October 22, 2004

MINUTES THIRD Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2004-2005 in the East Lounge of Dougherty Hall on Friday, OCTOBER 22, 2004 at 3:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Chairperson; Ms. Regina M. DeCristofaro, Executive Secretary; 
Dr. Debra Arvanites Mr. Safeer T. Bhatti; Mr. Joseph A. Breslin; Mr. Frank Brogna; Dr. Sohail C. Chaudhry; Ms. Alice Chong; Mr. Richard F. Cullen; Fr. Kail C. Ellis, OSA; Dr. M. Louise Fitzpatrick; Mr. Steven M. Froelich; Fr. Richard M. Jacobs, OSA; Dr. John R. Johannes; Dr. Barry C. Johnson; Dr. Frank I. Klassner; Dr. Helen K. Lafferty; Ms. Catherine M. Lee; Dr. Gerald M. Long; Dr. Edward J. Mathis; Fr. William McGuire, OSA; Dr. Emmet McLaughlin; Mr. Christopher J. Meehan; Dr. Carmen Peraita; Dr. James Peyton-Jones; Mrs. Mary C. Quilter; Mr. Javier Rodriguez; Mrs. Rachel Schaller; Mr. Patrick M. Sheldrake; Dr. Robert Styer; Mr. Paul W. Vitale; Dr. Barbara Wall; Mr. Edwin Y. Xiao; Dr. Joyce S. Willens; Dr. Anthony Zygmont; _________(non-voting, representing the Alumni Association President); 
Mrs. Carolyn C. Lea, Recording Secretary.
ABSENT: Mr. Robert J. Capone ’62 (Notified In Advance Unable to Attend); Mr. John M. Elizandro; Fr. John J. Farrell, OSA (NIA); Ms. Dorothy A. Malloy, Esq. (NIA); Professor Michael Mulroney, Parliamentarian; Mrs. Sandra Toslosky Patterer ’93 (NIA); Mark A. Sargent, Esq.; Fr. John P. Stack, OSA; (NIA).
GUEST SPEAKER: Ms. Cathy Lovecchio, Director of the Health and Wellness Center
GUEST SPEAKERS: Mr. Rick Sieber, Executive Director of Budgeting and Auxiliary Services; Mr. Ken Valosky, Vice President for Finance

The Invocation was given by Senator Barry Johnson:
"Let us pray as we remember the presence of God. Today as we gather in this place, we need to consider where we stand, who we are, and who we aspire to be. We come to order with a new sense of commitment to continue to build on the progress we have made from the last meeting to this one. Be with us in this space and time as we shape and affirm the issues we are about to consider to improve the quality of university life. As we work in dialogue, we are reminded that it is possible to sustain this path of progress, a path that both advances and enriches the educational enterprise that prepares our students to succeed in life after Villanova. Knowing Your spirit is with us, we are clear in our interactions, more daring in the sharing of our visions, less afraid of speaking the truth we have come to believe, more courageous in making the tough decisions and accepting those choices that define our actions. In this Your presence we meet again to conduct the business of Villanova University Senate. Today we gather in the name of God. Amen." 
The Chair thanked Senator Johnson for his prayer.
I The MINUTES of the September 17, 2004 Meeting were moved for approval by Senator Vitale; seconded by Senator Brogna and unanimously approved as submitted.
II POWER OF INTERPELLATION - No questions having been received, the Chair moved to the next agenda item.
The Senate welcomed Ms. Alice Chong, Secretary of the Graduate Student Council, who will be attending Senate meetings as the Graduate School Senator.
IV GUEST SPEAKER: The Chair welcomed Ms. Cathy Lovecchio, Director of the Health and Wellness Center at Villanova, who will speak about the initiatives and research undertaken to health and wellness.
Ms. Lovecchio thanked the Senate for the invitation and directed its attention to the folder before each Senator, specifically to "The Health Survey." There has been an upsurge in health interest in the two years the Health and Wellness Education Center has been on campus. Prior to this the focus was on alcohol education. The Center’s charge was to look at all the different aspects of wellness, figure out where the trouble spots were and create programs and educational endeavors for students in many different areas.
The Health Survey was conducted on campus last spring (552 student participation) which covered all the main areas of wellness in a student’s life using a service called "Outside the Classroom", the developer of Alcohol Edu, the online program all freshmen take. Villanova was one of the first schools to administer the survey. This was done before the spring break after which behaviors change drastically to the end of the semester. The survey gave an idea of the areas where students are having difficulties thus helping the Center gauge what programs need to be offered. In the area of alcohol, incidences have risen but the related behaviors and consumption of alcohol in the students’ possession is starting to shift downward. Health education professionals look for behavior changes, not numbers. Incidences may have gone up because of the education on campus and knowing when to seek help. Over 90% of the students acknowledge that they now understand pertinent information regarding alcohol. The staff at the Center feels that part of the increase in incidences is due to the education effort as the behavior disturbances are lessening at the same time, a key to this study.
The Center has introduced a very strong peer education program on alcohol awareness. There are three different peer education groups: PASS (Peers Advocating Substance Safety), SOS (Sexual Offense Support) and SWAT (Sexual Wellness Advocacy Team). New programs have been instituted during orientation such as POWER HOUR, a simulated party situation that has been given 3 times with about 500 students participating. This well-scripted program teaches students to resist peer pressure to consume alcohol or drugs. There is a poster program on alcohol for dorm rooms and halls.
A copy of the "Stall Street Journal" was included in the folder of materials which appears every two weeks in the bathroom stalls of the residence halls on health issues. The Wellness Institute and Wellness Wednesday are two new initiatives to help students, faculty and staff become aware of comprehensive overall wellness ideas. 
Ms. Lovecchio moved to a part of The Health Survey concerning sexual decision making and behavior. There is now data proving that an astounding 74% of the students reported being sexually active. A critical factor for Health and Wellness Education, the Health Center Director and staff, is that most of the time correct protection is not being used resulting in a number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases (S.T.D.) being seen at the Health Center. The number of HPV (human papilloma virus) and herpes rate have increased significantly among students seeking treatment. The Center for Health and Wellness Education felt compelled to speak out on sexual health and as a Catholic institution, abstinence is promoted as the message. However, if a student chooses not to abstain, the Center offers measures that are important. Postponement of sexual activity is encouraged among the students until a marriage relationship develops. The S.W.A.T. group is increasing their activity on campus residence halls as well as their numbers in training.
In addition to sexual health information, there have been student requests to have H.I.V. and AIDS testing done on campus and that has been provided the last few years. The Center is now quadrupling the number of days on campus that these tests will be provided so that almost every month 35 testing slots will be available. Due to more awareness of the center’s programs, the 35 slots are usually filled within the first hour for students wanting to know their status. It is not the case that a number of students are HIV positive.
The survey by the Health and Wellness Education Center asked a question about the presence of guns on campus and found 3.7% of the surveyed students reported having a gun for target shooting, hunting or other purposes. Many discussion groups would prefer 0% of guns on campus and Health and Education intends to address this issue next year by doing more to promote the gun policy at Villanova. The information that guns existed on campus prompted various comments by Senator Lafferty that guns should never, ever be on campus due to accidental tragedies and the present world situation. Students should feel safe on the campus of Villanova University and she asked for a strong statement from the Senate as a real, moral obligation exists here. Ms. Lovecchio agreed and noted that the survey had revealed issues that need to be addressed and indicated that in Student Life, more would be written in the handbook on the gun policy. Senator Lafferty urged a very definitive statement by Villanova University be made that from the standpoint of guns on campus, there is no reason for them to exist on the grounds of this institution for any reason. 
Ms. Lovecchio moved on to Eating Decision-Making and Behavior which is primarily under the Counseling Center’s charge, but Health and Wellness Education will be addressing this number one issue among students in January. A lot of female students have concerns about their weight, not an eating disorder but a body image issue. A spring semester program "Love the Skin You’re In" will be heavily promoted with a diverse fashion show planned to showcase different body types so students will appreciate who they are.
Ms. Lovecchio covered thoughts of suicide survey results and the survey results on the rate of antidepressant drug usage among incoming students and those that took the survey. The Health Center Director, Dr. Rebecca Bramen, feels that 10% to 15% of students are using a prescribed antidepressant. She encouraged faculty to recommend the Counseling Center or Health Center if they should notice some changes in student behavior.
The second most popular drug used after alcohol at Villanova is marijuana. There is a major shift upward across the country in use. Students in the survey reported that 43% of them used marijuana at least once. The national average for daily or repeated use of marijuana is around 21% in line with our student numbers. For the first time, the tobacco usage percentage is the same as marijuana smokers – about 25% of the population for each substance. Today’s marijuana is highly addictive with a drastically higher THC content than that used by students in the 1970’s. Asked about gender differences in tobacco use, and a senator’s observation of significant increase by female students, Ms. Lovecchio agreed that while body image played a part, it also seems to be socially acceptable in college but not so in the business world. There is a smoke-free class offered by the Health and Wellness Education Center with a majority of women students in the classes.
Senator Fitzpatrick asked if, when the Center became aware of students with drug addiction or alcohol problems, statistics were being kept by college since the Nursing College cannot validate a student’s educational program and allow them to take a licensing examination if there is an unresolved problem. Nursing faculty work very closely with students in the clinical area so that they can be more observant than other faculty might be with larger classes. The Dean is concerned because this issue goes beyond the health of the student; it goes into the whole area of validating that they are drug-free, alcohol-free, etc. and able to take a licensing examination that permits them to take care of others. If that kind of tracking is not done, can the Center undertake that so the College of Nursing will know, at least in the aggregate, if there is a major problem that affects it. Ms. Lovecchio replied that a way of tracking that would be if a violation occurred on campus which is put into the student’s file and records. The answer of access lies with the office of the Dean of Students and further exploration can be considered without compromising confidentiality. 
Senator Wall asked where the drug was being obtained if 25% of the students were using marijuana. Because Radnor Township officials are cracking down on alcohol violations with stringent enforcement, marijuana use is up. It is an easy drug for students to obtain and easier to conceal than alcohol. The enforcement and awareness of a marijuana policy was mentioned by Senator Vitale and he suggested publication of these statistics. Ms. Lovecchio noted that marijuana was an illegal substance and therefore there is zero tolerance on campus. There will be more education on this addictive substance by the Center. 
The packet of information contained in the folder distributed by the Director contained a brochure on alcohol information/policy and she noted that students were well aware of this policy. It is in the following areas of sexual health, HIV, AIDS, sexual assault and date rape drugs that knowledge among students is lacking and where the Center for Health and Wellness Education will be focused in the coming year. There will be a new website for the Center which will make information much more accessible to students. Some of the Center’s brochures have been designed by students from the College of Nursing. Additionally, the Center works in almost any area regarding wellness and if any Senator wants an area to be addressed or a program designed, the Center will be glad to work on this.
Senator Brogna addressed the gun policy and how it would be articulated to the students but he commented that individuals who owned guns should be identified now for the safety of other students. The previous discussion noted alcohol use, drug use on campus and students on antidepressives. He felt there should be close monitoring by the administration of who had guns and where they were stored. Ms. Lovecchio stated that the gun policy would be promoted more forcefully next year and Public Safety may be involved in discussions. Since the survey of students was anonymous and online, it is not known if these guns are on campus or off campus.
Senator Cullen asked about the hours of operation of the Center and if part-time students are included in the student population served. The Center’s hours are 9 AM to 5 PM and by appointment. The staff is often there until 7 or 8 P.M. Programs can be designed for part-time students and most programs take place at night time. She encouraged Senator Cullen to call her with any specific program topic for Part-Time Studies students and it will be created for them.
Senator Quilter asked about programs presented during Parents’ Weekend. The Center has offered programs in the past but very few parents attended. There is communication with parents by e-mail and any who wish can take the Alcohol Edu course to see what their sons or daughters are learning. The website for the Center on Health and Wellness Education is accessible to parents and prospective students. 
There was a discussion in which Senators Wall, Lafferty and Fitzpatrick took part on the seriousness of the gun issue and one that should be dealt with immediately, especially in light of the numbers of students using drugs. It was strongly recommended that Ms. Lovecchio involve Public Safety at once with this issue before a tragic incident occurred. The Senate agreed to make a strong recommendation that Ms. Lovecchio meet with Mr. Jeffrey Horton, the director of Public Safety, to discuss n a strict definitive policy and any legal ramifications. Student Life is aware of this problem but there has not been a formal address of the issue. Residence Life would be included with Public Safety in the discussion that Ms. Lovecchio will initiate next week.
Senator Jacobs thanked Ms. Lovecchio for the data she presented. He questioned the approach taken at Villanova in dealing with these problems from a moral, religious or Augustinian perspective in the Augustinian sense that the problems the Center deals with are symptoms of a powerful spiritual disease going on within the community. The Center’s programming quality is commendable but there is a specific spiritual resource in Villanova’s heritage. If this hasn’t been discussed, it should be included in fighting the consumerism, materialism and secularism affecting the quality of students’ lives. It was developed that Augustinians have been involved in the peer education training and putting some programs together. 
Ms. Lovecchio is going to inform the faculty about "Curriculum Infusion" which is being seen nationwide. This involves incorporation of some of the information the Center promotes into classes by faculty. Senator Brogna commended the Director for the excellent survey and thanked her. He also said that the Student Government would support any initiative to address these problems and help disseminate some of this information to the student body. There will be a larger survey in the spring called the American College Health Association Survey with a database of over 84,000 students for comparison with other schools. There will be a pairing of Villanova with some Jesuit Colleges in working on these databases.
Senator Johnson delivered a note of caution. These statistics show that a majority of students use alcohol, 3.7% have guns and a significant percentage of them are using drugs, more of a reflection of the general population. In addition to benchmarking schools, there is a need to determine what schools can do as there is a fine line when civil liberties are involved such as in behavior or identifying gun owners and the rights of schools (searching rooms, etc.). In gathering data and making comparisons with national averages, there should be a discussion of what a school can do. Ms. Lovecchio agreed and pointed out the Center’s goal is to provide information so that students can make their own decisions and the Center cannot do that for them. Senator Chaudhry thanked the Director for all the information on the various topics but asked that the alcohol issue stay at the forefront of the Center’s efforts. She noted that the guard on alcohol will not be let down as Villanova has seen a downward shift that has been one of the most successful in the country due to the Alcohol Edu program. She thanked the Board of Trustees who have backed this expensive program all the way.
The Chair thanked Ms. Cathy Lovecchio for the presentation and other information she had give the Senate. She departed with the applause of the Senate.

Invited Guests: Mr. Rick Sieber, Executive Director of Budgeting and Auxiliary Enterprises and Mr. Ken Valosky, Chief Financial Officer.
Senator Jacobs noted the many questions at Senate meetings in the past on how the budget is constructed so the Executive Committee decided to ask Mr. Sieber and Mr. Valosky to come to a Senate meeting. Mr. Sieber commented that he hoped the Senate would agree that the process is fairly open and transparent and they welcomed the opportunity to explain it and how information is shared.
The budget process is a cyclical process starting with planning by the APBC followed by budgeting which is a dollar description of that plan. This is followed by execution of the budget or plan. That plan is the spending and the revenue coming in during the course of the year. It is then assessed by the middle of the year in the form of year-end projections (four projections) and the budget variance report at the end of the year. The Senate looks at the budget one year at a time but the various budget committees that work on it are looking at multiple years, both prior years and the current years for variances that are important in building future budgets. The committee looks at the next fiscal year for the detail that it takes to build the coming year’s budget. Multiple years are reviewed in the form of a budget model to become aware of future events so that decisions are not made now that may negatively impact any future happenings. Mr. Sieber distributed a Budget Process Timetable handout and invited any questions.
Mr. Sieber noted that the budget process ends on the second Tuesday in February when the Board of Trustees receives and approves the Operating Budget which they did last February for the ’05 Budget. Then the process starts again with the first step being the recalibration of the multi-year budget model. All the detail that has been gathered in building the ‘05 budget is used as the base for the extrapolations and projections to be made in the multi-year budget. This takes place from the month of March and continues through the summer and is a detailed process. At the same time the detailed budget is being loaded into Banner so that during the course of the year, departments will have the opportunity to measure their performance against the approved budget.
In April, there is some partial assessment of the budget looking back a year to ’04 for doing the fourth and final year end projection. These results are put together by a small group in financial affairs after consultation with various individual departments on financial matters. This report is presented to the Board’s Finance and Audit Committee on the second Tuesday of April. These budgets are not online for the public but those who have budget responsibility in departments or the administration can view them. At various times the developing budget has been made public on the website and it has been available with a password. Its availability for viewing by the general public and to the benefit of students could be discussed in committee. In answer to another comments, there was no reduction in Student Life allocations in the past budget year. 

Senator DeCristofaro suggested that if not online perhaps students could be made aware of where they could get access budget information. Mr. Valosky noted that the committee could consider providing some kind of summary information online and having it available upon request. Senator Brogna asked about departmental requests and where they come into the process. 
The Budget Process Timetable Chart shows the monthly progress of the budget, the departments responsible and listed Milestone Meetings which Mr. Sieber described as the year-end budget projection process. The committee’s expectations are that the revenues will come in exactly as in the budget and expenses will match the budget exactly. That doesn’t always happen with special expenses which the committee tries to identify. At this point there are no solicitations of opinions or suggestions on how to improve anything; the next year’s budget is not being built. It is just an understanding of the current year’s budget so that the committee can report to the Board of Trustees that Villanova is on target or will have a budget overrun or a shortfall.
Mr. Valosky noted that Senator Brogna had a good point in that the Senate and Board have approved a budget for FY 05 in February while the FY 04 year is still open and the committee is already starting to plan for the FY 06 year. There are constantly different years open. That is why the budget takes so much time to put together because as the committee examines some of these year end projections after the budget has been approved, at the same time the committee is preparing the budget for the next year. It has to take some of these items into account and determine if they change any of the assumptions that are in the budget and whether or not they need changes, how it affects the models going forward, and identify changes in departmental operations that need to be taken into account. If there are variances, it has to be determined if they will be permanent and if they would help with additional programs at the university. The committee would then entertain proposals, not specifically through the budget process, but through the APBC and its process for requesting new initiatives and programs. 
Mr. Sieber referred to Line #4 – "Run #1 of budget model prepared and discussions – FY 06" which takes place in June. During the course of the summer the Budget subcommittee discusses goals and plans and how they can be addressed in the budget. The members of the Administrative Planning and BudgetCommittee include Fr. William McGuire, O.S.A., Chair; Mr. Ken Valosky; Dr. Jack Johannes; Fr. John P. Stack, O.S.A.; Mr. John Elizandro; Dr. Helen Lafferty; Fr. Kail Ellis, O.S.A.; Louise Fitzpatrick; Dr. Barry Johnson; Dr. Edward Mathis; Mr. Steve Fugale, CIO; Mr. Vince Nicastro, AD; Mr. John Kelley, OPTIR; and Mr. Rick Sieber. Ms. Julie Carlisle, Fr. McGuire’s secretary, offers great assistance. There is a smaller budget subcommittee that discusses numbers and details made up of Fr. McGuire, Mr. Valosky, Dr. Johannes, Fr. Stack, Fr. Ellis and Mr. Sieber.
The subcommittee must wait until September when enrollment figures are in to go further than general discussion of the budget. During the summer, the committee is also closing down the ’04 budget, looking at all details in the variances report. This carries forward into the preparation of the next year’s budget. Senator Lafferty asked what was the purpose of the Senate Budget Committee’s review of the current budget FY 04 (Line 15)? Mr. Sieber referred to those lines that concerned the Senate, lines 11, 15 and 25. On line 15, the Senate Budget Committee is presented with a review of the past year (2004) and an explanation of the financial statement, the financial position of the university, a budget variance report and consideration of enrollment figures. This gives the Senate Budget Committee an idea of how the APBC arrives at the FY 06 budget figures. It needs the context of the previous years to understand the development of the budget and its assumptions. Senator Long noted that a report to the University Senate was not made at that point of university budget development. Mr. Valosky did not think all the detail that is given to the Senate Budget Committee is ready for the full Senate in the fall. He likened the report of the APBC subcommittee to the Finance and Audit Committee of the Board to a report of the Senate Budget Committee to the Senate. Then that Finance and Audit committee reports to the full Board with a summary. A comment was made that it would be a more informed Senate if it was given more information earlier in the budget process before the final consideration and vote. 
Senator Schaller noted that the minutes of the Senate Budget Committee were so vague that Senators could not know what the committee was doing. The Chair noted that the mandated updates at each Senate meeting were quite brief and consequently hard for the Senate to be thinking about those items in preparation for the final vote on the budget. Senator Jacobs indicated that the Executive Committee of the Senate should speak to the members of the Senate Budget Committee to let them know what information the Senate expects and needs to make decisions. Mr. Valosky reviewed the timetable – budget presentation to the full Board in February, working with the Senate in January, APBC continuing work in December. At the upcoming October Senate Budget Committee meeting, members will be provided with information about the variances in FY 05 and with working assumptions which are subject to change. 
Mr. Sieber indicated that this meeting is when the students on the Senate Budget Committee can first have input and will continue to at the November meeting. January is too late to have an impact on the FY 06 budget. Mr. Valosky mentioned that student input on items like an increase in athletic fees would go through the Athletic Director, Mr. Nicastro, and items appropriate to Student Life would go through the Vice President of that area. These administrators would follow university governance for bringing those types of initiatives forward. If it were a financial issue it would go through APBC’s subcommittee for review and if that subcommittee favored it, a recommendation would be to the full APBC for approval. Members of the Senate Budget Committee can report to their constituencies what is occurring in the Senate Budget Committee meetings. There are administrative, student and faculty members on the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees who can report to their constituencies on non-confidential matters discussed in committee. There are administrative, student, faculty and staff representatives on the Senate Budget Committee. If the Senate had a better sense of the interim facts during the budget process, it could make a better judgment when it is finally presented with the budget for a vote. There are periodic updates by the APBC by Fr. McGuire in issues of the Blueprints. 
The Chair referred to the charge to the Executive Committee to take seriously a charge to the Senate Budget Committee to take a more proactive role. Mr. Sieber noted that the APBC was not prepared to speak about the budget in November as the budget has not been updated and gone through all the rigor of the committee and APBC. In answer to a question as to who determined increases in students costs, Mr. Sieber noted that suggestions for increases in spending come from the various vice presidents, the VPAA would have much to say about tuition increases, and special fees increases might come from various deans or other areas of the university. The budget subcommittee is basically is where tuition increases are reviewed and recommendations forwarded to the APBC. The subcommittee looks at tuition increases at overlap schools and comparative rates after the various Boards of Trustees have approved the rate of increase at their institutions.

Senator Schaller noted that while students had a Student Government to which student members of the Senate Budget Committee could make reports and faculty members have the Faculty Congress to inform them, the staff have no organization that the Senate staff members can inform and receive input. The Senate Budget Committee is the mechanism to accomplish this. The Chair commented that the Executive Committee could discuss the matter.
Senator Jacobs asked when the matter of tuition increases would come up in the APBC subcommittee discussions. Mr. Valosky commented that surveys are done in late spring and early summer, after rates at other institutions are approved, to gather comparative data and that provides a rate that can be used as a base for a budget model. The rate would becoming clearer in early October. Senator McGuire commented that this timetable could be influenced by a major initiative coming forth such as computers for students being included in tuition which might be known ahead of time and for which revenue streams must be found. Other problems can arise in the example of building a budget for FY05 based on 1500 undergraduate students and only 1400 matriculate (this hasn’t happened for many years). Adjustments would have to be made in October or November. That shortfall could persist for four years which is why a multi-year cycle is considered. This is an example of how fluid the budget is in the fall and until the census is taken, a full five to six weeks after the first day of class, it is not known if student revenue is what the APBC projected. This is also why the Senate Budget Committee is not involved until November. 
Senator DeCristofaro commented on the 58 freshmen increase above target date this year and the costs associated with that increase. Even though these extra 58 students are here, Enrollment Management still managed the total enrollment to hit the total quantity enrollment (transfers, etc.) The budget projection now shows that undergraduate tuition revenue is in line with the budget. The present senior class was a much larger class than anticipated so the university set aside that money in order that those revenues would not be embedded in the budget after that class graduated. Otherwise there would have to be a large tuition increase or no merit increase for salaries in order to balance the budget. The money has been set aside and the committee will be discussing at the appropriate time to what capital projects those monies will be allocated. Upon the Chair’s inquiry, she was informed that these revenues amounted to perhaps two million dollars each year for a four-year period. 
Senator McGuire noted that prior to discovering what the net is of the monies set aside, there are unexpected expenses associated with a large class such as part-time professors to cover a lot of sections, wiring of one of the halls on South Campus for three T lines for every room in the case of triples, furniture and a number of other expenses that have to be taken off the tuition revenue. There is not that much fluidity in the budget to make up those millions of dollars when the present senior class leaves. It is set aside so that the university does not operate on those monies and can use it for capital projects. 
Senator Xiao asked about other sources of income for the university such as investments. Mr. Valosky noted that Villanova is by and large a tuition-driven institution. There is an endowment but it is dwarfed by the endowments of those schools to which Villanova compares itself, the overlap schools. The Capital Campaign will certainly help with the endowment. As far as tuition at the overlap schools, Villanova is fifth on the list of the six schools. The lowest, University of Richmond, is considering a substantial increase next year so Villanova may be at the least expensive slot of the six schools (Bucknell, Lehigh, Richmond, Holy Cross, Boston College and Villanova). 
Senator Johnson was not sure what the Senate was expecting from all these statements and indicated that he was not in favor of the Senate coming up with a change in a process that is not broken. The way the budget process is set up is that either through vice presidents or deans, all of the associated costs of running the university come together in the present process. The problem is that with this process vs. industry is that the projected costs are known but the income is not. Eleventh hour decisions have to be made and there are ripple effects when not enough resources are available. In the College of Engineering, the Student Council is part of the decision making process as to resources. Until the details are available, budget discussions in the Senate are almost meaningless; by the time the details are available, it is almost time for the budget to be presented to the Senate for a vote. Mr. Sieber added that it was just the nature of how college and university budgets are prepared. Everyone would like the information to be firmed up at a much earlier date. Right now projections show that undergraduate enrollment is in line with the budget but there is still registration for the spring semester. So many things, like how many students are studying abroad, that occur from a projection standpoint won’t be known until later when the budget is being prepared and finalized. The request today was to explain the process so Senators understood where the pressure points were and where they could have input, in particular through the Senate Budget Committee.
The Chair thanked Mr. Sieber and Mr. Valosky for a very informative discussion particularly for the new Senators, She stated that the Senate Executive Committee would entertain the possibility of working with the Senate Budget Committee to find solutions to obtaining better information earlier on in the process so that the Senate will be making an informed decision when it votes on the FY 06 budget. 

Senator Vitale suggested that Dean Paul Pugh speak to the Senate about students and how the university handles the problems covered by Ms. Lovecchio earlier in the meeting disciplinary-wise and policy-wise. As a topic for future meetings, Senator Brogna noted that each college’s student senator/s collectively and collaboratively, have developed their own school agendas on their platforms to improve their individual schools for this year. It would be helpful to provide some time to update the University Senate on the progress of student goals and hear any support that may be requested from the Senate as a whole to support these individual objectives. The Chair asked if these objectives would have dollar figures attached . Senator Brogna said some may have but Student Government was prepared to absorb some costs. An example would be a panel of big name speakers on campus to be invited on campus where Student Government would work with other departments or other schools to co-sponsor them for students. Most of these would be supported by internal fund-raising by students. The Senate would be made aware of the efforts of Student Government and student Senators to better the lives of the students. The Chair stated that a mechanism would be explored to have updates from the various colleges.
Senator Fitzpatrick if these are college specific or academic matters that the deans of that college could be made aware of these issues. There may be ways to finance things that are creative. Senator Brogna, A&S, stated that he had met with Dean Ellis and various chairpersons which concern these issues. Meetings could be set up to discuss objectives for individual colleges .
There being no further discussion, a motion To Adjourn was made by Senator Lafferty; seconded by Senator DeCristofaro. Adjournment took place at 5:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,

Regina M. DeCristofaro
Executive Secretary