These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
2:30 – 4:15
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Martin (Chair pro tem), Arthur Erdman, Daniel
Feeney, Steve Fitzgerald, Dan Hennen, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Kathleen
O'Brien, Kathryn Olson, Justin Revenaugh, Karen Seashore, Charles Speaks,
Alfred Sullivan
Absent:
Calvin Alexander, Charles Bachmeier, Rose Blixt,
Charles Campbell, Lincoln Kallsen, Michael Korth, Ian MacMillan, Fred Morrison,
Tim Nantell, Jacob Olson, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Michael Sertich, Thomas
Stinson, Kate VandenBosch, Sue Van Voorhis, Michael Volna, Warren Warwick
Guests:
Terry Cook, Jerome Malmquist, Steve Spehn,
Other:
none
[In these minutes: (1) Utilities Update; (2) Emergency
Preparedness, Avian Flu; (3) Administrative Strategic Positioning]
Professor
Martin convened the meeting at 2:30 pm.
1. Utilities Update
Vice
President O'Brien presented a utilities update.
She distributed materials and introduced Mr. Steve Spehn, Associate Vice
President of Utilities Management, and Mr. Jerome Malmquist, Departmental
Director, Facilities Management. Vice
President O'Brien noted that the handout was the fourth in a series of updates
to the Regents, and she noted that in considering the utilities budget, it was
appropriate to look at costs and how to control them, and how to be good
stewards of resources. Associate Vice
President Spehn reiterated this by highlighting the mission statement, which
says "Manage the procurement and distribution of energy and provide facility
engineering expertise to support the University's mission of research, teaching
and outreach." Mr. Spehn said that
their energy management team was a relatively small group for a $91 million
budget. Mr. Malmquist added that there
were seven student engineers who were a tremendous asset to the team, and noted
that they continue to recruit students. Mr. Spehn described the utilities and
services provided. Utilities include
steam, electricity, chilled water, water, and sewer, sanitary and storm. Services include engineering, commissioning
and recommissioning, and University engineering record storage and retrieval.
Mr. Spehn pointed out that chilled water is a new utility. He then outlined the technical support
services to coordinate campuses. In reviewing the budget, Mr. Spehn noted that
for FY07, the Twin Cities campus budget is $91 million and system-wide, the
budget is $150 million. He pointed out
that steam and electric costs comprise 86% of the budget. Professor Martin said
that encouraging people to pay more attention to conservation could make a significant
impact in the budget.
Mr.
Spehn went on to discuss energy principles: reliability, environmental
stewardship, and risk and cost management.
Mr. Malmquist highlighted notable accomplishments, including utility
modeling and their agreement with Foster Wheeler. He said that they were in the second year of
a three-year contract. Professor Martin
asked how long contracts were and Mr. Malmquist replied that it is usually 25
years, but that the University had renegotiated the contract with Foster
Wheeler for three years due to various issues.
The renegotiation had made a significant difference and Vice President
O'Brien said that the contract provided the opportunity to extend it based on
performance.
In
discussing challenges and strategies as noted in the handout, Mr. Malmquist
described the University's relationship with Xcel Energy and how they had been
researching reliability issues with Xcel. He cited a recent incident of the and asked if that
technology could be more broadly used.
Mr. Malmquist said that although motion detector technology is much
cheaper than it used to be, installing it in some buildings is prohibitively
expensive in some buildings. He added
that they are trying to use such technology whenever possible. Professor Speaks clarified that in all these
areas, there is a main system and a back-up system, to which Mr. Malmquist
replied yes. Professor Speaks asked who
funded each, and Mr. Malmquist replied that Xcel Energy funds the primary
system. Professor Konstan asked what
the difference was in costs for facilities engaged in heavy research as opposed
to a general purpose classrooms or buildings, and asked if there should be two
tiers of service and charges. Vice President O'Brien said they'd be charging by
use, and Mr. Klein noted that earlier discussions concluded that the concept
was valid and had been talked about in SCFP meetings. Questions had been asked
about the accuracy of the allocations and the Budget Office had explained their
rationale for making the allocation less complex in the first year of the new budget
model. They had opted for simplicity and more transparency over greater detail
and accuracy.
Mr.
Malmquist went on to discuss environmental stewardship, and cited
accomplishments in energy conservation, bio fuels, and partnering with the
academic community. One challenge he
cited was the acquisition of a Title 5 permit which would allow the University
to test-burn bio fuels. In terms of risk
and cost management, Mr. Malmquist discussed the compressed air upgrade in the
Mr.
Malmquist highlighted the utility master plan, citing accomplishments in terms
of utility assets identified, production capabilities, and distribution systems
modeled. Areas of challenges and
strategies included five areas of focus for change and growth, which he
described as having divided the campus into five areas to study cost estimates,
as well as furthering a central district energy approach. Professor Konstan inquired whether increasing
the number of personnel would help to keep energy costs down. In other words, was staff efficiency being
held back by the head count? Mr.
Malmquist responded, saying that the number of people on the team changes
depending on the capital improvements budget and that they were considering
adding personnel. He that they were
taking a managed growth approach and that some projects were outsourced, and he
reiterated that most of the team members had saved the University more than
their salary and benefits.
Professor
Speaks said the presentation was very useful and asked if it might be possible
to write a white paper, perhaps 3-5 pages, to explain this aspect of the
University, what it does and why it costs what it does. Vice President O'Brien acknowledged that they
were considering ways of implementing such a message.
Mr.
Malmquist referred to the last chart in the handout, which showed how energy
usage is continuing to decline, but leveling out. Professor Martin reiterated that there needs
to be a way to communicate to people that they can help control costs. She thanked Vice President O'Brien, Mr. Spehn
and Mr. Malmquist for the presentation.
2. Emergency
Preparedness, Avian Flu
Vice
President O'Brien distributed information about the University's pandemic
influenza planning. She said that last
fall they had started planning for an influenza pandemic and had started to
develop a work plan. Through sessions on
emergency planning, they had strengthened plans and they had an updated plan
that had been approved by the State and the Department of Homeland
Security. She described the committee
addressing these issues, co-chaired by herself and Senior Vice President
Cerra. She introduced Terry Cook,
Departmental Director, Emergency Management, to speak to this project and she
stressed that this was the planning aspect of the project and not the public
health aspect of it.
Mr.
Cook presented materials and said that the emergency operations plan was
approved in 2004 and that it was considered a model across the nation. Out of that plan came the
Mr.
Cook reviewed the preparedness objectives which included monitoring
international travel. Professor Martin
noted that this might be difficult to do in times of an emergency. Professor Seashore concurred, saying that the
tracking of overseas travelers was already spotty. Professor Konstan said that a large factor in
many of these objectives was ensuring that these were not unfunded mandates.
Mr. Cook acknowledged that working out these issues was complicated, but that
it was important to know where University's human capital was. He pointed out that it will take five to six
months to develop a vaccine once the flu mutates and can be transmitted human
to human. Mr. Cook continued by citing
other preparedness objectives, such as targeted vaccine distribution,
preparedness of essential personnel, operations and services, surveillance and
case investigation, healthcare needs, student housing needs, internal
communications (faculty and students), external communications (government
agencies, etc.), and providing services to the broader community.
Mr.
Cook continued by describing targeted vaccine distribution with pre-determined
priority groups. He outlined essential
personnel, operations and services, and said that one scenario would be a
sudden or increased absenteeism due to public fear and panic. Professor Martin said she assumed most people
would stay home in a pandemic, and Mr. Cook agreed, saying that the estimate
was a 30-40% absentee rate. He noted
that a pandemic would run eight weeks, subside, and then have another
eight-week run. Professor Konstan asked how
the planning of outside vendors were measured and factored into the University's
plans. Vice President O'Brien said that other agencies were doing continuity
planning as well, and Mr. Cook added that a template was being developed for
units doing continuity planning which asks what can be expected of them when
the pandemic strikes.
Mr.
Cook outline the final points his presentation and said that the risk of
pandemic in the future is 100%, and it was unknown if it would be the H5N1
strain. He noted that as it interacts
among species, the avian flu will recombine, at which point it would jump
species. When transmission is easy, a
pandemic occurs. Professor Speaks asked
at what level decisions would be made on a day to day basis in the event of a
pandemic, and asked if units have groups to decide who will get paid if faculty
don't show up. Vice President O'Brien said that Kathy Brown was working with a
team to address those questions.
Professor Speaks said that guidelines should come from central
administration and not each unit, and Vice President O'Brien agreed. Professor Seashore asked if there was a
backup plan for those who might neglect their leadership assignments, pointing
out that even if someone is in a position of leadership, it doesn't mean they
are necessarily risk-averse. Mr. Cook said that they were requesting leadership
be three- deep: primary, secondary and
third options for people in charge for each unit. Professor Seashore asked if there would be a
training program to rapidly train people, pointing out that bureaucracies don't
function well in crises. Vice President
O'Brien said that the medical response corps is a trained team to act in such
instances. Professor Seashore asked
about students who may have nowhere else to go.
Mr. Cook said that Housing and Residential Services is quite far ahead
in their planning stages and their backup strategy includes a list six deep of
personnel. Professor Martin said that
the academic side won't have that kind of backup as they are not set up to have
that kind of arrangement. Professor Konstan pointed out that most disaster
planning plans are for impact and recovery, and asked about accommodating
classes or determining when the University should be shut down. Professor
Martin said she thought it was the Provost's decision if and when to shut down.
Vice President O'Brien added that the entire University cannot be shut down and
that certain systems would be in place to ensure this. Mr. Cook said that a pandemic is likely to
impact at least three semesters and that when the pandemic comes, the
university could not depend on outside sources as everyone across the nation
will be affected. In closing, he suggested people visit websites for further
information about emergency preparedness:
Dem.umn.edu, prepare.umn.edu, ready.gov, fema.gov, cidrap.umn.edu,
pandemicflu.gov. Professor Martin
thanked Vice President O'Brien and Mr. Cook for the update.
3. Administrative Strategic Positioning
A
discussion ensued regarding the implementation priorities of the Administrative
Service and Productivity Steering Committee.
Vice President O'Brien said that since September, the administrative
task forces have been working on issues, and reports were written in December
which identified objectives for the first phase of administrative strategic
positioning. She said the report that was available online at the
"Transforming the U" website. She distributed information on
implementation priorities, and said they were trying to establish the essence
of what they were trying to achieve, which was embodied in mission statement.
It reads: In support of the University
of Minnesota's academic mission, our administrative operations will be the best
among our peers, focused on service to faculty, students, staff and units, and
driven by performance objectives and define results. Vice President O'Brien noted that priorities
established were in four areas: people, information, organization/structure and
culture. She said they had been working with Associate Vice President Al
Sullivan and the Measures and Metrics Committee in establishing measurements
for success. Professor Konstan said
there had been long-standing concern among civil service employees that there
are limited career paths at the University and that the fourth objective under
People somewhat addressed this. It
states, "Enhance classification and compensation systems across all job
families." Vice President O'Brien
said that the task force believed that issues of compensation and development
are essential to the University.
Professor Martin asked if job advancement didn't fall under SCFA's
purview or CAPA/Civil Service committees work.
Ms. Olson said that the civil service committee is very interested in
the issues, and Vice President O'Brien said that Carol Carrier would address
issues with the committee. Professor
Seashore expressed concern with project number X111, which she felt was a great
idea in theory but should be addressed in a different way. It stated "Define and Foster a Culture
that Propels and Reflects the University's aspirations." Vice President O'Brien said that she did not
disagree but noted that while a culture change cannot be forced it needs to be
paid attention to. She noted that the
intent was to identify excellence and success, identify those characteristics,
and build on those. Vice President
O'Brien asked Professor Seashore to send her comments to the task force, and
stressed that they wanted to get people's responses as they continue with their
work. Professor Seashore remarked that the system of sending comments via
e-mail was a good idea but that the process was very uninviting, given the
multiple layers of surveys she had tried navigating. Vice President O'Brien said that the
consultations they'd done over the fall had garnered much important feedback.
Professor Martin concluded the meeting
at 4:35 pm.
---Mary
Jo Pehl