3.
Fo
-/3
TO:
?
Senate
FROM: Senate Committee on University Budget
DATE: December 4, 1979
RE: ?
Annual Report - For Information
MEMBERSHIP OF SCUB
.
.
1977/78
S.
Thontas (Chairperson)
F. Mackauer
M. Overholt
P. Buitenuis
K. Okuda
T.
Arrott
B. Hoiweg
R. Ghozali
A. Kazepides
J. Chase (Secretary, non-voting)
1978/79
J. Weinkam (Chairperson)
R.
Hobson
D. Moffett
S.
Luetzen
T.
Arrott
C.
Jones
J. Young
D.
MacMillan
S. Dawson
J. Chase (Secretary,
non-voting)
.
ANNUAL REPORT
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY BUDGET
(SCUB)
INTRODUCTION
Under the rules of Senate, the Senate Committee on University
Budget is required to prepare and submit an Annual Report. SCUB's
first Annual Report covered the period from the Committee's
establishment by Senate on 6 October 1975 to June 1976, inclusive;
the second report covered the period July 1976 through July
1977. Through a misunderstanding, no report was submitted in
1978 and thus this, SCUB's third Annual Report, covers the
period from July 1977 through July 1979.
•
?
?
This report will provide Senate with an overview of the
Committee's deliberations and actions and further reflections
on the Committee's role.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
In the period covered by this third report, the Committee has
held twenty-five meetings. In the course of these meetings, it
has reviewed the Capital Plan encompassing the period 1978/79
through 1981/82 as well as the updated plan for 1979/80 through
1982/83; it has reviewed and commented upon the budget for the
proposed Applied Clinical Psychology Program; it has reviewed
the 1977/78 revised budget application and the proposed
.
.
• "Minimum Three Year Planning Budget;" it has reviewed and provided
input on the proposed budgetary policies regarding equipment;
repairs and alterations; furniture; and carry-overs of operating
funds; it has reviewed in detail and provided input to the President
regarding the specific University Review Committee recommendations;
it has reviewed a set of historical comparative data on the
allocation of financial resources by line item category for Simon
Fraser University, the University of British Columbia and the
University of Victoria; it has monitored the "progress" in acquiring
a new central processing facility for the Computing Centre; it
has reviewed and commented upon proposals for increases in
undergraduate and graduate tuition rates; it has reviewed the
Universities Council Provincial Operating Grant Allocation Formula;
it has reviewed and commented upon allocation of potential savings
resulting from the AUCE strike; it has considered the adequacy
of support provided via Financial Aid; and it has reviewed and
commented upon the adequacy of operating budget support for the
University Library. Finally, the Committee requested and was
presented with a report indicating the extent to which new course
proposal forms submitted to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies has identified particular funding implications.
In addition to the above action-oriented items, the Senate
Committee on University Budget has also had discussions on the
following three issues. First, the roles and inter-relationships
of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate
Studies Committee, the Senate Committee on University Budget, the
Senate Committee on Academic Planning, Senate, the Bbard of Governors,
-3-
• ?
and the Universities Council. Second, discussion on the most
effective policies and procedures for assessing the financial
implications and assigning financial priorities to not only new
programs and courses but other items approved by Senate having
substantial budgetary implications. Third, identification of
an appropriate role for the Senate Committee on University Budget
to play in the Budgetary process.
In some cases, the Committee's reviews and deliberations
have led to the preparation of a specific written report and/or
recommendations which have been communicated directly to the
President. In other instances, informal communication with the
President, Academic Vice-President have served in lieu of written
submissions.
0
-4-
THE COMMITTEE'S ROLE IN BUDGET DELIBERATIONS
Since its inception, the Committee has been severely handicapped
by its inability to define a distinctive role for itself. As
noted in previous reports, the Committee has two major functions.
The first function is to offer advice and counsel to the President
on the development of the Operating and Capital grant requests
to the Universities Council. The second function is to offer
advise and counsel to the President on the development of the
Operating Budget, In each of the preceding four years, the
Committee has had an opportunity to review both Operating and
Capital Budget grant requests. However, lack of expertise in
budgetary matters, insufficient time to devote to the financial
complexities associated with a $50 million per annum operation,
the limited time available to the Committee for review and
analysis prior to Operating and Capital Budget grant request deadlines,
and continual changes in Committee membership have all converged
to make the stipulated tasks of the Committee onerous and
frustrating.
In a meeting with the Committee in February of this year,
the President suggested a number of areas in which the Committee
might play a useful role:
(1)
Input on Operating Budget grant requests to U.C.B.C.
(2)
Input on Capital Budget grant requests to U.C.B.C.
(3)
Exploration of ways in which to improve the efficiency of
University operations.
(4) Examination and
evaluation
of various
University
operations
where increased
operating
support is
desirable or
decreases can
be accommodated,
-5-
(5) Examination of the costs of proposed new programs and new
courses.
Since February, SCUB has had an opportunity to reflect upon
some of the President's suggestions and to act upon others. It
has come to the following conclusions. First, as a Committee
responsible to both the President and to Senate, SCUB has,
within its purview, examination of any issue with budgetary
implications. Such issues may or may not have been referred
to the Committee by the President.
Second, the Committee believes that it can serve most effectively
by dealing with specific questions or tasks. These could include
a cost assessment of a new program; a review of a specific
department or activity, e.g. the Library or Financial Aid; and
• ?
such other matters as may from time to time be appropriate for
review by a budget committee. As an aid in bringing such questions
to the Committee, it would be highly desirable that the Chairman
of SCUB meet with the President on a more regular basis.
Third, the Committee's usefulness will be enhanced if it
addresses issues with a longer time horizon. The budgetary
issues affecting this University are complex. They require a
substantial degree of analysis and evaluation before sufficient
understanding can be developed to comment realistically.
This suggests that commentary on operating 4pd capital
submissions and allocations should not be sought from the Committee.
The time constraints involved are too severe and the time horizon
too short to enable the Committee to offer knowledqeable comment
0
-6--
and recommendations which are useful to the budgetary process.
Finally, a budgetary committee will begin to operate
effectively when its collective membership acquires expertise
in and understanding of both the budgetary process and the
activities and services provided by the organizational units of
the University. Continuity of membership is important for these
objectives to be met. Unfortunately, SCUB has been continually
plagued by changes in its membership. These changes result
primarily because Senate terms of office expire on May 31st
while those of Senate committee members expire on September 30th.
Thus, Senate committees are faced with by-elections for the
period from June 1 to September 30 and then additional elections
for two year periods beginning October 1. The Committee
recognizes that there is no obvious solution to this problem.
It may be appropriate for the Registrar and the Senate Committee
on Agenda and Rules to give some further consideration to
alternative resolutions of this problem.
Notwithstanding the difficulties inherent in defining its own
role, the Senate Committee on University Budget also feels compelled
to comment upon the University's "planning process." There are
three inter-related concerns. First, there appears to be almost
no institutional planning of any kind taking place. The problems
associated with an absence of planning are becoming increasingly
apparent and are likely to be exacerbated during the decade of the
80's. During the 1950's, 60's and early 70
1 s, it was easy to
avoid planning and priority decisions because of the relative
r
'F
?
-7-
•
?
abundance of operating and capital funds. Moreover, the rapid and
substantial growth in students and faculty during this period
posed enormous problems of accommodation thus absorbing energies
and detracting from long term planning. This situation no longer
prevails. Second, even if all members of the University community
had some appreciation of the directions in which the University
was headed, there is as yet no noticeable integration of our
academic planning with our fiscal and capital planning. As
operating and capital funds have become increasingly constrained, we
have tried to maintain all of the activities, units and services
that we have' heretofore provided by giving everybody a little
less money. At no time have we come to grips with the
assignment of relative priorities to the activities and services
• provided by the University both relative to each other as well
as within each organizational unit. Nowhere has this absence
of priority planning been more apparent in the last year than
in the controversy, confusion and misrepresentation regarding
the adequacy of operating support for the Library.
The third subissue revolves around the relationship of the
role and functions to be performed by various committees of
the University including the Senate Undergraduate Studies
Committee, the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, the Senate
Committee on University Budget, the Senate Committee on Academic
Planning; as well as Senate, the Board of Governors, and the
Universities Council. Efficient and effective planning in all of
its many ramifications cannot take place if the roles and
0
-8-
responsibilities assigned to committees and individuals are
not clearly delineated.
We appreciate that the planning difficulties enumerated
above are complex and cannot be quickly resolved. However, we
are convinced that it is incumbent upon the University to
take some actions to begin the process of developing a more
rational planning process. While the impetus for this process
must emanate from and be sustained by the President and the Academic
and Administrative Vice-Presidents, we believe it is incumbent
upon all members of the University community to recognize that
the whole University will suffer if we are not successful in
our efforts to develop and present to the Universities Council,
government, and most importantly, to the public, a sense of
direction for Simon Fraser University and a plan by which that
direction will be achieved.
' ?
•.-
?
•/-
J.
Chairman
Weip]cam
Senate Committee on University Budget
JS:dw
