Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8

For Information ?

S.97-14

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY BUDGET (SCUB)

Annual Report to Senate for 1996

This report covers the period September 1, 1995, to August 31, 1996 during

which SCUB met a total of 13 times. Members of SCUB during this time were Larry

Boland, Clyde Reed, Louis Peterson, Paul Percival, Phillip Winne, Kevin Hewett,

Joey Hanson, Barbara Naef, Valerie Dunsterville, Curtis Eaton, Owen Underhill,

Robin Dhir, Frank Karabotsos, Elaine Scharfe, Ralph Jhan, Katherine Whitbread and

Ian McAskill. Resource members were R. Ward (Vice-President Finance and

Administration) and W. Wattamaniuk (Secretary). Larry Boland served as chair of

SCUB until September 11th, 1996. The new Chair is Paul Percival.

Throughout the year SCUB received regular financial updates from the

Vice-President, Finance and Administration, who provided the Committee with

information on: the University's consultations with the Provincial Government;

progress on capital funding, renovations, equipment, and public works; outcomes

• of negotiations between the University and employee organizations; changes in

external regulations that affect University costs; financial difficulties facing

universities in other provinces; allocation of government funds to the University;

general information on the University's fiscal position; and explanations of how

the University's financial process works.

Further information on the University's fiscal management was provided to

• SCUB by the Chair who sat as a member on the President's Advisory Committee on

Priorities and Budget.

SCUB's major activity of the year commenced in January, 1996, when the

President requested that SCUB meet with the community on the 1996/97 Budget.

SCUB organized a series of four public meetings which offered a forum for all

members of the University community (faculty, staff, and students) to ask questions,

provide advice, and introduce new information into the planning process for the

1996/97 budget. Materials pertinent to these meetings were distributed to the

University community and included:

• Dear Colleague Letter from President Stubbs, January 18, 1996

• Deputy Minister Wouters' Letter

• Draft Mission and Vision Statements

• Gagan Memo on Planning for Budget Restructuring in 1996

• Sources of Continuity Paper

• Sources of Change Paper

• Budget Restructuring Guidelines

-2- ?

Each public meeting opened with a brief introduction from the Chair of

SCUB, followed by the Vice-President, Finance and Administration, who described

budget scenarios for 1996/97 and outlined interim budget measures in progress.

The Vice-President, Academic, then commented on the academic budget and on

his ideas regarding restructuring, continuity, and change. The remainder of the

meeting was an open forum for audience questions and dialogue.

SCUB used the information generated in these meetings to prepare a report

which was presented to the President on July 9, 1996, and which provided advice

and recommendations on the 1996/97 university budget. The report (see attached

letter from Larry Boland to the President) and the President's reply is attached.

Meetings held with individuals or groups:

• D. Gagan, Vice-President, Academic - October 4, 1995

• J

Stubbs, President - December 20, 1995

• D. Gagan, Vice-President, Academic - January 10, 1996

• M. Clarke, Executive Director, Development - February 7, 1996

• D. Gagan, Vice-President, Academic - March 27, 1996

• U. Gagan, Vice-President, Academic - May 29, 1996

Public meetings organized by SCUB on the University Budget:

• February 27, 1996, at SFU Burnaby

• March 1, 1996, at SFU Burnaby

• March 12, 1996, at SFU Burnaby

• March 20, 1996, at SFU Harbour Centre

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF

EcoNoMics

SLawrence A. Boland ?

tot

Burnaby, B.C.

Professor of Economics ?

John 0. Stubbs, President

Simon Fraser University

Dear President Stubbs,

The following are SCUB's observations concerning this year's budget planning

process and some recommendations concerning future budget considerations.

We note the following problems with the 1996-97 budget process:

(1)

Too

much reliance on Deans to the neglect of those below the Deans

In our discussions with you last December, we noted that that there was a

tendency on the part of your administration to rely on Deans as the sole avenue

for information concerning how faculty and staff at the department level are

dealingwith planned budget cuts such as occurred this Spring. Since each

Dean's priorities (perhaps rightfully) are often more within the interests of his

or her Faculty than with the interests of the University as a whole, we believe

that there is a need to broaden this process.

(2)

You

need some mechanism/body to balance against (1)

We suggest that you seek more timely advice from SCUB or alternatively from

a committee of senior faculty, perhaps the Joint-Faculty members of Senate to

obtain a different perspective on budget proposals than what you are likely to

obtain from the Deans.

We provide the following s

ecific suggestion for the 1997-98 budget process:

(3)

Hold meetings with homogeneous groups by their invitations, perhaps

having solicited their prior questions

Last year, with one exception, we held information meetings with various

Faculties at their invitations. This year we held only open meetings with none

held for any specific Faculty. For next year, we recommend that SCI.JB hold

meetings with specific groups with homogeneous interests. For example, the

Faculty Association, TSSU, APSA, CUPE, Student Society, etc. The meeting

would occur only if SCUB were invited. We also think that instead of the usual

Vice-President Finance show-and-tell that discussion be organized around

prior announced questions that the interest group wishes to consider. SCUB

can also hold one or two open meetings as we did this year. Perhaps the

invitationmeetings should be held in January so that there is sufficient time

for SCUB to have some input into the budget process rather than just

responding to decisions already made by PACOPAP.

page 2

The following are several observations concerning the budget creation process

and budget practices we discussed in our meetings:

(4)

Units should be discouraged from downloading their budget shortfalls onto

other units

As we noted last year at an open general meeting, it is always too tempting for

centralized service units to suggest that they start charging the various other

units for the services provided. Last year the suggestion made at the open

meeting was for Security to charge departments if they had to open a faculty

member's door. This year, it was modem charges. It was very clear in David

Gagan's open meeting concerning modem charges that those attending the

meeting from ACS (about half of those people attending the meeting) were all

too eager to have other units or faculty and students pay for the services of

ACS. As a member of SCUB noted several months ago, the costs of

administering inter-unit charges can sometime wildly exceed the costs of the

services. Moreover, as noted in a PACOPAB meeting, the experience at 'UBC

with audio-video services was that charging for them led to the creation of

intra-unit audio-video service providers. The point here is simply that there is

a need for centralized services and in most cases it is cheaper to have them

provided centrally than instituting charges that will encourage decentralized

service provisions. One suggestion is that SCUB might be directed to

investi g

ate what kind of centralized services there should be and how

adjustments to allocations to faculties might be made if currently decentralized

funds were retained centrally, to support university-wide services.

(5)

Budgetary implications of the interactive roles of graduate programs and

research programs

One of the items that stood out in this year of budget reductions is the

budgetary linkage between the undergraduate program and the graduate

program. Specifically, the undergraduate enrollment

centrally controlled but

the graduate

enrollment

is not. However, the financing of the graduate

program

dependent on the number of teaching assistantships which are in

turn dependent on the number of undergraduates. While we are not advocating

undue control of individual departments' policies concerning graduate

admission, there is some need for coordination.

(6)

Place

pro

ssioiwzl schools

Given the tendency to charge differential fees for professional programs, we

think some clear policy needs to be established concerning professional

programs. Some members of SCUB think this is particularly important since

SFU from the beginning has avoided professional schools. (The early exceptions

were only the PD? at the beginning and soon after the Executive MBA

program.)

(7)

We need to counter the negative press concerning the perceived workload of

university professors

We realize that it is difficult for the administration to deal with the

government when the public perception is that faculty members have an easy

job. We suggest that perhaps our media people need to either promote or

produce themselves a documentary to show how typical hardworking*

professors spend their days (* i.e., their 10- to 12-hour days dealing with

classes, students, committees, research, correspondence, etc. plus usually three

...\3

page 3

or more hours at home at the expense of their families).

(8) Open discussion

the "six principles that define SFU" that David Gagan is

proposing to promulgate

David told us at our June 3rd meeting that he is attempting to prepare a

statement of "six principles that define SFU" as a basis for administrative

guidelines. We welcome this proposal and suggest that these receive an open

discussion and criticism before they become guidelines. Moreover, we stand

ready to give explicit guidance about how decisions about budget allocations

would follow from these principles.

(9) The process of appointing committees that have implications for the budget

and more generally create constraints on the activities of faculty, staff and

students.

As we noted in our meeting with you a few weeks ago, it is troubling that so

many committees are being formed with membership appointed by one or two

administrators. The speculation on the part of SCUB is that too often such a

process leads to "safe" committees. We think that if such appointments are to

continue that more effort be given to appointing members who will likely be

constructively critical of administrative proposals. Again, when it comes to

questions of budget implications, we, SCUB, stand ready to provide

constructive criticism.

Some additional suggestions

5 ?

(10) Disincentives to Change

Budgets based on course enrollments (see PCUP Final Report, section 4.2) may

result in a too conservative approach to restructuring academic programs. For

example, elimination of a high enrollment but non-essential course might not

be proposed by a department which stands to lose a significant part of its

budget. Some mechanism must be found to protect (in the short term) the

resources of academic units willing to be innovative in the face of a need for

change.

(11) Disposition

Non-Recurring Funds

This year there was a marked contrast in the time and thought given to

consideration of the continuing budget and to the disposition of non-recurring

funds. Some of the non-recurring funds seemed to be hastily allocated. It was

recommend that the process used for adjudication of applications to the

Academic Enhancement Fund be used as a model for other types of

competition. Perhaps, the new procedures adopted recently by SCAP will go a

long way to meeting this recommendation.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

JOHN 0. STUBBS, D. Phil.

_____ ?

BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA \

5A 156

PRESIDENT AND VICE-CHANCELLOR

Telephone: (604) 291-4641

30,

Senate Committee on University Budget

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby BC V5A 1S6

• ?

Dear Dr. Percival,

lam writing in response to Professor Boland's letter of 9 July 1996 containing SCUB's

"observations concerning this year's budget planning process and some recommendations

concerning future budget considerations." As we agreed, that letter and this response will be

tabled with Senate. A copy of Professor Boland's letter is attached and I will respond to the

comments as per his letter.

We are making major efforts to broaden the channels for input on budgetary matters in

the current academic year. The work of Professor Heinrich's committee, contacts that

Professor Gagan and I have been having across the University and this year's work by

SCUB will, I believe, ensure that the entire University community has the opportunity to

be heard as we shape the 1997-98 budget and align it with our academic priorities.

2. ?

You and I have already discussed how SCUB will be more fully involved in a range of

activities that will bear on the budget for next year; Professor Gagan, Dr. Ward and I are

all available to meet with SCUB as you see fit.

We have also made the decision to wind down PACOPAB (the President's Advisory

Committee on Priorities and.Budget). I will seek budget advice from the

Vice-Presidents' and Deans' group, from SCUB itself and I will ask you, as Chair of

SCUB, to attend those Vice-Presidents' and Deans' group meetings that are focussed on

budget matters. This will ensure that SCUB is seen as a more independent agent in the

budget development process.

./2

Dr. Paul Percival, Chair, SCUB

October

30. 1996

Pa2e 2

1 think SCUB should discuss and determine how it will consult with the various members

of the University community and how it will involve Vice-Presidents and Deans. As the

Committee is advisory to the President, I do hope you will find ways of ensuring that

broad consultation does occur so SCUB's advice reflects the different views within our

community. I also believe it to be critical to continue the educative role of SCUB in the

community so that there is widespread understanding of the key components of the

University's revenues and expenditures. As an example, I would use the issue of tuition

revenues. For the period 1992/93 to 1995/96 we saw increases totalling 22.5%. In

1996/97 and again next year, tuition fee increases have been frozen and in the two years

following this we will be limited to increases which mirror inflation; perhaps 2-3% over a

two year period. Simply put, instead of seeing 22% over four years, we will be lucky to

see an increase of 2-3%. All of our decisions must be made in the context of this reality.

I think all would agree with the principle outlined here but it is never entirely

straightforward. In some cases it may be possible to do so and in most others it will not.

We should be guided by our academic priorities and be alert to the damage that can occur

if costs that are passed on affect such priorities. We also must recognise that it will be

very difficult to tell units to cut their budgets but not reduce services.

Professor Clayman, as Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice-President, Research, is

certainly alive to this issue and it has been raised many times with Professor Heinrich's

committee. I believe that we need to align more closely our resources for the support of

graduate students and the numbers of such students. There then follows questions about

the numbers of TAs that will be here to support our undergraduate teaching programs.

Here is an issue that must be faced in the near future. The advice of SCUB would be

welcomed.

I am not certain what the issue is here in terms of SCUB. I sense that such matters are

more properly the concern of SCAP and its various subcommittees.

I am not persuaded that the public perception about workload is a serious issue

particularly in a trimester university like SFU. There have been a number of national

studies done on this matter and then published and my sense is that it is not a matter of

major concern.

See the comments under #1. Such discussions are widespread in the University at the

moment.

Given the reactions to several documents currently under discussion in the University, I

believe that the proposals from any Committee -- however created -- will be collegially

and critically discussed in the community. In the end, however, we have to

.13

J^^

Stubbs

& Vice-Chancellor

• ?

Dr. Paul Percival, Chair, SCUB?

October 30. 1996

Pae3

move ahead and make decisions. SCUB should discuss the budget implications of any

committee's recommendations that involve major redirection or redistribution of

University resources.

10.

I look forward to the advice of Professor Heinrich's Committee on this and related

matters. I should also point out that the Vice-President, Academic is extremely interested

in finding ways to preserve historical equity in the distribution of resources and allowing

for Faculty level planning processes to determine the distribution of those resources.

11.

I will continue to look to the advice of the Vice-Presidents and Deans on the matter of the

allocation of non-recurring, one-time funds. They are best equipped (and charged with the

responsibility) to give advice on the use of these one-time funds. I look to SCUB for

advice primarily on macro matters which normally address the base operating budget of

the University.

This is a particularly challenging year as we await the outcomes of our own planning

processes which will pass through SCAP, Senate and the Board of Governors early in 1997

together with what I suspect will be a difficult fiscal environment. I hope that SCUB can provide

timely advice on the links between our academic priorities and our budgetary framework in the

new year. In particular, I will be looking to SCUB togive advice on how we manage what I fear

will be difficult trade-offs between our aspirations and our resources.

I look forward to working with SCUB this year and am ready, together with Drs. Gagan

and Ward, to be fully accessible to you and your Committee.

C: ?

I O.2\budgeAscub.doc