|
End-of-the-year report of BFA's Budget and Planning Committee Prepared by: The BFA Budget and Planning Committee May 15, 2002 It has always been the tradition of the Budget and Planning Committee to be engaged in all important planning and budget issues faced by the campus, and this Academic Year has also been a very active term for the Committee. The regular Committee members for AY 2001-02 were John Cooper, John Daily, Pamela Diggle, Robert Hohlfelder, John McIver, Edward Morey, Norton Steuben, and Stein Sture (Chair). In addition to the regular members, the Committee extends thanks to Uriel Nauenberg (Chair of the BFA), Richard Porreca (Senior Vice Chancellor for Budget and Planning), William Kaempfer (Associate Vice Chancellor), Anthony Barker (Chair, Arts & Sciences Council), and Gail Ramsberger (Arts & Sciences Council) who actively participated at the meetings. A summary of the Committee's activities and accomplishments is listed below. (1) Throughout the Academic Year, the Committee was actively engaged in campus budget discussions, especially with regard to the budget reductions which were first announced late last fall, and which were followed by news of potential and additional budget cuts periodically through the spring semester. The amount and nature of the reductions and how they might be achieved were discussed, and the Committee provided input to the administration. Ric Porreca helped lead the discussion and provided the Committee with up-to-date insight and perspective, actions taken by the administration, as well as updates at the State level. The Committee also discussed issues related to Quality for Colorado and how the initiative may be revived next year. Findings of the report by the Faculty Recruitment and Retention Task Force were also discussed. (2) A main concern of the Committee has been to ensure that faculty salary distributions are based on merit, and that merit rankings within units are based on peer review. The aim should be that all salary increases should be based on merit alone, whether it is labeled special merit, career merit, etc. The Committee prepared and forwarded various motions that addressed these and related concerns. Salary adjustments related to gender should also be based on merit, although it was found that this is not always the case. The Committee also discussed a resolution related to priority for the faculty merit raise pool, where it was moved that salary raises remain the highest priority, while faculty start-up packages, funding of the library, graduate part-time instructor salaries, and information technology upgrades also remain of importance and should be funded. The Committee also discussed Unit Merit in detail and how benchmarking and objective reviews might be carried out. It was determined that linking the Unit Merit process with the Program Review Panel's (PRP) operations is an excellent solution, which will help stabilize the process and provide sensible and objective benchmarking data. A motion was prepared, passed and subsequently forwarded to the administration, wherein the BFA requests that the campus administration charge the PRP with the task of assessing how units implement individual merit procedures, which should comprise substantive sections of individual units' Self Study Reports, and a major and important task of PRP's Internal Review Team. It is the understanding that PRP and administration are immediately implementing the linkage of Program Review and Unit Merit, where the external reviewers will be given the extended task of assessing the quality of the unit under review and comparing its standing among peers at the national level. The Committee also discussed the background and criteria related to Unit Merit, which has been in place for three years. Benchmarking and review related to AAU peer institutions were discussed. (3) Last year, the Committee was charged by BFA to assess the fiscal impacts of motions brought before BFA that have direct fiscal implications. This year the Committee devoted much effort to studying the impact of increasing the minimum salaries of part-time lecturers and instructors, as well as full-time instructors and senior instructors. A proposal to extend benefits or privileges to non-tenure track faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) normally only given to tenured faculty, including some form of sabbatical leave arrangement, faculty fellowships through CRCW, etc. were also studied. While it was found that the AY salaries of a large majority of the full-time regular non-tenure track faculty (Instructors and Senior Instructors) already were above the minimum level proposed, and the cost of increasing the salary level for the remaining faculty would have minimal impact, it was found that increasing the compensation of the part-time faculty (lecturers and instructors) to the stated minimum level would have major fiscal consequences. (4) In connection with the Committee's discussion of Program Review Panel procedures and tasks, the Committee found that it would be timely for PRP itself to undergo review by the administration to make certain it maintains relevance and employs current methodologies. To bring PRP up-to-date and streamline its operations, and to make it even more productive in terms of adding relevant tasks to its charge, in addition to removing less meaningful procedures from its operation, a motion was prepared, passed and subsequently forwarded to the administration that the Provost institute a comprehensive review of the PRP. (5) The Committee devoted much time to discussing the feasibility and usefulness of developing a faculty merit database, which in some way would be related to salary increases in individual units, schools and colleges. A major concern remains that merit may not always be the prevailing factor determining salary increments in some units, even in colleges and schools. While it is the responsibility of the deans to create and maintain faculty merit databases, which shall include the results of all annual merit evaluations, and that faculty merit ratings correspond to faculty salary increments in the various units, it appears that such data are available only in a few cases, and that in some instances there is little or no correspondence between merit ratings and actual raises. The committee discussed how this would be achieved in view of all the special circumstances (special merit, career merit, retention offers, gender equity adjustments, etc.) The Committee decided not to forward a specific motion, however the Chair summarized the discussion for the BFA Executive Committee, and Frank Beer decided to prepare a motion for the full BFA, which subsequently passed. (6) The Committee spent several meetings discussing salary growth and trends. Bill Kaempfer prepared a detailed analysis of salary growth in terms of average salaries for 500 tenured or tenure-track faculty, who had been on campus for 11 years. The data were presented in numerous diagrams, which included both lateral and longitudinal data (time domain), where discussions centered on salary compression issues, which were found to be minimal in a majority of the units in recent years; overall salary growth, where the Committee found that the faculty has essentially lost ground, perhaps mainly due to healthcare and housing costs; etc. The analysis also centered on data for the various academic clusters in terms of FY02 salary vs. years since the highest degree. Specific, persistent and corresponding trends were found for most units. Overall campus salaries over time for Assistant, Associate and Full Professors clearly indicate that there is presently not a salary-compression concern. (7) The Committee discussed analyses of program and budgetary implications of recent increases in the number of part-time, honoraria, GPTI, non-tenure track faculty (instructors and senior instructors). Bill Kaempfer and Ric Porreca helped lead the discussion and presented data. The Committee reviewed extensive statistics, and it became quite clear that in recent years a large number of the student credit hours are generated by non-tenure track faculty. This trend may be a natural outcome of the high quality teaching conducted by these faculty members, but it was found disturbing in that tenured and tenure-track faculty appear to become disengaged from the teaching mission. If this trend were to continue, the public perception that professors do not teach could take stronger hold and become detrimental. While the general teaching, research and service-load follows the standard distribution of 40%-40%-20%, it was observed that several regular tenured faculty, not research professors, devote nearly 100% to research, which is contrary to campus policy. The findings were reported to the Chair of the BFA, who further related it to the Chancellor and Provost. It is strongly encouraged that tenured faculty, even those with heavy research commitments, become more engaged in teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. (8) The Committee discussed the planning of the Grandview RBS Research Building (Phase 1), specifically how it might be financed and the propriety of using indirect cost recovered from Federal funds in view of concerns that have been raised mainly related to the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), which prohibits use of federal funds in such instances. Ric Porreca gave the Committee an overview of what has transpired during the year. It appears that Federal agencies are aware of the current discussion, and the administration is studying other ways to finance new developments in the Grandview area. (9) Last year the administration decided to implement a differential tuition program, where non-resident graduate students on research or graduate teaching assistantship appointments would be assessed reduced tuition. The main purpose of the program is to increase the enrollment of graduate students and make us more competitive vis a vis our peers. However, early this spring it was observed that the goals of the program do not work as intended, and that the program is losing substantial funds. While it was anticipated that graduate enrollments would increase, the opposite appears to happen. If this trend continues, the program may be discontinued. Bill Kaempfer lead a discussion of how the funds have been used and what can be done to remedy the situation. At this point it seems that the differential tuition policy may be in peril, unless graduate enrollment trends change and direct benefits of this subsidy emerge. It is expected that the Committee will investigate this issue in greater detail next year and obtain statistics from individual departments to find out which units benefit and which are at a disadvantage. (10) The Committee met with Paul Tabolt, Vice Chancellor for Administration and discussed planning and construction of new student housing, utility costs, inter-campus transportation, child-care facilities, and general campus facility maintenance costs and schedules. Income and cost trends in auxiliary units were also discussed. In conclusion, it should be added that BFA's Budget and Planning Committee is well represented on two committees of the administration. Two members have served on the Chancellor's Executive Committee, and they are present during budget discussions. Four members have served on the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee. Beginning next year, one of our members will be serving on the Program Review Panel as a liaison member. |