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
-- 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
-- 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
The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.