Budgetary Affairs Committee (BAC)

Meeting Minutes – 9/26/11


Members present:  Harry Daniels, James McLeskey, Jeanne Repetto, Bernie Oliver, Eileen Oliver, Tina Smith-Bonahue.

Members absent: Suzy Colvin

Ex-officio member:  Tom Dana (Interim Dean)



  1. Select chair
  2. Arrange meeting times for the semester
  3. Report from Tom Dana on the COE budget
  4. Determine agenda for our next meeting


Selection of Chair: Jeanne Repetto was unanimously approved as chair.

Recorder:  Eileen Oliver volunteered to take minutes for the committee.


Meeting times: We will meet on Mondays from 1 to 2 in Norman 1411 (SESPECS Conference room) on the following dates:

October 10th

November 7 (meet with new Dean)

December 5th  (with Dean)


Agenda for next meeting:  

  • Review and discuss the following documents as they relate to this year’s agenda and the charge of our committee (i.e., advisory to the Dean).
    • COE Budgetary Affairs Committee Summary of Activities 2010-2011
    • Economic Concept Paper: College of Ed. Strategic Planning, March 2011
  • How should the committee’s role be implemented vis-à-vis
    • …the new strategic plan?
    • … FPCs expectations?
    • … the Dean’s expectation?


  • Preparation for next month’s meeting with the new Dean.  What do we want to share with him?  What would we like to expect from him?


  • Tom Dana shared the COE Expense Comparison for 2011 and projected 2012.  Major points included:
    • 2% cut next fiscal year (July 1, 2012) definite
    • anticipated 3 or 4% cut (state decrease not yet known)
    • Credit-hour production down in university, college and schools
    • This SCH decrease has huge implications for cuts in state funding.
    • How allocations are made throughout the college
    • Importance of “carry forwards” for buffering budget cuts
    • The “carry forward” funds must be used judiciously; the goal is to create additional/larger carry forward for the next year.
    • Decisions regarding carry-forward funds are being made at the school level, which gives more autonomy to each unit.
    • There is a 7% contractual fee, which goes to the School Service Center.  This may not be known fully across the college.  Perhaps faculty should be alerted to possible opportunities based on these funds.
  • Additional Budget Notes:
    • The DSR Overhead Assessment for the entire College is now paid from the COE IDC account, which represents no cost burden to the schools
    • Distance Education administrative operations are now self-sustaining due to the generation of cost-recovery dollars; additional cost-recovery revenues are anticipated FY12.
    • The COE aims to preserve salary savings as school-level incentives as the State budget permits.  It was noted that for this year salary savings will stay in schools.
    • The need to set goals for carry forward dollars is apparent to anticipate future budget reductions and a decrease in SCH generation.
    • Additional revenues for the College resulting in overhead charged to new School Service Center contracts helps to provide funds to support College-wide proposals.


  • Other questions:  Do we want to solicit chair’s opinions regarding funding?  This was done last year and, though chairs had disparate opinions, it was useful to be aware of their thoughts. Jeanne Repetto will obtain this input from chairs.


  • After minutes are approved, they will be posted on college website to ensure transparency in committee’s work.