Meeting Minutes: November 3, 2011
Members Present: Andre Ariew, Steve Ball, Clyde Bentley, Jeni Hart (for Lisa Flores), Francisco Gomez, Cheryl Heesch, Art Jago, Rebecca Johnson, Jonathan Krieckhaus, Sudarshan Loyalka, Tom Marrero, Dennis Miller, Joe Parcell, Leona Rubin, Stephen Montgomery-Smith (for Johannes Schul), Harry Tyrer, Douglas Wakefield, Shelley Worden (Librarians), Don Sievert (MURA), Richard Guyette, Nicole Monnier (NTT), and Rebekah Hart (sec.). Members Absent: Edward Adelstein, Gordon Christensen, John Dwyer, Candace Galen, Ann Harrell, Norman Land, Ilhyung Lee, Craig Roberts, Stephen Sayers, James Tarr, Vitor Trindade, Charles Nilon (Black Faculty and Staff), Katherine Reed (NTT), and Sam White (NTT).
Approval of Minutes
Chair Harry Tyrer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in S203 Memorial Union. The October 20, 2011 Council minutes were approved as submitted.
Guest: Nikki Krawitz, Vice President of Finance and Administration on Performance Funding. The idea of performance funding has been considered in Missouri for a while, and has been an issue in other states as well. The Missouri Department of Education convened a task force to create the measures to present to the Coordinating Board of Higher Education by December. The idea of performance funding is for institutions to compete against themselves, not with other institutions. From the proceedings of the task force, both two-year (MCCA) and four-year (COPHE) institutions seem fairly clear in their approach to this funding style. All institutions oppose having any affordability measures due to the fact that affordability is due in large part to the level of state support and the current level of funding is below where it was ten years ago and has not been adjusted for dramatic increases in enrollment. Additional information for all institutions: performance funding should only come from new funding above base year; the total new funding appropriated for performance in any one year should be limited to 1-2 percent of the base and additional increases should be distributed on another basis; and performance funding awards should become part of the base. Additional work needs to be done on implementing the performance funding program. The DHE suggested that each fall, it would complete the calculations, determine if institutions meet the established threshold(s) for funding and include the appropriate amount of funding for each institution as part of the appropriations request along with base funding and other funding requests. The plan is to implement performance funding for the FY 2014 budget. This means that what occurs during FY2012, this year, will be the last opportunity to influence the first year of the funding. The measures will be taken to the CBHE for approval at the December 2011 meeting. The implementation details will follow later.
Following Krawitz’s presentation, Council raised the following questions: how can quality of education be measured; what data can be used to measure quality of education; can we separate MU from the other four-year institutions; and, how is funding going to be allocated. Krawitz replied that discussion is ongoing on these and many other concerns, however on funding, what occurred in 2012 will influence the first year of performance funding. There were additional questions on sustaining performance and how is sustainability defined. Krawitz responded that the focus of performance funding is undergraduate education and institutions are competing against themselves, not other institutions. Council raised the issues of why this system is biased towards measuring undergraduate activity over graduate activity and why were there not any faculty on the task force. According to Krawitz, their measures were developed nationally by using data collected by many institutions. Krawitz welcomes input from faculty on other good measures whereby institutions can collect data.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Shelley Worden, Recorder