University-Wide Planning, Budgeting and Evaluating Committee Meeting
Tuesday, May 11, 1999 -- 9:00 a.m.

Attendees:  Bill Berry, Bill Aiken, Richard MacDougall, Oval Jaynes, Linda
Fletcher, Mike Biderman, Clint Smullen, Mary Tanner, George Ross, Debbie
Parker, Joel Harrell, Verbie Prevost, Dick Gruetzemacher, Phil Kazemersky,
Bill Stacy, Kathy Breeden, Susan Cardwell

Agenda:

I.  Overview of SACS Status/Outcome Statements and
    Linkage to University Planning Process

II. Mission Statement Review Process and Operational
    Statements
        -- Motion made, seconded and adopted to accept
          the report--

III.Overview of Budget Process and Linkage to Planning/
    Subcommittee Work
        -- Motion made, seconded and adopted to accept
          budget recommendations --

IV. Review of Focus Group Outcomes

V.  Review of Technology Committee Recommendations
        -- Motion made, seconded and adopted to accept
          budget recommendations --


An overview to ask umbrella group consideration of plans/budgets against
Academic Excellence/access and five strategic imperatives was given by Bill
Stacy.

Bill Berry reviewed SACS planning -- outcome statements are prepared/extant
in all areas of Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Development, Athletics.
Need to finish up Administrative/Financial Services.

The Link of Outcomes Statements to budget/plan was presented.

Bill Aiken circulated a draft of "Operationalized" Mission Statement.  UTC
will use the extant mission statement.  Public Meeting reflected on "what
it means" -- using group feedback some members (Prevost, Aiken, Ezell,
Gruetzemacher, Brodsky) summarized the "Operational"
definitions/statements.  Stacy inquired to each Vice Chancellor to see if
their responsibilities "fit" in the operational definition of mission.
Each "unit" creates its own "Mission Statement" and that statement links
back to the University mission.

UPBE members applauded the beginning efforts in SACS -- including the
Mission Statement Operationalizing statements.  All areas of campus are
urged to see if they "fit" under the four statement groups...and give that
feedback as soon as possible to Drs. Aiken/Berry/Brodsky/Ezell.

George Ross reviewed the University Budget SubCommittee process and
recommendations adopted.  1998-99 Costs  going forward plus priorities were
reviewed.  See Attachment # 1.

Bill Stacy reminded that the Legislature is a bit late this year in
establishing State appropriations -- and Trustees will consider the fee
level in June.  Once those actions are known, actual dollars will be
plugged into revenue lines.  Expenditure priorities will be followed as far
as funding permits.

Richard Gruetzemacher reviewed efforts to corroborate perceptions of
priorities the universities should meet.  Focus Groups are seeking to
articulate or understand what key groups think we need to do with the
university.



10 Faculty        )
10 Exempts        )  3 Focus Groups - report in June
10 Non-Exempts    )

George Ross reported the 98-99 use of Technology Fees.  See Attachment # 2.

Bill Berry reported that the Technology Plan (consultant expertise) is
underway.  Recommendations for 1999-2000 were presented.  Kudos to the
planning process.  Concerns to create "minimal" access to the "learning
opportunities" on computers in every academic building.  The focus this
year includes some student worker costs and some people -- planning
efforts/Lab Tech in Education. etc.  See Attachment # 3.