February 21, 2003

Present: Tom Gieryn (Chair), Katy Fraser, Roy Gardner, Susan Gubar, Kevin Hunt, Deidre Lunch, Ellen Dwyer (recorder)

1. The meeting began at 2:30 PM with a brief discussion of the day's agenda.

2. At 2:35 PM, Chancellor Sharon Brehm joined the Committee to answer questions about the Commitment to Excellence proposals. She began by noting that the Strategic Planning Committee will continue to meet until the end of the calendar year. This past fall, it completed its hardest task: the setting of academic priorities for Commitment to Excellence funds. However, it continues to have a full agenda. During this spring, the Committee will discuss IUB's general priorities. Although at present Brehm lacks funding for these, she would like them articulated so that funding can be sought. In addition, next fall, it will discuss the establishment of benchmarks to ascertain the impact of funded projects and recommend how the strategic plan should be examined and reviewed.

The deans are currently working with their faculty to develop proposals that will be submitted to a nine-person Review Committee. Its task will be to rank the proposals submitted by March 7 and to develop funding recommendations by March 28. Such a timetable allows time for Brehm to consult the Budgetary Advisory Committee, the Council of Academic Deans, President Bepko, and the Board of Trustees before the final projects are presented to the Board of Trustees at the May meeting.

In response to questions from Policy Committee members, Brehm elaborated on the allocation of Commitment to Excellence funds, which will total approximately $28M in base funding by year five. Four million dollars have been set aside for financial aid and $3M for matching graduate fellowship funds. $11M is available for funding of faculty positions and $10M to cover other academic program needs. Since not all base funds will be spent right away (e.g., not used during the year that recruitment takes place for a faculty line), some base funds can be used to cover one-time-only expenses. Thus, $3M in one-time-only funds have been designated to cover INGEN-related expenses.

Many different funding decisions are possible: e.g., one-time-only money for one year; one-time-only money for multiple years, base (i.e., continuing) money allocated in any year without any further base funds, base money allocated in each of several years. Brehm hopes that it will be possible to have multiple yearly competitions for funding in order for programs to submit proposals at various times.

This year, CTE funds should be approximately $6M in base and up to $3M in one-time-only funds (i.e., a maximum possible total of $6M in one-time-only funds reduced by $3M for the INGEN expenses). However, as noted, it is possible to commit funds that will be received in subsequent years. The Chancellor hopes that the Strategic Planning Review Committee will recommend a mix of projects, both one- and multi-year, and a mix of types of funding, one-time-only and base. Brehm's expectation is that the strategic planning process and the CTE awards process will generate a great deal of creativity on campus, as well as dialogue within and across units.

Policy Committee members noted that most faculty do not understand the importance of faculty lines in this process. In response, Brehm suggested that this may be due to the speed with which strategic planning guidelines were developed, a speed that was necessary in order to establish priorities to guide the allocation of CTE funds. If the funds are to have a significant impact, they must not be used to sustain basic operations (which should be paid for out of regular income).

When asked how much latitude the Strategic Planning Review Committee would have to reshape proposals, Brehm replied that given the very short 3-week review period, she would recommend against the Committee's doing much of that. Certainly, however, if the Committee were disappointed that it did not get proposals addressing certain issues, she hopes that it will say so for the sake of future years. Her goal is to have funded some truly brilliant ideas and programs that will make a significant difference in the life of the Bloomington campus.

Gieryn commented that deans might not be interested in issues not under their direct purview but still vital to the campus as a whole. In response, Brehm noted her plan to have a set of general priorities established. Although she does not have a source of dollars for such projects at the moment, having them clearly stated will help her seek funds for them. Gubar noted the continuing need for additional space on campus. Brehm agreed that this is important but noted that new buildings require very large sums of money and must necessarily rely heavily on state allocations.

Livingston then asked Brehm about the projected size of the incoming freshman class. She reported that 6850 is the hard target for first-year undergraduate admissions, with the preference for 6750, which is the number on which budget estimates are made. She and the Committee then briefly discussed the ways in which out-of-state students (36% of last year's entering class) are recruited. They help both to diversify the undergraduate body and to provide useful tuition dollars.

There was next a general discussion of the University's efforts to attract and support top undergraduate students. Issues touched on included direct admit programs, merit scholarships, international experiences, the Honors College, activities in the residence halls, the pedagogical challenges of teaching large lectures, and the number of freshman classes taught by faculty members. If new faculty members are added as a result of Commitment to Excellence money, Brehm emphasized, it is important that they do not just replace existing faculty but actually improve the faculty-student ratio at IUB.

At 3:30 PM, Chancellor Brehm left.

3. The Committee turned to a brief discussion of faculty governance and the policies that guide shifts in the reporting lines of units within the College.

4. At 4:10 PM, the meeting concluded.