Faculty Council
Hearings on the Proposed Budget Reduction Plan for 1992-93
February 17, 1992
1. FC Chairperson Stephen Warner called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. with 77 present.
2. The hearings continued with Vivian Garcia Conover who read and distributed copies of a one-page statement on behalf of the Professional Staff Caucus to Faculty Council and President MacPhee. [Copy included in archive minutes.] The statement called for input from the professional staff as well as the teaching faculty early in the consultation process, prior to the formation of any plans. Penelope Deakin asked how final were the cuts to IRC. Vice President for Academic Affairs David Hess replied that he had looked at all operations within Academic Affairs, talked with his staff and decided where a severe hit could be withstood. He said that he had recommended to the president that this was an area where the college could reduce. President MacPhee said in reply to Conover's statement that he agreed with the thrust of a lot of it. He said further that over the past three years more than $3 million had been cut from the budget using a more traditional consultation process, but a different approach was needed this time; this cut is not another 'one-year' cut, but something substantial in scale and of continuing duration; it would be difficult to begin developing a plan like this in a public forum. He said that FC had approved criteria we would use in making reductions. The plan calls for not taking across-the-board cuts, maintaining high quality of instruction; it can be argued that we had a fair amount of agreement on the campus concerning how to cut budgets, albeit not in the context of a million-dollar cut. He said further that it is open to question how much information needs to be publicized in order to make an informed decisions. He said that FC and its Planning & Budget Committee decided several years ago that the consultation approach would be to have administration develop and submit a plan for criticism. Patrick Courts suggested we stop the rush for reorganization; any hurry for reorganization is an invitation for a tremendous amount of hostility. He suggested we try to figure out how much savings we can come up with now, without removing human beings from jobs; try to come as close to the $1 million as possible, to get through the short-term crisis. He advocated then looking at reorganization in a longer time frame, through Planning & Budget Committee in consultation with administration; this would allow people to get the information they need, and to understand the ideas in a reorganization plan which would not be oriented to short-term cuts only. He concluded hoping that reorganization could be done without costing jobs. Jefferson Westwood commented that we are being asked for our advice on budget cuts while we have not enough information to criticize the proposed plan; the level of detail in the budget presentations to us to date is not sufficient. He asked whether the present budget could be placed on reserve in Reed Library. MacPhee answered that there was no objection to disseminating the information already discussed, but at some point enough level of detail is reached, and more detail leads to micro-management of accounts. Westwood distributed copies of a memo to FC and the president in which he requested the original 1991-92 College Budget, the full 1992-93 College Budget, and financial statements for the 1990-91 fiscal year, all to include IFR as well as state-funded accounts. MacPhee responded that there is a limit to how much time to spend on ledger books in a 'committee of the whole'. Westwood stated that he would like to see the cuts made without anyone's loosing jobs, but if asked how else to do it, he would need further budget information. Randall Dipert stated that Vice President Burdette's presentation was informative, but he would not conclude that everyone needs to know great detail. He advocated for a situation where there are more knowledgeable, interested, persistent faculty who are informed about these details. He envisioned a faculty 'budget/IFR bulldog committee' who would persist in asking questions over years, and reporting to faculty. He said the faculty had not asked the pertinent questions in recent years, resulting in a lack of information that cannot be quickly remedied. Warner responded that there is such a committee of FC, Planning & Budget, which has recently been characterized as being superfluous; he asked Jane Romal to speak as a member of that committee. Romal said she agreed with that perception, and that the committee had not been asking the right questions all along; this crisis may prompt faculty to ask the right questions. She advocated that if positions are eliminated and new ones made, they should be filled by competitive process. She advised that it is not a good plan to reduce by attrition. She asked: Why is the deadline so short? Will faculty assume heavier workloads? Will Affirmative Action guidelines be followed? If quality of classroom instruction is a high priority, do we then want to eliminate IRC? Do we want a comprehensive program, or shall we concentrate on what we do best? Do we want a full range of management services, or can we do without some of these, with perhaps increased responsibility for shared management? MacPhee commented that we are planning early because we have recently not had budgets until it is too late to intelligently react to it or consult on it. He added that he wanted to be able to give adequate notification wherever personnel actions a were anticipated. Romal asked why, under the budget reduction plan, there would be 1.5 associate vice presidents in Academic Affairs rather than the present 1. (Question was not answered.) Karen Mills-Courts commented that it is unwise to reorganize in a crisis moment. She said that the reorganization comes nowhere near satisfying the cuts, and that the Comprehensive Institutional Plan does not seem to be satisfied by any of the recommendations. She said many believe we could give up research travel to give us time to put together a careful restructuring under the CIP, perhaps under a reconstituted Planning & Budget Committee. She said the impact of the budget reduction plan is greatest on women, who were not consulted. She said that two years ago there were four women in upper administration; the plan calls for 1.5. She said there are 90 male full professors, only three female; over 60 male associate professors, 14 female associates; most of the women are untenured and adjunct, and the plan will impact powerfully on them. She said Goal 3 of CIP is crucial to everyone: retaining females and minorities. She said this could be done, if we will look at other things we might give up. Allison Altobellis said students are concerned for female and minority faculty, those most likely to be cut. She said parents are asking what will happen with large budget cuts, will the college still be here. She said that last semester she received only two classes instead of the five she needed. She said there are now more super- seniors than ever before, since they often cannot get the necessary classes in four years but need at least an extra semester because of these problems. She pleaded for a solution that does not mean faculty cuts. She encouraged faculty to talk to their students about these proceedings, adding that they will be the ones most affected. Hess reiterated his remarks of January 27 saying that if the budget reduction plan were line-driven the following adverse consequences would occur: loss of young, new talent; loss of recent affirmative action gains; increase of class sizes; reduction in variety of classes available. He noted that the original budget reduction plan did not result in loss of any faculty, except one unfilled line. Constance Willeford, chair of Faculty Council's Planning & Budget Committee explained the composition of the committee, which is elected by peers within divisions in college. She said of the present thirteen members, five are female, all with voting rights. She said that P&B, and consequently females, had been consulted on the CIP as well as on reorganization. Joanne Martonis was concerned that females and minority would be first to be lost under the plan. Hess responded that any cuts should be governed by union contract; that within any area part-time and temporary must be cut first according to law; that many of the adjuncts, probably a majority, are females; and that this is beyond his control. He said that full-time tenure-track lines are what he is trying to protect. He stated that adjuncts have historically made important, crucial contributions, and that it bothers him to have to make cuts in this area at all. Mills-Courts stated that the Coalition on Women's Concerns does not question the motivation in the proposal, but that the consultative process is moving too quickly, jeopardizing affirmative action gains. She advocated slowing the project, while eliminating all luxuries, to provide more time for deliberate consultation. Warner commented that there is nothing more boring than committee work when nothing interesting is happening. He said that FC, and P&B have been characterized as futile. He asked the present deliberations proceed without denigrating those who have spent years of boring work on this. Kenneth Lucey said the chairs were concerned about the balance of responsibilities of the two proposed deans. He said if there is to be one dean for most of faculty, he will certainly need a full-time assistant. He said if the Director of General Education is preserved, it would make sense to put him under a dean. Hess responded that under the initial plan, he was concerned about assistants; but this is in the interest of leanness, to avoid cuts in other essential areas. Jere Wysong read a brief resolution from the department chairs: That the Administration be asked to justify the proposed division of labor between the Dean of Arts & Sciences and the Dean of Educational Studies. The chairs are specifically concerned with the imbalance in assignment that (1) this assignment of responsibilities is not cost-effective or efficient management, and (2) such an assignment of responsibilities will create problems of access to the Dean of Arts & Sciences for chairpersons, faculty and students. Conover asked whether it is a fact that if we give up travel, or whatever, that it will be gone forever. Burdette said not; future reallocation of scarce resources will be a campus decision; however, it would be difficult to reinstate travel if we do away with it. He said the college has several degrees of freedom as to how funds are allocated. Courts questioned the speed that has been designated, since we do not have a budget allocation to work with. He advocated solving the immediate crisis by giving up things other than human beings. Thomas Loughlin asked, from point of view of full-time untenured faculty, whether the college would expect him to do research and to travel in order to qualify for tenure. MacPhee answered that he would argue that the long term health of the institution is better served by looking to something other than these small pockets, like travel. Hess said as a faculty we value a well-balanced mix of teaching, research, and service; these are what the students will look at, too. John Hansen said he would get about $500 in chair's compensation next year under the plan, or $6 a week. He asked that consideration be given to providing chairs an option of $500 stipend or $500 in unlimited expense money; the same $500 cost to the college could provide greater than $500 in benefits to the recipient due to savings on income taxes. On another topic, Hansen said that under the administration's second proposal $66,000 would be saved by eliminating the line for chair of Business Admin, another $42,000 from the voluntary reduction of the AVP for Academic Planning, and another $45,000 from revising chair compensation, totaling $153,000 of the proposed $190,000 savings before considering reorganization. He questioned whether the remaining $40,000 savings could actually be obtained by the proposed reorganization; putting most of the departments under one dean may produce only quite small savings, and therefore may not be worthwhile in terms of the disruption it would cause. Hansen concluded saying that an educational institution can be viewed as a production process; in this process we are now asked to maintain the same level of output, while reducing input by $1 million; the only remaining parameter is the efficiency of the process itself. He said Administration is attempting to provide improvements in administrative efficiency, but without radical changes in structure as proposed in Hansen/Weist. He said that if, as the faculty seems to be saying, there is not much to be saved through the kind of reorganization proposed by Administration, all there is left is to improve the efficiency of instruction. He said one way to do this may be to shift from the student schedule model of five three-credit courses, to one of four four-credit courses, as commonly done at other institutions, perhaps even some within SUNY. He added that this may not be a good idea, but it may have to be done sooner or later in the interest of efficiency, especially if the future brings further reductions.
3. Warner asked for consensus to meet again on Monday, February 24, and again the following Monday, March 2.
4. Motion (Lee Broude/Thomas Rywick): that when today's meeting is adjourned it be adjourned to 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 19. Westwood spoke in opposition to the motion saying it would contradict the schedule to which FC was already committed.Motion was defeated.
5. Malinoski asked where photographic services will come from if they are lost through the cuts to IRC. He said that many thousands of dollars would be needed to replace these services from off-campus sources, and asked whether such money would be available, or would there be reduced expectations of service from Publications & Printing. Hess replied that there will be lower expectations - in many areas. Burdette added that we can no longer do more with less; we will have to do less. He said that Fredonia already ranked third worst in SUNY in regard to Other Than Personal Service (OTPS), 30% below par. He said that Academic Equipment Replacement (AER) had virtually come to a halt, after expenditure last year of $345,000 for all forms of equipment. He said replacement value for the equipment inventory is $20.6 million; and the turn over rate on equipment is approximately 50 years. William Jungels commented that the proposed IRC reduction does have an effect on students; donated teaching will be lost; and women will be lost. Malcolm Nelson asked whether there would be a March 2 meeting. Warner answered in the affirmative. Courts commented that we cannot continue to take away support services from younger faculty, then expect them to perform to present standards.
6. At 5:32 p.m. Warner declared the hearings adjourned to Monday, Feb. 24, at 4 p.m.
Thomas McNeil, College Senate Secretary