- Chair's Welcome
- Members of the Board
- Preamble, Statement of Comportment, Bylaws
- Code of Ethics
- Meetings Schedule
- Agendas and Materials for Upcoming Meetings
- Board Meetings - Agendas and Minutes
- Board Committees
- 2014 Student Trustee Application
- Contact Information
Joan A. Stasa
Secretary to the Board of Trustees
The University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft – MS 912
Toledo, OH 43606
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Driscoll Board Room - 4:00 p.m.
The three hundred and ninety-fourth meeting of the Board of Trustees of The University of Toledo was held on Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Driscoll Board Room.
Ms. Joan Uhl Browne, Chair of the Board, presided and Ms. Penny Thiessen, Administrative Assistant to the President, recorded the minutes.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair of the Board requested Ms. Thiessen to call the roll:
Ms. Joan Uhl Browne
Mr. Daniel J. Brennan
Mr. C. William Fall
Judge Richard B. McQuade, Jr.
Ms. Megan M. Mamarella, Student Trustee
Ms. Rebecca Mocniak, Student Trustee
Mr. Robert C. Redmond
Mr. Richard B. Stansley, Jr.
Ms. Olivia K. Summons
Mr. James M. Tuschman
Mr. Hernan A. Vasquez
constituting a quorum of the Board.
Also present: Dr. Daniel M. Johnson, President; Dr. Alan G. Goodridge, Provost and
Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dr. Tyrone Bledsoe, Vice
President for Student Affairs; Dr. Joseph Brennan, Executive Director for Public Relations;
Mr. William R. Decatur, Vice President for Finance
and Administration; Ms. Sandra A. Drabik, Vice President and General Counsel; Mr.
Richard Eastop, Interim Vice President for Enrollment Services;
Mr. David Lindsley, Interim Vice President for Information Technology; Mr. Michael
O’Brien, Director for Intercollegiate Athletics; Ms. Sally
Perz, Executive Director for Government Relations; Professor Jerome Sullivan, Dean
of Health and Human Services; Professor Gerald Sherman, Chair
of the Faculty Senate; Professor Penny Poplin Gosetti, Faculty Representative to the
Board; Mr. Tobin Klinger, Senior Media Relations
Coordinator; Mr. Donovan Nichols, President of Student Government; Ms. Heidi Jenkins,
Vice President for Student Government and Mr. Ryan Smith,
2. CURRENT BUDGET BILLS & IMPLICATIONS FOR UT
President Johnson made some opening remarks followed by a briefing by Sally Perz on what is happening at the State level. She reported the following:
§ we can expect very heavy lobbying in the Senate now that the budget has passed the House;
§ words that are being used repeatedly in Columbus are "mediocrity " and "the peanut butter approach, " meaning the Legislature continues spreading the resources around the state and ends up with mediocrity;
§ in the way of new money -- competitive money for collaborations both public and private; that resolution passed the House today for that to go on the ballot; this will be a good test case for higher education;
§ there seems to be a movement to empower the Regents and empower the Boards of Trustees;
§ regarding articulation and transfer - there is talk of community colleges offering applied baccalaureate degrees which would take care of some of the problems with transfer of 2-year to 4-year courses [President Johnson commented that Provost Goodridge has commissioned his staff to work on the development of a technology-related degree "basically an upside down 2+ 2.];
§ we can expect much more change;
§ If there is language that would be helpful to the University, this is an excellent time to get this to the Legislature.
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD
Q: The message of the value of higher education to the general population and to the State is not being heard - what should we be doing to be more proactive?
A: The message is out there; our institution and many others have ongoing relationships with the legislators. The legislature has changed; they are not as interested in our message right now. They are interested in Applied Research; they are interested in the desire for alignment of curriculum with the State’s priorities. [Ex: When a president is asked by the subcommittee what substantive cuts have been made, the subcommittee is not interested in the percentage of cuts or that we didn’t fund open positions.]
Q: The fiscal year 2003/04 starts in two months; this smacks of centralized micro-management from the State government. All Boards of Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to provide a quality education to our students. These State cutbacks are going to make it nearly impossible to meet that goal. Do they understand or care about the position they are putting trustees in regarding tuition caps along with cutting our funding? They are backing us into a corner where we can’t do what we’re legally required to do in a two month time frame.
A: Their focus now is to stop regional duplication, get rid of obsolete courses and not to create 10 more committees to do it.
Q: My argument is about the 60-day lead time.
A: it is our responsibility to figure out what language would work to solve this; the squeeze is on for a purpose. We have a week or so to develop some language.
3. BUDGET PLANNING SCENARIOS & IMPLICATIONS
Bill Decatur, Jack Armul, and Dawn Rhodes discussed the fiscal 2004 budget planning process. They explained three different scenarios "best case, worse case, and moderate case. Mr. Decatur stated that to make these cuts, very strategic reviews were made of our operations not across the board cuts.
The president remarked that one of the difficult things about this schedule is that the timing of this will force us into a decision after the students are gone. Trustee Fall posed the question, "would it be better to put something out there now while students are still in session and then if it’s better that originally anticipated "great. " This can be explored.
A discussion ensued about holding the Academic Programs harmless.
Mr. Tuschman asked to have a prepared written statement added to the record. He submitted
the unread statement, attached as Exhibit A.
Dr. Johnson stated that part of the rationale was to preserve the instructional programs because they are where we gain revenue. He also commented that there is a process in place for program review and evaluation, but there are other issues surrounding demand.
Dr. Goodridge said that we have a long-term plan to look at all programs, but one of the problems in terms of making major cuts as a short-term goal is that the only way to do that is to fire tenured faculty.
Mr. Tuschman stated that we don't have a lot of time; Rome is burning, these deficits are the largest we have ever faced and we have got to come to grips with this "Columbus is saying "heal thyself. "
Dr. Goodridge said we are in the process of doing this; my concern is that this is not something that can be done by July 1. Our Strategic Plan will help guide some of these efforts; there are quality issues and centrality issues; we do need to get it started, yes, but it's not going to help us right now.
Mr. Decatur commented that our most pressing challenge is timing; we have to have a balanced budget going into next year. When it comes to academic program elimination, that won't happen between now and June 30. Net income generation of our programs is only one criteria; we are trying to get a full cost analysis of these programs and this takes time.
Dr. Johnson has reviewed all the policies for laying off personnel and faculty, and we have to do this within the context of our own rules as well as state regulations, and would welcome the opportunity to review those policies with the Board.
Mr. Tuschman asked for a plan that will show deadlines as to when we will address these issues and take action on these issues.
Dr. Johnson stated we have a policy for financial exigency, and it is not something we can do quickly. The purpose of today's meeting is to bring the Board up to date on our budget. There will be a plan brought forth on our actions.
Ms. Browne said we must become more proactive so we’re not told what we have to do, and that we’ll probably have to call another Board meeting. Curriculum and programs must be looked at; the timing of it is the issue.
4. TUITION & FEES
Mr. Decatur presented a draft of the fee recommendations, but stated it is still a working document and not ready to be delivered to the Board for approval.
5. SENATE BILL 6 RESERVES
Mr. Decatur stated that the Senate Bill 6 ratios showed us having declined to a 2.3
ratio, stating that the methodology for calculating this
changed substantially because of GASBY.
Mr. Tuschman stated this gives the perception that UT is not doing well, and suggested we educate our constituents why this is where it is.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Chair Browne requested a motion for an executive session to discuss personnel and collective bargaining strategy and employment issues as related to the budget. Upon the motion of Mr. Vasquez, seconded by Mr. Brennan to enter into executive session, a roll call vote was taken:
Ms. Browne Yes
Mr. Brennan Yes
Mr. Fall Yes
Judge McQuade Yes
Mr. Redmond Yes
Mr. Stansley Yes
Ms. Summons Yes
Mr. Tuschman Yes
Mr. Vasquez Yes
The Board reconvened with no actions being taken.
Upon the motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned.