AGENDA

 

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

 

February 20, 2002

June 19, 2002

 

 

Executive Session

 

Approval of the Finance & Administration Committee Minutes for the January 16May 15, 2002 Meeting

 

 

22. Commissioner’s Consent:

 

      a.   Operating Fund Quarterly Reports for the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2001

 

      b.   Endorsement of New Set of Peers Institutions for Eastern Connecticut State University

 

3.   Action Item:

 

a.   Proposed Common Core of Institutional Performance Indicators for Connecticut Public Higher Education

 

3.   Information Item:

 

      a.   Asset Protection Program Results

 

4.   Other

Endorsement of Second Annual Accountability Report for Higher Education

 

4.   Information Item:

 

      a.   Highlights

 

 

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONTUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE

 

RECORD OF MEETING

 

Department of Higher Education

Hartford, CT

February 20, 2002June 21, 2002November 22, 2002

 

 

Members Present:      W. Bevacqua, J. Kemler, A. Meyer, F. Ridley, A. VertefeuilleSen. Cappiello, M. Meotti, A. Vertefeuille, L. Zollo

 

Other BGHE

Present:                        J. Bates, D. Brennan, J. Bates, D. Brennan, L. Cohen, D. Leib, V. Lewis

 

1.   Call to Order:

 

Vice Chairman Meyer BevacquaMeotti called the meeting to order at 10:049:359:10 a.m. a.m.

 

Vice Chairman Meyer requested that J. Bates and L. Cohen be temporary members of the Finance & Administration Committee in view of absent members.

 

2.   Approval of the Finance & Administration Committee Minutes for the November 21May 15,, 20021 Meeting

 

On a motion made by J. BatesA. Meyer, seconded by A. VertefeuilleF. Ridley, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the January 16May 15, 2002 meeting.

 

23

3.   Commissioner’s Consent Calendar

 

On a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by J. Bates, the Committee unanimously voted to move the Operating Fund Quarterly Reports for the Six-Month Period Ending December 31, 2001 to the Commissioner’s Consent Calendar.

 

On a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by J. Bates, the Committee unanimously voted to move the Endorsement of New Set of Peer Institutions for Eastern Connecticut State University to the Commissioner’s Consent Calendar.

 

3.   Action ItemAcceptance of September 26, 2002 Minutes:

 

On a motion made by L. Zollo, seconded by M. Meotti, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2002 meeting. 

 

3.   Chairman’s Report:

 

Chairman Meotti recapped the first meeting which took place on September 26th.  He reported that the Committee raised a number of important questions and issues that will frame upcoming meetings of the Committee. 

 

Chairman Meotti stressed the importance of a well-understood policy of what underlies state support and charges to students.  Issues need to be placed in a policy context to understand goals and why decisions are made to achieve those goals.  He noted that Connecticut is part of a national conversation on higher education tuition and fees and student financial aid policies funded by the Lumina Foundation. 

 

She will serve as a case study writer for the national Lumina project.  Department of Higher Education dto  :  4. Constituent Unit Presentations:

 

All units were asked to respond to specific questions with regard to students, tuition and fees and student financial aid during their presentations.  In addition, the constituent units have provided the Committee with documentation used internally and/or with their Board of Trustees. 

 

      a.   Community-Technical College System

 

Marc Herzog, Chancellor, Community-Technical College System (CTC System), reviewed their statutory mission, resources and enrollment information.  There had been an increase of 23.4 percent of FTE enrollment over the last five years. Thomas, Bradham, Director of Financial Aid Services, reviewed financial aid award policies and the typical “cost of attendance.”  Limited resources resulted in over $48 million in unmet financial need.  It was noted that dependent students who come from higher household incomes are given, on average, higher financial aid packages than independent students who come from lower household incomes because more of the dependent students are enrolled in more credit hours over the course of the academic year.  If the numbers were calculated on an FTE basis, the numbers would be adjusted.  A little over $.5 million came in for merit-based scholarships from foundations and third-party venders.  The change in enrollment at this point is an increase of younger students enrolled full-time.  Victoria Greene, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, CTC System, reviewed the tuition and fee process.  Chancellor Herzog reviewed the 2001 report card for employment and training programs, management focus and a record of accomplishments.

 

      b.   Connecticut State University

 

William J. Cibes, Chancellor, Connecticut State University (CSU), reported on the record high enrollment at CSU, anticipated changes in students over the next five years, factors considered in the setting of tuition and fees and models used in analyzing and setting tuition.  It was noted that tuition and some of the fees are set system wide.  The University General Fee is designed to pay for the cost of programs that are specific to the universities.  Chancellor Cibes reported that part-time tuition and fees vary and are market driven.  He noted that if the state were to go to the level of 65 percent of the cost of FTE, CSU would be in a position where it could effectively equalize the tuition and fees paid by part-time and full-time students.  It also was noted that the financial aid offices at each of the campuses develop their own packaging and awarding guidelines for financial aid.  The funding distribution formula is based on full-time students at each university.  CSU does not have any board-level policies, with minor exceptions, with regard to student financial aid and has not yet measured those differentiations.  Chancellor Cibes also reported on current tuition differentials, operating budget challenges and options for maintaining quality which include capped enrollment, increased state support and increased tuition and fees.

 

      c.   University of Connecticut

 

Philip E. Austin, President, University of Connecticut (UConn), reported that the biggest political challenges that UConn is faced with right now, other than their budget situation, is denying access to students because of the issue of space.  He addressed a broader concern over the list of questions the constituent units were asked to respond to during their presentations to the Committee.  He reported that inherent of the intent of those questions appears to be the following assumptions:  1)  There is not a thoughtful, analytical data supported process behind UConn’s decisions regarding student charges, 2)  Price is the sole measure of affordability and accessibility, 3) There is no place for merit-base need, 4) Tuition decisions are better driven by a bureaucratic statewide formula rather than the market place which clearly indicates that students and their parents are seeking not only affordability but also quality in their decision and 5) UConn’s policies are in need of retooling and that somehow the outcomes that they are realizing are not consistent with the state’s broader objectives.  President Austin provided responses to his assumptions.

 

Chairman Meotti noted that as often happens when people try to guess the ultimate intent behind matter-of-fact, neutral questions, they are frequently wrong in those guesses or inferences.  He stated that since he was involved in drafting the questions, as far as he is concerned Chancellor Austin’s inferences are all wrong.  The list of information was requested as background material by the Committee.  The Committee is a group of citizens interested in the issue of tuition and it was felt it would be a good opportunity for the institutions to come forward and present their take on this issue that would help them understand not only what is currently done but understand what the policy issues and considerations might be going forward.  He discouraged everyone from trying to guess where the Committee is going because a road map does not exist. 

 

Lorraine Aronson, Vice-President for Financial Planning and Research, UConn, reported on UConn’s budget strategy during this challenging environment, total revenues, proposed tuition and fee increases, national comparisons and student financial aid information.  UConn has reduced the average indebtedness of graduates from $16,800 to $14,400 in the past two years.  After some discussion regarding revenue sources, members requested a breakdown of figures of state support including student financial aid and “all other” revenue sources.  It was noted that it appeared that the difference in the state’s contribution had been offset by the increase of tuition over the past 10 years.  There was some discussion regarding the issue of slowing capital funding to increase state allocations.  UConn representatives believe without those investments they would not see other support (i.e., donations).  Dolan Evanovich, Associate Provost, Enrollment Management, UConn, reported on UConn’s enrollment and planning assumptions.  Enrollment has increased by 59 percent since 1995, and the Storrs campus is near capacity for its undergraduate students.

 

      d.   Charter Oak State College

 

Merle Harris, President, Charter Oak State College, reviewed institution and fee policy considerations, demographics, tuition and fee setting procedures and information on student financial aid.  She expressed concerns over tuition increases at the other institutions.  She reported that they are conscious of looking at their own costs in trying to keep them lower and provide the additional aid to meet those increases.  The average enrollment increase over the last five years is 3.9 percent.  She also reviewed fee setting procedures, percentage of operating expenditures from state support and financial aid history. 

 

5.   Identification of Additional Information/Resources Needs:

 

Chairman Meotti stated that Committee members may contact Commissioner Lewis, Mary K. Johnson or himself either by phone or email for more information or additional thoughts to help construct the next meeting agenda.

 

6.   Future Meeting Schedule

 

The next Tuition Policy Review Committee will take place on Tuesday, December 17th, at 3 p.m.

 

·            7summary of the key issues and questions that were raised during the discussions.  These will be used to develop a framework for meetingsspeak to committee W?of , What are salary levels and how to they compare?

·            y,

 and what impact have they had on cost increases?,  and, and want look at the issue of  or Are there or programs ?(physical facilities) the impact of eleRight now, tHow can higher education get Need to examine and Can Connecticut learn anything from the ?It was suggested that the constituent units address many of these issues possibly at the next meeting.

 

 

a.         Proposed Common Core of Institutional Performance Indicators for Connecticut Public Higher Education

Endorsement of Second Annual Accountability Report for Higher Education

 

M. Johnson reported that in response to recommendations of the Board of Governors for Higher Education and feedback received from the legislature, the Department of Higher Education in conjunction with the Performance Measures Task Force (PMTF) has revamped the accountability framework.  The objective of the redesign was to streamline the accountability report by reducing the overall number of measures being reported, addressing issues of consistency in measurement and focusing on the most critical external indicators.  The new framework structure consists of the following three levels of indicators:  state-level indicators, common core of institutional indicators and institution specific indicators.  The first phase of the redesign has been completed with the identification of a set of ten common core indicators arrayed across the six statewide goals.  M. Johnson reviewed the recommended common core of institutional performance indicators.  It is anticipated that a list of state-level and institutional specific indicators will be brought to the Board in September.

 

There was some discussion regarding the need for the PMTF to continue to look for more relevant measures that support goals four and five, economic development and the needs and problems of society.  It was further suggested that the possibility of performing student and employer satisfaction surveys five years out be evaluated. 

 

On a motion made by A. Meyer, seconded by F. Ridley, the Committee unanimously voted to endorse the set of Common Core of Institutional Performance Indicators for the constituent units and public institutions of higher education as provided in Attachment A.

 

5.   Information Item

 

      a.   Asset Protection Program Results

 

The Asset Protection Program was created to facilitate the repair, maintenance and preservation of the public's significant new investment in higher education facilities.  The project objective was to determine the present condition of our public higher education facilities systemwide (22.5 million gross square feet in over 500 buildings) through a comprehensive facility condition assessment that involved a physical survey of the buildings and its component systems by a team of qualified engineers.  VFA, Inc., provided this service to the Department of Higher Education.  Representatives from the VFA were introduced.  Lisa Raffin, Project Director, VFA, presented information about the VFA and the services they provide.  Tom Bart, Project Manager, VFA, spoke specifically about the project and presented the results.  He reported on project scope, building statistics, classifications, deficiency costs, costs by priority, etc.  The amount for all deficiencies listed by priority level total over $141 million for the 69 buildings covering 4.0 million square feet that were assessed.  Details are available for those who would like further information.

M. Johnson presented the second annual accountability report for higher education.  She reported that thise repor

 

harter Oak State CollegeOSCOn a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by J. Bates, the Committee unanimously voted to transmit Connecticut’s second annual accountability report for higher education to the Education Committee and to the higher education community at-large.

 

4.   Information Item

 

a.   Highlights – FY 2001-03 Mid-Biennial Operating & Capital Budget Adjustments for Higher Education

 

M. Johnson summarized the highlights of the FY 2001-03 mid-biennial operating & capital budget adjustments for higher education.  She reported that the Governor’s recommended general fund budget calls for $594.3 million for FY 2003, a reduction of $16.3 million from the original appropriation of $610.6 million.  It provides modest operating increases largely related to new facilities and the restoration of New England Board of Higher Education dues.  M. Johnson reviewed FY 2002 and FY 2003 adjustment summaries, and a summary of FY 2001 surplus reductions.

 

On the capital budget side, M. Johnson reported that the Governor made no adjustments to FY 2003 authorizations.  However, he is recommending the extension of UConn 2000 under a new program, 21st Century UConn.  In addition, the Governor renewed his commitment to extend both the Connecticut State University System and Community-Technical College System Capital Investment Plans for an additional five-years.

 

M. Johnson stated that the Appropriation Subcommittee on Higher Education will be held on Monday, February 25th.

 

5    Executive Session – Personnel Matters

 

On a motion made by A. Vertefeuille, seconded by A. Meyer, the Committee unanimously voted to enter Executive Session at 11:25 a.m. with Commissioner Lewis in attendance for discussion on personnel matters.

 

The Committee returned to public session at 11:30 a.m.

 

66..      Adjoournment:

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:3010:4911:12 a  a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary K. JohnsonMary K. Johnson

Secretary

 

/lml