Skip Navigation
Back 

admin2

admin2


             Task Force on Administrative Management
                        Minutes of Meeting
                        September 4, 1996

Members Present
Dr. Walter Owens, Chairman
Mr. Bill Dauksch
Dr. Leroy Davis
Ms. Susan Miller
Dr. James Morris
Mr. Bill Stern
Dr. Ron Thurston

Members Absent
Ms. Paula Harper Bethea
Mr. David White

Technical Research Advisors
Dr. Phil Moore, USC-Columbia

CHE Resource Staff
Mr. Charlie FitzSimons
Ms. Lynn W. Metcalf
Mr. John E. Smalls
Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests
Mr. Michael Brown, CHE
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson
Dr. Carol Garrison, USC-Columbia
Mr. Sandy Gilliam, SC State
Ms. Maggie Hicks, CHE
Dr. McLean Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. David Hunter, USC-Columbia
Mr. Raghu Korrapati, CHE
Ms. Diedre Martin, USC-Aiken
Dr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia
Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Dr. Gail Morrison, CHE
Mr. Tim O'Dell, SBTCE
Dr. Jeff Olson, Orangeburg-Calhoun TC
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Mr. Tim Rogers, House Ways & Means
     Staff
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, CHE
Dr. Michael Smith
Ms. Janet Stewart, CHE
Ms. Janice Trawick, Winthrop
Dr. James Vincent, Winthrop
Mr. Ed Zobel, SBTCE


The Task Force on Administrative Management met at the Commission on Higher Education in the conference room at 1:30 p.m. on September 4, 1996. 1. Consideration of Minutes of Meeting on August 29, 1996 The Task Force approved the minutes of the meeting on August 29 as read. 2. Procedures for Task Force Approval of Performance Indicators The Task Force agreed to consider and agree generally on all of the indicators under Administrative Management prior to its final meeting scheduled for September 17, 1996. At its final meeting, the Task Force will review all of the indicators and make any additional changes and/or corrections prior to approving the indicators. 3. Clarification of Restricted/Unrestricted Expenditure of Funds The Task Force reviewed the additional material provided by staff concerning standard accounting definitions from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). After discussion of these definitions, the Task Force agreed to revise the measure for Mission Focus - (A) Expenditure of funds to achieve institutional mission by striking the word "unrestricted" from the measure, and adding "as refined by the Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities" to the method of reporting (Attachment 1). 4. Administrative Efficiency (A) Percentage of administrative costs as compared to academic costs: The Task Force agreed to use the measures suggested by the Statewide Planning Committee and SBTCE, comparing the percentage of administrative costs (institutional support) to academic costs. There was general agreement from the Task Force that administrative costs are defined as institutional support by IPEDS and NACUBO. The Task Force then discussed whether public service costs, defined by NACUBO as being "non instructional services beneficial to individuals and groups external to the institution" should be included in academic costs. After considerable discussion on ways to define "academic costs," it was moved (Miller), seconded (Davis), and voted to include instruction, research, and academic support in the definition of "academic costs" for the purposes of this measure (Attachment 2). 5. Administrative Efficiency (B) Use of best management practices: The task force discussed ways to define and measure best management practices. It was agreed that any measures used must be objective, measurable, and consistent for all institutions. A number of different criteria were suggested including those included in Baldridge on Campus, Total Quality Management (TQM) and others. The Task Force then requested that CHE staff consult with the Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities, staff from the Budget and Control Board and other appropriate state agency personnel to develop a list of accepted criteria for consideration by the Task Force at its meeting on September 11, 1996. 6. Administrative Efficiency (C) Elimination of unjustified duplication of and waste in administrative and academic programs: There was considerable discussion concerning ways to identify and measure unjustified duplication and waste in both administrative and academic programs. The Task Force agreed that a reward system for identifying and eliminating unnecessary duplication and waste would be a better way to approach this measure than a policing system. The Task Force agreed that unjustified duplication of and waste in both administrative and academic programs will be defined at the institution, documented, and reported to the Commission in terms of dollars saved. Institutions which identify and eliminate such duplication and waste would then be financially rewarded for those actions based on a formula to be determined by the sector task forces (Attachment 3). 7. Administrative Efficiency (D) Amount of General Overhead Costs: The Task Force agreed to combine the measures suggested by the Statewide Planning Committee and SBTCE by defining general overhead costs as institutional support plus operation and maintenance of physical plant, and calculating the measure by dividing general overhead costs by the number of annual full-time equivalent (FTE) students at the institution (Attachment 4). 8. User-Friendliness of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institutions of all citizens of the State: After considerable discussion on what factors should be included in the definition of "accessibility to the institutions," it was moved (Dauksch), seconded (Thurston), and voted that Dr. Owens would contact the Chairmen of the other task forces to discuss whether the size of an institution should be considered in measuring accessibility under user-friendliness of the institution. The Task Force agreed to postpone further consideration of this measure pending a report from the Chairman at the meeting on September 11. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn W. Metcalf Recorder