Minutes of April 29, 1999 Meeting



	The meeting convened at 2:02 p.m. in room 817 Cathedral of
Learning.

	UPBC members present were: Carolyn Ban, Mary Ann Barber, Frank
Cassell, James Cassing, Jerome Cochran, Richard Colwell, Van Beck Hall,
James Maher, Carol Neuner, Josephine Olson, Richard Pratt, Arthur
Ramicone, Ellen Beam Rudy, Bruce Williams, and Philip Wion.  Also present
were: Margaret Duronio, Richard Henderson, Jeffrey Liebmann, Linda Marts,
Bruce Saltsman, Kathy Tosh, and Thurman Wingrove.
	UPBC members not present were: Joel Cornfeld, Ingrid Glasco,
Nathan Hershey, Arthur Levine, George Mongell, Margaret Rechter, Alec
Stewart, Michael Stuckart, and Susan Whitney.

Approval of the Minutes

	The minutes of the March 1, 1999 UPBC meeting were approved.

Discussion of the Revenue and Cost Attribution Methodology and Study

	Wion explained that the FY 1998 methodology does not differ
greatly from that of the previous year.  He explained that $15 million
associated with the faculty early retirement incentive plan was not
attributed to units.  He added that computing expenditures were attributed
using proportions from the previous study since budgets used to determine
attributions no longer exist.  Wion recommended the introduction to
first-time readers in need of a good basic fiscal understanding of the
University.

Discussion of FY 2000 Planning and Budgeting Parameters

	Rudy presented the recommendations of the Parameters Subcommittee,
including:

Income-related 	
-- a 4.0% increase in Student Tuition and Fees;
-- an assumed 2.5% increase in the General Commonwealth Appropriation;
-- an increase in Grants and Contracts revenues from $19.6 million to
$22.5 million; and
-- an increase in Investment income from $9.5 million to $14.1 million.

Expense-related
-- a 3.3% increase in Salaries and Wages;
-- an increase in Utilities expenditures from $13.7 million to $15.0
million;
-- $500,000 for Student Life Enhancements;
-- $750,000 for Academic Program Initiatives;
-- an increase of $800,000 for Library Acquisitions;
-- an increase of $750,000 million in the Research Development Fund; and
-- a $2.2 million increase in Debt Service

Rudy added that, should the Commonwealth Appropriation be increased beyond
the current recommended level of 2.5%, the Subcommittee suggests that
additional funds be applied to: (1) raising the increase in compensation
to 3.5%; (2) raising the increase in the Research Development Fund to $1
million; and (3) increasing the Academic Program Initiatives and Student
Life Enhancement lines.  Ban moved that the Parameters Subcommittee
recommended FY 2000 planning and budgeting parameters be accepted and
forwarded to the Chancellor.  Hall seconded.  The motion was approved
unanimously.


Discussion of the Salary Policy Review Subcommittee Recommendations

	Cochran explained that the Subcommittee was unable to reach
consensus on a single recommendation.  As a result, two proposals were
presented for consideration.  In the first proposal, after identification
of funds for use by the Provost in targeted areas to address market and
equity issues, 40% of the remaining pool would be earmarked for
distribution on the basis of a cost of living adjustment for faculty and
staff who had performed effectively.  The remaining 60% would be
distributed on the basis of merit and market/equity adjustments.  The
second proposal would reaffirm the current salary increase policy, while
emphasizing the flexibility it allows in determining the funds available
for each component of the salary increase pool.  After holding some funds
centrally to address market and equity issues, the remaining funds are
allocated to units as a fixed percentage of their salary budgets, for
cost-of-living adjustments and merit.  The cost-of-living component aims
at maintaining real salary for satisfactory performance; but the policy is
flexible enough to allow an adjustment of less than the full inflation
rate in years when funds are constrained, so that the other purposes can
also be addressed.  Unit decision makers also have considerable
flexibility in awarding the funds available for merit.  The proposal
suggests that there be clearer communication of the way funds for salary
increases are allocated.

	Maher noted that the two proposals were not dissimilar.  He
emphasized the need for a smarter mechanism to keep salaries competitive
and a greater recognition of improvements in recent years in the
administration of salary increases.  Colwell expressed concern that the
first proposal placed greater emphasis on the performance appraisal
system, which is in need of repair.  Ban agreed, adding that the benefits
of the new staff job classification system will be lost without
improvements in performance appraisal.  Members discussed the merit of
cost of living indexing and the importance of trust in both directions of
the relationship between administration and faculty and staff.  Maher
volunteered to draft compromise language for consideration at a future
meeting.  Cochran moved that for FY 2000, the salary increase
recommendation passed on to the Chancellor be 0.3% for the central pool,
1.2% for cost of living, and 1.8% for other adjustments, including merit.
Wion seconded.  The motion was approved unanimously.

	The meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m.