Minutes of April 28, 2003 Meeting
The April 28 meeting convened at 2:01 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral
UPBC members present were: Tammeka Banks, Frank Cassell, James
Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Richard Colwell, N. John Cooper, Liz Culliton,
David DeJong, Christine Dollaghan, Gerald Holder, Arthur Levine, James
Maher, Maureen McClure, Barbara Mowery, Mary Ann Peterson, Arthur
Ramicone, Michael Stuckart, Evelyn Talbott, Philip Wion, and Thomas Wolf.
Also present were: Jeffrey Liebmann, William Madden, and Robert Pack.
UPBC members not present were: Attilio Favorini, Christopher Happ,
and Stephen Wisniewski.
Approval of the Minutes and Report of the Chair
The minutes of the February 10, February 19, and March 20, 2003
meetings were approved. Maher discussed the general issues surrounding
the FY 2004 planning and budgeting process. He distributed a draft annual
report to the Chancellor for review and comment by the Committee members.
Discussion of FY 2004 Planning and Budgeting Parameters
Ramicone discussed the time line of the planning and budgeting
parameters process and background information on the FY 2004 parameters.
He then distributed the report of the Parameters Subcommittee, including
the following major recommendations.
-- a tuition increase of 9.5% for in-state students and 7.5% for
-- the assumption that the Commonwealth appropriation will decrease 5%;
-- a projected 10% increase in grants and contracts revenue;
-- no change in gifts, endowment, and investment revenues;
-- a 3% increase in salary expenditures;
-- no increase in supplies and services expenditures;
-- increases in utilities expenditures, including increased load
factors on existing facilities, rate increases for sewage and water, and
new facility usage;
-- a $3 million increase in academic program initiatives;
-- a $500,000 increase in library acquisitions;
-- a $1 million increase to the Deans' share of the Research
Development Fund; and
-- an increase in financial aid equivalent to the tuition increase.
Ramicone explained that the current draft parameters still result in a
$1.2 million deficit, but that by the time they are presented to the Board
for approval, adjustments would take place to present a balanced budget.
Cassing moved that the Committee approve the FY 2004 planning and
budgeting parameters as presented by the Parameters Subcommittee.
Wion expressed concern that, given the 2.4% inflation increase in
the past year, the 3% increase in salaries would not permit the University
to give a full increase for maintenance of real salary for satisfactory
performance and also provide adequate funds for merit, market, and equity.
He suggested that doing so would require at least a 3.9% increase. Wion
moved to amend the parameters, changing the recommended 3.0% salary
increase to 3.3% by moving $1 million from the academic initiatives
expenditure line and using those funds for market adjustments. Cassing
seconded. Discussion ensued including the efforts made to keep medical
insurance costs to employees down (significant portion of the past year's
inflation increase), which represents a pre-tax savings. Maher stated
that few public universities are currently investing as heavily in
salaries as the University. Cochran expressed concern over the reduction
of flexibility available to supervisors to address salary concerns. Wion
withdrew the motion to amend the recommendation of the Parameters
Subcommittee. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the FY 2004
planning and budgeting parameters as submitted by the Parameters
The Committee discussed a recommended distribution of the proposed
salary increase. Cassell moved that the Committee recommend a
distribution of 1.5% for maintenance of real salary, 1.0% for
merit/market/equity, and 0.5% for centrally-administered market funds.
Cochran seconded. Holder indicated that this distribution was approved by
the Parameters Subcommittee in its final meeting. Wion moved to modify
the recommended distribution to 2.0% for maintenance of real salary and
1.0% for unit merit/market/equity with no centrally-administered market
funds with the understanding that some of the academic initiatives money
could be used for this purpose. Cassing seconded. Cassing stated that
neglecting cost of living increases is not a sound long-term policy and
that maintaining real salaries is important to avoid erosion of salaries
as well as to promote employee morale. Maher stated that adequately
funded merit increases also contribute to promoting morale. Levine
agreed, stating that it is intellectually and psychologically attractive
to lean toward merit increases. The Committee voted 6 to 11 against the
amendment. With no further discussion, the Committee voted 11 to 5
approving the original motion (with one abstention).
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.