Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: April 22, 2021

Thursday, April 22, 2021

8:30 – 10:30 am, Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees

Voting Members

  • Sondra Aman
  • Hannah Arp
  • Justine Briggs
  • James Cordeiro
  • Frances Dearing
  • Kandie Gay
  • Daniel Goebel
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Katy Heyning
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Margaret Lane
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Kathy Peterson
  • Craig Ross
  • Janet Roy
  • Mark Stacy
  • Elliot Weininger
  • Katy Wilson

Non-Voting Members

  • Denise Copelton: Co-Chair
    Crystal Hallenbeck
  • President Macpherson
  • Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair Elect
  • Karen Riotto
  • James Spiller
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight

Guests

  • Various guests in attendance – 87 total guests.

Regrets

Voting Members

  • Mike Andriatch
  • Kalista Cherry
  • Sharon Jaramillo

The meeting was called to order at 8:31 am.

Announcements

The following announcements were made:

  • Dr. Copelton thanked Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ross for their service to the committee as their terms will be complete at the end of the semester. The following individuals will be joining the committee in the fall to begin their terms:
    • Austin Busch – Faculty-at-Large Representative (three-year term)
      • Dr. Houston-Wilson will serve as Interim Faculty-at-Large during the Fall 2021 semester while Dr. Busch is on sabbatical.
    • Kristin Hartway – Professional Staff Representative (three-year term)
  • Ms. Dearing provided an update on the Middle States Self-Study and how individuals can participate. The first town hall for the Middle States self-study was held on Wednesday. The second one will be held on Monday, April 28, 2021, from 1:15-2:15pm. Individuals are encouraged to attend and complete the feedback form. The particular standards that members of JPBC should review are one and six. The form will be available until April 30. Feedback from the form as well as feedback from the President and the Provost will be used by the Steering Committee to revise the report. The updated version will go to Cabinet for review in June. After that, the document will be posted for individuals to provide feedback. Then the document will be sent to the Team Chair, Dr. Anthony Jenkins. He will be doing a virtual visit in September. After he reviews the document and completes the virtual visit, he will provide his updates for the document. The document will then be revised and posted for individuals to view. The document will be finalized in January 2022 and will be sent to the Middle States Team.
  • Dr. Copelton stated that the next JPBC meeting will be April 29, 2021. The agenda at this meeting will include the vote on the fee-based budget requests and budget presentations from DIFR, BASC and BSG.
  • Dr. Copelton stated that there will be a budget town hall on April 29, 2021 at noon. Details will be emailed from Julie Pruss on how to join the town hall.

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the March 25, 2021 meeting. Dr. Peterson motioned the minutes to be approved, Ms. Aman seconded the motion and 15 voting members were in favor. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

 

Division Presentations on Cost Savings/Open Position Management

(Presentation is available on Blackboard and Teams)

The following questions and answers occurred during the session:

  • The question was raised regarding the adding/spreading of tasks and responsibilities to staff across departments in light of the staff reductions, it is critical to determine what people will stop doing. How are these adjustments being addressed and prioritized in order to facilitate employee success and avoid failure/burnout? It was stated that the workload in certain areas will need to be reviewed. A vast majority of the positions are open positions and have been or will be reviewed. The re-engineering of the work flow plays a key role in this as well as implementing the digital work flow should help.
  • The question was raised regarding the five percent cut in State funding and whether there is still uncertainty surrounding the cut because the cut was in the Governor’s budget but not the legislature’s approved budget. It was stated that there have been a number of meetings with the SUNY Business Officers and the view is we will be getting the five percent cut which calculates out to $900,000. This was indicated by the SUNY personnel that reviewed all the budget documents.
  • The question was raised regarding where the SUNY Business Officers are obtaining the information regarding the five percent cut in State support if it was not included in the legislature’s budget. It was stated that the way information is worded in the budget can cause areas to appear to be receiving more funding or not cuts, when in reality the areas are not receiving more funding, or they are receiving cuts.
  • The question was raised regarding the accounting for the reduction of State support. If five percent is $900,000 then why was 20% being calculated as $3 million. The calculation should have been $3.6 million. It was stated that we get $17.6 million is State funding and the 20% calculation wasn’t on the whole $17.6 million. There was a portion of the $17.6 that wasn’t included in the calculation of the cut. The calculation was closer to $17 million, that is why the 20% was calculated to be $3 million.
  • The question was raised given the reduced amount of funding cuts to the State support, have there been any discussions about funding for growing programs or other projects. It was stated that as shown in the presentation, we came in with $61 million, but we have $63.8 million in funding. We are hoping to include a line item within the difference of $2.8 million to hope fund revenue generating or cost saving projects. This would allow some contingency to allocate to that.
  • The question was raised regarding the payment of the delayed salary increases for UUP, CSEA and M/C and if it is true that the State has not provided campuses with the funding to cover the increases. It was stated that the College will have to provide the funding and we have been planning for that. In the five-year model the contractual salary savings are included as well as in the budget projections for the payout of the retroactive salary increases and promotion plan salary increases that have been worked on over the past year.
  • The question was raised regarding using the stimulus funds to cover payroll hours for the individuals that have had their workloads shifted to include working at the testing site and if their salaries will be able to be prorated at the current amount or if there is a federal minimum wage that needs to be used for the calculation. It was stated that the guidelines are being reviewed and we hope to allocate most of the labor cost involved with running the test site and vaccination clinic from the stimulus funding. The only individuals that are not eligible to have their salary factored into the running of both sites are individuals that are M/C.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the volunteers’ time that is being used to allocate funds from the stimulus fund and if the volunteers are being compensated with the funds. It was stated that the volunteers are not being compensated, the payroll hours involved with volunteering can be charged against the stimulus funds.
  • The question was raised regarding where the stimulus funds will go that are allocated from the volunteer hours for the testing site and vaccination clinic. It was stated that the funds will go back to the reserves.
  • The question was raised regarding if an employee’s time is being reimbursed by stimulus funds, then it is no longer considered volunteering and whether it should be added to annual reports as work performed as faculty work obligations were not adjusted. It was stated that in many cases, workload and performance programs were adjusted to take into account significant time spent for the testing and vaccine site. That meant that individuals were performing this work instead of other work and this is the basis on which we hope to be able to note salary costs. It was recommended that faculty who volunteered at pool testing to add it to their annual report under service. It has not been made clear that volunteer hours can be included toward the calculation against the stimulus funds. It has been determined that M/C volunteering cannot be counted.
  • The question was raised regarding the impact number listed due to the lack of tuition increase and how the impact number is determined. It was stated that it was determined by calculating the tuition increase of $200 by 7,000 students and equaling out to $1.4 million for year one, year two the impact number is $2.8 million, year three the impact number is $4.2 million. This is not an additional cost; it is an impact to our revenue line. For example, we are paying the contractual salary increases, but we are not getting additional revenue to support that expense.
  • The question was raised regarding how much 100 graduate students are worth since we know 100 undergraduate students are worth $1 million. It was stated that the number is not known at the moment but can be reported back to the group.
  • The question was raised regarding what the definition of equitable is in terms of the reductions across the divisions. It was stated that each division received a six percent reduction in PSR and nine percent in OTPS from the 2019-20 budget numbers.
  • Request for clarification was made regarding what is considered an open position from a time frame standpoint. It was stated that the most recent report that was reviewed was from February 2021, but open positions are reviewed regularly. Quarterly reporting of all open positions within each division is conducted. All the job posting positions that are advertised are reviewed by Cabinet weekly.
  • The question was raised regarding the positions that are not approved to be filled by Cabinet, how often are those positions re-examined and how do departments know the status of positions within their area. It was stated that reviews are completed regularly. If a position is determined that it will never be filled, the objective is the remove the line item from the budget. If a position is eligible to be refilled, a posting will be advertised.
  • The question was raised if any of the budget cuts are jeopardizing our accreditation’s or similar requirements that we have. It was stated that the Provost is working with the Deans and Directors to review proposed cuts by vacant position. If we were to take all the cuts for vacant positions, we would be jeopardizing our national accreditation in some areas. A hierarchy of the positions is being developed all while trying to balance the budget.
  • The question was raised if each accreditation is being reviewed to determine if the accreditation is bringing in revenue or costing the College money. It was stated that reviewing the is part of the position hierarchy and budget balancing project. Just because there is a vacancy within a certain department doesn’t mean that vacancy should remain in that department. With this review process, there will be some shifting around. It is a delicate balance because of all the variables like accreditation, enrollment and revenue.
  • The question was raised regarding the rumors that there is going to be some layoffs. It was stated that we are hoping we can achieve the needed savings based off projections of open positions and people in current positions will not be laid off.
  • The question was raised if the projected savings that is being factored into the budget model include the current open positions and the expected attrition of the annual 12% turnover. It was stated that 12% has been the actual but that is not what was figured in. If you look at the chart, there are currently 47 open positions factored in that there is no one currently in those positions. For future attrition and retirements, 18 positions were factored in but typically we have 100 attrite and 30 retirements annually. So only a small percentage was factored. It was also stated we do normally get a certain number of individuals that leave or open positions annually and regular budgeting plans for that. This means we are going to have to continue to keep adjusting if we actual remove those open positions and they are gone, then the next year we are not likely to keep the 12% and it is likely to go down because there will be fewer people. We are going to continually focus on this because we will not be able to assume that same level of vacancies going forward. This is something that the Budget Office is aware of and Cabinet has been discussing. It is very hard to project right now but important to recognize it.
  • The concern was stated regarding the attrition rate and the open positions being eliminated and how there will still be savings when there is a the need for some positions to be filled due to work that needs to be completed whether it is teaching or other duties. It was stated that there are currently around 47 open positions and assuming we can complete all required tasks without those individuals, we have only projected 18 future attrition when we have 100 annually and retirements on top of that. We have looked at what we know for future attrition and most of those are capturable. Currently, Cabinet reviews position requests at the weekly budget meeting. We hope to achieve the savings on the open positions, but if there is a critical need, we will fill the position. It was also stated that the importance of this meeting today was to see what is going on in the background. Many times you see positions posted in the Daily Eagle but you are not aware of the departments like the ones discussed in EMSA that are going from four positions to two or the review that is occurring in Academic Affairs regarding the vacant positions.
  • The question was raised regarding the enrollment projections and when they will be updated based on the meeting with Admissions. It was stated that the current projections are from the updates provided in February. Ms. Hallenbeck works with Mr. Dirmyer and projections are made based on SUNY guidance. There should be an update in the next few months. The updates are typically done twice a year.
  • The concern was stated that SUNY’s projections were way off this year, and it could be COVID related and concern over our vulnerability to a downward surprise in the next academic year. It was stated that it why our target is $61 million even though we have funding for $63.8 million. One of the reasons we are holding back the $2.8 million is what if the projected enrollment numbers of 7280 ends up being 7200 or 7150, this funding will help offset the loss in tuition revenue.
  • The question was raised if there are any unannounced changes that are factored into the projections for example a change to teaching credit load. It was stated that all the initiatives have been included. It was also stated that a change in teaching credit load has not been added into the mix. There would have to be a lot of discussion at the faculty and staff level before a move in that direction could occur. Right now, the discussion is around the amount of funding that needs to be cut. We can cut only so much using the current vacancies and we must cut a certain amount of the OTPS based on what we can get by without for the year. The credit load may be something that the College would want to discuss over the next year even if it is a temporary change, but we have not made those decisions yet.
  • The question was raised regarding the zero-based budget exercise within Academic Affairs and how that helps in determining the budget cuts. It was stated that the zero-based budget exercise for Academic Affairs is still in progress. The work began with looking at what funding it takes to run the departments, majors and programs within Academic Affairs and then building the budget around it. At the same time, we know that our budget isn’t sustainable. Going forward, now that we know that the budget isn’t what we thought it would be in the fall and we have different numbers in the spring, we will have to go back and readjust some of the zero based budget work that was done.

Financial Analysis of the Schools

President Macpherson and Ms. Hallenbeck presented the financial analysis of the Schools. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • The question was raised if there are any plans to replace the Associate Director for the Center for Graduate Studies. It was stated that the current structure in the Center for Graduate Studies is working well and will be the structure going forward.
  • The question was raised regarding why Global Studies was covered in the analysis as that was not part of the restructuring. It was stated that the change within Global Studies occurred at the same time of the restructuring of the Schools and the savings were significant, so it was included with the analysis.
  • The question was raised regarding if staffing changes would occur after reviewing this analysis, for example staff members that were 10 month that were moved to 12 months, would they be moved back to 10-month contracts. It was stated that it hasn’t been a part of the initial budget discussions because there are some many other things that are being worked on. The associate deans are M/C and are 12-month positions. The assistant deans have maintained UUP status but are on 12-month contracts. The assistant deans are entering into the final year in their position so this is the time where the duties that are performed by the assistant deans should be reviewed and evaluate if the positions are needed by the College and the Schools or do things need to be readjusted. This is not to say anything negative about the assistant deans. They have done a fabulous job in their positions.
  • The question was raised if other positions within the Academic Affairs restructuring would be reviewed. It was stated that everyone is reviewed annually to ensure it is the best fit for the College.
  • The question was raised regarding if any assessment has been completed to determine if more work has shifted to faculty due to the restructuring in Academic Affairs. It was stated that the restructuring occurred prior to the Provost’s arrival so she doesn’t have the knowledge of what the workload was prior to the restructuring. She is aware that the restructuring in the Center for Graduate Studies has caused more work for the graduate coordinators. A process has been worked through at the department and School level to ensure coordinators are involved where appropriate and released from teaching. In addition, we are trying to develop the Graduate Council so that the coordinators have a space to discuss what their needs are. Also, we are trying to shift some of the work that has been historically done by hand to electronic formats.
  • The question was raised if there is an equation that details that amount of time that equals a course release. It was stated that the Provost has been reviewing this question over the past few years as there has been no consistency with the course reassignments that she has received. She has tasked the Deans to try to make sure there are job descriptions that are evaluated every year. Now when she receives course reassignment paperwork there is a job description that is available for her to ensure the it has been evaluated by a Chair or Dean to assess that the work is being done and done well. The Provost does ask how many hours a week the individual spends doing that work and then working backwards figures out if that equates a full course. The same evaluation is done with stipends.
  • The question was raised regarding the fact that faculty who have applied for fall course releases for the work that they have already been doing, have not received decisions on whether they will get course releases next year and when should faculty expect to hear the status of their course releases. It was stated that the Associate Deans were tasked with giving the Provost a listing of all the course releases that have been requested and to rank them in order of importance for the School to operate. The listings were due to the Provost on Monday. She is in the process of reviewing and should have answers back to the Associate Deans on Monday.
  • The concern was stated regarding the timing for the decisions on the course releases. Schedules have already been determined and there may not be a course available for an individual who was denied a course release and, who does the tasks that the individual was not given a course release to do. It was stated that one of the questions the Provost asked on the course release spreadsheet was if the individual had something else to do if they did not receive the course release, so that information will be taken into consideration.
  • The question was raised if there is a feedback process so that the rank ordering process has more than the associate dean discretion taken into account. It was stated that individuals should meet with their associate dean regarding how the decisions were made.

Other Items from the Committee

  • The question was raised if the yield number of diplomas by major could be incorporated into a report like it is listed in the undergraduate admissions report for deposits. It was stated that this is part of the persistence road map and this question will be addressed in the persistence presentation given next academic year.
  • The question was raised if the yield number of deposits by major could be listed for transfer students as well. It was stated that Robert Wyant would be asked if that information could be added to the weekly report.
  • The question was raised when Cabinet would notify the Task Force of their decision regarding the FSA recommendations. It was stated that Cabinet was waiting for the report on the Professional Staff travel recommendations but now knowing they can be reported on differently, an official report on Cabinet’s decision will be submitted to the Task Force. It was added that the work group has finished reviewing the Professional Staff travel and professional development information and is ready to make a recommendation to the Task Force

The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 a.m.

DC/JW/mw