State of the University Address
State of the University Presentations
Dr. Joseph C. Rallo
President, Angelo State University
Sept. 17, 2008
Welcome to the start of our new academic year and to the introduction of a new tradition for Angelo State University. I asked Suzanne Campbell, head of the West Texas Collection who has an amazing grasp of our institutional history, to select a date of importance to our university for this annual presentation. Today, Sept. 17th, is the first day that San Angelo College classes were offered on this campus and will provide the future venue for this annual meeting.
In 1997, Texas A&M re-established the practice of an annual convocation as a “celebration of university progress and an opportunity to discuss the university’s plans for the future.” Let me note at the outset that I am neither an A&M nor a UT graduate, so my selection of A&M as an example was simply the result of a Google search and is not an endorsement. But I believe that their purpose is one which nicely reflects my intended purpose for our celebration.
Before we begin to define the challenges of this next year, I think it opportune that I go back to my presentation last August at the beginning of my presidency. There I indicated five major goals while stressing that progress toward these goals must be measured not by how far we have come, but instead by how much we have closed the gap toward the desired future end state. So, let me briefly review the past year.
Our first priority was to engage in a university strategic planning process to define vision, values and mission statements for ASU, along with metrics against which to measure our progress. On April 2nd the results of these processes were initially shared with the university community. Our new vice president for strategy, planning and policy, Dr. Jim Limbaugh, will now lead the next steps in the planning process. Planning has multiple audiences, among them: campus departments, the Texas Tech University System, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and our various accreditation agencies of which the most important is SACS.
I wish to emphasize, though, that planning must be embedded to be successful. To simply view planning as a process parallel to how we make the real decisions is not acceptable. I would commend to you the new planning circle which ties plans to resource allocation to institutional effectiveness.
The second challenge was to address how to grow our student enrollment toward the system goal of 10,000 students. According to the Texas Coordinating Board Web site, we were the only institution not to increase its enrollment over the past seven years and, indeed, we lost students. The first thing we did was to begin to position ASU as a residential campus. As a point of reference our student body now represents 210 counties, 41 states and 22 countries. Clearly our campus is truly a home away from home for the large majority of our students. Simple things such as extending hours of operation to include the weekend joined with new facilities and additional staffing to create a welcoming environment to meet the expectations of our students. Our 12th class day count this year – slightly down in freshmen, up in sophomores, graduate students and honors students – shows that we still have work to do to reach our growth targets.
Third, we thought through how we must define success for our students. Simply enrolling them is no longer an acceptable measure. We must graduate them. Our student body varies widely. While our Honors Program has extraordinary success in placing its graduates into law and medical school, we also have significant numbers of first generation students (62 percent of our enrollment) who need greater support networks to be successful. We also took a hard look at a segment of our admitted students who lacked the academic preparation to succeed at a university.
So while we intend to significantly increase the number of students in our Honors Program, we have also created new initiatives, such as the Center for Multicultural Studies, to enhance the support networks for the students in that population. We are also moving toward the application stage in our goal of being named a Hispanic Serving Institution by the federal government. We are also tightening our admissions standards for 2009 to no longer accept students who have a very low likelihood of success.
Fourth, at the heart of a great university are its faculty and staff. We engaged in a very thorough review of salaries for both of these groups against their peers and recommended equity adjustments to complement merit-based pay raises. For faculty the primary recommendation was to redress longstanding inequities in the salary structure for assistant professors as well as for full professors. Approximately $135,000 was awarded to increase the base salary for assistant professors, thus helping our recruitment efforts, with an additional $70,000 to meet compression issues faced by senior faculty. These funds were in addition to the 2 percent merit awards for faculty. Professional staff received merit-based raises of 2 percent and, subject to available funds by division, were eligible for additional increases based on performance. We will continue to monitor salary scales on an annual basis.
Finally, we began a serious campaign to increase dramatically the presence of ASU in the community. Of the four largest employers in town, we are the only one which intends to grow significantly. Every new student represents approximately $40,000 to the community. Our current economic impact of more than $200 million will rise to over $400 million when we reach 10,000 students. Many of you have participated in formal activities such as writing columns in the newspaper or Wednesday interviews on the television news. Many in the audience also play vital roles in the community as volunteers, actors in regional theater and leaders of a multitude of civic organizations. We are also very active in the emerging effort to bring a greater sense of vitality to downtown San Angelo. All of these efforts are critical quality-of-life measures which will support our broader recruitment and retention initiatives.
Now let’s look ahead to this next year.
First, is the need to look at our core activity, which is instruction in a variety of academic disciplines. This review is important on a number of fronts: what programs attract and retain students; which programs are growing and which are not; what is the appropriate mix of undergraduate to graduate programs; and how best to build on partnership synergies with Texas Tech University and the health sciences center.
Clearly embedded in this process is attention to our desire to achieve NCATE accreditation for the College of Education and AACSB accreditation for our College of Business. The faculty of these colleges believe accreditation to be vitally important to their ability to compete for the best students possible. Each college realizes that accreditation will require additional resources to attract the new faculty members mandated by accreditation standards. I agree with their position. Our move to the doctorate in physical therapy will also demand additional resources for faculty positions. While reallocation of existing resources is one way to meet these new requirements, the best way, and the way in which each of us can be involved, is through an increase in enrollment. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, each additional 500 students means over $3 million in new state support. Development work is also essential to attract additional resources. We are expanding our development staff to focus on primarily academic gifts. I am pleased to say that we set a record this past year for annual giving at nearly $5 million.
Second, we will continue the initiative on faculty workload policy, including the introduction of the Professional Achievement Award. This initiative is important in a number of ways: to provide faculty with an additional merit-based avenue for an increase in salary; to recognize discipline specific differences in promotion and tenure criteria, while creating college-wide expectations for teaching, research and service; and to develop a set of university expectations for faculty workload which is equitable but also permits allocation of resources to programs and departments which are growing.
Third, the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents has indicated that it expects each of its institutions to begin to set its budgets using a ‘zero based’ process. ‘Zero based’ budgeting has long been the norm in business and is now being introduced to universities and colleges. Essentially it requires an annual justification for discretionary budget items in order to reflect changes which have occurred during the previous year. Thus, while permanent positions, whether for faculty or staff, are not part of the process, vacant and temporary positions are included in the mix. Of greater importance are the operating budgets allocated to departments and divisions. We have traditionally allocated the same amount each year, notwithstanding changes in, for example, the number of students enrolled in a degree program. The Regents now expect a review to reflect changes, whether up or down, which will then determine a revision in annual budget allocations. This process is new to ASU, as it is to Texas Tech and the health sciences centers. We will ensure that relevant training and support are provided so that the reasons for allocation decisions are transparent and justifiable.
Fourth, we must continue to work diligently to ensure the success of our students. As I mentioned last year, our retention and graduation rates are simply too low. They are low compared to our peer institutions, both in Texas and around the nation. While our four-year rate is 16 percent, the five-year rate is 28 percent and the six-year rate is 33 percent, the figures for our peers are closer to 23, 38 and 42 percent. These low rates might also have an impact on future institutional funding. The July 2008 Report of the Task Force on Higher Education Incentive Funding states “to maximize their funding, institutions will have to improve the following: retention, time to degree, and four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates.” The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has recommended in their 2010-11 Biennium Funding Formula Recommendations that a new element entitled “performance” be added so that funds would be distributed based on graduations and degree completions.
Finally, the work on our strategic plan will accelerate. We must finalize our vision, values and mission statements to be ready for review by the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents. Dr. Limbaugh will ensure that each of these plans is fully shared with all of our campus groups before making his final recommendation to me. This process is also vitally important to ensure that our plans are consistent with the various reporting requirements of our accreditation agency, SACS. I invite you to participate in the series of interactive displays, termed charrettes, scheduled for several days in September to share your perspective on planning for ASU.
A critical aspect of this process is the absolute need to develop “learning goals” for all of our academic programs. We must also revisit our current core or general education requirements to ensure that they match the expectations contained in our new vision and values statement. For example, our existing requirements do not include a course in either global or multicultural studies, both of which appear prominently in our draft vision and values statements. These conversations must take place at department, college and Faculty Senate levels in order to be successful.
Finally, the big idea:
I titled my initial speech last August “Transformational Expectations: Vision 2012.” There I indicated the need to be provocative as well as the desire to begin to craft a signature image for our university. While we use the phrase “create a residential campus” to capture many of our initiatives, that really is not a transformational image. I often times ask audiences to engage in a mental Rorschach test when Angelo State University is mentioned. While the responses are uniformly positive, there is no single unifying concept which emerges.
Texas Tech University System Chancellor Kent Hance has asked each of us to answer the question: “Angelo State University: More than an Education.” So, as we finalize our current series of planning goals, I ask each of you to think of a response to that question. What can each of us do individually and collectively as an institution to put meaning into the phrase: “More than an Education.”
Thanks to each of you we have made a nice start this year toward our transformational goals. Our planning process is also maturing as a critical aid in identifying and measuring progress. I am confident that as a community dedicated to shared goals we will succeed.
So let me close by wishing everyone a great year and thanking you for all that you do for ASU, the community and the State of Texas.