↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
OI7-£
Revisions to the College’s Budget and current performance. ,
Because of a number of factors, the revised college budget shows the College’s budget to
be in worse shape than it currently is. This is primarily due to the lack of college
representation at the October board meeting and the December Executive Committee
meeting. When college representation was available, the information provided was either
disregarded or overridden by university officials. The revised budget presented to the
board was made on guidelines and included revisions that were never made known to
college officials or the college’s governing bodies. The revised budget is also based on
risks that the board of trustees has pledged to support, most notably the lead gift line for
the capital campaign that began at the college this past year.
In April, Adcil and the College passed a 2001-2002 budget. After review of that budget
in ULC, the University administration/CFO recommended a list of 82 points for inclusion
in the College’s budget. Of these 82,29 made their way into the College budget,
including the lead gift line of $1,659,688.
At the June 2001 meeting, the board of trustees, upon the recommendation of the
Chancellor, the Finance Committee, and the ULC, increased the Lead Gift line from the
ULC recommend budgeted amount of $1,659,688 to $2,000,000. This increase was
intended to reflect the startup costs of the capital campaign. To compensate for this
increase, the Board further authorized a list of items that were to be encumbered,
including the Development office position of Director of Development and Alumni
Relations, the lead fundraiser of the College. The approval for encumbered items was
given to the CFO and the Chair of the Finance committee, and could not be exercised
until $350,000 was credited to the lead gift line. This set up the Catch-22 that the College
could not fill the lead fundraising position until a certain amount of fund had been raised.
However, the Finance Committee held a conference call on May 23,2001, and discussed
the University’s upcoming $880,000 deficit. Participants in the conference call
specifically addressed the then $1.6 million lead gift line with the result “That makes this
forthcoming budget proposal unbalanced.”
During the Finance Committee meeting May 318t and June 1st, it was recorded that the
college had a “lead gift line of $1.7 million with no definitive revenue source behind it
and represents a significant gamble to the institution.” The minutes further record “in
summary, the Vice Chancellor said that he could not recommend approval of the budget
as presented.” It was at this meeting that the Finance Committee first raised the cost-
saving ideas of “technology redundancies” and “sharing of facilities across campuses”.
These issues were to be examined further at the July 23d meeting of the finance
committee in Columbus.
At the June 29* conference call of the Finance/Stabilization committee, then president
Bob Devine registered his objection to the increase to a 2.0 million lead gift line in the
College’s budget and the items being encumbered.
During the Finance committee’s meeting on July 23″1, the committee made a list of the
biggest risks to the university’s 2001 budget. 1.6 million of these risks was the lead gift
line. Further expenditures that represented a risk made up another 1.5 million, including
200,000 in the over-awarding of discounts. Revenues that were not certain, including the
list of embargoed items that was created specifically to offset the risk of the Lead Gift
line, made up 1.8 million. The finance committee concluded that the university was in
risk for about 1.45 million.
The committee then gave responsibilities for addressing expenses that could be reduced
to compensate for the necessary risks previously stated. This included both Yellow
Springs Functional Redundancies and a mandated headcount reduction of 10 people,
assigned to Jim McDonald and Bruce Bedford. Item also assigned to members for further
investigations were outsourcing and the sale of yellow springs real estate.
Tom Clough specifically indicated at this meeting that the University should distribute a
document that outlined the true financial situation at the university to faculty and staff to
dispel fears and rumors.
The first mention of depreciation was during the May 31 finance committee meeting.
During this meeting, the committee also accepted a proposed 275,000 loan to Seattle for
renovations. The committee minutes indicate that the charge from the board was to
develop a financial stabilization plan based on:
No financial losses in the next 18 to 24 months.
All units staying in budget.
A restructuring of budgetary practices and presentations.
At the July 23rf finance committee meeting, Jim McDonald distributed financial plans
including depreciation “to give the committee a clearer picture of the financial situation at
each unit.” They also examined the number of personnel at each campus.
The revised budget given to the board in December removed the college’s subsidy
revenue from the university. This revised budget was used as the reason for the college to
investigate money-saving reductions. The December actual budget shows that these
subsidies have continued to be given to the college, hence the college’s performance in
December is better then predicted by a $.5 million.
Additionally, a 1 million gift was received by the College in December. The University
CFO reported that he was unaware of this gift, so the revenue will not show up until
January. $500 thousand of this is unrestricted, and will be applied to January’s operating
budget. Even without this revenue included in January, the budget for January shows an
excess, due to the revenue of spring tuition and the lower then anticipated heating costs.
The Finance committee of the board was charged to develop a stabilization plan that
included all units staying in budget, a policy initially approved by the board October
1985.. To implement this requirement, University officials instructed the college to
develop a financial plan to deal with a 1.8 million projected deficit at the college. The
university officials did not explicitly communicate to the College governance dial this 1.8
million projected college deficit is a worst-case scenario based on
1-the omission of University subsidies to the college, (subsides which are
specifically mandated in the ULC principles & policy handbook)
2- the inclusion of depreciation at the college for items listed as university assets
(which had never been included prior to Oct 2001), and
3-a reduction of the lead gift line (which made up $1.8 million of the finance
committee’s calculated risk) from the BOT approved $2 million to $600 thousand.
In all prior years, the University offset the year-end actual deficit by waiving the
University overhead fees for the college. In October of this year the University
administration changed that policy by instead offsetting the inclusion of the deficit at the
college level, and requiring a 0-dollar projected deficit. Given that the college has run a
deficit for probably 25 of the last 30 years, these mid-year changes to the college’s budget
provides a clear University foundation for the inclusion of the College in university
personnel cuts.
These concerns have been raised and discussed by community members and college
governance bodies throughout the process initially started October 25* by Jim Hall. If the
College had had adequate leadership at the October board meeting and December
Executive committee meeting, the College could have bought these issues to the Board of
Trustees. Unfortunately, the same people that were in charge of the final budget proposed
to the board of the trustees were the same officials that were charged with representing
the College to the Board of Trustees.
It is clear that an immediate re-examination of the College’s budgetary is warranted. The
current performance of the college would seem to indicate that the drastic college budget-
cutting measures proposed by University administration arc not necessary, and that
reduced budget-cutting options should be explored.
©’
c ~N
Antioch College
Budget Proposals 2001-2002
FUNCTION
Revenues
Tuition and Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts ,
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services, Admissions, FinAid
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
.Principal Payments
Add back Deprciation
Total Cash Items
2001/02
AdCil
Budget
13,357.425
(3,069,377)
1,854.689
0
1,300,000
181,000
0
100.000
13.723.737
2.455,635
1.600,000
17,779,372
4,954,755
0
0
1,014,242
2,347.345
2.479,413
1.515,799
1.907,253
14,218.807
2,142,126
16,360,933
1,418,439
80,000
0
575,071
0
655,071
+Fav-Unfav
Change
1,194,960
(126,775)
(773.311)
0
(39.569)
(7,000)
0
(62.000)
186,305
(171,121)
425,620
440,804
(118,889)
0
0
(67,073)
(135.519)
25.671
107.937
0
(187.873)
(56,495)
(244,368)
685,172
(2,113,484)
1,946,800
88,488
0
(78,196)
%
Change
9.82%
4.31%
-29.43%
0.00%
-2.95%
-3.72%
-38.27%
1.38%
-6.51%
36.24%
2.54%
-2.34%
-6.20%
-5.46%
1.05%
7.67%
0.00%
-1.30%
-2.57%
-1.47%
93.44%
-96.35%
-100.00%
18.19%
-10.66%
2001/02
REVISED
Budget
13.330.425
(3,149,377)
1.854.689
1.659.688
1.338,293
381,000
0
133.139
15,547.857
2.455.635
714.997
18.718,489
5.373,971
0
0
1.013.357
2.848,595
2,782,292
1.822.127
2,012,166
15,852,508
2.210,910
18.063,418
655.071
80.000
0
575,071
0
655,071
-fFav-Unfav
Change
(27.000)
(80.000)
0
1,659.688
38,293
200,000
0
33,139
1,824.120
0
(885.003)
939.117
419.216
0
0
(885)
501.250
302,879
306.328
104.913
1.633.701
68,784
1.702.485
(763,368)
0
0
0
0
0
%
Change
-0.20%
2.61%
0.00%
100.00%
2.95%
110.50%
0.00%
33.14%
13.29%
0.00%
-55.31%
5.28%
8.46%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.09%
21.35%
12.22%
20.21%
5.50%
11.49%
3.21%
10.41%
-53.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Net Cash Basis Budget 763.368 763,368 0.00% (763,368) -100.00%
Salary,Wage, & Benefit Improvements 443,673 443,673
Additional Approved Searches & Vacancies 319,695 319,695
Included
Included
Included
Included
‘
To: jcraiglow@antiochne.edu, bdanley@mcgregor.edu,
bdevine@antioch-college.edu, tamurdock@antiochsea.edu,
mark_schulman@antiochla.edu, lalexandre@antioch.edu
Cc: jhall@antioch.edu, bedfob@yahoo.com, msweetwood@aol.com,
rkrinsky@segalco.com, jmcdl ©optonline.net
Subject: Request for Organization Charts
Dear Presidents,
The Stabilization Committee met last Friday and asked that they be
provided with current organization charts for each of the campuses and
operating units. These are to be conventional box and line charts showing
the name of the departments.
In most cases, it will be necessary to divide the chart into several
sections in order to conveniently display all of the appropriate
information on standard size paper. Please make sure that individuals who
are unfamiliar with your structure can properly associate the various
chart sections.
The Stabilization Committee will be meeting in Columbus on Monday, Juiy
23. In order to be able to duplicate, assemble and mail the organization
charts to the Committee, we will need your charts not later than Tuesday,
July 17.
I recognize that this task represents a significant effort for those
campuses that have not already prepared organization charts, but the
Committee is working under a short timetable to complete its work Defore
it must respond to the full Board. Therefore, the Committee members are
very anxious to have this basic administrative information as soon as
possible.
It is my understanding that we will need to prepare organization charts
for the North Central accreditation review. The organization charts that
you update or prepare for the Committee should meet, in large part, the
future needs of the North Central accreditation team.
A request of this nature may create some concern about how the material
may be used and to what end. The Committee has requested these charts to
gain a better understanding of the structure and complexity of the
Printed for Barbara Stewart
“you – – ~ns about:,hm you -*«JS-— –
‘”””‘ «r£^l^
Page 8
Board of Trustees
June 2001 Minutes
Open Session
[Note: the Board-at its February 2001 meeting approved a schedule of tuition and fees for
Antioch College.]
Jim McDonald referenced the budget book for background on the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 6.02.01:7 (McDonald/Bedford^
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has approved the quiet phase of a capital campaign;
and
WHEREAS, more than $700,000 of expenditures preparatory to the capital campaign
have been reflected in the College budget for FY 2001 -2002; and
WHEREAS, there is uncertainty as to the amount of unrestricted lead gifts which will be
recognized during FY 2001-2002;
RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, the University Leadership
Council, and the Finance Committee, the Board of Trustees adopts the unrestricted
general operating budget and the capital budget for FY 2001-2002 as presented to the
Board of Trustees at this meeting and as modified to increase the lead gift line of the
college’s unrestricted general operating budget from $1,659,688 to $2,000,000;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following items in the College Budget shall be
considered “embargoed expenditures”:
Development Office vacant position $ 67,548
Build-up in the Admissions Office 455,075
Drey Revolving Fund 200,000
Salary Increases above 2% 299,377
Campus Contingency, Discretionary 150,000
and the following items as discussed at this meeting shall also be considered embargoed
expenditures:
University Conference Fund
New England $ 8,480
Seattle 8,400
Southern California 9,240
McGregor 5,240
College 8,640
Adult campuses, $17,000 each 68,000
University Administration 20,000
Page 9
Board of Trustees
June 2001 Minutes
Open Session
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby delegates to the Vice
Chancellor and CFO and to the Chair of the Finance Committee authority to approve the
expenditures that have been designated as “embargoed expenditures” in the unrestricted
general operating budget and the capital budget for FY 2001-2002, such approval being
expressly contingent upon the availability of funds from gifts or other sources that can be
credited to the lead gift line that are not otherwise reflected in the revenues of said
budgets. The authority to approve embargoed expenditures shall not be exercised until
such time as $350,000 has been credited to the lead gifts line of the College’s unrestricted
general operating budget for 2001-2002. The final $350,000 shall be credited only after
all embargoed expenditures have been released.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby delegates to the Vice
Chancellor and CFO the final authority to approve capital expenditures between $10,000
and $25,000 as set forth in the FY 2001-2002 capital budget.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby ratifies and confirms the action taken by
the Vice Chancellor and CFO to require all campus CFO’s to certify in writing the
accuracy and completeness of their respective budgets for FY 2001-2002.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the Board of Trustees that all budgets
hereafter submitted to the Board for approval shall be accompanied by the written
certification of each campus President and CFO certifying to the accuracy and
completeness of that campus’ proposed budget, in a form satisfactory to the Vice
Chancellor and CFO.
RESOLVED FINALLY, that each campus and other operating units of the University
shall hereafter fully comply with the expenditure and revenue control measures, including
encumbrance of approved expenditures, specified by the Vice Chancellor and CFO.
Passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 6.2.01:16 (McDonald/Kasch)
RESOLVED, that $600,000 of the gain (realized or unrealized) or earnings on the
University’s unrestricted endowment fund shall be made available to the campuses
during FY 2001-2002 as budgeted, to provide funds for infrastructure and or program
development. At such time in the future that certain unrestricted bequests and pledges
from the College’s last capital campaign are received (which have been previously
identified to fund campus reserves per Resolution 2.6.99:13), those funds will be placed
in a quasi-endowment fund which shall be used to provide the College with annual
operating funds in lieu of receiving distribution from the endowment fund under the
Board’s current policy (Resolution 6.5.99:10) which shall be temporarily suspended to
permit future gains and earnings on the endowment fund to accumulate.
Passed unanimously.
Antioch University
Finance Committee Minutes
May 31 and June 1, 2001
Present: Jim McDonald, chair; Bruce Bedford; Bob Krinsky; Monique Clague;
Pegene McPhaden; Leressa Crockett; Art Zucker; Niels Lyster; Judy Palmer;
Glenn Watts; Rosalie Sturtevant; Toni Murdock; Barbara Danley; Jim Craiglow;
Mark Schulman; Bob Devine; Jim Hall; and David Weaver. Several other
members of the Board were also present.
The Finance Committee meeting held in Keene, New Hampshire spanned
May 31 and June 1, 2001. The meeting began with the approval of Beverly L.
Viemeister as the Chair of the Glen Helen Board of Overseers and Randall G.
Daniel as the Chair of the WYSO Resource Board by unanimous vote. Both
terms begin July 1, 2001.
The main item of discussion was the 2001-02 Antioch University budget. An
introduction concerning the 2000-01 year-end by Glenn Watts indicated that
Antioch’s bottom line has been drifting down in recent years. He mentioned that
the University could realize a deficit of $870,000 or more at June 31, 2001,
including stock market fluctuations.
In the 2001-02 budget, as in past years, depreciation is not covered and will
represent a $2.9 million expense. The College budget contains a Lead Gift line
of $1.7 million with no definitive revenue source behind it and represents a
significant gamble to the institution. This budget is extremely tight and, even
though the contingencies and liquidity reserves are pledged to cover
depreciation, the budget still represents a deficit. Everything must go right to
avoid another deficit, and this budget contains too much risk. In the past, liquidity
and contingency reserves have been sufficient to cover the deficit, but that is not
the case in 2001-02. Problems that arise with a deficit are unfavorable audit
comments, not meeting bond covenants, risks to continuation of Federal financial
aid, and the upcoming NCA reaccreditation process. In summary, the Vice
Chancellor said that he could not recommend approval of the budget as
presented.
Speaking on behalf of the Presidents, Jim Craiglow emphasized that the
campuses need short term stabilization, both financial and strategic. The adult
campuses have over $2 million in unfunded reserves due them from the 1980’s.
The Presidents do not want this fact lost in stabilization discussions.
A discussion ensued concerning the budgeted $600,000 of Endowment gains to
be used for adult campus capital and program development projects. It was
agreed that Antioch needs to shoot for a break even finish in the 2001-02 year.
The Committee brainstormed on a few areas of interest to be examined at the July 23rd
meeting in Colymbus. Glenn and Rosalie are to prepare materials for discussion-of
these items, which are:
– the existing Budget Guidelines
– possible properties and land holdings that could be sold
– outsourcing
– sharing of facilities across campuses
– technology redundancies
– creative ways to realize bequests
– sources of additional funding to invest in PR and marketing
– organization charts, personnel ratios and vacant positions
– faculty course load practices at each campus
The Committee also decided that Jim Hall would notify each campus president that a
short term hiring approval process would go into place immediately to give the
Stabilization project members time to get their bearings on the financial situation.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM EST.
Finance Committee Minutes
Conference Call
May 23, 2001
Page 2
A review of the projected 2000-01 year-end was presented by Glenn Watts. With
the stock market results through May 21, the year-end deficit appears to have
fallen to around $888,000. The College annual fund is one variable that could
still fall short of its goal. Lois Mann reported that there is $159,000 in solid
pledges yet to come in, but that the annual fund will need to receive another
$300,000 in gifts in June to make the budget. She pointed out that in June 2000,
$300,000 was received into the annual fund, but the historical average amount
for June is $171,000.
A discussion of the 2001-02 budget process ensued, with an explanation that the
sources of the $1.6 million of lead gifts in the College budget is unknown at this
time. That makes this forthcoming budget proposal unbalanced.
Board members requested that the College provide an updated year-end
projection based on the April actuals and that the board be given the details of
the Capital Campaign and special Recruitment budgets within the 2001-02
budget.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45pm EST.
Antioch University . .
Finance/Stabilization Committee Minutes
Conference Call
June 29,2001
Present: Jim McDonald, chair; Art Zucker, Pegene McPhaden, Judy Palmer, Dan
Kaplan, Bruce Bedford, Bill Hooper, Jack Mersalis, Jim Hall, Glenn Watts, Rosalie
Sturtevant
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 PM EST.
A brief discussion of the Seattle remodeling projected ensued with Glenn Watts
describing the project itself as a conversion of part of the space vacated by the
Swallow’s Nest for use by the campus for library space, computer lab space, classrooms
and offices. Bill Hooper assured the committee that he had reviewed the plans for the
project and had talked to the architect and was satisfied with the plan. He
recommended that the project be approved. The sources of funds were discussed
which included a $275,000 loan from the University’s Reserve Account to be paid back
by Seattle over 5 years at 7% interest. A motion to approve the project by Bruce
Bedford, seconded by Pegene McPhaden was approved by all committee members.
Next an informational item concerning the Capital Campaign’s Ketchum contract was
presented by Jim Hall. Because at the June 2001 Board Meeting, the finance committee
made approval of this contract contingent upon the availability of funds, the committee
was apprised of current situation. Given the draft contract language allowing for a thirty
day termination of the Ketchum contract without further cost, the committee determined
that the funds already In hand or pledged met the contingency.
The committee next began work on the Financial Stabilization process. The committee’s
charge from the Board is to develop a plan that provides financial stabilization across the
University, which includes:
– no financial losses in the next 18 to 24 month period
– all units staying within budget
– a reduction of risk and a higher probability of achieving a balanced budget
– a restructuring of the budget practices and the presentation of financial
information
A report is to be presented to the Board at the Oct, 2001 meeting.
The timeline laid out is tentatively:
– July 9 Teleconference, 10 AM EST
– July 23 One day meeting in Columbus, location TBA
– August Additional phone and possible face-to-face meetings
– Sept 15 Deliberations over and plan agreed upon
– Sept 28 Report to the Board written
– October 8 Report mailed to the full Board
– Oct 18 Board Meeting presentation
Chair Jim McDonald next suggested that in order to approve the budget, an
’embargo list’ of items that would not be spent until lead gifts were received,
needed to be developed and attached to the budget (see attachment for
embargo list and spending procedure).
The meeting was recessed until the next day, 6-1-01.
The meeting reconvened on 6-1-01 at 10AM. Present: Jim McDonald, chair; Jeff
Kasch; Art Zucker; Pegene McPhaden; Niels Lyster; Bill Hooper; Judy Palmer;
Sandra Deming; Bruce Bedford; Lillian Lovelace; Glenn Watts; Jim Craiglow; Bob
Devine; Toni Murdock; Barbara Danley; Mark Schulman; Jim Hall; Lois Mann
After discussion, it was agreed that the Lead Gift line must receive $350,000
before any of the specific embargoed items can be released.
President Mudock presented a proposal to build-out part of the space in the
Seattle building that was formerly leased to the Swallow’s Nest.
The meeting was recessed until later in the day.
The meeting was reconvened at 4PM. Present: Jim McDonald, chair; Niels
Lyster; Sandra Deming; Art Zucker; Pegene McPhaden; Jeff Kasch; Bruce
Bedford; Bill Hooper; Glenn Watts; Rosalie Sturtevant; Bob Devine.
There was a motion to approve the tuition rates, as they appear in the 2001-02
budget, by Art Zucker, seconded by Niels Lyster. All approved.
There was a motion to approve the 2001-02 budget, with the Lead Gift line
increased to $2.0 million and the embargo qualifications, by Art Zucker,
seconded by Judy Palmer. All approved.
Bob Devine registered objections to the $2.0 million lead gift line contained in the
College budget and to the encumbrance procedure. Jim McDonald replied that
the encumbrance procedure was a short term fix to keep us from a deficit in
2001-02 and was not intended as a permanent shift in how we do business.
Glenn Watts commented that these are needed controls that several of the CFOs
are welcoming and that the University Controller will work with the CFOs to set
up an encumbrance system. Jeff Kasch added that we need discipline in place
to limit the downside risk in this budget.
A resolution was moved by Bruce Bedford, seconded by Pegene McPhaden to
allow the one time use of $600,000 of unrestricted endowment gains by the
campuses for capital and program development items as described in the
budget. All approved.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Attachment
-2-
Antioch University
Finance Committee Minutes
Stabilization Project
Concourse Hotel, Columbus, Ohio
July 23, 2001
Present: Jim McDonald, chair; Art Zucker, Pegene McPhaden, Judy Palmer, Dan
Kaplan, Bruce Bedford, Jeff Kasch, Bob Krinsky, Jim Hall, Glenn Watts, Rosalie
Sturtevant, and guest consultant, Tom Clough.
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM EDT.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss possible measures to take to ensure the
financial stability of the University for 2001 -02. Antioch cannot have a deficit finish to
the year because of the upcoming accreditation review and because of the many
bond covenants we must meet.
Jim McDonald led the committee through some background material and a summary
of previous meetings this group has had. We then focused on some financial
schedules requested by the group. Budgeted financials by campus were restated to
eliminate overhead charges, rebates, and contingencies; depreciation amounts were
added. This restructuring was done to give the Committee a clearer picture of the
financial situation at each unit. Personnel ratios were also examined by campus.
Next the committee focused on what items were the biggest risks to the University
completing the 2001-02 year with a surplus, as well as possible offsets. The items
identified were:
Lead Gifts not materializing
Unbudgeted expenses
Enrollment shortfalls
Over-awarding of discounts
Shortfall in the annual fund
“Murphy’s Law” events
Endowment Income (new endowment)
Hold the line on embargoed items
Budgeted Excess
Total
$1.66 million
$ .25
$ .50
$ .20
$ .14
$ .50
($ .20)
($ .85)
($ .75)
$1.45 million
The Committee concluded that the University was at risk for around $1.45 million
because so many items were shaky or uncertain. Tom Clough suggested that we
prepare some materials that looked at the trend line of net income from students for
the last several years.
Finance Committee Minutes
Stabilization Project
Page 2
Finance Committee Minutes
July 23,2001
Page 2
The Committee then brainstormed about steps that might help to reduce some of the
costs, and therefore risks, during the short term. The Committee member who will
assume responsibility for each item is listed in parentheses.) These include:
– An audit of the Admissions Office (Dan w/Bob Devine)
– Increased PR and marketing (Art)
– Yellow Springs functional redundancies (Bruce and Jeff)
– A mandated headcount reduction of 10 people (Bruce and Jeff)
– The establishment of a stabilization fund, status of AIF funds, other? (Dan)
– National Procurement Contracts (travel, IT, supplies, long distance) (Peggy
w/Barbara Danley)
– Outsourcing (Peggy w/Barbara Danley)
– Benchmarking (Glenn)
– Marginal Cost of Students, yield management (Bruce w/Toni Murdock)
– Excess Yellow Springs physical plant & real estate sales (Judy w/Glenn)
Faculty workload was also discussed and it was agreed that Bruce should as Bob
Devine to suspend the change in loads that will become effective this fall. It is not
clear what the change might cost in the future, or what other impacts it might have.
Until the Committee completes its report, no workload changes should be
implemented.
The Committee requested some comparable personnel counts for the past few years,
if available.
Tom Clough asked us to consider if there is some acceptable level of deficit we might
be willing to accept for the next few years. He also encouraged us to understand the
marginal cost of students at the College. His advice was that a document explaining
the true financial situation at the University and at the campuses be developed and
widely disbursed to faculty and staff at all campuses to dispel fears and rumors.
It was decided that as many Committee members as possible would meet with Bob
Devine and Barbara Danley in Yellow Springs on August 3 to gather input on the
above list. The full committee will also meet again on Thursday, September 13 in
New York at 9:00 AM EDT.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM EDT.
