Skip to content
  • Print

March 1, 2011

Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of March 1, 2011
2:00pm - 4:00pm
Library Community Room

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

Absent: None

Guests: Yiwei Qiu

Call to Order: 2:06pm

Minutes: Minutes for the February 8, 2011 meeting were approved.

Finalize FY12 Budget Recommendation to President: Rose clarified that the emails received following the open forums were not meant for submission of new proposals. He mentioned that 7 appeals were submitted, one of which contained 2, leaving a total of 8. Among the 8 appeals submitted, 4 were new proposals and 4 fell within the long list of priorities but did not receive a recommendation for funding. Rose asked the committee to review these 4 and vote whether or not to recommend funding or to leave the budget recommendation as is.

Motion to approve the budget: Lackey, Johnston second
Discussion: Lackey proposed that the IPC vote to move forward the budget recommendations as they were approved at the previous meeting to the President and having considered the community's feedback and input, send all of the appeals to the appropriate cabinet members for their review as they move forward with how they apply the funds available within their budget.

All in favor of Lackey's Proposal:
In favor: 14
Not in favor: 2
Abstain: 1
Motion passed

Discussion of the IPC Budget Recommendation Process:
Cavanaugh mentioned that one of the issues with the current process was that there were no limitations on anyone's minimum and maximum number of votes. There should be limits as to how many votes can be made. Eibeck mentioned that an alternative would be voting until you have reached a certain dollar amount.

Krise suggested having a consultant come in and advise the committee on a voting process. He also stated that the committee should recommend how the materials should come up to this level and that guidelines be issued on the sorts of things they feel competent to rule on.

Griego stated that she would like to see the committee become more strategic by putting the University's goals out first and then rank the plans under them as a division. She also stated that there should be opportunity where they can look across the university and across divisional plans that might have the greatest opportunity to advance the University.

Peterson stressed the importance that faculty know they're being heard and that the transparency of the process needs to be clear to everyone. She also suggested that the committee come up with a way to communicate why certain decisions were made and to make sure that proposals have measurable outcomes and that there is accountability.

Pallavicini suggested that there be a committee that looks at academic programs, determines how they are doing, assesses administrative programs and operational programs and determines if and how they're meeting their goals and objectives. The outcome or analysis of this committee could come to IPC to be considered as part of the dataset IPC needs in order to make decisions.

Eibeck made a suggestion to consider delegating a sub-committee to put forward a proposal or two for consideration on the IPC budget recommendation process. Pallavicini, Krise, Shipp, Rose, Pearson, and Brodnick have volunteered to be apart of this sub-committee and all have agreed to meet this Friday, March 4, 2011.

Adjourned: 3:50pm