President Gregory Geoffroy delivered a 20-minute address beneath the crimson awning of the Great Hall of the Memorial Union to the members of the university’s Faculty Senate Tuesday afternoon, opening the first of two March Senate meetings.

The president’s purpose was to update the Senate on items relevant to faculty salaries, legislative appropriations, the trend of decreasing faculty numbers and the university’s commitment to sustainable energy practices.

“I want to emphasize that Iowa State University’s enrollment is currently the third largest class in history and is expected to rise by 2.7 percent from the previous year,” Geoffroy said. “Next fall’s applications are already up by 15.3 percent.”

Laying these statistics before the Senate enabled Geoffroy to demonstrate the incentive that exists for students to attend institutes of higher education and bring in more tuition dollars.

“These facts represent two important things – one, that the university budgets are more dependent on tuition than in past years, and these numbers are encouraging to financial strength; and two, that young people and their families see the value in an Iowa State education in the face of falling high school graduation rates,” he said.

Geoffroy pointed out that the state’s support increased by 10.4 percent in appropriations and would be able to strengthen the university’s ability to meet faculty salary goals in the coming year.

“We have broken all-time records for private fundraising by exceeding the goal of $110 million,” Geoffroy said. “Our campaign has been very successful and continues to top our goals.”

The president remarked on several concerns within the university, including the state of the national economy.

“Lots of states are cutting their higher education budgets in the wake of economic constraints,” he said. “Iowa State, however, is doing extremely well.”

While Geoffroy’s words were promising, there are still concerns that the severity of the budget cuts may penetrate the heart of Iowa State’s faculty. Currently, there is a significant downward trend in research funding due to the tightening of federal monetary support, and restrictions have been placed on congressional-directed appropriations. This affects the educational level as faculty members leave their positions and are unavailable to students and for research ventures at Iowa State.

“The significant budget cuts over the past half decade have really affected faculty salaries, and the university has struggled,” said Elizabeth Hoffman, executive vice president and provost. “However, Iowa’s economy is still promising, and we are starting to take initiatives in replacing lost faculty with individuals who promote the trend of biotechnology and sustainable energy practices in the wake of global climate change.”

The idea of a biotech-friendly university was echoed by Geoffroy.

“Energy conservation and climate change are beginning to become greatly important to Iowa State and the nation as a whole,” he said. “I want to engage the entire university to learn about sustainable practices and conservation. We need a full-scale energy audit of our campus beginning with the house on the Knoll and president’s offices in Beardshear.”

He emphasized that financing a sustainable campus would result in money saved through reduced energy usage. Broadening the educational opportunities for students, increasing research programs and setting firm standards for building and renovation projects were mentioned as ways to set a trend of energy conservation at Iowa State. Taking the podium after Geoffroy’s address, Faculty Senate President Sedahlia Crase, professor in human development and family studies, helped move the meeting through discussion of numerous changes to course major and minor options that will be voted on at the next meeting. A notable item that was discussed was changing the name of “plant physiology” to “plant biology.” Members were divided, as some felt the name “physiology” didn’t encompass the full breadth of the curriculum. Those in opposition felt the term “biology” was not appropriate due to the significant differences between the scope of physiology and biology.