For Purposes of this progect, the following definitions are applicable:

• Budget Reductions: Reducing or eliminating a current budgeted expense (Characteristics are that it is easy to track in that it presumes a documented reduction in a specific existing budget line)
• Cost Avoidance: Actions taken to offset or reduce the cost of a currently unbudgeted future requirement supportive of the University priorities and pursuit of its mission (Characteristics are that it is difficult to document because the savings are not usually immediate and because its requires concurrence as to a future priority of mission-related pursuit)
• Revenue Generation: Garnering a projected amount of increased dollars that may be applied to continuation of existing priorities or instituting of future mission-related goals

Jeff Anderson, Associate VP (University Advancement)

Gary Burkette, Department Chair (Accounting)

William Duncan, Vice Provost (Research and Sponsored Program)

Edwina Greer, Director (Internal Audit)

Kathy Kelley, Associate VP for Procurement and Contract Services

B. J. King, Comptroller (Finance and Administration)

Raven Moody, Assistant to the Provost for Academic Budget and Personnel

Wanda Richardson, President (Staff Senate)

Joe Sherlin, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, Dean of Students

Greg Wilgocki,  Associate VP (Finance and Administration and Health Affairs)

*Jim Bitter, Originator of Faculty Senate “Ideas Forum“ (while Dr. Bitter’s summer calendar precludes his service on this committee, he has agreed to serve as a liaison with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.)

The Awards Committee will complete the following tasks:

1. Use one-time stimulus funds to support well conceived proposals (from any area of the University) that represent tactical re-engineering of processes or employment of tactics that result in measurable recurring budget reductions, cost avoidance, or revenue generation;
2. Develop and disseminate a Request for Proposals that presumes two annual cycles, a calendar for review and approval, and a calendar for implementation for FY 2009-10 and 2010-11;
3. Render a professional judgment that the projected outcomes of any funded proposal is well conceived, credible, and significant; and
4. Monitor implementation of funded projects and document performance re accountability standards established for each.