APPROVED

MINUTES OF THE RC MANAGERS MEETING
April 3, 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, T.
Latour, R. Nowaczyk, R. Puller, S. Puleio, C. Reber, D. Sobina, T. Varsek, and K.
Whitney. Also attending were D. Allio for H. Tripp; W. Snodgrass for D. Katis;
and B. Balough, J. Beal, and A. Roberts representing the University Budget
Review and Implementation Committee (BRIC).

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

Discussion of Proposed Changes to RC Budgeting
K. Whitney thanked representatives of the University Budget Review and Implementation
Committee (BRIC) for attending the meeting to field questions from the RC Managers
about the changes to RC Budgeting that had been proposed by the BRIC. She began the
question and answer period by noting that the BRIC had not recommended any changes
to the current number (13) of RCs. D. Sobina noted that while the BRIC had been aware
of the need for RCs to have sufficient size and robustness, the group did not have enough
time to explore the issue. B. Balough noted that even if smaller RCs were clumped
together, they would still have to report separately.
T. Latour expressed concerns that Infrastructure RCs (IRCs) with unspent funds would be
penalized when re-assessments were made. He noted that the Library RC’s summer and
winter intersession costs had not yet been reimbursed. J. Beal and B. Balough noted that
under RC Budgeting, those costs should be reimbursed with regular academic year funds.
B. Balough pointed to the larger question of how to measure the efficiency of IRCs,
noting that it needed attention. C. Reber noted concerns related to dollars going to
infrastructure exceeding earned revenue. A. Roberts suggested that when significant
deviations occur, RCs should make their case to F&A.
K. Whitney noted that she would meet with the BRIC prior to the implementation of the
FY14-15 budget. D. Sobina suggested that BRIC be asked to examine a narrower focus
of topics for its work going forward.
K. Whitney noted that B. Balough needed to leave the meeting to teach a class. She
thanked him for his efforts and asked if he had any further comments for the group. B.
Balough suggested that the proposed change in the 90%-10% split in tuition revenue be

2
phased in, rather than going to 100%-0 in one year. J. Beal and A. Roberts noted that the
BRIC had proposed the change in recognition of the difficulties that F&A had reported in
tracking the 90%-10% split; S. Puleio noted that in the case of double majors, the
tracking had become even more complicated.
R. Nowaczyk asked if the BRIC had reviewed any models and their approach to funding
IRCs. He also asked if the group had examined IPEDS data. D. Sobina indicated that due
to time constraints neither models nor IPEDS data had been reviewed. P. Fackler noted
that his area had looked at PASSHE data showing that other schools of Clarion’s size
allocated about 48% of their budgets to instruction.
In response to a question from C. Reber about whether or not the BRIC had looked at
balancing adjustments, D. Sobina indicated that there was no mechanism to recognize the
amount of return on investment that could be expected. K. Whitney pointed out that a
sense of institutional stewardship was needed but difficult during periods when pain not
gain was being distributed.
Returning to the question of models, D. Sobina noted that in Kent State’s updated
approach to RC budgeting, it used an 80%-20% tuition revenue split and had no small
RCs. R. Nowaczyk observed that while the arts and sciences would desire a 100%-10%
split, professional programs would prefer 90%-10%. J. Beal noted that the original BRC
had proposed 90%-10% as a means of encouraging student recruitment.
K. Whitney thanked D. Sobina, J. Beal and A. Roberts for their work on the BRIC and
participation in the RC Managers meeting. J. Beal and A. Roberts left the meeting; the
RC Managers took a 10 minute break.
Following the break, K. Whitney asked the RC Managers to consider the BRIC’s
recommended changes to RC budgeting and to indicate on post-it notes whether the
recommendation a.) Should be included, b.) Should not be included, c.) Needs further
review, or was d.) Missing from the recommendations and should be included. RC
Managers submitted their notes at the conclusion of the meeting.
In further discussing the proposed changes to RC budgeting, S. Puleio noted that he
would like the see the BRIC’s ideas modeled. P. Frese noted that management’s focus
should be on incentives and developing a five-year plan for where dollars would be spent
to achieve growth. K. Whitney agreed that the BRIC recommendations had not addressed
incentives. B. Bailey noted that he did not see a linkage between the recommendations
and the university’s strategic plan.
Noting growing university deficits, T. Varsek pointed out that the BRIC manual did not
address issues of accountability to pay back funds. P. Frese agreed that plans for
borrowing funds and paying them back should be clearly articulated. R. Puller shared his
belief that some faculty persisted in their belief that the university did not have a budget
problem. P. Frese and J. Foster noted their experiences in working at private institutions
and the differences in culture regarding budgets and funding between the privates and

3
publics. P. Fackler indicated that given a projected $2-3 million shortfall in tuition and
fee revenue for next fall, a sense of urgency was needed and tough decisions would have
to be made.
Noting the Board of Governors’ current openness to new approaches to tuition, K.
Whitney discussed her presentation to the BOG Finance Committee on Clarion’s per
credit tuition proposal. Also discussed were difficulties in attracting faculty to certain
positions and other obstacles to revenue generation. K. Whitney expressed her openness
to exploring changes that would allow the university flexibility in salaries offered to
faculty and in compensation associated with internships, labs, etc. She noted the need to
examine the text of CBAs to establish what changes and new approaches could be
undertaken. D. Hartley suggested that differential tuition should be examined across the
PASSHE but noted his concerns about the impact on Clarion’s enrollment. K. Whitney
noted that PASSHE and Clarion needed to do a better job of communicating the value of
programs. She asked the RC Managers to forward any additional comments on the
proposed BRIC changes to L. Campbell. She also requested that RC Managers forward
suggestions for changes to CBAs to T. Fogarty.
ACTION: RC Managers will forward additional comments on the proposed BRIC
changes to L. Campbell.
ACTION: RC Managers will forward suggestions for changes to CBAs to T.
Fogarty.
2.

Budget Planning
T. Varsek indicated that she would be distributing at the end of the meeting paper copies
of each RC’s FY14-15 budget report. She noted that the FY14-15 budget would have a
deficit. She further noted that Accounting and Budgeting had developed one master Excel
file for all budget codes that would be used to complete both the BUDRPT and FINRPT
required by PASSHE.
T. Varsek indicated that she would be working one on one with each RC’s budget person
to develop a complete and detailed budget that would include items such as travel and
postage. She suggested that multiple fund centers be collapsed into fewer centers for ease
of budgeting. She stressed that RCs needed to provide F&A with their leanest FY14-15
expense budgets or the minimum funds needed to run their operations. P. Fackler
emphasized that in light of the projected deficit, business as usual would not be possible.
K. Whitney advised RC Managers to involve everyone in their units in the budget
development process. In response to a question from R. Puller about the potential for
energy savings, K. Whitney noted that P. Fackler had been working with R. Taylor on an
energy review.
R. Nowaczyk asked for guidance in the development of RC budget presentations
scheduled for April 22-24. He noted the past use of best, historic, and worst case budget
scenarios. P. Fackler advised that RC Managers plan to present the single best version of

4
their FY14-15 budget while being prepared to address possible swings in that budget if
they see enough variability. It was also confirmed that budget presentations would be
based on restructured units per academic reorganization.
T. Varsek noted that F&A would need RC salary expenses by the week of April 7 and
operating expenses later. She noted that once she populated the budget files for each RC,
budget projections would be developed out to FY16-17.
In response to a question from K. Whitney, P. Fackler confirmed that the expected deficit
for FY14-15 was $10-11 million. He noted that he would be meeting at noon with the
Academic RCs to review numerous tough decisions going forward.
ACTION: For the FY14-15 Budget Presentations, RC Managers will present the
single best version of their budget while being prepared to address possible swings
in that budget if they see enough variability. Budget presentations will be based on
restructured units per academic reorganization.