• Print

November 23 1999

Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of 11/23/99 Meeting
Taylor Conference Room, Stockton Campus

Attendance: Borlik, Brock, Chambers, Fletcher, Fox, Gilbertson (Chair), KruegerDevine, Kubeck (Guest), Oppenheimer

Meeting convened by Chair at 3:07 p.m.

  1. Minutes of November 16, 1999 meeting were reviewed.
  1. On IV-A, the minutes need clarification on what the number of students per FTE IR staff represents.
  2. On V-B, discussion in the Council of Deans will continue.
  3. On V-F, "Staff" replaces "Requested" and "was discussed" was added on to the end of the sentence.

II. Division of Student Life Requests: Judy Chambers presented the following in order of priority:

  1. Disabled Student Services (DSS) is requesting a new salary and funding. This will allow a Federal Grant to serve its true purpose and address the needs of a growing University special-need population.
  2. The Counseling Center has several requests.
  1. Money is needed to expand hours to three per week.
  2. The position of Associate Director should be paid for four days per week instead of three, and ten months instead of nine.
  3. Secretarial help is needed to cover the extra hours of the Associate Director.
  4. The waiting area needs to be moved for patient privacy.
  5. Some modest help for staff training is needed.
  6. There is a need to computerize client input data.

IPC then discussed the small amounts being requested by the Counseling Center as possibly inappropriate for IPC. A comment was also made about an alternative plan for the waiting room proposal.

  1. The Career and Internship Center (CIC) is requesting money for office supplies and computers. Also, the full-time ESB position is also requested through Student Life (instead of through Academic requests). The question, "What happened to the money saved by combining the two offices?" was discussed.
  2. Retention Services has asked for money to substitute for a grant that will no longer be awarded. This has been taken care of.
  3. Multicultural Affairs is requesting funds for increased multicultural programming. As the University has been very generous in the past towards that office, this is not viewed as a high priority by Student Life.
  1. ASUOP Advisor Proposal (Dan Borlik). The student body is requesting that the University begin funding the Assistant Director of Student Activities completely. This will give more discretionary power of student funds to the students while clearing up the problem of having a position reporting to two supervisors. Discussion ensued.

IV OISR Requests: Lynn Kubeck came to answer some questions. Several points were made:

  1. There is a pinch point between OISR and Academic units.
  2. When new buildings go up, technology should be part of the costs of construction.
  3. Aggregate computing committees will discuss priorities for IPC, after December 2 meeting.
  4. On the request form, the numbers at the bottom show the real amount of money that was spent, in comparison to what was requested. Lynn says this was an attempt to show the real amount requested is smaller than it may appear.
  5. The reason OISR has to come in and request more funds is because the budget requests are based on operating costs, not one-time costs.
  6. OISR is trying to negotiate with Sprint to get long distance rates for residents go down.
  7. There is an urgent request for Enterprise supervisors in order to move to 4.0 on time before it is unsupported. The only time for the Finance Center to do this migration is in the Spring, so it must be installed with this year's budget.
  8. Staff/student ratio is still a question. Comparing Banner staff is based on modules, not size of the University. Trying to find the right amount of FTE for the population of the University in comparison to industry standard, which may not be a good measure. What are they doing in Claremont?

Next Week:

Still need to go over colored levels of the OICR Budget Request.

What about athletics?

Meeting adjourned at 4:56.