These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
2:30 – 4:15
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Martin (chair), Daniel Feeney, Steve
Fitzgerald, John Fossum, Thomas Klein, Russell Luepker, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard
Pfutzenreuter
Absent:
None counted for a summer meeting
Guests:
Chief of Police Greg Hestness, Terrance Cook (Director
of Emergency Management)
[In these minutes: (1) annual operating budget and legislative
outcome; (2) emergency preparedness]
1. Annual Operating Budget and Legislative
Outcome
Professor
Martin convened the meeting at 2:35 and turned to Vice President Pfutzenreuter
for a discussion of the legislative outcome and the annual budget.
Mr.
Pfutzenreuter described the finale of the legislative session and said that if
the Governor signs the higher education bill, as expected, the University will
have $67.7 million in new funds for 2007-08. The 2007-08 budget is built on
resources that total $112.4 million, including the new state funds of $67.7
million, $12.8 million in University reallocation, $20.3 million in tuition and
University fee, and $11.7 million from other sources. The money will be spent in categories
consistent with the four pillars of strategic positioning: exceptional students, $20.7 million;
exceptional faculty and staff, $32.5 million; exceptional organization, $20.7
million; and exceptional innovation, $33.6 million. The administration intentionally did not
allocate all of the new funds in order to allow for contingencies (e.g., higher-than-expected
utility bills).
The
legislature front-loaded the biennial appropriation more than the University
requested, in order to control the "tails" that the Governor objected
to. That creates a problem for the
University's financial plan, with $67.7 million in new state funds the first
year and $14.3 million the second year.
Undergraduate
tuition in 2007-08 will increase 4.5%; in 08-09 it will increase 7.5%. The University will fully fund the Founders
free tuition program, so need-based students will see no increase. Moreover, for
In
addition, the University intends to implement tuition banding at Crookston,
The
University's budget is in good shape in year one of the biennium, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter concluded, and faces a challenge in the second year. Even then, however, there will be about $63
million in new funds to invest. The
lower amount the second year is what led to the higher tuition increase in
order to cover compensation at 3.25%, utilities, scholarship programs, and
about $10.5 million for new investments.
There will be funds for competitive compensation (in addition to 3.25%
increases) in the first year of the biennium but not, as plans now stand, in
the second year.
What
did the University ask for, Professor Martin inquired. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said the University
requested an increase of $182 million for the biennium and received $151
million—in different years than it requested the funds.
Professor
Feeney asked if there is a policy related to the relationship of tuition on the
various campuses or if the rates are just adjusted from time to time. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said the President wants
the Morris campus to be more competitive.
What is the real dollar change for Morris students, Professor Feeney
asked. About $995 per year (less) at
Morris, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said. There is
a sense, Professor Martin said, that the Research 1 campus should be more
expensive than the other campuses.
Asked
about the factors that influenced the appropriation to the University, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter surmised that legislators were concerned about tuition levels,
the knowledge the University took a big cut in 2003-04, and the
strategic-positioning effort.
Professor Martin related
that she had recently been in
2. Emergency Preparedness on Campus
Professor
Martin welcomed Vice President O'Brien to discuss emergency preparedness. Vice President O'Brien, in turn, introduced
Assistant Vice President and Chief of Police Greg Hestness and Mr. Terrence
Cook, Director of Emergency Preparedness.
She distributed copies of PowerPoint slides and narrated them for the
Committee.
Vice
President O'Brien began by explaining that the Audit Committee of the Regents
asks for risk assessments from different areas of the University and receives
reports during the year. Emergency
Preparedness is one of the units that provides a report. One such report, prepared before the events
at Virginia Tech, was presented to the Regents' Audit Committee, to the deans,
and now to this Committee. She then
noted the questions that the University has asked itself about its emergency
preparedness. (Is it prepared? How does its preparedness compare to
peers? What is the University's role
vis-à-vis state, regional, and local preparedness? How is emergency preparedness
evaluated?) The University has had an
emergency preparedness plan since the early days of civil defense; with the
events in
Vice
President O'Brien defined emergency preparedness and observed that "all
emergencies cannot be prevented at all times, some can be prevented and most
can be managed in ways that minimize their impact." The mission of the plan is to protect life
(which includes animals as well as humans) and property (both real and
intellectual), secure critical infrastructure and facilities, and resume teaching
and research programs. Priorities of the
plan reflect that mission: (1) areas
used by dependent populations (e.g., residence halls, laboratories with
animals), (2) infrastructure critical to health and safety, (3) infrastructure
that sustains response, (4) classrooms and research buildings, and (5)
administrative buildings (i.e., Morrill Hall would come after a lab or
residence hall). These priorities are
based on industry standards, best practices, and common sense, and are designed
to help the Office of the Day make decisions about what to attend to
first. The Vice President for University
Services is the Officer of the Day, backed up by Senior Vice President Cerra,
Senior Vice President Jones, and Vice President Kathryn Brown. All of them have had emergency management training.
Vice
President O'Brien described the scope of the plan, which includes an
all-hazards incident command, which is embedded in the emergency operations
plan, and participation in the National Incidents Management System (developed
so responders from different jurisdictions can work together to respond to
natural disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism). She said that any emergency that affects
students, faculty, or staff, regardless of scope, is a University emergency,
and can include everything from an individual health event to a lab explosion,
a tornado, hazardous materials release, extended power outage, plane crash,
etc.
Emergency
preparedness has three components: risk
mitigation, incident management, and operational continuity. Risk management has several elements,
including cameras around the campus (about 900 in high-risk areas), the Office
of Central Security, community-oriented policing, institutional threat
assessment etc. Incident management
guides the response to major emergencies, conforms to state and federal
requirements for emergency preparedness, identifies the responsibilities of key
departments (e.g., Office of the General Counsel, Policy, Human Resources), and
establishes a chain of command for decision-making during an emergency. Operational continuity planning involves
plans to return to normal operations and is focused on building operations,
financial transactions, and communications.
There are 17 departments required to submit a plan to resume operations
and to update them regularly (something that is happening now). The departments include, for example,
payroll, purchasing, and the like, and they are required to drill on the plans
in order to ensure they are not just on paper; about one-third of them do
annual updates and the intention is that they all do them, Mr. Cook said. Vice President O'Brien observed that often
the urgent pushes out the essential, but these plans are essential to keep the
University running. (There is also work
afoot on a continuity plan in the case of a pandemic flu, but that requires a
different plan because the University would lose people rather than facilities
or equipment.)
There
are 4 levels of emergency preparedness (1, 2, 3, 4). Level 1 is an "unusual occurrence";
level 2 is a localized emergency in a small area (the Emergency Operations
Center is notified but not activated), level 3 is a major emergency covering a
large area (the senior officers are notified), and level 4 is a disaster of major
scale, perhaps national (in both 3 and 4 the Emergency Operations Center is
activated and University operations may be suspended. Professor Martin asked what rises to the
level of an "unusual occurrence" and who decides. Chief Hestness said it is the on-duty police
officer, if there is one. It may be that
an elevator stops because of flooding, Mr. Cook added. It may be a heart attack or utility outage in
a building, Vice President O'Brien said.
The April bomb threat on the East Bank campus was a level 3 event.
The
basic command structure for a response to an emergency was explained, with the
Office of the Day in charge and the Incident Commander on the scene,
responsible to the Officer of the Day.
The Incident commander can vary depending on the nature of the event.
The
plan also serves as a template for the coordinate campuses; they are working
with each of the campuses to tailor the plans to local needs. Professor Martin asked if they receive good
cooperation from, for instance, the police and sheriff in Morris; they do,
Chief Hestness and Mr. Cook said.
The
No
matter the level of the incident, they are reviewed and assessed, Vice
President O'Brien said. They are trying
to learn from the events at Virginia Tech and to strive for the appropriate
level of redundancy and backup systems and plans (the one area at the University
where one DOES want redundancy, such as in communications during an
emergency).
Professor
Martin recalled that no one on the
Do
they have several incidents per year, Professor Martin asked? It has been several years since there was a
credible bomb threat, Chief Hestness said.
They are infectious, however, and if they were regular, the University
would have to decide how often it could have a major campus disruption.
The
pandemic flu issue has been the subject of planning for about a year and a
half, Mr. Cook reported. Professor
Luepker pointed out that the University has a large and concentrated
population, which would help the flu spread, and it is also the site of a
health-care center, which brings sick people to the campus. Professor Martin commented that a return to
normal activities in case of a pandemic flu could be put off for a long
time. Ms. O'Brien related that there has
been considerable planning on when to suspend classes and/or close components
of or the entire campus. There has also
been a big focus on international travel by University staff—where are they,
are they at risk, and how can the University take care of them if they do
become sick. There is an annex
(emergency plan component) that addresses a pandemic flu, Mr. Cook said,
because in most incidents the University loses buildings, not people. They will try to get emergency response staff
inoculated, Chief Hestness said, and also those students who are unable to go
home. Professor Fossum said the
attention to diseases and traveling is important and knowing what is going on
elsewhere in the world; his college cancelled several faculty visits during the
SARS epidemic. It is especially
important for students, he said, as an increasing number of undergraduate
programs require international travel in order to complete the degree.
Mr.
Fitzgerald observed that there are 22,000 students in classrooms on the Twin
Cities campus that are networked; the question is how to leverage that
infrastructure. He also noticed that the
emphasis in the discussion has been on "push" communications; once
students know something is happening, they will spread the word through their
own communications networks and will shift to "pull" communications,
such as by going to University websites.
Vice President O'Brien said that OIT has looked into the possibility of
overriding websites and taking down graphics so that only messages will
appear—that would speed up delivery.
The
events at Virginia Tech made people anxious in a lot of ways, Professor Martin
said.
After the state adopted the conceal-and-carry law, the
University has no way of knowing if someone is bringing firearms on the
campus. Now there is even more
potential. Chief Hestness agreed. The Board of Regents did take action to
exclude the University from the coverage of the law, he said, but right after
the Virginia Tech events the Daily asked whether the University would revisit
the conceal-and-carry issue. President
Bruininks said last fall that issue would not be raised again, he recalled, and
he expressed doubt it would be reconsidered now. A variety of ideas on campus security and
policing are being suggested, Mr. Klein commented. Are there particular ideas or tactics that
the University believes are best suited for its situation, such as the
"broken windows" approach? There are a lot of ways to go, Chief Hestness
said; in terms of mental health issues, most police agencies took lessons from
Columbine: to contain the shooting and
wait for the SWAT team means people will continue to get shot, so now they try
to get people there to stop the shooting.
There was a time when the Minneapolis Police Department shot three
psychotics; they have now adopted a crisis-intervention program that requires
40 hours of training; that will not cure all the problems but it does help
officers recognize major mental illnesses and the appropriate responses. They have brought that training to the campus
and have not have a shooting incident to deal with—but they do have mental
health incidents, which occur with increased frequency among young people of college
age and with bright people, and this is also a public campus, so such events
are inevitable.
Overall,
Vice President O'Brien said, they have adopted a philosophy of being more
proactive than reactive and sharing information; if there is an incident, they
let people know. The principle of
informing people who are at risk is important; the question is how to balance
that need with an avoidance of crying "wolf" or overdoing responses. It is human nature to forget about
emergencies and there is a need for a proactive police department—but the
University community must also be vigilant because safety is the responsibility
of everyone in the community.
Professor
Martin thanked Vice President O'Brien, Chief Hestness, and Mr. Cook for their
report. She introduced Professor
Luepker, a new member of the Committee beginning July 1, and adjourned the
meeting at 4:00.
--
Gary Engstrand