PC Minutes 11/4 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 2, 2004

PC Minutes 11/4

Date: Dec 2, 2004

Monopoly money?

Came to fix a struggling university?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry; this is insane.

Date: Dec 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
"Mr. Lassen utilized Monopoly money and Monopoly game pieces to illustrate his discussion."

The big hand is on the 4 and the little hand is on the 2.

Date: Dec 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: No Free Parking
"Came to fix a struggling university?"

Excuse me, but Is that word struggling or strangled?

Date: Dec 2, 2004

Why can't they simply ask Mr. Roy to snap his fingers?

Date: Dec 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
" Mr. Lassen utilized Monopoly money and Monopoly game pieces to illustrate his discussion. Mr. Lassen stated that this year he didn't take the positive action of putting the money back into the accounts. This was done so that the faculty and staff could be given $3.6 million in raises. . .There are $4 million still out there and that is part of it. "

Maybe I'm dumb as a doornail but I'm not getting this...how many times have we "found" between $3 and $4 million dollars and how many times can we spend it?

$3.6 million for raises (btw, is that the same as spending the college reorganization reallocation savings of $1.8 million twice?), $3-4 million for the Trent Lott Economic Development Center building (is this recent find in addition to the $3-4 million dollars found at the beginning of the summer when the building problems were first being reported?), and there's yet another $4 million "still out there"? Have we "found" somewhere between 9 and 16 million? If so, maybe Roy should take a virtual finance course from the Monopoly Master because this appears more productive than finger snapping.

It sounds like the PUC members were trying to ask probing questions with limited information and appears that they received condescending answers with little substance.

Date: Dec 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Too Many Zeroes
"maybe Roy should take a virtual finance course from the Monopoly Master "

Please, Too Many Zeroes, don't talk like that. USM is already sitting on Baltic Avenue. One more move and we'll be off the board entirely.

Date: Dec 3, 2004

"Mr. Lassen stated that he is not an idiot and that he appreciates the risks involved.

But I'm wondering...... is he an idot?

NO QUARTER!

Date: Dec 3, 2004

"quote:
Originally posted by: Let Freedom Ring
"......stated that he is not an idiot"

I've heard that song before

Date: Dec 28, 2004

I still can't figure out what Lassen did with the money, and when he did it.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I still can't figure out what Lassen did with the money, and when he did it. Robert Campbell"

Robert, It appears that it is either "still there, but not returned to departments" (SFT) or "used for the raises" (Lassen).

"Mr. Lassen stated that this year he didn't take the positive action of putting the money back into the accounts. This was done so that the faculty and staff could be given $3.6 million in raises. ...

Dr. Greer asked for clarification that they just weren't adding money to the accounts. Dr. Thames responded that people often misuse language and that the money is there to invest.

...Dr. Middlebrooks said that it appeared that Mr. Lassen was taking planning and power away from the department level and moving it into the central administration. Mr. Lassen asked how else the university would give raises. "

Robert, I'm concerned that it was used for raises and won't be there next year, which is predicted to be a terrible year budget wise. Wasn't this the "risk" that Trellis Green referred to and Lassen responded he knew the risk and wasn't an idiot?

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I still can't figure out what Lassen did with the money, and when he did it.
Robert Campbell"

Welcome to the club, Robert. We have jackets.

The big point Greg Lassen seemed to be making was that he didn't pull the money out of the accounts. Rather, it takes a positive action at the end of each fiscal year to put the carryover money back INTO the accounts and he just didn't take that positive action. Let's see...either way the money isn't in the accounts. Then, when I pressed him about my department's account he stated EMPHATICALLY that it was not true and that the money was in the accounts (which, as of my last checking it was NOT).

NOW in the HA article, he is claiming that all of this was just an idea and didn't affect previous money and that "if there is a change" it will be going forward.

Just which shell is the pea under...watch closely...NOPE! Wrong again! Gimme your money! (Can we give it to him in monopoly money?)

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David,

I've been trying to follow the Economic Development shell game: Thames says on October 6 he's going to get Ken Malone to address the PC concerning the program; Thames declares on October 25 that the PC has no authority to review academic programs (it has no authority to do anything, but never mind). Of course, Thames' real objective is not allowing Ray Folse and Trellis Green to question Malone in front of Kevin Walters.

Thames says on October 25 that the PhD in International Development is now in Political Science, which has been expansively renamed...but nothing on the Poli Sci Web site indicates this--not even the News section. I guess no one really cares which department the thing is in, so long as the grad students keep paying tuition and no one has to get too busy supervising any of them.

So I've had shell games on my mind this morning.

Your interpretation makes the most sense to me now: Lassen did use the departmental carryover money to cover the raises, so not only will many departments run out of money before the end of FY 2004-2004, but in FY 2005-2006 USM will be obliged to use money from other sources (if there is any) to cover its obligations to pay salary and benefits. And the legislature is poised to cut E&G appropriations for next year.

You could call this Apres moi, le deluge (sorry, this CGI doesn't speak French). Except that Thames and Lassen fully expect to be in power when the tsunami hits.

They must think they can blame the financial disaster on Tim Hudson.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 28, 2004

what about the revenue generated by the tuition increase? i assumed that State and Ole Miss funded their raises through this mechanism. did we?

Date: Dec 28, 2004

scm,

How much revenue was generated by the tuition increase? Has Lassen deigned to say?

And what other commitments have Thames et al. made for that money already?

Isn't there a pretty sharp limit on how much USM can raise tuition in a single year? When the Clemson Board of Trustees realized that the state legislature was never going to shower CU with money again, they boosted tuition 42% in one year. But they had the sole authority to enact the increase, unless ordered not to by the legislature.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 28, 2004

the IHL has to approve any tuitiion increases.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"David,
I've been trying to follow the Economic Development shell game: Thames says on October 6 he's going to get Ken Malone to address the PC concerning the program; Thames declares on October 25 that the PC has no authority to review academic programs (it has no authority to do anything, but never mind). Of course, Thames' real objective is not allowing Ray Folse and Trellis Green to question Malone in front of Kevin Walters.
Thames says on October 25 that the PhD in International Development is now in Political Science, which has been expansively renamed...but nothing on the Poli Sci Web site indicates this--not even the News section. I guess no one really cares which department the thing is in, so long as the grad students keep paying tuition and no one has to get too busy supervising any of them.
So I've had shell games on my mind this morning.
Your interpretation makes the most sense to me now: Lassen did use the departmental carryover money to cover the raises, so not only will many departments run out of money before the end of FY 2004-2004, but in FY 2005-2006 USM will be obliged to use money from other sources (if there is any) to cover its obligations to pay salary and benefits. And the legislature is poised to cut E&G appropriations for next year.
You could call this Apres moi, le deluge (sorry, this CGI doesn't speak French). Except that Thames and Lassen fully expect to be in power when the tsunami hits.
They must think they can blame the financial disaster on Tim Hudson.
Robert Campbell"

Robert,

They are probably figuring they'll have a new scapegoat instead of Hudson by 2005-2006. I do recall Dr. Thames saying at a recent PC meeting (I'm pretty sure the same 11/4 meeting where Lassen spoke), that we would have to find more economies next year or face layoffs, salary reductions, etc. It's very clear they have used the departmental carryover funds for the 3.6 mil in salary increases. As for tuition hikes, they needed 13%, I believe, but only went to IHL for 5% due to the need to remain competitive.

An interesting note about the state funding formula is that "hold-harmless rule" which states, as I understand it, that if any of the state universitites would get less money than previously based on the per-FTE formula, then the formula is basically thrown out. A couple of years ago, this amounted to about a $35 or $36 million subsidy for MSU. About $18 million each came from Ole Miss and USM according to my math. Combine this with the tuition increase being less than needed to fully-fund and the upcoming budget debacle in Jackson, and where do you think we might be headed in the coming fiscal year?

I'm hoping I can get accepted into a good PhD program (NOT in ED) at another university before the accreditation crap blows sky high and all over us. Look for whole units to be cut if this keeps going the way it is going now and trades to be made to other universities. Just my prediction.

DJ

Date: Dec 28, 2004

Budget information from the HA, July 6, 2004. The tuition increase was supposed to bring in "about $3 million annually." However, one can't help but suspect Madermath at work here: 15,000 students x $232 would be about $3 million. Yet only full-time students pay $232. Many, many of USM's 15,000 students are part-timers.

------------------

USM budget drops $9.5M
Increased revenue, outsourcing help improve finances

By Janet Braswell

The fiscal 2005 operating budget for the University of Southern Mississippi drop-ped by $9.5 million when administrators outsourced the bookstore and food service operations.

By contracting with Aramark to operate food services and with Barnes & Noble to run both the University Bookstore and Textbook Services, Southern Miss removed $17.7 million from the bottom line.

"Previously in our auxiliary budget, we had all that payroll cost and inventory," said Gregg Lassen, vice president for business and finance. "Now, that's the responsibility of somebody else, so it comes out of our budget."

An $8.2 million increase in revenues pushed the budget closer to last year's level.

Both companies began operations Thursday but few students took time to check out the new services before leaving for the four-day Fourth of July holiday.

Although Lassen promises students will be happy with Aramark's food and service, there are skeptics.

"I think it's going to be the same food, just a different company," said junior LaTacita Gordon of Natchez. She said the $10 increase on meal plans is too much.

The broadcast journalism major is also unhappy with the other increases students face - another $232 a year for tuition and $120 more per year for a double-occupancy residence hall room. The higher costs, Gordon said, will force her parents to come up with more money or she will have to take out larger student loans.

"Tuition's always going to increase," she said.

While Lassen sympathizes, he said the university had little choice but to increase student fees.

"What all the public institutions of higher education have to do if the money isn't coming from the state, then we have to ask for the money to come from our customers, the students," he said. "It's not like we wanted to raise tuition.

"The cost of public education went up several million dollars just because of things like energy costs, personnel costs," he said.

Nevertheless, the 6 percent tuition increase hurts, said senior hospitality management major Wayne McQueen of Gulfport.

"That's a couple books," he said. "Every semester I've been here the tuition has gone up."

Southern Miss President Shelby Thames had asked the state College Board to approve a multi-year plan to raise tuition by 4 percent to 8 percent, but the board considered increases only for fiscal 2005. Thames was unavailable for comment, said university spokeswoman Lisa Mader.

"They need to let us know ahead of time," said Amy Williamson, a junior from Hattiesburg. "It's only $300, $400, but when you're in college and trying to work a 40-hour job, it's discouraging."

Williamson had already applied for student loans for next year before the tuition increase was approved.

The tuition increase is expected to bring in about $3 million annually, Southern Miss officials said.

Sixty-five percent of the university's budget - about $85 million - is spent largely on wages and fringe benefits for employees. Even so, faculty and staff have had only one 2 percent across-the-board pay raise in the past five years and much of the money was eaten up by increased premiums for prescription drug coverage.

"This institution of higher education, like most businesses, is mostly people," Lassen said. "After you take your people and put them in an office and take care of them, we're really strapped.

"It's important for people to understand we take our stewardship of the taxpayer dollar very seriously," he said. "We try to take care of our employees and, frankly, we underpay them."

Some faculty and staff will get merit raises that will start when the fall semester begins next month. The raises will come from money saved by not filling vacant positions and other fiscal measures, Lassen said.

In an era of tight public funding, outsourcing food services and the bookstore makes sound financial sense, he said.

"The past four years average income for food service was about a half million dollars a year," he said. "We are going to get a guaranteed commission from Aramark of $15 million over 10 years plus capital investment. They are going to invest over $7 million in our facilities."

Immediate investment includes a Starbucks coffee kiosk in Cook Library.

For now, Barnes & Noble will operate in the University Bookstore in the Hub. When the Student Life Center opens next year, the store will move to a larger space.

"The Barnes & Noble Bookstore is going to be a Barnes & Noble superstore plus Southern Miss apparel plus textbooks," Lassen said. "It's likely to be the best shopping experience in Hattiesburg for some period of time."

Most employees of USM Food Service and the bookstore chose to go to work for Aramark or Barnes & Nobles, he said.

"These employees are getting a 5 percent raise immediately," Lassen said, "and their health care benefits are going to be vastly superior to what we enjoy."

Originally published Tuesday, July 6, 2004

Date: Dec 28, 2004

info--assuming your numbers are correct, 3 million is conservative because the $232 is per credit hour. The 3 million is a figure that means all students only take 1 credit hour. i doubt that's true. many take more hours and thus the $3 million figure is low.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

info--sorry. i bet mader meant that the tuition increase would average out to about $232 per student.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David,

Although the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education is a good deal less powerful than the IHL Board overall (exception: it is much pickier about approving new graduate programs than the IHL seems to be), it controls the allocation of state appropriations to universities in the state system.

Five or six years ago, Clemson administrators were cursing the "hold-harmless" provisions of South Carolina law because they resulted in substantial amounts of money being diverted from Clemson to the University of South Carolina and some other institutions.

Now, no one cares. Direct state appropriations now make up less than 25% of Clemson's budget, everyone expects them to keep falling, and each university's Board has the power to set tuition.

You don't think Thames has enough foresight to deliberately provoke a "financial exigency" for USM, so he can fire entire departments--or do you?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"You don't think Thames has enough foresight to deliberately provoke a "financial exigency" for USM, so he can fire entire departments--or do you?"

Not unless somebody puts that idea into his head. But what you describe can be done - tenured or untenured. Zap. Very scary.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"
You don't think Thames has enough foresight to deliberately provoke a "financial exigency" for USM, so he can fire entire departments--or do you?
Robert Campbell"

Robert,

I don't know that I'd call it foresight, but I do think that anyone who underestimates Dr. Thames is making a serious error in judgment. Is he planning to create a "financial exigency" for these purposes? I seriously doubt it. Here's what I would consider more likely, given the tone of the past 2.5 years:

1) We know he doesn't hold much love for CoAL nor for any of the so-called "soft" sciences.

2) Reorganizing from 9 colleges to 5 colleges may or may not have been the last reorganization.

3) Though I can't claim authorship of this notion, there are some very sharp faculty (people whose intelligence and integrity I trust) who have put forth the notion that IHL and others may envision converting USM to a "technological university."

4) He's big on departments that can produce a lot of external funding (grants), and these are largely the hard sciences and technology areas.

So, trying to put myself into SFT's mindset (not an easy task), here's one nightmare scenario I could see played out:

We lose SACS accreditation at USM or squeak out a 2nd year of probation. Meanwhile, CoAL is reduced to the bare minimums required to provide core courses in English and humanities for engineering/technology programs. Remaining CoAL departments, along with Ed/Psych and the social sciences (such as my own School of Social Work) are traded to other state universities. In return, we get the engineering majors, computer sciences, technology, retain polymer science and CoST. The B school is a tossup...but I know there are concerns aplenty regarding AACSB accreditation. 2006-2007, the University of Southern Mississippi ceases to exist and the campus facilities/assets are converted to the new Mississippi Technological University, which applies for provisional accreditation by SACS under the new name/governing documents. Shelby F. Thames, PhD becomes the first president of MS Tech and it is now MTTTT!

How likely is that scenario? Search me, but I think it's at least possible.

I lived in Greenville, SC back in the early 80's and know Clemson very well. As we both know, Clemson has a strong endowment which has largely been built in recent years by substantial contributions from wealthy alumni, many of whom made their fortunes in engineering/technology areas. I believe...and correct me if I am wrong...that Clemson is also the SC Land Grant university, which means lots of federal dollars. For us, this would equate to Miss State, which is also receiving the subsidies under the hold-harmless rule, in addition to major federal money as our Land Grant university.

Southern Miss's history, on the other hand, is that of the red-headed stepchild teacher's college. What endowment we have appears to be largely composed of mostly worthless, but overvalued on the books, patents donated by corporations for tax writeoffs. Those aren't likely to pay any bills.

Maybe I'm crazy. I hope I am. But, that's one of several ways I could see this thing going down over the next 24 months.

DJ

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David . . . in your hypothetical plan what happens to the arts--theater, dance, music? They're very strong.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"David . . . in your hypothetical plan what happens to the arts--theater, dance, music? They're very strong."

First, let's be clear that this is NOT my plan. I quite agree that our arts programs are exceptional. How many technological universities do you know where that is the case? I've been to any number of arts performances since I've been here the past 18 months and can't say I've ever seen top administration represented. I'm sure they go to some things...likely they will be at the Domingo concert this Spring, for example, but I doubt that most of the programs over there pay for themselves, even as good as they are. Jay Dean's orchestra may be the sole exception to that, but even there I don't know. Any department that is not self-sustaining financially can expect to go under the scenario I envisioned (but, again, did NOT propose).

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David, I suggested such a plan (without your details) on the ole FireShelby board. I suggested the Klumb and SFT devised the plan. Many on this board pointed out the value of the Liberals Arts degree and said the plan had no merit. I hope and pray they are correct and the plan you described doesn't happen.

Oh, one last point, the new institution would be Mississippi Institute Of Technology, The world Cass MIT of the South.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

Is Mississippi State going to allow USM to have a real engineering program? Aren't they the reason we don't have one now??

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David,

Interesting scenario. It's a detailed version of "Thames Tech" or "Polymer State." The problem for Thames, if he's trying to bring about a strictly technological university, is that they cost a ton to operate. Few undergrads, lots of grad students, lots of high-salaried professors, lots of labs and equipment to set up and take care of. The notion that grants pay for everything is a university administrator's illusion--as is the notion that tuition income doesn't count--and where is all of the other money going to come from?

Clemson did benefit, for many years, from Federal money for agricultural research. But the Federal contributions shrink a little more each year, the State contributions that the Feds always required are shrinking faster, and the aggies are retiring in droves. Unless they've been doing genomics, most of them won't be replaced. CU has built up a better endowment than USM, but like most state universities Clemson has been doing aggressive fundraising for less than 20 years.

If Thames manages to tank Arts and Letters, and takes down Business and Ed/Psych while he's at it, I still think a takeover by MSU is more likely than a reconstitution of USM.

There are multiple obstacles in the path of Thames Tech--not least of them the Board's actual intentions. According to the implicit conspiracy theory, the Board doesn't really want USM to become a technological university. It doesn't want USM to become anything that costs too much to operate, or detracts from the superior status of two other universities in Mississippi.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"David, I suggested such a plan (without your details) on the ole FireShelby board. I suggested the Klumb and SFT devised the plan. Many on this board pointed out the value of the Liberals Arts degree and said the plan had no merit. I hope and pray they are correct and the plan you described doesn't happen.
Oh, one last point, the new institution would be Mississippi Institute Of Technology, The world Cass MIT of the South.
"

I join you in your hope and beg forgiveness for misnaming the new institution. How wurl' class would MIT be in Hattiesburg?

LVN, Mississippi State would let us have a real engineering program if they picked up enough FTE's in the trade is my guess.

Date: Dec 28, 2004

David,

I realize that it's not your plan, it's becoming your realization - just like it became many of ours in the past year or so. We are situated in many directions, but the most and BEST remarkable thing of all is that so many of us situated in so many directions want the absolute best for USM. We look at it in the long term, not in the "what can this do for me right now" way. We somehow become stronger by the minute. To quote Eric Luce . . . I believe.