Proposal #44
Proposal Title: Savings Other than in Academic Programs
Anticipated Savings/Revenue: $8,950,00
Units affected: See proposal total -- many units affected
Impacted Degrees/Courses:
Brief Description of Proposal:
Outside/Inside Academic Affairs
Forget most of the so-called "literature" re downsizing and discontinuance. Those pieces tend to be self-serving and at times deceptive. Occasionally "principles" advanced are sensible and attractive, but applying these in particular instances requires a deep understanding of a specific institutional context. Think instead of a poem, or story, or article that has too much going on it and needs to be revised or reinvented (sometimes a 3rd, 4th, etc. time) in order to sharpen the focus and make its force that much more powerful.
A sound working principle when an institution confronts a massive budget reduction is to look first at areas outside Academic Affairs and areas within Academic Affairs distinct from academic programs while concurrently identifying academic programs that are of relatively poor quality (e.g., Social Work?) and whose content area is of relatively trivial significance (e.g., Family and Consumer Sciences, Apparel Design?). Another option, if CSU permits, is to identify academic programs that can be moved to self-support. [here the savings should be substantial.] The really hard work begins if savings focusing on these components of the institution are well short of the requisite budget reduction.
Very hard fiscal times call for ruthless, brutal measures. The excruciating painfulness of acting on all or many of the recommendations below is well-nigh inexpressible. Good VPs tend to be loyal to the people in their units: but again, very bad times call for very unpleasant measures.
OUTSIDE ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
This anonymous proposer submitted a proposal to UPAC re the need for the Development Office to become truly self-sustaining, a proposal that probably could yield up to $3.5 million in savings, or additional income for the institution. [This sum is included in the total for this proposal.] The savings would be greater if the positions of all College Relations Officers (except that of the College Relations Officer in Creative Arts, where a serious campaign is under way?) were eliminated. The yield in salary + benefits is estimated (conservatively?) as $400K.
It is widely known that CEL is a poorly functioning unit (and was even when the very capable former dean was here). Its staff should be cut severely. Even if salaries + benefits are not paid for via General Fund, it makes no sense for CEL to garner (is it?) 45% of revenues generated by Open University, earned by faculty in the colleges, which could make good use of the estimated $600K/yr. Savings on payment of salaries + benefits to eliminated CEL staff would ease the burden of paying rent for the Downtown Campus (roughly estimated savings of at least $300K). [Additional savings would accrue if we could rent a portion of the Downtown Center space to another entity.].
The very capable director of Academic Technology should become the University’s CIO. As many as 20 MPP and staff positions should be eliminated in DoIt, which has repeatedly proven to be colossally ineffective in delivering services it has for many years contended it would provide. Estimated savings of $2 million.
The staff of Human Resources has grown in recent years, but there is a prevailing belief that this unit has not been functioning any better than it had been and in certain respects has been functioning worse than it had been. Eliminating, say, 5/6 positions would save perhaps $400K.
It’s impossible for this anonymous proposer to know whether we are over-staffed in such areas as accounting, payroll, the Registrar’s Office, Enrollment Management, the library, the Bursar’s office, Fiscal Affairs, and UCorp. It is a fact of life that people in Academic Affairs must often expend much time and effort dealing with errors made by or unnecessary problems/obstacles caused by staff in some of these areas, which should be closely scrutinized for potential savings. Best guess is that some trimming of staff in some of these areas is in order and that the savings realized could amount to at least $150K.
No savings here: but the policy of Academic Affairs units being taxed by as much as 10% for services provided by certain of the aforementioned units for attending to financial transactions should be revisited. Should Academic Affairs units tax these other units for time and effort expended on correcting their errors? All of us at the University are carrying out our various responsibilities, and it feels somehow ethically repugnant for one unit at the University to tax another for services rendered when we are all in this together.
WITHIN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
For whatever reasons, CTFD has not been a major force for improving instructional effectiveness and promoting faculty development. Suspending CTFD as a unit within Academic Affairs for 2 - 3 years would perhaps yield an estimated $250K/yr.
One AVP position in Academic Affairs without a coherent portfolio of responsibilities would seem to be expendable. Estimated savings in salary + benefits of more than $150K.
OIP has become an unnecessarily large enterprise, and its growth has not yielded a sufficiently large revenue stream to justify the growth in staff. The University would suffer little if its staff were cut in half, or almost in half. Estimated savings in salaries and benefits of $500K.
The same might be said of ORSP, which seems to be much larger than it needs to be given the amount of "real" external grant funds received, persistent faculty complaints about ORSP services, the inclination of many faculty to partner with other institutions in grant projects in order to avoid dealing with ORSP, etc. Eliminating ten positions does not seem unreasonable. Estimated savings in salaries + benefits of $700K.
It is understood that when one talks about staff reductions, more recently hired staff members are often the most capable, and this makes carrying out several of the recommendations proposed above all the more difficult.
Note: Proposals are posted as submitted, without
editing other than to remove the submitter's contact information.
