The-Ave.US

Link here to Senate Blog.  Because the UW Senate Blog is published behind the UW firewall, those Ave readers can not directly access this public record.

As a service to the wider community, we will periodically, repost the blog here on the Ave.

This is a budget update as of February 9, 2011.  It’s focused on the Seattle campus since other campuses follow their own budget formulation procedures.

You’ve probably noticed the eerie quiet as we await the decisions from Olympia that will determine our state appropriation and tuition revenues for the next biennium.  When that happens the grinding of local budgets will start in earnest.  Even before that local planning is continuing along several fronts in anticipation of harder times to come.  A full spectrum of planning processes has been in progress since the first of the year.

Crafting the 2011-13 Budget: Academic Units

Interim Provost Lidstrom is receiving the last of the budget plans for 2011-13 from each of the deans.  They had been charged to plan strategically, to identify and enact all possible internal efficiencies, to develop specific scenarios for 5% and 10% net budget reductions, and above all, to protect the quality of our academic programs. All of the submissions will be posted on the web site of the Office of Planning and Budgeting, http://www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/, possibly as soon as the end of this week.  (The portfolio of plans will be enormous, so you may wish to take the time to see what is being proposed just for your unit.)

As specified in the Faculty Code, and with the urging for compliance by SCPB, deans were charged to engage in discussions with their faculty members and their elected Faculty Councils in developing their budget scenarios and plans.  SCPB will review and comment on the proposed major changes at an inter-unit level (it’s not our business to review the plans of the units separately).  In addition to discussing the programmatic changes we will assure ourselves that the genesis of each of the plans was consultative.

Administrative Efforts

Provost Lidstrom has also required 5% and 10% budget reduction scenarios from the leaders of each administrative unit.  These too will be posted at Planning and Budgeting’s web site.  SCPB is not directly involved in this effort except where administrative changes impact the quality of the academic program.

At the same time two other efforts are underway that may influence the upcoming budgets.  One Organizational Efficiency Initiative (OEI) (http://depts.washington.edu/oei/) is aimed at streamlining our internal processes, even if the payoff is a few years out.  Their plans will be reviewed at SCPB on February 28 after which I expect to post a report.  (I am on the OEI Steering Committee.)  The other effort is the strategic planning initiative described next.

Strategic Planning

The 2y2d strategic planning initiative is aimed at sorting through a set of priorities for the University in order to chart a path forward starting next year that is both strategic and based on sustainable sources of revenue. See http://www.washington.edu/discover/leadership/provost/initiatives/2y2d for more details.

The majority of our revenue is shifting (rapidly) from state apparition to tuition. Accordingly Interim Provost Lidstrom has been asking how our (anticipated) declining revenues can best used to sustain our obligations to teach students well and efficiently.  For example, it is thinkable that the balance of central support will shift towards strategically central and highly enrolled programs.  A lengthy list of possible options is under internal review and prioritization.  Once the consequences are clearer the Provost will bring the preferred options to SCPB and other advisory groups for review and discussion. The final funding decisions will—as always—be collaborative agreements made between the Provost and the deans and VPs.

Activity-Based Budgeting (ABB)

ABB is a method for directing tuition revenues directly to the units that teach and graduate students.  It is a tool for assuring that our highest commitments are sustained in the long term.  ABB described at http://www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/opb-abb.htm, though the page has not been updated recently to reflect changes in the program details.

Many people have asked about the status of the implementation of ABB.  Plans to implement ABB last fall were curtailed amidst the sudden disruptions in our funding as some of our state support was withdrawn during the summer.  Full implementation of ABB is now expected for the 2012 academic year that begins this autumn.  In the meantime, incremental revenue from increases in tuition is being apportioned to units on the basis of their recent teaching activity.

Legislative Discussions

Outside the University, another event to watch is the release of the February forecast of state revenues.  Selecting among the ugly options that confront the Legislature will then shift into higher gear.  The early word from our legislative representatives is that the value of higher education is being taken seriously in Olympia, but higher education may not be spared from deep cuts in order to address the growing and immediate needs of state citizens in these difficult times.

Please pay close attention to proposed changes in student financial aid (some of the best information appears in the UW Daily).  Also keep an eye on plans to allow the 4-year colleges to set their tuition rates (perhaps by program) and to provide access to higher education at modest cost through on-line academic programs.  I might add that two years ago the state agreed to protect higher education budgets when we accepted federal funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  These agreements expire as the new biennium opens.

Last week, I received this message from Prof. Brian Fabien, chair of the Faculty Council on Student Affairs:

“The Humans vs. Zombies Tag Game was an item of discussion at the Faculty Council on Student Affairs on 1 February 2011.  The council members agreed on the following:

1) This game is a reasonable and healthy student activity.
2) The game organizers should provide the wider campus community with advanced notice a few days before the game begins. (Perhaps with an ad in The Daily.)”

The same day, I heard from Lincoln Johnson, Associate Vice President for Student Life. He had met with the leaders of the Registered Student Organization that runs the Humans v. Zombies game. Afterwards, they sent him a detailed statement of their principles and the steps they’re taking to improve players’ adherence to the rules. They gave me permission to post that statement; I’ve linked it here.

The Faculty Senate met on Thursday 27 January.   The agenda is posted on the Senate website;  minutes will be posted after the next SEC meeting.  My remarks called Senators’ attention to January blog posts, and to needs and ways for Senators to communicate with constituents and SEC members to communicate with Senators. President Wise’s remarks focused on the state Legislative session (January-April) and the University’s requests (greater financial flexibility and commitment to reaching a level of per-student budget equal to the 60th percentile of peer universities in the “Global Challenge States”).

I summarized the actions that the Senate Executive Committee took on 10 January, regarding the report of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations on the relationship between charges of academic misconduct and the adjudication process.  See my earlier post about that report and the SEC actions. Senator Janelle Taylor (Arts & Sciences) read from a letter she had received that day from the American Association of University Professors, in response to an inquiry she had sent expressing concern about the way that the UW administration had handled a case involving findings of academic misconduct.  In that letter, Gregory Scholtz, AAUP’s Director of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, expressed his opinion that the relationship between the UW Handbook and Faculty Code is consistent with AAUP principles, but that the written statements of UW President Emmert did not seem to be in compliance with UW rules nor AAUP principles.

Discussion ensured.  Senators urged Senate leadership (me, vice chair Susan Astley, and Secretary Marcia Killien) to be clear and emphatic in our explanation of these findings to the current and next Presidents.  The Senate urged the SEC to develop specific interpretations of the relationships spelled out in the Report, to help guide faculty and administrators in the future.

The Secretary of the Faculty announced that the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs is seeking additional members.  Given how much Class A legislation (legislation for changes in the Faculty Code) originates in this Council, this is a great opportunity to shape the future of the Code.  Send names of potential nominees to the Secretary.

The two nominees for Faculty Senate vice chair (who would then serve as Senate chair in 2012-13 and chair of the SCPB in 2013-14) then addressed the Senate.  Senators will vote on the vice chair selection during the week of 28 Jan – 4 Feb.  Their written statements are posted online:  Jim Gregory (Professor of History) and Vandra Huber (Professor of Business Administration).

Note:  this is also online under Senate Chair’s remarks to UW’s Regents, but I’ll repeat this portion in order to get some comments, additions, or corrections from faculty or students.  Also see the recent Seattle Times article about the effects of cuts at UW:

We’ve sustained a lot of budget reduction so far – what have been the impacts on teaching, learning, and student outcomes? I’ll focus on instruction, even though many of the colleagues I represent are paid solely from research or clinical funds to run labs or care for patients. I’ve got seven quasi-“findings”:

1) For two years, the University has put temporary money (money that has no future, so to speak) into schools and colleges to retain Teaching Assistants despite budget cuts. This supports undergraduate instruction while also allowing graduate students to work in their fields rather than borrowing more money or working off-campus. This can’t continue forever – perhaps not even next year.

2) Nonetheless, the number of TAs has declined in some areas, resulting in fewer, larger sections, resulting in fewer writing and lab assignments. Separate from TAs, at the 400-level, usually accomplished without TAs, class sizes have often gone from 30-40 to 40-60, also resulting in fewer or different assignments.
This change in graded assignments is probably the clearest threat to quality and outcomes.
At the UW we focus outcomes assessment at the program or department level – since so many of our learning goals are program-specific. We want students to be able to write cogently; to ferret out, assess, and synthesize information; to understand major trends in understanding – but in specific fields, using the approaches and methods appropriate to that field. So our programs’ assessment of seniors’ capabilities, mandated by the University, occurs at the end of their programs. The faculty in each program will be watching to see whether there’s been any diminution of learning outcomes.

3) We are having trouble adequately staffing our writing and math/stats centers. We’ve managed to keep most of the writing and math centers open, but some have been shut down, and colleges and departments are having to rethink whether and how we can continue in the face of another roughly 10% cut.

4) Since we’ve let some of our Lecturers go, we have less teaching power: specific classes are offered less often, and some of our specialized courses are not being offered.
In some heavily enrolled programs, an introductory course might have been offered every quarter, or even at two different times in the same quarter – but now might be offered once a quarter, or once in two quarters out of the year. So, students have less flexibility, and it’s harder to accommodate courses around work schedules, extra-curricular activities, etc.
Specialized upper-division courses, not required for the major but important for students wanting to gain expertise in a particular subject, might be offered every other year – or might remain on the books, unoffered, until the department or school can hire a faculty member in that area after the retirement or departure of a given colleague.
I’ve heard students say that they’re taking a given upper-division course because they need an upper-division course in their department or program, but if they had access to more of the courses on the books, they would build their program of study differently.

5) Deans, chairs, and I have been impressed by how conscientiously our faculty have dealt with the changes. For example,

• Scott Freeman has been tracking student learning in introductory Biology and has data to show that it’s remained quite high despite higher class size.
• We’ve been using more internet-assisted classes in languages.
• We’ve been using clicker technology to keep large classes engaged.
• Our Psychology labs have begun using “virtual rats” instead of live rats.
• We’ve made changes in the way we approach the foreign language requirement, to reduce the need for actual courses.

6) Given the increased students and grading, some tenure-stream faculty members have less time to devote to important but less-measured parts of our roles: taking on senior honor thesis mentoring and supervision, serving on graduate admissions committees or curricular planning committees, writing really good letters of recommendation. I’ve just finished reading through more than 300 letters from colleagues – mainly at other institutions – on behalf of folks who’ve applied to my department’s graduate programs. I’ve noticed that many are shorter and less detailed than I have come to expect.

7) Looking ahead, individualized instruction is very expensive and under scrutiny. One might think – well, we can’t afford that right now. But individual instruction is required for mentoring advanced research, developing professional-level proficiency in a musical instrument, or teaching studio art.

How do we proceed?
In some situations, it will be up to each faculty member: do I take on that student for directed reading or independent study? Do I design assignments that are easier to grade, or design fewer assignments that reinforce multiple learning objectives?

Other decisions are collective. Our schools and colleges are asking which particularly expensive programs are so unique to the region or so important to the school’s reputation that they must be preserved, and what may have to go into abeyance. This is going to be tough, and the faculty leadership is trying to help by:

• providing more and more information and links to information;
• emphasizing that college, school, and campus faculty need to be a part of these programmatic decisions; and
• ensuring that appropriate processes are used as programmatic decisions are made.

The UW Board of Regents met on January 20th, as it usually does on the third Thursday of each month.  Agendas and materials for these meetings are posted several days before each meeting.

As Daron Anderson’s article in today’s UW Daily notes, “Renaming was the name of the game” during the meeting, as the board considered and approved:

• clarification of the naming of the Husky Ballpark;
• renaming the arena within the “Hec Ed” pavilion;
• naming a new greenhouse and wetlands center to be built at UW-Bothell;
• (discussion, without action taken) planning for the facilities and their naming in the proposed “Intellectual House.”

In addition to updates on the state budget from President Wise and Planning & Budget vice provost Paul Jenny (nothing was posted in the online agenda, but take a look at UW’s synopsis of the Governor’s proposal for the 2011-13 biennial capital and operating budgets), the President presented the newly announced President’s Medalists — a sophomore, junior, and senior who have had stunning success in their time at UW.

Today’s Seattle Times reports on a new contract for football coach Steve Sarkisian.  I will guess that this was the item discussed by the Regents’ Finance, Audit and Facilities Committee in executive session yesterday.

During the Academic & Student Affairs Committee meeting, Professor Susan Astley (who is also Faculty Senate vice chair) presented a chronological overview of the identification and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, which has been pioneered by three different UW students and faculty over the past four decades.

My remarks to the Regents focused briefly on how UW and other large public universities have approached the steady decline in state funding, suggesting that we take some time next year to review/assess our approaches;  then at more length, I presented my understanding of the effects of budget cuts on teaching and learning at UW.

I’ve heard and read lots of faculty interest in and concern over excited students running, hiding, jumping, and ambushing with fake weapons, as part of the game Humans vs. Zombies (see the Facebook page).

Today I’ve talked with John Vinson, UW Chief of Police;  Phil Hunt, Senior Advisor in the Student Activities Office;  and corresponded with Eric Godfrey, Vice Pres/Vice Provost for Student Life;  and Lincoln Johnson, Associate Vice President for Campus Life.

From Lincoln:

“Human v. Zombies Tag (HvZ) is a registered student organization with the Student Activities Office; they play their game outdoors throughout the year (the rules and timelines are set by students members in the group). Since the game is played outside [have folks been saying that things have been carried inside?], permission is not required, however, the student leaders have been proactive about outlining their rules with the hundreds of students who participate. You may recall their cooperation when they agreed to hold their game for two days when President Obama visited campus in late October 2010. I know that UWPD was appreciative of their short term truce. This seems to reflect their sensitivity to issues raised by the campus community.”

Lincoln Johnson and Phil Hunt each suggested that faculty let them know of their concerns, and that the Student Activities Office would develop and clarify more guidelines.

The Senate Executive Committee met on Monday late afternoon. I’ll report here on four items:

Faculty involvement in key budget and planning issues
I supplemented my written report to the SEC with an oral report that tried to sort out and relate the welter of budget and planning processes that are underway in Olympia and at the University, and the extent and nature of representative faculty involvement in each: the two state Supplemental Operating Budgets for the 2009-11 biennium; the state Operating Budget for 2011-13; the state Capital Budget; the University’s FY12 budget; “2y2d”; program evaluations; “sustainable academic business plan”; “ABB”; and others. Take a look.

State budget and policy updates
Interim President Wise and Planning & Budget vice provost Jenny provided info and answered questions about the state. Some high(?)lights:

• In one way, the Governor’s December proposal for the 2011-13 biennium calls for a 3% reduction in the sum of state General Fund and students’ tuition to the University. However, when one recognizes: that the budget proposal calls for a 3% salary reduction in all state agencies (excepting University faculty from getting salaries cut but decrementing the budgets by that 3% nonetheless); and that the University would probably not raise all tuition levels as much as the Governor proposes (the state determines resident undergraduate tuition – so all other tuitions levels are already pretty high) – then the reduced budget is 6.8%. That doesn’t even talk about the two-year reduction in General Fund support being 26% or 30%, depending on what you recognize.
• The Governor’s Higher Ed Task Force recommended that the Legislature pick a rate at which per-student higher education should be funded, based on coming just above the median of that rate at peer institutions. Then figure out how much of that the state can provide; then allow the institutions to charge tuition that moves the total per-student funding toward that target level. That’s a little different from “tuition-setting authority.” How different? Up to the beholder.

Candidates for Senate vice chair
The SEC approved the Nomination Committee’s selection of Jim Gregory (History) and Vandra Huber (Business) as nominees for the position of Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate in 2011-12 (and then Chair and then SCPB Chair). The Senate will vote on this position after the 27 January Senate meeting, at which the candidates will address the Senate.

Report on adjudication regarding cases of academic misconduct
Miceal Vaughan presented a report of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations (a.k.a. the “Code Cops”), requested by the SEC in November. The report, as circulated to the SEC, is available as Exhibit G in the SEC agenda materials. It may be revised slight by the Committee, and will soon be posted separately. See my next post.

At the 10 January 2011 meeting of the Senate Executive Committee (SEC), Miceal Vaughan presented a report of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations (a.k.a. the “Code Cops”), requested by the SEC in November. The report, as circulated to the SEC, is available as Exhibit G in the SEC agenda materials. It may be revised slightly by the Committee, and will soon be posted separately.

It’s a thorough and thoughtful report. Its findings include:

• “These stages of the proceedings are quite explicit and unambiguous in integrating the two parts of the Handbook: proceedings up to Code Section 25-72.D.2. are preliminary to those in Executive Order 61 [in the Handbook as Volume 4, Part 9, Ch. 1]; AND the inquiry and investigation under EO 61 are preliminary to those in Code Section 25-71.E.”
• “The foregoing account of the relations between Section 25-71 and EO 61 makes clear that a dean’s decision [regarding academic misconduct] is only preliminary to action taken by the Provost by means of the Adjudication procedures spelled out in Chapter 28 [of the Code].”
• “Faculty Code Section 28-61.D. requires the President to ‘include[e] specific findings as to why the decision of the Panel was arbitrary or capricious, or why the procedures followed by the panel in reaching its decision were materially and prejudicially unfair…’ when reversing or amending an adjudication decision. This clearly requires the justification to be more specific than a simple statement that in the President’s judgment the panel was, e.g., ‘arbitrary and capricious.’”
• “Any ‘disciplinary or punitive actions’ proposed by a dean that involves ‘dismissal, reduction of salary, or suspension for more than one quarter’ (Section 25-71.D) specifically requires the matter to be sent to the Provost (Section 25-71.E) for processing under Chapter 28. Any lesser punishment or discipline imposed by a dean or other administrative official which the faculty member does not accept also becomes subject to adjudicative review under Chapter 28 upon petition by the faculty member.”
• The report noted that a broader review is needed, and that both the Office of Scholarly Integrity (OSI) and the University Complaint Investigation and Resolution Office (UCIRO) have been formed since Chapter 28 was last rewritten. “If nothing else results from this review of the relations between Section 25-71 and EO 61, we recommend that the SEC go on record to require a thorough reconsideration of both these sections of the Handbook, and a concerted effort to regularize their underlying policies and procedures.”

The SEC formally accepted the report.

The SEC considered whether to develop a formal “interpretation” based on the report. The SEC ended up agreeing with Miceal Vaughan that the report was asked to cover too many issues to be the basis for a single “interpretation.” The report is clear and complete enough to stand on its own, accepted by the SEC.

The SEC formally requested the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs (FCFA) to conduct a review of the relevant portions of the Faculty Code and propose revisions based on that review.

The SEC directed the Senate Chair to invite the President (through her designees on FCFA) to participate in this review and make any amendments to EO 61 that might be needed to align these two parts of our guidelines.

Last month Governor Gregoire proposed a budget for the state and the University of Washington. A variety of her recommendations for higher education led to confusion over the past month. This blog entry has two parts. Part I is an attempt to clarify her proposal. Part II presents a few highlights of how the shaping of UW’s budget may unfold over the next few months.

The discussion here refers only to UW’s Core Education Budget (CEB) which funds the heart of the UW’s public mission, including most state-funded teaching and support personnel and their salaries. Last year the CEB was funded primarily by tuition (47%), a state appropriation (45%), and other funds (8%). The CEB was 23% of UW’s total $3.1B budget. The remainder consists of grants, contracts, services for fees (such as clinical charges) and other sundry costs which are largely committed to specific activities and cannot be reallocated. For a quick primer on the structure of UW’s 2010 budget see http://www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/pdf/slides/UWBudgetComposition.pdf.

For the sake of brevity I do not report on cost-saving measures presently under consideration within UW. Nonetheless, academic budget planning is getting started within the colleges, schools, and campuses. Preliminary proposals for 5% and 10% cuts will be presented to the Provost (and published on the web) in February. Administrative groups are starting to look at reductions our non-academic operations, including computing. In all of these cases there simply isn’t much to report at this time.

Part I. A clarification of the Governor’s proposed budget for UW: Highlights

The Governor’s proposed budget was released during fall finals week. Despite what the Governor said about UW sustaining only a 3% budget cut in her proposed budget of 15 December, the Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPB) has scrutinized the Governor’s proposal and reaches a less optimistic prediction.

In brief, OPB’s analysis shows that if the Governor’s budget is enacted in its current form then UW’s actual state general fund revenue will decrease 29%. Their best estimate is that the net decrease comparing tuition and state dollars biennium to biennium results in a decrease of 6.8% after allowed tuition increases. Salient features of the Governor’s budget follow.

• The Governor proposes that resident undergrad tuition will increase by 11% in each year of the biennium for a total tuition increase of 23%.
• While The Governor allows for the exemption of faculty from mandated 3% salary cuts, her proposed budget for UW includes a reduction of 3% on *all* budgeted positions including faculty. If this were to pass as written we would have to achieve salary savings by taking deeper cuts in other staff positions.
• The governor’s budget also includes a cut of 3% on all other fund types including research, but it is not yet clear how we would implement these cuts if the budget were passed as written.
• The Governor proposes a maximum state match of 6% to retirement contributions. If UW wants to continue to fully match 7.5 or 10% retirement contributions for its faculty it can do so with its internal funds.

Also of note:

• Non-resident tuition will also rise by an amount to be determined by the regents within their statutory authority. (The regents have the authority to set tuition rates for non-resident undergraduates and for resident and non-resident graduate and professional students.)
• Meanwhile increased ‘fixed’ costs (such as electrical power) will force our actual core education budget to effectively shrink by even more.

Part II. The shaping of our final budget: Highlights

• A lively and protracted legislative session is being predicted. The adoption of a state budget (and thus a firm UW budget) won’t happen until the March 15 revenue forecast at the earliest, but more likely as late as April 30. The Governor’s proposed budget of December is very likely to be extensively modified.
• There are early signs that the Legislature will seriously consider granting UW somewhat more extensive tuition-setting authority for resident undergraduates. However, such efforts ultimately failed in the last legislative session after lengthy discussions.
• UWB and UWT have independent budgets from UW Seattle. They will follow their own internal procedures for crafting their 2011-13 budgets.
• The final allocation of internal academic funds for the Seattle campus by the Provost will take into account advice from SCPB (http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsen/scpb/budget_principles.pdf) and budget scenarios (5% and 10% cuts) to be presented in February by each of the deans.
• Before that occurs, deans and chancellors, in consultation with the faculty advisory councils, will propose ways to absorb potential cuts in various ways with the advice of their elected Faculty Councils and governing organizations. The Provost will consult with each of the deans about their plans and consider them in crafting the final budget allocation after our biennial revenues are firm.
• Whatever UW’s 2011-13 final state and tuition revenues, our final budget must be fixed on May 2 (or so) for first consideration by the Regents at their normal May 12 meeting. So if the legislative session drags on then our 2011-13 final budget allocation proposal may be assembled very quickly. SCPB will be kept informed and invited to comment on the structure of the budget as soon and as often as possible.
• If it should turn out that academic programs, departments, or units are the be reorganized, consolidated, or eliminated then very structured “RCEP” procedures found in the Code (Section 26–41; http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH26.html#2641) will be followed rigorously throughout the decision process. The regents have the ultimate approval authority for any such measures.

Bruce Balick, SCPB Chair