University Planning Advisory Council

Image: Photos of SF State students and scenes from around campus

University Planning Advisory Council

Frequently Asked Questions


  1. Is UPAC’s membership representative of the university?

    UPAC members were all appointed by President Corrigan in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate in a manner modeled after the process used to appoint faculty to administrative search committees.  Members serve at-large and do not represent any particular constituency.  The Council is comprised of eleven (11) members, including 6 members of the faculty, a member of the staff, and 4 administrators, three of whom are deans.  During its first year, a student also sat on UPAC.  A complete membership list can be found at: http://www.sfsu.edu/~upac/council.html  Thus, while UPAC members do not represent particular units, the Council itself is broadly representative of the entire university.


  2. Why has UPAC focused its attention on restructuring the University?

    UPAC received proposals from the SF State community on cost-saving and revenue-generating measures, as well as ideas to re-envision the university as a stronger, leaner institution directed by its mission and values. While the Council has accepted proposals focusing outside of Academic Affairs, its charge focuses on looking within the unit.  Restructuring was prominently featured among proposals received and evidenced the most significant opportunities for savings.  Such proposals also have the possible benefit of furthering instructional and scholarly collaboration, and economizing resources. The council has prioritized these proposals, as they seek to reduce administrative infrastructure, which would help avoid further cuts to academic programs.


    Additionally, the Council is mindful of the restructuring that has been occurring without any planning through the arbitrary process of attrition.  As members of faculty and staff retire, budget cuts have not afforded the university with the opportunity to hire new faculty and staff to replace them. Some departments and colleges have borne the brunt of these impacts based solely on circumstance. The Council’s focus on restructuring also serves to address this matter.


  3. Is UPAC looking for savings in ways other than restructuring?

    Yes.  The Council will likely make several recommendations for  ways to reduce administrative costs both at the university and departmental levels.


  4. What is UPAC’s anticipated timeline for making a recommendation on restructuring to the President? When can I expect to see changes?

    The council anticipates making a recommendation on restructuring to President Corrigan before the end of the Fall 2010 semester.  If the council makes such a recommendation, President Corrigan could then propose the adoption of the recommendation or some modification.  The proposal would then be submitted to the effected faculty in the form of a referendum in the Spring 2011 semester.  The earliest that changes would go into effect would be the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester.


  5. UPAC has contended that a six-college structure would save the University over $1 million. If the budget shortfall is $18 million, why is UPAC spending time on $1 million in anticipated savings?

    Many have pointed out that the draft structure would not save enough money to solve our budget shortfall (which could be as high as $18 million). While that is true, we believe that a change to a six-college structure could save significant resources and would, at a minimum, decrease the amount of budget cut that might have to be absorbed within the academic program. Initially, the transition from eight to six would have long-term savings between one and two million dollars annually by eliminating six administrative positions (two deans, two associate deans, and two college development officers) -- perhaps 10% of the total we need to save. While it is true that current personnel would be likely to exercise retreat rights, the personnel costs of administration would be permanently reduced, representing over a million dollars in savings annually. UPAC is convinced that saving between one and two million dollars in administrative infrastructure would be superior to absorbing cuts of that size within the academic program.


    Additionally, a six-college structure would reduce the need for dedicated college support infrastructures in fiscal services, website and information technology, human resources, and communications and public relations, for additional long-term savings. These savings could be redirected to our core academic mission.


  6. I understand that the University faces an $18 million budget shortfall.  If UPAC’s estimate is accurate and the restructuring of the University into 6 colleges saves $1 million, we still face a dramatic shortfall.  How will the University address the remaining shortfall?

    In order to address the $18 million systemic shortfall in the University’s budget, the University continues to assess various means of cutting costs and saving funds.  Stringent spending and hiring controls remain in effect. SF State continues to be vigilant about filling vacancies.  UPAC has identified other possible areas of savings outside of Academic Affairs and expects to make recommendations in that regard.


    It is critically important to note that while the state’s budget for 2010-2011 represents an increase of $365.6 million over last year for the CSU, it does not address systemic underfunding for the system, which translates into a roughly $18 million shortfall for our campus alone. This systemic shortfall must be addressed and is the focus of UPAC’s efforts.


  7. UPAC has released 4 concepts for the consideration of the University community.  What is the rationale behind the concepts? What are the guiding principles?

    A complete statement on UPAC’s rationale and guiding principles can be found at: http://www.sfsu.edu/~upac/announcements.html


  8. Will restructuring effect the RTP process?

    The decision to grant tenure is an academic one, not a financial one.  Since retention, tenure, and promotion decisions are made based on the criteria established at the department level, college restructuring would not change RTP criteria.


  9. Would restructuring set off staff bumping of less-senior colleagues in other departments?

    UPAC has proceeded under the belief that our campus is understaffed due to the budget cuts experienced over the past 8 years and that savings we anticipate from college consolidation could be achieved without layoffs. Additionally, the savings garnered through restructuring might actually decrease the likelihood or severity of layoffs if we face budget reductions in the future.


  10. Will the proposed changes recommended by UPAC comply with existing collective bargaining agreements?

    Yes.


  11. Will the proposed changes recommended by UPAC comply with existing Academic Senate policy on academic reorganization?

    Yes.  UPAC and campus discussion is contributing the formation of an eventual proposal to restructure.  Once that proposal is formed and advanced, the Academic Senate policy on campus restructuring will be followed.


  12. I submitted a proposal to UPAC unrelated to college restructuring. What happened to my proposal?

    UPAC has received well over 100 proposals from the SF State community on cost-saving and revenue-generating measures, as well as ideas to re-envision the University as a stronger, leaner institution directed by its mission and values.  They can be reviewed at http://www.sfsu.edu/~upac/proposals.html. The full council will consider each and every proposal submitted to it. Many proposals have already been considered, and in some instances, forwarded to the appropriate party on campus for consideration.


    UPAC members are grateful for the tremendous insight and creativity that our campus community has exhibited as we search for ways to improve the University while confronting budgetary constraints. We continue to welcome additional proposals: http://www.sfsu.edu/~upac/rfp.html

 

 

 

SF State Home