• Print

September 14, 2010

Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of September 14, 2010
2:00pm - 4:00pm
DUC 211 A & B

Present: President Eibeck, Francois Rose, Kelli Page, Chris Johnston, Ted Leland, Alex Schulte, Elizabeth Griego, Peg Ciccolella, Cathy Peterson, Patrick Ferrillo, Jin Gong, Gene Pearson, Matthew Downs, Mary Lou Lackey, Tom Krise, Patrick Cavanaugh, Dan Shipp, Robert Brodnick, Marcus Perrot

Absent: Nejat Duzgunes

Guests: None

Call to Order: 2:03pm

Minutes: Minutes for August 24, 2010 were approved

Revised Schedule for IPC (Continuing Item): The committee reviewed the revised detailed schedule for the year and found that the November 30th meeting was added and the October 26th and February 22nd meetings were moved up a week, to October 19th and February 15th, respectively.

Discussion of President's Budget & Planning Letter: The purpose of the letter is to explain to the Cabinet, Deans, and other Mangers of Budget Units how the planning and budgeting process has changed this year, first talking about Pacific Rising, the development of the 7 Priorities and how the budget process should take into consideration these priorities as well as the needs and issues recommended from the recent WASC review. The letter also discusses the reorganization and reconstitution of IPC as well as budget assumptions.

IPC will be looking at Restricted and Designed Funds, Auxiliary Enterprises, Multi-year Base Budget, Capital Budget as well as Incentives. Capital budget, usually for new facilities and major projects, is going to be a big transition this year. Sometimes the money comes from gifts or loans, or even a combination of both. Any loan means debt capacity, however and it is important to be aware of the impact it has on the annual budget as well as how the priorities should be set as to how the money of our dept capacity should be spent in terms of new projects.

The end of the letter gives some descriptions of the various budget assumptions that the university should consider, from revenue streams, enrollment, tuition, financial aid, endowments, gifts, grants, and in university-wide expenditures. If there is anything that makes a difference between a good university and an outstanding university, it is the size of its endowment. An endowment provides the supplementary revenue that is an addition to tuition and allows a university to go to that next level. University of the Pacific's current endowment is in between 190 and 200 million dollars. A simple rule of thumb is to say that a university is as risk if its endowment is less than one third of its annual budget.

Strategic Planning:
Review Mission, Vision, and Strategic Priority Statements:
During the Regent's Retreat, the Board reaffirmed the Mission Statement and decided to swap the bottom half of the sentence with the top to make it more powerful. A Vision Statement has also been crafted.

The Strategic Priorities are expected to guide the university over the next few years. A set of Strategic Priorities needs to be linked to an action plan, which takes campus input. It will be about a 12-month process before a strong plan can be developed on how to make these priorities happen. By next spring the new Strategic Action Plan will be finalized and taken to the Board in October 2011. President Eibeck discussed in detail the Strategic Priorities and the actions directly related to them, some of which are already in place, others just ideas.

Update on WASC: The President has set up periodic meetings of the WASC Action Team to come together to give updates on the progress in responding to the issues raised in the CPR Action Letter as well as reports on the EER inquiries. Assessment of Student Learning and Program Review is currently one of the biggest challenges. Interim Provost Ferrillo mentioned that the university needs to be able to demonstrate to WASC that it has a culture of Program Review with Student Assessment a part of it and that it is strongly believed in.

Update on Strategic Action Plan: The SAP is updated once a year, reviewed by IPC, then a report is given to the Board. It notes the status of each strategic action as well as progress being made, in terms of funding. It does not rate to what degree the action is complete. The committee decided to change 20.5 from yellow to purple because that action has been completed. This will be the last time the Strategic Action Plan will be delivered in its original format. By next October 2011, there will be a new Strategic Action plan aligned with new priorities, in a new format.

Adjourned: 3:27pm