At Faculty Senate on Thursday, I promised to deliver my report on the blog, since our meeting was entirely taken up with discussion of the Constitution.
Obviously you can read the press release on the meeting here: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/index.aspx?id=53982
I will only make a couple of additional comments.
First, I am delighted in our new Board leadership. John Merchant and John O'Cull will do an excellent job in their respective roles as Board Chair and Vice Chair. Both are very experienced Board members and have my highest respect. I look forward to working with them both.
I also want to thank Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido for doing an excellent job with her sabbatical report. She articulated very clearly and enthusiastically why support for research and scholarly productions is so very important for the institution, our programs, and our students--as well as for our own professional development. She did a great job.
I am happy to report that the University was able to support a limited number of sabbaticals for next year (3 to be exact). I challenged the administration to try to find ways of funding sabbaticals on a firmer footing as we move out of these difficult fiscal times. Basically, there is no money in the budget for sabbaticals at present. Departments and colleges find creative ways of funding sabbaticals with existing resources.
Last, but not least, the Regents gave the President the authority to negotiate the purchase of the current Rowan County Library. Please note that the current Master Plan includes a Classroom to Community Project with a price tag of around 6 million dollars. Purchasing the Library building will come in WAY below that figure and thus should save the University several million dollars over the current plan. It should also be noted that the purchase will be funded with Little Foundation money and matching money from Bucks for Brains. All in all, it sounds like a win/win situation for the University and the community if all goes well.
Have a great spring break.
Ron
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
BOR Quarterly Meeting on Thursday, 11 March
For some reason, the agenda for the 11 March Quarterly Meeting of the BOR is not on the web just yet. I have seen a draft agenda, and here are some highlights (beyond the 2nd Quarter Financial Report, Personnel Actions, and other routine business):
A. Election of Board Officers
B. Approval of Tenure with Promotions
C. Approval of Sabbatical Leaves
D. Sabbatical Report from Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido (Art)
E. Approval of Purchase of Property and Exception to Master Plan
The last item may be the only controversial item on the agenda, and I would venture to say it is only controversial because of the difficult fiscal situation we are in throughout the state. Basically, the University is interested in pursuing the purchase of the current Rowan County Public Library for use as the location of the Kentucky Center for Traditional Music. The building could be used for other sorts of community outreach programs as well. Before the University can move forward on a purchase, the Regents must approve the exception to the Master Plan (acquiring this property is not on the plan).
From everything I've heard to date, this purchase makes sense for the University if the price is reasonable. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
As always, you're welcome to attend BOR meetings. I'm sure the Regents would enjoy getting a chance to meet some faculty.
Ron
A. Election of Board Officers
B. Approval of Tenure with Promotions
C. Approval of Sabbatical Leaves
D. Sabbatical Report from Elizabeth Mesa-Gaido (Art)
E. Approval of Purchase of Property and Exception to Master Plan
The last item may be the only controversial item on the agenda, and I would venture to say it is only controversial because of the difficult fiscal situation we are in throughout the state. Basically, the University is interested in pursuing the purchase of the current Rowan County Public Library for use as the location of the Kentucky Center for Traditional Music. The building could be used for other sorts of community outreach programs as well. Before the University can move forward on a purchase, the Regents must approve the exception to the Master Plan (acquiring this property is not on the plan).
From everything I've heard to date, this purchase makes sense for the University if the price is reasonable. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
As always, you're welcome to attend BOR meetings. I'm sure the Regents would enjoy getting a chance to meet some faculty.
Ron
Monday, March 1, 2010
KTRS Changes
If you haven't read about the proposed changes to KTRS contributions, you may want to take a look at the following story: http://www.moreheadstate.edu/news/index.aspx?id=53716
At the BOR work session on 18 February, we were told that it was likely that individual members would be required to contribute an extra 1% (more or less) phased in over the next couple of years. The increased contribution was to go entirely toward the medical insurance fund for retired workers. Now, of course, we are hearing that the proposed increase will be 3%, phased in over six years. While the change in contributions will help shore up the funding of KTRS, the increased contribution is not likely to be popular with current members, especially since the changes will only affect the medical insurance of retired members.
What you may not realize is that the participating universities will also have to come up with a 3% increase (again, phased in over six years) as part of their contribution. This change will have the basic effect of a budget cut for MSU and the other institutions that utilize KTRS, and I don't have to explain how challenging it will be to pay for this increase under the current circumstances.
We'll have to see what happens with House Bill 540, but I am relatively sure that some sort of increase will indeed be enacted--for us as individuals, and for the University as a whole.
This issue is not an issue the Regents or the administration can solve, but I would be glad to hear your opinions.
Ron
At the BOR work session on 18 February, we were told that it was likely that individual members would be required to contribute an extra 1% (more or less) phased in over the next couple of years. The increased contribution was to go entirely toward the medical insurance fund for retired workers. Now, of course, we are hearing that the proposed increase will be 3%, phased in over six years. While the change in contributions will help shore up the funding of KTRS, the increased contribution is not likely to be popular with current members, especially since the changes will only affect the medical insurance of retired members.
What you may not realize is that the participating universities will also have to come up with a 3% increase (again, phased in over six years) as part of their contribution. This change will have the basic effect of a budget cut for MSU and the other institutions that utilize KTRS, and I don't have to explain how challenging it will be to pay for this increase under the current circumstances.
We'll have to see what happens with House Bill 540, but I am relatively sure that some sort of increase will indeed be enacted--for us as individuals, and for the University as a whole.
This issue is not an issue the Regents or the administration can solve, but I would be glad to hear your opinions.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
