• Print

April 30 2003

University of the Pacific
Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes, April 30, 2003
Taylor Conference Room

Members present: King, Olson, Gilbertson, Sina, Meer

Other Attendees: Brodnick, Perro

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Cavanaugh in Gilbertson's absence. Minutes of the April 23 meeting were approved as distributed.

REPORTS:

Provost: No report

Budget: At Stark's request, Cavanaugh said that the proposed list for allocations of some of the current fiscal year's budget was being processed by the Cabinet and could be reviewed with the IPC after the next Cabinet meeting where final recommendations for the first phase of these one-time allocations are being made.

Facilities: Cavanaugh reported that the Support Services program review process is nearing completion. He indicated that he would propose the consultant on the study present the report to IPC at its next meeting.

Advancement: No report.

Student Life: No report.

IT VISION

Some discussion of the IT vision and goals. Concerns expressed about how these goals differ from those articulated by the University community through the MVP. Would this create duplicative and/or confusing alternatives. Why is a separate set of goals needed for IT. Is it ITPC's role to translate MVP to technological needs and applications of the Univeristy?

ACADEMIC RESOURCE PLANNING: COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND HEALTH SCIENCES

Brodnick led the review of the characteristics of the remaining schools in the Academic Resource Planning Model: Eberhardt School of Business, Benard School of Education, School of International Studies, and Conservatory of Music.

Academic Resource Planning, School of Engineering and Computer Science

Issues raised:
The determination of "capacity" by the Provost and the deans are a key "given" in the ARP, but little is understood in IPC about the algorithm or elements evaluated to determine capacity. IPC should review the basis for calculating the capacity of the schools and the programs.

  • Program Review is a good place to evaluate program efficacy, but may not be the best place to evaluate program efficiency. Perhaps that is a more appropriate role for IPC.
  • SIS capacity evaluation points up the limitations of the ARP model, since projected changes in the capacity of SIS result in capacity issues being created in COP, e.g. modern languages, political science and other related fields. If SIS is to grow, need to look "outside the silo" because of the close interaction and dependence of SIS on other parts of the University. A more comprehensive and dynamic model is needed to analyze the costs - and opportunity costs - of alternative resource allocation decisions.
  • The ARC does not include the extraordinary adjustments contemplated through the second phase of the faculty pay plan. Given the large increases in the salaries of certain disciplines and schools, this factor should be included, since their impact can now be calculated.
  • "Contribution Margin" stated as a percent of gross income. Should consider stating the "contribution margin" as a dollar amount per unit, e.g. $ per Student FTE or $ per Student Credit Hour, to better quantify cost (or gain) per unit of output.

Next meeting will be May 7.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.