Faculty Council
Hearings on the Proposed Budget Reduction Plan for 1992-93
February 24, 1992
1. Faculty Council Chairperson Stephen Warner called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. with 77 present.
2. Warner explained that following the hearings Executive Committee of Faculty Council will provide a response to FC on the Budget Reduction Plan, after which a report may go forward from FC to the president. He said there was no intention that the Executive Committee will respond directly to the president or on behalf of FC. Richard Weist asked whether Executive Committee would generate a proposal for the next FC meeting. Warner answered that it would be more a response than a proposal, and it would be the business of the next FC meeting to make recommendations to the president. Weist said he had two proposals he wanted on the agenda. George Sebouhian asked whether the Executive Committee intended to make a presentation at the next meeting, and advised that we need to wait until we have sufficient input. Warner responded that the president had asked for a report for March 9, and Executive Committee agreed to do it. Peter Sinden expressed concern about the consultation process, which has led to some implicit separations that do not serve us well as a collegial whole. He said that both SUNY and CUNY chancellors are anticipating restoration of funding in better times, expressing an ambition that these changes do not have to be permanent. He advocated that Fredonia follow suit, using the new flexibility to give up dollars instead of positions, making minor modifications of what we do. He said his proposal [filed at the Feb. 17 hearing] assumes there will not be distinctions drawn about compensation levels between chairs. He advocated finding opportunities to make short term savings while taking more time to look at the hard things we may have to do in the future. He said that under the administration's proposal, $600,000 was identified as savings of the sort he would advocate; the other $480,000 was found by a series of dramatic reorganization proposals. He suggested that almost as much ($468,000) could be saved under his proposal, without any permanent layoffs. President Donald A.MacPhee responded that it would be a serious mistake to interpret the chancellor's appeal to the legislature as providing any hope for restoration. He said he felt that the present crisis is not short-term, and that the chancellor would not advise campuses to take short-term measures. He urged fighting for some legislative budget restoration. He said further that he had no particular lust for administrative reorganization; this is merely a way to minimize impact on direct instruction. He said we need to look at the tradeoffs required by the various proposals and determine whether the savings are real. Theodore Steinberg commented that many are grateful to administration for planning in advance, but in doing so they have complicated the budget issue with a dubious plan for reorganization. He said that the plan will not produce savings enough to compensate for the dislocation it will cause, and may not save any money at all, or may even cost more than the current administrative structure; shifting people from one position to another will not produce any savings worth talking about. Steinberg advocated that the current plan be scrapped since it pits the administration against the rest of the college. Appreciating the present consultation process, he called for a change to a shared decision-making process to replace it. He said it is not too late to make this change, but if we do not, we will be stuck with a plan that will leave many of us unhappy, and will not be effective in making the savings we need. He concluded saying that those most adversely affected by the administration's proposal are women and minorities; we cannot refer to the Comprehensive Institutional Plan as our model, then demolish it at every step of the process. Applause followed.
3. Motion (George Sebouhian/Patrick Courts): to show support for Steinberg's statement. Motion adopted by overwhelming majority. Discussion continued: Minda Rae Amiran said the administration's reorganization plan, at deans level, is not being proposed as administratively desirable, but to save cuts in teachers; however the savings claimed is $7000 in salaries, plus two adjunct sections which is not sufficient to justify the reorganization, particularly when the savings may not be as great as projected. She urged postponing further consideration of the dean- level reorganization, separating it from the immediate budget discussion.
4. Weist introduced a new plan, saying the earlier Hansen/Weist proposal was seen as too radical. [Two-page document dated 19 Feb 1992 was distributed, and is included in the archive minutes.] He described his plan as a slight modification of administration's Feb 6 plan, with the present dean structure to be maintained, and the Director for Educational studies to have the same standing as the Director for General Education as regards course loads and stipends. If assistants to deans are needed, they would work within the established structure. He noted that this organizational plan has been working already. Weist continued with a second proposal [accompanied by a one-page document dated Feb 21, 1992, included in archive minutes], for the retrenchment of the position of Associate Vice President for Academic Planning. He said that while it may be true that AVP for Academic Planning has had a useful and important role, it is also true that the president has available to him a FC committee for planning and budget, which could be utilized in a more proactive fashion. He said retrenching ALP for Academic Planning would save $42,000, $30,500 of which could be returned to Instructional Resources Center to support photographic services; the remaining $11,500 could augment the three-tier chair compensation plan proposed by administration. The three-tier plan he said makes sense, but it devalues the chairs who are important decision makers; any plan that makes their positions meaningless is a mistake. Weist proposed that the bottom salary for chairs be $1000 or $1500, noting that under administration's plan, assistants in Tier I will make more than chairs in Tier III. He concluded saying he would seek the necessary signatures to get his proposals on the Faculty Council agenda for March 9. Randall Dipert advised that FC and its Planning & Budget Committee have traditionally avoided targeting individuals to be retrenched, and that doing so may be unethical. Weist responded that the proposal could be worded more abstractly to "eliminate the level of Associate Vice Presidents." Karen Mills-Courts said she understood Steinberg's statement to suggest we set aside the restructuring part of the plan, which obscures our work on the budget. She said we have been faced with three problems: restructuring, budget, and the problem of consultation are before us. She urged focusing discussion on consultation and budget cuts. MacPhee responded that in the last three years Fredonia has cut approximately this amount from its budget incrementally. He said that if administrative restructring is set aside as a solution, it would lead to line-driven budget solutions; and it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to have open faculty discussion about personnel cuts. He said he could not participate in an open discussion of taking positions from departments. He added that a lot of time had been spent in the past two years on developing the principles expressed in the Institutional Plan. Steinberg commented that the Budget Reduction Plan is presented as a plan to save $7,000 through next year, but there are other possibilities. He suggested tenured faculty might forego travel money, though it should be retained for untenured faculty unless expectations are lowered for them. MacPhee replied that there are significant savings provided in the plan outside Academic Affairs, high level administrators that will disappear. He said that travel had already been reduced, but it should not be eliminated. Jefferson Westwood stated that we are already being asked for feedback on retrenchments. Colin Plaister said there are 69 professionals on campus, most of whom work across divisions. Cuts in these positions may affect the whole campus. Patrick Courts said that if things continue as projected with devastating cuts over the next few years, there will be program retrenchments; consequently, any kind of restructuring should position us to minimize that devastation. Constance Willeford said that as chair of Planning & Budget for the past two years, and a committee member for longer, she was in favor of retaining the position of ALP for Academic Planning since no volunteer faculty committee could develop something like the Comprehensive Institutional Plan; and such a plan is necessary for clearly spelling out the future of the college. Amiran clarified that the present discussion calls for postponement of only the portion of the proposal dealing with the reorganization of Academic Affairs and its deans; such postponement would allow full consideration of the proposed $1,050,000 budget cut. She stated that the president has consulted with the faculty extensively on principles, and that faculty is being consulted now on the plan already developed; but there is an intermediate level of consultation needed, between that on principals and that on the final plan. She spoke of a need for consultation on ranking faculty priorities. Jere Wysong commented on differences in the plan between the approach used in Academic Affairs (reorganizing/restructuring/retrenchment) and that used in Student Affairs and in Administration. He said the plan affects the work, and sometimes the rewards, of some thirty people in Academic Affairs; this is markedly different from the approach taken in Administration and in Student Affairs, where virtually no restructuring is called for, funding is being transferred from IFR's, and personal pain is largely avoided. He asked whether it might be possible to use in Academic Affairs, with its 38 IFR's, an approach like that used in Administration and Student Affairs. Wysong asked further whether reorganization as called for in Academic Affairs might be applicable to Administration and Student Affairs. He asked what the justification was for these different approaches. Burdette answered that the differences result from different needs. He said he was looking at reorganization within his offices, and giving up personnel as in the case of eliminating the office of College Services; in the Physical Plant one person will be given up; and some three positions would be off-loaded to IFR's. Wysong commented that Burdette's solutions and those of Student Affairs do not injure people in most cases, but in Academic Affairs this approach is not taken. Vice President Hess answered that Academic Affairs had been turning to IFR's for solutions for years, with several positions and partial positions. He continued saying that Academic Affairs will save much more than the $7,000 mentioned by Amiran. He concluded saying that IFR's are being used to fund full-time, half-time, part-time and adjunct positions, and practically the whole athletic department. Burdette added that we are becoming fee driven in the transition from state-funded to state-assisted. He showed overhead projections to discuss five IFR's in Academic Affairs: Continuing Education Credit Courses with annual revenue of approximately $275,000; Cont Ed Non-credit, $45,000; International Programs, $45,000; Summer Session, $275,000; and Experimental Programs, $140,000. Continuing Ed Credit account is being used currently to help support adjuncts, and faculty travel. The non-credit account helps support Sponsored Research. International Programs account is virtually entirely used for tuition expenses to the host institutions. Summer Session money goes for instruction and fringe benefits, academic computer support, and related program expenses. Experimental Programs revenue is currently paying for adjuncts, and will fund two full-time education faculty positions next year. All but the Continuing Ed Credit account are reliable for continuity, and all produce money for Academic Affairs. Colin Plaister commented that IRC cuts in photography will necessitate purchasing contract services from several different departments' budgets to replace the staff services lost. Burdette responded that we may not be able to do some things we presently do, or we may have to do them differently. Ronald Ambrosetti asked whether SUNY could look at reconfiguring FSA hotel, restaurant, bookstore, and convenience store operations as revenue streams for programs. Burdette responded doing so would add to the cost of books, food, etc. to the faculty, staff and students; we would not like to raise the cost of these services, especially in the light of anticipated further tuition increases. He noted that various summer programs have provided dorm and food service revenues to help reduce the annual costs of those operations. Leonard Faulk asked what vision we have for fund raising, what targets, and can departments work to provide future support for some positions. MacPhee answered that the new VP will be working on these very goals, utilizing his background in major gifts. Now we are beginning to make a transition to having the Foundation support programs, perhaps modifying the mission of the Foundation to provide a revenue stream that may be part of the solution. Hess we must look beyond the present budget reduction, look ahead to fall and spring teaching schedule, all the while anticipating another cut next year.MacPhee reminded the audience of his assumptions behind the plan: that a long-term, as opposed to short-term approach should be used; that we should be positioned for further reductions should that be necessary; that significant restoration of funding in the foreseeable future is doubtful; that OTPS cannot be looked to for solution; that a programmatic basis should be used for cuts, as opposed to across-the-board cuts; that impact on direct instruction be minimized, instead making cuts in indirect support services such as library, IRC, Computing Services, Student Services, maintenance, etc, based on the Institutional Plan. He said these priorities represent tough, even divisive choices; and he asked for faculty's views on these concepts.Burdette stated that the plan proposes giving up $140,000 in utilities; this means reducing 'end-of-year monies' traditionally produced by safety factors in the utilities budget which would be reduced to the absolute minimum; in the past these surpluses have been used to fund equipment, travel, computer supplies, etc. Harry Jacobson said that School of Music is concerned that under the proposed three-tier system, compensation for the department chairs is insufficient compared to the immensity of the job. Allison Altobellis advocated that all should consider what can be given up instead of what cannot be. She said some students are proposing radical ideas about salary cuts for administrators, etc. She advocated retaining adjuncts and the course sections they represent. Westwood asked where we expect to end up after the mid-year cuts to Fredonia's original appropriation. Burdette answered that $25.9 million was Fredonia's base budget as of last July, based on legislative allocation; we have lost $595,000 of that, due to the Governor's Deficit Reduction Plan, making the current operating budget about $25.3 million; the proposed $1,050,000 reduction comes off next year's base of $26.1 million (which is the old base of $25.9 million, plus adjustments for the library and for utilities inflation).
5. Chairperson Warner declared the hearing recessed at 5:30 p.m. in accordance with the published schedule, adding that the FC Executive Committee would gladly entertain any lists of priorities.
Thomas McNeil College Senate Secretary