Live Blogging of the Apr 23 Meet & Confer

5:15PM That is it. No more information today.

5:15PM So, to summarize, nobody is safe, but some people are less unsafe? Chuckles, then yes.

5:14PM More Q&A: but, sorry, I missed most of it. VP Academic commented that Iris Gill is very aware of the limitations of the data. The 75% is being used to determine which programs will get a very, very detailed analysis of budgets. At this point does each of the Deans understand that there are specific programs under 75% and that the Deans are working with the departments and that the deans will notify those departments, but that President continues to examine programs and may ask for addtional information and discussion? Hard question; President is not plannign to go looking for programs to get at but is trying to be conciensous about looking for cases where expensive programs may not have yet been broken out separately. Are chairs being asked to prepare reports, or all members of department? President: presumed chairs would speak with departments, and will not interfere in department governance. IFO: Expectation is that all faculty in departments will be involved. Is lost revenue due to cuts being included in models? Yes, and looking for one-time money to help with some of that. Under contract chairs are coordinators so shouldn't faculty be consulted according to contract? [Followed up by another question] Doesn't "departments" mean all faculty in department not with "department chairs"? President: Intent is fofr departments to respond.

5:01PM IFO is summarizing: President has reviewed budget and formally announced that there will be retrenchments. The President will continue to gather data and wants reports from the under 75% departments to fully understand the situation. Will seek input on academic side primarily from AABAC by reacting to proposed budgets.

5:00PM Can program curricular changes be considered over the summer? Maybe. What is role of AABAC? They will react to President's proposals and act as a sounding board. [Missed another question.] Is out of state tuition being considered? Yes, for international students. [Missed another question, answer was that she is looking for least terrible solution.]

4:53PM Are programs that draw students being given recognition for that? Yes, but need to look at how many students are being attracted. Is impact of the loss of students in a low recovery program on other departments being considered? Yes, but it has been hard to unravel this. Can any of the under 75% programs survive? Most will probably survive, but we do need to come up with $3.43 in cuts. [Missed a question, sorry] Will department budget cuts from this year be restored? Sounds like budgets are being rebuilt from the ground up, and the immediate goal in any event is to get through the immediate crisis. Why 75%? Think of the state appropriation of overhead. 75% means you are supporting 74% of your direct costs, but someone else is subsidizing the other 25% with their tuition revenue. Another thing to consider is whether differential tuition is appropriate.

4:49PM Q&A: Are you safe if you are above 75% cost recovery? No, not necessarily, but less likely to be cut.

4:48PM More Q&A: Can departments challenge data they believe to be incorrect or only propose cuts or more revenue? Numbers for low programs are being scrutinized. Graduate programs? Only those that are sustainable (from their own tuition revenue) will be kept; graduation education for its own sake will not. How much money in personnel cuts? Worst case, hopefully, $3.43M, but don't know. Cost recovery ratio doesn't indicate absolute amount of money saved--a low recovery ratio could still be a small expense and a high ratio might not be lots of money--is this being taken into account? Yes. How are department staff being included? Included in program cost recovery ratio. Are administrative/nonacademic cuts being considered? Yes, but need to know more before deciding. What about proposed department mergers (specifically History and Political Science)? President: good idea, VP Academic: need some clarification from those departments.

4:40PM Q&A: IFO asked if reaching the cost recovery goals means a department is safe. The answer is no, that alone may not do it because cuts will need to be made. IFO asks what is meant by program given that retrenchment happens within seniority rosters. The answer was unclear; basically I think it was that distinct programs (meaning cost centers or package of courses) would be studied, but no answer on how that relates to rosters.

4:35PM IFO expressed desire to extend timeline for departments to reach the tuition cost recovery goals, especially because this benchmark was new to departments to which the President responded that a fiscal emergency requires a fiscal criteria.

4:31PM The President's demeanor was serious, almost shaken at times, but confident. It is clear to me she is working to do the best that can be done and is reluctantly going this route.

4:31PM Looks like no announcement of specific programs today.

4:30PM More dates: June 3-4 meet with AABAC to discuss reports on low tuition recovery programs, from June 24th, July 8th&9th all VPs present plans to UPB, on July 15 present final plan to UPB, July 16 meet bargaining units in the morning, then M&C with IFO in the afternoon.

4:26PM Memo of retrenchment, first some genrealities: Frozen faculty positions are all positions for which funding exists at this time (not sure what that means). Tuition shortfall this year is $800k, total deficit is $8.5M. Salary freeze saves 1.2M and 1.4 in frozen positions but probably drops to 0.7M when critical positions unfrozen. Other savings were listed in detail, see the mid-March budget remarks. Operating budget cuts add up to $o.4-0.5M. This still doesn't fully plug the hole. Some positions being searched: director of housing and one other funded by fees and looking for a marketing director, recruiter, and data manager for enrollment.

4:22PM Some dates: July 16 budget presentation to bargaining unit leaders, followed by July 21, 22 MnSCU Board meeting, then lay off notices sent out after July 27th M&C with IFO if requested.

4:20PM The President seems clearly

4:17PM President thanked faculty for their participation in the process so far and indicated the reports were read and will be included in decision making. Then described some history: The perfect storm: structural shortfall ($4.95M, up by $800k) and economic recession leading to reduction in base (estimated $3.8M I think). Student credit hour generation has decreased steadily over the last 5 years, and decisions made to hold tuition low.

4:12PM President will present formal memorandum of intent to retrench after discussion background.

4:10PM Now the President is up to talk about retrenchment...

4:09PM IFO raised a question about MSUM participation in a program funded by the Lumina Foundation to "tune" programs to standardize outcomes so that employers know exactly what graduates will know. Translation: make programs standard rather than allowing variation (my translation). The Biosciences chair described faculty participation in this project so far after VP Academic explained that the conversation began with a call from MnSCU that some of this grant money was available. IFO strongly objects that this is a violation of contract because when faculty represent faculty it is to go through IFO. VP Academic responded that admin did not forward names, merely let faculty know that MnSCU was soliciting, and that she assumed it had been discussed at statwide Meet&Confer. In response to a question VP Academic indicated all travel has been paid for by Lumina.

4:00PM Now the first job-related issue...IFO mentioned chatter that some deans were recommending adjunct over overload. VP Academic said that is not the admin position, but that she has been advising deans not to make any offers of overload or adjunct until we know for sure what the funding situation is. IFO and Bette agree that when it gets to that point additional consultation will be needed.

3:56PM Information was just shared. No idea what because it was hardcopy, but you can contact IFO if you want to know what.

3:55PM Email discussion is done, nothing will be done until more planning is completed, this was just a first mention.

3:44PM I finally asked my first question, about transitioning email addresses. Not a stunning question, and in retrospect these questions just delay the time it takes to get to the part we are interested in...retrenchment.

3:33PM Looks like it will be a while until we get to the big stuff. Dan Heckaman, CIO, is talking about the feasibility of changing our web address/email to msum.edu. CIO indicated that would be hard, then discussed changing email addresses to first.last name (like matt.craig). Mike McCord asked how much it would cost...the answer is 2.5-3 months full time for 6 people. Ouch. Mike Ruth pointed out that lots of printed material will have to be tossed out.

3:32PM Hockey committee...IFO and the President appointed people.

3:28PM Some good news....summer school will pull in at least $500k profit.

3:21PM On to the Mission Statement, which the MnSCU Board wants Real Soon Now. If I were more interested in the mission statement I'd tell you more. The proposed statement:

Minnesota State University Moorhead is a caring community promising all students the opportunity to discover their passions, the rigor to develop intellectually[,] and the versatility to shape a changing world.

Debate almost erupted over the comma in brackets above, but was truncated by a question about whether ours is really any different than other MnSCU statements.

3:11PM Military withdrawals...the 100 or so people here are too interested. Send military students to Registrar, faculty do have freedom to work out an incomplete if they want to, or may decline to work that out and refer student to Registrar for other options. Not that many people really care right now.

3:09PM And so it begins...starting with military withdrawals and other run-of-the-mill stuff.

3:06PM People are still coming in, nothing happening yet.

Comparison of MN House and Senate Higher Ed Bills

The most noticeable (and noted) difference between the higher education bills in the House (HF 869) and Senate (SF2083) is the level of funding.

The details of the bills also differ in a number of ways that will impact our situation at MSUM. A list of points on which the bills differ is below. Follow the links to read the comparisons, or get a PDF copy of the whole shebang.

1. Total funding (base and stimulus).
2. Base funding level for next biennium FY2012-13 (determines funding level used in planning).
3. Limits on MnSCU central funding.
4. Restrictions on use of stimulus funds.
5. Caps on tuition increases.

The information in this comparison is based in part on information from Russ Stanton, IFO Legislative Liason, and from the education bills themselves.

House/Senate comparison: Total funds (base plus stimulus)

For FY 2010:
Senate: $675.4M = $615.3M base + $60M stimulus
House: $665,8M = $600.6M base + $65.2M stimulus (but MnSCU central takes the big hit)
Governor: same as House, but no restrictions on how much MnSCU central gets

For FY 2011:
Senate: $644M = $644M base + no stimulus
House: $$665,8M = $600.6M base + $65.2M stimulus (same as FY2010 above)
Governor: same as House, but no restrictions on how much MnSCU central gets

Implications for MSUM: The base matters. Of the three, we probably get the most base money from the House bill because it directs the base reduction at MnSCU, though the Senate bill has more base money each year of the biennium.

House/Senate comparison: Base funding level for next biennium FY2012-13

Senate: Base funding for FY2012 and FY2013 is $627,849,000, a reduction of about 8% from the FY2009 base of $682,417,000 (my FY2009 number does not include the Governor's unallotment; the Senate's goal was a 7% reduction across the board in state funding).

House: Base funding for FY2012 and 2013 is a bit more complicated because funding for MnSCU central and the campuses are separated. For the campuses the base for FY2012-13 is $609,631,000, and:

8.8 (b) Allocations to campuses from
8.9 appropriations under this section must
8.10 not be reduced below the allocations for
8.11 the biennium ending June 30, 2009, after
8.12 deducting any amount unallotted in the
8.13 biennium.

The total MnSCU base for FY2012/2013 is $654.5M, a reduction of 4%, but MnSCU central is forced to take the reduction.

Implications for MSUM: The FY2012-2013 numbers matter because they drive the decisions being made now about how much to cut. The House language is clearly better for us. Our funding will still go down because of the enrollment issues the President has discussed, but not as much as if the Senate bill passes.

House/Senate higher ed: Restrictions on use of stimulus funds.

Senate: Emphasizes using the money to hold down tuition increases. From the bill:

10.28 This appropriation must be allocated to
10.29 mitigate the need to raise tuition and
10.30 fees for Minnesota resident students.

The Senate also requires MnSCU to submit a detailed plan describing how stimulus funds will be allocated, the effects on the amount of proposed tuition increases, and must describe any amounts allocated to other education and general purposes, including how those purposes mitigate the need to raise tuition. The plan is due to the director of the Office of Higher Education by June 1, 2009, who must approve the plan by June 15, 2009, and the director has the power to require changes. The director must confer with the legislature before approving the plan.

House: Places less emphasis on tuition reduction. From the House bill:

11.1 Appropriations under this subdivision
11.2 must be used as a bridge for budget
11.3 reductions in the biennium ending June 30,
11.4 2013, and may be used to retain faculty
11.5 and staff jobs, to provide severance and for
11.6 early retirement incentives, and to mitigate
11.7 the rising costs of attendance through
11.8 minimizing tuition increases and the support
11.9 of student employment opportunities.

In addition, the House imposes a cap on tuition increases.

Implications for MSUM: The House version seems to allow more flexibility in using the funds, and explicitly allows the kinds of things being discussed on our campus. The Senate's focus on tuition may reduce flexibility, though it ought to be fairly easy to argue that if you don't reduce staff tuition would have to increase even more. The requirement for a plan seems like a good accountability measure for MnSCU, though the timeline seems pretty tight. I don't know if our campus will know how it wants to use the money by then.

House/Senate higher ed comparison: Limits on MnSCU central funding.

Senate: No firm restrictions, though the Chancellor is directed to review "institutional priority allocations" (centers of excellence, competitive salaries, community energy pilots, e-folio upgrade) and make a recommendation to the board as to whether they are important to "advancing the educational mission and priorities of the system," and the Board can discontinue funding.

House: Limits central office funding to $47M each year, decreasing to $44M in FY2012-13; forbids filling any currently open administrative or managerial positions (even on campuses), institutes a pay freeze for admin, and forbids the use of search firms in hiring; eliminates centers of excellence and other MnSCU priorities and directs that the money go to campuses; limits funding for technology initiatives to $40M.

Implications for MSUM: The provisions in the House bill, with the potential exception of the limitation on filling admin/managerial positions, are all beneficial to MSUM. The House directs as much money as possible to campuses, which is particularly important in a time of decreasing overall funding.

House/Senate higher ed bill comparison: Caps on tuition increases

Senate: no caps on tuition increases, and an amendment on the Senate floor to add a cap failed. Stimulus money must be used to minimize tuition increases.

House: caps resident tuition increases at 5% and requires stimulus money be used to buy the increase down to 2%.

Implications for MSUM: Tuition caps written in as a percentage put us at a disadvantage compared to other state universities because our tuition is relatively low, so a 5% increase here doesn't generate as much money as 5% elsewhere, and institutions vary in the ratio of tuition to fees. Language which allowed the flexibility to accomodate those institutional variations while preserving the spirit of keeping costs low would be helpful.