 meeting convened at 2:03 p.m. in room 817 
Cathedral of Learning.

	UPBC members present were:  Tammeka Banks, Frank Cassell, James 
Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Richard Colwell, N. John Cooper, Christine 
Dollaghan, Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob, Attilio Favorini, James Maher, Barbara 
Mowery, Mary Ann Peterson, Arthur Ramicone, Michael Stuckart, Evelyn 
Talbott, Philip Wion, and Thomas Wolf.  Also present were: Richard 
Henderson, Jeffrey Liebmann, Charles McLaughlin, and Robert Pack.
	UPBC members not present were: David DeJong, Christopher Happ, 
Gerald Holder, Arthur Levine, Maureen McClure, Christopher Riegel, Kevin 
Washo, and Stephen Wisniewski.

Approval of the Minutes and Report of the Chair

	The minutes of the May 9 and November 14, 2002 meetings were 
approved.  Maher deferred his report and presentation until after 
discussing matters arising.  There followed a lengthy discussion of a 
number of issues associated with the projected cost of health insurance.  
These included distribution of costs between employee and employer, the 
relationship of plan design to costs, and distribution of costs by salary 
level.  Due to the length of these discussions, Maher postponed his 
presentation until another meeting time could be arranged.

	The meeting adjourned at 3:33 p.m.

	The February 19 meeting convened at 3:04 p.m. in the first floor 
conference room of the Alumni Center in Alumni Hall.

	UPBC members present were:  Tammeka Banks, James Cassing, Richard 
Colwell, Christine Dollaghan, Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob, Attilio Favorini, 
Gerald Holder, James Maher, Barbara Mowery, and Philip Wion.  Also present 
were: Jeffrey Liebmann, Charles McLaughlin, and William Madden.
	UPBC members not present were: Frank Cassell, Jerome Cochran, N. 
John Cooper, David DeJong, Christopher Happ, Arthur Levine, Maureen 
McClure, Mary Ann Peterson, Arthur Ramicone, Christopher Riegel, Michael 
Stuckart, Evelyn Talbott, Kevin Washo, Stephen Wisniewski, and Thomas 

Presentation on Research University Planning: Understanding and Analysis

	Maher stated that higher education has been under terrific strain 
in the past 10 years, with almost every institution having financial 
difficulties.  He added that, in spite of difficulties in the early 
1990's, the University is now one of the few colleges and universities 
that is solid financially.  In discussing the future of higher education, 
Maher emphasized the need for institutions to address their many different 
missions.  In the early 1990's, the University shortened its lengthy 
mission statement to a single page stressing research, graduate education, 
and undergraduate education.  At the same time, the University improved 
its understanding of marketing to its output markets (employers, 
graduates), input markets (families, government), and internal markets 
(students, faculty, staff).
	Since 1994, the University has gradually addressed a few key 
initiatives each year.  In doing so, the University has caught up to and 
surpassed many institutions of higher education in dealing with essential 
planning and budgeting issues.  Maher stated that the University is now 
very analytical about every program it offers, matching faculty strengths 
in research with curricula that draw upon those strengths.  As a result, 
student applications have risen both in number and in quality.  Faculty 
recruitment has improved as well.
	Maher discussed the unique elements of the cost structure of 
research universities compared to other institutions of higher education.  
He indicated that the University's planning and budgeting efforts in the 
past seven years have been driven by the recognition that the country can 
support a limited number of research universities in the coming century.  
Among these activities have been:

-- facilities planning, now in the sixth year of a 10-year plan which 
the University has closely  followed;
-- information structure planning, now in its third year of fixing 
many previously-existing problems;
-- campus environment planning, which has resulted in significant 
changes in culture due in large part to the activities of the Enrollment 
Management Committee;
-- annual academic planning, which has closely tied school plans to 
the annual budgets of the schools;
-- the capital campaign, which has strengthened the University's 
endowment; and
-- improved communications, from committees, to employee training 
opportunities, to publications like the Campaign Chronicle.

Maher indicated that more improvements are needed, particularly given the 
state of the Commonwealth budget and its impact on tuition rates.  He 
cited an analysis by Pennsylvania State University, which preceded the FY 
2003 and FY 2004 reductions in Commonwealth appropriation and yet 
concluded that Penn State needed its in-state tuition level to reach 
$11,000 to ensure stable delivery of the quality expected of a major 
research university.  Even though this is high by state university 
standards, it is dramatically less than high-quality private schools set 
as tuition for a comparable education.

	Maher presented an analysis of the University relative to various 
peer institutions.  Among the benchmarks analyzed were data regarding 
enrollments, degree production, freshmen characteristics, acceptance 
rates, retention and graduation rates, research expenditures and outcomes, 
state appropriations, annual giving, and class sizes.  The bottom line is 
that the University must keep improving, addressing issues such as 
academic and student life initiatives, the Research Development Fund, and 
especially salaries.

	The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.