COMMENTS FROM OP SIX ON 2013 REVIEW OF SIX-YEAR PLANS

and UMW RESPONSES

General Comments

  1. Pending Budget Requests:Institutions should include in their six-year plans those significant initiatives for which they anticipate submitting a formal budget request.

UMW Response: All significant initiatives in UMW’s budget request are included in its 2013 Six-Year Plan.

  1. Capital Outlay:Please note the following instructions for capital outlay which were provided with the template of the plan - E.Capital outlay – note any capital outlay projects that might be proposed over the Six-Year Plan period that could have asignificantimpact on strategies, funding, or student charges. Do not provide a complete list of capital projects only those projects that would be a top priority and impact E&G and NGF costs.

UMW Response: UMW’s highest capital outlay priority, Jepson Science Center Addition, will likely have an impact on student tuition charges to the extent that operation and maintenance costs are not supported with general funds. This project seeks an addition of 40,000 square feet and could potentially be on-line in FY17. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $280,000. Assuming a GF/NGF fund split of 55/45, funding of $154,000 in general funds and $126,000 in nongeneral funds would be required to support the additional E&G space. The $126,000 in nongeneral funds could be supported through a tuition increase of 0.35 percent.

  1. New Academic Programs Proposals:New academic programs are subject to applicable Council policies and are not presumed approved by virtue of inclusion in an institution’s six-year plan. Plans to develop new academic degree programs require careful research and justification in terms of need within the Commonwealth including, but not limited to, absence of duplication with existent programs; documentation of opportunities for graduates of a program in the discipline and at the level being proposed; and documentation of sufficient resources,actual and/or planned, to implement the program with the necessary level of quality.

UMW Response: New academic programs included in UMW’s six-year plan either have been or will be submitted to SCHEV for approval.

  1. Classified Staff:If you plan to add classified staff, please add the following two lines to the summary of the Academic and Financial Plan in Part I and update as appropriate –

UMW Response: UMW’s revised six-year plan includes the identification of additional classified staff as presented in its academic priorities.

Prioritization: The priorities in your plan should be numbered in ascending order to reflect your most pressing general fund need as your highest priority. For example, if O&M for new space coming on line is your most urgent priority for the upcoming year your priority listing for that item should be #1.

UMW Response: Initiatives have been prioritized in UMW’s six-year plan.

  1. Financial Aid Classification: In keeping with the definitions adopted by Council in July 2013, the data reported in tab “Financial Aid” is not the same data that is to be reported within tab “Finance-Tuition Waivers.” Specifically, the “Financial Aid” tab addresses nongeneral fund tuition & fee revenue that is then disbursed as financial aid. Meanwhile within the “Finance-Tuition Waivers” tab, data reported as Unfunded Scholarships are those unfunded awards made solely under the authority of §23-31 of the Code of Virginia. These programs are separate and distinct and should be reported accordingly in order to avoid double counting of student aid. If you have any questions, contact Lee Andes, .

UMW Response: UMW’s six-year plan has been revised to reflect SCHEV’s financial aid classification definitions.

  1. Prior Six-Year Plan: Please be aware that all items from your previous six-year plan that are still outstanding and that you plan to pursue must be included in your new plan. The new plan is not incremental; it replaces your old plan.

UMW Response: UMW’s 2013 six-year plan includes the continuation of initiatives identified in its previous six-year plan, as appropriate.

  1. Staff salary increases: If you plan to increase staff salaries, please add the following lines:

UMW Response: UMW’s six-year plan does not include an initiative to increase classified staff salaries. It is hoped that the University of Mary Washington would be included in any statewide effort to increase classified salaries.

  1. Academic and Financial Plan Summary:Where applicable, please ensure that you have completed the academic and financial plan summary for the total incremental costs for 2014-15 and 2015-16.

UMW Response: UMW’s six-year plan includes a completed Academic and Financial Plan Summary.

Institution Specific Comments

University of Mary Washington

  • In reviewing your financial aid plan, staff has found identical numbers reported for both Program 108 and Unfunded Scholarships. Please review and confirm that the programs are correctly reported without double counting.

UMW Response: UMW’s revised six-year plan has been corrected.

  • In your meeting with OP6 you noted that the increase in the number of full-time faculty mentioned in Part II would be met through reallocation. Please include that reallocation in Part I of the plan.

UMW Response: UMW staff mistakenly indicated that new faculty (and staff) positions reflected in its six-year plan initiatives would be covered through reallocations. This is not the case. UMW’s six-year plan has been revised to show the additional faculty and staff positions required to support the initiatives.

  • If you would like the General Assembly to consider funding an increase in faculty salaries for your institution, please include a request in Part I and Part II of the plan.

UMW Response: UMW’s six-year plan has been revised to include an increase in faculty salaries. This initiative was not included in the original plan because UMW simply cannot afford to fund an across-the-board faculty salary increase without general fund support. It is hoped that UMW would be included, and treated like all other institutions, in any statewide effort to improve faculty and staff salaries.

  • Please provide details on your plans for the Technology Convergence Center such as how the Center relates to your six-year plan priorities (past and present) and how funding received to-date has been utilized (in general).

UMW Response: UMW has received no operating support to date for the Technology Convergence Center. All funding so far has been to support the capital project. UMW has received funding and/or authorizations for funding for initial design and planning, for A & E fees, for site work, for construction, and for moveable furnishings and equipment. Initial design and planning ($1.5 million awarded) is completed. Site work ($1.7 million awarded) is completed. $23,998,255 in construction funding is currently in the process of being expended – the building’s anticipated substantial completion date is June 2014. $10 million in furnishing and equipment will be spent (furniture and AV orders are under development).

The Information and Technology Convergence Center will be a technologically rich and sophisticated building that connects directly with Six Year Plan TJ 21objective E 10 (technology rich instruction). The building is designed to promote student collaborative work on a wide range of academic projects in a space where technology, information, and teaching resources will come together in an environment that is modern, energetic, and vibrant, which directly connects to TJ 21 objective E2, E3, and E5 (increase degree completion and improve retention and graduation rates). In addition, the building is designed to be a “cutting edge” technology and educational space, which will addresses TJ 21 objective E (quality improvements) and E1 (increased enrollment by Virginia students who will be attracted to UMW by the forward thinking program this building exemplifies).

  • Please provide further details on what is required and what actions will be taken by the institution to achieve AACSB accreditation for the College of Business such as the timeline for your comprehensive self-evaluation and your on-site peer review examination.

UMW Response: The following is the general timeline for AACSB accreditation:

2011

• Consultant is hired to ascertain faculty readiness for AACSB accreditation

• Second consultant is brought in to review step by step process required to achieve accreditation and to summarize his university’s experience, lessons learned, and to offer suggestions for UMW

2012

• UMW develops institutional standards for determining whether faculty are “academically qualified” under AACSB requirements

• Faculty are reviewed in accordance with developed standards

• College of Business strategic plan is developed

• College of Business develops and implements “assurance of learning plans” for all degree programs and aligns these plans with AACSB expectations

• Faculty and Dean attend annual AACSB Accreditation Conference to develop a complete perspective on the process require to submit the required application

2013

• New AACSB standards are passed in April; UMW begins aligning its programs with the new standards

• Faculty and Dean again attend annual AACSB Accreditation Conference

• Formal AACSB Eligibility Application submitted in September

2014

• AACSB, after approving the Eligibility Application, will assign UMW a mentor (experienced Business College Dean from another university) to help UMW plan and prepare for the required on-site peer review visit (review team selected by AACSB)

• UMW begins preparation for peer review

2015

• UMW continues preparation for peer review

2016

• Peer Review Team visits UMW and makes recommendation

• AACSB receives peer review recommendation

• UMW receives AACSB Accreditation

1