Background on Faculty Governance and Athletic Fields May 11, 2007
Contents:
1. July 13, 2006, letter from Tim Craine to Paul Petterson, cc. John Miller
The Senate leadership met with President Miller this morning. I asked him about the proposal to expand the seating at Arute Field and build a track around the soccer field. This proposal will be considered by a committee of the Board of Trustees tomorrow. I believe the price tag is around $7 million. The major impact will be to improve intramural and recreational athletic facilities. Most of the funding for this will come from fees already collected from students and earmarked for the recreational program.
The President explained that this would replace the already approved plan to build the track on the other side of Ella Grasso Boulevard at a cost of $16 million. It appears to me that this is a cost-effective alternative. The only caveat is that because the new plan requires moving some existing fields, a feasibility study is required. Assuming that the trustees approve and the feasibility study comes out positive, the project can move forward. Otherwise, we would be back to square one.
There is also an issue of shared governance. I pointed out that none of the relevant committees--University Planning and Budget, Facilities Planning, nor the University Athletic Board--has been aware of this particular plan. President Miller indicated that he had discussed the plan with CJ Jones and Richard Bachoo. I know you share my concern that whatever the merits of this proposal, the UPBC has been left out of the process.
As you know, starting in the fall, the President plans to involve the entire campus community in an examination of the University Mission statement and its alignment to the Strategic Plan and to specific objectives. I view the role of the UPBC in this process as critical and anticipate that the committee will forward its recommendations to the Senate for approval.
2. July 15, 2006, letter from Tim Craine to John Miller
As you know, Paul Petterson and I attended the BOT committee meeting yesterday at which you and Chancellor Carter presented the proposal to conduct a feasibility study for the plan to improve the athletic fields. The discussion at that meeting helped clarify in my mind the issues that are involved.
(1) Given the advantages the proposal has over the current plan to construct the track on the other side of Ella Grasso Boulevard, I believe that this feasibility study should be conducted. I assume that in the very near future the full Board is likely to approve moving ahead with the study.
(2) A major concern of faculty will be that improvements for athletics not detract from much needed improvements in the academic infrastructure. I was pleased that Chancellor Carter, several Trustees, and you all affirmed that this proposal will in no way impact the pace of projects such as the Willard-DiLoreto reconstruction.
(3) If the feasibility study indicates that the project is doable, the funds (roughly $7 million) will come not from bond money but from reserves. Some of this amount represents student fees earmarked for recreation purposes. How much was not indicated. I believe that before proceeding, the UPBC should have a dollar figure for the earmarked amount and then weigh the merits of the project on the basis of the opportunity cost for the remainder; i.e. consideration of other uses to which those funds could be put.
(4) A larger issue which the UPBC should be considering is the impact of the new budget process you have initiated by which monies that were previously held in reserve are now being allocated to advance strategic initiatives. Personally I applaud this change in policy. As we have discussed, it provides, among other possibilities, the opportunity to hire more faculty and give more support for scholarly endeavors. This fall as the UPBC begins the process of crystallizing a consensus on the University Mission and related objectives, it should also look at this new approach to the budget with a view to better aligning the planning and budget processes.
Paul and I look forward to working with you in the coming months as the discussion on these issues unfolds.
3. Excerpts from Tim Craine’s report to the Faculty Senate, September 11, 2006
I also want to address the plan to reconfigure the athletic fields which President Miller described in his opening address. I first learned in early July that this proposal was to be presented to a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees on July 14. Upon investigation I discovered that none of the relevant committees--University Planning and Budget, Facilities Planning, nor the University Athletic Board--had been aware of this particular plan.
Paul Petterson, outgoing Chair of the UPBC and I attended the July 14 meeting at which a feasibility study for the plan was approved. As President Miller indicated in his address last month, the cost of the project will be $7 million and some of this amount will come from funds in the reserved that have been earmarked for student recreation. How much, however, was never indicated. On July 15 in a letter to President Miller I stated that before proceeding, the UPBC should have a dollar figure for the earmarked amount and then weigh the merits of the project on the basis of the opportunity cost for the remainder; i.e. consideration of other uses to which those funds could be put.
In the same letter I stated the following
A major concern of faculty will be that improvements for athletics not detract from much needed improvements in the academic infrastructure. I was pleased that Chancellor Carter, several Trustees, and you all affirmed that this proposal will in no way impact the pace of projects such as the Willard-DiLoreto reconstruction.
However, since then it has been suggested that we also need assurances that the athletic field project not drain excessive human resources from the Facilities Management Office, whose attention should be focused on moving ahead with the new academic building and Willard-DiLoreto.
Clearly this is a matter that must be discussed by the UPBC. I understand that the issue was already raised at their first meeting this year, and I request that the Committee report to the Senate on its findings and conclusions.
A common thread runs through all three issues—promotion and tenure, student affairs reorganization, and improvements to the athletic fields—a tendency by administrators to proceed to implement policy without consulting the constituencies that will be affected. The lesson I draw from these experiences is that in order to protect our role in shared governance, the Senate and the faculty as a whole must remain vigilant. When we believe that we are being marginalized, we will speak up and assert our role.
4, Tim Craine to David Blitz, November 8, 2006 (excerpts)
I would like brief, written responses to each of these
questions, which
are variations on questions the Senate Steering Committee
addressed to
President Miller. For some questions you may have to
indicate that you
don't have enough information to answer. I suggest that
once you have
responded, I will link your answers to the Senate agenda.
In your oral
presentation on Monday, you may then refer to the written
report…
(3) With regard to the proposal for expansion of the
athletic fields,
what is the total cost? What proportion of that cost
would come from
student recreation fees? What legal restrictions, if
any, are there on
how monies collected for student recreation can be
spent?
5. David Blitz to Tim Craine, November 13, 2006 (included in report to Senate and to UPBC)
My understanding of the matter is that the presumed cost of
$7.5 million
would be financed through the plant reserve, which is one of
three reserves
the university maintains. The others are the restricted
reserve, which
consists of moneys deposited by granting or governmental
agencies for
specific purposes which cannot be modified; and the unrestricted
fund, which
can be used, with some qualification, for any purpose. The
unrestricted fund
is presently at $6.5 millions. This is sometimes,
colloquially, referred to
as the "rainy day" fund.
The plant fund is
intended for buildings and facilities construction and
improvement, and
currently has 20.3 million dollars. Part of that fund is
"earmarked" by BOT
resolution, for residences and dining facilities, a total
of 3.4 million
dollars, and a total of 3.6 million is reserved for debt
service (CHEFA).
Additionally, 2.5 million is intended for East campus
development (land
acquisition and development of roads) following the
failure of negotiations
for Essex House on Fenn Road for a student
residence. The $7.5 million that
has been projected for the sports field
improvements comes from the remaining
sum of approximately $10.8 million,
which is not earmarked for any specific
purpose other than the general
category of buildings and
facilities.
This is because the money collected from the student fee
increase was not
deposited in any special fund, as has been presumed by some.
Rather, those
funds, like other fees and tuition, along with state
contributions and other
incomes are put into the general fund, from which
expenses of all sorts are
paid, including student recreational and
extra-curricular activities.
At the end of the fiscal year, the
university is expected to have a $0
balance, either through spending all
income, as has been proposed for this
year, or by antecedently trqnsfering
what otherwise would show as a surplus
into the unrestricted or plant
reserves.
As a result, the money to be spent on the sports fields cannot
be said to
have specifically come from the student recreation fee. Moreover,
there is
no statutory or BOT requirement to spend money in the plant fund on
projects
directly related to student recreation, and for example, the same
$7.5
million could be spent on improving or expanding the student center,
or
building a conference center, or any other building-related purpose.
Nor,
should I add, is student recreation necessarily the same as
sports.
The President may have strategic or other reasons for choosing to
spend
the indicated funds on sports field improvements, but he is under not
legal
requirement to do so. Moreover, politically, the argument can be made
that
the use of funds should have been antecedently discussed at UPBC,
Senate,
and within the broader university community.
Finally, there is
currently an evaluation of costs being done by the Chief
Administrative
Officer, who expects to have an estimate by the end of
November. Should that
estimate be substantially over $7.5 millions, the
project would on cost
grounds alone have to be abandoned or modified.
6. David Blitz to Richard Bachoo, May 7, 2007
I have received a number of further requests from faculty to have answers, for the next Senate meeting (May 14), to the following questions:
1) What is the current priority and level of funding, including internal CCSU funds for preliminary work, for the Willard-DiLoretto redesign, including related matters such as an additional building for swing-space? What status and level of priority does this project have on our proposals to the legislature for funding?
2) What is the current status of planning and the expected costs for the redesign of the sports fields and any other related facilities that the President has proposed to finance through the university's reserve fund? What percentage of the reserve fund would be expended on this project?
Thanks for your help in this matter. /d
7. David Blitz to David Carter, May 9, 2007
I am sorry to have to write to you at the last moment concerning this matter, but I have only just heard that the following item will be discussed and presumably voted on at the upcoming BOT meeting:
"a) Use of Designated Fund Balances to Finance Recreation, Intramural and Athletic Fields at CCSU"
As Co-Chair of the CCSU University Planning and Budget Committee, I have been trying, without success, to get information on this matter, which should have normally and as a matter of course been presented to UPBC for advice or at the very least as information. I wrote as late as this Monday to the Chief Administrative Officer for information, and have not received a reply (see below). Now I learn that the matter is so for advanced as to be a Board agenda item.
I am concerned that there has been no substantive discussion of either the reasons for using the reserve fund balances for the sole purpose of athletics, or the advisability of spending down such a large proportion of the available (non-encumbered) reserve fund. I am disappointed by the lack of communication and cooperation evidenced in this matter.
When last I heard, by word of mouth, of the expected costs, the figure of 8.5 million was mentioned; this number may now be as high as 9.6 million, although once more this is not a computed number based on documented costs, but a word of mouth I received in passing from another university officer. I am concerned that too large a proportion of the reserve fund will be spent on a non-academic activity, when we have much higher priority academic needs that are not funded. I am also concerned that we will be caught unbuffered during the next recession, and that as far as I can tell, there is no sound strategy for managing and using the reserve.
I therefore take this occasion to ask that the BOT not vote on this matter until it has been thoroughly discussed by the UPBC and CCSU Senate, and that faculty have had the opportunity to look at the real numbers. I understand that you are likely voting on a planning phase of the project, but again, I, along with all other faculty and staff on campus are unaware of the extent and amount of even these preliminary costs.
I don't believe that this is the way a public university should function, and would in addition be interested in having your feedback on the matter. I can be reached by cell at any time (and I am aware of your early hours) at 860-680-4110, or by return email.
8. Tim Craine to President John Miller, May 9,
2007
I share David's concern that there has been a lack of adequate
discussion and consultation, particularly in view of the open budget process
which you espouse and which, in my view, has had a modestly successful start
this year.
I plan to attend the Board of Trustees meeting tomorrow and
hope to have an chance to speak in favor of his request that the Board delay
action until the UPBC and Senate have had a chance to discuss this
matter.
9. President John Miller to Tim Craine, May 10, 2007
Sorry that I did not have the chance to see and to respond to this prior to the Board Meeting. I hope, and believe, that we have been totally forthcoming on this and other construction projects. If there is information you wish to have other than Richard's response to David Blitz, please let me know and I will see that you have it.