WASHBURN UNIVERSITY OF TOPEKA BOARD OF REGENTS A G E N D A _______________________________________________________________________ DATE: January 20, 1998 BUSINESS MEETING: - 4:00 p.m. Mabee Library _______________________________________________________________________ I. Call to Order Chairperson Parks II. Roll Call Mr. Craig Mrs. Porter Mr. Dick Mr. Roth Mr. Engel Mrs. Wagnon Mr. Ferrell Dr. Ybarra Mrs. Parks III. Approval of Minutes of December 17, 1997 meeting as circulated. IV. President's Report V. New Business A. Action Items: 1. Expenditures over $25,000 a. Memorial Union Air Conditioning Replacement 2. Academic Sabbaticals - 1998-99 B. Consent Agenda: 1. Depository Security Transactions 2. Liquidated Claims Approval - November 1997 3. Liquidated Claims Approval - December 1997 4. Public Fund Investments C. Information Items: 1. FY 1999 Budget Request - Information Item 2. Phased Retirement Program Agenda Item No. V.A.1.a. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Memorial Union Air Conditioning Replacement DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Memorial Union building air conditioning machinery. The Memorial Union building is the last major building air conditioning system to be replaced in order to phase out the R12 refrigerant. The equipment is thirty years old and the chiller barrel has rusted and is in danger of failure. The new condensing unit will be located on the kitchen roof and allow an extended air conditioning season because it will be air cooled instead of using the water filled cooling tower. The old cooling tower on the West side of the building will be removed, which will improve the West entrance and allow future improvements on that side of the building. A request for proposal for the purchase of the equipment was sent to appropriate vendors. As noted on the attached recap, Trane provided the lowest and best proposal. In order to meet the seasonal requirements for air conditioning, we will bid the installation while the equipment is being manufactured and delivered. Bids will be awarded for installation if they do not exceed the approved total. Delivery is expected within 49 days of approval, and installation is estimated to take about six weeks with completion by May 1, 1998. Advance purchase of the equipment prior to bidding of installation allows for the manufacture of the equipment now with the intent that all work will be completed prior to the heavy air conditioning season. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $106,723 from Account No. 03-00550 Union Improvement and Expansion. An additional expense will be installation. RECOMMENDATION: President Farley recommends approval of the award of a contract to The Trane Company for the condensing unit and chiller equipment, and approval to contract for installation with the low and best bidder to be determined, at a cost not to exceed $150,000.00. The administration will make a report to the Board about the cost of installation as that work is completed. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.A.2. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Academic Sabbaticals - 1998-99 DESCRIPTION: Based upon the recommendations of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Academic Sabbatical Committee, the following individuals are recommended for Academic Sabbaticals for the 1998-99 academic year: Faculty Department Leave Period Professor L. Ali Khan Law Spring '99 Professor John F. Kuether Law Spring '99 Professor Ronald J. Ash Biology Fall '98 Professor Nancy G. Maxwell Law Fall '98 Associate Professor Kay Y. Rute Office, Legal and Technology Spring '99 Associate Professor Robert M. Hull Business Fall '98 Assistant Professor Barbara M. Burgess Mass Media Spring '99 Professor Ronald G. Evans Psychology Spring '99 These recommendations are based on the quality of the projects as reflected in their individual proposals. All proposal were rated on a scale of 1 (proposal should not be funded) to a high of 7 (clearly a most outstanding proposal; one which definitely should be granted). Those that were recommended all had an average rank score of the nine committee members of at least above a "5" which is classified as "good proposal; one which is thoroughly meritorious and well above average...". The cost of these recommended sabbaticals is within the budgeted amounts available in the regular budget. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $15,000.00 (already included in the budget) RECOMMENDATION: President Jerry B. Farley recommends that the Washburn Board of Regents approve offering Academic Sabbaticals for the 1998-99 academic year to the above individuals. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.B.1. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Depository Security Transactions DESCRIPTION: Following is a list of the depository security transactions that have occured. With Kaw Valley Bank 31364AWJ7 Federal Natl. Mortgage Assn. Maturity Date 1-8-98 Released 12-15-97 $500,000 3133M2M80 6.15 FHLB 99-01 A6 Maturity Date 12-17-01 Added 12-18-97 $500,000 With Mercantile Bank 312916RY7 FGRM Maturity Date 12-15-11 Added 11-28-97 $2,000,000 With Capital City Bank The following have been released 1-5-98: 593286DG9 Miami County USD #367 Maturity 9-1-98 $180,000 593286DJ3 Miami County USD #367 Maturity 9-1-00 $200,000 593286DK0 Miami County USD #367 Maturity 9-1-01 $200,000 31331NFM1 FFCB Maturity 4-12-04 $275,000 582621AK4 McPherson County KS USD #419 Maturity 9-1-06 $150,000 593286DQ7 Miami County USD #367 Maturity 9-1-06 $100,000 383640CH0 Gove County KS GO Rfdg Hosp Maturity 10-1-04 $100,000 937207DE5 Washburn GO Rfdg Maturity 9-1-02 $85,000 383640CE7 Gove County KS GO Rfdg Hosp Maturity 4-1-03 $80,000 383640CF4 Gove County KS GO Rfdg Hosp Maturity 10-1-03 $85,000 098239HG4 Bonner Springs KS UTGO Maturity 9-1-98 $85,000 516360BS2 Lansing Kansas GO Series Maturity 11-1-98 $60,000 281860AZ9 Edwardsville KS G O Rfdg Maturity 5-1-99 $50,000 815666BN1 Sedgwick Co KS USD #264 UTGO Maturity 11-1-99 $130,000 516360BT0 Lansing KS UTGO Maturity 11-1-99 $60,000 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Treasurer believes the University deposits are properly secured. See note on 9-15-82 agenda item VI.J. RECOMMENDATION: President Farley recommends approval by the Board of Regents of the Treasurer's Report that the University funds are properly secured. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.B.2. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Liquidated Claims Approval - November DESCRIPTION: Attached is the list of claims processed for the month of November, 1997 by fund. Following is a capsheet of all claims by fund. The payroll claims will be presented to the Board of Regents for review at the January 20, 1998 meeting through the Chairperson. To the best of my information and belief, I certify that the liquidated claims submitted in this transmittal are in compliance with all applicable laws and University policies. _________________________ _____________ LOUIS E. MOSIMAN DATE Fund # Fund Name Total Claims (1) General Fund ($1,000,000 were public fund investments via wire transfers)* $1,467,659.85 (2) Debt Retirement and Construction Fund None (3) Building and Construction Fund ($250,000 were public fund investments via wire transfers)* $ 66,512.71 (4) Endowment Fund None (5) Student Loan Fund $ 349.04 (6) Employee Benefit Construction Fund ($180,000 were public fund investments via wire transfers)* None (7) Liability Expense Fund $ 236.00 (8) Restricted and Agency Fund $ 225,603.57 (9) Plant Fund None (11) Development Fund $ 2,142.30 (13) Government and Research Fund $ 75,984.59 Sub-Total $1,838,488.06 Payroll $1,993,197.28 *Wire Transfers (Investments) $1,430,000.00 Total $5,261,685.34 RECOMMENDATION: ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.B.3. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Liquidated Claims Approval - December 1997 DESCRIPTION: Attached is the list of claims processed for the month of December, 1997 by fund. Following is a capsheet of all claims by fund. The payroll claims will be presented to the Board of Regents for review at the January 20, 1998 meeting through the Chairperson. To the best of my information and belief, I certify that the liquidated claims submitted in this transmittal are in compliance with all applicable laws and University policies. _________________________ _____________ LOUIS E. MOSIMAN DATE Fund # Fund Name Total Claims (1) General Fund ($550,000 were public fund investments via wire transfers)* $1,284,457.56 (2) Debt Retirement and Construction Fund ($150,000 were public fund investments via wire transfer)* $ 45.00 (3) Building and Construction Fund ($1,230,000 were public fund investments via wire transfers)* $ 134,591.42 (4) Endowment Fund (of this amount $12,738.22 was investment) $ 12,738.22 (5) Student Loan Fund ($200,000 were public fund investments via wire transfer)* $ 895.00 (6) Employee Benefit Construction Fund $2,667,763.98 (7) Liability Expense Fund None (8) Restricted and Agency Fund ($188,000 was investment via wire transfer)* $ 624,994.47 (9) Plant Fund None (11) Development Fund $ 557.00 (13) Government and Research Fund $ 293,785.96 Sub-Total $5,019,828.61 Payroll $2,039,753.93 *Wire Transfers (Investments) $2,318,000.00 Total $9,377,582.54 RECOMMENDATION: ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.B.4. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Public Fund Investments DESCRIPTION: The Treasurer reports the following public fund investments: Amount Investment Period Public Fund Rates Wall Street Journal Rates T-Bill Rate Successful Bidder Rate $1,000,000 182 days 5.59% 5.58% 5.175% Kaw Valley 5.70% $1,318,000 182 days 5.59% 5.58% 5.175% MIP's 5.59% $3,800,000 90 days 5.46% 5.32% 5.385% MIP's 5.46% Bids for investment of the University's public funds are solicited from area financial institutions in accordance with University policy and in conformance with State law regarding public fund investment (K.S.A.9-1401 et.seq. and 12-675 et.seq.) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: RECOMMENDATION: President Farley recommends approval by the Board of Regents of the Public Fund Investments reported in the description above. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.C.1. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: FY 1999 Budget Request Information Item DESCRIPTION: In May 1997 the Washburn Board of Regents approved a FY 1999 Budget Request and, in accordance with Kansas statutes, submitted it to the Kansas Board of Regents. Our proposal matched the Kansas Board of Regents proposal and called for 4% for Salary, 3% for OOE, 1% for Enhancements. The proposed budget would require $1,523,309 in new revenue for Washburn, including: Tuition, Benefit Fund increases, and a State General Fund allocation of $856,588. Additionally, Washburn requested $50,000 for the State Tuition Grant Program and $18,000 to fund the ROTC Scholarship Program. Washburn also requested that if the Kansas Board of Regents approved a system-wide request for funding improvements which were germane to needs at Washburn, then Washburn would be included in that subsequent budget proposal. Unfortunately, the Kansas Board of Regents recommended an increase of approximately one-half of our request in the State Operating Grant, or $447,293, which would not allow Washburn to match the Kansas Board of Regents' own budget spending guidelines. In October, the Kansas Board of Regents modified their budget request but in the process did not modify any recommendations for Washburn. The Kansas Board of Regents increased the faculty salary request from 4% to 5% and Other Operating Expenditures from 3% to 4%. It also requested $12.0 million for technology projects. These actions increased their State General Fund requested increase from 6% to 9%. In order to match the Kansas Board of Regents salary and OOE guidelines, the Kansas Board of Regents should have restored that portion of Washburn's original request that was deleted (the difference between $856,588 and the recommended $447,293) and provided the 1% increase called out in the Kansas Board of Regents modified request (an additional $225,000). Through the fall, Washburn had discussed its funding needs with the Special Committee on Community College Governance and in October introduced the concept of an "equity grant" which would be a separate State General Fund appropriation in addition to "regular" percentage adjustments to the Operating Grant. The concept of the "equity grant" was to close the gap of appropriations per student at the Regents' universities and Washburn. This concept was discussed in detail with the Washburn Board in November and was included in the University Budget Appeal letter to the Governor. On January 12, 1998 the Governor made his budget recommendations for FY 1999. The Governor's FY 1999 budget recommendations for Washburn are ____________. The administration will review with the Board on January 20 these recommendations and their implications for Washburn's FY 1999 revenues and expenditures. Specific budget guidelines will be forwarded at a future meeting. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President Agenda Item No. V.C.2. Washburn University Board of Regents SUBJECT: Phased Retirement Program DESCRIPTION: Kansas statutes provide for phased retirement programs. A phased retirement program has been adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents institutions. This phased retirement proposal has its genesis in the University's Personnel Committee, and is brought forward through the University Council as an option they see as value to the University. Phased retirement programs have been adopted by universities to provide for a systematic transition from full time to retired status, provide departments a way to better plan for retirements, lower expenses by decreasing the size of the faculty or staff, retain quality older faculty or faculty with specific needed ability, or create openings to change the age, tenure, ethnic, gender or quality of the faculty. The phased retirement proposal which is attached clearly indicates that individual retirement proposals from those seeking phased retirement must be in the "best interest" of the University. This provides Washburn with the ability to evaluate each situation individually on its respective merits based upon economic and administrative criteria which the University shall determine. For example, a highly paid senior faculty might be replaced by entry level junior faculty or a faculty member whose speciality is phased out could be replaced by faculty from another speciality area or the position could be deleted entirely. Each individual proposal for a phased retirement would be presented to the Board of Regents for final approval. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages listed on the enclosed attachment. Adding this as an employment option does provide additional flexibility to Washburn University. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Each individual phased retirement plan will be reviewed on its own merits including the fiscal implications. RECOMMENDATION: In keeping with current administrative practice, this policy item is presented for discussion only. The item is submitted by the President following University Council approval. ________________________ _______________________________________ (date) Jerry B. Farley, President ADVANTAGES 1. Each phased retirement contract must be approved on an individual basis. Each would be judged on its individual merits to be in the best interest of the University. Since each phased retirement plan is approved or disapproved on an individual basis, the University can manage all costs or savings. The University is not obligated to approve any contract that is not in the best interest of the University. 2. The Kansas Board of Regents developed a similar plan based on statutory authorization for all state supported universities. The Washburn proposal is based on this plan and the state statutes. In a competitive environment, Washburn should offer a similar plan. 3. Currently there is no program for managing retirement. There is no mandatory retirement age and no incentive to provide advance notice of intent to retire. Departments with older faculty have little basis for projecting future faculty transitions. This proposal provides an additional management tool for assisting with planning for retirements both on the part of the University and the employee. 4. This proposal may motivate some employees to begin planning their retirement. This will be especially helpful for those who want to reduce employment without quitting entirely. 5. The University, depending upon individual circumstances, may be able to retain the services of highly qualified faculty on a part-time basis. It is in the best interest of the University to retain good people, even for less than full time rather than have them retire completely. 6. A mandatory complete retirement date will be part of any individual plan for a phased retirement. 7. Faculty positions could be phased out completely. Senior faculty with presumably higher salaries could be replaced by lower paid entry level faculty. 8. Part-time or adjunct faculty may be employed to assume the teaching loads of phased retirees at a cost savings to the University. 9. If an individual chooses phased retirement, the University could adjust the allocation of fractional positions and position allocations to departments to accommodate enrollment shifts or changes in program emphasis between academic programs. 10. Where appropriate, as necessary, salary savings from partially vacated positions could be captured centrally for reallocation. DISADVANTAGES 1. Often, incentive retirement programs are created to achieve objectives such as reduce expense by decreasing faculty size or to reallocate salary savings or positions. Washburn does not currently need to significantly reduce faculty size or expense. 2. Determining what is in the University's "best interest" may be viewed as being applied subjectively even though criteria are created in the plan. The perceived fair application of this program may be a challenge. The potential for faculty appeals through the grievance procedure could be time consuming. 3. There is no data to accurately predict the staffing, financial or quality impact of this program on the institution. There could be unpredictable staffing implications or cost pressures. 4. Salary compression in senior staff ranks due to market forces might mean that new employees earn nearly as much as those they replace thus reducing cost savings. 5. This program does not apply well to some administrative employees. Faculty duties and responsibilities are roughly divided into segments matching classes taught. Duties and responsibilities can be reduced as the number of classes taught is reduced. Most administrative employees have duties and responsibilities that may not be so readily divided into part-time work. It seems unlikely that the University would find it advantageous to have part-time directors, managers, and deans. Such individuals would have to "step down" to other positions to make this program work in their cases. 6. It may be difficult to recruit quality replacements for positions that are only partially vacated and are thus part-time openings. 7. As the number of part-time and adjunct faculty increase, the perceived quality of programs may be affected.