Report of the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee (SPBC)

February 4, 2008

President Wilson convened the sixth SPBC meeting of 2007-08 at 12:05 p.m. He asked if there were any questions or comments on the notes of the January 15, 2008 SPBC meeting. The notes were accepted as distributed.

President Wilson informed the Committee about an additional meeting scheduled for February 25, 2008. He also took a poll as to whether the group would like the remaining meetings extended for half an hour before or after each regular meeting time to be able to get through each of the remaining five goals of the Strategic Plan before the end of the year. The vote was just about even, so some meetings will begin at 11:30 and some will be extended to 1:30. Michael Thompson will remind us of the time for each future meeting.

Salary Policy (follow-up)

The President referred to the January 15 meeting and the discussion regarding salary policy. He invited the Committee to react to his plan to go to the Board next week with a recommendation that the salary pool be increased by up to 4%, with the exact amount determined later in the semester when we have a better idea about anticipated revenue from tuition, the endowment, and the annual fund. For that reason, he would like to delay mailing salary letters until April. The President plans to inform the faculty and staff of this plan once the Board of Trustees has taken action. Becky Roesner suggested that we indicate in that communication whether the salary increase has a lower limit. The President responded that the lower limit was 3%.

Dan Klotzbach clarified that it would take up to two months to get all salary letters out. Normally faculty letters are distributed after the February Board meeting. There was concern expressed that communication to the faculty, as to what was approved and the timeframe involved, was important. The President agreed.

Peer Similarity Study

Moving on to the next item in the agenda, President Wilson began discussions regarding the selection of peers for Illinois Wesleyan. He first called attention to the report on Developing a Set of Benchmark Colleges. This was an extensive effort undertaken several years ago by a group of faculty, staff, and Board members to select institutions for benchmarking purposes. It was stated that Mona Gardner did much of this work. President Wilson described this effort as defining an aspirational peer group, stating that we are well below this group on most measures. The report has been revised several times but never formally endorsed. He also mentioned that we have been using the ACM and GLCA institutions as our peers for many recent benchmarking efforts because those groups are comparable in many ways.

President Wilson asked Michael Thompson to give an overview of some work he had done to help define a set of peers. Utilizing financial resources and proximity variables of 101 baccalaureate-liberal arts institutions, Michael employed a hierarchical cluster analysis to examine an institution's degree of similarity to Illinois Wesleyan. A table listing 20 institutions most similar to the University was presented, as well as a table of the 10 institutions least similar. Michael noted that the exercise is meant to raise questions and affirm beliefs regarding assumptions in selecting peer institutions. He added that we must also take into account the mission, values, and other unique characteristics of institutions in selecting a peer group. Questions were raised and statements made about the complexity of the analysis and the need to incorporate subjective issues in selecting peers. For example, some schools do not have fine arts or pre-professional programs, while others are way ahead in endowment.

Michael then presented some data for the aspirational peer group: Table 1 was sorted by proximity; Table 2 by US News rank; and Table 3 by Endowment Market Value per FTE (IWU ranked last on Tables 2 and 3). Many of the institutions' endowment and proximity values were substantially different from IWU, and Michael did not necessarily recommend using all of these institutions. In the discussion that followed, it was suggested that we compete well and, considering our resources, we are overachievers. A member recalled that the existence of fine arts programs was taken into account in the original discussion of peers.

The Committee then reviewed data tables for a potential group of new peers that was largely a mix of ACM and GLCA institutions, plus a few from the original aspirational peer study. President Wilson said that the list was the result of the earlier analyses, as well as discussions with Cabinet members about peers for various functional areas of the University. At this juncture we are not locked into any one set of institutions. We are just attempting to illustrate different peer listings. Comments and questions included:

-  50% of the U.S. News institutional rankings can be tracked to direct or indirect measures of resources.

-  IWU competes well in admissions, and our graduation rates are good.

-  Some institutions have great science research programs.

-  Some institutions have respected business programs.

-  How many institutions do we want below us/above us?

President Wilson asked for the Committee's general sense of this methodology in choosing our peer institutions. Several Committee members stated their affinity for the aspirational peer group rather than the peer group developed on the basis of resources and proximity.

-  The list from 2003-04 was more philosophical but needed updating.

-  We should use the aspirational peer group list but factor in some other qualities.

-  The more recent analysis was good but we should meld the two together.

President Wilson closed the discussion saying it was still a work in progress and would be brought back to the committee for further review.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:12 pm.

Distributed to all faculty and staff: Feb. 25, 2008