Minutes of the UMKC Faculty Senate

MINUTES UMKC FACULTY SENATE

February 3, 1998 (Approved 3/10/98)

3:00pm The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Kathy Loncar.

The minutes of January 27, 1998 were approved with minor corrections.

Dr. Corrine Cooper, a member of the Law School faculty, provided the Senate with the history of UMKC's participation in NCAA Division I athletics.

Discussion with the Chancellor

The Senate discussed with the Chancellor the current concerns about UMKC’s participation in NCAA Division 1. The discussion centered on the following questions from the senators and responses from the Chancellor.

Ques. -Is UMKC comparable to the schools who are our competitors?

Ans.- That depends on which group you are considering.

If you look at the Urban 13 schools, all but four are in Division I and one

of those is seeking admission to Division 1. UMSL is one of the three

schools in the Urban 13 not in Division 1 and is not currently attempting

to join. Other universities in the mid-west which are also in Division 1

are Kansas State, University of Kansas, Missouri University, Southeast

Missouri State, and Southwest Missouri State.

Ques.- What is the university's mission and how do we

envision changing or expanding that mission? Attaining Research II

status has been chosen as a goal for this university and that requires

scarce resources. How do we balance our need for research resources

with the need for resources for other programs like the Division 1 athletic

program?

Ans.- UMKC is an excellent school with a high quality

faculty and many strong academic programs. The image of UMKC in the

community and the region has improved greatly over the last few years,

and we have moved up to third tier status in national rankings but UMKC

is still not as well known as it should be. Division 1 athletics helps

perhaps more than any other factor to get UMKC's name known

regionally and nationally. That is very important. To get that level of

recognition through other forms of advertising would take far more

money than is spent to support the athletic program.

The challenge we face is to build the athletic program such that it is as nearly self-supporting as possible, so that only a minimum amount of money needs to be taken from year-end cost savings to cover the program's expenses. Contributions from donors for scholarships and other types of funding are growing. We can also help with increased ticket sales and more successful efforts from the Athletic Foundation. During the next five years we need to do the following:

1) set goals and bench-marks for funding so we can measure our progress,

2) include in our strategic planning a restructuring of the athletic program to

make it as cost efficient as possible.

3) improve our marketing efforts to increase ticket sales.

Ques.- Does the athletic program go through a COPE

review?

Ans.- No, but it is required to have a periodic NCAA

accreditation review which includes a self-study. This academic year and

the next year our NCAA program is in the process of accreditation

review. This year the self-study teams are at work.

Ques.- What do you get if you're accredited by NCAA?

Ans. - You are allowed to remain in the NCAA as a

member in good standing. A poor review would result in a program

being put on probation or removed from NCAA.

Ques.- The shortfall for the athletic program for last year

was reported to be $700,000. What percent is that of the overall campus

budget? This is a serious concern for faculty who are very conscious of

other funding needs such as computing needs, hiring of more faculty, and

graduate assistants. Since there have been articles in the Kansas City Star

recently it is hard for faculty to defend the expense of the athletic program.

Ans.- The amount spent last year to cover the shortfall for

the athletic program is less than one half of one percent of the overall

budget. However, I do understand that this is a great concern for faculty.

I believe that what we need to do is to share with the Senate much more

information about the budget and its distribution across units. I would

like the faculty to see that we try to put as much of the money as we can

into the units where the academic programs and research occur.

Budget projections must be made a year and a half in advance so it can be difficult to estimate what actual income and expenses will be for any program. At the end of a fiscal year, I try to use whatever cost savings are available for such needs as meeting ADA requirements, and other operational and support needs including athletics. I leave unused E & E monies in the units and I try to add rate money each year to support the Ph.D. programs and graduate assistants.

Ques.- Faculty have strong feelings about how money is spent and how much

goes to support areas in the university other than academics. Are there

ways we can raise more funding for athletics? Are there other ways to

save money such as right-sizing and restructuring the administration?

Many faculty do not object to NCAA Division 1 status but all faculty

want to see it as nearly self-supporting as possible.

Ans.One approach we will pursue is to get alumni, donors,

and the community more involved and committed to the athletic program

so they will want to help with the financing. I prefer not to put the athletic

program as a line item in the budget. I believe it is better to seek financial

support from these other sources.

As regards "right-sizing" the program, it is highly unlikely that

dropping to Division II status would save us all that much since we would

still have to meet the gender equity requirements of the conference and

maintain several teams. Returning to the NAIA would result in the loss

of recognition and a drop in public perception of UMKC that would be

very costly to us in the long run.

Ques.- Since we do not have a large undergraduate base, how can we support

Division 1 ? In addition, the campus is poorly lighted in places and this

continues to contribute to the perception that the campus is unsafe and

that impacts the undergraduate enrollment.

Ans.- Although we don't have a large enough

undergraduate base, and that has been noted by the community, we're

working on acquiring more housing and making other changes in the

campus that will allow us to be an attractive, residential campus for

undergraduates. We are currently working on a master plan to aid in our

growth as a residential, undergraduate campus.

Ques.- What are the ramifications of today's vote on the Kansas City Power and

Light Downtown District?

Ans.- There is no direct impact on UMKC that would

result from that vote. However, if it is approved it could offer

opportunities and advantages to the campus. It is possible that if the

district is a success at attracting more people downtown then there would

be more people coming to the vicinity of Municipal Auditorium and

perhaps to our basketball games.

Ques.- What was the original funding plan for the Division 1 program?

Ans.- The original plan was that the university would

contribute a set amount of money each year and the community would

provide the rest. This is similar to the arrangement we have with the

Missouri Repertory Theater. When the program began the students

voted on an activity fee to generate some funds and Chancellor Russell

matched those funds to make up the university's part of the money.

Three community members pledged to provide the rest of the money.

The community failed to generate the funds they agreed to provide. As a

result the university, had to take over the funding of the program and

created the Athletic Foundation to generate the funds that had been

expected from the community. This was the situation when I became

Chancellor. I have chosen to keep the Athletic Foundation in operation

and not put the athletic program in the regular campus budget.

I appreciate the faculty's interest in this and I think it might be good if the

faculty heard from the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee. This is a

Chancellor appointed committee with a large faculty representation. It

might even be a good idea if the Senate was represented on this committee.

The Senate decided that it would be a good idea to have a discussion with this committee. The Senate also considered that we should plan in the future to have in-depth budget reviews so that we can stay informed of budget issues like athletic program financing. The Senate will also be interested in seeing the report of the NCAA accreditation self-study and review.

5:00pm Adjournment

Present: Greg Arling, Charles Cobb, Ray Coveney, Robert Downs, Ann Dykas, Alfred Esser, Rafael Espejo-Saavedra, William Fredrickson, Barbara Glesner Fines. Robert Groene, Ashok Gumbir, Joseph Hughey, Steve Krantz, Kathryn Loncar, Anthony Manzo, Janet McKinney, Ed Mills, Jerry Place, Dennis Pyszczynski, Jan Russell, Nancy Stancel, Don Thibeault, Hans Uffelmann, Jakob Waterborg, Nancy Weatherholt, Robert Willson

Absent: Khosrow Sohraby, David Yourtee, Valerie Blanco

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy D. Stancel,

Secretary, UMKC Faculty Senate