Skip to content
  • Print

October 5 1998

University of the Pacific
Institutional Priorities Committee
October 5, 1998

Members Present: , Benedetti, Bialek, Cavanaugh, Chambers, Evey, Fletcher, Fox, Gilbertson (chair), Kelly, Marks, Marzette, Oppenheimer.

Members Absent: Myers.

Minutes of September 28, 1998 approved with the correction of the word "used" to "use" on the first page, 4th line from the bottom of the page.

Pat Cavanaugh announced that Ed Whalen would be speaking to IPC at the next meeting regarding Responsibility Centered Management. A discussion was held as to whether he should also meet with the Executive Board of the Academic Council. The provost indicated he would consult with Gene Pearson, Chair of the Academic Council regarding this issue.

Provost: Phil Gilberston reported that he was currently working on the Carniege Foundation letter. He indicated that Sandy Rux was working on comparative data and that a draft would be available soon.

Continuing Discussion
Action Item B.2 Educational Resource Center response to IPC concerns. Phil Gilbertson meet with Vivian Snyder regarding adequate outcome data. ERC agrees about data collection and is preparing to hire a doctoral student to do the kind of analysis IPC requested. It was suggested that it was important that they establish a model of future data collection.

Action Item B.1 the revised FY 2000 planning and budget assumptions was addressed. Pat Cavanaugh distributed a revised copy simplified into two categories: budget assumptions and planning guidelines. Item #4 under budget assumptions was discussed. Pat Cavanaugh indicated that this might drop the endowment spending rate below 5.5%. Currently we are in approximately the top third of endowment spending and the lower 20% of endowment support. The lower spending rate allows for quicker endowment growth. A discussion followed on whether this should apply only to unrestricted endowment, since the majority is restricted monies. If applied to restricted endowment this reduction would affect current projects. Though if applied to restricted monies the reduction of spending could increase the growth and pay out could still be higher. The idea of an endowment tax is one that has been discussed with the deans. It was decided to leave Item #4 the way it is and to bring restricted endowment up as a point of discussion.

According was added to the budget assumption heading between developed and to. Item #1 was changed under section a to read: While ensuring net revenues and academic profile are maintained or improved, gradually increase enrollment to optimal capacity. In section b, the academic was added before profile. It was decided to not put a number figure on the enrollment for Stockton Campus. That good enrollment management was important in maintaining revenues not just the number of students. If you increase your numbers, and it is with students who have a high discount rate the University could actually end up losing money.

Item #5 the word ongoing was changed to operating. A question was asked about how any operating reserve surplus is allocated. The answer was that it is either allocated or returned to the budget. IPC can recommend priorities for the surplus expenditure, however the final decision is the President's. Another question was whether there was an IPC fund for new initiatives. Since IPC is advisory they do not have a budget fund allocated.

Under planning guidelines Item #1 was changed to #2 and section b was omitted. Item #3 the last sentence was changed to read: For example new credential programs and post-baccalaureate programs will be investigated. Item #4 the in the first sentence was changed to it's, balance and mix was deleted and among was changed to of.

Item #5 was changed into two separate items. Student services was separated and the new wording reads: Following a systematic evaluation the University will improve the quality and delivery of services to students. Learning Assessment now reads: The University will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive student learning assessment program

Proposed Agenda Items
Dave Fletcher asked if this wasn't the time of year that IPC started to look at the current state of the budget. Pat Cavanaugh indicated that it was and he would have some information available.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.