Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: October 7, 2021

8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees:

Voting Members:
  • Mike Andriatch
  • Justine Briggs
  • James Cordeiro
  • Frances Dearing
  • Linda Delene
  • Hailey Gardner
  • Kandie Gay
    Daniel Goebel
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Margaret Lane
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Janet Roy
  • James Spiller
  • Mark Stacy
  • Elliot Weininger
  • Katy Wilson
Non-Voting Members
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • President Macpherson
  • Jason Morris
  • Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair
  • Karen Riotto
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight
Guests
  • Monica Brasted
  • Steve Cook
  • Bob Cushman
  • Debra Eggebrecht
  • Jennifer Green
  • Scott Haines
    Mike Harrison
  • Lisa Jones
  • Mehruz Kamal
  • Dana Laird
  • Jennifer Ramsey
  • Craig Ross
  • Rey Sia
  • Taneika Thompson

REGRETS:

Voting Members
  • Sondra Aman

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

Review Meeting Minutes from September 9, 2021 & September 23, 2021

Dr. Rhodes asked the committee to review the minutes from the September 9, 2021 meeting. Dr. Houston-Wilson motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Dearing seconded the motion. 12 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Dr. Rhodes asked the committee to review the minutes from the September 23, 2021 meeting. Ms. Roy motioned to approve the minutes; Provost Delene seconded the motion. 13 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Announcements

Dr. Rhodes made the following announcements:

  • Goal Group 1 requested to move their presentation to November 18, 2021 and with looking at the meeting schedule we are able to accommodate this request.
  • The Five-Year Financial Model update will occur on October 14, 2021.

Goal Group 2 Update and Budget Prioritization Requests – presented by Mike Andriatch, Vice President of Advancement

Mr. Andriatch presented an update on Goal Group 2. The following questions and answers occurred:

  • The question was raised if there are budgets associated with each Goal Group for institutional investments for a particular year. It was stated that budget requests are presented to JPBC and requests are approved based on affordability and the current budget situation. These requests are made for items not able to be accomplished within division budgets. JPBC can request more information and details to understand if there is a good payback or is it is a good idea to move forward with. Expenses and spending are tracked divisionally and not by goal group.
  • The question was raised regarding what the best-case scenario is for the launch date of the Comprehensive Campaign. It was stated that we are in the quiet phrase right now and our counting has already begun. We will not be public for two to three years. Typically, we don’t go public until we are two-thirds or three-quarters to our goal. You will hear updates like you did today and about specific gifts, but it will be fairly quiet for a while.
  • The question was raised if there was a central location for all of the e-newsletters that some departments are producing. It was stated that there is not a central location for the e-newsletters, and they are located on departmental webpages. It was added that this suggestion would be taken into consideration.
  • The question was raised if there will be a platform for the e-newsletters. It was stated that there is a new template that is being launched. President Macpherson’s latest update was in this format. The launching will be done a little bit at a time and it will be done this semester.

 

Goal Group 3 Update and Budget Prioritization Requests – presented by Jim Wall, Vice President of Administration and Finance

Mr. Wall presented an update on Goal Group 3. The following questions and answers occurred:

  • Clarification was requested on the request for a new position in the Budgeting office. It was stated that we are assessing whether we need another position to support Academic Affairs going forward. As we work through the Academic Strategic Plan as well as to maintain the ongoing reporting on a quarterly basis. Over the next month or so we should have better clarity on whether this position is needed. As we look through the 2022-23 budget, we will try to find areas in Administration and Finance that would offset the $70,000 currently being requested for this position.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the positive change in reserves from the last update and if this was related to anticipated and unanticipated retirements that may have assisted in this change. Therefore, the implication is the decline is less deep. It was stated that the implication is that the decline is still going to happen, and it may be less deep. We will know officially once we work through the new numbers we received. Right now, it appears the decline has shifted out a year. The change in reserves was mainly related to the spending controls we put into place in 2020-21 and the extra salary savings from positions not being filled throughout the year that was above the forecasts.
  • The request was made to include trends and headcounts across the divisions in the next budget update. It was stated that request is something that will be looked into.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the Facilities Condition Index and how we are looking to optimize our utilization. It was stated that in terms of space utilization, the last study determined we were only 36% utilized across campus. We are currently trying to revise that study because we received new standards from SUNY about two or three months ago regarding classroom size standards. The standards have been implemented for this academic year in terms of the set up. We are currently reviewing the utilization. Dr. Zollweg is working on a model and we are working with Mr. Dowe on the classroom scheduling. There will be an analysis done on various initiatives to determine what our opportunity is regarding space. We are looking for funding in the future to demolition Morgan and reutilization that footprint for something else.
  • The question was raised if there was a systemic method that was being used to evaluate accreditations. It was stated that there is no current formula. There are programs where accreditation is necessary for licensure exams, certifications and for students to be able to obtain a job in a current field. There are also voluntary accreditations that need to be reviewed to see if the benefits outweigh the costs and obligations.
  • The question was raised regarding if there are any financial benefits in addition to the environment benefits for the meadow restoration and tree projects. It was stated that the meadow restoration project will result in five acres that we will not have to mow. There should be a savings on the mowing.
  • Clarification was requested if the $20,000 being requested for the tree project is specifically for planting trees. It was stated that was correct.
  • The question was raised regarding what the anticipated percentage of increase for utilities would translate into as potential costs to the College. It was stated that looking at our current energy bill, we could be looking at a $300,000 issue. Mr. Rice and Mr. Wall will be reviewing this to obtain better clarity on the situation.
  • The question was raised regarding the STARS rating and how the scoring works for investment and finance. It was stated that the metrics would have to be reviewed to better answer that question.
  • The question was raised regarding what the criteria was for the classifications on the risk register. It was stated that there are five or six criteria that the committee reviews and rates each criteria. Then a score is calculated using a formula based off of the ratings. Some of the items that are looked at are: what is the risk; is there a plan; what are we doing to mitigate the risk and what is the outcome if the risk does happen. The Enterprise Risk Management Risk Register will be shared with those members that wish to review it.
  • The question was raised if the zero-based budget approach is to ensure more efficient deployment of assets and if there will be an assessment to determine if this goal is achieved. It was stated that the key of zero-based budgeting is that it enables us to reprioritize the funds to the areas that are strategically or operationally needed. When you complete the budget review once, it gets easier every year. Having to assess what is actually needed forces us to look at our actual spend on a year over year basis and what is coming in the future that funds are needed for. It creates a lot of good discussion. The team is going to be working on a set of guidelines for the 2022-23 on how we are going to approach the zero-based budget in each division, and it will be coming out early in the year.

Other Items from the Committee

  • President Macpherson extended her appreciation to Ms. Dearing, Dr. Guptill, Dr. Brasted and all of the leaders involved in the Middle States Self-Study groups that have done so much work to prepare us for yesterday’s visit.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

DR/JW/mw