Meeting of the Faculty Senate

December 6, 2006

Report by Senator Lapsley

Open Meeting

University Finances. The Senate welcomed Executive Vice-President John Affleck-Graves who was invited to speak on University finances by the Senate Benefits Committee. Four specific questions were submitted to Dr Affleck-Graves prior to the meeting. He prefaced his remarks with a .ppt presentation of the University’s financial situation. The University relies on 5 revenue streams:

  1. tuition fees
  2. auxiliary revenues (“football”, bookstore, bowl monies)
  3. endowment
  4. contracts-and-grants
  5. gifts

Currently the tuition stream accounts for about 40% of the University’s revenue, but this will drop to 25% by 2015. Most peer institutions are around 20%. Moreover, the University is “maxed-out” with respect to the tuition revenue stream. Other sources will be needed to grow the University.

The “auxiliary” source accounts for about 20% of the University’s revenue, and this is the target goal. Football monies, for example, funds all other varsity sports; intramural sports; on-campus athletic facilities for use by faculty; student financial aid, among other things.

The endowment currently accounts for 15% to 21% of the University’s revenue---the goal is to increase this to 30%.

Contracts and grants account for 15% of the University’s revenue----the percentage is greater at peer institutions.

Gifts amount to 6% of the revenue---the goal is to increase this to 10%.

If we are to grow the university, and expand its graduate mission, then there must be appreciable increases in grants, endowment income and giving. Increasing tuition is no longer possible, and increases in auxiliary revenue are not realistic. Alumni giving are actually quite strong—ND is ranked in the top 3 in the country for the number of alumni who contribute, so there is potential here. The EVP noted that the university is in the “silent phase” of a new capital campaign, where one goal is to convince donors to pay for graduate stipends.

But clearly the message here was that growing the university’s mission depends on grants, and there is room for improvement. We appear to be outpaced by several peer institutions in this respect. Several senators pointed out that many of our peer institutions are affiliated with grant-rich medical schools; and that the burden appears to fall on the ND engineering and science colleges. This was not disputed by the EVP.

The EVP was asked about the university’s plans to grow contracts and grants. Much depends on the faculty. The university, he said, was much like a venture capital firm that invests seed money in promising projects, building capacity and infrastructure so that the project might compete successfully for external funding. Unlike venture capital firms, however, the university does not withdraw lab space, increase teaching load or “pull the plug” when ventures fail (this was said somewhat ruefully).

The EVP was asked about whether there were plans to increase the “personnel infrastructure” of the university, i.e., add more faculty lines (to better position the university to compete for research monies was how I understood the question). The EVP replied that ND might “need to be more of a market university.” By this he seemed to say that historically ND was very egalitarian in setting, say, faculty teaching loads, regardless of research activity, and that perhaps too many faculty are wanting to teach the same load irrespective of such activity. He noted his own case---when he returns to the regular faculty he will insist on teaching more courses just because he’s been out of research for so long given his administrative duties.

So, the vision of the EVP seems to be that ND may well become not only a “differential teaching load” university, but also one of “differential pay” (see # 1 below).

The EVP also addressed briefly several plans that will be rolled-out to cut costs and, in this context, mentioned the revived standing committee on environment of which D. Narvaez has been appointed. Apparently, greening-the-university is motivated by cost reduction (or ‘greenbacks”--Sorry).

Four Questions

The EVP was asked four specific questions:

1. What kind of pay raises should full-time faculty with satisfactory performance expect relative to the cost of living?

The EVP noted that, on average, faculty should expect raises commensurate with the cost-of-living; and that significant pay raises are to be expected (only) with promotion. This led to a vigorous debate with many senators who insisted (with data) that pay raises over the last several years were below the cost-of-living. Perhaps the discrepancy is due to the fact that announced percentage pay raises did not reflect the monies that deans (and other officers) hold back for administrative reasons (e.g., for promotions), so that the remaining monies “left over” for rank-and-file pay raises would be lower? The EVP disputed this. Perhaps there are disparities by college? The EVP did note that ND is moving into a “differential pay system” so perhaps not everyone should expect pay raises commensurate with the cost-of-living. My general impression, though, is that the EVP is convinced that everyone at ND has been getting pay raises at least commensurate with the cost-of-living index, while this was disputed by the Senate Benefits Committee.

2.Given ND’s commitment to increasing its externally-sponsored research funding, what incentives exist to encourage faculty, in particular senior tenured faculty, to pursue and compete for external research funding?

The EVP was a bit exasperated with this question. The tenor of his answer was that it was a faculty member’s self-respect---his or her commitment to scholarship and disciplinary inquiry --- that provides all the incentive that is necessary.

3.Of the top 25 Ph.D.-granting institutions, only Dartmouth and Notre Dame do not provide the university match on retirement contributions for salary drawn during the summer months. When will ND begin providing this matching contribution?

The EVP noted a number of complications (some of which I did not understand completely), but he assured the Senate that the administration is working on a plan to provide the university match.

4.What ways can you envision to increase faculty participation in the budgeting process?

The EVP noted that the budget process is decentralized and bottom-up. Faculties make their needs known, and have input on priorities, at the departmental level, which is then passed along to deans and central administration.

Student Affairs Sub-Committee Meeting

I signed on to the standing Student Affairs sub-committee. We met just briefly so there is not much to report. The subcommittee has taken an interest in graduate student health issues. There is a university committee---possibly including directors of graduate studies---that is currently collecting data and information. Then a consultant will be hired to sort out options and to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Attending to health insurance coverage is high priority of the Provost, who desires the benefits package to be on par with peer institutions.

The sub-committee has also taken an interest in faculty responsibilities in protecting physical security of students.