Budget Committee Meeting
September 10, 2001
Gross moved, Mulkey seconded, Motion approvedIV. REPORTS
The committee discussed the following issues, and arrived at the following action plans:VII. GOOD OF THE ORDERFaculty Salaries: The committee will repeat its study of faculty salaries for the third year in a row. There will be an effort to adjust data from SUG, THEC and Top 25 institutions to reflect salary changes from October 2000 to October 2001, which is the payroll date for UT statistics in the study. An effort will be made to have the data for the committee by our January 23rd meeting.
Living Wage: While the Spring 2001 Living Wage Resolution will continue to be followed, the committee will look at the feasibility of using an Equal Dollar Amount Raise for future cost of living raises for state or university employees. David Reidy will research the state legislature's use of "across the board" system of distributing across the board raises.
Auxiliary Enterprises: Lou Gross expressed concern regarding whether all auxiliary enterprises are contributing fully to covering their F&A costs. He noted that the Athletics Department does not compensate the university for any of its legal services. Concern was also expressed regarding the lack of compliance by the Athletic Department in the Spring Budget Hearings. Beauvais indicated that he will request a copy of the Athletic Department budget for the committee, and will discuss with Sylvia Davis the need to report on how auxiliary budgets are monitored.
IRIS SAP: Lou Gross expressed concern about the cost benefit of IRIS SAP. Sylvia Davis will be asked to report on this at the next meeting.
no discussionVIII. ADJOURNMENT, 5:15pm
Budget Committee Meeting
October 8, 2001
The task force met last week and is questioning some of the data they have received from the Office of Institutional Research. Using the 14 day roll information they will conduct a pilot sampling of the committee members' departments to check the accuracy of the data. As a point of information, a AAUP web site URL was distributed showing the compensation level for contingent employees in the Boston area: http://www.aaup.org/pttab.htm
Continued discussion of the Tennessee State Budget and an Equal Raise Proposal for Cost of Living Raises. David Reidy contacted the State Treasurer's office regarding the "across the board" 2.5% raises. (see the 2001 Tennessee State Budget, Chapter 464, section 50, Item 2). The solution to addressing this issue is to work with Tom Ballard to encourage the legislature to grant THEC greater flexibility in distributing future salary pools. David will contact Tom on this matter.VI. NEW BUSINESS
Creating a Budget Handbook for Faculty, tabled for future action. Two copies of the current UT budget which is prepared for the Board of Trustees we distributed for study.VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER, none
Budget Committee Meeting
Monday November 12, 2001
October 8: Gross moved, Whelan seconded to approve as amended. Passed.IV. REPORTS
October 22: Gross moved, Peterson seconded. Passed.
A draft report from the task force was given to Beauvais Lyons. He will copy and mail to every member of the committee. The report was based on incomplete data from the Office of the Provost and the Office of Institutional Research. It shows that in 1990, 67% of undergraduate FTE's were taught by tenure or tenure-track faculty. In 2000 42% of undergraduate FTE's were taught by tenure or tenure-track faculty. Discussion focused on the need to collect data on the compensation level of contingent faculty, as well as distinguishing between GTA's and faculty when calculating FTE's for large lecture classes with discussion sections. Sylvia Davis indicated that she will check on the limitations of the data the task force received. The problem of how Institutional Research can't provide data that "talks to each other" was also addressed.
Tennessee State Employees Association was not cooperative in our inquiry regarding an equal COLA raise for state employees. David Reidy contacted Tom Galligan Chair of the Faculty Senate Legislative Committee, who thought it would be difficult to approach the Legislature before addressing the larger question of tax reform. In response to an inquiry from Reidy, Tom Ballard indicated that he would push this issue if directed to do so by the UT President. Sylvia Davis said the critical time period would come after the appropriation bill, suggesting that we encourage greater flexibility for UT in setting its own raise policies.
The schedule for implementing the IRIS bi-weekly payroll has been pushed back at least to January 2003. A IRIS Grants and contracts User Advisory Group has been established to address problems and concerns. Beauvais Lyons will forward a list of suggestions from Doug Birdwell to Sylvia to share with the Advisory Group.
Discussion focused on access to budgetary information and the role of faculty in informing the budgetary process. There was general agreement that the Athletic Department should make presentations at the Budget Hearings in the Spring. How faculty are chosen for the Athletics Board will also be investigated.
Will request salary data from Don Cunningham in preparation for our annual faculty salary study in the Spring.
Whereas the schedule of UT paychecks is important to the financial well-being of UT faculty and staff and modifications to UT pay policies affect all UT employees; andLou Gross moved and David Reidy seconded to table the resolution until the March Budget Committee meeting. The argument was made that the resolution would have more impact on planning the HR component of IRIS if it was approved at the end of the academic year. Motion passed. (Note: This resolution will be introduced at the February 25 meeting, as there is not a March meeting scheduled).
Whereas the current plan for SAP/IRIS implementation institutes a deferred pay schedule for all UT employees, and would require all monthly employees to move to biweekly pay by January 1, 2003 resulting in a delay of payment for time worked by a period of nine days, and
Whereas starting (what month?) 2002, all new monthly employees are required to be paid biweekly, and their pay will be deferred for nine days, and
Whereas such a pay schedule would cause an immediate hardship on the affected employees, and
Whereas the University's financial situation has already caused great concern over employee morale and retention, adversely affecting our ability to attract high quality faculty and staff, and
Whereas it is imperative that UT not institute new policies that would be viewed by many employees as detrimental, and
Whereas there is no plan in place to recompense employees for the interest that could accrue from the deferred pay over the time period of employment, and
Whereas while some employees may find a biweekly paycheck to be personally beneficial, the current plan would not provide equal pay in each pay period, but a varying amount dependent upon the deduction schedule that varies from individual to individual,
Therefore, be it resolved that,
The Faculty Senate urge the UT administration to offer options for faculty and staff regarding payroll. In particular, we urge that the option to be paid monthly without any deferral of pay (as is the current norm) be made available for both current and new monthly employees. Alternatively, if a biweekly payroll is viewed as a necessity, we urge that this be carried out in a non-deferred manner, with the capability to provide relatively equal payments during each biweekly period.
Based on discussions with Provost Crabtree at the October 22 Budget meeting, the concept of requesting monthly reports listing assets, expenditures and available resources (base budget funds and one time allocations) are made a regular part of the Budget Committee agenda, and will be posted on the Faculty Senate Web site was discussed. Sylvia Davis it is not entirely practical to generate such a report with an incremental budget. It might be possible to generate such reports at key points during the year, such as when 14 day enrollment reports are generated. She indicated that Provost Crabtree has a complete list of discretionary commitments. Discussion focused on ways that the budget and budget process can be made more transparent. Davis indicated that she is beginning to work on rules for SAC re-accreditation (in 2005) and hopes that this will help to guide greater faculty involvement in the budgetary process.
The recommendation that the Chair of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee (or another faculty member) be appointed the Executive Budget Committee for UTK was addressed. This committee has not met regularly. Concern was expressed that there is continuity in faculty representation on this committee. Lyons will ask Provost Crabtree who is currently on this committee.
Sylvia Davis outlined some categories the Executive Budget Committee has used recently to look at allocations of resources. These included prior commitments, technology needs, highest priorities and space allocations. She indicated that she would share this information with the committee.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the Budget Committee should take a more active role in attending the March-April Budgetary Hearings and conduct a follow-up meeting with the Provost to offer suggestions on setting priorities. Lyons suggested that the Budget Committee should develop a set of 2-3 questions to be addressed by all presenters at the hearings. Deliberation on what these questions should be will be considered at the January 23rd meeting. (note: Please forward suggestions in advance of the meeting).
In response to an inquiry from Doug Birdwell, Lou Gross will be the Budget Committee Liaison to the High Performance Computing Task Force. No one was identified to serve as a liaison to the Research Infrastructure area, however, it was suggested to ask Doug to direct questions and inquiries related to Budget to Beauvais.
In response in an inquiry from Jenna Wright, Tennessee Board of Regent Schools pay technology fees for and the UT System does not. Sylvia Davis will provide a cost estimate to UT on this for our January 25th meeting.
Jay Whelan asked us to consider the cost of in-state tuition at our peer institutions, as well as the level of state support as a percentage of the total budget at such institutions. Lyons said that he will request this information from institutional research.VIII. ADJOURNMENT, by consensus at 5:30 p.m.
Budget Committee Meeting
January 23, 2002
The Task Force has a report that will be presented at the Feb. 4th Senate Meeting.
There are no anticipated changes to the current payroll system, running both bi-weekly and monthly for exempt employees. She advises that the Budget Committee should consider our payroll resolution at our next meeting if there are plans to revise the payroll system. There have been some problems with SAP-IRIS producing reports, and efforts are being taken to address these problems. Davis agreed to be available for a forum preceding a future Faculty Senate Meeting to address problems related to SAP-IRIS.
A report on the cost of in-state tuition at our peer institutions, as well as the level of state support as a percentage of the total budget at such institutions was distributed and discussed. This report will be posted on the Faculty Senate web site. Lyons discussed his communications in early January with Provost Crabtree on upcoming faculty merit raises in which he alerted the Provost to the April 2000 Faculty Senate Resolution.
General issues were discussed. While members of the Budget Committee will make an effort to attend the budget hearings this spring, discussion focused on faculty input into how priorities are set for the hearings. Budget scenarios were discussed. No particular recommendations were for endorsed.
SAC re-accreditation rules regarding faculty involvement in the budgetary process; Current Composition of the Executive Budget Committee; Forming a set of 2-3 questions to be addressed by all presenters at budgetary hearings.
Review of Faculty Salary dataVI. GOOD OF THE ORDER, no commentsTwo spread sheets were reviewed by the committee, on from the Office of Institutional Research and the same date organized by Toby Boulet. A request was made to update the information as follows:
The revised spread sheets will be prepared for the next Budget meeting on Monday February 25th.
- add library faculty to the survey
- include a row for each unit combining all full, associate and assistant professors.
- create a total percentage at the bottom of the columns
- inquire about this data with regard to gender equity
Budget Committee Meeting
February 25, 2002
1. Reconsideration of the Resolution on UT Payroll Policies:V. NEW BUSINESS, no new businessMotion was discussed. Davis reported that faculty and staff exempt employees will remain monthly. The IRIS-SAP payroll system allows for generally 4 payrolls per month; one monthly, two bi-weekly, and longevity. The key issue is that non-exempt staff who chose to switch from monthly to bi-weekly are informed about the 9-day delay in the payment cycle. Davis said they will be informed, and that it is voluntary, except for new employees. It was decided that the resolution was no longer needed. Davis acknowledged that the discussion of the issues in the committee helped to assist in the setting policy on this issue.