FA Home > Budget > SM&C Notes
— 12/6/05
BUDGET
SUB MEET & CONFER
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Please note: The agenda and supporting documents can be obtained
at Web site
http://www.mnsu.edu/finadm/submeetconfer/.
Attendees: Michael Bentley, Jean Haar, Nina LeNoir,
Victoria Peters, Linda Wenkel, Mark Parsley, Jerry Anderson, Mike
Hodapp, Lynn Akey, Kevin Buisman, David Cowan, Scott Johnson, Rosemary
Kinne, Steve Smith, H. Dean Trauger (Chair), John Winkworth and Margot
Zelenz
1. Discussion Items
VP Trauger reminded everyone that the MnSCU Board of
Trustees budget hearing would be held tomorrow afternoon in St.
Paul. He has not heard anything from other institutions regarding
the tuition rates they are proposing which is unusual. MnSCU is
also looking for supplemental funding from the Legislature to fund a
global educational and training initiative, expanded biosciences
programs, critical infrastructure and security technologies, and
unanticipated fuel costs. It appears they are trying to get away
from tuition percentage increases and use a dollar amount for a tuition
cap. Mike Hodapp heard that MSUSA came out with an 8.5% cap on
tuition. VP Trauger thought the Trustees would want a dollar
amount to even out the high and low tuition rates across the
system. Lynn Akey asked if there was more information on the
extra money to retain for compensated absences especially as it
pertains to revenue funds. VP Trauger will review the fund
reports and get information back to Lynn.
2. Capital Campaign Update – David Williams, Vice
President for University Advancement
Vice President Williams was invited to the meeting
to give an update on the MSU Capital Campaign. MSU had a capital
campaign a few years ago that brought in $39 million. We have to
raise money through an annual campaign, annual giving and a phon-a-thon
to contact alumni. We have a dismal percentage of participation
of alumni who give to MSU year after year—7%. Private schools
have more loyalty. VP Williams' area is working hard to improve
this number. We have not had an active planned giving program for
several years. This involves working with prospects to put MSU in
their wills or create trusts, annuities and insurance. We get
some money from bequests and trusts, but not what we would like to
see. Campaigns are short efforts to raise money, maybe three to
five years for payouts. In a campaign you try to reach your best
prospects to give big gifts. It used to be that 20% of donors
gave 80% of the money. Then 5% of the donors gave 90% of the
dollars. Now 2-3% gives 95% of the money in campaigns.
These are national statistics. We need to find the key donors who
are capable of those kinds of gifts. In a feasibility study you
take a needs list to best prospects with a third party (consultant)
asking questions about what level they would give and what needs on the
list they would give to. This gives an idea of what money can be
realized for a campaign and a goal can then be determined.
In this Capital Campaign we are looking at a $56
million to $61 million range. We need to ask three people for $1
million each before one will give that much. This means we would
have to ask 180 people for $1 million to get the amount we need for
this campaign. We have to count on people giving more than that
amount and some giving more than they have given before. Two
years ago they did a search and got "wishes" in the amount of $235
million. Over $100 million was for buildings. This was
brought down to the possible campaign scenario that VP Williams
distributed:
College of Business
Bldg. $32 million
Campus Beautification
$ 5 million
Endowments for
Faculty $5-$10 million
Endowments for
Programs $ 5 million
Scholarship
Endowments $ 5 million
Annual Giving
$
4 million
Total for Feasibility
Study $56-$61 million
One-half of this amount is for a new College of Business
building. This rose to first place because we have greatly
increased business credit hours, the MBA program should be taking off,
and the best prospects are in that area. Of the $32 million, $24
million is construction money and $8 million is endowment. MnSCU
is seeking maintenance construction money in endowments. The
Board of Trustees approved our request to self-fund the construction of
the building. We now have to get the Legislature's
approval. Two legislators have agreed to sponsor it—one in the
House and one in the Senate. Raising money has to be done within
five years. We need more than $1 million by early 2007 and
another $17 million cash to get going in 2008 and the balance by the
time the building is completed. Scholarship endowments should get
more than what is listed in the campaign scenario. The campus
beautification amount shown above may not be achieved. Other
endowments for faculty and programs are also important.
A task force of major donors came together to talk about who will be
contacted. We will know better what the numbers will be in March
or April. We will go forward to raise the money quietly.
The campaign is not announced until about one-half of the money is
committed. A consulting firm looked at the area to determine how
to do this. A pre-campaign audit has been very helpful. It
was asked if when a major campaign is being done it takes away from
other things we what we want to do. Are we raising enough money
to do what we want to do on an annual basis? We are
improving our return and making strides to reshape the Development
staff. There have been improvements in fund raising last year,
but we are not yet where we should be. We need new donors to give
and keep giving more and more. We are trying to do some things
that nobody else in MnSCU is doing or can do. The strategy is to
achieve this goal and then come back in the future and ask for money
for something else reminding them that we have given them one building
in the past. VP Williams is having a session on Professional
Development Day entitled "There Is No Pain Like a Campaign". The
$32 million includes the proposed conference center.
3. Review of Criteria for the Planning & Budget
Process
Budget Officer Rosemary Kinne and Jean Haar met with
sub group members Scott Johnson, Lynn Akey, Mark Parsley, David Cowan,
Karen Foreman, Jerry Anderson and drafted a "Three Year Program Quality
Review Funding Process" that was distributed at the meeting.
Scott Johnson mentioned that this document is a draft and needs to be
talked about. It is difficult to do new things if you always do
old things indefinitely. The criteria are to measure
programs. How are we doing? Do we need to improve?
The goal is to make things better.
The suggested criteria for the review process include mission driven
needs: opportunities and niches based on environmental scanning;
market demand; customer demographic trends; and relationship to
mission. There are different program justification/rationale
criteria for new programs and for existing programs. The program
justification/rationale for new programs are: identification of
quality indicators; measurement plan for quality indicators;
relationship to strategic priorities; resource needs; and program
goals. The new program is then approved or not approved.
When an existing program is reviewed, the program
justification/rationale is based on measured annual quality
indicators: satisfaction indicators; customer survey indicators;
balanced scorecard indicators; financial indicators; service levels
offered; and other quality indicators as appropriate. If it is
approved, a future funding decision is made based on accountability of
measured quality indicators. The process begins again in three
years when there is another program quality review.
Key measures must be determined. Every program should have
different indicators, but there may be common indicators across
programs. This quality review process does not pertain only to
academic programs. The common goal is to make all programs better
whether they are academic, service or business oriented, or other
functions at MSU. Feedback from the BSM&C members was
requested. Since there is a lot to evaluate, an evaluation group
was suggested. It was also suggested that the programs be
reviewed every five years instead of every three years. Other
program review processes are using five years, and they could be used
for this. Not all programs would be reviewed at the same
time. It was thought that every three years would be
overwhelming. It may be too quick to evaluate some programs as to
their relevance and quality every three years. In order to obtain
information one time and not over and over, a standardized way of
collecting it would be helpful—templates, forms to complete, putting
the information on a computer system so everyone can get it at the same
time and not separately. This would make it possible to take on a
task in a reasonable time. Five years allows enough time to
provide data, have different resources, and confirm where we are with
quality indicators to make the decision if a funding change needs to be
made. It is necessary to be sure data are accurate and
valid. External assessments could be used, but external agencies
may not be what the University wants to evaluate a program.
However, we could add or leave out what we want. It is very
important that faculty are able to set indicators for academic
programs. Faculty would still have very much input. The
focus would be on whether the academic program fits under MSU's
mission. There would be other indicators, not just a few.
It was stated that no faculty would want to review anyone else's
program.
A faculty member mentioned that if he were asked to do one more thing
about assessment, he would not be happy. They go through this
exercise every five years, and nothing ever comes of it. This
should be tied in to their five-year assessment process. Part of
the lack of change is that no information is given to anyone to make a
change. Programs are not producing what the outcomes should
be. Accountability has to accompany assessment. We have not
done this. In developing this draft we can put some of those
pieces in place. One person or a committee should not be in
charge of these decisions. It should go to Cabinet and the
Cabinet should make appropriate funding allocations. One person
would not have the knowledge and understanding of what decision to
make, and not many people would want to serve on such a
committee. Dean Scott Johnson said the review would be
philosophical and not critical. What are key indicators?
Start at an individual level—the department level. Here is what
we want to do and how we will do it. It hopefully will get
better. Organizations that have done this love it. People
are not threatened. It gives hope and direction for
improvement. It does not become a question of what need to be
cut, but what needs to be improved. It has to be more of a
grassroots effort. If your program is not doing well because of a
lack of resources, it gives proof of why you need resources. All
categories and criteria need to be made clear. The process must
not be cumbersome. It was suggested that MnSCU and legislation be
included in the "Mission" box. MSU's mission cannot be etched in
stone and needs to be dynamic. One of the processes might be
driven by what the students think they want in this institution as
opposed to us dictating it. It should not be so rigid that we
cannot adapt to the changing world. Mission-driven needs should
include MnSCU, Legislature, donors, students. We have to be more
responsive. "We will give you what you want" since we are more
tuition funded. Students expect higher levels of service.
This draft will be presented at the Joint Planning & Budget Sub
Meet & Confer on Thursday. Planning will also show a planning
office model with three different options. GE was looked at, and
its mission is "Customer satisfaction with no defects". Any
students we admit, we should have succeed. Need to identify why
they are not succeeding. Can track satisfaction also.
Different areas need to be enhanced: Admissions, parking,
registration, etc. The shortcomings are not necessarily the
individuals. It may be the system in place or what we have set up
that people are not as effective as they want to be. Everybody
wants to do better, but the processes have to be in place.
Everything must be very transparent so when difficult decisions are
made, the data are out there and nothing is hidden. Legislation
and MnSCU will be put into the "Mission Driven Needs" box on draft and
the review process will be changed from every three years to every five
years.
If anyone is interested in the articles the committee looked at to
create this draft, there will be links on certain Web sites including
the Budget Office Web site.
4. Other Items
Joint Planning & Budget Sub Meet & Confer
Meeting
Thursday, December 8, 2005 – 3:00 p.m. in CSU 253-55
Return
to the beginning
FA Home > Budget