Web Load Hours

Budget Notes

PSTCC is a non-profit institution and is almost totally dependent on sales tax for operating monies.
Two types of budget funds really—regular budget funds for salaries and operating expenses and capital improvements (big construction like the Bagwell Building and Blount County Campus and maintenance funds for things such as re-roofing and new air conditioning systems.)
Money comes from the legislature really, and higher ed is below several other pools like K-12. And, some of the higher ed budget must go to things like the Geier scholarships, etc. It is doled out college to college based on a funding formula developed several years ago.
The pyramid consists of Legislature at the top, then Governor, THEC (TN Higher Education Commission), 2 boards beneath THEC (TBR and UT Board of Trustees)
The funding formula is through THEC and considers enrollment, square footage, equipment, programs, classroom ratios, etc. Essentially, a school makes a request for money and it works its way up the pyramid. PSTCC gets a smaller amount per student because at the time of initial funding, the rate from the state was lower, and we have never been able to “catch up.”
PSTCC has about 74% of our funds dedicated to salaries, with 26% left. Out of that percentage must come all operating expenses ($500,000 for security, 1.5 million for electricity, supplies for paper, etc.) Recently, the truly discretionary funds have been ½ of 1% of the total budget. The total budget is between $45 to 47 million with about $22 million from the state.
Percentage wise, PSTCC gets about 50% from the state and about 50% from tuition. Previously, the state paid 2/3 and the students paid 1/3, but the percentage has been steadily declining in recent years. This past year, 49% of our funds came from the state.
The budgeting always runs a year behind in projections. THEC has a hold harmless clause that if an institution declines in enrollment, they are not punished but held harmless until the budget comes back.
Tuition cap is based on trying to lessen course shopping and bring in more funds. For PSTCC, less than 10% of ours students would be affected. Some schools may charge for withdrawals or charge a lower rate for extra classes above the old cap.
As far as faculty and staff positions go, the state authorizes the number of positions a school may have. Right now, we have 203 positions allocated, but we may not have a body in every slot. We are not filling retirees’ slots if possible, and we are using adjuncts at times for unfilled fulltime slots. PSTCC now has 47 unfilled positions, all but 1 are staff positions. We cannot carry unfilled positions indefinitely since the state would take them away if not needed.
The college must “find” a little over $4 million by 2012 in permanent cuts. The stimulus funds will help to bridge the shortfall over the next two years, but by the third year, the budget must reflect this reduction. For each 1% increase in tuition, the college receives about $200,000 and the same amount for each 1% increase in enrollment. Right now, for planning purposes, TBR is speculating on a 5% increase in tuition and a 4% increase in FTE. This last figure may be hard to sustain, however, so these percentages are simply for the purpose of long-range planning.

Faculty Senate Budget Ad Hoc Committee Questions and Answers

1. The governor has said that we will have stimulus money for the next 2 years, but by the third year, we must be prepared to have a plan to save between 15 to 20% of our total budget. Of course, an increase in enrollment will help as will increased tuition, but how will we approach such a drastic permanent cut? Do we yet know the specifics of our stimulus money and are we sure of the percentage cut we must anticipate for the third year? Do we know, for example, what figure they will begin from such as our original 2008 budget total or the reduced budget from our impoundments or whatever? SEE THE BAR GRAPH AND STIMULUS DOCUMENT.

2. If everyone took one furlough day, from the very top to the bottom, what monies would be saved?

Only about $100,000 would be saved per one day.

3. If we assume around a 3.2 million to 4 million loss within the next 3 years, how many days of furlough would it take to make up the difference, assuming that this alternative is the major one used to save funds? And, if we got around a 7% tuition increase and continued with our current trend of enrollment increases, how much money would that action add toward offsetting the loss over the three year period? The furlough is not a viable alternative for saving sufficient funds.

4. What percentage of our students are on Hope Fund Scholarships? And, if we are able to raise tuition rates, would the increase still come from the scholarship money for those students or would they face a shortfall? About sixty percent of our students are on some type of financial aid. Hope scholarships now pay around $1000 per semester.

5. We have a vibrant summer program. How does the summer session have an impact on fall and spring semesters? Do we make money in the summer to help in other semesters for instance? If so, where is it used? If PSTCC was forced to go to adjunct pay in the summer for full-time faculty, would it save jobs and how many? And, would we have some guarantee if such a sacrifice was accepted that it would be totally to save jobs and not to be used for non-essential things such as sending people to conferences? The college has no plans to change the summer process for now. Our summer program is profitable as opposed to some colleges. Many full-time professors might not work for adjunct pay in the summer if such a plan were proposed so staffing all sections might be difficult. And, the quality of instruction would have to be considered as well.

6. Do we have the exact dollar figures as to how much we really save by closing Division Street in the summers? After much discussion, no exact figure was provided. Classes were shifted to the Magnolia Campus essentially, and for now, no plans exist for reopening the campus. If anything, the trend might become that all sites would be closed in summers due to budget problems. However, no plans are in the works for this “trend” to be utilized for now.

7. If we decided to use the golden parachute idea or retirement incentives like ETSU, how much could be saved with such a choice or can we calculate such a figure? Unlike universities, we do not have an appreciable number of highly paid professors who could be replaced with less expensive individuals. In other words, the replacement costs would not balance out any savings.

8. Are we able to scale back on the developmental programs or other large money items if the cuts are extreme? Again, not a viable alternative since developmental programs are essential.

9. Where do we get the funds for such things as the new initiative in student advising? No request has been made in this arena.

10. Do we make money from offering developmental sections in the total picture of the college sections? This question is difficult to answer since the college tries to maintain all necessary sections for students.

11. Do you know the total number of allowed faculty positions from THEC/TBR and what the percentage of adjuncts to full-timers is? I am working with Sharon Yarbrough on this item, but I do not presently have the figures. This percentage can be viewed in at least three ways: simple number of full-timers versus adjuncts, the number of sections taught by each segment, and the amount of student credit hours or production hours or load hours, however it is couched, by each group, expressed in both numerical terms and percentages.

12. How has the Confirmation of Attendance requirement hurt the student’s ability to collect financial aid and has it made an impact on the financial status of the college? This confirmation issue is really totally a financial aid question, and Ron did not feel that it had any bearing on the college’s financial outlook at this time.

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

State Fiscal Stabilization Funds

General Guidelines for 2008-09 & 2009-10

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes a provision that provides funding for State Fiscal Stabilization for public higher education institutions in fiscal years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The language of the law permits funds to be used for a wide variety of activities as determined by the institution and its respective governing board, with some limited exceptions. The instructions contained herein and the attached schedule are meant to accomplish several objectives. These guidelines are in effect for 2008-09 and 2009-10 and are meant to ensure compliance with the ARRA law, to allow THEC to summarize the various uses across institutions that the funds will be committed to, and to capture the information necessary for the Governor’s office to comply with the state’s reporting obligations under the law. It is THEC’s intent that UT and TBR have maximum flexibility to develop and revise their budget plans throughout the duration of the availability of the ARRA funds.

The funds provided for under the ARRA’s State Fiscal Stabilization section are non-recurring and must be spent on items that are of a one-time nature, that are likely to be phased out or that are scheduled to be funded with non-state sources in future years (such as tuition revenue). It is THEC’s intent that the ARRA funds should assist an institution in adjusting its expenditures down to a level that reflects the reduced state appropriation base that is scheduled for 2009-10. Section 14004 of the ARRA, below, provides additional guidance on the uses of funds.

SEC. 14004. USES OF FUNDS BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

In General. A public institution of higher education that receives funds under this title shall use the funds for education and general expenditures, and in such a way as to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students, or for modernization, renovation, or repair of institution of higher education facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing, including modernization, renovation, and repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building rating system.
Prohibition. An institution of higher education may not use funds received under this title to increase its endowment.
Additional Prohibition. No funds awarded under this title may be used for—

the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities;
modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; or
modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or
in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

Consistent with the authorized uses of funds in the ARRA, no expenditures on new capital outlay projects are allowable. Notwithstanding the authorized uses as detailed in Section 14004, it is THEC’s intent that no funds shall be used for any auxiliary activity or for any modernization, renovation, or repair of higher education facilities. However, UT and TBR may make requests to utilize ARRA funds for facilities modernization, renovation, or repair projects, consistent with Section 14004, which will be considered on an exception basis. Modernization, renovation, or repair projects that will be considered should generate reductions in recurring operating expenditures, such as energy savings projects. Requests for exceptions should include an analysis of projected savings of recurring expenses (e.g. utility costs, M&O, etc.) and a complete and detailed explanation of the project, including how the project enhances institutional mission and goals. Requests for modernization, renovation, or repair projects must follow normal procedures and policies as set forth by THEC and the State Building Commission. If projects have not been previously disclosed, THEC will evaluate them as Special Opportunity projects in accordance with THEC policy.

THEC will incorporate these guidelines and analysis into its annual operating budget schedules. As indicated on the attached schedule, data should be submitted for the three year duration of the ARRA funds: 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The goal of this approach is to develop a three year financial plan that ensures that institutional budgets can be balanced on a recurring basis by FY 2011-12, at which time ARRA funds would no longer be available. No ARRA funds should be utilized for bonuses or pay increases.

Throughout the three year cycle, institutions and their respective governing boards may revise their budget plans as appropriate to manage ARRA funds and the mix of recurring and non-recurring E&G revenues and expenses. Although funds may be initially carried over from year to year, the Department of Education stipulates that all funds must be expended or encumbered by September 30, 2011. Any excess ARRA funds should be used to reduce or eliminate tuition and fee increases. Although ARRA funds are considered unrestricted funds for accounting purposes, they should be set up in the accounting system in such a manner that allows for tracking and reporting.

The data is required to be submitted in two ways: a breakdown by the traditional expenditure categories (instruction, research, academic support, etc.), as well as an itemized listing of the major uses of ARRA funds. This itemized listing shall include broad categories of uses of funds, such as expenditures on technology upgrades, personnel, financial aid or equipment. Each institution shall indicate whether the expenditure is a traditionally non-recurring item (such as equipment or facilities modernization, renovation or repair) or one that was formerly recurring, but is intended to be phased out with non-recurring funds.

In addition, UT and TBR shall submit a report along with the annual October 31 budget submission that addresses the reporting requirements in Section 14008 of the ARRA pertaining to higher education. Specifically, the report should address parts 3, 6, 7 and 8, repeated below.

(3) the number of jobs that the Governor estimates were saved or created with funds the State received under this title;
(6) the tuition and fee increases for in-State students imposed by public institutions of higher education in the State during the period of availability of funds under this title, and a description of any actions taken by the State to limit those increases;
(7) the extent to which public institutions of higher education maintained, increased, or decreased enrollment of in-State students, including students eligible for Pell Grants or other need-based financial assistance; and
(8) a description of each modernization, renovation and repair project funded, which shall include the amounts awarded and project costs.

In addition to UT and TBR system approval of institutional expenditure plans of ARRA funds, each system’s chief executive and chief financial officer should certify to THEC that all ARRA funds have been utilized in accordance with the language and intent of the ARRA. These guidelines will allow THEC and the Governor’s office to fully understand how the ARRA funds are being utilized and to fulfill the reporting requirements of the law. Other guidelines and reporting requirements may be issued at a later date by the Governor’s office. Please bring questions to our attention as they arise about any aspect of the ARRA or these guidelines. The first reporting cycle will be the July 1 2009-10 operating budgets which will include estimated 2008-09 data. THEC will consider revisions to these guidelines if necessary while the ARRA funds are in effect.

Pellissippi State Technical Community College

STATE APPROPRIATIONS

FY'07	6/30/2007	State Appropriation	$ 20,565,600


FY'08	6/30/2008	State Appropriation	$ 22,037,400


FY'09	6/30/2009	Original Appropriation	$ 22,288,900
		Budget Reduction #1	$ (593,000)
		Budget Reversion #2	$ (740,000)
		Revised Appropriation	$ 20,955,900
		FY'09 Stimulus Addition	$ 1,333,000
		Revised State Appropriation after Stimulus Addition	$ 22,288,900


FY'10	6/30/2010	Proposed State Appropriation	$ 18,144,300
		Federal Stimulus	$ 3,349,800
		State MOE Funds Stimulus	$ 850,900
		State Appropriation & Federal Stimulus	$ 22,345,000


FY'11	6/30/2011	Proposed State Appropriation	$ 18,144,300
		Federal Stimulus	$ 3,349,800
		State MOE Funds Stimulus	$ 850,900
		State Appropriation & Federal Stimulus	$ 22,345,000


FY'12	6/30/2012	State Appropriation	$ 18,144,300

Pellissippi State Technical Community College

STATE APPROPRIATIONS

		State Appropriations	Federal Stimulus	Total State Appropriation & Federal Stimulus Funds

FY'07	6/30/2007	$ 20,656,600	$ -	$ 20,656,600
FY'08	6/30/2008	$ 22,037,400	$ -	$ 22,037,400
FY'09	6/30/2009	$ 20,955,900	$ 1,333,000	$ 22,288,900
FY'10	6/30/2010	$ 18,144,300	$ 4,200,700	$ 22,345,000
FY'11	6/30/2011	$ 18,144,300	$ 4,200,700	$ 22,345,000
FY'12	6/30/2012	$ 18,144,300	$ -	$ 18,144,300

President Scarbro’s Moderated Listserv Notes

The Faculty-Staff listserv is moderated by three people: Anthony Wise if the email is faculty related, Peggy Wilson if it concerns an HR or public relations matter, and Jerry Bryan for anything else. One of these individuals can cover for the others if necessary.
If all three were unavailable and a true emergency occurred, the Helpdesk could conceivably moderate if absolutely necessary. The moderation is usually done in a few minutes, but the delay has been as much as two to three hours depending upon the workload.
A few emails do not require moderation such as one sent by the Helpdesk concerning a problem with the computer network or something of this sort and an emergency notification from Dave Walton.
The idea behind the moderation of the Faculty-Staff listserv is to make messages more targeted and move more of the content toward the MyPellissippi site. For example, students have registered a fair number of complaints about so many emails sent by Student Services.
The catalyst was not to censor or abrogate free speech at all. It was simply an attempt to lessen the number of emails and be more precise in their delivery. The college does not wish to stifle discussion, but it does want to encourage more face to face interaction as opposed to impersonal emails devoid of nuances.
No list of criteria for moderation exists, but the people who moderate do try to follow guidelines that allow information to reach the appropriate people only.
PSTCC owns all listservs and is legally responsible for the utilization of them. The college must safeguard that it does not have a hostile work environment for any of its employees.
If a message is approved, it will appear. If it is not approved, it will not be seen. Presently, no system exists to send a reply of refusal with an explanation of why the email did not get through the moderation. Notification of refusal and an explanation is being investigated as a future possibility. Some examples of an email that might not be permitted are: Great Job! or Headlights are on a blue Chevy in Parking Lot A.
Dr. Edwards requested that email clutter be reduced and that some emails meant for faculty only be removed from the Faculty-Staff listserv to target that segment of the college through a more precise vehicle. Conversely, some emails appropriate for staff were being disseminated to faculty too. Moderation would solve this situation. The Faculty-Staff listserv goes to all faculty and staff including contract employees such as students who work 10 hours a week so some recent emails prior to the moderation were not really reaching the intended targets.
The college has discussed having a blog perhaps as an alternative, but it is really intended as a place for clubs or other college organizations, not for faculty and staff.
An overall system on D2L for all faculty and staff is not going to be feasible. However, Pellissippi is considering a place where faculty and staff could subscribe to on a voluntary basis for open discussion. It would be a place where no one is automatically enrolled. Rather, it would be a system where individuals could choose to participate or not.
For the present, the college has no avenue for reaching all faculty and staff except the moderated Faculty-Staff listserv. Again, the intent is not to silence anyone, to censor opinion, or to deny free speech. The intent is to provide a healthy work environment for all employees while sharing information in a more organized fashion.

Tenure in the Transitional Studies Department

Policies and Procedures reads that a tenured employee has personnel status in an academic department or academic program unit of Pellissippi State Technical Community College. Tenure is awarded according to specific guidelines with peer vote review and is normally given in a specific discipline. For instance, my tenure is under the history discipline, Liberal Arts Department. When I was hired into PSTCC, my discipline was under the Humanities Department which no longer exists.

Questions have been raised as to how new personnel in the Transitional Studies Department would be hired and tenured. Hiring for that department will have shared governance between two departments. For instance, if a new math professor is to be hired for the TS Department, both that department and the Mathematics Department will have members on the committee. A new TS English professor would be hired by both representatives from the TS Department and the English Department. The new hire must meet the same rigid qualifications as any other person within a particular discipline. Even though he will be evaluated by the TS department dean on a yearly basis, this individual will follow the tenure track path within the appropriate discipline, not the TS department itself. This plan is principally to provide some protection for the tenured employee in case the TS department might disappear again. The tenure track TS professor would be expected to teach college level courses within the discipline especially during the probationary period. Voting in the Promotion/Tenure process would be through the Mathematics or English discipline, which include faculty from both the Transitional Studies and the Mathematics or English departments, but any departmental duties or committee appointments would be handled through the TS Department itself.

Some faculty have been concerned about being required to vote for or against tenure for professors who were hired in and principally teach in the TS Department. They feel that they might not know them well enough to pass such judgment. However, this same situation regularly happens in a department such as Liberal Arts. Our department is so diverse that we often may not know a tenure candidate very well personally. In such a case, we must be diligent in the perusal of the packet and perhaps confer with close colleagues for further evaluation. It is imperative that we be mindful of the fact that teaching in the TS Department does not denote inferiority in any way. Each TS hire, as mentioned above, must possess the same stringent educational and professional qualifications as any other professor in a college discipline.

DSP Information

TBR traditionally set a range of A through C as being considered a success.
In Math, the A-C range was 32% last year when before it had been around 47%.
If we look at course completion (maybe a better comparison)

42% of students completed the equivalent of DSPM 0700—about the same as traditional.
43% of students completed the equivalent of DSPM 0800—traditionally 46%.
41% of students completed the equivalent of DSPM 0850—traditionally about 50%.

The modules in Math are set up to be a three set course. For instance, a student is expected to pass 3 modules in a semester, but if he only passes 2 (0891 & 0892), he gets an E to finish up the work in the next semester. However, if he only passes that third module (0893) or now only one in the next semester, he receives an F. In both cases, he is not considered successful. In the past, if a student took 0700 in the fall and failed the course, he got an F and was not a success. If that same student took 0700 again in the spring and passed it, he was listed as successful. Essentially, the student completed the same amount of work, but he could not be counted as a success percentage wise as he formerly would have been designated.
Since the program has been totally revamped, the TS Department feels that it needs a longer timeframe of assessment in order to get a clear picture of the efficacy of the program.
The retention rate for the DSP program is 76%. This rate is higher than the college retention rate for the first time. Of course, some have said that developmental students, of course, come back to finish so they can progress in their course of study. However, previously, the rate did not exceed the overall college rate.
The confirmation test in DSP is a new tool. Formerly, the ACT was used, but placement was not always accurate with that mechanism. Consequently, Pellissippi developed the confirmation test in Math while Reading uses the Nelson Denney test, and Writing utilizes essays graded by PSTCC professors. If a student scores below 19 on the ACT in Math, Reading, or English, he must take the confirmation test.
Right now, 40% of the below 19 ACT students are testing out of Reading and are doing well in later classes.
The success rate for developmental Reading is around 50% for the fall. Both the student who tested out of Reading and the ones who took the course and passed it were put in the success column. Then, over 63% of the students were ready for college-level courses which is higher than before the redesign.
A lot of discussion about the selection of the Math software has taken place over the last several months. A little background information is that PSTCC proposed a pilot program to TBR to be one of the schools funded to try and create a new model for DSP studies. TBR had mandated that a new model must be engendered. Unfortunately, Pellissippi was not chosen to be a funded pilot, but Dr. Edwards wanted PSTCC to be part of the redesign effort and funded our redesign.
PSTCC uses the Carnegie system in Math while many other colleges utilize a system called My Math Lab. The Carnegie software was chosen as an innovative approach and was not mandated or pushed by Dr. Edwards in any way.
TBR opted not to interfere with the pilot programs for their initial implementation nor during a year’s assessment by a TS task force on the TBR level. This committee’s recommendation will go through the subcouncils and the TBR Board for approval at that time. It is unclear whether their decision/recommendation will be forced on all colleges within the system. It could be prescriptive or it could not be. In the recent past, TBR has said more than once that it will not force one design on all schools, though, so it is expected that no such rigid action would be taken.
The overall stance of the TS Department is, as mentioned above, to allow a longer period of assessment to be made before any overhaul of any part of the program is attempted.

2009-2010 Faculty Senate

Proposed Officers

President Mark Fuentes, Associate Professor, Business and Computer Technology

Immediate Past President Wanda Scarbro, Associate Professor, Liberal Arts

Business Officer Tom Gaddis, Professor, Business and Computer Technologies

Secretary Jean Jackson, Professor, Library Services

Communications Officer Ken Swayne, Associate Professor, Engineering and Media Technologies

Parliamentarian

TBR Representative Dave Vinson, Associate Professor, Mathematics

Senators

Department Elected 2009 Elected 2009 Elected 2008

Business and Computer Technology Joe Zitka Rick Barber Martha Merrill

Engineering and Media Technology Vida Hashemian Ramzi Ghezawi Ken Swayne

English Sydney Gingrow Trent Eades Lawana Day

Liberal Arts Marilyn Harper Anita Maddox David Key

Mathematics Anne Preston Linda Streebeck Meg Moss

Natural/Behavioral Sciences Ron Bridges Michael Lusk Brad Rose

Library Services (1) Jean Jackson

Transitional Studies (1) Trish Roller

Division Street Representative (1) Tom Gaddis

Blount County Representative (1) Ashley Boone

Magnolia Ave. Representative (1) Jane Stribling

Adjunct Faculty Representatives (2) Jonathan Morrell

Faculty Senate

Meeting Dates and Locations

Academic Year 2009-2010

Summer 2009:

July Meeting – Wednesday, July 15 – 3:30 pm – Hardin Valley Campus

Fall Semester 2009:

September Meeting – Wednesday, September 16 – 3:30 pm – Hardin Valley Campus

October Meeting – Wednesday, October21 – 3:30 pm – Division Street Campus

November Meeting – Wednesday, November 18 – 3:30 pm – Hardin Valley Campus

Spring Semester 2010:

January Meeting – Wednesday, January 27 – 3:30 pm – Magnolia Avenue Campus

February Meeting – Wednesday, February 17 – 3:30 pm – Hardin Valley Campus

March Meeting – Wednesday, March 17 – 3:30 pm – Blount County Campus

April Meeting – Wednesday, April 14 – 3:30 pm – Hardin Valley Campus

Typical load hours for regular section