Faculty Council
Hearings on the Proposed Budget Reduction Plan for 1992-93
February 12, 1992
1. Faculty Council Chairperson Stephen Warner called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. with 92 present.
2. Richard Weist presented Alternative Strategies for an Administrative Reorganization of Academic Affairs which he had developed in collaboration with John Hansen, and which had been introduced on the minutes of the General Faculty meeting on January 27, 1992. He said their proposal, commonly referred to as Hansen/Weist, sees the central problem as being the addition of another layer of administrative structure. Weist illustrated his presentation with overhead projections showing the levels of administration under the original, and the revised proposals from the Administration, contrasted with the 'flat' structure under Hansen/Weist. He then showed a 'Savings Model' projecting savings of $143,000 under Hansen/Weist. Weist showed other slides illustrating the changes in offices and assignments under the Administration's revised proposal and contrasted these changes with those under Hansen/Weist. He concluded saying that increased departmental chair responsibilities under either proposal should bring greater compensation in the future, and not be devalued as under the Administration's proposal.
3. Peter Sinden presented an organization model showing three deans, illustrated by a two-page handout. [A copy is included in the archive minutes.] His model would leave several administrative lines vacant and leave four faculty lines vacant. He projected total savings under his model of $468,000, $12,000 less than that projected by the Administration's proposal, but with no interruption of any personnel contracts.
4. Dr. Warner opened the floor for general discussion of all the proposals, noting that the Administration's proposal is really the only one under consultation; all other models are recommendations, priorities, and sympathies to be conveyed to the Administration for consideration. Thomas Malinoski asked whether we are talking about cash reductions, or people reductions. Vice President David Burdette responded that the plan focuses on cash reductions; no line reduction is addressed directly. Malinoski inquired what will happen with the material generated by the present hearings. Warner answered that all the FC committees are making reports, and the College Senate Secretary is recording minutes of the hearings, all of which will be summarized in a report to the President. Allison Altobellis asked who will finally make the decisions. Warner answered that this is not a democracy, but there is some operation by consent; these proceedings are advisory to the President, who could conceivably ignore them, at some risk. George Sebouhian suggested that all models, including the Administration's, should be considered equally. Warner replied that we can, and perhaps should, treat them equally, but they are not equal. John Hansen said he understood that the President sought other models, and that all the other proposals and contributions are in response to this. He took issue with the concept that the only proposal that matters is Administration's. President Donald A. MacPhee answered that all proposals should be considered seriously. He expressed concern that Administration's proposal be considered, whether it is seen as the only one on the table, or one of many. He said he had asked his administrators for a model with middle management, and would have to be convinced regarding a model with no middle management. Burdette gave an extended presentation on campus revenue sources and distributions, utilizing some dozen overhead projections in pie-chart format. [Copies of these graphics are in the archive minutes.] He said that revenue is now about 1/3 from tuition, remainder from state support, but this will change as we move away from state support. He said New York's rate of movement away from state support is the greatest in the nation, but we are now about in the middle of the range. He said Fredonia's expenditure is 79% for salaries/wages. He showed several slides illustrating distribution of expenditures and lines; of 536 state-funded lines, 44% or 237 are teaching faculty. Randall Dipert asked for information on faculty salaries. Burdette said $47,000 is average for faculty. Altobellis asked the average for administrators' salaries. Burdette replied that he did not know. Burdette continued, on the topic of Income Fund Reimbursable accounts (IFR's). He said that IFR's are set up by state under definite guidelines to handle income from third party payments. He said each IFR account is established with a proposed budget showing sources of revenue and defining the types of expenditures permissible. He said presently there are 62 IFR accounts, 38 in Academic Affairs, 10 in Student Services, 14 in Administration. Malcolm Nelson asked for specific dollar amounts for the IFR's. Burdette replied that Summer Session IFR will handle $300,000-$400,000 in revenue; Buffalo Bills IFR for administrative facilities is in the $50,000 range, but the Bills also use FSA food services, and the dorms, which lowers the costs of those operations; net revenue to campus is about $10,000 to $12,000 a year. Jere Wysong asked whether the strategy of using IFR's to save positions has been considered in Academic Affairs. Burdette replied that last summer the Summer Session was moved to an IFR by SUNY to reduce the SUNY budget; some administrator and faculty salaries have been off-loaded from the state budget onto this IFR. Jane Romal inquired whether those employees' fringe benefits come from IFR accounts. Burdette answered, that they do, but that 15% and 25% surcharges on IFR accounts take care of these things. Karen Mills-Courts asked whether half of Dr. Hurtgen's and half of Dr. Wheeler's salaries come from IFR accounts. Burdette said that was correct, and the campus has been able to off-load about $100,000 of expense in this way. Wysong, noting that cost of instruction varies by department, asked whether there has been any consideration of using IFR's to offset the more expensive academic programs. Vice President David Hess replied that Administration is trying to be very creative about this, within the guidelines for IFR's; Administration is looking at everything and trading information with other campuses. MacPhee cautioned that such IFR solutions would probably mean adding student fees. Minda Rae Amiran asked how much money is "left over" in the IFR's after the expenses associated with the accounts are paid. Burdette responded that IFR's are closely monitored by SUNY and others, to be sure the moneys are used for appropriate expenses; they are restricted in nature, scope and purpose. He said the Summer Session account is more flexible for funding a variety of related expenses, but they must be related. He gave the example that Rockefeller Arts Center receives money into an IFR, but uses that money for operation of the program. Hess added that Physical Education IFR money goes for part-time coaches. Someone asked whether the existence of the FSA system precludes the expansion and full utilization of IFR's. Burdette answered that FSA is a separate not-for-profit precluded from competing with private enterprise, and precluded from directly supporting campus operations; FSA does fund certain activities, sometimes freeing state moneys to be used for other purposes; FSA generates some $60,000 from earnings, which are available as program funds for restricted projects. Nelson asked for figures for all departmental IFR's. Burdette replied that it would not be easy, but he would see what he could do to respond to the request. Kenneth Lucey asked whether project directors with IFR's had been asked to contribute funds to solve budget crisis. Burdette replied that Administration had solicited some project directors for possible one-time contributions, off-loading state expenses to IFR's, within the guidelines of the IFR's. Susan Franzblau asked how the restrictions are determined on an IFR's revenue and expenditures. Burdette responded that each account has its revenues and expenditures defined when the account is established. Franzblau asked whether this structure varies from campus to campus. Burdette said the IFR structure is established by agreement between State Division of Budget, the State Comptroller, the Attorney General, and SUNY; generally all campuses follow the same rules. MacPhee commented that IFR funds must be expended appropriately under the rules for the particular IFR. Mills-Courts asked, regarding the upcoming Kenny Rogers Concert, whose IFR will the proceeds go into. Burdette replied that Everett Phillips made the arrangements for the concert; any profits after expenses will go to the Field House IFR. Hess added that Phillips had asked to do this to pump up his IFR account, and that he had endorsed the project since it may free up some state funds that otherwise would go into operation of the Field House. Julius Paul inquired how the monies from the 20 vacant lines are applied to the $1,050,000 budget reduction. Hess answered that these are lines theoretically available for filling (or giving up) in the Fall; they are not really vacant since they are occupied by various temporary and adjunct appointments; there are presently only three pure vacancies.
5.Chairperson Warner asked for and received consensus to extend the hearing by fifteen minutes. Discussion continued:
Ted Schwalbe asked whether the Division of Budget or other off-campus interests ever raid IFR's. Burdette replied that the state has so far not tampered with IFR's, but he does not encourage people keeping large cash balances in these accounts. Mills-Courts noted that the Coalition for Women's Concerns has requested to see the whole budget, but asked whether we may assume that the 17 lines are filled with adjuncts? Hess responded that these are tenureable full-time positions, but presently filled, primarily by people in temporary service, including a few of the adjuncts. Amiran inquired further about vacancies and Hess replied that he tries to keep all lines occupied at all times to avoid loosing them; two deaths and one mid-year departure are the reasons for three presently open lines. Amiran said it would help to know the hiring arrangements are for these lines. Hess answered that when he referred to a reduction of six lines, only one would be a non-reappointment; the others would not interrupt personnel commitments. MacPhee added that 'unfilled lines' is probably a misnomer, since they are filled, albeit with other than tenure-track appointments. Hess added that along with some recommendations for filling some positions on either permanent or temporary basis, he has made some recommendations on program discontinuations. Nelson asked whether the one tenure-track non-reappointment was for financial reasons. Hess declined to comment. Burdette said that this year's revenue has been about one-third from tuition; next year, tuition will probably represent 40%; and it will be increasingly important to obtain our budgeted enrollment. He also said Fredonia has about $2.2 million budgeted for S&E, which will be trimmed some; but Fredonia currently is the third worst SUNY campus in terms of S&E funding; any further cuts in S&E will further jeopardize the mission. Dipert wondered what has brought us to this point, and what we are supposed to do about it. He said he was perplexed about the rushing forward of many faculty members to offer proposals, and asked whether Administration could comment on what has gone wrong, and why we are so ignorant. Hess responded that people have formerly been satisfied to ignore these issues, but are now concerned for their programs and their institution. Burdette added that in the past, Administration and accounting have been able to make the adjustments without concerning everyone. MacPhee commented that Administration has tried to communicate a fair amount of detail, but this raises additional questions and concerns. Ronald Ambrosetti noted that it is encouraging to know that the chair of Physical Education can bring in Kenny Rogers to bolster his department's finances, something other departments cannot do. Burdette said he expects the concert to net the campus $4,000 to $5,000. Hess added that relieving Phys Ed spreads relief to other departments. Altobellis said the value of her education has been decreasing through faculty loss, and that loosing her department chair would be a definite significant loss, comparable to loosing two professors; department chairs are too important to cut. Thomas Rywick asked what would be the focus of the other meetings. Penelope Deakin urged that the next meeting be a continuation of this budget discussion. Mills-Courts wondered why there should be separation of the areas, since we need to face these issues as a single, united community. Warner expressed concern that others on the campus have an opportunity to be heard as well as those under Academic Affairs.
6. Motion (Nelson/Ambrosetti): to recess the meeting to Monday, February 17, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. to continue discussion on any topic. Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Thomas McNeil, College Senate Secretary