REVIEW COMMITTEE STRUCTURE & CHARGE
RCM Review 2005-2006
Steering Committee and Subcommittees
July, 2005
The Steering Committee is responsible for overall coordination of subcommittee work; receiving, debating, and deciding upon recommendations from sub-committees; and submitting a final set of recommendations to the CBC, which in turn will recommend to the President by February of 2006. The Steering Committee will consist of the Provost, Vice President for Finance and Administration, Vice President for Research and Public Service, Vice President for Student and Academic Services, each subcommittee chair, and a Faculty Senate representative. The Steering Committee will be staffed by the Associate Provost for Academic Administration and the Assistant Vice President for Financial Planning and Budgeting.
The RCM review will rely primarily on the work of eight subcommittees, organized around the themes that emerged in the design phase during 2004-2005. Each subcommittee will consist of 6 to 8 members, including faculty, staff, and, when appropriate, student representatives.
In addition to the topic-specific questions that each subcommittee will address, all subcommittees are also asked to consider the following meta-questions in their deliberations:
1. In what ways does the RCM model support or hinder achievement of Academic Plan goals? In what ways does the RCM model foster the appropriate balance among the teaching, research, and service/outreach missions of the University?
2. Is there quantitative or qualitative evidence to suggest that important decisions are being made on the basis of financial considerations without appropriate regard for mission considerations?
3. To what degree does the current model properly balance competing institutional needs for centralization vs. decentralization? Are there sufficient central funds to support strategic initiatives? What internal services should hold monopolistic status?
4. To what extent should the hold harmless concept be employed going forward and in what way?
5. What has been the effect of hold harmless calculations on RC units? Is there any reason to review and update those calculations?
6. Is the model too complex? If so, are there opportunities for simplification?
Assessments Subcommittee
This subcommittee will review all aspects of the general assessment and the academic affairs assessment. Specific questions to be addressed include:
1. Should the assessments be combined in order to more fairly distribute the cost of offices whose services and programs benefit the whole institution?
2. Should the base on which the assessments are charged be changed in order to achieve greater simplicity?
3. Should consideration be given to changing the mechanism in the RCM model that governs the growth rate of assessments?
4. Are there opportunities to rationalize and simplify the special arrangements that have been built into the assessment model?
5. Should there be criteria and a formal mechanism to reduce or eliminate assessments on new initiatives to encourage innovation?
6. Should consideration be given to shifting some fee-based services into a mode whereby they are funded instead by assessments
Facilities Subcommittee
This subcommittee will review all aspects of the RCM model’s treatment of space costs. Questions to be addressed include:
1. Is there sufficient clarity and community agreement regarding which space costs are included in baseline services, and thus covered by the basic facilities charge?
2. Are the processes for determining space usage and the associated net square footage rate effective?
3. Should Business Affairs auxiliaries move to the same net square foot basis as the rest of the institution?
4. Are the special net square foot rates for UNHM, NHPTV and for farm and outlying properties set at the appropriate level? Are there general changes in the model that should be considered with regard to outlying properties such as Jackson Lab and Newcastle?
5. Should auxiliary operations make some contribution to institutional R&R in consideration of the “greater good” projects charged there?
6. Do we have appropriate mechanisms to adjust the model as new buildings come on line?
Research Subcommittee
This subcommittee is charged with a review of all aspects of the RCM model having to do with research. Questions to be addressed include:
1. Is there any quantitative or qualitative evidence to suggest that research activity has been helped or hindered in the RCM environment?
2. Does the RCM model encourage productive research partnerships among units?
3. Has RCM affected the distribution of research activity relative to academic units and research centers/institutes?
4. Is the RCM formula for sharing indirect cost recovery among VPRPS, OSR, Deans, research centers, the Library, and PI’s fair and rational? Is the default formula for sharing indirect cost recovery between units that share jointly-appointed PI’s fair and rational?
5. How does the RCM model affect grant activity supported by sponsors that provide little or no overhead, e.g. foundations?
6. Does the model provide sufficient accommodation for faculty start-up funding?
7. Is the current funding model for the Office of the Vice President for Research and Public Service sustainable?
State Appropriation Subcommittee
This subcommittee is charged with a review of all aspects of the model that relate to the allocation of State Appropriation. Questions to be addressed include:
1. Is State Appropriation the appropriate source of funding for institutional strategic initiatives?
2. Do we have effective mechanisms for dealing with State funding rescissions?
3. Should the portion of the State Appropriation that is allocated based on share of faculty salaries continue to be applied to all categories of faculty?
Undergraduate Tuition & Financial Aid Subcommittee
This subcommittee is charged with a thorough examination of aspects of the model related to undergraduate net tuition, including summer session. Questions to be addressed include:
1. Do the credit hour weightings still accurately reflect internal and national costs?
2. Is there evidence to suggest that the RCM model has encouraged unhealthy competition for students among schools and colleges?
3. Is the use of a two-year rolling average the appropriate time lag with respect to distribution of undergraduate credit hours?
4. Is the current distribution of tuition revenue from University-wide curricula appropriate, including Inquiry seminars, INCO, and Study Away programs?
5. How should revenue from non-academic units such as EOS and the Marine Program that offer credit-bearing courses be treated?
Graduate Tuition and Financial Aid Subcommittee
This subcommittee is charged with a thorough examination of aspects of the model related to graduate net tuition. Questions to be addressed include:
1. Is there qualitative or quantitative evidence to suggest that both teaching and research assistantships are being awarded more strategically and efficiently since the inception of RCM?
2. Is the distribution of graduate tuition revenues exclusively to the home department appropriate?
3. Has the graduate tuition discount rate changed since the inception of RCM?
4. Has RCM affected the creation of professional and non-professional masters programs?
Quality and Governance Sub-Committee
This sub-committee is charged with various programmatic and governance questions including:
1. Is there quantitative or qualitative evidence to suggest that the RCM model has affected academic quality, outreach and engagement activities, and interdisciplinary collaboration?
2. Is there a sufficient level of financial expertise at the unit level to understand the model and the implications of various programmatic and financial decisions? Are managers receiving appropriate financial, human resource, student, research, and endowment information in a timely manner?
3. Have the Central Budget Committee and UCAPC been visible and effective?
4. Is there sufficient input from units into key central decision-making processes for matters such as Discovery, AAUP contract, financial aid, and admissions?
5. Is the policy for governing internal fees/chargebacks effective and widely understood?
6. Are policies and practices with respect to reserve levels and usage working well? If not what changes are suggested?
7. Are policies and practices with respect to operating deficits working well? If not, what changes are suggested?
8. Is the treatment of UNHM in the RCM model appropriate? What changes should be considered?
