APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE RC MANAGERS MEETING
March 13, 2014
9:00 a.m. – Noon, 107/108 Eagle Commons
Present:

B. Bailey, L. Campbell, P. Fackler, J. Foster, P. Frese, J. Geiger, D. Hartley, D.
Katis, T. Latour, R. Puller, S. Puleio, C. Reber, D. Sobina, H. Tripp, T. Varsek,
and K. Whitney.

Minutes
The minutes of the RC Managers’ Meetings of the February 13, 2014, were approved as drafted.
Agenda Items
1.

Website Timeline
J. Geiger reviewed a proposed timeline for migrating the university’s current web site to
a new one. He noted the need for web content to be engaging and consistent and
distributed to each RC Manager a listing of the current content managers (CMs) for their
web pages. He noted that J. Strohm would be working with CMs on the transition.
T. Latour noted problems that had occurred during a former cutover period between old
and new university websites. He further noted that the current content management
system had not provided the flexibility that the Libraries needed. B. Bailey noted that a
balance between functional and promotional content would be critical. J. Geiger
indicated that those issues had been identified for attention as part of the migration.
Also discussed was a new design for the university’s homepage. J. Geiger indicated that
the homepage would not feature the swoosh eagle logo; he noted that the eagle logo
would likely be used by Athletics. He added that the homepage would have no date and
would include the new branded tag line of “Courageous, Confident, Clarion.”
In response to T. Latour’s question about the level of flexibility individual units would
have with their web pages, J. Geiger noted the importance of reinforcing the university
brand. He added that based on Mind over Media analysis, the current Clarion brand had
very low name recognition. H. Tripp agreed that building name recognition would take
work and the support of all units. K. Whitney noted that the university’s budget for
marketing would be increasing from $100,000 per year to between $400,000 and
$500,000 per year.

2
2.

Proposed Changes to Responsibility Center Budgeting Manual from the University
Budget Review and Implementation Committee (BRIC)
D. Sobina highlighted changes to the university’s RC Budgeting Manual proposed by the
BRIC as outlined in her 3/10/14 memo to K. Whitney. She noted that the 90/10 split in
tuition had been the most problematic issue reviewed by the group, which was
recommending the split’s elimination in favor of distributing all tuition revenue to the RC
absorbing the cost of the course offering. She further noted the BRIC’s belief that
eliminating the tuition revenue split would reduce labor-intensive manual processing
currently required. She added that BRIC members wanted to look at the numbers again
once academic re-organization was finalized.
K. Whitney asked for confirmation that the BRIC was endorsing the use of RCM going
forward. D. Sobina indicated that BRIC had agreed to the continued use of RCM as long
as changes were made to the methodology for the distribution of Infrastructure expenses.
D. Sobina advised that RC Managers pay close attention to the proposed revisions to the
process for determining the funding needs of Infrastructure RCs and distributing
assessments (Page 9 in proposed revised manual).
P. Fackler asked how BRIC had proposed to handle situations in which an Academic
RC’s expenses declined due to a number of retirements. D. Sobina indicated that under
that scenario, the Academic RC would keep the extra revenue. H. Tripp asked about
opportunities for Infrastructure RCs to grow, while T. Latour suggested that the BRIC’s
proposed approach would be a return to the “use it or lose it” model. P. Frese noted under
the proposed RCM changes, it was in the best interest of RCs to spend less. D. Sobina
again advised RC Managers to review Page 9 in the proposed revisions.
K. Whitney asked about the BRIC’s thoughts on the processing of their proposed changes
to RC budgeting. P. Fackler reminded the group that a process had been identified for the
review and discussion of the BRIC’s proposal. He shared copies of a timeline for the
process to include review by Accounting and Budgeting (March 11-25), review and
discussion by PEC (March 26), review and comment by the RCs (April 3), and a meeting
of K. Whitney and BRIC (April 21).
P. Frese suggested that, in the aftermath of academic re-organization, the review process
needed to involve communicating a sense of “university.” K. Whitney agreed and noted
the need for clarity in communicating to colleagues about the timing for when funds
would be transferred and under what circumstances. After some discussion, RC
Managers agreed that the chairs of the BRIC Subcommittees would be invited to the
April 3 RC Managers meeting to make a 30 minute presentation followed by a Q&A.
P. Fackler suggested that RC Managers read the entire RC Budgeting Manual rather than
just the proposed changes submitted by BRIC. L. Campbell suggested marking the
proposed revised document as a “draft.” D. Hartley noted the need to incentivize
Academic RCs to generate more revenue and Infrastructure RCs to achieve savings. H.
Tripp noted that the university had neither a contingency fund nor sufficient reserves. K.
Whitney said RC Managers would need to consider how long Version 2 of the RC

3
Budgeting Manual should be expected to serve the university.
ACTION: RC Managers will review the entire RC Budgeting Manual and the
proposed changes submitted by the BRIC.
ACTION: The chairs of the BRIC Subcommittees will be invited to the April 3 RC
Managers meeting to make a 30 minute presentation followed by a Q&A.
3.

Budget Development Process and Changes in Accounting and Budgeting
T. Varsek reported that Accounting and Budgeting continued to work on Position Budget
Management (PBM). She noted that PBM would be used to create RC compensation
budgets for FY14-15 and that RCs would receive a form to use in proposing any changes
to those budgets. She indicated her expectation that her office would be able to provide
RCs with old and new versions of their budgets down to the fund center level.
P. Fackler shared some changes underway in Accounting and Budgeting, including the
cross training of staff. He also noted that accounting changes would be made to show
Foundation transfers to E&G as gift support.
In follow up to a question from P. Frese at the February 2014 RC Managers meeting
about funds taken off the top of Clarion’s budget to support PASSHE services, P. Fackler
distributed several handouts, including a spreadsheet that compared FY13-14
appropriation allocation with that for FY12-13. RC Managers discussed the “Economies
of Scale Adjustment,” (aka “Small School Adjustment”), with K. Whitney noting that in
light of criticisms that the adjustment was artificial support for PASSHE universities who
received it, the Board of Governors was considering changes. K. Whitney further noted
that she and her colleague PASSHE Presidents had been trying to advance a stabilizing
vs. enrollment model approach to appropriation distribution.
Pointing to copies of the BOG Policy 1984-06-A, Allocation Formula, P. Fackler noted
that the original intent of Act 188 had been that the PASSHE central office would stay
small in contrast to its current size and budget.