May 3, 2006

Present: Judith Anderson (chair), Simon Brassell (new member), Tom Busey (new member), Sandra Dolby, Hal Evans (new member), Roger Levesque, Patrick McNaughton (new member), Al Ruesink (recorder), and Rick Van Kooten. We were joined by Interim Provost Michael McRobbie, campus budget guru Neil Theobald, and transition team leader David Zaret.

The meeting convened at 3:05.

The CPC had requested this meeting with Provost McRobbie to discuss the way that capital priorities (building construction and major renovations) are established and in particular to learn why the so-called Humanities office/classroom building was not included on the list forwarded from the University to the state.

Theobald introduced the priority-setting process, passing out a copy of the Bloomngton campus "Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (Buildings)" dated January 2006. He noted that no Bloomington building projects have been funded for the last four years. Usually only about four projects get funded each biennium for the whole IU system. To be among these four, a project must typically have a "hook" such as being connected to an academic initiative. The Humanities office/classroom building ($48M) was second on the campus list behind the CIB building in January. It was removed completely from the list at levels above the campus before the IU building proposals for the biennial budget 2007-09 went to the state this spring. It is extremely rare for a campus to have more than one building on the final university list.

McRobbie discussed his impression of how the IUB building priorities have been presented and received over the past 6 years or so. His sense is that the CIB building and Multi-disciplinary Science buildings I and II can be linked to the Life Sciences initiative that the state is promoting. After initiatives are funded in this area, or perhaps after a science building III, it would be the appropriate time to push with the needs of non-science, i.e. Humanities and Social Sciences.

McRobbie noted that it may be easier to get money to renovate a building for Humanities near the center of campus, a building that is now being used for support activities. Support activities could be sited at a distance from the campus center in a building that is much cheaper to construct than anything built of limestone. McRobbie wants to help with a strategy to promote the Humanities building, noting that he had only yesterday received the Gieryn report dated July, 2005, and that the Humanities faculty has not yet developed an advocacy mode for it. Above the College the case for the building has not yet been made. It should include such things as a) statements about current space problems, b) recognition that if we want to attract the best undergrads, we must support our excellent Humanities efforts, c) possibly some linkage to the new General Education requirements being considered, d) the fact that science is very expensive and that we can potentially get a larger quality enhancement from a given number of dollars spent on Humanities than if they were spent on science, and e) how many students would be positively affected by improvements in our Humanities infrastructure. McRobbie noted particularly how helpful faculty advocacy for this project can be, and he suggested that the year 2007-2008 is the time when strategies to procure the building must be implemented.

Several factors could insure that the Humanities building stays on the list all the way to the legislature in the future. 1) The documented need for such a building needs to find its way to the appropriate power brokers in a timely fashion. 2) Key faculty members and the deans of the College must agree on the need for the building, as well as the size and type and location of the building. 3) If possible, substantial private funding for a major portion of the building should be found, so that the state can be asked for about $20M, less than half of the total. 4) Attention must be paid to the membership of the campus Capital Priorities Committee so that one or two of the four faculty members selected for it by the Nomination Committee of the Bloomington Faculty Council come from the College.

The three administrators left at 4:05.

CPC members then discussed the CPC posture on setting building priorities and considered strategies for insuring that the Humanities building rises to its proper place at the top of campus building priorities in future years.

The meeting adjourned at 4:21.

Albert Ruesink, recorder

Questions or comments regarding the minutes and actions of the College Policy Committee may be addressed to co-chairs Judith Anderson (anders@indiana.edu --855-3845) and Bob Becker (becker@indiana.edu --855-3014). Past minutes and College Policy Statements can be found at the CPC web page: www.indiana.edu/~college/faculty/policy/policies.shtml.