Attendance
Members Present:
Members Present:
Others Present:

Chris Fastnow

Keely Holmes
Kathy Attebury
Randy Babbitt
Sara Mannheimer
Becca Belou
Virginia Bratton
Brendan Mumey
Jeanne Marie Callahan
Adam Edelman
Terry Leist
Ian Godwin
Tami Eitle
Christina Sieloff
 
Janet Heiss-Arms
 
 

 

I.  Welcome and announcements

  • Terry Leist gave a quick update on activities in the Budget Council and the UPdate Budget working group.

II.  Approval of minutes from December 16, 2014

  • Postponed until February meeting

III. Performance funding update

  • Terry Leist, Kathy Attebury and Chris Fastnow gave an update on performance funding in the MUS, where we are in the model development process, and some of the highlights of the draft model that the Board of Regents will see as an info item in March, to be voted on in May. Open forums and meetings with interested groups will take place over the next months.  There is an online forum as well ( http://www.mus.edu/CCM/performancefunding/PerformanceFundingSteeringCommittee.asp). 
  • Questions about size of PF allocation pool, how it would be allocated on campus if we successfully receive funding, whether this is new or base/inflationary dollars.
  • Discussion about changing/reviewing the model regularly, growth target setting/sustainability
  • Campus input is sought. The Council was asked to let their constituent groups know about it. 

IV. Discussion: how to get input on prioritization

  • Ginny Bratton introduced a process and instrument used in JJCBE to aggregate preferences on accreditation-related items.
  • The Council will use a similar process to gather campus wide input. OPA will draft an instrument with SP objectives to be rated on 3-5 dimensions (e.g. importance, cost, time needed).  Summations of each dimension separately and in context will be one way to gauge campus-wide prioritization preferences.
  • Inviting all employees provides an opportunity for all voices to be heard. It may not yield representative results, however.  The Council will have to interpret results in that light.
  • We will ask respondents to identify their employee type and unit to allow for broad groupings and comparisons. This will also give feedback to the governance groups on their constituents.
  • Planning Council members should think about other ways to solicit input, from their own or other constituencies.
  • This is one form of input. Faculty Senate has drafted a prioritization document, e.g.  Other groups may have other processes.  The Council will use the feedback from the broadly developed questionnaire as well as other feedback from our constituent groups, external drivers, and progress on the plan to date.

V. Other business

  • No other business

Next meeting:  February 25, 2015 1 pm, PCR

 

Download a PDF copy of these minutes.