Western Washington University Board of Trustees Agenda THURSDAY, June 9, 2016 Location: Time: OM 340 3:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 3:00 – 3:05 2. WATERFRONT EXPANSION UPDATE 3:05 – 3:50 Presentation: Steve Swan, Vice President for University Relations & Community Development Rob Fix, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham Kelli Linville, Mayor, City of Bellingham 3. 2016 - 2017 OPERATING BUDGET AND RELATED MATTERS a. Approval of 2016 – 2017 Academic Year Tuition Fees and Rates b. Approval of 2016 – 2017 Annual State Operating Budget 3:50 – 4:00 4:00 – 4:30 Presentation: Richard Van Den Hul, Vice President for Business & Financial Affairs Linda Teater, Director, Budget Office Discussion 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF BRUCE SHEPARD RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF CYNDIE SHEPARD 4:30 – 4:45 Presentation: Karen Lee, Chair Discussion 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION MAY BE HELD TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL, REAL ESTATE AND LEGAL ISSUES AS AUTHORIZED IN RCW 42.30.110. 4:45 – 5:15 Active Minds Changing Lives page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ITEM SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: Bruce Shepard, President for Steve Swan, Vice President for University Relations and Community Development DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Waterfront Expansion Update PURPOSE: Discussion Item Purpose of Submittal: Rob Fix, Executive Director of the Port of Bellingham, and Kelli Linville, Mayor of Bellingham, will give a presentation on the current status of the Waterfront Development Project. WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ITEM SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: President Bruce Shepard by Vice President Richard Van Den Hul DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of 2016-2017 Academic Year Tuition Fees and Rates PURPOSE: Action Item Purpose of Submittal: The Legislature and Governor have passed and signed an appropriations bill. Based on this approved bill, the Board is requested to approve the 2016-2017 Academic Year Tuition Fees and Rates. Tuition fees include both the tuition operating fee and the capital building fee for each category of student. Proposed Motion: MOVED, that the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University, upon the recommendation of the President, approve a 15.0% reduction in the 2016-2017 annual tuition operating fee rate for state-funded resident undergraduate students; and FURTHER MOVED, that the capital building fee for state-funded resident undergraduate students be held at the 2015-2016 assessed rate; and FURTHER MOVED, that the 2016-2017 annual tuition operating fees and capital building fees for the non-resident undergraduate, resident graduate, non-resident graduate and the Masters in Business Administration (MBA) rates for resident and non-resident students be raised by 2.9% respectively. Supporting Information: Please see attached supporting information, including charts detailing proposed dollar and percent increases for 2016-2017 tuition fees and comparison data to other institutions of higher education. Additional Information: The 2016-2017 annual operating budget plan, which relies on tuition operating fee revenue generated by the tuition changes proposed under this submittal, will also be presented at the June 9, 2016 Board meeting. Attachment: Supporting Information on Setting 2016-2017 Academic Year Tuition WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SUPPORTING INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: President Bruce Shepard DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Supporting Information on Setting 2016-2017 Academic Year Tuition In an effort to reduce financial barriers to public higher education, the Washington State Legislature funded historic tuition reductions in the appropriations bill for 2015-2017. The Legislature defines “tuition” as the tuition operating fee and the capital building fee. The operating fee contributes to day-to-day operations of the University and supports Western’s annual operating budget plans. The Legislature provided funding to offset a 5.0% reduction in the operating fee for state-funded resident undergraduate tuition for the academic year 2015-2016, and an additional 15.0% reduction in the academic year 2016-2017. The Legislature did not fund any reduction to the operating fee portion of non-resident undergraduate or any graduate tuition rates, choosing instead to uphold the long-standing authority of the Board of Trustees to set those rates as deemed necessary to support the ongoing needs of the institution. Proposed 2016-2017 Tuition Rates for WWU It is recommended that Western reduce the state-funded resident undergraduate operating fee by 15.0%, as required by the Legislature in the 2015-2017 Operating Budget bill, and hold the capital building fee for this student class at the 2014-2015 annual rate. After review by the campus, and upon the concurrence of the Vice Presidents and Deans, it is recommended that tuition fees for non-resident undergraduate, resident graduate, nonresident graduate, and Masters of Business Administration (MBA) rates for resident and nonresident students be raised by 2.9% respectively. Table 1 below details proposed 2016-2017 tuition fees (tuition operating and capital building fees). As required by law, proposed capital building fee percentage increases are equivalent to the tuition operating fee percentage increases for each student category, with the exception of the resident undergraduate category. The building fee is legislatively restricted from being increased or reduced for resident undergraduate students. Board of Trustees June 9, 2016 Page 2 Table 1 Western Washington University Proposed 2016-2017 Tuition Rates (Operating Fee and Capital Building Fee) TUITION FEES 2015-16 2016-17 $ Change % Change $6,849 $5,822 -$1,027 -15.0% $18,722 $19,265 $543 2.9% $8,489 $8,735 $246 2.9% $18,141 $18,667 $526 2.9% $9,841 $10,126 $285 2.9% Non-Resident MBA $19,527 $20,093 $566 2.9% Capital Building Fee 2015-16 2016-17 $ Change % Change Resident Undergraduate $294 $294 $0 0.0% Non-Resident Undergraduate $773 $795 $22 2.9% Resident Graduate $225 $232 $7 2.9% Non-Resident Graduate $568 $584 $16 2.9% Resident MBA $241 $248 $7 2.9% Non-Resident MBA $602 $619 $17 2.9% 2015-16 2016-17 $ Change $7,143 $6,116 -$1,027 -14.4% $19,495 $20,060 $565 2.9% $8,714 $8,967 $253 2.9% Non-Resident Graduate $18,709 $19,252 $543 2.9% Resident MBA $10,082 $10,374 $292 2.9% Non-Resident MBA $20,129 $20,713 $584 2.9% Operating Fee Resident Undergraduate* Non-Resident Undergraduate Resident Graduate Non-Resident Graduate Resident MBA TOTAL TUITION (Operating Fee and Capital Building Fee) Resident Undergraduate* Non-Resident Undergraduate Resident Graduate *Tuition reduction is applied to operating fee only; therefore, total tuition is reduced slightly less than 15%. % Change Board of Trustees June 9, 2016 Page 3 Resident Undergraduate Tuition: The majority of Western’s students are resident undergraduates, making up approximately 87.0% of the headcount for the 2016 academic year. A decrease of 15.0% in the operating fee component of the tuition fees is recommended for this student group, equating to an annual decrease of $1,027. • In 2016, both UW and WSU undergraduate rates were approximately 39.0% higher than Western. • With regards to the Board-approved Peer List, 73.0% of Western’s peer group fall at or below Western’s undergraduate 2015 tuition and fees. Non-Resident Undergraduate Tuition: Non-resident undergraduate students represented approximately 10.0% of Western’s 2016 academic year headcount. The proposed tuition increase for non-resident undergraduate students is 2.9%, equating to an annual increase of $565. • Tuition increases for this classification for the past two years were 2.9% and 3.0%, as compared to resident undergraduate increases of 0.0% and 0.0% respectively. • In 2016, UW non-resident undergraduate tuition was 63.0% higher than Western. • With regards to the Board-approved Peer List, 70.0% of Western’s peer group fall at or below Western’s non-resident undergraduate 2015 tuition and fees. Resident Graduate Tuition: Resident graduate students represented 2.6% of Western’s 2016 academic year student headcount. The proposed tuition increase for resident graduate students is 2.9%, equating to an annual increase of $253. • Tuition increases for this classification for the past two years were 2.9% and 3.0% as compared to resident undergraduate increases of 0.0% and 0.0% respectively. • In 2016, UW resident graduate tuition was 60.0% higher than Western. • With regards to the Board-approved Peer List, 65.0% of Western’s peer group fall at or below Western’s resident graduate 2015 tuition and fees. Non-Resident Graduate Tuition: Non-resident graduate students represented less than 1.0% of Western’s 2016 academic year student headcount. The proposed tuition increase for nonresident graduate students is 2.9%, representing an annual increase of $543. • Tuition increases for this classification for the past two years were 2.9% and 3.0%, as compared to resident undergraduate increases of 0.0% and 0.0% respectively. Board of Trustees June 9, 2016 Page 4 • In 2016, UW non-resident graduate tuition was 40.0% higher than Western. • With regards to the Board-approved Peer List, 69.0% of Western’s peer group fall at or below Western’s non-resident graduate 2015 tuition and fees. Masters in Business Administration (MBA): The MBA tuition rate is currently the only differentiated tuition Western charges. Approved by the Board of Trustees during the 20112013 biennial tuition setting process as part of a long-term strategy to price the MBA program appropriately in the marketplace, MBA resident and non-resident students are annually assessed 16.0% and 8.0% higher than other resident and non-resident graduate students, respectively. The proposed tuition increase for both resident and non-resident MBA students is 2.9%, representing an annual increase of $292 and $584 respectively, to continue this long-term strategy. Attachment: Attachment A 2015-16 Tuition and Fee Rates for Washington Universities Attachment A Western Washington University 2015-16 Tuition and Fee Rates for Washington Universities* Undergraduate Nonresident Resident Resident Graduate Nonresident Western Washington University Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $8,611 $9,530 ($919) -9.6% $20,963 $24,512 ($3,549) -14.5% $10,182 $11,840 ($1,658) -14.0% $20,177 $24,146 ($3,969) -16.4% University of Washington Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $11,839 $9,546 $2,293 24.0% $34,143 $24,121 $10,022 41.5% $16,278 $11,704 $4,574 39.1% $28,326 $23,872 $4,454 18.7% Washington State University Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $11,967 $9,546 $2,421 25.4% $25,567 $24,121 $1,445 6.0% $12,745 $11,704 $1,041 8.9% $26,177 $23,872 $2,304 9.7% Eastern Washington University Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $7,866 $9,530 ($1,664) -17.5% $22,272 $24,512 ($2,240) -9.1% $11,738 $11,840 ($102) -0.9% $26,212 $24,146 $2,066 8.6% Central Washington University Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $8,688 $9,530 ($842) -8.8% $21,501 $24,512 ($3,011) -12.3% $10,377 $11,840 ($1,463) -12.4% $21,903 $24,146 ($2,243) -9.3% The Evergreen State College Tuition and Fees Average WA State Higher Ed Sector Dollar +/Percent +/- $8,209 $9,530 ($1,321) -13.9% $22,624 $24,512 ($1,888) -7.7% $9,719 $11,840 ($2,121) -17.9% $22,082 $24,146 ($2,064) -8.5% *Note: Tuition and Fees for Washington's 4-year institutions includes the institution's operating fee, capital building fee, and all mandatory fees the Budget Office May 18, 2016 WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ITEM SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: President Bruce Shepard by Vice President Richard Van Den Hul DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of the 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget PURPOSE: Action Item Purpose of Submittal: Based on the conference committee budget passed during the 2016 Session of the Legislature, and as signed by the Governor, the Board is now asked to approve the 20162017 State Operating Budget for Western Washington University. In addition, the Board will be asked to approve 2016-2017 tuition rate increases at its June 9, 2016 meeting, providing revenue necessary to support the 2016-2017 annual operating budget. Proposed Motion: MOVED, that the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University, upon the recommendation of the President, approve a 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget of $160,272,642 consisting of a State Appropriations in the amount of $75,832,000; Western Washington University tuition operating fee funds of $80,232,467; and administrative services assessment revenue of $4,208,175. Supporting Information: See attached Supporting Information of the 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget. Source of Funding: State appropriations (general fund-state, education legacy trust funds, and capital projects account); net tuition operating fee revenue; and administrative services assessment revenue. Attachment: Supporting Information for Approval of the 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SUPPORTING INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: President Bruce Shepard by: Richard Van Den Hul, Vice President for Business and Financial Affairs Linda Teater, Budget Director DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Supporting Information for Approval of the 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget Schedule of Approvals for 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budgets At the June 9, 2016, Board meeting the Board of Trustees will be requested to approve tuition rates for all student categories for the 2017 academic year. At this same meeting, the Board will be asked to approve the 2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget, which relies on the projected tuition operating fee revenues generated from these tuition rate proposals. Introduction In order to fund the basic instructional and academic support missions of the institution, the President is proposing, for Board approval, a 2016-2017 budget for state funded operations which reflects revenue and expenditure estimates available for University operations from state appropriations, net tuition operating fees, and the administrative services assessment. Proposed FY2016-2017 Annual State Operating Budget A summary by revenue source is included in the table below. Please note that tuition operating fee revenue is presented net of tuition waivers and Western’s student/loan grant fund contribution at 4.0%. 2016-2017 Fiscal Year WWU State Operating Budget by Funding Source Funding Source State Appropriations Net Tuition Operating Fees Administrative Services Assessment State Operating Budget Proposed for Board Approval FY17 $ $ 75,832,000 80,232,467 4,208,175 160,272,642 % of Budget 47% 50% 3% 100% Board of Trustees June 9, 2016 Page 2 Western’s Budget Process Last year, through Western’s open, transparent, and bottom up process, the campus developed an operating budget for the current biennium. The Board of Trustees approved the first year of that two-year budget at a special meeting in July 2015. This spring, the budget process re-examined year two of that budget to see if there are adjustments, or “emergent issues,” that should be included in the FY2016-2017 annual operating budget for the Board to act upon. Campus planning unit leaders submitted proposals for emergent issue requests for the FY20162017 operating budget in April 2016 after the legislative session ended. Proposals were presented to the University Planning and Resources Council, and audiocast to the campus with venues for feedback. Budget Recommendation Detail The President, Vice Presidents and Deans evaluated all the requests and recommended a budget which includes among other things: funding for competitive compensation for faculty and staff, the diversity initiative advancing critical cultural consciousness, expanded funding for the Education and Social Justice minor, replacement of grant funding to continue the strides made toward suicide prevention, funding to strengthen laboratory safety practices, and funding for the enhancement of first year math instruction. See Attachment A for a copy of this recommendation, or the web version with active hyperlinks may be reviewed at this location: http://www.wwu.edu/upb/Emergent/201617emerg/201617emergnar.pdf. The President now recommends the Board of Trustees approve the state operating budget in the amount of $160,272,642 for the 2016-2017 fiscal year. Attachment: Attachment A – Proposed 2016-17 Operating Budget May 4, 2016 TO: Western Washington University Faculty, Staff, and Students FROM: Bruce Shepard, President Joined by the Vice Presidents and Deans SUBJECT: Proposed 2016-17 Operating Budget The university’s budgeting processes are complicated: multiple processes simultaneously occurring. So, before launching into a summary of our proposed 2016-17 operating budget, I will place it in context. There are both capital and operating budget processes. Capital budget recommendations are nearing completion. On the operating budget side, there is both a biennial budget request process (where we decide what to ask the State for) and an operating budget allocation process (how we will actually allocate funds once the State has determined appropriations for Western). Earlier, I wrote to you seeking feedback on proposed 2017-19 budget request priorities. Today’s subject is different: settling upon an operating budget for the fiscal year immediately ahead. When it comes to our operating budget, there are actually two processes: a biennial operating budget process prior to the beginning of a biennium and then, embedded within it and for the second year of the biennium, a budget process where we look at possible adjustments to the second year operating budget: matters that have emerged since that original two-year operating budget was adopted. We are now budgeting for 2016-17, the second year of the 2015-17 biennium. So, most of the heavy lifting was done last year as we, bottom up and together, developed the 2015-17 operating budget. Now, it’s time to “tidy up any loose ends” so that I may recommend a 201617 fiscal year operating budget to our Board of Trustees for their consideration at the June meeting. Our processes for developing the 2016-17 budget, bottom up and transparently, are described here. The various proposals have long been available for your critical scrutiny on the web pages of the University’s Budget Office under the heading “FY17 Emergent Budget Requests by Division.” The budget requests that emerged for the 2016-17 fiscal year were considered by the widely representative University Planning and Resources Council. A summary of the individual rankings of those serving on the UPRC is available here. Those ranking alone understate the benefits we have all had of sitting around the table together in UPRC meetings as the proposals were discussed. We would welcome UPRC insights and their reactions to the thinking we now share with campus as the period for further comment remains open. The deans, vice presidents, and I met together to consider the 2016-17 operating budget. As a starting point, we used the plans for 2016-17 that were incorporated in the 2015-17 operating budget you saw last year. Our first priority was to assure a fiscally sound budget: one that could be sustained in the years ahead and that would maintain the capacity to cover known expenses in the out years that we are already firmly committed to (e.g., contractual commitments regarding compensation, funding for a major portion of a substantially expanded ESC/Multicultural Services facility). With such forward-looking fiscal integrity a given, we then gave top priority to truly “emergent” items: essential expenditures for 2016-17 that were not anticipated this time last year. As available funds permitted, we also were prepared to seriously consider moving to base funding those initiatives that had proved successful but that, as experiments, were previously funded using one-time sources. Further, we had, as a goal, adopting a budget that would not, because of the number of emergent needs funded, require that we make cuts to divisions. That limited the number of “emergent” proposals we were able to fund and also caused us to critically examine the details of the emergent issues that, at least in part, we felt it necessary to fully fund. In so doing and trying to stretch limited dollars as far as possible, we were looking for the most essential parts of particular proposals and also looking for alternative ways to fund particular proposals. Overview We took a university-level view; that is, we did not get down into divisional and departmental line items. Just the proposals that have come up from departments through divisions, and to the university level. That does mean, of course, that the budget summary you are now reading does not capture all the budget adjustments made at departmental and divisional levels as needs emerge and as challenges and opportunities require response. These regular, essential, and extensive budgetary adjustments take place following the processes and procedures practiced within each division. For that university-level view and as in years past, we adopt a sources/uses approach. This means that we focus at the margin: what additional sources are available; what new uses or needs should be considered? And, as this is a budget for the second year of the biennium, we focus on the margin in a second sense: the items being proposed are the marginal second-year budget additions that would come on top of or in addition to any allocation that was included in the already approved year-one budget. Sources “Sources” are where additional funds would come from to cover new “uses.” They can come from legislative appropriations, tuition revenues, investments to improve efficiency, and expanded entrepreneurial efforts. “Sources” may, and have, included program reductions or eliminations as well as budget cuts. Sources for 2016-17 remain largely the same as was anticipated in last year’s 2015-17 budget. This is true for tuition rates, utility savings, auxiliary chargeback revenues, increases in the auxiliary chargeback rates, and state appropriations for year 2 compensation increases. As regards these matters, the numbers you saw last year for 2016-17 are what you will again see in today’s proposals. We are also able to recommend, as we thought last year would be possible, an operating budget for 2016-17 that does not require program eliminations or cuts to the recurring budgets for divisions. That did mean, though, that only a portion of the emergent requests could be included in the proposal we are bringing to you. The “sources” side of the budget does include an additional state appropriation of $732,000 because, thankfully, the legislature heard and responded to our arguments that their funding of the 15% tuition buy down had been miscalculated. (Unfortunately, on the “uses” side, the legislature added three mandatory expense items not anticipated last year and totaling $670,000 so, what one hand added, the other hand, more or less, took away.) With shifts in our enrollment profiles, we also project tuition revenues $785,000 above the figures we were using last year. Uses “Uses” include budget obligations mandated by the legislature as well as needs and opportunities. In this, a “second year of the biennium” operating budget, we first considered unanticipated needs that emerged after the campus built the 2015-17 operating budget. The “uses” proposed for the 2016-17 operating budget total $7,916,323 (not counting the mandated tuition buy down). Included within that total are $3,749,137 in allocations for 2016-17 that were accepted as a part of the biennial budget proposed last year. That number grew as we allocated additional funds to cover compensation increases either not anticipated or that seemed not possible last year. Of the remaining 2016-17 “emergent” proposed uses – these are the truly new items – our recommendations would cover about half the total dollars requested. In overview, the proposed 2016-17 operating budget “uses” we would fund are:  Tuition Reduction: Resident undergraduate tuition will be reduced by 15%. This is on top of last year’s reduction of 5%. These are the amounts anticipated last year but, given the fiscal challenges the legislature was dealing with this year, keeping the 15% tuition “buy down” in place is a significant achievement. An expenditure of $11,414,000, this is, by far, the single largest component of Western’s 2016-17 sources/uses proposal.  Competitive Compensation: This top priority was a major component of the biennial budget developed last year. o Salary increases over the biennium for classified colleagues averaged more than double what their counterparts in other state agencies (and universities) saw thanks to shared vision and commitments during negotiation of classified contracts at Western. o The faculty/university contract had not been settled when the 2015-17 operating budget was developed. The final contract takes average faculty compensation to above the 75th percentile of peers. With final contract numbers now known, this does require increasing the amount for 201617 faculty compensation above what had been set aside last year. o For professional staff, we had proposed an average salary increase of 4% for 2015-16 and 3.5% for 2016-17 during last year’s biennial budget development. We have known, though, with success in funding classified and faculty salaries, our greatest shortfall when it comes to competitive compensation involves our professional staff colleagues. The vice presidents, deans, and I are pleased that, in the proposals before you, we will be able to make more progress than we thought possible this time last year: 2016-17 salary budget for professional staff is increased to 4.5% rather than 3.5%. This will provide additional funding to implement the Professional Staff Compensation Plan being finalized by PSO in partnership with Human Resources.  Previously Decided Initiatives: Some of the initiatives that were included in the 201517 biennial budget decided last year identified additional year-two budget allocations. These are all included in the budget now being proposed. The items are: the diversity initiative advancing critical cultural consciousness, base funding for the WWU employee language program, expanded funding for the Education and Social Justice minor, additional funding for the student success/strategic enrollment management initiative, implementation of aspects of the plan for long-term repair and maintenance of parking lots, and funding of Advancement’s analytical data toolset.  New Budget Requirements Resulting from 2016 Legislative Session: We have no choice here: must cover unfunded benefit rate increases and that portion of the increase in employee health care insurance the state assigned to be covered by the (frozen) tuition portion of our budget.  Essential Infrastructure Investments: These are, by and large, items that simply must be covered, Now. Or, risk significant failure. Included are funds to support the enterprise compute and storage infrastructure, the enterprise voice communications system, and a system for digital media management. Given the clear efficiencies that would result, we also included funding for software to improve the efficiency of our curriculum management and degree audit responsibilities.  Emerging and Urgent Program Needs: Over the last year, we concluded, with some urgency, that we must change our approach to investigation of alleged sexual assaults, that we must augment the ways in which we support safe laboratory practices (remember the Chemistry Building fire?), and in improving diversity within our Honors Program. We would also place “enhanced first year math instruction” as an urgently needed academic program improvement.  Base Funding for Successful Initiatives: Several initiatives, tried out using one-time funding, have proved sufficiently successful as to justify base budget funding. These are: the employee wellness match program for use of Wade King, the originally grantfunded program targeting suicide prevention, and the Front Door to Discovery program. There were, of course, a number of proposed uses that we do not include. These fall into several categories:  There are proposals that did not meet our sense of “emergent” and, instead, should become part of the 2017-19 biennial budget process. These include migration to Banner 9, the request from the Office of Sustainability, the proposal to enhance funding for Scientific and Technical Services, and the Palliative Care Institute proposal. We would encourage the consideration of these items, along with and in comparison to other opportunities, when, a year from now, Western next builds a comprehensive biennial budget.  There were also several items we believe need to be more fully analyzed, perhaps bringing in outside advisers, to be sure we are proceeding in the most efficient and effective ways possible before we commit to further base budget funding. Included are the proposals to establish a victim advocate as part of our law enforcement resources and base funding our support for disAbility Services.  Proposals where we propose alternative approaches. As the detailed sources/uses table will show, not all proposals were funded at the full request level. This is because – and as is explained in the detail attached to those tables – we sought alternative approaches to meeting the need or decided to concentrate on what we saw to be the most essential and urgent of the elements covered in a proposal. This list also includes funding to cover a portion of the costs of remodeling Carver that the legislature had left to the campus. Last year, we budgeted for long-term borrowing and repayment, what are called “certificates of participation.” We now believe these obligations can be covered in a more cost-effective manner using portions of minor capital projects funds and onetime savings. Further, while we recognize that expansion of capabilities in Advancement will benefit the university in dollar and cents terms and is essential in preparing for the next campaign, we believe that Advancement will, going forward, be able to identify sources of revenue to supplement current allocations of state funding. We did critically review the preceding preliminary assessments with the rankings provided by UPRC in mind. Looking at the top ten items in the UPRC rankings, we are agreed on seven. The three we would not fund that are in UPRC’s top ten are Banner 9 conversion, disAbility Services base funding, and future funding for Scientific Technical Services. These are three items we believe should be reconsidered as a part of a biennial budgeting process. For reasons we share in the detail attached to these items in the sources/uses table below, we continue to believe Banner 9 and disAbility Services need more careful analysis before funding needs are clear and included in the University’s base budget. Based upon the priorities assigned by UPRC, though, we did add back in funding for the STS proposal. We will return, in our conclusion, to the needs for clarity regarding just what are “emergent” items. The Details For each proposed use, there are detailed budget spreadsheets and a narrative. Those can be reached through the divisional links under the “FY17 Emergent Budget Requests By Division” heading on the home page for the University Budget Office. The real heart of the work we have done is found in a 2016-17 Sources and Uses Table. That table gives you an overview. And, from links in the table, you can drill down for more detail. Please use the budget forums to ask questions, seek clarifications, and provide feedback. They are available from the University Budget Office home page. The period for comment remains open until May 18th. I will then finalize the recommendations I am obliged to make for consideration by our Board of Trustees at their June meeting. A Conclusion We have come a long way in our budgeting processes. Some of us recall back eight years ago when there simply were no transparent budgeting processes: open, bottom up, participative, strategic, or otherwise. Just none. Every year, though, we continue to find needs to improve the process. This time around, we struggled somewhat with a matter that clearly requires reconsideration and then clarification. We have always thought of the “year 2” part of the biennial budgeting process as tying up loose ends and dealing with, as the budget instructions specify, “emergent” issues. What are “emergent issues”? For us, “emergent” and “emergency” share more than a similarity in linguistic origin. Emergent items are items that just cannot wait until the next biennial budget cycle. It seemed, though, that the year 2 process was beginning to resemble the comprehensive biennial year 1 budget process: a chance to bring forward great ideas and important needs, emergency or otherwise. Mixing the two types of proposals together (emergent and new ideas) may largely explain the ways in which the recommendations herein do not entirely track with the summary of rankings furnished by UPRC. We first addressed emergent items that had to be funded and then urgent infrastructure and other program needs, followed by, as funds permitted, base funding of successful experimental programs, and we set aside items that clearly could wait for the next biennial budget cycle. UPRC considered the set of items as a whole on what appeared to be an equal basis, ranking all pooled together. Quite legitimately. But, it does illustrate a need for clarification. There is no right or wrong approach here. What is important, though, is that we are clear about the approach to be followed. Important in order to be fair to all playing by the same rules and important in order to make effective use of everybody’s time in developing proposals germane to the requirements of a particular budget process. One approach is biennial: every two years there is a broad campus engagement in the review of the many alternatives talented and creative colleagues develop for consideration by us all. In off years, there would remain the need to do minor adjustments and attend to emergent issues that could not wait until the next biennial cycle. The alternative is to go through the broad comprehensive review annually. With the benefit of new presidential leadership, this will be but one of what are certain to be many opportunities for improvements to our strategic budgeting processes. But, for the record, we do conclude with this evident need to be clear on whether ours is to remain a biennial process. Or, become annual. WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - 2016-17 SOURCES AND USES FY16-17 Proposed NET (Decided Sources Minus Decided Uses) Decided 730 SOURCES ITEMS RECOMMENDED AND DECIDED JULY 2015 1 2 Rollover to Yr 2 of Yr 1 of under-committed (over-committed) base budget Utility savings from prior conservation investment 1,031,050 23,955 1,031,050 23,955 624,260 70,023 45,808 11,163,000 1,307,119 --- 0 624,260 70,023 45,808 11,163,000 1,307,119 785,000 NEW SOURCES: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Additional Tuition Revenue Resident Undergraduate Non-Resident Undergraduate Resident Graduate Non-Resident Graduate College Affordability Program (Backfill 15% tuition reduction for res undergrads) Tuition waiver savings due to resident undergrad tuition reduction Adjustment to Tuition Revenue Estimate for 2016-17 10 11 12 13 14 Recurring Cuts to State Operating Budgets Academic Affairs Business and Financial Affairs Enrollment and Student Services University Advancement University Relations 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Administrative Services Assessments Revenue from overhead assessment as auxiliary income has changed Increase in Auxiliaries Assessment (5%) by Division Academic Affairs Business and Financial Affairs Enrollment and Student Services Compensation Appropriations Classified Collective Bargaining Agreements General Wage Increases - State Employees Compensation State Support (backfill tuition portion of salary increases) Total State Appropriation for Compensation TOTAL NEW SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 242,295 242,295 65,355 24,275 113,796 65,355 24,275 113,796 149,000 495,000 1,690,000 2,334,000 149,000 495,000 1,690,000 2,334,000 17,829,937 USES ITEMS RECOMMENDED AND DECIDED AS PART OF YEAR 1 BUDGET PROCESS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 College Affordability Program (reduce res undergrad tuition by 15%) Impact of graduate tuition increase on graduate assistant tuition waivers Faculty Compensation Classified Compensation Professional Staff and Exec Compensation Advancing Critical Cultural Consciousness at Western WWU Employee Language Program Education and Social Justice Minor Support Student Success, Strategic Enrollment Management Implement Parking Lot Long-Term Repair/Maintenance Stabilization Plan Carver (Certificate of Participation Debt Payment) Analytical Data Toolset for Advancement Database 11,413,929 74,122 2,250,879 367,566 878,048 54,539 57,424 83,803 400,000 7,533 450,000 32,400 11,413,929 74,122 2,675,198 367,566 1,128,919 54,539 57,424 83,803 400,000 7,533 0 32,400 91,000 579,000 25,000 625,000 579,000 25,000 Institutional 13 14 15 16 Central Service Charge for OFM Services Legislatively unfunded benefit rate increases Employee Wellness Match Program disAbility Services Academic Affairs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Enhancement of First Year Math Instruction Title IX Investigator and Related Administrative Support Migrate to Banner 9 on the XE Platform Enterprise Compute and Storage Infrastructure Enterprise Voice Communications System Office of Sustainability Request Creating a Sustainable Future for Scientific Technical Services (STS) Honors Student Life Coordinator and Base Budget Section Funding Palliative Care Institute 125,000 164,726 285,697 56,160 81,000 181,890 63,358 113,268 131,976 125,000 164,726 16,529 23,505 92,366 16,529 23,505 92,366 85,037 199,361 10,911 105,000 56,160 81,000 63,358 56,634 Enrollment and Student Services 26 27 28 Curriculog Curriculum Management Degree Works: Replacement for Current Degree Auditing Platform Suicide Prevention Business and Financial Affairs 29 30 31 Establishing a Victim Advocate to Enhance a Victim-centered Approach Strengthen Laboratory Safety Practices at Western Talent Management Software Suite University Advancement 32 Permanent Funding for Key Advancement Staff 199,300 University Relations & Community Development 33 34 Digital Asset Media Management Content System Director of Front Door to Discovery Program TOTAL RECURRING NEW NEEDS UNFUNDED RECURRING NEEDS 27,000 118,496 27,000 118,496 19,365,823 17,829,207 1,536,616 WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ITEM SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO: Members of the Board of Trustees FROM: Karen Lee, Chair, Board of Trustees DATE: June 10, 2016 SUBJECT: Recognition of Bruce and Cyndie Shepard PURPOSE: Action Item ____________________________________________________________________________ The Trustees will recognize President Bruce Shepard and First Lady Cyndie Shepard for their outstanding achievements and service to the University. • Resolution No. 2016-05 Recognizing the Service of Bruce Shepard • Resolution No. 2016-06 Recognizing the Service of Cyndie Shepard RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF Dr. W. Bruce Shepard AND CONFERRING THE TITLE PRESIDENT EMERITUS WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY WHEREAS, DR. W. BRUCE SHEPARD was appointed President of Western Washington University by its Board of Trustees in September 2008; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD will retire from the presidency of Western Washington University on June 30, 2016; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD has had a distinguished career spanning four decades as an educator and academic leader in public higher education, including eight years of service as President of Western Washington University, seven years of service as Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, six years of service as Provost of Eastern Oregon University, and twenty-three years at Oregon State University, where he earned tenure as a Professor of Political Science and served in numerous administrative roles; and WHEREAS, under his leadership, Western Washington University has received national recognition for academic excellence, including repeated recognition by US News and World Report as the highest-ranking public master’sgranting university in the Pacific Northwest; as one of the best values in public higher education by Kiplinger’s; and as being the top national producer of Fulbright Scholarship recipients in 2013 among public master’s-granting institutions; and WHEREAS, under his leadership, Western Washington University has been recognized for community service and commitment to veterans, including for having more alumni serving in the Peace Corps than any other medium-sized university in the nation for three consecutive years; for and as a “Military Friendly School” for six consecutive years, placing Western in the top twenty percent of all higher education institutions nationwide; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD successfully led Western through the financial hardship of the Great Recession, effectively managing the University’s finances during or despite a fifty percent reduction in state support, protecting the core academic excellence of Western while maintaining affordability for students; and WHEREAS, through his leadership, W. BRUCE SHEPARD has strengthened Western’s commitment to serving first-generation, low-income and traditionally underrepresented students, and has worked to ensure that quality higher education is accessible to all students regardless of their circumstances of birth; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD has consistently challenged the campus and the broader community throughout Washington State to reflect on questions of privilege, equity and social justice, and has fostered a more inclusive and equitable campus environment through multiple initiatives to enhance the quality of life for all students, faculty and staff; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD has been a champion of shared governance, transparency and bottom-up decision making, putting in place budgeting and strategic planning processes that have more fully empowered and engaged the University community; and WHEREAS, under his leadership, Western Washington University has elevated its reputation and recognition in the Pacific Northwest, leading to the success of the sixty-two million dollar Western Stands for Washington comprehensive fundraising campaign, innovative new models of public-private collaboration, and enhanced stature and effectiveness in the halls of the State Capitol; and WHEREAS, during his tenure as President, W. BRUCE SHEPARD has distinguished himself among the Washington Council of Presidents for his passionate advocacy on behalf of the transformative power of public higher education, and on the continued relevance of a Liberal Arts education to responsible citizenship, the everchanging needs of the modern workforce, and fuller appreciation of the human experience; and WHEREAS, W. BRUCE SHEPARD’s legacy of leadership and devotion to public higher education will have lasting positive effects on the State of Washington and the students, faculty and staff for years to come; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University that W. BRUCE SHEPARD is hereby honored for outstanding service and dedication to the University, and is extended the deepest gratitude and heartfelt wishes of the entire University community for much happiness and fulfillment in retirement and his future endeavors; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees confers upon W. BRUCE SHEPARD the title President Emeritus of Western Washington University, with all the privileges thereto pertaining, effective July 1, 2016. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University at its regular meeting on the 9th of June, 2016. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZING THE SERVICE OF Cyndie Shepard WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD is retiring from her position as the First Lady of Western Washington University and as the Executive Director of Western’s Compass 2 Campus program in June 2016 after eight years of service; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD has proven to be a true champion for education in several states, particularly in raising aspirations for K-12 students to pursue higher education by providing opportunities for students from traditionally underrepresented, first-generation, and low-income backgrounds through mentoring programs in Washington and Wisconsin; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD has excelled as the First Lady of Western in working with her husband Bruce Shepard to develop friendships and partnerships on campus, and in the community, state and nation; and in creating opportunities for people from all walks of life; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD has taught at several universities and colleges across the nation including the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Murray State University, Eastern Oregon University, and Blue Mountain Community College; and has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from California State University, Fullerton, a master’s degree in psychology from Immaculate Heart College in Los Angeles, and extensive experience in P-12 education, special education, and administration; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD has distinguished herself for her creation, development and leadership of Western’s Compass 2 Campus program, a nationally-recognized, award-winning initiative that involves Western student mentors in local school districts to encourage K-12 students to graduate from high school and pursue higher education; and recognizing the program was transported to Central Washington University last year; and WHEREAS, the Western Washington University Compass 2 Campus mentorship initiative is a pilot program implemented by House Bill 1986 which passed the Washington State Legislature on April 21, 2009, and recognizing that CYNDIE SHEPARD served as director and co-founder of the original Phuture Phoenix mentoring program at the UW-Green Bay, where the program continues to be successful and has been transported to UWEau Claire and Silver Lake College; and WHEREAS, Compass 2 Campus and the Phuture Phoenix programs have proven to increase GPA and reduce truancy among elementary, middle, and high school students; empower students to make good choices about the future; increase students' leadership and commitment to giving back to their communities; and empowered more students to graduate from high school and encourage them to consider some form of higher education; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD has made presentations at numerous conferences and community events, has taught at Western’s Woodring College of Education and in the Department of Dance, is past-president of Western’s chapter of Phi Kappa Phi, has served on the Woodring College Diversity Committee, and has been an advisory board member for the GRADS Program in Bellingham Public Schools; and WHEREAS, CYNDIE SHEPARD’s legacy and devotion to public education will have lasting beneficial effects on the people of the State of Washington; those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those college students who served as mentors to those students in area schools, for years to come; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University that CYNDIE SHEPARD is hereby honored for outstanding service and dedication to the University, and is extended the deepest gratitude and heartfelt wishes of the entire University community for much happiness and fulfillment in retirement and her future endeavors. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Board of Trustees of Western Washington University at its regular meeting on the 9th of June, 2016. 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session may be held to discuss personnel, real estate, and legal issues as authorized in RCW 42.30.110.