Report of the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee (SPBC)
January 15, 2007
President Wilson convened the sixth SPBC meeting of 2006-07 at 2:30 pm. In advance of the meeting, the Committee had received comparative faculty salary and benefits data for several groups of liberal arts colleges, and the President immediately turned the group's attention to those reports. (Note that comparable data for staff positions are generally not available.) He clarified that the SPBC’s role in salary policy was advisory to him, and that his recommendations go to the Board of Trustees for discussion and final approval. He further noted that each 1/2% increase in the faculty-staff salary pool translates into approximately $150,000 additional dollars that is required in the operating budget. The budget model for 07-08 is currently based on a 3% pool increase, with a 4% projection for 08-09 and a 4.5% planned increase for 09-10. The question at hand is whether we should try to squeeze out another 1/2% increase for 07-08. The President pointed out that currently, a $300,000 "hole" must be plugged in next year's budget, quite apart from any additional expense that would result from increasing the salary pool by more than 3%. But he said that he was somewhat optimistic that with additional endowment earnings and targeted savings, we could both plug the hole and expand the salary pool slightly.
The discussion that followed included several comments on our stronger competitive position relative to peer groups with respect to benefits than with salaries. One member asked if the SPBC could examine tuition levels as well as salary levels at the comparison schools and speculated that there would be a high correlation between those variables. The President reported that Professor Gardner was preparing additional salary reports besides the ones distributed before today's meeting, and Professor Gardner indicated that she would be able to add tuition, fee, room, and board data to those upcoming reports. The SPBC is scheduled to discuss salary policy again at its February 5 meeting, and the requested data will be available before then.
The following questions were then raised by Committee members:
- Q: Will the 3% (or whatever) salary pool increase apply evenly to all employees? A: Faculty and staff raise pools will be increased by the same amount. For faculty, promotion and equity raises will be paid out of the faculty salary pool and the balance distributed among the faculty as a standard percentage increase. The percentage increase in the staff raise pool will be divided into two parts: an across the board increase tied to inflation and an amount tied to performance. A new performance based system for staff has been designed and is being implemented.
- Q: Given some of the strategies under the Human Resources goal of the Strategic Plan, could the salary pool increase be used to increase the number of employees instead of giving existing employees more money? A: Yes. Several members observed that hiring more employees to reduce workload would be highly desirable at this time.
- Q: Would even a small percentage increase beyond 3% send a positive signal to faculty and staff that we are on the move after several years of lower increases? A: Perhaps. Some Committee members said they were in fact strongly in favor of a sustained, non-dramatic pattern of increases rather than a large catch-up raise pool on a one-time basis.
Committee members agreed to talk with their colleagues about these issues and to bring their findings to the SPBC at its February 5 meeting.
The President then turned to another agenda item--planning for the University's next capital campaign. He stated that we might be in the "quiet phase" of such a campaign by next August or September, with a public phase to follow a year or so later. The question is, then, how do we build a case for what we need? The President would like to find a way for many people to participate in setting campaign priorities without bogging the process down and delaying opportunities to raise funds. He said that he has established two guidelines for any fund-raising objectives:
-The highest priority should go to those that allow us to move forward on the Strategic Plan
-The ideas must be viable ones for private support (e.g., we won't be asking for money to replace the heating system!)
The President then asked the Committee for ideas about the process to be used to set fund-raising priorities, noting that because it is very broadly representative, the SPBC will be involved in sorting out whatever priorities are suggested. Several Committee members suggested that building on the findings of previous campus-wide processes, especially the Strategic Planning process, would be desirable, rather than starting over with a new process. The Committee then quickly came to consensus that broad areas identified in the Strategic Plan (e.g., "people and programs") should be the primary basis of a new capital campaign. Recent documents that have also identified campus needs, including the campus Master Plan, the most recent self-study for reaccreditation, and the prospectus for the Presidential search, should then be consulted as secondary sources. Committee members agreed that later this term, they would work together to compile a list of potential fund-raising priorities that could then be shared across campus for feedback, revision, and final determination.
Distributed to all faculty and staff: February 6, 2007