Provost Council
Meeting Notes
March 17, 2009
1:00 p.m. – ADM 101
Present: Soraya Coley, Jackie Collins, Mustafah Dhada, John Emery, Laura Hecht, John Hultsman,
Craig Kelsey, Linda Mikita, Beth Rienzi, and Edwin Sasaki
Excused: Julio Blanco and Jacqueline Mimms
Guest: Claudia Neal
Welcome and Review of Meeting Notes:
th
Provost Coley welcomed all members of the Provost Council and asked that any corrections from the March 4
Meeting Notes be forward to Linda Mikita.
National Incident Management System (NIMS):
CSUB Chief of Police Claudia Neal presented information on the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS)
and Incident Command System (ICS), (please see Attachment One). Training has begun with the Division of
Business and Administrative Services. Chief Neal asked that names of individuals within each department, school,
and/or division within the Division of Academic Affairs, including the Antelope Valley Center, be forwarded to Linda
Mikita for inclusion on the list of those to be trained in the NIMS and ICS in compliance with Executive Order 1013.
Provost Coley thanked Ms. Neal for her presentation and asked that names be forwarded as soon as possible as
she would like to have all the MPPs trained and completion forms on file with Human Resources by the end of
June.
Commencement:
The graduate hooding ceremony will be held at 6:00 PM in the Icardo Center on Wednesday, June 10. The
Commencement Ceremony for the Schools of Business and Public Administration, Education, and Natural
Sciences and Mathematics will be held at 7:00 AM in the Amphitheatre on Friday, June 12. The ceremony for the
School of Humanities and Social Sciences will be held at 7:00 AM in the Amphitheatre on Saturday, June 13. The
budget for each school, including all recognitions for graduates will be held to $4,000 per school. The Provost
asked each school to please scale back and to stay within budget.
NCAA:
The Executive Summary has been distributed to the campus and Open Forums are taking place for feedback. The
Provost asked that members of the Provost Council attend at least on Open Forum and respond to the feedback as
appropriate.
Announcements:
Provost Coley distributed several articles for review.
• CSU 2007/08 Support Budget (please see Attachment Two).
• A research University Copes with budget Cuts and Skeptical Lawmakers (please see Attachment
Three).
• Money and Management, Reasons Colleges Are in This Mess (please see Attachment Four).
Standing Reports:
• Campus Culture – Dr. Edwin H. Sasaki
Dr. Sasaki will distribute a new timeline related to the Strategic Plan and the feedback process as it
relates to WASC. All of the Strategic Planning Work Group Reports will be attached to the Capacity
and Preparatory Review Report which is due to WASC on August 11, 2009.
The next Open Forum Campus Climate, Civility and Collegiality will be on Friday, April 24 in the
Dezember Reading Room beginning at 3:30 p.m. Janet Millar has agreed to be the Moderator and the
following have agreed to be Panel Members:
- Soraya Coley, Administration
- Kris Grappendorf, PEAK
- Edna Molina, Sociology/Anthropology
- Debby Rodrigues, AVC Staff
• Master Events Calendar was distributed (please see Attachment Five).
1
Attachment One
Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, requires the adoption of
the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by all State, tribal, and local organizations as a condition for
Federal preparedness assistance (through grants, contracts, and other activities). NIMS is a management system
that provides a consistent nationwide template to enable Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, as well as
the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of
incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity.
• As part of the federal requirements, all employees who could be involved in responding to an
emergency or disaster must be trained in NIMS and ICS (Incident Command System, the field
organizational structure on which NIMS is based). To meet the requirements of the federal
guidelines and Executive Order 1013, the campus is responsible for ensuring those campus
personnel who could play a role in emergency response are trained and the training is
documented. The basic training requirements include two courses: One is an introductory
course to the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the other is an introductory
course in the Incident Command System (ICS). These courses are intended to familiarize the
employee with the organization and structure of NIMS and ICS.
• To comply with this requirement the campus must identify those key employees who could be
involved in emergency response and provide the above training to them. Both courses are
provided on line; one is approximately 3 hours and the other 6 hours. The courses are divided up
into several lessons and each lesson must be completed in its entirety before exiting the program.
The entire course must be completed and the final exam successfully passed in order to be given
a certificate.
• Once the course is completed the individual having completed the course will be sent instructions
on how to print out their certificate. They must print out the certificate of completion and get it to
HR in order for the campus to be able to document their training (which is also a federal
requirement and a requirement of EO 1013).
Claudia A. Neal, Chief of Police
California State University, Bakersfield
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 933111
(661) 654-2111
Fax: (661) 654-3194
cneal@csub.edu
2
Attachment Two
2007/08 Support Budget
Budget Proposal: Enrollment/Student Fees/Financial Aid
2007/08 Marginal Cost of Instruction
For each additional student that the CSU enrolls, the state provides funding at a marginal
cost rate to support direct instruction, academic support, student services, institutional
support needs, and plant operations. Prior to fiscal year 2006/07, the state’s share of CSU
marginal cost was based on a marginal cost methodology for higher education adopted by
the governor and the legislature in 1995 that encompassed average CSU program area costs
discounted by negotiated deflators. The 1995 methodology did not recognize increased fixed
costs associated with increased enrollment thresholds or actual new faculty hire rates in
addition to other funding deficiencies. The 2005 Budget Act Supplemental Report Language
required the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to
convene a working group with the CSU and the University of California (UC) to review the
1995 marginal cost methodology and determine possible modifications.
During the marginal cost methodology review that occurred in fiscal year 2005/06, the CSU recommended changes that
included requests to: (1) use the average new hire faculty salary rate, (2) reflect the optimal level of instructional support
students require in the student-to-faculty ratio (SFR), (3) adjust the unit load associated with full-time graduate study
from 15 units to 12 units, (4) eliminate current discounts for fixed costs, and (5) include funding for facilities operations
and maintenance required when student enrollment increases.
The legislature approved a marginal cost methodology for enrollment growth in the 2006/07 final budget that contained
a hybrid of proposals from the DOF, LAO, CSU, and UC. The methodology approved by the legislature included the
current average new hire faculty rate, changed the full-time graduate student unit load from 15 to 12 units per term, and
added a Plant Operations component to recognize the cost of maintaining existing space and opening new space to
support existing enrollment levels and accommodate enrollment growth.
The governor vetoed this methodology in the 2006 Budget Act, but sustained the state marginal cost rate enacted by the
legislature. The CSU will continue to participate in review of the marginal cost calculation methodology with the
Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the University of California, advocating the university’s
needs in covering the cost of enrollment growth.
Based on the marginal cost methodology approved by the legislature, the 2007/08 marginal cost rate of instruction for
the 2.5 percent enrollment growth (8,351 FTES) will be as follows:
2007/08 Resident Student Marginal Cost of Instruction Rate
Marginal
Budgeted Unaffected Cost
Amount Activities Per FTEa
Faculty salaryb $61,088 $61,088 $3,232
Faculty benefits 23,079 23,079 1,221
c
Teaching assistant salary 10,209 10,209 17
Instructional equipment 39,817,000 39,817,000 119
Instructional support 291,867,063 274,378,106d 821
Academic support 482,495,752 443,969,943e 1,328
Student services 370,356,558 370,356,558 1,108
3
Institutional support 525,623,520 370,648,670f 1,109
Operation and maintenance 479,385,553 324,499,566g 971
Total Marginal Cost $9,927
h
Less: Fee Revenue ($2,234)
State Funding Rate $7,693
a
Full-time equivalent
b
Based on fall 2005 average annual salary of all new professors and a student-to-faculty ratio of 18.9:1
c
Based on average annual salary of a full-time TA and a student-TA ratio of 608:1
d
Excludes costs for existing TAs
e
Excludes museums and galleries, ancillary support, and academic personnel development
f
Excludes executive management, logistical services, and public relations/development
g
Excludes physical plant administration, logistical services, information technology, major repairs, and lease
purchase
h
Based on the average systemwide fee revenue collected from each FTE student, discounted for financial aid
2007/08 Marginal Cost Program Detail
2006/07 2006/07 Marginal
Program Gross Retirement Cost
Final Budget Adjustment Factor
Instruction $1,764,399,000 $13,188,000 $1,777,587,000
Instructional Faculty 1,458,574,000 11,473,343 1,470,047,343
Instructional Support 305,825,000 1,714,657 307,539,657
Research 4,384,000 26,000 4,410,000
Public Service 11,456,000 51,000 11,507,000
Academic Support 507,474,000 2,915,000 510,389,000
Student Services 389,249,000 2,518,000 391,767,0008
Institutional Support 553,141,000 2,869,000 556,010,000
Operation and Maintenance of Plant 505,382,000 1,717,000 507,099,000
Student Grants and Scholarships 260,705,000 0 260,705,000
Reimbursed Activities 183,262,000 0 183,262,000
Provisions for Allocation 36,153,000 0 36,153,000
Gross Expenditures $4,215,605,000 $23,284,000
Less
Health Services Expenditures (6,485,000)
in Trust
Reimbursements (183,262,000)
Gross CSU Operations
$4,025,858,000
Appropriations
2007/08 MSN Graduate Nursing Student Marginal Cost of Instruction Rate
4
The MSN graduate nursing marginal cost rate is adjusted to reflect the higher cost of graduate nursing instruction and
includes a lower student-to-faculty ratio (SFR) of 10.5:1. The following table summarizes the 2007/08 marginal cost rate
for MSN graduate nursing enrollment growth (163 FTES):
Excluding Marginal
Budgeted Unaffected Cost
Amount Activities Per FTEa
Faculty salaryb $91,101 $91,101 $8,676
Faculty benefits 34,418 34,418 3,217
c
Teaching assistant salary 10,209 10,209 17
Instructional equipment 39,817,000 39,817,000 119
Instructional support 291,867,063 274,378,106d 821
Academic support 482,495,752 443,969,943e 1,328
Student services 370,356,558 370,356,558 1,108
Institutional support 525,623,520 370,648,670f 1,109
Operation and maintenance 479,385,553 324,499,566g 971
Total Marginal Cost 17,367
h
Less: Fee Revenue (2,234)
State Funding Rate 15,133
a
Full-time equivalent
b
Based on fall 2005 average annual salary of professors (adjusted for 2006/07 proposed salary increase) and a
student-faculty ratio of 10.5:1
c
Based on average annual salary of a full-time TA and a student-TA ratio of 608:1
d
Excludes costs for existing TAs
e
Excludes museums and galleries, ancillary support, and academic personnel development
f
Excludes executive management, logistical services, and public relations/development
g
Excludes physical plant administration, logistical services, information technology, major repairs, and lease
purchase
h
Based on the average systemwide fee revenue collected from each FTE student, discounted for financial aid
Content Contact: Technical Contact:
Budget Development webmaster@calstate.edu
Chris Canfield
(562) 951-4560
Last Updated: February 05, 2007
5
Attachment Three
A Research University Copes With Budget Cuts and Skeptical Lawmakers
By ERIC KELDERMAN
Tucson, Ariz.
To be at the University of Arizona these days is to be, in some ways, under siege.
The flagship university in one of the nation’s fastest-growing states may have to eliminate some 600 jobs and merge dozens of
programs to deal with two rounds of budget cuts imposed since June, and now the governor is telling the university and other
state agencies to prepare for cuts of as much as 20 percent for the next fiscal year.
The university had already begun last summer to look for ways to significantly overhaul its operations, but those changes alone
won’t be enough to offset the reductions in state aid.
University leaders feel their core mission is at stake, as they struggle to make a case for the public value of a research
university to a governor and key legislators who have found success in life without having earned a four-year degree.
The reductions threaten to become so severe that some higher-education officials say they may even violate a requirement in
the State Constitution that public higher education be “as nearly free as possible.” To offset the loss in state aid, the university
may decide it needs to raise tuition, which has already increased by nearly 10 percent per year over the past decade.
For their part, legislators say their hands are tied. Laws direct how two-thirds of the state’s budget must be spent, leaving the
Legislature little choice but to cut from discretionary dollars that go to higher education in order to close billions of dollars of
budget gaps. Relief could come from the federal stimulus package or proposed state tax increases, but some lawmakers still say
universities should be more efficient by, for example, making better use of technology and distance learning to provide more
degrees at a lower cost to students and the state.
Exceptional Struggles
Arizona is hardly alone in facing tough choices. All but a handful of states are projecting budget shortfalls, and universities
across the nation are facing similar—though typically smaller—cuts.
The extent of the economic troubles Arizona faces, however, is extraordinary. The revenue shortfall for the 2009-10 budget is
estimated to be 28 percent of the state’s general fund, the second-highest percentage gap in the nation, behind Nevada,
according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. State tax revenue in Arizona is not expected to rebound to 2007-8
levels until the 2011-12 fiscal year, according to a recent report from the state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
So far, the state’s universities have taken more than their share of budgetary pain. At the beginning of this fiscal year,
lawmakers trimmed nearly 5 percent from the higher-education budget. Then, facing a midyear gap of $1.6-billion in January,
legislators cut an additional 13 percent, or $141-million, from the state’s three public universities, the largest dollar amount cut
from any single area in the state budget. The estimated budget gap for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, is $3-billion.
One problem with the state’s finances is that more than 45 percent of its revenue comes from sales taxes, which are normally
bolstered by large numbers of tourists and by retired residents. That proportion jumps to nearly 60 percent when levies on
alcohol, insurance premiums, and amusements like movies or sporting events are included, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Consumer retrenchment has hit the state hard: Sales-tax revenue was down 16 percent in December from the same month the
year before and is more than 10 percent lower for the first six months of the budget year compared with the same time period a
year ago, according to the Arizona Department of Revenue.
6
The bursting of the mortgage bubble has halted new-home and commercial construction, driving up the state’s unemployment
rate to 7 percent in January. While that is below the national average, Arizona lost more than 166,000 jobs over the past year,
the sixth-highest number in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Political Hurdles
In the face of the state’s economic struggles, Arizona legislators from both parties say there is no choice but to make sacrifices.
But some areas, like elementary and secondary education, are more protected than colleges because the Legislature is required
to follow spending formulas for them, said State Sen. Jonathan Paton, a Republican and graduate of the University of Arizona.
What’s more, he said, the rate of increase in spending required by those formulas will outpace the projected rate of increase in
state revenue in each of the next several years.
The Senate minority leader, Jorge Luis Garcia, a Democrat with degrees from both the University of Arizona and Arizona State
University, said higher education was a priority for members of his party, but it still did not take precedence over services like
health care for low-income families.
Tommy Bruce, president of the University of Arizona’s student association, understands that the state has other needs, but he
argued that cuts in higher education undermine the state’s future. “When it comes down to it, our state needs to get creative
about ensuring long-term economic growth,” he said.
Some students and administrators on Arizona’s public campuses, and even some lawmakers, say there is a persistent bias
against the universities in the Legislature. Some lawmakers believe that higher education is a private benefit and not the
responsibility of government, said Robert N. Shelton, president of the University of Arizona.
A small but influential group of Republicans in both chambers has taken strong stances against the universities, calling
appropriations to help pay for research partnerships between businesses and colleges “corporate welfare” and railing against
the salaries of some university leaders.
Other university advocates say that negative views of higher education in the Legislature are the result of some members’
limited college experiences. A number of key legislators, including the Senate president and majority leader, do not hold
bachelor’s degrees. Gov. Janice K. Brewer, a Republican, also does not have a bachelor’s degree, although she earned a
professional certificate as a radiological technician.
“I think that unless you have lawmakers that have a history with higher education, it’s going to be harder to get them interested
in it, and the value of it,” Senator Paton said.
Rep. Vic Williams, a Republican who lists a GED and “some college” in his biography, said the question of whether
lawmakers without four-year degrees were biased against the universities was “inappropriate” and “inflammatory.” But he
asked college officials to work with legislators to find a balanced solution to the state’s budget shortfall.
Higher-education advocates also face an uphill battle with some lawmakers who have degrees but also have strong ideas about
how the universities are, or should be, operating.
“If you saw someone traveling to work in the morning on an ox pulling a cart, that’s my mental image of the education
system,” said State Sen. John Huppenthal, a Republican and chairman of the Senate Education Accountability and Reform
Committee. Mr. Huppenthal, who has an M.B.A. from Arizona State University, said he wasn’t “hostile fiscally” to
universities, but he was skeptical of the individual economic benefits of a college degree.
Rep. Rich Crandall, a Republican and the chairman of the House Education Committee who holds degrees from Brigham
Young University and the University of Notre Dame, said he understood the economic benefits that large universities have on
their communities and might be in favor of increasing some taxes to repair the state budget. But he said institutions need to do
more to improve, such as by making more courses available online. “The question becomes, Are you adapting to the changing
world?” he said.
7
Pulling Back in Tough Times
The University of Arizona is adapting to dwindling state aid by dumping degree programs that graduate too few students and
limiting programs to areas in which the university thinks it can become a national leader. The goal of the university’s approach
is to cut spending on administrative operations and increase overall revenue by ensuring that it is competitive for research
money in key areas. The university had nearly $270-million worth of federally financed research in 2007.
“I think we’re finally going to make hard decisions … and say we can’t just be a great university in all areas,” said Paul R.
Portney, dean of the university’s Eller College of Management. Mr. Portney leads a group of deans who are planning what
programs the university will keep or jettison as it develops a new area of focus on environmental research and policy.
The state’s Board of Regents, which governs the University of Arizona and the state’s two other public universities—Arizona
State and Northern Arizona Universities—has also approved the institutions’ request to bolster revenue by increasing limits on
the proportion of undergraduates from out of state from 30 percent to 40 percent, beginning next fall. Tuition for out-of-state
students is more than three times the price for in-state students at all three institutions.
But there are some things the University of Arizona says it won’t do. Despite pressure from lawmakers, the university won’t
dilute its focus on research by adding more online and distance learning, says Meredith Hay, the executive vice president and
provost. The university is one of 62 top research universities that are members of the Association of American Universities. It’s
the only one in Arizona.
“The core of our experience … is getting students into the laboratory experience and working with professors,” Ms. Hay said.
“It’s that face-to-face experience.”
The full extent of the university’s effort to reinvent itself is still being planned by Ms. Hay and a group of deans, who began to
solicit suggestions from faculty and staff members in October. So far administrators have decided to consolidate four of the
university’s 20 colleges—Fine Arts, Humanities, Science, and Social and Behavioral Sciences—into one College of Letters,
Arts, and Science.
University officials expect their plan to save as much as $12-million over two years. But the savings, which equal less than 2
percent of the state’s appropriations to the university, go only a small way toward offsetting expected cuts.
Declining Morale on the Campus
To deal with the Legislature’s midyear cuts, the University of Arizona says it will have to eliminate 600 positions through
attrition and layoffs, merge or consolidate as many as 50 academic and administrative programs, and cut all program budgets
by 5 percent.
No final decisions have been made about which majors will be dropped, but several degrees in physics, secondary education,
and the fine arts are being considered because they have produced too few graduates in recent years. Ms. Hay said the
university was concerned that a classroom with five students, for example, was not cost-efficient.
But the short-term budget cuts and the long-term plans being made to trim the university’s offerings are taking a toll on the
campus.
“Morale is obviously really down,” said Maurice J. Sevigny, dean of the College of Fine Arts. “We’re running out of things to
consolidate.”
Jeff Goldberg, interim dean of the College of Engineering, said that in some cases the university would be limiting students’
options without saving much money because even if the majors are dropped, many of the courses will remain. For example,
majors in engineering mathematics and engineering physics, which are both being considered for elimination, rely on existing
courses in both engineering and mathematics.
Cuts in programs may also drive some students away, including nonresidents the university wants to attract. “I have friends
who are from out of state who won’t be continuing,” said Elma Delic, a sophomore studying journalism. “If they have to pay
so much and so many things are being cut, then they say it isn’t worth it anymore.”
8
Even officials who oversee the plan are concerned about whether the reduced number of faculty members and pared academic
offerings will meet the educational needs of a state with few institutions and a lot of students.
The population of Arizona grew by 23 percent from 2000 to 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and the number of
high-school graduates is projected to increase by about 29 percent over the next decade.
“It’s a very challenging time,” Ms. Hay said. “We’re ultimately decreasing numbers of faculty at the same time we’re
increasing enrollment.”
Possible Resolutions
As they consider how to respond to the economic situation, lawmakers say the dire economic conditions could make it
politically feasible to support tax increases.
To close the budget gap for next year, Governor Brewer, who took over in January when President Obama tapped her
predecessor, Janet Napolitano, to be his Secretary of Homeland Security, has told lawmakers she supports a $1-billion increase
in taxes in each of the next three years, along with $1-billion in spending cuts. The governor proposes to cover the final billion
of the state’s shortfall for the 2010 fiscal year with federal stimulus money.
Ms. Brewer has not recommend specific tax increases, but two possibilities floated by legislators in recent weeks include
allowing the state’s property tax to go back into effect after being suspended for three years and increasing the sales tax by 1
cent.
While the flagging economy could give lawmakers political cover, any tax increase would require approval by two-thirds of
the Legislature, and many lawmakers from both parties have signed a no-new-tax pledge.
If there is no long-term fix for higher-education financing, the Board of Regents is considering a plea to voters or the courts for
more state money. Officials of the board said they might pursue a ballot measure that would ask voters to dedicate tax dollars
to universities, or they may look into suing the state, charging that it is violating the Arizona Constitution by inadequately
supporting higher education.
Fred DuVal, a regent, said the decision to make one of those moves could come within a year.
“At the point when we move from a state-supported system to a state-assisted system, do we have a constitutional violation?”
Mr. DuVal asked. “The goal is not to drop a bomb on the Legislature. It’s a move to hold the Constitution out as a model.”
9
Attachment Four
From: The Chronicle of Higher Education – March 13, 2009
Reasons Colleges Are in This Mess
―It’s a mess out there. The stock market has plunged more than 50 percent from its October 2007 high. Donations
are down. Colleges are laying people off. And countless academic programs—even entire campuses—are on the
chopping block. In some ways higher education has been a victim of these troubled times. But colleges also
deserve part of the blame. Here’s the story of how greed, incompetence, and neglect led to bad decisions.
1. Took on Risky Investments
David F. Swenson is a rock star among endowment managers, and many colleges have tried to duplicate
his successes.
With a portfolio heavy on hedge funds and private equity, Yale University’s chief investment officer
averaged annual returns of more that 16 percent for 20 years. Yale’s endowment reached $23-billion last year.
Times have changed. Yale officials say a quarter of the value of its investments have evaporated. The
university is considering layoffs and delaying construction projects.
The pay will be deeper for most imitators of the Yale model, who have far less cushion.
Mr. Swensen has said the diversity of his model will pay off in the long run. But he acknowledges that most
colleges lack the resources to have properly followed his lead.
2. Sloughed Off as Trustees
By most accounts, the glory days of rubber-stamp governing boards have passed. But the shocking tale of
Bernard J. Madoff and J. Ezra Merkin, two trustees of Yeshiva University who allegedly defrauded the
institution—and many other investors—suggest that some boards are still nodding off on the job.
Trustees are fiduciaries, responsible for ensuring that colleges have sound finances. They must push back
when administrators take on risky debt or allow an institution to become too tuition-dependent. That clearly has
not happened at many colleges. Even worse, some board members (Mr. Madoff was treasure of Yeshiva’s
board) continue to have conflicts of interest.
3. Relied on Cheap Credit
Colleges have assumed tens of billions of dollars in new debt over the past decade in pursuit of better
facilities and expectations of growth. Many of these saved millions in interest payments with the bond-market
equivalent of adjustable-rate mortgages. But when the credit markets seized up last fall, those low-interest
bonds and loans, on which they had banked their futures, suddenly became a lot more expensive to carry.
Institutions with healthy reserves have managed their way through—though certainly at a price.
Even under the best of circumstances, there are costs to refinancing variable-rate debt and unraveling
complicated ―swap‖ agreements. Some institutions, like the Colorado School of Mines and Simmons College,
with fewer resources to fall back on, have seen their credit ratings downgraded. The price of cheap credit may
soon be measured in program cuts and job losses.
4. Failed to Play Well With Others
Millions of workers have lost their jobs in recent months. But tenured professors are hard to fire. And
some powerful faculty unions have resisted when colleges asked their members to teach more classes, despite
what seemed like reasonable requests.
The faculty at Kean University, for example, balked last year when administrators tried to require
professors to teach on Fridays and some Saturdays. The public university, located in New Jersey, was facing a
$4.5-million cut in the state’s contribution and was trying to get more use out of classroom buildings.
Faculty members considered the proposal an assault on their autonomy and a retaliation for a previous
squabble with administrators. Since then Kean has postponed several construction projects and raised in-state
tuition by about 8 percent.
5. Overbuilt
For more than a decade, colleges have had a tremendous appetite for building. According to Sightlines, a
company that analyzes space utilization on more than 200 campuses, 14 percent of those colleges’ buildings
have been build in the past 10 years. Among research institutions, the proportion is even higher.
Many motivations have led to this building boom, but often a key driver is the quest to impress prospects,
whether faculty members or students (and their parents). Energy-intensive research buildings. Swanky
10
residence halls. Climbing walls. Olympic-size swimming pools. They are like the expensive cars that real-
estate agents drive—they project an image of success.
What kind of future have these colleges built for themselves? A burdened one. The bulk of the cost of any
building comes after it is built—in the energy needed to run it and the maintenance needed to keep it
functioning. Those happen to be costs that well-heeled donors are unlikely to support, whether their names are
on the buildings or not.
Deferred maintenance is already a problem in higher education, running into the hundreds of millions of
dollars at many institutions. In the building booms, many colleges have merely added to infrastructure they
already cannot support.
6. Bowed to Boosters
Many voices stoke lofty gridiron ambitions. Trustees and politicians often clamor for a good football team,
particularly at flagship public universities. Even governors have been known to meddle in coaching decisions.
But big-foot boosters like Philip H. Knight, at the University of Oregon, and T. Boone Pickens, at Oklahoma
State University, often call the shots. Viewing themselves as majority stockholders in a company, some high
fliers browbeat administrators into making accommodations for king football.
Scores of fancy facilities were built on donors’ pledges. But with the donors’ bank accounts taking a dive,
it’s the universities that will pay.
7. Stumbled at the Statehouse
Even in good times, competition for state money can be tough, as some lawmakers charge that colleges
waste tax money on pretty buildings and underworked faculty members.
It can be much worse during economic downturns, when higher education must compete for scarce dollars
against elementary schools and health care for low-income families, among other needs.
More colleges are finally waking up to a well-known reality: Politics is the art of compromise. The
University of Arizona hopes to appease state lawmakers by consolidating more than a dozen colleges and
eliminating dozens of majors that produce few graduates. The university has also assembled a team of
economists and policy experts to present budget alternatives to lawmakers.
Not so in neighboring Nevada, where the university system’s chancellor, James E. Rogers, has waged a
bitter public battle with Gov. James Gibbons over his proposed 36-percent cut to the system’s budget. While
legislators may not go along with the governor’s entire plan, Mr. Roger’s fiery rhetoric may leave hard feelings
after he steps down this year.
8. Led With Unchecked Ambition
Building booms and hiring sprees can be fine during flush times. But a recession requires a president who
can say no, not one who pads his résumé at the college’s expense.
Some observers say an abundance of ambition helped bring down John D. Petersen, who last month
announced his resignation as president of the University of Tennessee. The system is facing a budget deficit of
up to $100-million, which it says could result in 700 layoffs. Apart from Mr. Petersen’s commitment to the
university, some critics say he was too focused on research and expensive growth.
―We are really struggling to meet core competencies,‖ says John Nolt, a professor of philosophy on the
flagship campus, in Knoxville, and chairman of the Faculty Senate.
9. Failed to Find a Niche
Small private colleges that have failed to differentiate themselves will face increasing obstacles as the
student population shrinks.
Tuition-driven private colleges that have not established a firm identity will lose prospective students to
those that have staked out a clear market position, as well as to lower-cost public universities, community
colleges, and for-profit institutions, which are nimble at marketing.
Pamela Fox, president of Mary Baldwin College, says the key to staking out turf is doing it within the
college’s mission. For Mary Baldwin, that means adding a personal touch to both a traditional women’s
campus and adult education centers. Colleges must clearly show that they add value beyond their liberal-arts
core, she says: ―That’s the gravy that goes with your meat and potatoes.‖
10. Ignored Customers’ Needs
Dormitories and the campus quad are images of America’s higher-education past that now apply to only a
minority of students. Today’s college students are older, often have jobs, and are less likely to be white. Many
are not interested in a traditional residential experience.
What’s more, as the nation’s population growth has shifted to the South, the numbers of potential students
who can pay full freight are now more often located in hot spots like suburban Dallas and Atlanta.
11
Colleges that have paid close attention to those shifts are generally in decent shape. Leading that pack are
for-profit institutions, most of which have healthy bottom lines despite the recession.
The colleges that succeed in this evolving new world will be the ones that aren’t afraid to try new ideas, like
setting up out-of-state branch campuses, spending more on strategic advertising, and building partnerships
with community colleges.
11. Built Duplicative Centers
Universities love nanotechnology laboratories. Biotech ones, too. And while some of those labs may reap
benefits for the institutions and for society as a whole, it’s a safe bet that the country has many more nanotech
and biotech facilities than it can support.
So, too, with a host of other research ventures, many of which quickly prove redundant or unproductive.
With fewer federal grants available, these centers are often a drain on a university’s finances, drawing
resources that could be used for student financial aid or faculty raises.
12. Overcommitted Their Budgets
Much of higher education lived high on the hog for the five years before the credit implosion of 2008.
Endowment returns averaged 17.2 percent across the industry in 2007, and state budgets were flush.
While few budget planners could have foreseen the scope of this financial crisis, those who set money
aside in recent years are much better off today.
Experts say the most serious mistake colleges made was to commit almost every dollar of their projected
income to capital and operating expenses. Institutions that made overly optimistic building plans and other
commitments are much likelier to be laying off employees or slashing budgets now.
13. Stymied Accountability Efforts
When the Bush administration’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education aimed to bring more
accountability to colleges and universities, the only member of the panel who refused to sign the document was
David Ward, who represented the nation’s biggest higher-education group.
It was a clear act of defensiveness.
College lobbyists eventually succeeded in killing the commission’s proposal to develop a national system to
track the progress of each student in the country. They also resisted efforts to make the accreditation process
more open and to establish a consumer-friendly database that would allow parents, students, and policy
makers to compare institutions. Instead, the higher-education associations decided to build their own online
tools—except they couldn’t agree on a model. So the public colleges created one system, and the private
institutions another.
Left unchecked, college costs have continued to rise, along with student debt. Some for-profit lenders
pushed loans that few students understood while some financial-aid officers stood silently by. New York’s
attorney general later accused dozens of colleges and alumni associations of taking kickbacks, and financial-
aid officers of accepting consulting fees and stock options from lenders.
12
Date Event Notes
September 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 Provost Council Retreat 8:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Castle & Cook
Lounge
Thursday, September 04, 2008 Provost Council Retreat 8:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Castle & Cook
Lounge
Monday, September 08, 2008 University Day 8:30 AM in Doré Theatre
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Friday, September 12, 2008 President's Faculty Reception 5:30 PM at Science III Patio
Monday, September 15, 2008 First Day of Classes
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
October 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 Provost Council 10:00 AM in ADM 101
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
November 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 Veteran's Day Holiday
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Department Chair Leadership Academy 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Friday, November 21, 2008 Last Day of Classes
Thursday, November 27, 2008 Thanksgiving Day Holiday
Friday, November 28, 2008 Lincoln's Birthday - Moved Holiday
December 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008 Commencement 10:00 AM H&SS - 2:00 PM BPA, ED, and NSM at Icardo
Center
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, December 03, 2008 Breakfast with Bakersfield College Counterparts 8:00 AM in Stockdale Room
Monday, December 08, 2008 President's Holiday Reception 3:00 pm in Runner Café
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Thursday, December 25, 2008 Christmas Day Holiday
13
Friday, December 26, 2008 President's Day - Moved Holiday
Monday, December 29, 2008 Admission Day - Moved Holiday
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 Columbus Day - Moved Holiday
Wednesday, December 31, 2008 Campus Closed Must use personal or vacation day
January 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009 First Day of Classes
Thursday, January 08, 2009 Begin Honorary Doctorate Process
Monday, January 19, 2009 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Holiday
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Friday, January 30, 2009 Future Search Presentation Tea 2:30 PM in Stockdale Room
February 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009 Begin Commencement Speaker Selection
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 University Strategic Planning Steering Committee 7:30 AM in Multi-Purpose Room, Student Union
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Thursday, February 19, 2009 WASC Ed.D. Review
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
March 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 University Strategic Planning Steering Committee 7:30 AM in Stockdale Room
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Last Day of Classes
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
14
Monday, March 23, 2009 Spring Break
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Cesar Chavez Day Holiday
April 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 Work on Capital Planning Request
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 First Day of Classes
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, April 07, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
May 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Department Chair Leadership Council 10:00 AM in Dezember Leadership Center, Room 401
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Monday, May 25, 2009 Memorial Day Holiday
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
June 2009
Tuesday, June 02, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 Last Day of Classes
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 Academic Strategy Group 2:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 School of Education Honor's Recognition Ceremony 7:00 PM in TBA
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 Graduate Commencement and Hooding Ceremony 6:00 PM in Icardo Center
Thursday, June 11, 2009 School of Education Credential Students Reception 7:00 PM in TBA
Friday, June 12, 2009 BPA, SoE, NSM Commencement 7:00 AM in Amphitheatre
Saturday, June 13, 2009 H&SS Commencement 7:00 AM in Amphitheatre
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Provost Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
15
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 School Deans & Provost 3:00 PM in ADM 101
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 First Day of Classes
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Academic Affairs Council 1:00 PM in ADM 101
July 2009
August 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009 Last Day of Classes
September 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009 Labor Day Holiday
Tuesday, September 08, 2009 University Day??
Monday, September 14, 2009 First Day of Classes
16
17