Minutes of a

Special Meeting

 of the

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

May 5, 2003

The meeting was called to order by Chair Manuel Sanchez at approximately 10:12 a.m. in the Clara Sperling Sky Room of Holmes Student Center.  Recording Secretary Mimms conducted a roll call of Trustees.  Members present were Trustees Robert Boey, Myron Siegel, Barbara Giorgi Vella and Student Trustee Jesse Perez.  Present via teleconference were Trustees Catherine Adduci, George Moser and Chair Sanchez.  Not present was Trustee Gary Skoien.  Also present were Board Parliamentarian Kenneth Davidson and President John Peters.  With a quorum present, the meeting proceeded.

Confirmation of Open Meetings Act public notice compliance was provided by Board Parliamentarian Ken Davidson.

After discussion with President Peters and a review of the printed Agenda before us, Chair Sanchez said, I would like to request a motion to approve the proposed meeting agenda.  After advice from the Board Parliamentarian to delete the Executive Session from the agenda, Trustee Siegel moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Trustee Vella.  The motion was approved.

Good morning to those in attendance, Chair Sanchez said, and a particular thanks to my fellow Trustees for making themselves available for this special meeting.  We are going to be discussing several very important issues this morning.

A most of you know, the Chair said, this is a special meeting of the Board.  We were not scheduled to meet again until June 19.  But my fellow Trustees and I felt we could not in good conscience wait until June to deal with the issue of tuition.  We want students and parents to have as much time as possible to plan for fall and to obtain adequate financial aid packages.  We also wanted to deal with these issues before the end of the semester, while members of the university community are still on hand.

I would like to exercise the Chair’s prerogative for just a moment.  I want to say how very seriously all of the Trustees take the issue of tuition.  We are all deeply committed to continuing to provide opportunity, and anything that affects opportunity is going to receive deep and serious scrutiny from each of us.

At the same time, Chair Sanchez said, over the past two years, we have watched a nearly unprecedented period of budget slashing at public universities.  If the Governor’s proposed budget is passed next month, NIU will have lost the equivalent of $30 million over the past two years.

The issue we are faced with is this, the Chair said.  We have asked administration to do all it can to reduce overhead, and they have responded with a strict program of austerity measures.  We have put aside many of our plans for building overhauls.  We have very reluctantly approved spending plans in which very loyal and dedicated university staff has had to forego salary increases.  We have cut to the bone, and yet, given the enormity of these state budget cuts, it is still not enough.

Today, Chair Sanchez said, we are faced with two challenges:  Either direct the administration to begin immediate program elimination and large-scale layoffs, or increase revenues through the only means available to this Board, and that is tuition.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we have presided over a period of tremendous growth and development at NIU, the Chair continued.  We have watched this university emerge from the shadows into a new era of excellence and enhanced reputation.  NIU is an acronym now that is clearly understood to mean Northern Illinois University.  As a proud alumnus of NIU, I, for one, am not willing to sit back and watch that progress be undone.  I believe we owe it to our students to provide the best educational experience possible, and that includes giving them a degree that has value in the marketplace.  The value of any college degree depends on the quality of an institution’s faculty, the rigor of its academic programs, access to excellent facilities and technology, and overall institutional reputation.  All of those attributes require ongoing financial investment.

In addition to the tuition question, Chair Sanchez said, today we are going to be talking about a proposed technology surcharge that will help us begin much‑needed upgrades to computer labs, student information systems and bandwidth.  The university is at a critical juncture with respect to technology.  We know that the quality of our technology facilities, equipment and programs matters very much to students and parents.  We also know that it is going to take an infusion of new dollars, at a time when they are in very short supply, to allow NIU to catch up and remain technologically current over the long haul.  The State, unfortunately, is not going to be able to help us for the next two or three years; therefore, these are investments we simply must make.

Another investment we must make, the Chair went on to say, is in our people.  Ladies and gentlemen, the dedication of the loyal faculty and staff of this university over these past two difficult years has been nothing short of inspirational.  Most of us on this Board are business people of one type or another, and as employers, we understand that a kind word only goes so far.  We cannot accept as a foregone conclusion that the people who teach our students and keep this campus running so beautifully should have to go two entire years without some sort of salary adjustment.  President Peters has time after time pointed to this as his highest priority.  My colleagues and I are convinced that his priority is well placed.  While much of our ability to reward our staff is dependent on the budget outcome in Springfield, I am going to ask President Peters and his team to run the numbers every way they can to try to find a way to provide some financial reward for our faculty and staff. 

All that said, whether we are talking about tuition or a technology surcharge or any other increased cost to our students, Chair Sanchez said in conclusion, we must balance our ambitions for NIU against the realities of a very difficult economic time.  It has never been nor is it now easy to ask students and parents to pay for the state’s budget bailout, but I would submit to you that that decision has already been made in Springfield.  The only question we have today is what form that payment should take, he said, greater out‑of‑pocket expense or a devalued degree?  Thank you for your time and attention.

Chair Sanchez welcomed the UAC representatives to the meeting.  The faculty appreciates the Board’s sentiments, Dr. Jim Lockard said, and all that the President’s staff has done to try to cope with this horrendous situation.

And, unfortunately, Chair Sanchez said, there does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel just yet.  But we really appreciate the wonderful cooperation we have received from faculty and staff and the wonderful hard work of our administration team.

The Chair asked Board Parliamentarian Kenneth Davidson if any members of the public had registered a written request to address the Board in accordance with state law and Board of Trustees Bylaws.  Mr. Davidson noted that no timely requests had been received for public comment at that Board meeting.

Because we are experiencing problems with our teleconference connections this morning, Mr. Davidson said, I would ask that you request the recording secretary to confirm those in attendance at this point before we begin voting on the agenda.

The Chair requested that the recording secretary take a teleconference attendance roll call, which was as follows:

                                                Trustee Adduci                          Present

                                                Trustee Moser                           No

                                                Trustee Skoien                          No

                                                Chair Sanchez                           Present

Mr. Davidson confirmed that there was a quorum.

Thank you Board members here and on the line for your insistence on dealing with these important matters as quickly and as fairly as possible, President Peters said.  We are very pleased that you have given this your careful time and consideration over these many months.

Trustee Moser returned to the teleconference lineup.

As Chair Sanchez mentioned earlier, we are gathered here today to assess the damage done to our academic quality and access by two years of budget cuts, the President said, and to chart a course for the future that balances our dreams and the reality of our economic situation.  Last week, I testified once again before the House Appropriations Committee and told them that we have to base our discussions on cumulative totals, not just the latest budget proposal.

To that end, he said, I enumerated the following statistics:

·   A $1.3 million mid-year rescission in FY02.

·   Base budget reductions of almost $9 million in FY03.

·   Another mid-year rescission in FY03 totaling $3 million.

·   Responsibility for employee health insurance premiums suddenly shifted over to the universities beginning in FY02 – that costs us another $3.5 million per year.

·   Lack of any increase to cover new or unavoidable cost increases such as rising utility costs and the opening of new buildings on campus.  Subtract several million additional dollars for each year’s budget beginning in FY02.

·   Before we even enter FY04, we have lost between $13 and $15 million.  That is an erosion in state support of about 11 percent.

·   In FY04, the Governor’s budget calls for a cut of another $9.1 million, in addition to holding $5.3 million worth of tuition funds “in reserve,” which in effect is a cut because those dollar are routinely used for direct instructional costs and to accommodate increases in the student body.

So, the President said, if we take a holistic view of state support over the past two years – adding up base budget cuts, mid-year rescissions, health insurance shifts, reserve requests and loss of funds usually provided to cover unavoidable cost increases – we see that NIU will have lost close to $30 million by the end of Fiscal Year 2004.  These losses drive our state budget back the equivalent of five fiscal years, to the fall of 1999.  Where were we in 1999?  We had 2,000 fewer students in 1999 than we have today.  And we had more faculty and staff.  That is right, we could very well find ourselves next year educating 2,000 more students with $30 million less.  Those numbers speak for themselves.

At the Board’s direction, we have conducted extensive studies of administrative costs, Dr. Peters said, and we have implemented a number of cost-cutting and streamlining initiatives.

§   We have, to date, eliminated 136 jobs.

§   We have, to date, frozen admissions as of May 1.

§   We have frozen salaries – hopefully, not for two years.

§   We have frozen all but essential, safety‑related building repairs.

§   We have frozen equipment purchases.

§   We have established a four-day summer workweek to save on utility costs and so that we can close down buildings for the summer.  We are also considering an extended winter closedown to save energy costs.

A full report on these measures and many other streamlining measures is due to the Board in June.  In short, he said, we are just about at the end of the road in terms of options that avoid devastating program cuts, layoffs or outsourcing.  Also, we are here today presenting you with revenue plans that will get us through this crisis and allow us to continue, albeit in a limited way, the momentum that we have experienced over the past several years.  It has been exhilarating indeed; but now it is jeopardized.

NIU has historically kept tuition as low as possible, President Peters said.  We are known as an accessible public university.   During the ups and downs of the past decade, for example, tuition hikes have averaged just a little more than 4 percent per year.  We have traditionally come in at the low end of the state average.  And last year, NIU had the lowest increase in the state.

Our plan, which Dr. Williams will detail for you in a few moments, takes into account the varying costs associated with students at different stages in their NIU education, Dr. Peters said.  It also recognizes that NIU has a much larger‑than‑average number of new transfer students – approximately 43 to 44 percent of NIU’s undergraduate student body are transfer students – who enter the university at the upper level as juniors and seniors.  As at any university, the cost of their education to us is much more.  They enter into their course work at the upper levels in our outstanding and comprehensive array of majors.  They take classes that are taught by full‑time, tenured and, in most instances, senior faculty members.   They move into advanced lab courses requiring more expensive equipment and overhead.  And they require small classes and seminars with one‑on‑one attention, such as clinicals and practicums.

Over the years, the notion of a differential tuition level is one that has caught on in many states and at many well‑known, well‑respected institutions.  It recognizes certain added costs, while not penalizing students for choosing particular majors, such as those in the sciences or in engineering or in the arts.  I believe it is an idea whose time has come at NIU.  We are not only striving to be cost effective, but also fair, and I would urge you to give special consideration to this aspect of our tuition program which recognizes the value added by our upper level curriculum.

Agenda Item 9.a. - Fiscal Year 2004 Tuition Recommendation

The university has consistently pursued the tuition recommendation pursuant to the Board’s and the President’s firm commitment to affordability and accessibility, Dr. Williams said.  President Peters has already indicated that of all the Illinois public universities, NIU passed the lowest increase in tuition this past fiscal year.  This recommendation will assist the university in addressing the $9.1 million statewide reductions.  It will assist us in meeting unavoidable cost increases in areas such as utilities and operations.  It will also provide additional revenue in order for the university to meet the demands for FY04 enrollment.  The specific recommendation provides for an 11 percent average tuition increase, which is distributed as follows.  As the President stated, we are making a differential between lower and upper division students.  These classifications are determined by the number of credit hours the student has completed.  Upper division includes juniors and seniors, and lower division students are defined as freshmen and sophomores.  The average 11 percent tuition increase, distributed over these categories, requires a 9.0 percent tuition increase for undergraduate, lower division students.  And for upper division, undergraduate students, the increase is 12.0 percent.  For graduate and law school students, the recommended increase is 12.0 percent.  I would also like to point out to the Board that the recommendation preserves your original initiative, which started several years ago, to provide a bonus for those students who take more credit hours.  Our purpose was to encourage students to take more credit hours by reducing the cost per credit hour based upon the number of hours the student takes above 12 hours.  The recommendation before you preserves that incentive.  Therefore, President Peters said, the university is recommending Board approval of an average 11 percent tuition increase.

A year before I took office, Student Trustee Perez stated, I knew the Board would be faced with several difficult choices.  The budget crisis was and still is the most pressing issue we are going to face.  This year everyone on the Board and in the central administration has worked toward maintaining the cost and quality of our education.  Our Board has been to the state capital to lobby legislators, and leaders of the Student Association have testified on behalf of the student body in Springfield.  In an effort to best serve the students, I placed notices in the newspaper seeking input.  From that input, we learned that students want more course selections, the resources necessary to have a successful college experience; and, most importantly, to be able to graduate on time.  The quality of our education is the highest priority of the students as well as the Board and the university administration, the Student Trustee said.  Today, in casting my vote, I am going to make an ethical and responsible decision, with the best interests of the students in mind.  I am confident that this coming year NIU will continue its commitment to providing a high quality education at one of the most competitive prices in the state.  For the second year of this budget crisis, students at other universities will be looking at much larger increases in tuition than those at NIU.  I know that here at NIU the funds will be used to serve the needs that we, the students, have identified to be the most important, he concluded.

There is no doubt that when the budget is completed in Springfield, Trustee Boey said, the critics of the university budgets are going to say, “See, they can do more with less after all.”  My answer to that is, there is a difference between efficiency and the outright demolition of a university system.  My favorite example is this.  My wife is a quality cook and prepares an excellent meal.  And, yes, you can put me in the kitchen, but my meal quality is such that you may choose not to eat it.  I think there is a balance between common sense, efficiency and where cuts should be made.  But to take the kind of cut that we are all asked to take with no consideration given to any single institution’s efficiency prior to this time, from the businessman’s viewpoint, is not a very good business plan, he said.

Parliamentarian Davidson recommended, in the interest of preserving the record accurately, that a roll call vote also be taken on each of the action items.  Chair Sanchez asked for a motion to approve the FY04 tuition recommendations.  Trustee Moser so moved, seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The Chair asked for a roll call vote to be taken.

Trustee Adduci              Aye                              Trustee Vella                 Aye

Trustee Boey                 Aye                              Trustee Perez                Aye

Trustee Moser               Aye                              Chair Sanchez               Aye

Trustee Siegel               Present                        

In case he could not make the teleconference link, Trustee Boey stated, Trustee Gary Skoien asked me to relay the message that if he had been able to vote either by phone or in person, he would have supported the proposal.  Parliamentarian Davidson noted that the record would reflect Trustee Skoien’s sentiments, but that it could not be counted as a vote.

Chair Sanchez stated that with a vote of six ayes and one present the motion to approve the FY04 tuition increase was approved.

Agenda Item 7.b. – Academic Program and Instructional Technology Surcharge Rates

In December, President Peters said, the Board directed the university to develop plans for dealing with new technology needs, and in February, you approved those plans and asked us to come back to you with a funding mechanism.  We have done that, he said, and in a few minutes you will hear our proposal for a technology surcharge, which will provide several immediate and specific technological benefits to our students.

Some of our most immediate technology needs include completion of our stalled smart classroom plan, a new student information system, computer lab upgrades and increased bandwidth for expanded and faster Internet access, and important improvements in our instructional and faculty design center, Dr. Peters said.  You might have noticed this morning that there was not a vacant terminal in our public computer lab on the first floor.  And, at this particular time, when jobs are dear for college graduates, we have had to limit resume printing to one copy per individual.

As a point of information, President Peters pointed out that one of the student issues, the elimination of Social Security numbers as a means of identification, cannot be accomplished without a new student information system.  Beyond that, he said, we need more public computer labs, improved classroom technology and more training of both students and faculty in the use of technology.  In short, if technology is important to our students, and they and their parents have indicated that it is critical, we simply must make an investment, because the state will not provide these dollars.  President Peters asked Dr. Williams to present the recommendation to initiate an academic program enhancement instructional technology surcharge.

As the President has indicated, Dr. Williams said, the university has many requirements that must be met, especially from the technology perspective, within our academic programs, within our student services area and within our outreach program.  I want to commend and thank the individuals from these three areas who have been very instrumental in working with us in the development of a program that would address the technology needs of the university in these three critical areas.

From the academic division perspective, Dr. Williams said, the continuation of our development of smart classrooms becomes a very important aspect of service for our students and becomes very important to our instructional programs.  The smart classroom effort, as you have seen in Barsema Hall, provides a smart podium for the faculty member and an opportunity for interaction, even between laptop computers, within the classroom setting.  There is much technical equipment involved.  We began this program to upgrade our 44 general purpose classrooms to smart classrooms several years ago; but because of the budget situation, we have not been able to continue that program effectively.  However, from what has already been accomplished, over 2,000 classes were scheduled in smart classrooms.  The most dramatic fact is, he said, that 90 percent of our faculty have asked to teach in a smart classroom.  So this is a very important dimension of our instructional programs that would be directly supported by the technology surcharge.  In addition, there is reference to the modern robotics laboratory in the Technology Department, the cutting‑edge telematics laboratory in Communications, our multi‑computer station Foreign Language multimedia learning center, and our new university writing center which is available to undergraduates.

The other dimension of this item refers to our student system, which would be a direct benefit to all of our students, Dr. Williams said.  It would increase web access and allow students direct access to Registration and Records; interconnection with their faculty members, with course information, with the Bursar’s Office and their billings; and to all of the other aspects of the information services we provide to our students.  The student services system is part of a multiyear coordinated program that the university put in place over five years ago beginning with the installation of the PeopleSoft Financial system, then the Human Resource system, and now the Student Services system.

Finally, NIU has progressed in a very positive way in our outreach program, Dr. Williams continued.  One of the key programs offered is our eLearning program, which is state of the art.  The unit helps faculty provide online instruction and courses, and this is an opportunity for the university to enhance that program, to provide more opportunities for faculty members to extend their teaching through direct technology and into the eLearning arena.  We also have the problem all over campus and in our outreach centers of upgrading our computer laboratories on three‑year replacement schedules.

I have tried to give you a quick overview of the direct benefits that students will receive from this surcharge, Dr. Williams concluded.  As a result, the university recommends to the Board that you approve a five‑year technology surcharge plan.  That plan would commence in the fall of 2003 with a $100 per semester technology fee assessed.  Then, beginning in FY05 through FY08, that amount would be $250 per semester.  Universities today that are not on the technology cutting edge lose their competitive advantage, President Peters said.  In this budget situation, the technology helps us to be more efficient.  Therefore, I move this item for your approval.

Chair Sanchez asked for a motion to approve the academic program and instructional technology surcharge.  Trustee Siegel so moved, seconded by Trustee Boey.

First and foremost, Trustee Adduci said, I am in total support of this initiative.  I agree with Dr. Peters and Dr. Williams.  It is a necessary requirement not only to stay competitive with our colleagues, but also to ensure that we attract the right students.  However, being in this business, I would also like to caution the university.  Be prudent about your spending.  Many of these initiatives can overrun both in time and money.  Your student information system is vital to the university.  Upgrading PeopleSoft is the right decision, as is upgrading your labs.  We are fortunate to have someone of Cathy Adduci’s experience on this, President Peters said.  We will heed her words and hope we can rely on her for advice as we move forward.

I just have a question as to the sunset provision of this proposal, Trustee Siegel said.  Technology has been an issue for us for many years.  It seems to me that we should not have a sunset provision in it.  Dr. Williams, do we need the sunset provision considering the likelihood that in five years we may still need the surcharge and not be able to pass it?

Dr. Williams replied that a surcharge does have a term.  We have come up with a strategic plan that mirrors what we see as the financial requirements for the major piece of this system, the student system, which we will be amortizing over a five‑year period, he said.  This is sort of a living plan that has the option of the Board revisiting it at any point in time.  Therefore, if we are still moving forward in FY08, the Board would reevaluate the fee and the surcharge for the future.

Trustee Siegel suggested that the wording in the motion be changed to say “per semester ‘per student.’”  The change was seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The amendment to the motion was approved.

Chair Sanchez asked for a roll call vote on the motion, which was as follows:

Trustee Adduci              Aye                              Trustee Vella                 Aye

Trustee Boey                Aye                              Trustee Perez                Aye

Trustee Moser               Aye                              Chair Sanchez              Aye

Trustee Siegel               Aye

The motion was approved.

Chair Sanchez announced that the next regular full Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 19, at 9:00 a.m. in DeKalb.

There being no Other Matters, Chair Sanchez asked for a motion to adjourn.  Trustee Siegel so moved, seconded by Trustee Skoien.  The motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon M. Mimms

Recording Secretary