CAPRA MEETING, March 2 2012
ATTENDING: Stalin Mafla, Jackie Collier, Norm Goodman, Margaret Schedel, Shmuel Einav, Larry Wittie, Pam Wolfskill, Gene Katz, Deb Dwyer
SUNY Korea proposal
Norm Goodman asked if there were any comments on the draft report he wrote about this proposal on behalf of CAPRA before he sends it to the Executive Committee of the University Senate. There were none, and thus the report will be sent to the Executive Committee. He also reminded the committee of its prior discussion of the AROTC proposal. In reviewing the proposal it was clear that there are no substantial resource implications for the campus. Moreover, since this proposal would provide some financial help to students in this program, CAPRA agreed to support it. Consequently, Norm Goodman will send a short note to this effect to the Executive Committee of the University Senate.
This subcommittee will meet with the Graduate Council on March 5, 2012. Norm Goodman provided some history of past communications with the Graduate Council as well as the relevance of the eight page letter that Mike Schwartz, former President of the University Senate, sent to the Provost concerning some of the problems of the proposed program. Some of the questions the subcommittee was to discuss with the Graduate Council include:
Norm Goodman indicated that CAPRA would welcome the Graduate Council’s assuming responsibility for answering these and other relevant questions. Alternatively, there could be special working group composed of members of CAPRA and the Graduate Council to take on this task. Or, if the Graduate Council was not interested in these issues, the CAPRA subcommittee would take it on. We will await the results of the subcommittee’s meeting with the Graduate Council to decide on our next course of action.
Paul Bingham provided a written analysis of the RCM model discussed by Provost Assanis and Mark Maciulaitis at our last meeting. This draft will be worked on further by the subcommittee and will include a concluding section on suggested ways of dealing with the limitations with this model as we understand it. Tentatively, these recommendations will include, at a minimum, greater transparency in the allocation process from the dean to departments, the need for clear metrics defining the allocation process, and the establishment of a clear and informative process
Jackie Collier and Meg Schedel indicated that there was nothing new to report. Jackie reminded the committee that there are Writing, Theatre and SOMAS classes held at Southampton. Norm will as the Provost who is in charge of the campus. Note: Some Stony Brook medical programs will be exported to Southampton for clinical care in a region that lacks them.
Flow of funds subcommittee
Larry Wittie reported that he is reviewing three years worth of official state and IDC expenditures in official summary and purchase order detail. He is looking to see: 1) if they match and who lost what; 2) if the Provost’s office has switched funds from one account to another, why, and what was the result; 3) why there is $300,000 in negative expenditures; and 4) what these data tell us that’s important to CAPRA’s responsibility to review the implications of campus resource allocations.
The committee discussed the re-branding and the effect on the 5 schools that are part of Stony Brook Medicine. It appears that there are differences among the faculty and the schools on the value of the re-branding and its implications for their identity.