Faculty Council
Hearings on the Proposed Budget Reduction Plan for 1992-93
March 2, 1992
1. Faculty Council Chairperson Stephen Warner called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. with some 35 persons present. He announced that President MacPhee was in a telephone conference concerning the budget and unable to be present at the hearing.
2. Allison Altobellis announced that next Tuesday there would be a rally/funeral for the college and SUNY, beginning with a march from the Campus Center at 12:15. She urged faculty participation and the wearing of black attire.
3. Questions began with Julius Paul asking Vice President Hess what his response was to the Peter Sinden proposal. Hess answered that he had not responded because cost analysis showed the proposal to be some $134,000 short of the necessary savings. He said he was not prepared to respond on the philosophy of the proposal since it did not appear fiscally feasible. Vice President David Burdette added that Sinden did not seem to want to go further with the proposal after discussions on the figures. Richard Reddy asked whether campus planning flexibility was impacted by recent Board of Trustees decisions reported in the media. Burdette responded that the flexibility of the campus to deal with dollars, as opposed to lines, is contained in the governor's budget proposal; the flexibility under consideration by the Trustees has to do with the next step forward. Jack Croxton asked how the administration's proposed dean structure, quite different from the present structure, was seen as superior. Hess said he had made the proposal based on the strengths of the present deans; Dean Rockett can handle a large number and variety of departments; Dean Foeller can contribute to the Vice President's office. He said he was seeking an effective solution given the staff available. He said there had been considerable campus disagreement on this, some of which shows lack of understanding of the issues. He said that the plan has to be tried and tested to see if it will work, then perhaps modified. Minda Rae Amiran asked why Hess would break up Continuing Education, Special Studies and International Studies, since this will not result in any savings beyond that of Dr. Hurtgen's dean stipend of $6,000, and actually only half of that since half comes from the Summer Session IFR. Hess replied that this was done only to save money, and that he would not change anything in the dean structure if we had sufficient money. He said that probably some of these things will not be done as effectively as in the past. Amiran argued that more money could be saved by leaving the dean structure alone and hiring a half-time Associate VP. Burdette said that when analyzing the savings in Administration's proposal, the current versus new assignment of the AVP for Academic Affairs must be considered; that the proposal is partly based on Dr. Mahoney's voluntary reduction; and that without that, the proposal would not be shaped as it is. Hess said that if Dean Foeller were to return to teaching in the Economics Department, $60,000 for salary would have to be found since his line was given up earlier, and an additional $60,000 would be needed for the dean position, and still the VP would be without the necessary assistance. Richard Weist asked why computer budget advising needed to be done by an Associate VP as proposed by Administration. Hess responded that this was not for purchasing advice, but for decisions in allocating computer resources, monitoring spending patterns, etc. Weist asked whether there might be ways to move these responsibilities to lower levels, closer to the action. Burdette responded that there are $1 million worth of needs in this area and only some $800,000 in resources; there is a continuing struggle to get the computing budget on a stable basis. Julius Paul asked for clarification on how the $7,000 spoken of by Steinberg and Amiran is regarded as $52,000 in savings by Administration. Burdette responded that Administration views this as a package including $7,000 for Dr. Hurtgen's dean stipend, plus $42,000 for Dr. Mahoney's half-salary, plus $3,000 in adjunct faculty savings, for a total of $52,000. Croxton asked for comparison of the present year's actual budget and its mid-year reduction, with next year's budget and the $1,050,000 reduction presently under discussion. Burdette explained that the current mid-year reduction of $595,000 was a lowering of the cash expenditure ceiling by the executive branch, not a reduction in the college's allocation, which is based on the legislated appropriation for SUNY. The million-dollar 1992-93 reduction is in the college's anticipated allocation. Much of the mid-year reduction was by means of one-time IFR account solutions that cannot be repeated because those accounts are now depleted. Hess added that there will probably be expenditure ceilings imposed below the 1992-93 allocation as well. He said that the college has been as creative as it can be with IFR solutions within the bounds of legality; but in any case, IFR's are not fully reliable sources of revenue. Thomas Rywick asked whether the 85/15 split in deans' responsibilities under Administration's proposal was a cause for concern. Hess answered that one dean could do the job of administering that many departments, faculty and students, and that he could certainly do it better with more help; the question is what to take away in order to provide that help. Rywick asked whether certain differential perspectives would be lost in not having deans with backgrounds specific to their areas of administration. Hess said he thought not; many colleges operate with a single-dean structure; and one gains the necessary perspective by studying the matter and working on it; successful administrators must learn to transcend their own disciplines, and to seek expert assistance when necessary. Jane Romal asked for comparison of the 1992-93 projected budget of $25.1 million against the 1991-92 budget as presently reduced to $25.3 million. Burdette responded that 91-92 began with a $25.9 million budget, which was reduced mid-year by $595,000, giving our present operating budget of $25.3 million; much of this reduction was accomplished by tapping years of accumulated fund balances in IFR's, along with unanticipated line vacancies, etc. He said the 92-93 budget begins with an allocation reduced by $1 million, permanently with virtually no hope of restoration, and that expenditure ceilings may well further reduce the operating budget. Randall Dipert commented that there are in fact several different reductions of $7,000, which do add up; but the faculty voted in support of the Steinberg position without even questioning which $7,000. Amiran suggested that if the plan is implemented, there should be an accounting of just how much money was actually spent on the functions taken away from the Dean for Liberal and Continuing Education. Weist asked why the AVP for Academic Planning would not be staying half-time in the Academic Affairs office. Hess said that would be a question for the president and for Dr. Mahoney, since that was their decision. Malcolm Nelson asked whether we were still operating under the assumption that no current administrators would be getting raises, in spite of the increases in their duties and elevations in their titles. Warner answered that he had been given the president's promise that there would be no raises. Hess agreed. Burdette added that the president had given his assurance that there would be no salary increases for administrators as a result of the proposed reorganization. Kenneth Lucey asked whether there is any evidence that the 'benchmark' methodology would keep Fredonia's cut to 4%. Burdette responded that he had just spoken with Bill Anslow, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business, the 'father of all benchmarking' who gave his assurance that there is probably one more year of life left in benchmarking. Under the benchmark model, Fredonia stands to benefit, keeping the college's cut somewhat lower than most of SUNY. This is to recognize that Fredonia has suffered disproportionately in the past. Hess added that Mr. Anslow expects next year will be just as bad as this year, and that we can count on further expenditure ceilings in the coming year. Croxton asked whether we can make some assumptions based on anticipated retirements. Burdette said yes, retirement incentives have helped in the past, but the campus lost money on the recent TIAA/CREF retirement incentives since the campus had to pay for these. Hess commented that last year's lag-pay will probably be returned as a result of court action; however, the lag-pay will probably have to be returned out of the operating budget. Paul Andrews asked whether there would be national searches for the positions created under the reorganization plan. Hess said that it was the president's intention eventually to have searches, national or local as appropriate, for the new positions; these will probably be filled in the interim with temporary appointments that may last a few years. Warner commented that the Bylaws are very clear on the requirements for search and affirmative action if the position becomes permanent. Lee Broude asked what Faculty Council will do with the material generated through this hearing process. Warner responded that the FC standing committees have all been asked to report to Executive Committee on the impact of the budget reduction proposal; Executive Committee will respond to FC on March 9, probably with some sort of summary. He said that ensuing FC recommendations to the president will not constitute the total weight of the consultation process, but a focusing of that weight; administration has been in attendance throughout the process which itself is an important part of the response. Broude followed up to ask whether FC's involvement were winding down. Warner replied that course schedules are going ahead now and other kinds of commitments must be made, consequently the president has requested a response following the March 9 FC meeting. Julius Paul asked if a TIAA/CREF retirement incentive program were to be paid from campus budget, where would that money come from. Burdette said he did not know; however the campus has the right to designate eligibility for such retirements. Julius Paul asked whether an unexpected loss of student enrollment would produce a loss in campus revenue. Burdette said we could encounter such problems, along with dorm use shortfalls, etc.; he said he expects aggressive recruiting campaigns and careful work in admissions will preclude serious problems of this sort. Altobellis asked whether a change in out of state tuition would affect Fredonia. Burdette answered that the impact would be minor since Fredonia traditionally has only about 3% out of state students. Burdette distributed copies of a report [included in the archive minutes] entitled "Comparison of Median Salaries of Management Confidential and Professional Staff at SUCF & National Sample of Colleges and Universities" by the Office of Institutional Studies. He cautioned against making an error by drawing comparisons with four- year colleges as distinct from comprehensive colleges such as Fredonia. Weist asked for similar figures comparing faculty salaries to administrators' salaries, which he said is the critical issue. Burdette answered that the present study was only of administrators' salaries, but that he would look into it. Hess concluded saying that there was never any intent in the Administration's proposals to devalue the duties of the chairs. He said that he had served as a chair for twelve years. He said that probably no one takes a chair position for the money, but rather for other values, since it does not pay much anyway.
4. Dr. Warner thanked the body for its positive tone, for its patience, and for its honest contribution. At 5:20 p.m., there being no one further to be recognized, he declared the hearings adjourned.
Thomas McNeil, College Senate Secretary