Approval of Previous Minutes —

Motion to approve agenda by David Slusky. Approved unanimously.

Meeting minutes from October 27, 2022. Motion to approve by David Slusky. Seconded by Ward Lyles. Motion passed unanimously.

Unfinished Business —

1. 11th & Mississippi Project
   1. David Slusky has distributed documents from KBOR and comments from Ward Lyles and Nils Gore to the committee members. The committee will be meeting with the CFO in February and can convey its work in that meeting. This is a good opportunity to work on other recommendations and the committee can also send recommendations to University Senate.
   2. Ward Lyles: From a process standpoint, the detailed proposal is a poor example of how to do a major capital project. The economic development details are very thin and what there is caters to high-level donors. There are no joint committees with the city, and it is out-of-step with the local political context.
   3. Lisa Koch: The document indicates that there will be a secondary economic development plan. When would that be provided, given that constructions bids will be going out soon? There is an interest in knowing about the non-athletic side of this. We don’t have a sense of what will be happening in the economic space.
      1. David: The secondary economic development plan seems to still be in progress. It should be completed first, though that seems unlikely. The best we can do is ask the CFO at the February meeting.
   4. David: For Jason, how do we deliver this message (Ward’s message) in the most effective manner?
      1. Jason Hornberger: Starting with Jeff DeWitt (CFO) is probably the best first step. Ward is meeting with Jeff in the next week or so. Involvement in planning committees could be influential, if possible.
   5. David: We’re all on the same team in terms of making KU run efficiently, but what this committee is hoping for will make the project better but also less efficient in that it brings in more voices. How do we ask for this without getting shut down?
      1. Ward’s meeting with Jeff is contingent on other things, so it could be postponed if that is best. Collective voices would be stronger than a single voice in such a meeting.
      2. David: We can make a recommendation to University Senate that they advocate for a more collective planning committee.
      3. Lisa: We should clarify for what we are asking and how we can accomplish it within their schedule, i.e., be more specific about what kind of engagement we want (people, frequency, outcomes expected, timeframe, how fits into current project timeline).
   6. Derek Mull: Are there neighborhood associations in that area? Are there concrete organizations beyond the university and the city that have a vested interest? Or is this flying under the radar of people living there?
      1. Ward: There are two very active neighborhoods, Oread and Old West Lawrence.
      2. Ward: What we’re asking for isn’t about the specifics of the project, more about the process. Any project should have formal involvement of neighborhood associations, city-elected officials, city staff, and business associations. It is too big a project to be left to 5 people.
      3. Lisa: We are also missing an understanding of the increment differences between what we have now vs. what the project will bring in terms of traffic, other disruptions, etc. This info would be helpful for the neighborhoods.
         1. Ward: All these “good” things the project would bring will also bring things like increased traffic and parking. This could all be good, but we need an assessment.
         2. David: Perhaps this is a finer level of detail and shouldn’t be in this initial recommendation.
   7. David: Should we add Governance/KU faculty, staff, and students to the wording of this recommendation?
      1. Ward: Yes, the majority of the people who will be impacted by this project have no voice in it. We should absolutely include KU faculty, staff, and students.
   8. Whitney: There is a concurrent project being talked about on the Lawrence campus, so curious about the resource feasibility of concurrently beginning work on the West Campus Innovation Way.
   9. ACTION: The committee will send an initial recommendation to University Governance. Approved unanimously. "Currently, the overwhelming majority of those impacted by this project have no voice in it. A project of this magnitude that is right on the edge of campus should have formal involvement of those that will be impacted, including KU faculty, staff, and student governance; the neighborhood associations; city elected officials who have to make capital decisions; city staff; leadership of other concurrent KU development projects; and business owners and associations."
2. RPK Academic Portfolio Review
   1. David has distributed rpk’s proposal to KBOR and the FAQ to the committee members. This is technically a KBOR project, so it is a little outside our purview, but we will all be affected.
   2. Jason: This is separate from KU’s individual engagement with rpk, though some of the same people are involved. The goal seems to be to look at academic programs across the 6 KBOR institutions and determine where there might be duplications/redundancy. Is there really a demand for all degrees? Should degrees only be offered at single institutions?
   3. David: Confused about this desire to limit disciplines to individual campuses. There seems to be no distinction between core arts and sciences programs that should exist everywhere and more specific graduate-level programs. This could have large consequences for students switching majors or fields of study.
   4. Jason: The chancellor is concerned that KBOR considers all 6 universities the same and having the same mission, which is not good.
   5. Jin Feng: We have been given a very limited amount of time to consider this issue and essentially no time to develop feedback, especially given the timing at the end of the term. On paper it looks like they provided plenty of time for feedback, but it doesn’t feel like that in practice. How do we measure workload? There is so much informal “work” (brainstorming and thinking) that outside of formal work hours. How much understanding is there at rpk of the academic landscape?
   6. ACTION: The committee will make a recommendation to University Senate that they make a statement of disapproval and discontent regarding the way this is run. We cannot put forth a motion right now without quorum, but we will invite Nate Brunsell to a January committee meeting. RPK is only in an advisory role, so we can always push a bit more after their recommendation is made.
3. Planning reports, budgetary submissions made by the various units, and implementation and analysis of the Budget model
   1. Jason can walk the committee through the budget model in the next meeting. They are currently establishing targets for next year and monitoring increasing costs. They are waiting for enrollment updates and seeing an increase in applications.
   2. Discuss more at January meeting
4. Enrollment trends and changes in tuition plans and their potential effects on enrollment and revenue generation
   1. Discuss at January meeting

New Business —

1. The next scheduled meeting will be on February 6 at 1:30 PM with the CFO.
2. We will schedule a meeting in January to hear from Nate Brunsell about rpk and from Jason about the budget model in more detail.
3. We will hold a public forum in the spring with the CFO, Provost, VP Finance, etc.