University of Denver

Meeting of the Faculty Senate

October 12, 2001

Guests:

Annie Hoskinson, Director of In-event Production and Promotion/Campus Community Relations; Dave Madsen, Director of Sports Marketing

President Susan Sadler called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. The minutes of September 14, 2001 were approved as corrected.

Announcements:

President Susan Sadler announced that DU is considering purchasing the RTD Ecopass for students, staff, and faculty: Watch for further information later this month.

The Senate will host a Faculty Roundtable with the Chancellor, Monday, October 22 12:45-1:45 in 1864 Room, Driscoll Center.

Sadler welcomed new Senators from Political Science and Computer Science: Lisa Conant and Joel Cohen; and announced that Todd Well (?) was serving as proxy for Don Stedman, Chemistry. She explained that this meeting of the Faculty Senate will be primarily an informational one in which Senators will have the opportunity to discuss and ask questions about DU's general financial status.

Comments from Athletic Department Staff:

Dave Madsen discussed a recent meeting he ah with the Staff Advisory Council in which they discussed the possibility of recognizing a "Staff Member of the Month" at athletic events. He would like to do the same for faculty. A flier will be forthcoming. Sadler referred him to the Student Relations Committee.

Madson also announced special event pricing for faculty/staff as an incentive to have them attend athletic events. The Friends and Family 4-Pack includes four tickets in the faculty/staff section to home events for $99.00. Sports covered include men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and gymnastics. He explained that seats are limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. They will be on sale Oct 17-Nov 7 at the North Ticket Office (x2336).

Provost's Report on University Finances:

Bob Coombe explained that the University is in a strong position. A recent "Response to Economic Uncertainty" sent to the University Community from the University's Senior Staff requested that each division participate in cutting $5 million dollars from the approved budget for the next two years. This request is intended to ensure a stronger cash position for the University, and is no way an indication of current financial distress. According to Coombe, the era of dramatic revenue growth is over for DU. The national economy may not sustain further tuition increases. DU's recently set cap on undergraduate enrollment may need to be raised slightly, but on the whole income from undergraduate enrollments has stabilized. In addition, graduate enrollments are not increasing.

The requested savings are in response to the economy, which is not in good shape and probably will not recover quickly. There is currently no revenue shortfall. The Chancellor's request is intended to build up reserves and provide a stronger bottom line for the university. This is particularly important, given the University's commitment to building in the next couple of years. Bonds will need to be floated to cover the costs of construction on the Law School, since Johnson and Wales will not pay for the Park Hill property until they take ownership. Coombe explained that the merit pool for faculty/staff salary adjustments is being protected, although he is not sure of the timing of raises. They may not be available until later in the year (February).

Coombe, Ginger Beach and Julia McGahey are currently meeting with Deans to establish priorities and ascertain where expenses and fluid funds can be cut. Funds will not be taken out of the University's base budget. Salaries will be protected, although vacated positions will be filled on a case-by-case basis. This will ensure stability and sustainability, although it will decrease flexibility to some extent.

Questions and Answers:

Rick Leaman (Accounting) asked what monitoring process would be employed. He referenced last year's unexpected shortfall by the Athletics Department, and asked how such a thing can be prevented again. The Provost indicated that the Athletics issue is well known. Only half of their budgetary shortfall had been forecast. In the future, realistic budgets must be submitted for Athletics. He is having conversations with Dianne Murphy to come to a real estimate of what is do-able. He is more concerned about integrating Athletics with the rest of campus, especially since this is one of the goals of UPAC.

Chip Reichardt (Psychology) asked about the recent memo from John Dolan that proposed a dramatic increase in the cap for undergraduate enrollments. The Provost indicated that the true target for next year is 1000 total new freshman, as compared to 938 for this year. It is possible that undergraduate enrollments may roll up to 4200 over time, based on persistence.

Joe Szyliowicz (GSIS) asked what implications the current financial situation has for faculty salaries and raises. The Provost indicated that he was hesitant to answer, that the policy is close to being formed. There will be a merit raise pool. Szyliowicz: Can we be certain of fall projections if the economy continues to fall off? Provost: Yes. The current % salary increase is not keeping pace with the market. The hope--prior to the current situation--was to help adjust salaries in view of inflation and salary compression. Now it will be up to the divisions to supplement salary increases.

Tom Stephen (Physics) asked what would happen to the savings, if they were not needed. The Provost responded that they would remain in the asset base of the university and would be used to pay off deficits incurred in previous years. What is at issue is the bottom line of the university, and the appearance of the university's balance sheet. Debt service is already built into the operating budget, but the University must present a positive, sustainable bottom line if it is to continue its building projects.

Cathryn Potter (GSSW) expressed her concern about the budget transmittal document, indicating that the numbers (April) don't match yearend figures. She asked why an October document was based on April figures, indicating that the perception of lack of timeliness and inaccuracy might contribute to a lack of confidence on the part of the faculty. The Provost indicated that the April figures were actually the figures presented to the Board of Trustees (BOT) at their June meeting. The utility of the report lies in seeing what went to the BOT, and in seeing the FY2002 budget. Potter then suggested that the document should be distributed in June, when the figures were current, thus eliminating distrust and reliance on old, inaccurate information. Janet Allis indicated that the document had not been sent out in June because the majority of faculty members are not here over the summer. She suggested that if the document continues to be sent out in the fall, the "forecast" column be replaced with one labeled "Yearend Actual." The Provost admitted that the turmoil created by DU's administrative turnover has led to delay in distributing the information. He promised that in the future it can be sent out earlier, or sent out with a cover letter that updates the yearend information. Szyliowicz suggested emailing the document; Jack Donnelly suggested putting it on the Senate website.

John Tripp (Accountancy) asked what the university policy was about the Bookstore, in terms of funding, pricing, and subsidy. The Provost indicated that he was unaware of any faculty issues with regard to the bookstore, and asked those who had them to please make him aware of the problem. Tripp clarified his question by asking how far we can go on running down our customer base. The Provost indicated that there has been some discussion of outsourcing services on campus. He also repeated that if there are issues with the bookstore, he needs to know. Dennis Barrett suggested that examination of the Campus Bookstore might be included in the charge to the Student Relations Committee.

Susan Sadler asked if the budgetary initiative focuses primarily on the academic side of the University. The Provost explained that it was an across-the-board effort, applied even to those who report to the chancellor. Only Admissions is exempt.

Sadler closed the discussion by inviting all Senators to attend the Faculty Roundtable with the Chancellor, Monday October 22, 12:45-1:45 in the Driscoll 1864 Room.

Overview of NCAA Certification Process

Janet Allis, Chair of the NCAA Certification Steering Committee, provided history and background to the Certification process, and outlined its procedural framework. She explained that now that DU was a Division I school, it would need to compile a self study, in all 19 intercollegiate sports every 10 years, addressing a set of operating principles to that the NCAA standards have been met. There are four general topic areas, and four committees in addition to the Steering Committee, which includes 6 faculty members including Nancy Sampson, Faculty Athletic Committee representative.

Governance and Rules Compliance-Arthur Best, Chair

Academic Integrity-Susan Sadler, Chair

Fiscal Integrity-Leon Giles, Chair

Equity, Welfare, Sporting Behavior-Cheryl Lovell, Chair

The draft document is currently online, and will be available for comment until the site visit by an NCAA peer review team February 3-6, 2002. Response to the document is requested prior to its finalization on November 19.

Allis indicated that the certification process is a serious task, which lays for the University's Division I sports for the years to come. The University's policy is to provide more information than is called for to ensure full disclosure. Financial reports were distributed, Allis explaining that the statistics don't always tally because of differences in reporting format. The self-study will include University policies, practices, description, and evaluation, assurance of compliance, and areas for improvement.

Arthur Best reported that his committee had made an effort to answer all the questions asked, and then went on to analyze and answer the implications of those questions as well. Units on campus having a heavy role in terms of rules and guidelines include Admissions, the Registrar, and Student Financial Services. The report calls for a full job description of the Faculty Athletic Representative. The Senate needs to establish a new, ratified job description for this position. The NCAA is particularly concerned that the committee be able to document that the chancellor has paid adequate attention to Athletics.

Susan Sadler reported on Academic Integrity, explaining that Admissions is still working for DU. The same Admissions criteria are in place for Athletics as for all students. Areas of concern for her committee include: athlete travel and security, advising issues, course load requirements, and progress toward graduation. Szyliowicz asked for data on athletes' academic performance. Allis indicated that student athletes have a higher graduation rate after 6 years than students at large. The Office of Assessment has been charting their academic progress. Grade point averages are good; and the retention rate is high as well. Data requested by NCAA, however, focuses on admission requirements rather than on tracking success. Szyliowicz asked what evidence there is that sports can be effective while only admitting academically legitimate students. What are the financial implications? Donnelly suggested that Duke was a good model; Coombe indicated that Stanford was DU's primary model.

Leon Giles fielded questions about the numbers in the financial reports, repeating that seeming discrepancies in reporting are often a function of formatting requirements, which includes reporting Dianne Murphy's salary in two separate places. NCAA is not interested in Wellness, just Athletics. Giles also pointed out that DU does not assess student fees for Athletics, so there is not portion of the budget supported by the University. He indicated that the reports represent a complex effort to break the numbers out in ways that the DU system does not provide for. The University only budgets for direct costs; therefore expenses do not appear in the budget. Nor do maintenance or utility costs. Although the Ritchie Center revenue was originally projected to subsidize the DU revenue stream, this is not yet the case. In fact, the University will probably always have to subsidize Intercollegiate Athletics (ICGA) since there is no ticket revenue for Tier B teams, like Golf.

Sadler indicated that there are ongoing financial implications pertaining to gender and minority equity issues and to and student welfare. Jack Donnelly pointed out that a $5 million "hole" had been created by Athletics; and that the University is now being asked to cut back $5,000,000. He suggested that there was a correlation, and asked for an explanation. Sadler suggested that this was a good topic for discussion at the upcoming Faculty Roundtable with the Chancellor. Barrett corroborated her statement, and urged all Senators to attend the upcoming quarterly meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Deborah Grealy, Executive Secretary

10/26/01