Members present: Barrett (1996-1999), Bullion (1996-1999), Cochren (1997-2000), Oberstar (1997-2000), Pacer (1997-2000), Pippert (1996-1999), D. Thuente (1997-2000)

Members absent: Guthrie (1996-1999)

George Bullion, Chairperson presiding

The subcommittee convened its meeting at 9:00 a.m.

The chairperson opened the meeting and asked the members to review a copy of the October 3 and October 6 minutes which were distributed in draft form. They had also been distributed earlier via E-mail. He asked the members to particularly review the BAS proposed plan of action contained in the October 6 minutes to insure that they accurately reflected the will of the subcommittee. Brief suggestions for change were made regarding the October 6 minutes.

The chairperson noted that he had appended a copy of e-mail communications that he had with Dr. William Frederick, the Speaker of the IPFW Faculty Senate regarding possible involvement of the BAS in investigating certain matters pertaining to the operation of IPFW's athletic program. This communication was for information purposes and did not change in any way the BAS's decision to place on hold any investigation that it might undertake regarding the financial aspects of the athletic program. Committee members noted that the Chancellor had asked the NCAA to investigate certain matters pertaining to the operation of the IPFW athletic program and that this group should be arriving on campus soon for that purpose. It was noted that this group would not likely concern itself with the financial questions raised in Professor Frederick's e-mail message.

The chairperson reported on a brief meeting that he had on Tuesday, October 14 at 3:00 p.m. with Vice Chancellor English and Dr. Jack Dahl. He noted that he had simply provided the Vice Chancellor with the questions listed in the BAS October 6 minutes pertaining to the Vice Chancellor's September 26 communication with the BAS regarding the VCAA Chair Emoluments plan. The Vice Chancellor was pleased to receive the feedback and stated that he was in no particular hurry to have action on the proposal. He indicated that he would take the BAS questions under consideration and would respond in the near future.

Professors Oberstar and Cochren then distributed a copy of the questions that their subcommittee had developed regarding a request for information pertaining to the Smith endowment fund. The BAS made several suggestions for addition and/or change to the proposal to the subcommittee and they were asked to bring the revised "request for information" back to the October 31 BAS meeting. They agreed to do. Brief discussion also took place regarding the procedure to be used in sending the "request for information" to the administration. It was decided that the subcommittee would hand carry the request to Vice Chancellor Walt Branson and would explain to him the nature of the request and provide him with an opportunity to clarify any points that he desired. It was agreed that then Vice Chancellor Branson would be asked to provide his response to the full BAS. It will be Vice Chancellor Branson's option as to whether he provides his response in written form or through personal appearance at a future BAS meeting.

Professor Barrett requested input from the subcommittee on the resolution that he agreed to develop regarding the approximately $1,000,000 windfall that IPFW may potentially experience as a result of renegotiating the service agreement between IPFW and I.U. The consensus of the discussion that took place was that BAS would propose that it be a clearinghouse for proposals from IPFW faculty committees and individual faculty members regarding proposals as to how the windfall might be spent. The BAS anticipates that it would develop a resolution that expresses its desire and willingness to develop the conditions that would guide the distribution of these funds. It proposes to do so by compiling the requests that come from the faculty committees and individual faculty members and then making a recommendation to the administration as to the priorities that should guide the expenditure of these funds. The BAS believes that the expenditure of these funds should be a faculty driven initiative.

The chairperson reminded the members that the next meeting is scheduled for October 31 at 9-11:00 a.m. in KT 101 (Alumni Conference Room). The agenda for that meeting will include the following:

1. The request for information regarding the Smith endowment fund that is being prepared by Professors Cochren and Oberstar.
2. The resolution regarding campus funding equity that Professors Guthrie, Pacer and Pippert are developing. In addition if Professor Guthrie is prepared to commence discussion of the allocation of campus salaries to administration and faculty, then that item will be discussed as well.
3. Professor Barrett's resolution regarding the disposition of the windfall referenced above.
4. Chair emoluments if a request for action is received from Vice Chancellor English prior to the scheduled meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

Minutes prepared and submitted by George Bullion

Members present: Barrett (1996-1999), Bullion (1996-1999), Cochren (1997-2000), Guthrie (1996-1999), Oberstar (1997-2000), Pacer (1997-2000), Pippert (1996-1999), D. Thuente (1997-2000)

Members absent: None

George Bullion, Chairperson presiding

The subcommittee convened its meeting at 9:00 a.m.

The first item of business involved a discussion of the VCAA Chair Emoluments Plan that was distributed to the BAS on Friday, October 3. The Chairperson reminded the members that at this time they were to only provide him with input, which he could take to the meeting with the Vice Chancellor and Jack Dahl (the meeting has subsequently been set for Tuesday, October 14 at 3:00 p.m.) Two members of BAS (Barrett and Pippert) distributed brief memos that set forth questions that they had regarding implementation of the emolument plan. The following points were communicated in the discussion, which followed:

It was suggested that the Vice Chancellor should provide a list of 12-month department chairs for both the 1996-97 and 1997-98 fiscal years.

The salary data is missing from the table. This data should be provided by the Vice Chancellor's office. In moving from 10.8 to 14 FTE department chairs, the financial data needs to show the "full" projected cost.

The proposal should show the budgetary impact of the plan when it is fully implemented.

Nothing is said about associate or assistant chairs and any of them that may be on twelve-month appointments. These appointments should be listed as well.

In the cost computations, be sure that the methodology is fully stated.

Do all chairs go to twelve months eventually regardless of their wishes? Is this plan truly going to apply to everybody?

Although the proposal has been transmitted using 1996-97 cost data, BAS believes that the 1997-98 data should be used.

In terms of methodology, when a faculty member is hired to compensate for the additional release time, are the replacement costs that associated with a full-time faculty member or an associate faculty member. The BAS believes that the full-time cost is the appropriate cost to use. The BAS wants to know how the teaching responsibilities that are being vacated by the chairperson are being covered.

Members of the BAS are concerned about the accounting of the FTE allocation in the summer. They noted that in the Option 1, 50% FTE, the individual will teach 3 cr. I SSI and will have .25 research and .50 for administration. In this case teaching is effectively .5 and hence all of these add up to 1.25. A similar problem exists for an Option 2 faculty member who will be teaching 6 credit hours in SSI which is equal to 1.00 but then the administration is set at .25 for a total of 1.25. Further, the administrative component is reduced to .25 when in fact it appears that there is an expectation that the administrative equivalent is equal to .50. There appears to be an inconsistency here.

How are the added costs being figured for those converting from 10 to 12 months? Also, the computation different for those faculty members holding either an Indiana University or Purdue University appointments.

The members of BAS note that they need the full cost in detailed format for the proposal. Since the current proposal does not show the Fringe benefits, it expects that such will be included in any proposal that it is asked to consider.

Will twelve-month chairs, who do not currently teach, have to teach under the proposal?

All columns in the table at the back of the proposal should be filled in.

There was some concern that the proposal appeared to be "loading up" on people who are administrative.

In general the members of the BAS indicated that they wanted to see a detailed specific plan that is fully costed at the potential costs. With this kind of proposal then the BAS and the Vice Chancellor's office can "all work from the same page." It wants to see the net cost when fully implemented.

A point was made by a member of BAS, and there appeared to be a fairly broad consensus of agreement on the point, was that it appears that "…A cannon is being used to solve the problem when a BB gun would suffice." There was some feeling that the problem really resided within the individual schools and could best be solved there.

Some discussion then ensued regarding the discussion by Walt Branson at the October 3 meeting. The points raised were:

Are there any audits of foundation funds?

What is the relationship between the development of the McKay property and the IP Foundation?

What kind of impact does the foundation have on our general operating budget? How are the foundation funds used? Do we have any recommendations as to the administration of the foundation funds?

Basically, these questions were raised but no definitive action was suggested as to their disposition at this point in the discussion.

At this point the BAS turned its attention to establishing its program of work for the 1997-98 academic year.

The agenda items that the BAS decided to undertake for the 1997-98 academic year are:

The chair emolument proposal discussed above.

McKay property. Some of the questions that the BAS wants to explore are:

Are there potential unfunded liabilities down the road from the indoor soccer facility that is under construction?

The BAS wants to review the contract with the private-for-profit corporation to see what IPFW (or the foundation) gave up.

In general the BAS decided that it wants to ask some overall questions about the development of the McKay property but it has no specific direction in which it plans to head this year.

A detailed list of questions will be developed by BAS with regards to the development of the McKay property.

The BAS decided, at this time, to not investigate the administration of the IP Foundation and not to explore the effect of the foundation money on IPFW's operating budget.

3. Investigate the details of the Smith $2 million endowment fund and its administration. Some of the general questions that the BAS is seeking answers to are: What is the size of the endowment fund, how much is IPFW receiving annually and how is this money allocated to scholarships, and how decisions are made. The investigation will not focus on who makes the decisions but rather the decisions that are made. Overall, the approach on this matter will involve limited questioning.

The two members of BAS who will head this up are: David Oberstar and John Cochren. They are to prepare some of the specific questions and directions that the investigation is to take for presentation at the BAS, Friday, October 17 meeting.

Professor Guthrie discussed two items that were carryovers from the 1996-97 academic year. After brief discussion the BAS decided to move both of these items forward in their 1997-98 plan of action.

a. Funding equity. Specifically, the study that the BAS advanced to the IPFW Faculty Senate and the legislators will be updated and used in preparing for the 1999-2001 long budget session.

b. Internal allocation of resources to teaching vs. administration. There is somewhat of a tie with 3(a) in that since IPFW is being underfunded, then both teaching and administration should share equally in the "fiscal pain". The intent is to keep the heat on the legislature. If IPFW cannot get equitable funding then its administration should bear the pain equally with the faculty.

Professors Guthrie (Chairperson), Pippert, and Pacer will head this project up.

The information center proposal that had been recommended for consideration to the BAS in the 1996-97 academic year and on which it did not act was not viewed to be of any interest to the current year's BAS. Therefore, no action will be taken on this item.

Athletic budget. The BAS acknowledged that there are legitimate questions regarding the sources and distribution of funds to IPFW athletics. After brief discussion regarding whether to undertake this review, the BAS decided that they would simply hold this matter in reserve.

Proposed action: Hold in reserve.

BAS's role in looking at and participating in the development of the 1999-2001 budget. A discussion ensued regarding BAS's role in looking at the general allocation and its being in position to make recommendations one year hence. It was the consensus of the BAS that it wants to be involved and that it should explore ways it can be involved constructive.

Shutting down the I.U. administrative part of the IPFW management agreement. A decision was make to hold this item in reserve as well.

Financial windfall from adjustment downward of Indiana University's management fee. As reported by Phil Grote, IPFW has been holding $400,000 or so annual in escrow for the past 4-5 years as efforts have been made to have the management fee reduced. Since I.U. has already conceded that perhaps $175,000 or so would be about right and since IPFW is contending that the number should be more like $110,000, then at final resolution there could be a windfall from the over escrowed fund from which monies can flow back into the IPFW operations.

Professor Barrett will write a resolution for the disposition of the windfall.

The subcommittee members were reminded of the October 17, 9-11 a.m. meeting in the Alumni Conference Room in Kettler.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Minutes prepared and submitted by George Bullion

Capital expenditures as it pertains to the new buildings and other campus improvements. He reported that the campus had received an additional appropriation of $6.58 million (from the 1997 session of the General Assembly) to cover capital costs associated with occupancy of the new science building and remodeling of space in Kettler Hall. He noted that the $6.58 million was to cover the remodeling in Kettler Hall, construction or installation of a new cooling tower to provide the requisite cooling capacity for the new building and the casework required in the labs in the new science building.

He noted that the $7.2 million parking garage project was funded from parking fees and that the construction cost for this 950 car capacity building was lower than what might have been expected. Considerable road work and relocation of sewers and other site work in the vicinity of the parking garage is included in the $7.2 million project cost.

Overview of any policy changes involving the student technology fee and the expenditures out of that fund for the past budget year and those planned for the 1997-98 budget year. Although it was stated initially that there were no changes in the policy regarding expenses that could be covered from the technology fee, later in the discussion it was noted that the policy now allows for wages to be paid to open lab student consultants ($70-80,000 projected for 1997-98). In addition the policy being followed this year allows for supplies to be purchased from the fee. The total revenues from the 1997-98 technology fee are projected to be approximately $772,000 ($587,000 under old fee plus $3 per credit hour fee increase for a total of $185,000). It was noted that salaries of full-time support personnel in C & DP are still not permitted under current policy guidelines.

Phil distributed a handout that showed a total of $589,650.07 in expenditures being made from the student technology fund in 1996-97 and a projected expenditure in 1997-98 of $645,000-$783,000.

Professor D. Thuente noted that he did not see an expenditure for 800-phone line access to the computing resources for the students who live in the counties surrounding Allen County. Mr. Branson acknowledged that particular expenditure had not been made and that if the BAS judged it to be important, that it might consider making a recommendation to that effect. It was noted that the 1996-97 BAS and the DE Subcommittees had in fact made that recommendation. Mr. Branson also suggested that the BAS might want to contact Steve Hollander who is a member on the ITPC (Information Technology Policy Committee) regarding this particular recommendation.

Prior to beginning a discussion of the McKay property, Mr. Branson noted that there appeared little interest among legislators in opening up the 1997-99 budget in the upcoming 1998 short session. However, he noted that if the opportunity did arise, that the administration was prepared to request that the nonrecurring expenditures in the 1997-99 budget for technology be made recurring. This is viewed a crucial move if the campus is to attain and maintain a satisfactory position in its use of technology. Basically, the campus believes that it needs to have a rolling three-year cycle for the replacement of its technology to insure that it does not become obsolete. Walt and Phil agreed to provide the BAS with data on cross campus (or university) equity in state level funding. Walt indicated that there would be a renewed attempt to have IPFW's funding inequity addressed in the 1999-2001 budget process.

Walt then proceeded to discuss the McKay property and to answer BAS member questions pertaining thereto. He reported that the indoor soccer facility is under construction and should open in Mid November. A private-for-profit company that has entered into a 30-year lease with the Indiana-Purdue Foundation is developing the facility (??? Or is it the entity that purchased the McKay property on behalf of IPFW-Lincoln Life, Raker Foundation, Foellinger Foundation, and ???-help me as to the fourth entity-was it the Fort Wayne Community Foundation?). At the end of the 30 year lease IPFW will become the owner of the building (is this IPFW or the IP Foundation ???) A question was raised regarding what provision has been made if the lessor defaults on its financial operation of the indoor soccer facility. Neither Walt nor Phil had a ready answer to this question. Walt did note that the lessor did have to finance most of the construction of the building with equity due to the fact that ownership of the property will revert to IPFW at the end of 30 years. A member of BAS suggested that perhaps the BAS really needed to see the contract. There seemed to be reasonable agreement that such a document is in the public domain and hence the BAS can certainly obtain it. However, no specific communication transpired as to the process of making this document available to the BAS.

Walt reported that $1.2 million has been raised to build 14 soccer fields in the flood plain area of the McKay property. Foundations and corporations that are interested in youth activities provided the funds. IPFW is trying to make arrangements to have the Indiana National Guard do a lot of the site preparation work but the Guard needs a longer lead time than IPFW is currently able to provide especially since IPFW has to secure approval relative to the wet land areas.

Walt indicated that the possibility of a Wellness Center on the McKay property is still just an idea. They are pursuing options but nothing has materialized in that regard. Walt indicated that the present vision for the McKay property centered on drawing youth interested in soccer from throughout Northeastern Indiana to the McKay property (and the general proximity of the campus). This will serve to introduce IPFW to many potential students.

A member of BAS asked Walt about the $1.7 Wilbur Smith endowment. Walt revealed that this endowment was established to provide scholarships to IPFW students. The Indiana University Foundation is managing this and the principal currently is close to $2.0 million. The I.U. Foundation distributes to IPFW approximately 4% of the principal annually. In further questioning it was revealed that this pool of money provides financial scholarships at the discretion of the Chancellor. The Office of Financial Aid distributes the proceeds but they are not involved in the administration of the overall scholarship fund generated by the endowment. It was also revealed that IPFW has approximately $12 million in endowment funds and the Purdue Research Foundation administers $10 million and $2 million is administered by the Indiana University Foundation. The PRF pools the IPFW endowment with its other funds for fiscal management purposes and then it pays the income out according to the intent of the donors. Approximately $3 million of the $12 million is earmarked for the IPFW library.

A member of BAS asked Walt if any consideration had been given to the matter of ending the administrative duality at IPFW. The questioner noted that considerable resources are spent in satisfying the dual academic structure and that there would likely be significant savings if Purdue University were solely responsible for this campus. Walt indicated that no this matter had not received any attention but that if the BAS wanted to propose such through the IPFW Faculty Senate then he would view the proceedings with interest. In the discussion Walt noted that the 18-20 liability for the 135 faculty members on the Indiana University payroll is quite substantial. Since the 18-20 contributions are on a pay-as-you-go basis, with the increasing numbers of IPFW faculty members with the Indiana University appointment who are retiring seems to favor maintaining the Indiana University ties. It was noted by Walt and Phil that Indiana University determines the amount of a levy against Indiana University salaries that are needed each year to meet the 18-20 obligation and then each campus is assessed the same percentage amount. It was noted that the assessment usually falls in the 4 percent range (is this correct???). The questioner noted that in many of the past years that IPFW certainly was quite likely contributing a disproportionate amount into that pool since it had very few faculty members who were on 18-20 retirement. Since IPFW faculty appointees since 1990 have not been eligible for the 18-20-retirement plan, at some foreseeable time the 18-20 impediment to a total transfer of operating responsibility to Purdue will no longer be an issue.

After Walt and Phil departed from the meeting, the chairperson distributed a memo from Vice Chancellor English pertaining to the VCAA Chair Emoluments Plan. The chairperson noted that he was distributing this memo solely for the purpose of providing individual members of the BAS with an opportunity to formulate questions or concerns that could be conveyed to Vice Chancellor English in a meeting involving the BAS Chairperson, Vice Chancellor English and Jack Dahl. The Chairperson asked members to read the proposal over the weekend and then to bring their questions and/or concerns to BAS's Monday, October 7 meeting.

The subcommittee members were reminded of the October 6, 9-11 a.m. meeting in the Alumni Conference Room in Kettler. The agenda for that meeting will include a discussion of questions that the BAS members want clarified relative to the English emoluments proposal, follow-up discussion regarding issues raised in the Branson/Grote presentation, and discussion of the items which the BAS wants to work on during the 1997-98 academic year.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by George Bullion