Present: Jay Angeletti, Linda Connors, Lori Citti, Paolo Cucchi,
Obery Hendricks, Thomas Kean, Susan Kipper, Erin Kragh, H. Leedom Lefferts,
Matt Light, Norman Lowrey, Tom Magnell, Mike McKitish, Quinn O'Bannon,
Zachary Rothschild, Julia M. Russell, Anne Saltzman

The meeting was called to order at 4:25 PM by the Chair, Thomas Magnell. A
motion to adopt the agenda was approved. The minutes of the December 12, 1996
meeting of the Senate were approved and will be distributed to the entire
Drew Community.

THE CHAIR'S REPORT
Magnell stated that we'd had a fine report last meeting from the Committee on
Faculty, which was then heard by the college faculty Expense and Allocation
Committee and seen by the entire Drew community.

The term of office of the present Chair expires after the next Senate meeting.
The Senate needs to elect a Chair as well as a Secretary of the Senate whose
terms will begin next fall for a period of 2 years. The Chair must be a
faculty member, as specified by the Senate Constitution. The various
faculties of the University do not need to endorse nominations or elections.
The Senate nominates and elects these officers.

The next meeting of the University Senate will be May 6 at 4:15 in the
Founders Room of Mead Hall.

THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Tom Kean reported that a majority of the faculty would like to
create a revised University Faculty. When a meeting was held to adopt a
revised University Faculty Constitution, there was not a quorum present.
There is no provision in Robert's Rules for a body to exist if here is not
sufficient interest. However, Pres. Kean believes that it is the general
will of the faculty to have a constituted University Faculty, so he endorses
its existence.

President Kean reported that Drew had benefitted greatly over the past number
of years by bringing in some outstanding speakers in partnership with Business
in Education Together (BET). BET was created by the Morris County Chamber of
Commerce. They invited the lecturers, organized the events, and raised the
money. Drew contributed the Forum, and students and other members of the
community were able to attend for $2.00 a piece. A disagreement between the
board of BET and the Chamber of Commerce lead to the elimination of BET. Based
on the experience of bringing Shimon Perez to Drew, President Kean announced
that he has made the decision to continue the lecture series with Drew
sponsorship. The BET Foundation made a small profit, and Kean hopes we will
also. The profit could go into the scholarship fund. This project does
involve risks, if a speaker doesn't draw sufficient interest, but Kean
believes the benefits are worth the risk.

Zack Rothschild asked if we would consider doing a survey to determine
interest.

Kean responded that surveys have been tried. One problem with them has been
that the speakers the Drew community might have interest in have not always
been ones the business community want. Kean's number one choice over the past
few years has been Maya Angelo, but we have not yet been able to get
corporate sponsorship. Her fee is very high.

Obery Hendricks asked if there might be other sponsorship than corporate,
since censorship could result from the latter. Kean responded by saying that
corporations are very sensitive about who might be associated with them. One
source of sponsorship is our students. Then we can bring just the speakers
they want to hear. Elie Weisel and Cornell West in the recent past were
sponsored entirely by student funds.

Leedom Lefferts suggested that an endowment be established for speakers and
other performances.

Kean believes that's a good idea, but given our practice of not using more
than 5% of endowment funds, $1,000,000 would only provide $50,000, which
isn't much for many many high-level speakers in a given year.

UNIVERSITY BUDGET REPORT
Vice President Mike McKitish distributed reports of the Expenditure
Allocation and Revenue Resource Committees and a summary of their reports.
He stated that these reports are the result of a long and time-consuming
effort to be sensitive to the needs of everyone in the community. This budget
attempts to incorporate responses to complaints raised last year about the
process.

The committee structure was changed in 1992 from having only one committee to
having two. The two committees established were
     1. Revenue - charged with identifying realizable revenue (defined by
     McKitish as "not what you hope it will be, not what you want it to be,
     but based on some good historical information, what you can honestly
     say you believe we will receive in the next fiscal year").
     The difficulty for this committee was that their meetings took place
     from September to December, 1996 and once in January, 1997 to make
     projections for the fiscal year beginning in July, 1997 and running
     through June, 1998. They did not have all the application numbers in
     hand and did not know what the enrollments are going to be.
     2. Expenditure - met mostly in January to look at functional
     expenditures (personnel and personnel-related, fixed expenses and
     several other discrete areas). This gave the committee an
     understanding of the financial underpinnings of the University and
     the "predicament" we are in from year to year. They came to
     understand that any sizable reductions in costs would have to be done
     in the personnel area because they constitute 60%-61% of the total
     expenses.

For the first time this year, the Academic Vice Presidents were members of
these committees. They were the only members (aside from McKitish), who walked
through both committees so they could understand both sides.

McKitish believes that, historically,  having had only one committee led to
difficulties and resulted in deficits. He feels that the two committees
worked diligently, that they met regularly, that any questions they had were
answered, and that there were presentations made by a variety of experts,
both internal and external (most notably Cathy Bush from the Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities).

In reviewing the summary budget documents distributed to members of the
Senate, McKitish pointed out that, in relation to revenue components:

     1. Net tuition and fees (net of financial aid) were up a bit (53.6%) from
     fiscal year 1997. This is not Draconian news for the University, but
     is worthy of watch. We want to be less tuition dependent in the long
     run.
     2. Room, Board & Bookstore revenues (22.6%) had been referred to as
     Auxiliary items. There is an expense side - contractor for food
     service, facility expenses, etc. The Bookstore generates approximately
     $122,000 a year over and above their expenses.
     3. Endowment revenue is 12.2%of the budget, based on the spending rate
     of the market value of the endowment from the preceding 12 quarters.
     The spending rate for this year is at 4.95% (down from 5.85%, which
     came in when interest rates were much higher). The Trustee's
     long-term target is 4.5%, which is typical of the better schools.
     4. State and Church Aid (3.8%) are rolled together. Unrestricted State
        Aid is about $780,000, based on a complicated formula of NJ students
        attending Drew.
     5. Debt Service is at 3%, which represents the monies for the 1988
        Library issue. We had to absorb the debt service from the 1992 issue
        (fund raising for Forum and Athletic Center). We want to secure an
        "A" rating with the financial rating service so that we will have a
        favorable rating when the library monies are refinanced in 2002.
     6. The Annual Fund (2.8%) has had to be held constant for the past
        several years despite the hopes of the previous committees.
     7. The Misc. Auxiliary category includes things like interest earned on
        current funds and fines.

The expenditure graph presents information both with and without merit and
need-based financial aid. The chart shows the relative size of the budget
and how it has changed.

The next graph shows financial aid as a proportion of tuition. This is not
the incoming class, but what the overall discount rate is projected to be,
primarily from the CLA. On average, students are receiving aid somewhat in
excess of 35%, which is high by peer standards.

The next chart attempts to show who we see as our overlap schools, and then
our aspiration schools, and where Drew fits in with its total student charges
for fiscal year 1997. Drew's target was to be in the middle of this group.
Our tuition rate increase takes this into account. McKitish stated that he
knows one of these schools very well and it is directly in the middle and
that Drew is within $50 of this school. He believes we are right on target
with where we need to be. We are at the bottom of the group among the
aspiration schools.

The last page of the information packet contains a summary of the budget.
     Revenue:
     1. Additional 25 students in the College, including a combination of
        retained and first year students.
     2. Competitive tuition price for college set at $20,766. Freshmen and
        Sophomores will pay an additional $100 surcharge for the Computer
        Initiative.
     3. Tuition for the MDiv program set at $8,000 upon the recommendation of
        Vice President Sweet.
     4. Increase of 3% for housing and 1.5% for board.
     5. Endowment spending rate is at 4.95%.
     6. Increases in non-traditional graduate enrollments, primarily the
        DLit, MLit and the MMH program, which have already produced record
        numbers in the Spring enrollments.

     Expense:
     1. Reduced in the College by suspending the Brussels program for a year,
        resulting in a saving of about $100,000, to be reallocated to other
        needs within the College, included in full text in the Expenditure
        Committee report.
     2. Debt service was the big winner with an increase of $1,574,000.
        Financial aid was also increased.
     3. Compensation increased by $844,000, which includes direct pay to
        individuals and statutory (FICA and pension) and elective benefits.
     4. Library projects increased by $175,000, including new library
        director, inflation related activities, and shelving. About $80,000
        was freed up out of this year's budget for updating computer
        equipment, in consultation with Vice President for Technology Alan
        Candiotti.
     5. $49,318 for funding five non-tenure track and one tenure-track
        positions in CLA. Paolo Cucchi corrected this to 3 non-tenure and 3
        tenure-track, stating that much of the funding is currently in the
        budget.
     6. $160,680 for inflation related increase in operations. This may not
        be a fair description of expenses that run the gamut, including some
        that are inflation related. The full text is included in the
        Expenditure Committee's report.

McKitish counseled both committees that while we've had strong growth in
tuition, we need to continue to be vigilant because of problems and issues.
McKitish summarized other issues discussed by the committees:
     1. Privatization of mail and duplicating services. The administration
        will be sensitive to personnel issues. It is believed that there will
        be an increase in efficiency in the mail area. Duplicating is
        included because nobody would take on this service without it.
     2. Changing needs, mostly in computer applications, raised the issue of
        privatization of MRC, though no increase in expense is anticipated.
     3. Post retirement and health benefits became a topic of discussion. The
        Trustees have directed the administration to start to deal with that
        issue. The Committee talked about increasing both the age and service
        requirements. Benefits for 10 years in service were well below the
        marketplace.
     4. Requests for funding far outstripped resources. Extensive discussion
wa
s
        held to arrive at a balanced budget taking requests into account.
     5. The tuition benefit was discussed and included a Town Meeting
        discussion. McKitish requested that the community produce ideas
        about what to do about this.

McKitish publicly thanked the members of the committees and suggested that
everyone should have the experience of being on one of these committees.

President Kean stated that this is an unusual process - few other schools
have the budget come up from the community with such extensive sharing of
information. He believes this is a credit to Mike McKitish and to the whole
Drew community.

Obery Hendricks felt that we had real input and the Mike had made it work.

Tom Magnell was struck by how much we are tuition driven and how fixed
expenses are. He asked how McKitish perceives how the several Schools have
done.

McKitish responded by saying that we have seen definite improvement in
balancing the budget on a cash basis, that there is overall a better feeling
about Drew on the part of everyone, that we need to pursue external fund
raising to a greater degree, and that we need to be vigilant regarding
maintenance. He believes that all the indicators are "pointing northward."

President Kean said that he and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees have
been receiving more calls expressing interest from students and parents.

Leedom Lefferts requested a pie chart comparable to the Revenue side for
Expenses. He asked if there is a committee of the Senate that is involved
with the issue of post-retirement benefits.

Anne Saltzman said that this is a part of her report from the Benefits
Committee and was asked to present the report at this time. Her report had
two parts.

1. What the committee had done last semester:
     a. She had been asked to become chair of the Committee on Fringe
        Benefits in the fall and believed that reason she was asked was
        because the main item on the agenda for the committee was to look at
        long term adjunct issues, and having been a long term adjunct herself,
        it was an issue that was close to her heart.

     b. The committee sent an email primarily to faculty and some staff who
had

        been here for at least 5 years to find out what issues they wanted
        discussed.

     c. The committee discovered that there were 3 people who should have
        been enrolled in the pension plan who weren't. They have since been
        enrolled and Drew will pay their benefit retroactively.

     d. The Director of the Art Semester, who is part time, was determined to
        put in sufficient hours of service to qualify for the tuition
        remission benefit.

     e. The committee drafted a proposal to extend the tuition the tuition
        benefit to long term part-time faculty and staff. Saltzman read the
        proposal in full. In summary, the proposal calls upon Drew to further
        its commitment to "community" by " an extension of the Tuition
        Assistance and Tuition Exchange benefits to (1) any part-time faculty
        member who has taught a minimum of 40 courses over a 10 year period
        of continuous employment and (2) any part-time staff member who has
        worked a minimum of 20 hours per week over a 10 year period of
        continuous employment."

       President Kean asked if anyone had come up with the cost.

       Saltzman said that it would be 42% of whatever the tuition is for the
       chosen school for one staff and one faculty position, to be continued,
       but others are not seen to be coming up in the near future.

       Kean said that he personally believes this is a good idea, but that
       we need to make sure to get the cost. This is a benefit that is under
       attack because it doesn't affect a large number of people. The IRS
       also is questioning the benefit, and is trying to put through a
       resolution to tax the benefit.

2. The committee was not consulted regarding any of the changes made to
   tuition benefits.

     This lead to discussion in the committee regarding its function.
     Saltzman stated that the members of the committee believes it should
     have been consulted. It sent a letter the Board of Trustees raising
     questions about the changes that had been proposed for the tuition
     benefit. Lots of benefits are only received by certain segments of the
     University, and the committee is concerned with the issue of pitting
     these segments against one another. The tradeoffs between salary
     increases and benefits is of concern, especially for members of the
     community at the lower levels of salary.

     President Kean believes that this committee should be involved in the
     whole process and hopes that in this one issue help can be given to
     individuals in need.

     Tom Magnell suggested that at least one member of the Benefits Committee
     meet with the Expense and Allocation Committees.

     Paolo Cucchi thought that it would be helpful to have a group which
     looked at the whole range of benefits and their costs compared to other
     institutions. He referred to other places that provide a fixed amount
     for benefits that can be applied to individual choices. Given the
     timetable, this would need to begin soon.

     As a member of the Expenditure Committee, Linda Connors expressed
     regret for the way the process had overlooked the benefits committee
     and said that the decision to change the tuition benefit had not been
     made easily. She reported that the committee had been informed that
     tuition remission would add $90,000 to the budget next year.

     Leedom Lefferts hoped that the administration would call upon the
     appropriate faculty and staff committees to discuss these issues.

     Anne Saltzman suggested that the proposal should be approved by the
     Senate and submitted to the appropriate budget committees.

     President Kean recommended that the proposal should be submitted not
     only to Mike McKitish, but to the budget committees.

     Paolo Cucchi suggested that the Senate support the intent of the
     proposal, but given the timetable, requested that information be
     gathered on the longer term consequences and, in concurrence with
     President Kean, recommended the proposal be included as a part of next
     year's budget.

     This recommendation was unanimously approved by the Senate.

     Leedom Lefferts moved that the Vice Presidents consult pro-actively
     with the appropriate committees regarding changes to the benefits.
     The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: University Development
Newly appointed Vice President for Development Jay Angeletti was introduced
to the Senate. He briefly reviewed his background. He came to Drew after 3
years at the University of Pennsylvania where he lead a drive to create a
tuition free medical school. He spent the previous 6 years raising money at
the Yale School of Medicine. Before that he was at Choate Rosemary Hall,
where there were many similar student needs as at a small liberal arts
university.

He expressed excitement about being at Drew both for the quality of the
institution and because of fund-raising possibilities. Because the school
is young and doesn't have a long-standing development program, there is
room for growth.

He said that there are a number of things happening to give us the
opportunity to some some things quickly:
     1. Alumnae in professions are beginning to be willing to give back
        assets.
     2. The University is becoming more visible, in part because of things
        like:
        a. The speakers series.
        b. The Shakespeare Festival
        c. Reinvigorated athletic program
        d. Continued emphasis on technology
        e. Medical humanities program.
     3. The Board of Trustees recently passed a resolution to launch a
        campaign to "make this place better".
        a. The Trustees will seek to determine how much money can be raised
           and what is do-able.
        b. Jay will launch an internal feasibility study beginning on March 1
           to identify needs and find out what the market can bear.
        c. Money will then be raised with the Board's help.
        d. A goal of 1/3 to  of the funds will be sought by around December,
           1998, with the remainder maybe in 5 more years.
        e. President Kean encouraged the Board of Trustees to act now,
           suggesting that whereas we hadn't had all the pieces in place
           previously, we are now ready to go.

Angeletti reviewed areas of known need:
     1. Scholarships in all the schools, the largest need in the CLA.
     2. Faculty-student development.
     3. Library collection.
     4. Arts/Theatre
     5. Fiber optic network
     6. University Center
     7. Seminary Hall renovation
     8. Great Hall elevator
     9. Science - renovation or new facilities
     10. Deferred mainenance
     11. Bowne Theatre/Shakespeare
     (These are from the Strategic Plan)

Tom Magnell said he thought this sounded encouraging and reiterated the
belief that the need for development is extraordinary.

Angeletti responded by saying that, while we might not be as successful as
we'd like to be immediately, that if we don't start now, in a number of
years people will be sitting around a table wondering why we hadn't begun.

Magnell offered the help of the Senate in the process of gathering
information.

OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.

The meeting adjourned at 6:18 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Norman Lowrey, Secretary pro tem.

Return to Senate Homepage