|
 |
Minutes for January 14, 2004
A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14, in Maxwell Auditorium.
Present were: Chancellor Shaw; Senators: Aboutaha, Alcoff, Andersen, Apjohn, Armstrong, Arvas, Bennett, Beran, Bernard, Bhatia (T.), Biklen (D.), Biklen (S.), Boroujerdi, Braveman, Breese, Breitwieser, Brown (H.), Caine, Caldwell, Carty, Cavanagh, Chander, Cihon, Cooke, Cordova, Coté-Arsenault, Crowston, de Berly, Dekaney, Diaz, Dimon, Donovan, Druger, Elin, Engstrom, Faiola, Flusche, Gensemer, Gilbert, Gilman, Glauser, Goode, Greenberg, Griffin, Hamilton, Harding, Hinchman, Hogan, Hollenback, Horwitz, Kelly, Kenn, Kinsey, Korman, Kornfilt, Kosar, Kutcher, LaGraff, Landau, Lantier, Lederman, Legaspi, Letterman (M.), Letterman (R.), Lloyd, MacDonald, MacInnes, Marcoccia, Martin, Mason, Massey, McGee, McKay, Mercer, Meyer, Misztal, Mosher, Mulconry, Murphy, Onsi, O'Rourke, Panetta, Peck, Pellow, Phillips, Potter, Poulin, Read, Robertson, Rosenzweig, Russell, Saleh, Sanford, Schell, Scherzinger, Schiff, Schwarz, Sen, Sherman, Siegel, Smith (D.), Smith (S.), Spina, Strodel, Thau, Thompson, Tinney, Toth, Trento, Tucker, Tussing, Urtz, Van Gulick, Vidali, Wadley, Wallwork, Wasylenko, Watson, Weaver, Webber, Wells, Wilbur, Williams, Wolf, Yao.
Presiding Officer: Chancellor Kenneth Shaw
On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes of the University Senate meeting of 3 December 2003, with correction (p. 3725) of the affiliation and spelling of the name of Syracuse Police Department Deputy Chief Mike Heenan.
The Chancellor called Prof. Nahmin Horwitz to make the report of the Agenda Committee. Prof. Horwitz made a motion to change the order of the day's agenda, moving the Chancellor's report on the Athletic Department up to Item IV (renumbering the other items appropriately), and adding a report from the Committee on Honorary Degrees as Item VII. The motion was seconded and approved.
The Chancellor called Prof. Elizabeth Toth, who presented the report of the Committee on Curricula, which included a motion to approve new courses, course changes, program changes, and drops in the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education, College of Engineering and Computer Science, College of Human Services and Health Professions, School of Information Studies, School of Management, School of Public Communications, University College, and the College of Visual and Performing Arts, as well as a new program in the College of Human Services and Health Professions (B.S. in Sport Management), with one correction (the withdrawal of SPM 415 on p. 6). The motion carried.
The Chancellor gave a brief report on the future of the SU's athletic program, and the financial significance of the realignment of the Big East colleges, which he said was basically a condensation of the SU Record article included in the packet. He highlighted several points including:
- that it was important that SU remain as a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) affiliate;
- that it would take time, but that the realignment of Big East personnel would work, and that other losses (t.v. rights, e.g.) would right themselves in time;
- that only about 30 colleges in the country had athletic programs that were self-supporting, and that up until the current year SU had been one of them, but that the number (of schools with self-supporting athletic programs) would dwindle in the years to come;
- that the schools that did best financially were those that had huge crowds for football games;
- that the reasons for having athletic programs at all were outlined in the Record article;
- that the annual budget for the Athletic Department was about $22,000,000, of which $19,000,000 came from men's football and basketball revenues (t.v., ticket sales, etc.);
- that SU now faced a deficit in the Athletic Dept. budget that couldn't be managed without a subsidy, improved attendance, and increase in ticket price.
In the discussion, the questions raised included:
- Has the possibility of spending down some of the reserve funds been explored, or cutting the budget, or eliminating some of the men's sports?
- a question about how much of the budget came from fundraising [Marcoccia said $4.5 million came from fundraising, less than a half million from hard money];
- question about how open the budget process for the Athletic Dept. was [Chancellor replied that it was not as open as the main budgeting process, and that one difficulty was that the NCAA required a different approach to reporting, and that if we went to institutional subsidy the process would need to be very transparent];
- comment that the coaches received huge salaries, and it seemed that some cutting there might be in order [Chancellor said that the courts would not allow a cap on coaches's salaries];
- question about how SU's expenses compared with those of universities we were competing with [Chancellor said that it was hard to tell how SU compared with its competitors];
- What about a policy on windfalls? [Chancellor said that monies were shared when things were good.]
Among the suggestions made by various members of the body were:
- that the whole picture of athletics at SU be examined in the next couple of years;
- that SU seek out other sponsors to give a naming grant for the dome;
- that money could be taken from the endowment for the short term [Chancellor said that that was already being done, that, for example, 5.6% a year was being taken for the academic space plan];
- that SU might think about cutting some of the 85 full scholarships given to football players, e.g., that SU could lead the way by going to the NCAA and getting the number of scholarships required reduced to, say 65 [Chancellor said that that issue came up regularly with the NCAA, and it never seemed to get anywhere];
- that the $2.5 million deficit be made up entirely by self-corrective measures in the Athletic Dept., and that there be a moratorium on building in the Athletic Dept. [Athletic Director Crouthamel said that naming gifts were used for the building, and that the funds were restricted.].
The Chancellor determined that the body was ready to move on to the Budget Committee report, and he called Prof. Eric Schiff, who walked senators through the report, which included the pro forma budget for 2004-5, as well as the projected surplus/deficit in the multi-year forecast, and a table illustrating the recommended changes to the budget plan (p. 7 of the report).
In the discussion, the comments made and questions raised included:
- that information on utilities and other expenses for the dome be posted on the web; question of what the costs of maintaining the dome were, and how they were paid for [Crouthamel said that when teams practiced in the dome they paid utilities; when they played games there they paid rent.];
- question about major maintenance of the dome, for example, periodic replacement of the roof, and a request that such information be posted on the web;
- question about how a new dome would be paid for eventually, and request that that information be posted on the web;
- Sr. Vice President for Business and Finance and Administrative Services Marcoccia commented that the dome had a balanced budget and that its reserve fund was stable;
- comment that the article in the SU Record made it sound like scholarships for athletes were not an expense, that how much money went for scholarships was not clear; a request that the Budget committee discuss the matter with Vice President for Enrollment Management David Smith, and post the conclusions on the web;
- question about cost-cutting vs. revenue enhancement;
- request that the Budget committee give the Senate the budget picture in detail [Prof. Schiff said that all of these questions had been discussed in the committee, that the report represented the majority view.];
- question about what the Athletic Dept. subsidy was going to cost individual academic departments;
- observation that the point and purpose of a university was academic, and that the Athletic Department needed a subsidy; senator questioned how strong the rationale was that the subsidy must come from the Academic Affairs budget, whether all other parts of the university were operating efficiently, whether the subsidy could come from one of them, whether it was to be concluded that the $1.6 million cut was to come from a tuition increase [Schiff said that the Budget committee had not looked into the non-academic parts of the University for the subsidy.].
A senator rose to make a motion that the Budget committee be directed to craft a solution to the shortfall in the Athletic Department for fiscal 2005 that protects academic affairs from subsidizing the shortfall. The motion was seconded, and passed.
Another senator rose to make a motion, as follows:
that just as the 5-year regular budget must be in longterm balance, so also the flow of money of the Athletic Department must be in longterm balance.
The motion was seconded and lost. A senator rose to request that the Budget committee look in all parts of the University for money for the Athletic Dept. subsidy. There was a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and passed. The Chancellor said that the remaining agenda items (reports of the Committee on Administrative Operations and Committee on Honorary Degrees) would be taken up at the February 11th meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Teresa Gilman
University Senate Recorder
|
