Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5

SCUB Membership:     

A. S. Arrott 

P. Buitenhuis 

J. F. Hutchinson 

J.P.M. Mackauer 

* K. Okuda 

N. J. Overholt 

B.J.F. Palmer 

S. Thomas 

* Chairman 

. ?

.

. ?

.

ANNUAL REPORT 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY BUDGET (SCUB) 

INTRODUCTION 

This second annual report of the Senate Committee on 

University Budget covers the period July, 1976 through July, 

1977. Following the format of the first report submitted to 

Senate at its meeting of August, 1976, this report will provide 

Senate with an overview of the Committee's deliberations and 

actions, the impact of its activities, and further reflections 

on the Committee's role in the preparation, submission, and 

allocation of the University budget. 

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 

In the period covered by the second report, the Committee 

has held twenty-one meetings. It has considered the impact of 

the 1976/77 operating budget allocations, reviewed the 1977/78 

operating budget submission to the Universities Council, examined 

the five year capital program, commented upon the allocation of 

"strike savings," and had an opportunity to discus 

,

s the 1978/79 

operating budget request to be submitted to the Universities 

Council. 

In July, 1976, the Committee met with the Dean of Arts, 

Science, Education, Interdisciplinary Studies, and Continuing 

Studies in order to assess the impact of the 1976/77 operating 

budget allocations. The Committee also discussed the 1977/78 

operating budget submission to the Universities Council with 

the President and the Vice-Presidents of the University. 

Discussion on the allocation of "strike savings" were rather 

extended. The Committee found the distribution acceptable after 

several modifications of the original proposal were made. It 

should be noted that the Committee was concerned only with the 

allocation by broad expenditure categories and not with the specific 

components of each category. 

After a discussion with 

Physical Plant and Planning o 

Capital Plan, the Committee a 

(now under construction), the 

and the classroom and office 

the Director of the Department of 

n the University's Five Year 

greed that the multi-purpose complex 

teaching and laboratory complex, 

complex require immediate implementation. 

I

?

- 2 - 

.

The Committee discussed with the President the budget 

incorporated in S.F.U.'s response to the Winegrd Report and 

recommended that the full planning proposal he reviewed, by 

the Senate Committee on Academic Planning. 

During the early months of 1977. the Committee's attention 

was focussed upon the impact of the Provincial Government .grant 

for 1977/78. Members of the Committee sat in on a meeting at 

which the Deans and the Academic Vice-President discussed areas 

where (fund) allocations could be reduced. The Committee, 

after several discussions with the President and the Academic 

Vice-President, agreed with the President that a twenty-five 

per cent fee increase was necessary in order to meet University 

requirements. The Committee's recommendations were subsequently 

reported to and were approved by Senate. 

Concern was felt by the Committee about its role and its 

relationship with the University Review Committee established 

• by the President. Following discussions with the President, it 

was agreed that the Committee would be kept informed of the 

Review Committee's activities by the SCUB member serving on 

the Review Committee. The Committee would be expected to analyze 

the report of the Review Committee and make its comments and 

recommendations 

In July, 1977, 

to the 

the

President.Committee 

?

reviewed the operating budget 

is

increases to be requested of the Universities Council and found 

the submission reasonable in view of the data available. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF SCUB'S ACTIVITIES 

Committee members gained greater familiarity with internal 

budgetary procedures and with the role of the Universities Council 

during its second year of operation. It has established and 

now maintains effective communication links with the President 

and the Vice-Presidents. Because no actions appear to have been 

taken on some of the Committee's recommendations submitted in 

March, 1976, these recommendations will be brought to the attention 

of the relevant task forces established by the University Review 

Committee. The pressure of work prevented the Committee from 

reviewing and reformulating, where appropriate, its original 

recommendations which dealt with budgetary matters. 

-3-

S ?

THE COMMITTEE'S ROLE IN BUDGET DELIBERATIONS 

As noted in its first report, 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 submissions to the Universities Council. The second 

function is to offer advice and counsel to the President on the 

development of the operating budget. During the period covered 

by this report, the Committee had an opportunity to review two 

operating budget requests to the Universities Council, namely 

those for 1977/78 and 1978/79. The Committee is concerned 

about the last minute rush to complete the submissions which 

make a reasonably detailed review extremely difficult. It is 

anticipated that the situation will improve with the recent 

appointment of a budget officer. 

The inability of the Committee to undertake full and 

detailed discUssions because of the urgency of meeting deadlines 

has been a source of considerable frustration. Meetings have 

had to be called on very short notice and often without the 

necessary documents being available in advance of the meeting. 

For example, the Committee did not have an opportunity to comment 

• ? 

upon the 1977/78 operating budget allocations until after Board 

of Governors approval had been secured. The detailed 1977/78 

operating budget was not available at the end of July, 1977. 

Although the deadlines are in some cases arbitrarily imposed 

upon the University from the outside, the Committee feels that 

submissions should be prepared with adequate lead time so that 

the Committee can meets its responsibilities. 

One area of interest to the Committee is actual expenditures 

by budget units. That information was first requested in the 

fall of 1976 and, again, in the spring of 1977, however, the 

material requested had not been received-at the time of the 

writing of this second annual report. 

As the end of the fiscal year approaches, there may be 

considerable under-expenditures in some areas; these funds 

are then reallocated. The Committee has requested the President 

to consult with the Committee when such reallocations are under 

discussion. 

One area of concern to the Committee is new programs that 

are proposed for Senate approval. Given a period of severe 

budget constraint, it is essential that a priority ordering 

be given to new programs. The Committee, while it does not 

welcome the task, may be forced to make recommendations in 

this area if no other committee should accept the restonsibility. 

.' ? 

-4-

The

year 

under review has been one of considerable 

activity for the Committee. Members have frequently commented 

about the difficulties of getting "behind" the data and the 

material presented with an attendant feeling of frustration. 

Perhaps this is the "human condition" faced by any committee 

charged with SCUB's responsibilities dealing with full-time 

administrators. 

.