Report of the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee (SPBC) 

October 31, 2006

President Wilson convened the third SPBC meeting of 2006-07 shortly after noon.  He welcomed George Vinyard, President of the Illinois Wesleyan Board of Trustees, as a guest.  

The President began by noting that the future of Sheean Library had recently emerged as an issue of major concern to some students and faculty.  A campus master plan, completed in 2002 by the architects of The Ames Library, calls for the removal of Sheean because of problems related to asbestos, mold, and fire safety, as well as reuse obstacles imposed by original construction methods.  Earlier this year, the architectural firm that has been engaged to design the planned Welcome Center has suggested that remodeling Sheean might be possible after all.   The President said that he is willing to look at this possibility closely, but that nothing is final yet.   He noted that whatever is done, a remodeled or new building must be environmentally sensitive, functional, and aesthetically compatible with its surroundings. He stressed, too, that neither remodeling nor new construction on the site is possible, perhaps for as long as 10 years, because funds are not available for the project.

One member of the Committee expressed the belief that the vision of the University should guide us and, therefore, we should commit ourselves to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for this and all future building projects.  By making such a commitment, decision-makers would be serving as role models for students; furthermore, we should take seriously the principle that environmental concerns ought to trump aesthetics.

The President repeated his commitment to environmental sensitivity while noting that issues such as safety, cost, and timing (Do we really want to keep an unused building standing for a decade?) of necessity will have to factor into a final decision on Sheean's fate.  He assured the Committee that faculty, staff, and student groups would have extensive input into whatever is ultimately done with the site.  He also agreed with a suggestion to discuss the topic at the next faculty meeting.

The Committee then turned to Vice President Klotzbach for a reminder about the University's budget cycle.  He reported that the final budget for the current academic year, which the Committee had reviewed at an earlier meeting, was approved by the Trustees this morning.    Work on the 2007-08 budget is also now underway.   Specifically, the Trustees approved a policy of holding tuition, fee, and room and board increases to no more than 5.35 percent for the upcoming year; a final decision will be made on these figures in November or December.    After that time, salary and other budget planning for 2007-08 can proceed.  By May an all-but-final 2007-08 budget will be submitted to the Trustees, since those are the numbers that will guide the opening of the academic year in August.  The 2007-08 cycle will close in October 2007, at which time the 2008-09 operating budget discussions will have reached the same point that the 2007-08 budget has reached today.

The President noted that the budget picture is looking better.   Turning to two handouts on IWU's salaries and benefits vs. the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM) and the Top 40 through 70 US News colleges, in which IWU ranks 1st in benefits but lower in average faculty salaries (5th in the ACM and 15th in the US News Top 40 through 70), he stated that his priority is to direct any discretionary funds that might emerge into salaries and not into increasing our benefits program.  

One member asked if staff tuition benefits come from the same pool as salaries, and the President stated that they do.  The questioner continued by expressing a preference for equalizing staff and faculty tuition benefits, even if it means sacrificing a portion of the salary increases that might be possible otherwise.   Another member noted that businesses are moving rapidly to cap or even reduce benefits; although we certainly should not do that, we may not be able to enhance benefits greatly.    

The President remarked that it might be possible to introduce alternate models into the benefits program.  For example, we might be able to increase the salary pool if we increase the deductible on our health care plans; everyone's monthly premiums for health coverage should then go down.  He also pointed out the University's need to reduce its future liability as a result of offering health care benefits to retirees; to do so, we may need to consider new options such as the University's making contributions to health savings accounts for future employees in lieu of paying for their retiree medical insurance.

Someone asked whether increasing salaries by containing benefits is the only option, or whether there other sources of money to fund both.  The President stated that in the short run, there are no additional sources of funding. Thus, the question becomes, "If we have, say, $300,000 more to spend in the salary and benefits budget, should it go to salaries (which some are proposing) or additional benefits (which others are proposing)?"

The Committee agreed to meet again on November 13 to continue discussing progress on the Strategic Plan.

Distributed to all faculty and staff: November 14, 2006