1. Introduction of committee members and approval of minutes

Chairman Young opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and introducing himself. Introduction of the other committee members was made and a listing of all members was distributed. Chairman Young cited that the two functions of the committee are communicating financial issues back to other faculty and providing input to senior administration in an advisory role. Minutes of the meeting of May 7, 1999 were approved as distributed.

2. Fiscal 1999 operating results

The University ended fiscal 1999 with a surplus of $6.4 million, compared to a budgeted surplus of $3.4 million. In addition, divisions added $8.6 million to their reserves, through retention of either gifts or endowment payout for future use, or through transfer of operating funds to reserves. Almost all divisions ended the year in balance or in surplus. The only exception was the School of Medicine. However, the combined divisions of Medicine and Clinical Services broke even.

Total revenue was $1.8 billion. General funds revenue was $743.9 million, $9.3 million higher than budget. The largest increase in general funds revenues was in clinical services, $8.5 million higher than budget. In addition, tuition was $260.6 million, $4.3 million higher than budget, and facilities and administrative cost recoveries (F&A) were $140.8 million, $4.2 million higher, and 6.0% higher than last year. These increases in revenues were partially offset by funding from gifts and endowment payout well below budget ($6.2 million combined). These were funds that were budgeted for use but not needed, and held in reserve for use in future years. Sponsored and designated revenue was $1.0 billion, $43.2 million higher than budget.

General funds expenditures were $737.5 million, $6.3 million higher than budget. The major area of increased general funds spending was in clinical services, $7.7 million. This was partially offset by decreases in other areas, with the largest being instruction ($3.9 million less than budget).

Several questions were raised about how divisions recapture capital costs associated with technological advances. The Committee also discussed distance education and its implications for the full-time student market. The Committee agreed to invite to a future meeting someone from Public Health to discuss distance education, since this division continues to progress with this type of technology. The Committee also agreed that the Applied Physics Laboratory should have representation at the meetings.

3. Discussion with Dr. Edward Miller

Dr. Miller distributed an analysis of charges and collections for the clinical practice association. Dean Miller provided a brief history of the billing process beginning with 1993, when a clinical patient would receive various bills for services provided by Hopkins. In 1997 a consultant was brought in and clinical practice billing was reorganized. Individual departments can now solicit any vendor that uses an IDX system for billing. The Dean worked to establish buy-in as well as establishing benchmarks. With these changes clinical practice is seeing billings increase along with a decrease of days in accounts receivable. A question was asked whether Hopkins rate of collections was consistent with our peers. Dean Miller stated that it was consistent with the peers who have a similar mix of Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Dr. Miller also briefly discussed the Office of Inspector General audits and mentioned in particular, the audit of the University of Pennsylvania. He also discussed the need to work on updating the older facilities to match the first rate faculty that Hopkins retains.

4. Faculty salary comparisons with peer schools

Ms. Sue Bollmann discussed the handout on faculty salaries, which compares JHU with other universities for 1998-1999. The comparative universities are those that the Hopkins schools are most likely to consider peer institutions. These would vary from one division to another division. Ms. Bollmann distributed comparative cost of living data on some randomly chosen cities.

A question was asked about how the University could review the faculty that come to Hopkins (what factors bring them here?) versus the faculty that leave Hopkins (what factors make them leave?) Chairman Young suggested forming a sub- group of the Committee to focus on various data and to try to analyze these factors statistically. Provost Knapp noted the difficulty in benchmarking the factors as to why faculty leaves as there is no formal collection method for this. Dr. Knapp also mentioned that the Provost office will be working in conjunction with the Senior Vice President's office on creating an institutional research function for the University.

5. Update on capital projects

Senior Vice President McGill provided a handout on capital projects. He noted that negotiations were completed for 1717 Massachusetts Avenue. The Eastern High School project would be ready for occupancy in another nine months to a year, and the Space Telescope Science Center is planning a new building for the new generation of Hubble. Additionally Dr. McGill noted that the University is going to the bond market in early November for the first time in approximately ten years. The University has received a AA rating from Standard & Poor's and is still waiting for Moody's rating.

6. Future committee agenda

Chairman Young has asked for suggestions on what topics the Committee would like to discuss this next year. The Committee routinely discusses financial projections to year- end as well as budget and planning issues. Chairman Young would like to discuss, at the next meeting, the methods or means of communication that the Committee members use to disseminate information to their divisions.

© 2001 The Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland. All rights reserved.
Last updated 30Jan01 by dgips@jhu.edu