Minutes of the

NIU Board of Trustees

FINANCE, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE MEETING

June 5, 2003

The meeting was called to order by Chair Robert Boey at approximately 11:27 a.m. in the Regency Room of Holmes Student Center.  Recording Secretary Mimms conducted a roll call of Trustees.  Members present were Trustees Gary Skoien, Barbara Giorgi Vella and Chair Boey.  Not in attendance was Trustee George Moser.  Also present were Committee Liaison Eddie Williams, President John Peters and Parliamentarian Kenneth Davidson.

Confirmation of Open Meetings Act notification compliance was given by Board Parliamentarian Ken Davidson.

Trustee Vella made a motion to approve the agenda.  It was seconded by Trustee Skoien.  The motion was approved.

It was moved by Trustee Vella and seconded by Trustee Skoien to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2003 meeting.  The motion was approved.

Chair Boey welcomed everyone to the meeting.  Today’s agenda includes a number of items that require Committee approval, he said, and among them are the Fiscal Year 2004 NIU Foundation Professional Services Contract, the Fiscal Year 2004 purchase of copy paper, student computerized system replacement and the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Guidelines.  The Committee will receive periodic and annual reports including the Summary Report of Transactions in Excess of $100,000, Report on Investments, Progress Report on Active Capital Projects with a Budget over $100,000, and Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriated Budget Update.  One other item that will come before the Committee is the recognition of the Department of Public Safety Award.

The Chair recognized University Advisory Committee members Jim Lockard and Sue Willis.  I know this is not the subject of this committee, Dr. Willis said, but it all ties together.  I would like to express my appreciation in absentia, since they have already left, for my colleagues who were here for the previous meeting, and to point out that along with public misunderstanding of tenure, I think there is also public misunderstanding of schedules of faculty and conditions of employment.  I know when I remarried fairly late in life, my new husband was not very excited to hear that I was a university professor, because we would have the summers off.  I said, no, that’s when I get all my work done.  So, it is a complicated thing.  But, on the other hand, one concern I get from faculty in the position that I am in is they are worried that they are going to have university responsibilities during the summer when they are not paid.  And I think that the fact that we are not paid during the summer, and we get no vacation – you know, we have this unpaid time off, but that is not exactly a vacation.  I think that is unclear to people sometimes.  So, for people to come in and perform these kinds of duties during a time when they are not on pay status, I think, is very gracious and generous of them, and I appreciate it.

I also wanted to add that the fact that we are not on pay status in the summer has some actual ramifications, and many of us have elected to have our nine‑month salary spread over 12 months, which eliminates the problem for us.  But if you do not do that, the state does not consider you, for some purposes, to be an employee during the summer.  For example, we have to pay our health insurance premiums from after‑tax dollars.  And most problematically, people who have set up medical spending accounts cannot access them during the summer, because they are not on pay status.  That has been a problem that Steve Cunningham is familiar with, and we are trying to deal with it.  I think there is a lack of awareness among the public that we really are paid for only nine months.  We do not get vacation during those nine months.  We have three unpaid months off in the summer, during which time we get much of our research done, for which we may or may not have funding.

Thank you for your comments, Sue, Chair Boey said.  We had a very good discussion on tenure earlier in the Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Personnel Committee, and it is our conclusion that from time to time we do need to discuss the process.  When tenure is mentioned in Springfield or in the outside world in general, it is a lightening rod for comments.  So we think it is very useful to focus on the process from time to time to help educate other people about the fact that it is not just a six‑year process, a handshake and it is done, but that it is a much more strenuous process.  We recognize that, and we want others to understand it as well. 

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.

Agenda Item 7.a. – Fiscal Year 2004 NIU Foundation Professional Services Contract

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the Committee several very important items, Dr. Williams said, the first of which is the Fiscal Year 2004 NIU Foundation Professional Services Contract.  This is the contract that exists between the university and the Foundation wherein the Foundation provides fundraising services to the university, which end up in support of the university – our academic programs and, specifically, support for our students.  This year’s contract is for the same amount that was contracted for in Fiscal Year 2004.  There is no increase.  The Foundation staff have agreed to the terms of this contract, even though no increases were included.  Chair Boey asked for a motion to approve the FY04 NIU Foundation Professional Services Contract.  Trustee Vella so moved, seconded by Trustee Skoien.  The motion was approved.

Agenda Item 7.b. – Fiscal Year 2004 Copy Paper-ITS Document Services and Materials Management

The university has a contract that provides copier equipment throughout the campus, Dr. Williams said.  This particular item provides an open order to obtain copier paper for these machines.  Chair Boey asked for a motion to approve the FY04 Copy Paper.  Trustee Vella so moved, seconded by Trustee Skoien.  The motion was approved.

Agenda Item 7.c. – Student System Replacement

Agenda Item 7.c. is a continuation of our discussion regarding developing resources to address the need for expanding technology to our classrooms, expanding our student services system and other types of related activities, Dr. Williams said.  The Board approved a surcharge that will be used as the foundation through which we can address these needs.  This is one major piece of that effort.  It is our request for a new student system.

This concept was introduced to the Board in information items over the last few months to provide some background on the need for a new student system.  The system we have is antiquated.  People who know how to program this particular type of system probably have retired or are retiring now, which means that there is no expertise to repair, develop or expand the system we have.  We have a band‑aid system right now, and we are very concerned about losing major portions of it.  The system includes very important activities including Registration and Records, the ability of students to plan their programs, Bursar information, billing and so forth.

Today, we have before you an item to provide for a new student system, Dr. Williams said.  We began this concept over five years ago when we analyzed our approach to upgrade all of the systems on the campus.  Step one of that concept was a new financial system, for which we chose the PeopleSoft Company.  We made that decision looking toward developing other systems so that we would have one unified system by which the financials, the human resource system and the student system would be coordinated.  Two years later, we obtained the Human Resource PeopleSoft System.  Before you is our request to move forward with the student system.  You have already approved funding for this through our surcharge.  The overall cost is $8.8 million, Dr. Williams said, which will be amortized over a minimum of five years.  We have provided you information on the breakdown of that budget in terms of the specific cost of software, consulting, equipment and all other associated expenses.

I do want to reiterate that this is a very important item, Dr. Williams said.  We have had committees that include the director of our Registration and Records area, the director of our Information Technology Services area, the director of our Finance area, members of the Provost’s Office staff, Student Affairs and Financial Affairs working on the student system for at least four years.  This is a coordinated, well‑thought‑out plan that addresses the needs of the campus.  In negotiating the acquisition of each piece of this PeopleSoft system, we always looked ahead to acquiring the next piece and making that a part of the contract for the piece we were in the process of purchasing, so that when we initiated this and purchased the financial system, we negotiated price guarantees on the Human Resource system on that contract.  When we negotiated and purchased the Human Resource system, we included provision for the acquisition, at a major discount, of the student system.  So, as a result of looking ahead, all of those benefits and cost savings are also included in the proposal before you today.

In answer to a question from the Trustees, Dr. Williams said that there are phases of this system that will be placed in operation as soon as this coming fiscal year.  That does not mean the entire program or all of the capabilities.  There is a plan for implementing the system, and I understand that there will be some parts that would be installed immediately.  It will be phased in.  I am going to ask Mr. Steve Pace, who is truly the expert in this area and who has been involved with each of the other two modules we have acquired, to come forward to answer your questions, Dr. Williams said.

The project is phased in because we cannot implement the whole thing at once, Mr. Pace said.  Our approach would be to migrate the financials and Human Resource (HR) components over to a new database system so that the student system, the HR and financials would be all on the same database platform.  This would ensure that we have depth of coverage from our database administrators for supporting the whole system.  First, we would bring up the enterprise portal, which is the Web front end that the students see, and we could incorporate content from existing systems on campus into the Web portal.  So, if we start the project right at July 1, we could probably start seeing some content on a Web portal by December.  Then we would phase in the Admissions portion and try to follow the academic calendar with the implementation.  We would probably see the admissions portion in about 18 months, the Registration and Records (R&R) portion in about 24 months, and then some add‑on applications towards the end.  The core applications, beginning to end, would take about 24 months to install.  Mr. Pace said that the need for a Social Security number should be phased out with the R&R portion in 24 months but may extend beyond that because the ancillary systems around campus have all been designed for and depend on the fact that the core system was based on social security numbers.  So, it may not totally go away until some of these other systems can accommodate that change; but the real underlying problem of social security numbers would go away with the replacement of the Registration and Records portion.  This is all based on a time table beginning July 1, Mr. Pace said.  It is sort of like dominoes, if one thing does not happen, then the others cascade down.

Dr. Williams stated that the $8.8 million would be spread over five years and that the object is to finance only the parts that are actually needed, which should be between $1.5 to $2 million per year.  In reply to a question from Chair Boey, Dr. Williams said that comparing the market cost of the student system today, the university is making a substantial savings by exercising our purchase option, which is part of the human resource contract.  In addition to the savings on the acquisition of the software, Mr. Pace said, we save money on any future maintenance, because maintenance is based on the software purchase price.  So, we are, in effect, getting maintenance today on pricing from four years ago.

We now approach this experience having actually initiated and installed two fairly complicated systems already, Dr. Williams said.  This Committee has monitored our progress on both of those projects.  We finished the installations not only within the schedule but also within the established budget.  And, we were able to do what we said we would do within the estimated timeframe for the amount of money originally requested to do it.  That is a reflection of the type of cooperation, staff and professional expertise that we have on this campus.  Also the fact that we simply would not bend on certain types of decisions on business practices was key.  We bought a new system, and we are not going to modify the system for us.  We have to make decisions to modify our practices to fit the system.  It has worked very successfully with the other two systems, and I do not anticipate any particular problem with this one.

Chair Boey stated that Trustee Adduci had several other questions regarding the purchase of the new student system replacement and asked Dr. Williams to have a conversation with her.

I feel compelled to comment, President Peters said, because this is a very historic decision for the university, and one that I fully support.  Student systems for institutions of higher education as complex and large as NIU are fraught with danger, and I have had experience with that.  When I first came here three years ago and was briefed by Dr. Williams and others about where we were going, I was in full agreement with their approach.  We knew four or five years ago that we needed, at some point and time, an integrated enterprise system that brought together the many individually programmed Legacy systems we had into one system that would give us the functionality we needed and would be able talk to each other in this new competitive environment.  The decision was made to go with PeopleSoft, which is a very reputable firm with certain weight in the industry.  But three years ago, I was very reluctant to go into the student system acquisition business, as was the campus community, because, for our size and complexity, the systems were not perfected.  They were little more than vaporware, and they were loaded with problems.

Since that time, the President said, we have the expertise in not only acquiring but implementing, perfecting and dealing with the problems that can occur when you bring on a new system.  We have developed an approach across units.  We have developed expertise.  It has been trying, but we have done it, and we have learned to deal with the company – its representatives and technologists and programmers.  And, as a matter of fact, we have developed a high level of respect on the part of the company, even to the point that they seek us out for advice as they make changes in their base coding.

My brief understanding of the costs that other universities have put into these systems, President Peters said, whether they are PeopleSoft or one of the many others available, plus the trouble they had with their installations versus our success and cost outlays, is astounding.  So, now we come to the situation where through a series of successes and smart thinking plus tough negotiating on our part, we have this opportunity to acquire, at an incredible up‑front price, a system that has now been perfected by other universities.  It is now time for us to take that step.  I am so pleased that the Trustees are asking the tough questions, because other universities have gotten themselves in a world of trouble and hurt by making the wrong decisions.  This will not be easy, however.  This will be the most difficult system to implement, because we have to adjust our academic practices to fit the coding of PeopleSoft rather than changing base coding in PeopleSoft to match our academic practices.  That is where you get into a lot of trouble.  But, in a very short time, with a lot of good negotiation, we will have an integrated, competitive system.  And in our business, the thing that is going to make the difference between universities that move forward and those that do not is those that have adopted systems like this.

I am fully supportive and overwhelmed at the quality of the work of Dr. Williams, the academic area and Wally Czerniak at ITS, who have worked together in bringing on these systems.  Therefore, I enter this with great confidence as we implement the hardest and probably the most important system.  Then we will have a complete enterprise system in which the components talk to each other.  We could consider going with a different student system from a different vendor, but the result would be more upfront expense, no history of dealing with the vendor and then problems with the interaction between a student system, a financial system and a personnel system.  I do not believe we want to go down that road.

Chair Boey asked for a motion to approve the Student Replacement System.  Trustee Vella so moved, seconded by Trustee Skoien.  The motion was approved.

Agenda Item 7.d. – Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Guidelines

The Board routinely looks at the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Guidelines as we develop our budget requests for FY05 through the Board of Higher Education, the legislature and the Governor’s Office, Dr. Williams said.  In putting that budget request together, we need certain guidelines for increments and other targeted areas.  The format is pretty much the same as in previous years.  I’ll just highlight a couple of the concepts.  The guideline for salary increases would be a five percent increase, which would be a “3+2” plan – 3 percent merit and 2 percent catch‑up, given the fact that we have experienced years where we did not have an increase.  Areas of key importance are utility rates.  Just by looking at your home bills, you know how utilities have been increasing.  We have, again, requested support for fire protection through a contract with the City of DeKalb.  We are asking the state to understand the fact that the institution needs to provide dollars to the DeKalb Fire Department in support of the services they provide to the campus.  There is also 15 percent in library and technology costs.  Library books and periodicals have been increasing at rates of 15 to 20 percent per year.  Again, we are making this request to offset some of those increases.  In program priorities, we are requesting $5.5 million in nonacademic program improvements, which includes additional support in the computer areas of $3.1 million.  Also we have included the request of $1,653,500 for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for new buildings.  We did not receive O&M support for Barsema Hall or for the new Family Violence Center, and we have been consistently requesting that support.  The chart on page 13 of your report details what we are requesting for 2005.  It also gives a history of what happened in 2004.  Under the Governor’s column, all the increases are at zero.  In fact, he said, we could put some negative numbers there reflecting the fact that our budget was cut back.  But I believe it is incumbent upon the Board to address the needs of the university, Dr. Williams said, to project reasonable increases and reasonable requests given our operation, our students, our programs and our quality faculty and staff, and then set those before the legislature.

I have said for three years and will continue to say every year, because It is more critical now than ever, President Peters said, that our highest priority is to pay our outstanding faculty and staff a salary that is appropriate to their efforts, their quality and the sacrifices they have made to make this university run in a very tough budget time.  So, everything on the FY05 list I think is critical and is what I will work for the hardest.  Because, without good people, without great faculty, without great staff, we really do not have a great university, and they really deserve this.  I believe that the Trustees on this Committee are all in agreement with what you just said, Chair Boey agreed, and we support you in your efforts.

Chair Boey asked for a motion to approve the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Guidelines.  Trustee Skoien so moved, seconded by Trustee Vella.  The motion was approved.

Agenda Item 8.a. – Quarterly Summary Report of Transactions in Excess of $100,000

This is a quarterly report on presidential approved purchases and transactions.  There were only four transactions for a total of just over $496,000.

Agenda Item 8.b. – Periodic Report on Investments

This report provides a summary of the university’s investments.  All university investment strategies are governed by state statute.  We are limited on the kinds of investments we can pursue, Dr. Williams said.  However, we did earn a net 2.22 percent return on all of our investments.  And, under the current circumstances and the constraints of the budget investment strategies that state statute allows, this is an excellent return.

Agenda Item 8.c. – Semiannual Progress Report of Active Capital Projects Over $100,000

This item provides a semiannual progress report on all of the university’s capital projects.  Most of these projects are ongoing and continued, Dr. Williams said.  The list is exhaustive and gives a fairly good summary of the status of each of these projects.

Agenda Item 8.d. – Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriated Budget Update

We have just completed one of the most historic and strange legislative periods in our history, Dr. Williams commented.  Ms. Kathy Buettner will provide the Committee with a summary of what has occurred and where we now stand in terms of Fiscal Year 2004 legislation.

Starting where we are on the budget, Ms. Buettner said, under the actual appropriations authority that passed the General Assembly, the public universities collectively received a net GR (General Revenue Fund) decrease of $108 million or 7.7 percent.  The community colleges, in contract, received a net decrease of $9 million, which is a 3.2 percent net decrease over FY03.  Almost every fund in the state went down.  One of the issues that President Peters, Dr. Williams and I worked on extensively throughout the whole session was the fact that the universities seemed to be so hard hit compared to some of the other state agencies and the community college system.  I wish I could report that the amount was less.  However, the authority and budget authority and flexibility and operating authority for the boards and the universities was also significantly challenged during the course of the session but, fortunately, we successfully fought back most of that.

As far as the budget report goes, Ms. Buettner reported, the private colleges and universities that receive state support received about $21 million a year in direct proportion to enrollment numbers.  So, a school like Benedictine University in DuPage, for example, would probably get $300,000 or $400,000 of that.  That entire fund was eliminated in the budget.  So the private schools lost all of the direct state support that they get on an enrollment basis.  However, the ability of students to access the MAP Grant program remained intact, both at the publics and the privates.  In fact, $12 million (approximately one‑third of the original program) was added back into the MAP Grant program to help address the fifth year completion, which was completely dropped in FY03.  That is not enough to fully fund it.  This was about a $35 million program when it was last implemented fully in FY02.

Two other issues affect the university directly.  We have been involved in two major physics research consortium efforts that involve both federal and state funding, Ms. Buettner said.  One of them is in high energy physics and the other is in material sciences.  I am pleased to be able to report to you that the advanced photon source program implemented here by Dr. Clyde Kimball received its additional funding for FY04, which was added on by the legislature over and above the Governor’s recommendations.  The Governor had recommended eliminating this funding.  Collectively, the consortium of five public and private universities – IIT, Northwestern, Southern, UI and NIU – worked to get that back into the budget, and that $2.1 million was added back in to continue the research they are doing at Argonne.  Also, the Illinois Consortium for Accelerator Research retained its third year of a five‑year funding commitment of $2.5 million.  Again, NIU is part of a slightly different but also public/private consortium led by IIT for that project.  We have a very strong working relationship with these private universities, and we have found this to be a very effective way to finance research to help Fermi and Argonne at the state level and at the federal level as well.

NIU’s individual share of the budget, Ms. Buettner said, included an 8.2 percent reduction in our General Revenue Funds, which translates to about $9.1 million.  All of the universities received a similar percentage reduction with the exception of Chicago State.  Their percentage was originally at the Governor’s level of 8.2 percent but was decreased during legislative action to a net negative impact of 3.1 percent.   That was subject to considerable debate on the House and Senate floors; however, it did pass, while the rest of the universities all received the 8.2 percent reduction.

On the capital side, Ms. Buettner said, we did not receive approval at the gubernatorial level for funding for any of our programs.  The Governor made a decision early in the session this year to trim the capital budget by two‑thirds.  So, the entire capital budget for higher education this year was trimmed significantly to only $111 million compared to $338 million in FY03 and $350 million prior to that.  And, the only university that obtained a major project was Illinois State, and that was because it met the Governor’s definition of “life, safety and health improvements” on their campus.  That is a $22 million project.  That was funded at the Governor’s level and was retained in the General Assembly.  There were some smaller million dollar projects that were also life and safety related that went to a couple of other universities.  Basically, the universities received only about $32 million in direct appropriations out of that $111 million.  The Community College Board received $50 million of that $111 million.  And the rest went to capital renewal funds, which all of us share in.  That was a $30 million program – $10 million for the community colleges and $20 million for the universities.  NIU’s share of that is $1.2 million.  So the university did receive capital renewal money for life and safety and health related issues that do not qualify as major projects.

Several pieces of legislation on the substantive side passed that directly affect the budget.  We have been very involved in what they call the Truth in Tuition Act, Ms. Buettner said, which passed the General Assembly about a week before Session adjourned.  Basically, that bill guarantees that an incoming freshman student would pay the same rate of tuition that is published at the time that they walk through the door of the public university until they graduate.  The Governor wanted to attach a five percent cap to that guarantee as well, which would have been very problematic for the universities, and especially for us to be able to maintain the quality of the programming we have here at NIU and the course selection and to offer the opportunity for our students to graduate in four years.  So, we worked extensively on that with the legislature and the Governor’s Office and, at this point in time, the five percent cap has not been attached to any legislation.

The Income Fund legislation was very prominent throughout most of the session, Ms. Buettner said.  As you all know, about six years ago we obtained the authority to retain our Income Funds locally on campus.  The legislature this year filed a bill to try to return that control to the state, and that was subject to many hearings in Springfield.  The President went down to testify numerous times on that as did individual members of the Board.  It has been a concerted effort on the part of all of the public universities, and I am pleased to report that bill did not pass out of the Education Appropriations Committee.

In the last week, there were a couple of amendments that never actually surfaced for a public hearing, Ms. Buettner reported, that were offered by the Bureau of the Budget and, if they had passed the General Assembly, would have required a mandatory reserve on GR Funds at the public university level and possibly on the nonappropriated side of the university as well.  There was also an approach by the Bureau of the Budget to try to make their payouts on a quarterly basis instead of annually based on the appropriations.  And, of course, the payouts may not be the same each quarter.  You can imagine from a budgetary standpoint how difficult that would be when we are trying to balance GR and Income Fund revenues and meet our expenses here, which are not standard in every quarter.  We are on an enrollment cycle educating students here, so things go up and down based on semester enrollments.  The Bureau of the Budget was persuaded to withdraw that amendment.  One final amendment that was particularly troublesome that also was withdrawn at the very end would have given the Bureau of the Budget director authority to come in and audit every revenue line and every expenditure line of each public university and then take the results of his or her audit and adjust the General Fund appropriations the following year, based on that audit.  That was very problematic and a direct challenge to board authority.  Again, that amendment was withdrawn and never offered for a formal vote.

So, we fought a lot of battles, MS. Buettner said, and we came out with the best scenario we could hope to come out with, given the state’s budget situation.  It is going to be very tight around here as we all know from having worked in this environment for the last year.  But, as Dr. Williams said, it was a very challenging and interesting year, and, unfortunately, I do not expect it will get much easier in the coming year.  So, I expect we will be dealing with continued budget issues as well as authority issues for the next year or so.

I just wanted to say this to the Committee that I have been involved with budgeting, working with the state and dealing with these kinds of negotiations and issues affecting higher education for about 20 years, Dr. Williams said, and I just wanted you to know that our President was the leader in championing higher education and holding the line on issues regarding our university.  I have not evidenced a president with the energy and the ability and the success that our President evidenced.  He would never say this, but I wanted you to know how influential he was and how his colleagues look up to him as a leader of higher education in the state.  His efforts made a big difference.  Also, we have the best government relations team in the state.

I cannot let that pass, President Peters said, without saying what a tremendous team NIU has in Kathy Buettner and Ken Zehnder who gave me great advice; Dr. Williams and his staff, who on hours notice would create a new analysis and impact statement; Steve Cunningham in Human Resources with employee benefits; and Ivan Legg and Fred Schwantes in Academic Affairs.  In Springfield, when NIU walks down the hall, he said, people pay attention, because we work harder, and we get it right.  I am lucky to have a team like that.  It is great to have the Board Chair appear before a committee and to have all of you down.  I am real proud to be at NIU.

It is with a sense of regret and with a feeling of gratitude and acceptance that I acknowledge the fact that Kathe Shinham will be leaving NIU to accept the position of Assistant Vice President for Business and Finance at the University of Illinois, Champaign‑Urbana, Chair Boey said.  She will be the main person on campus dealing with all the finances.  Kathe has served NIU for almost six years.  She came to us from the University of Kansas, where she served as controller, to assume the role of associate vice president in the Division of Finance and Facilities, where she has served with a great deal of dignity and success.  Kathe was directly involved in our recent bond refinancing; the reorganization of several units on the campus; the selection, implementation and subsequent operation of our new PeopleSoft Financial System; the reorganization and successful operation of our Bursar’s Office as a customer service center; and, among other things, was directly involved with Congressman Manzullo nationally in revamping the federal tax laws to properly accommodate student financial aid and other financial reporting.  Kathe will certainly be missed.  We are pleased and proud that she was selected by the University of Illinois for this most important role.  Thank you again, Kathe.

I just want to say thank you very much, Ms. Shinham said.  It has been a great six years.  I have learned a lot, and I have worked with great people.  My staff here is the best I have ever had.  I can only hope they are as good at the University of Illinois.  When I say that, it is not just my direct reports, it is the people in the mailroom who are sorting mail every day, the folks who are delivering it across campus, the account techs in accounting who are entering vendors so we can issue orders and make payments, issuing the purchase orders, doing our competitive bids to save us money, the Bursar’s Office being our front line with the students – each and everyone of them is great, and I have really appreciated this experience.  I thank you very much.

After hearing about the difficult budget situation and Ms. Shinham’s departure, Dr. Gresholdt said, I suspect Dr. Williams wanted to end the meeting on a high note.  I hope you will agree with me that this is a high note.  Each year Student Affairs holds a Spring Convocation to celebrate the achievements of our staff and also the achievements of others who have partnered with us.  During our annual Spring Convocation, which was held on May 8, one of the awards presented is the Student Affairs Recognition Award.  It is an award given to those outside of Student Affairs and is our way to recognize and thank others who have partnered with us to better serve our students.  We call for award nominations early in the spring semester, and anyone from within Student Affairs may submit nominations.  Our Student Affairs Staff Development Committee reviews all of the nominations received and the required supporting documentation.  After the committee has completed its review, it recommends to me those to receive awards.  This spring, a Student Affairs Recognition Award was presented to the NIU Department of Public Safety.  I want to note that while Student Affairs has given the Student Affairs Recognition Award for 31 years, this is the first time the award was presented to an entire department.  I would like to share with you a portion of what was said at our Spring Convocation when the award was presented.

This Department of Public Safety has done a number of things in recent times that has improved not only the safety and security of our campus, but also the culture and climate of the campus community with respect to how students perceive, receive and interact with NIU police officers.  The department has taken in the student initiated Tip Line program that allows students to do anonymous reporting and has provided resources to allow officers to become Certified Emergency Medical Technicians.  The late night ride service has been expanded and stabilized.  And the department has initiated a new residence hall officers program.

One letter of support from a residence hall staff member noted, “Residents and staff can easily identify their specific police officers and refer to them personally on small and large concerns.”  Another indicated, “The department maintains a positive attitude and engenders an atmosphere conducive to working with students and staff.”  And yet another noted that students living in our residence halls are claiming officers as their very own and often refer to them in that manner.  Chief Grady has been often heard to say, “Prevention, not apprehension.”  That attitude plus a philosophy of community policing has placed students first.  Chief Grady and the NIU police truly have been partners with Student Affairs as we work together to better serve our students.  Once again, I would like to thank the NIU Police Department and Chief Grady and again present them with the Student Affairs Recognition Award.  It reads:

Office of Student Affairs Recognition Award presented to the Department of Public Safety in appreciation of contributions to Student Affairs and the students of Northern Illinois University, May 8, 2003.

On behalf of the men and women of the Department of Public Safety, Chief Grady said, we want to thank the people in Student Affairs.  We will continue to work hard and to try to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to deserve this award and continue to deserve your support.

Chair Boey announced that the next meeting date would be communicated at a later date.

Chair Boey adjourned the meeting without objection at 12:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon M. Mimms

Recording Secretary