Response to Comment: The subcommittee acknowledges the point made by the author regarding the role of growing the endowment as part of the strategic plan (see related responses regarding advancement/development in Comments 10 and 12). The subcommittee believes that growing the endowment for purposes as exemplified in this comment (providing greater scholarship opportunities) should be a priority. Indeed, such a priority already exists as the University, through new and innovative initiatives in the last several years, has doubled the amount of endowed scholarship money awarded annually through its internal awards programs. The subcommittee feels strongly this should continue. The subcommittee also believes there is some potential for endowing faculty positions. In support of this, in addition to continuing to improve existing fundraising efforts, the addition of a Vice President for Advancement charged with growing this capacity, will further support these efforts. It is the subcommittee’s view that as the entire scope of resource needs become known, categorized and prioritized (see related response to Comments 2, 3, and 10), these will inform additional areas of strategic emphasis that must be included in a plan.
The subcommittee wishes to refer to its response to Comment 2 regarding funding for new centers. In addition, the reason more of the cash reserve which has been generated over time from tuition revenue has not gone into the endowment is because of the belief that the rate of return on investment (ROI) from strategic investments into the expansion of certain parts of the Fayette campus (improved facilities and services) and the Extended University is greater than investing in a traditional endowment. The existence of the EU by way of the revenue it generates in support of the rest of the University has been viewed in lieu of a traditional endowment. The four million a year in revenue produced by the EU in support of the University is the
equivalent of an endowment of $
( at % return ).
The subcommittee agrees with the point made by the author regarding faculty workloads (see related responses to this topic in for Comments 2, 3, 10, and 12). A subcommittee of the President’s Cabinet was commissioned last year to identify institutions against whom this University can benchmark. It is the hope of this subcommittee that this benchmarking effort will be completed soon, as it is understood that this information will be valuable.
This subcommittee is sympathetic to the point made by the author regarding the impression that perhaps the issue of faculty workload “fell through the cracks” during the strategic planning process. This subcommittee wishes to point out that although the addition of new faculty was not explicitly mentioned in the last strategic plan, an additional net new 6 FTEs has been added to the Fayette campus in support of Strategy Five of that plan (involving the addition of new majors) as well as in response to growing enrollment. Additional net new FTE faculty are planned for in the coming year. This would suggest an existing attentiveness to this need that is unlikely to be lost in any strategic planning process.
As pointed out by this subcommittee in its responses to similar concerns from other public comments, some committees produced anticipated resource needs while others