Members Present: Allen (Chair), Crowell (Biology), Malik (Chemistry), Chin (Computer Inf. Science), Luke (Mathematical Sciences), Swope (Geology, for Filippelli), Rao (Physics), Fastenau (Psychology), Johnson (Secretary), Stocum (Dean’s Office), Nguyen (Dean’s Office), Wilson (Dean’s Office)
This special meeting was convened to discuss the SOS Budget. Discussion centered on a packet of materials detailing SOS assets, expenditures, and allocations to departments within the School of Science.
I. Faculty Salaries
D. Stocum first reviewed mean salaries across academic departments. There is a considerable gap between full and associate professors (and a much less substantial gap between assistant and associate professors). These differences have arisen due to salary compression (there have been significant increases in the starting salaries for Assistant Professors but no equivalent increases in Associate Professor salaries). Dean Stocum recommended that we make a concerted effort to increase the salary of associate professors, perhaps in the course of a comprehensive salary review across campuses (and units within campuses). Malik and Rao pointed out that there are two classes of associate professors; those that are progressing steadily towards full status, and those that probably will not move to full status. Malik suggested looking systematically at the difference between associate professors (10+ years) vs. newer associate professors to determine whether the salary distribution is bimodal within the associate professor rank. Dean Stocum pointed out that productivity differences also exist within the full Professor rank.
Dean Stocum recommended that members of the steering committee circulate salary information to departmental faculty. He pointed out that Chair average salary is slightly low because of two younger chairs (physics, geology). Otherwise the chair salary would be more equivalent to that of associate deans.
II. Staff Salaries
Staff salaries start out low and generally stay low. There also has been the problem of staff generally receiving a lower percent raise than faculty. PA staff have higher salaries because of their roles (e.g., development) or because they have been in their positions for longer periods of time.
III. FY 03-04 Budget Projection
D. Stocum reviewed assets and liabilities at the School level. Total assessments are creeping toward 50%, which is extremely high. Base restoration currently is being sequestered by the IUPUI administration in case the governor needs to retract these funds for the state budget (would likely occur later this fall/early next winter). Hospitality is used to pay for one-time visitors to campus that departments host. Some money has been set aside for staff bonuses in order to make up for the low overall staff salaries. Other expenses were listed on a handout distributed at the meeting.
F/A Income: $1,350,000
Amount to allocate from general fund: $950,519 (this has been severely decreased)
Total balance (of allocatable funds): $3,240,711
Estimated Indirect Cost Recovery 03/04 was reviewed next; figures were broken down by departments. These are only estimates, as F&A only follow dollars that are spent (direct costs). If PIs spend less (or save funds to rollover to subsequent years), F&A is lower than anticipated.
FY 2003/2004 IUPUI Expenditures Update was reviewed next. Assessments to the School of Science went up by $1,000,000, despite the fact that our general fund allocation went down by $1,000,000. A review of expenditures was presented on a handout prepared by Vice Chancellor Martin. Peoplesoft (SIS/SES) implementation has been enormously costly and accounts for a large proportion of these expenditures.
Allocations to individual departments (from the $3.2M of available funds) were reviewed next (departmental totals distributed in a handout). Funds were initially determined based on credit hours, plus portion of F&A returning to department. Surplus associated with Math was then divided amongst biology, chemistry, CIS, and geology. Physics and Psychology did not receive any of these funds because the dollars ran out. However, Crystal projects that our actual number of credit hours will be greater than what has been projected; this plus excess salary savings will be available to potentially allocate to departments. (up to $840,409 may be available, $300K of which could be allocated to departments). The remaining question is how best to allocate the remaining $540,000 (approx.). The final budget numbers will be available in July.
P. Fastenau asked why Psychology and Physics did not receive any of the additional allocations so far. Stocum replied that the more needy departments were funded first.
Finally, Dean’s Office Expenses were reviewed (handout distributed). Some figures need to be checked (e.g., Animal Care, Work Orders), but again will be more “firm” by July 1.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to considerations for best utilizing the remaining $540,000:
Ideas suggested:
Stocum: graduate student support
Rao asked what proportion of the funds might be used for this, and Stocum indicated that potentially all of it could.
Wilson: undergraduate research
Crowell: start up money for forensic program
Fastenau: out-of-state graduate student tuition remission (make equivalent to
in-state rates)
Stocum replied that this could be allocated through general “graduate
student support” funding and outlined problems associated with School
of Science distributing funds received for this purpose.
Nguyen: support for development of interdisciplinary course offerings
Allen: focus on initiatives that facilitate external awards/F&A growth; this might be a more effective use of funds than graduate student support
The committee generally agreed that this is a good point to keep in mind.
Allen elaborated that this could be accomplished through:
1. graduate student support
2. undergraduate research support
3. infrastructure/space
4. seed money for new projects
Chin suggested providing seed money to facilitate the development of interdisciplinary interaction (which currently is a high priority for federal agencies). He pointed out though that simply getting people together is not enough; there needs to be a track record of productive research for obtaining NSF/NIH funds.
Allen suggested that the Dean’s Office identify particular funding initiatives and then recruit faculty to work on particular projects/provide release time, etc.
Rao/Stocum: development of an internal/SOS RIF program
Rao qualified that it’s important to keep in mind that the goal of such funding should be the development of a substantial proposal for external funding within a clearly-defined niche. He suggested that there be clearly defined time limits associated with seed projects (e.g., 2 years).
Wilson: pay faculty a particular stipend for taking the initiative to write
proposals in response to posted RFAs/PAs
Malik countered that this would entail paying faculty extra for things that
they should be doing already.
Wilson: pay graduate students to apply for awards/fellowships. Purdue notifies students about particular award competitions and offers to pay them $500 for applying. If we can increase the proportion of students who apply for external fellowships, we will be able to generate more external support for graduate students.
Malik: - increasing student success, more generally (impact on retention)
Stocum: Increase incentives for faculty to seek out/apply for DOD funding (more apt to take risks on new ideas/initiatives than other federal agencies) (e.g., DARPA)
Fastenau: commented that all ideas expressed seem creative/attractive and particularly encouraged the use of incentives to help faculty take the first step in initiating the process. He cautioned against limiting seed moneys to selected initiatives and recommended that the school leave it up to the faculty to make the case for why they fit well with a particular initiative. If school-level reviewers are convinced by faculty “sales pitch,” then seed money could be awarded. If not, it would save the work associated with preparing an external proposal.
The committee will continue to consider these ideas (and generate others) and will communicate primarily by email until the beginning of the fall semester, particularly given the uncertainties associated with whether these funds will be available.
Respectfully submitted, 6/5/03
K. Johnson