APPROVED

MINUTES OF THE RC MANAGERS MEETING
December 11, 2014
9:00 a.m. – Noon, 107/108 Eagle Commons

Present:

L. Campbell, P. Frese, J. Geiger, D. Hartley, D. Katis, T. Latour, C. McAleer, R.
Nowaczyk, T. Pfannestiel, S. Puleio, H. Tripp, T. Varsek, and K. Whitney. Also
attending were Ray Moneta, Maureen Lavan, Rose Logue, and Evan Maxwell for
Agenda Item #3.

Minutes
No action taken.
Agenda Items
1.

Financial Impacts of Implementing Athletic Task Force Recommendations
K. Whitney reviewed the university’s commitment to implement certain
recommendations of the Athletic Task Force as follows:
a.
b.

$75,000 for increased competitiveness derived from Out-of State/International
tuition revenue
$120,000 over five years to address the university’s Title IX commitment

K. Whitney asked that D. Katis and T. Varsek talk with P. Fackler about bringing to the
RC Managers details about the commitment to Athletics, including information about the
duration of funding commitments. She noted that the funding commitments would be
factored into Clarion’s budget building process in the Spring.
P. Frese asked about tuition support to students who dropped out of a sport after the first
year. H. Tripp and D. Katis confirmed that all Athletic scholarships were annual awards.
D. Katis reported a high level of interest in the new Cross Country coaching position. H.
Tripp noted that the introduction of Women’s Lacrosse would help to expand the
university’s recruitment outreach to new areas.
ACTION: D. Katis and T. Varsek will touch base with P. Fackler about bringing
additional details concerning the university’s commitment to Athletics to a future
RC Managers meeting.
2.

FY15 Capital Campaign Expense Allocation
J. Geiger distributed information on two options for allocating the university’s $652,900
capital campaign expense in the current fiscal year. He noted that under both options,

2
$400,000 of the expense would be covered through $200,000 contributions by both the
President and Provost RCs.
J. Geiger indicated that under Option 1, each RC would be assessed a portion of the
remaining $252,900 capital campaign expense based on its percentage of total university
budget. He noted that under Option 2, the Central RC would be removed from the
calculations, resulting in the need for the remaining RCs to cover an additional
approximate $25,000 in capital campaign expense.
T. Latour noted Option 2 would translate into about a 20% increase in expense for the
Libraries RC and result in the elimination of some Library services and/or journal
subscriptions. K. Whitney noted her frustration with the Foundation’s inability to show
the benefit that private dollars provide to each RC. H. Tripp and J. Geiger indicated that
the Foundation should be able to share that kind of data by February 1, 2015.
K. Whitney asked T. Varsek to provide information on the percentage of the university’s
operating funds coming from private support, both non-governmental and non-student
fee. H. Tripp noted that such an amount would not include any discretionary funds that
currently reside in the RCs and their departments. T. Varsek indicated that this year’s
capital campaign expenses had been budgeted but not at the RC level. She further
indicated that her office had planned on using Option 1 and that the expense per RC listed
on the J. Geiger handout could change slightly. Members agreed to proceed with using
Option 1 for funding capital campaign expenses for FY15 and to reconsider Option 2 for
FY16.
Members asked for an update on the status of the capital campaign. J. Geiger reported
that movement had occurred on some items that had been delayed, including the
formation of a campaign steering committee to be chaired by Jane France, President of
the Foundation Board of Directors, and scheduling of the committee’s first meeting in
January in Pittsburgh. J. Geiger also noted that while the university had initially
considered a $50 million campaign over 10 years, it was now looking at a smaller
campaign that would launch in fall 2015 and close in spring 2017 in conjunction with
Clarion’s 150th anniversary. At that point, he added, a decision would be made about
whether or not to extend the campaign. He also noted that candidates for the position of
Chief Development Officer would be brought to campus in the near future.
Discussion turned to a consideration of how long RCs would be expected to help fund the
capital campaign. P. Frese noted that he considered his RC’s contributions to be a loan to
the Foundation. D. Hartley expressed frustration that COBAIS was limited by the
Foundation in its outreach to donors at the same time that Still Hall had a leaky roof. K.
Whitney suggested that P. Frese and D. Hartley meet with J. Geiger to determine the
“sweet spot” for approaching COBAIS donors. She also noted that she expected RC
contributions to the capital campaign to end by September, 2018.
ACTION: T. Varsek will provide to K. Whitney information on the percentage of
the university’s operating funds coming from private support, both non-

3
governmental and non-student fee.
ACTION: Capital campaign expenses of $652,900 for FY 15 will be covered by
Funding Option 1, in which the President and Provost RCs will each contribute
$200,000 and the remaining RCs will be assessed a portion of the remaining
$252,900 in expense based on their percentage of total university budget.
ACTION: Funding Option 2 (removing Central RC from responsibility for any
capital campaign expense) will be reconsidered for FY16.
ACTION: J. Geiger, P. Frese, and D. Hartley will meet to discuss the most effective
strategies for approaching COBAIS donors.
3.

Recommendations for Distribution of 2013-2014 Performance Funds
R. Moneta thanked M. Lavan, R. Logue, and E. Maxell for their assistance in reviewing
the extent to which Clarion RCs had contributed to the university’s receipt of $2.23
million in 2013-2014 Performance Funds. R. Moneta distributed a handout with the
team’s recommendations for distribution of the funds that had been earned. He noted that
per RC budgeting guidelines, the President and Provost RCs would each receive 25% of
the overall Performance Funds, leaving $1.114 million to be distributed to the other RCs.
Members had questions about the performance on certain indicators. In response to a
question from P. Frese about the diversity indicator, R. Logue explained the cut-off date
used by PASSHE to determine faculty diversity hires. K. Whitney suggested the COBAIS
would see the benefits of more recent faculty diversity hiring in next year’s Performance
Funding allocation. T. Pfannestiel asked about the team’s recommendation that monies
earned on the indicator related to participation in High-Impact Practices (HIPs) be
allocated to cover the cost of faculty development for implementing HIPs and Inquiry
Seminar workshops. K. Whitney noted that 13-14 HIP Performance Funds had gone to a
dedicated fund in the Provost RC. M. Lavan noted that Clarion had not met the Peer
Comparison target for HIP Participation. RC Managers discussed the need for faculty to
raise student awareness about what types of experience constituted an HIP so that they
would be better prepared to respond about their participation on survey instruments.
R. Moneta promised to share the Performance Funding handout as a .pdf with the RC
Managers, who approved the proposed distribution of 2013-2014 Performance Funds.
ACTION: The RC Managers approved the Tech Team’s recommendations for
distributing 2013-2014 Performance Funds earned by Clarion University.
ACTION: R. Moneta will provide the handout on the 2013-2014 Performance
Funding distribution to the RC Managers.

4
ACTION: R. Nowaczyk will work with the Deans to encourage faculty to raise
student awareness about HIPs and the opportunities for participation in HIPs
provided the university.
4.

Dealing with the Reserve
T. Varsek reminded the RC Managers that at their August 29, 2013 meeting a proposal
had been approved to hold back 1.5% of the budgeted tuition and ISF from the FY13-14
revenue attribution process. She noted that at year end, the actual revenue exceeded the
budget and left $611,590 in reserve to be attributed back to the RCs.
R. Nowaczyk suggested the monies be given back to the RCs. H. Tripp noted his belief
that the funds should be directed at making the institution whole. K. Whitney discussed
the benefits of incentivizing RCs for growth. P. Frese said that he had an idea for a fairer
way of incentivizing RCs and that he would share it with T. Varsek.
ACTION: T. Varsek will proceed with the analysis to attribute the reserve across
all RCs.

5.

Methodology for Early Projection of Enrollment and Budget
R. Nowaczyk distributed two handouts related to enrollment projections. He noted that he
had shared the graph of five-year undergraduate deposit data with the Council of Trustees
at their November meeting. He further noted that separation in deposit trend lines around
February of each year told him that February numbers were a good predictor of deposits.
Addressing a second handout related to undergraduate student projections, R. Nowaczyk
noted that late May was the best time to gauge new student enrollment. He explained how
he worked with the projections to build a revenue budget and noted the need to determine
if the data could be pushed down to the RC level. K. Whitney asked that P. Fackler, T.
Varsek, and R. Nowaczyk think about plus, flat and minus funding scenarios for FY16.
She noted her interest in normalizing student fees. C. McAleer noted that variation in the
level of some services at the Clarion and Venango campuses would need to be addressed
if common fees were to be introduced.
ACTION: P. Fackler, T. Varsek, and R. Nowaczyk will think about plus, flat and
minus funding scenarios for FY16.