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
February 20, 2002June 21,
2002
Members Present: W.
Bevacqua, J. Kemler, A. Meyer, F.
Ridley, A. VertefeuilleSen. Cappiello, K. Guay,
P. Halvorson, Sen. Hartley, W. Johnson, L. McHugh, M. Meotti, D. Yoia, 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 10:049:35 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 ItemCharge to Committee from
Board of Governors:
W. Bevacqua
reviewed the charge
from the Board of Governors to the Tuition Policy Review Committee.
3. Chairman’s Remarks and Committee Member Introductions:
Chairman Meotti, President of CT Policy
& Economic Council, Inc., introduced himself and briefly explained his
interest in the review of the
There was an introduction of Committee
members. In addition, Jacqueline E. King, Director at the Center for Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education was introduced. She will serve as a case study writer for the
national Lumina project. Commissioner Lewis reported that the Department of Higher Education Board of Governors was approved to received a grant to thatsupports the workings of the Tuition Policy
Review Committee. This grant will provide some financial help and the opportunity to enter in the
national dialogue and
get a federal
perspective on higher education policies. The Department , through the work of Jacqueline King and others, will participate simultaneously with the four other states to share . The other case states are
4. Summary of Current BGHE Tuition Policy and Related Background
Materials:
Commissioner Lewis presented
a summary of the current Board of Governor’s Tuition Policy and related background
materials. She explained why the Committee formed, state structural
deficiencies and what it means for CT higher education. She also reported on what national studies report, factors affecting tuition
increases nationally
and major
components of the Board of Governor’s Tuition and Fee Policy.
5. Discussion:
Chairman Meotti asked members
to talk in a general sense about the issues that the Committee would like to
address to help shed
light on the broader policies at stake. The following is a summary of the key issues and questions that were
raised during the discussions. These
will be used to develop a framework for listing of key elements that will be organized in a
framework for upcoming meetingsdiscussions:
·
Give constituent units opportunity to speak to committee present specifics about how they make decisions in regard to tuition and student financial aid. What are the current policies in place?
·
Need to examine Wwhat has caused the tuitions to rise
at almost three times the rate of
inflationary growth?.
What are
the factors in why tuitions are escalating at a much more rapid rate than cost-of-living
growth?
·
Need to focus attention on some of the
administrative costs
- transparency of to the expenditure base of higher
education. What are the administrative costs both currently and historically, and
how does
·
What are the costs associated with faculty workload currently and historically, y and how does Is personnel the biggest cost driver? When looking at administrative costs, IT costs
should be broken out.
·
·
What are IT costs and what impact have they had on cost increases??
·
What are the constituent units’ ideas in keeping education accessible, while preserving the infrastructure of education
and making it the most competitive?
·
Need to look at the three separate roles of the constituent
units. How are they different?
·
Need to address fees (including full-time vs. part-time fees). Are they different among the constituent
units and should they
be kept separate?
·
Need to address differentiation. Should
there be a difference in rates for different programs, different levels or job shortage areas? Do the constituent units differentiate now and, , if so, how, and or where do they want expect to do so in the future?
·
Need to look at the issue of address policy on need-based aid only or or need
based and merit aid.
·
Need to address faculty workload. How many courses are faculty required to teach? Are there differences among constituent units?
·
Are there Need to determine those course
offerings or programs that are no longer attracting students?.
·
Need to address bond issue in relation to education. Is
the state building
more (physical facilities) that it can afford to sustain?
·
Need to look at operating and capital investments,
historically. Is more money being put towards capital
improvements?
·
Need to understand the impact of what policy decisions have an impact on financial aid. Need to be able to model changes to determine effects on
families by looking at how numbers move by either changing state subsidy or tuition.
·
Need to look at the demands made by the clienteleal.
·
Right now, Tthere is an increased demand for higher education in
Tuition has gone up because the state is not meeting the percentage that it used to per student.
How can higher education get Connecticut needs to figure out how to get a
bigger slice of the pie.
·
Need to examine Need to look at student enrollment and demographic projections – from 1989-2008 to get a historical
perspective.
·
Can Need to take a lesson from State of .
·
Need to address issue of flexibility. Does the
state need to take
back control of how money is spent?
·
Should students pay to play sports?
Chairman Meotti stated any additional thoughts can be added from now until
the next meeting. If members have any additional thoughts, they
can be brought to
the attention of Mary K. Johnson, Associate Commissioner, Finance and
Administration, either by phone or email.
It was suggested that the constituent units address many of these issues
possibly at the next meeting.
6. Future Meeting Schedule
The next two meetings will tentatively
take place on November
18th and December 17th at
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.
84. 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 11:3010:49 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary K. JohnsonMary K. Johnson
Secretary
/lml