APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE RC MANAGERS MEETING
September 26, 2013
9:00 a.m. – Noon, 107/108 Eagle Commons

Present:

L. Campbell, P. Fackler, J. Foster, J. Geiger, D. Katis, T. Latour, S. Puleio, R.
Puller, C. Reber, D. Sobina, H. Tripp, T. Varsek, and K. Whitney. Also attending
were J. Gant (Item #1), R. Griffin for B. Bailey, and R. Logue (Item #2).

Minutes

The minutes of the RC Managers Meeting of August 19, 2013 were approved as
drafted.

Agenda Items
1.

Workforce Plan and Potential Impact on Future Faculty/Staff Minority Hires
K. Whitney noted comments submitted on the proposed workforce plan and the statement
of the African American Caucus presented to the university trustees regarding the impact
of the plan on diversity. J. Gant distributed a handout that reflected a chart from the
workforce plan related to positions targeted for retrenchment or furlough or to be left
vacant and a second chart outlining tenure positions to be hired.
K. Whitney noted that the APSCUF collective bargaining agreement made no provisions
for diversity. She further noted that she had asked J. Gant to meet with B. Bailey and R.
Nowaczyk on the diversity concerns. RC Managers shared updates on searches within
their areas. T. Latour discussed a search for a Library position slated for a January 2014
hire. He discussed the difficulty of attracting people of color, noting that applicants
tended to be women and Asian. J. Foster discussed problems with getting a critical
Biochemistry position in his college posted due to statewide APSCUF issues. He noted
that he would keep K. Whitney apprised of the progress of the search. R. Puller indicated
that the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders was in the very early
stages of a search. K. Whitney asked RC Managers to forward to her any ideas for
addressing diversity concerns related to the workforce plan.
ACTION: RC Managers will forward to K. Whitney suggestions for addressing
diversity concerns related to the workforce plan.

2.

Performance Funding
K. Whitney announced that the university had received a slight increase in performance
funding over the prior year. She indicated that R. Moneta had been working on the
distribution of this year’s award to the RCs that had contributed to the achievement of
various performance targets.

2
Regarding the funding awarded on the private support measure, K. Whitney indicated her
preference for once again taking all those dollars and applying them to capital campaign
need. She advised that it may be necessary to come back to the RCs for additional capital
campaign funding. She also noted that for the funding awarded on the optional measure
related to student learning assessment, which had earned $141,000, she wanted to use
$12,000-13,000 off the top for costs related to the administration of the ETS Proficiency
survey, with the remaining funds going to the RCs.
R. Logue noted that the university had done well on the measure related to closing the
first-time freshman achievement gap for Pell eligible and under-represented minority
(URM) students, but not in retaining those students. She further indicated that IMIR
believed that in calculating 1st to 3rd year retention, PASSHE had used old data and that
the numbers should be revisited. She added that given the university’s already high level
of faculty productivity, RC managers might want to consider a different indicator, such as
NSSE outcomes.
P. Fackler observed that while the university had earned roughly 7% of PASSHE
Performance Funding, the actual dollar award was closer to 5% since its distribution is
tied to appropriation. K. Whitney noted that the arrival of the new Chancellor could
result in some fiscal policy changes.
3.

Budget and BRIC Updates
P. Fackler reported that the university’s Council of Trustees had approved the FY14
university budget at its September 19, 2013 meeting. He shared copies of the FY14
Budget Report presented to the trustees at their budget workshop, also on the 19th. He
noted that enrollment was critical to helping the university deal with unfunded mandates
related to union agreements and that both a sense of urgency and sense of discipline were
needed in meeting those challenges.
P. Fackler noted that he and T. Varsek would be attending a Faculty Senate meeting in
two weeks to brief that group on the budget. K. Whitney asked the RC Managers to
notify P. Fackler or T. Varsek if they knew of other units that would like to meet with
F&A leaders. K. Whitney also commended P. Fackler for a well-written budget report.
T. Latour asked why the budget report noted a deficit or $4.6 million when P. Fackler had
indicated earlier that the university deficit would be $6-7 million. P. Fackler explained
that the budget presented to the trustees was required to follow PASSHE guidelines vs.
General Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles. As a result, he noted, the
trustees’ version of the budget did not reflect post-retirement benefits and compensated
absences and was, therefore, not a full-cost budget. He offered to bring a full-cost version
of the FY14 budget to a future RC Managers meeting. He also reminded the RC
Managers of a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 1, 2013, at which RC
revenue budgets would be distributed. T. Latour also asked to see closeout data for FY13.
T. Varsek noted that the closeout had not yet been finalized.

3
Turning to a discussion of the Budget Review and Implementation Committee (BRIC), P.
Fackler shared concerns about the structure of the group and the limited budget
background of many of its members. P. Facker also shared the criticisms of one BRIC
member regarding his [P. Fackler’s] role as the convener of BRIC meetings and changes
to the original BRIC document supposedly made by PEC. Some RC Managers reported
that representatives of their units on the BRIC had been troubled by the behavior of the
one BRIC member and that they wanted P. Fackler to remain with the group. Other RC
Managers noted that the BRIC had never been viewed as having decisional authority but
rather had been considered an advisory group. P. Fackler noted that he planned to meet
one-on-one with the disgruntled BRIC member. K. Whitney asked P. Fackler to hold off
on any changes to the BRIC structure.
ACTION: P. Fackler will meet with the BRIC member who voiced criticisms of the
BRIC structure and RC Budgeting Manual.