NOTE: At times, issues of confidentiality may require that some items discussed in meetings be excluded from these minutes.

PRESENT: Bill Barnes, Alan Gabrielli, Steve Hamrick, Joyce Mills, Mike Murphy, Dawn Ramsey, Zvi Szafran, and Wayne Unsell.

GUESTS: Bill Gruszka

Item 1: Update on New Positions and Other Activities

VPAA Szafran reported to the deans that there is not as much money available to fund new faculty positions as previously thought. VPAA Szafran reconciled his budget records with those of Rob Whitaker and found that there is approximately $400,000 less in the budget to fund these positions. The VPAA urged Deans to use caution as they begin the search process.

Bill Gruszka announced that a Master Activity Calendar is in place and that each school should submit the names of personnel who will be authorized to upload information onto this calendar. VPAA Szafran will email the link to this calendar.

The VPAA shared information about graduation rates at SPSU, broken down by GPA level and by race, and comparing SPSU to the University System as a whole. These statistics will be shared with the faculty after review.

One interesting finding was that graduation rates for black students are significantly higher than that for white students. The most common explanation for the higher graduation rates among black students was factors including higher student motivation, stronger campus involvement, and better advising. By strengthening these efforts across campus, better graduations rates could be achieved by all students.

Item 2: Equipment and Tech Fee Proposals

Bill Gruszka announced that all Tech Fee proposals submitted in the spring for funding this fall were approved with the exception of two projects in IT. Letters have gone out to the departments notifying them that the funds are available and that they can proceed with their orders. These proposals are available for viewing at http://www.spsu.edu/techfee. He also explained that tech fee funds must be used for advancing technology, not replacing equipment.

Suggestions were made to review the tech fee proposal and review process and timeline. The Deans are concerned that the process takes too long and that some projects need earlier funding. Currently proposals for tech fee funds are due in January. Over the next few months the proposals are considered and voted on by a committee made up of five students selected by the SGA, two faculty, two IT personnel and one representative from Enrollment Management. Proposal approval letters are sent out in May for funding the following fall.

The Deans brought up questions about the make-up of the committee and asked for clarification on the student representatives and how they are selected. Bill Gruszka answered that students select students and are coordinated through the SGA. There must be student representation to satisfy the Board of Regents. It was suggested that each Dean submit the names of two students to be considered for the committee. SGA could then select five from the group. It was also suggested that the deans submit the name of one faculty member from each school to be considered for the committee. Bill Gruszka will review the process this year to see how well it works and will consider the suggestions for the next year. Each committee member is asked to make a two-year commitment beginning in December for the January through May process.

Gruszka also announced that funding of some important tech fee projects could be done in July, rather than the normal October timeline.

This year’s equipment requests came in at about $800,000 with only $395,000 available in equipment funds. VPAA Szafran talked about two specific ways to supplement our limited equipment funds. His first suggestion was to move away from the idea of the University being solely responsible for funding and look at grants and other outside sources. He also suggested using lab fees (now charged only for Biology and Chemistry labs) not only for expendables but also for improvements and asked the deans to review their classes with labs to see if charging a lab fee would be appropriate. It was also suggested that the University should have a computer replacement plan and funding to support it.

The council began discussing equipment proposals and voted on items to be added to a fundable list. After all proposals have been reviewed and voted on, the council will prioritize the new fundable list and determine which proposals can be funded this year.

Meeting adjourned at 4:05.