1 / 14

Campus Budgetary Affairs Committee Survey for FY2006: Report and Recommendations

Detailed report on faculty opinions and budgetary issues addressed, models proposed, priorities for cost reduction, and academic unit feedback.

muellerk
Download Presentation

Campus Budgetary Affairs Committee Survey for FY2006: Report and Recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Campus Budgetary Affairs Committee Survey for FY2006: Report and Recommendations

  2. Survey Details • Faculty were polled to solicit their opinions regarding the following general budget issues: • The model to be used for addressing the budget shortfall (two models: flat 5% cut and the Provost’s model) • Facets of the plan to address the budget shortfall • e.g.: tax indirect returns, require academic year release before allowing 3 months summer support, delay start of new programs, etc.) • Data was evaluated at the campus and school levels (i.e., top five priorities for reductions) • Results summarized: model favored, priorities for areas to save, campus vs. school responses • 113 faculty members responded to the survey • Survey was reviewed by members of Eng. Man. to eliminate bias in questioning

  3. Model A vs. B • Model A: Flat 3.372% cut for each unit (academic and administrative) • Model B: Suggested by Provost Shah after discussions with various campus constituencies

  4. Results of Model Application • Examples: Model AModel B COAS $474,476 $450,000 Eng $625,013 $700,000 SMIS $98,985 $100,000 SoMEER $204,234 $250,000 Enroll Man $107,543 $50,000 Spon Prog $87,819 $125,000 Univ Adv $105,648 $50,000 Ext. Learning $39,176 $75,000 Adm. Services $227,691 $250,000 Info Access & $241,616 $250,000 Tech. Services Student Affairs $106,673 $70,000 Chancellor $29,845 Provost $27,088

  5. Survey Results: Model A vs. B 51% 36% 12%

  6. Response to Proposed Campus Cost Reductions • Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1st choice, 4 pts for 2nd choice, etc. • Increase consolidation and streamlining of administration: 339 • Increase efficiencies and consolidation of services: 218 • Reduce support to research centers: 164 • Freeze all hiring: 139 • Reduce payroll by closing something down: 139 • Eliminate E&E increase: 107 • Require acad. yr. release before 3 months summer support: 97 • No raises: 95 • Reduce dedicated indirect from 25% to 20%: 76 • Support graduate education through research: 61 • Department scholarship funds used to offset GO funds: 35 • Other suggestions: 28 Note: question – Please indicate priority you would Give to each of the above proposed campus cost reductions

  7. Response to Proposed Academic Unit Cost Reductions( All Schools) • Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1st choice, 4 pts for 2nd choice, etc. • Delay start of new programs: 364 • Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 212 • Tax Distance Education Returns: 144 • Reduce funding for GRAs: 133 • Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 124 • Reduce departmental E&E: 110 • Reduce funding for GTAs: 86 • Tax Indirect returns: 84 • Move part of faculty & staff S&W to soft money: 78 • Tax endowment income & development accounts: 74 • Other suggestions: 20 Note: Above question – Indicate your level of overall support for possible alternatives/additional academic unit cost reductions

  8. Arts and Sciences Response (25 responses) • Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1st choice, 4 pts for 2nd choice, etc. • #1: Delay start of new programs: 84 • #2: Tax distance education return: 50 • #3: Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 48 • #4: Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 35 • #5: Reduce funding for GRAs: 29

  9. School of Engineering Response (32 Responses) • #1: Delay start of new programs: 105 • #2: Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 68 • #3: Move part of Faculty & Staff to soft money: 37 • #4: Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 36 • #5: Reduce departmental E&E: 34

  10. SoMEER Response (9 responses) • Delay start of new programs • 7 strongly support; 2 neutral • Reduce the Dean’s reserve fund, if any • 2 strongly support; 2 support; 4 neutral; 1 oppose • Tax Distance Education Returns • 1 strongly support; 1 support; 6 neutral; 1 strongly oppose • Tax carry forward accounts • 4 support; 2 neutral; 3 oppose • Move part of Faculty & Staff to Soft Money • 3 support; 3 neutral; 3 oppose • Reduce Department E&E • 1 support; 6 neutral; 1 oppose; 1 strongly oppose

  11. SMIS Response (4 responses) • Delay start of new programs: • 1 support; 1 oppose; 2 strongly oppose • Reduce the Dean’s reserve fund, if any • 1 support; 2 neutral; 1 oppose • Tax Distance Education Returns • 1 strongly support; 1 support; 1 neutral; 1 oppose • Tax carry forward accounts • 3 support; 1 neutral • Move part of Faculty & Staff to Soft Money • 1 support; 3 neutral • Reduce Department E&E • 1 support; 3 neutral

  12. Summary of Responses on New Programs and Building Issues All values reported as percent of 113 respondents.

  13. Summary of Faculty Consensus • Increase consolidation and streamlining of administration • Increase efficiencies and consolidation of services • Delay funding of any new programs • Delay construction of new ME building and renovation of UCE

  14. Committee Recommendation • Academic Council forward the report to the Chancellor, Provost, and academic Deans for their deliberation of FY2006 budget adjustments.

More Related