Site Index

Budget Committee Meeting
September 10, 2001

Gross moved, Mulkey seconded, Motion approved

1. Mark Hedrick reported that the Task Force on Contingent Employees has not met yet this semester. They plan to divide into several study groups to look at issues such as contingent employee rates in peer institutions, history of the growth of contingent employees at UT, etc. Jim Moran stressed the central issue is the rate of pay for contingent faculty, encouraging the task force to look at increasing the level of compensation.
   
   
2. Ray Hamilton reported for Sylvia Davis that hearings are being held this week to look at reallocation of 4-6% of resources toward areas of strength. He indicated that the APEC assessment would be used in part to guide this process. He stated that the state has mandated that UT set-aside 1% of its state appropriation (1.6 million dollars) in case sate collections fall short of projections. At this point a merit pool for the end of the year is being postponed for the same reason. There was discussion of, and questions about proceeds from the UT Hospital and the role of the Law School in relation to the mission of UT.

The committee discussed the following issues, and arrived at the following action plans:

Faculty 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 discussion

Budget Committee Meeting
October 8, 2001

1. Mark Hedrick - Task Force on Contingent Employees

   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

2. Sylvia Davis
   • Information on the cost/benefits of the implementing the IRIS program.
     Sylvia discussed several reasons for implementing a new accounting system for the university, including the need to replace our previous system, which used old, main frame technology, and was modified with numerous patches. She stated the SAP/IRIS system has the advantage of allowing for 3rd party vendor maintenance fees, workflow to pass transactions better through the system. The cost of implementing the new system is: 11 million dollars (3 million for software, 6 million for implementation and 2 million for hardware). She admitted that the new system will not produce a cost savings, but will have other benefits. She discussed the schedule for implementing the system through April 2003 and outlined several potential advantages of the system, including improved data collection and analysis, opportunities for employee self-service, putting benefits options on line, improved analysis of facilities usage, and document imaging. Lou Gross expressed serious concern regarding several aspects of the new system and distributed an email he sent to Neil Wormsley outlining specific questions he had about the Human Resources dimension of SAP/IRIS. Lou indicated that Wormsley had not responded to his inquiry. As a policy issue, discussion focused on the conversion from monthly to bi-weekly pay schedules that will result in a 9 day delay in payment for employees when the system is implemented. Discussion focused on ways to eliminate or minimize the amount for the delay. Concern was expressed that the limits of computer software should not drive policy. After much discussion, Lou distributed a recommendation as a first reading which stated: "The Faculty Senate urges the UT administration to continue the current policy regarding payroll for all monthly staff that the payroll should not be deferred." It was agreed that the committee would work on the resolution through email communications with the intention of preparing a recommendation for the Senate Executive Committee by November 5th.
     
     
   • Sylvia Davis also distributed a handout with information on the budget for the Athletic Department and ways they generate revenue of the university, including scholarships, support for women's athletics, band scholarships, debt service on various construction projects, etc. As a percentage of its total, the Athletics Department pays back more than 11% of its budget to the university. Lou Gross pointed out that other externally-funded projects (research, teaching and public service) pay back 45% (gross) of their budget to the university in F& A recoveries, or else UT makes a formal decision to cost-share these expenses. Discussion focused on comparing this to the 17% F&A recovery level for research enterprises. The point was made that the Athletics Department does not pay for some in-kind commitments, including its legal services or payroll services. Discussion focused on how to account for the cost and benefits of the Athletic Department, and how they compare to universities with programs of a similar size and scope. An effort will be made to obtain more complete data on this subject. We will also look at levels of recovery from other forms of auxiliary enterprises.

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.

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.

Budget Committee Meeting
Monday November 12, 2001

October 8: Gross moved, Whelan seconded to approve as amended. Passed.
October 22: Gross moved, Peterson seconded. Passed.

1. Mark Hedrick -- Task Force on Contingent Employees

   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.

2. David Reidy -- Update on COLA Equal Raise Proposal

   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.

3. Sylvia Davis
   • Update on the IRIS program.

     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.

   • Additional budget information (Spring 2001) on the Athletic Dept. was shared.

     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.

4. Beauvais Lyons

   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; and

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.

1. Making the Budget and Budget Process More Transparent

   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).

2. Budget Committee and Research Focus Area Connections

   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.

3. UT Technology Fee Deferment for UT Family Members

   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.

Budget Committee Meeting
January 23, 2002

1. Mark Hedrick--Task Force on Contingent Employees

   The Task Force has a report that will be presented at the Feb. 4th Senate Meeting.

2. Sylvia Davis--update on status of SAP-IRI

   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.

3. Beauvais Lyons

   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.

1. Making the Budget and Budget Process More Transparent

   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.

2. Issues to be considered at future meetings include:

   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 data

Two 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:

• 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

The revised spread sheets will be prepared for the next Budget meeting on Monday February 25th.

Budget Committee Meeting
February 25, 2002

1. Sylvia Davis Reports
   
   
   1. report on Strategic Planning Task Force Retreat (2-20-02) Davis Reported on the retreat that was held on Feb. 21, 2002. Goals and objectives were the reviewed at the meeting Ð communication issues will be an important aspect of each objective. Also looking at measurable outcomes for each objective. The tough work is ahead as we make choices on how to fulfill the objectives at the college and dept. level. This may drive the budget process for the hearings in 2003. Peterson asked to what extent will the work we did on APEC relate to the planning process. Davis said that we need to be more focused in directing our resources than APEC.
      
      
   2. Sylvia Davis and Loren Crabtree are putting together a contingency faculty task force to look more closely at the data. It may arrive at the same conclusions as the Senate's Task Force on Contingent Employees, but will do so based on accurate data.
   
   
2. Beauvais Lyons Reports
   
   
   1. A copy of Lyons' report to Strategic Planning Task Force was distributed as an information item.
      
      
   2. The Budget Hearing Schedule was reviewed and scribes were designated. Lyons will forward this set of assignments to the members of the committee. Scribes will be responsible for taking notes and emailing them to Lyons. The committee also decided to add an additional meeting on Thursday March 28th at 3:30pm in the Senate conference room to discuss the hearings. Provost Crabtree will be invited.
      
      
   3. Lyons reported on the status of faculty salary data study. He apologized for alck of progress since the last meeting. Moran will take the salary data and try to update as requested at the January meeting. Sylvia will verify if the data includes everything but longevity.
      
      
   4. Lyons encouraged members of the committee to begin thinking about selection of the Budget Committee Chair for 2002-2003. He indicated that while he wants to be on the committee next year, he is hoping someone else will assume the chair duties.

1. Reconsideration of the Resolution on UT Payroll Policies:

Motion 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.