~
University .Budget Committee
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
,TO:
UMKCChancellorGuyBailey
FROM:
UniversityBudgetCommittee
DATE:
March26,2007
RE:
Feedbackon Budget ModeLDiscussion Proposal. and UBC Responses
The following is asl,Jrnrnaryofsignificant cornrneI"11~,iqLJe'$~i()nsf;li)<:!~lJQgestions
received from various
Campus groups duringLJniversitYI3LJdgefQ()mrnitl~~("VI3G")fbrfr1glpresentations1 of the November 27,
2006 draft of the new budget m()del qiscussiQriprop6S81{the"prop()sal"),subsequent conversations and
informal meetings withvariotJs UMKC constitu~l1ts,gndWrittellgnci9raIColTlments received in response
to the February 12 reviseddrgftofthe PrgpQsal.Ih<::lqde'ciin/italicSf;ll1dbqldface
throughout the report
belowareUBC Respom;es to Whatvvebelieve lope all JI1at~rial.issl.lesjdentifiedin this feedback
gathering process.
I.
Overview of Feedback
As a general proposition, the Proposal has been well received, particularly with respect to its
transparency and our ongoing efforts to make the. key elements eql,litabfe, to create opportunities for all
units to obtain the resources needed to fund exceJlencein t~eir programs, and to provide the Chancellor
with avenues for exercises of discretion in targeting mission-enhancement incentives. Several excellent
questions were raised and suggestions made that have now been incorporated in the proposed model,
which we unanimously believe has been improved throughout this process and is now in a form with
inherent flexibility well-suited to UMKC'sneeds.
.
Several commentators have, however, expressed concerns, particularly regarding uncertainties in the
Proposal, such as: (i) how the Chancellor's Discretionary Funds allocations would work out for FYO8and
future years (and whether they will, in conjunction with other aspects of the model, adequately promote
the research, service, and teaching missions of the University); (ii) exactly how each unit's "Balanced
Scorecard" would be developed, implemented and evaluated; and (Hi)whether the decentralized
"Responsibility Center" approach embodied in the Proposal woulp exacerbate competition among UMKC
units for limited resources and lead to such actions as ~cademicunifs improperly "grabbing" tuitiongenerating courses from other academic units or seeking .to cut their costs by moving "in house" various
support functions that are currently handled by central administration units. Each of these three concerns
is addressed more fully below. These concerns are.reflective of reasonable anxiety over the unknown.
Ultimately, it will be critical that the ongoing monitoring and review processes we are suggesting in our
recommendation
include specified measures to evallJatF>.the
nerform::1nf'.e
of the moriel in
"r"-"q"-q"--"-"
the",e
..re..",
w~-~.
We are confident you will find widespread enthusiasm for working with and endeavoring to constantly
improve the proposed model, especially when contrasted with the lack of definition, systematic
approaches, and incentives in existing UMKC budgeting practices. The majority of feedback we received
supports this conclusion and was extremely helpful in allowing the USC to make progress toward its initial
charge. In contrast, some of the commentary (especially from one academic unit) was quite critical of the
model itself, the USC's composition, and even the need for change. A close examination by the
Committee of this latter feedback revealed that the responders were basing their thoughts on several
f"'lIlt\1
""""'lImnti,...n",
"""
'Aloll
,,<' ;n,..,...,..,..."I,..+,.. ..~,.j,..~~+,..~,.j;~,..~,..~
",
_,
1,..1
,- ,",- --- L___L""'<0.-.
1 Consistingbfpresentationsto.FaclJltY$el}ateTapre~entatiljeS(Nbv.2~);tlJa[)e~hs'
Council(Nov.30);
UMKCunit BudgetOfficers
(Dec.1); Faculty $enate as a whole (Dec. 5); theStaffCbuncii (Dec.:6);$tu(jeht Enrollment Management Team members (Dec. 6);
and Student Affairs (Jan. 22).
.
~
suqsequent communications, ahdth~ U~CrespC)n$~sto9dmmentsfromtheacademic units in Part II
below, will serve to assuagetheprincipalconc:erhsoflndi\fiduahunits,rnaking all units comfortable that
the model's refinernellt and adoption Will prbrndtelong;,term~quity~ndsound, mission-consistent
application of resources.
.
.
II.
II.
Feedback and UBC Responses in Detail
For .easeof reference, we have organized the discussion below under the subject headings of Part II
("Specifics of Budget Model") and Part III ("Coordination with Other Campus Initiatives") of the Proposal.
We may have already provided sufficient responses to some of the questions set forth below, and others
may implicate policy decisions beyond the scope of our charge. . We are ne~ertheless including such
items to make sure we note all material matters and to provide you and the Provost with some information
on policy issues identified through our input-gathering efforts.
;
A.
Responsibility Centers
:
.
Suggestedthat we ask "majorunit leaders"for suggestionson appropriate
Responsibilitycenters(RCs).
.
USC Response: The revised Proposal reflects all such input received to
date. The Committeebelieves this issue should be revisited year-to-year,
taking into account any changes in organizational designations and
responsibilities.
.
.
Why is there a Vice ChancellorRC only under Administration & Finance?
USC Response: The Proposal includes flexibility as organization
structures may change; so, again, we suggest ongoing monitoring. The
Proposal has a Responsibility Centers numbering system by "series"
(based on major divisions) to facilitate future changes.
.
Why is the Institute for Humanpevelopment treated as' a separate Responsibility
Center when other "Institutes" are not so treated in the Proposal? (The commenting
group noted that th~ IHD ~'hada very narrow focus" and suggested "that if the
purpose was to have a responsibilitycenter connected to urban engagement, it
should be a more broadly based approach emanating from the work of the Urban
Commission".)
.
~
USC Response: The Provost feels that the IHD, which has a budget of
over $4 million, merits treatment as a separate Responsibility Center and
the USC defers to the Provost on this point.
.
..
.
..
.
Feedback suggested thatwe clarify that while "C<:impusScholarship and Financial
Aid" may be an appropriate RC, the Sch(}ols/college must work closely with that
office on scholarship/waiver decisions because of related academic considerations
~
<
<
<
'
and financial consequences for these units. It was also suggested that UMKC be
careful riot to disrupt scholarship/waiver decisionsalreaqy made in recruiting and, in
general, foster collaboration toward improved flow of infdrmation between the
applicable administrative/support units and the Schools/College, and coordinate
academic unit input with initiatives being pursued by Mel:Tyler's office and an outside
consultant who has been engaged in that connection.
USC Response: The Vice Chancellor of Student ~ffairs and Enrollment
Management and the Provost should explain to all concerned that this is
an issue of communication as opposed to point bf decision re-allocation;
as Deans will have their budgets charged for scqolarships and waivers,
they want to have a clear understanding of how such decisions by central
administration are made and an opportunity for input.
.
We should also clarify that administrative/support units, i3s well as sales, service, and
auxiliary operations that fall unqer the authority o(one of the listed RCs, Will still be
accountable for the
operations.
USC Response:
iliffi.
.
partof that RC's annual Budget Presentation applicable to their
<
We added
,<
a note
in Appendix
1 to the Proposal
'
clarifying
A question was raised as to whether all of the Hospiti;illMiliprofessional school
operations should be separated from the other RCsin
~new
UMKC budget model.
USC Response:
This is obviously a policy issue with extremely significant
ramifications;
the USC is not recommending
(o~ exploring) separation at
this time.
!
B.
Initial Attribution of Revenues
1.
General Tuition
.
Does the tuition attribution model appropriately deal wi~h (1) study abroad situations (2)
cross-listed/interdisciplinary courses where instructors ~re from multiple units and (3)
identification
of the "home" unit when students have do~ble
majors or are pursuing
multiple degrees?
i
<
USC Response:
These have now been includei! as examples of flexibility
to work out special arrangements by adding la'lguage to the statement on
page 2 of Appendix 2 regarding such special airangements.
<:.
Suggested that we clarify in ADDendix 2 that the five exclusions listed in the second
bullet point
amounts
that from
go 100%
(and perhaps footnote
which
units are
those
are, aside
CE).to designated providers
:
<
USC Response: Appendix 2 has been revised to do this.
,
.
,
<
Should special treatment be given to revenues from the Applied Languages Institute?
USC Response:
This has been added to the Ii~t of exclusions from the
tuition attribution system, noting that special arrangements
with Penn
Valley Community College are under review.
'
i
i
I
3
~
.
This will be
.
.
.
.
.
4
~
.
0
0
b
6
.
..'
.
5
~
.
.
.
.
6
~
2.
Student Fees
.
Shouldn't Appendix 3
dollar amount cut-off
USC Response: Yes- (b) has been done.
.
.
.
3.
State Appropriation
.
.
7
~
adjustments
This includes,
Biological S
factor for the
data and feedback
separate school
"department" and that
.
.
.
8
~
.
.
.
.
9
~
10
~
4.
5.
.
Recovery F & A
.
..
.
.
Jessuggests .there are
'these questions. The USC
'ere studying the entire
at the Proposal would
ration and use of Recovery
with input from all affected
,ew budget model. The
'essuch a statement with
uent years. However,
including in the Proposal a
llows the approach
6.
'8
c.
1.
.
11
~
2.
.
.
.
.
12
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
~
.
USCResponse.
equivalent
UMKC
.
14
~
..
.
USC Response:
decision outsidl
3.
.
.
.
0
0
9
15
~
.
Ii
potential
.
UB.CRest>onse:
the Chancellor's
und~rsta,.,d;nsrtJ
determining the
D.
circumstance
Current Fund BcilancesPolicv
16
~
BudQetProcess Timetable
.
I
from past practice.
termandlong-term
we also understand
an expense budget
ate revenuesof the
need to consider (1)
questions and
of variouscompommts
issues in that regard
.
.
.
.
17
~
.
.
F.
Release of Funds Procedure
.
NO MATERIAL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
G.
.
USC Response: We have added
..
need for special planning for volatile items.
H.
III.
Financial Reports
.
NO MATERIAL COMMENTS/Q
in much detail during presentations).
COORDINATION WITH OTHER CAMPUS INITIATIVES
A.
.
B.
.
.
18
~
.
How?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The foregoing are what the UBC believes to have been the material
offered to date regarding the Proposal.
19
~
EXHIBIT A
Implementation Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
When will the review of the
the Proposalcommence?
20