Budget committee - 2/6/2023 Meeting Notes - Structural Equity Team Recommendations

Sep 2, 2026

Budget committee meeting notes outline Structural Equity Team recommendations to improve accessible information and rubrics throughout the budget process. The discussion covers opportunities for involvement, step-by-step methods to prompt better accessible guidance, and a proposal call with clear criteria aligned to the strategic plan. Participants debate division-by-division communication, a structured vetting and timeline, continuous stakeholder engagement, and how to compile and provide feedback on proposal abstracts and decision package viability.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPresentations

FormatDOCX

Pages9

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Structural Equity Team Recommendations

Focus and Methods

Call for Proposals and Alignment

Accessible Information and Division Communication

Rubrics and Timelines

Proposal Abstract Submission and Feedback

Budget committee 2/6/2023 Linda Beckman, Allison Giffen, Shawna Gilbrand, Faye Gallant, Bernie Housen, Ted Castro, Josef Morgensten, Becca Kenna Schenk, Rahma Iqbal, in person: Brad Johnson, Melinda Assink, Ichi Kwon, Joyce Lopes, Kim Ayer, Bow Jerns, Brian Ross, Jacqueline Hughes, Max Bronsema, Paqui Paredes * Structural Equity Team Recommendations Focus: Accessible INformation and Rubrics throughout the process Opportunties for involvement Using rubrics or tools to help developers and decision makers applied to all budget process Methods: Step by step, ask selves at each step what would improve accessible information or rubrics? Call for proposals for focus areas and criteria * alignment with strategic plan * collaboration, how it connects to outcomes ideas/comments: BH - hard to find website information for Budget PP: not many people go to the budget forums - helpful to channel call for proposals through each division (provost to deans to department chairs) use the flow of information for this process - call people's attention in a way that is better than just 'going to the budget website BJ: some structure for how it is going to work. not just an open free for all to submit a proposal - some process in your division ahead of time to set structure JL: communication in each division from VP - by some date collectively agree we get this info and process out - this isn't you all send them in, we need to coordinate efforts PP: there needs to be a vetting process at department, dean, vp - inflection points and conversation that needs to happen BJerns: Redefining expectations BH: Rubrics: should have clear timeline for the different steps MB: timeline - I do my abstracts when faculty aren't around BJ: May - pulling together things from that academic year. what stayed an abstract. that will help. not one brand new process every year, but something continuing from last year IK: proposal tracker website - Kim created, what wasn't approved, what was... MB: can connect and maintain. AG: are we asking writers to say what is internal/external funding FG: no we are not asking proposers to do that. Linda's area - because they have auxillary and fee supported. Different relationship with funding source. AG: Faculty proposals are smaller? FG: No not always. Child development center - fees and rates, federal funding, state subsidies, lots of channels. if we have some channels, how do you know if they are in the process. Clarifying channels up front LB: takes funding from other areas. for trying to think about all of the pieces. SG: Rolling communiucations thorughout the year - in CHAT Divisional Strategic planning align with? areas to strengthen? included to think about budget iceberg as a whole and not just incremental pieces Accessible info: JL: if divisions have specific strategic plans that support the university wide strategic plan, could be shared ahead of time. helpful in informing across division and synergies BJ: good thought to idenfity some internal strategic needs beyond internal capability. year over year thing. Programmatic things, go over ideas without the worry that i need something new or a decision package to do something new with it. explicitly a part of it Rubrics: BJerns: after a few years, ability to assess Proposal Abstract Submission is that process clear? not clear, strengthened? Accessible: JL: division by division explain the processes, less likely to get suprises abstracts. PP: instead of all abstracts going to be routed through the deans for AA division JH: are we intending them to submit, what info do we want in an abstract? BJ: there is a template JL: we collected these in october - high level. is there enough interest to put a proposal out FG: basics, what is it, who is developing, which area, description what/why, outcome expectation, estimated number of employees or dollar amount, space or facilities, who is collaboarting or involved with it BJ: as we fold capital and operating into one process. we should ha

FAQs

What is the Structural Equity Team focusing on for the budget process?

The team emphasizes accessible information and rubrics across every step, plus clearer opportunities for involvement throughout the process.

How should the proposal call and vetting process be structured?

Participants discuss using division-level structure and inflection-point conversations, with vetting occurring across department, dean, and VP levels rather than an unstructured open submission flow.

What information should be included in a proposal abstract submission?

The group references a template and highlights key items such as what/why, expected outcomes, estimated employees or dollar amount, space or facilities needs, collaborators, and a capital-related component where applicable.

Sep 2, 2026

Upload by Nguyễn Văn Học