Senate Budget Subcommittee Recommendations, Spring 2013
May 9, 2013
The Senate Budget Subcommittee has engaged in a year and a half-long consultation
process with SSU faculty regarding the development of core budgeting principles for
Academic Affairs, and the identification of key strategies for revenue generation and
cost reduction. Initial efforts were reported to the Academic Senate on May 12,
2012. During the 2012-2013 academic year, SBS conducted additional surveys and
workshops designed to identify what faculty saw as impediments and disincentives
that prevented them from pursuing revenue generation and cost-savings. Results of
these surveys were reported to the Academic Senate on February 21, 2013, with
subsequent presentations to the President’s Budget Advisory Committee, and the
Academic Coordinating Team meetings.
These wide-ranging discussions have returned three fundamental responses from
SSU faculty:
1) they remain deeply committed to quality education, as defined in terms of
curricular breadth, direct student engagement, and a clear liberal arts identity
for the university;
2) they frame most of their suggestions about revenue generation and cost
savings in terms of curricular innovation and development, rather than
reduction; and
3) as a group, they are significantly interested in becoming involved in resource
development and revenue generation on a broad scale, as long as these efforts
produce clear benefits to academic programs, the curriculum, and student
experience.
Based on these reports and the subsequent feedback and suggestions from all these
bodies, the Senate Budget Subcommittee forwards the following recommendations
to the Senate, to be implemented over the following (2013-2014) academic year:
1) Recommendation: That the SBS initiate a program of gathering comparative
data/ideas/best practices from other CSU campuses, related to addressing the
specific impediments and disincentives identified in the survey process.
1
Rationale: Many of the areas of difficulty identified by the SBS faculty surveys are
ones common to the CSU as a whole. The SBS would develop a targeted
questionnaire to circulate to other CSU campuses with comparable student bodies
and range of academic programs, to see how our sister campuses are addressing the
same issues. SBS would then compile the results, and provide this information to the
campus as part of the ongoing discussion about solutions and strategies.
2) Recommendation: That the SBS collaborate with other appropriate campus
offices and governance groups to sponsor a year-long series of informational
events around development, grants and contracts, university budgeting
practices, and other relevant areas identified in the survey as requiring either
greater transparency, more accessible information or both. This effort should
include the production of a “Budget FAQ” document, and a 1-page campus
budget spreadsheet or “dashboard”, to support campus discussion.
Rationale: This year’s survey work identified key areas of interest among faculty in
both revenue generation and cost reduction. However, faculty also expressed a
consistent lack of information about how to get involved in such activities, as well as
a need for information about the basic budgeting processes of the university, in a
format that is both accessible, and timely (especially around the increasingly
accelerated scheduling calendar). SBS has talked to the Professional Development
Subcommittee, the Faculty Subcommittee on Sponsored Programs, the Office of
Research and Sponsored Programs, the Development Office, and the President’s
Budget Advisory Committee about conducting a series of workshops and other
events aimed at meeting this demand. This would support and expand efforts
already being made by many of these offices, and help publicize the opportunities
available.
3) Recommendation: That faculty governance leadership work directly with the
Provost and the CFO to identify specific local options for resolving specific local
(SSU campus) impediments and disincentives.
Rationale: The survey results clearly indicate that the negative effects of the
identified impediments and disincentives on resource development and revenue
generation efforts are a campus-wide phenomena. Resolving these problems will
require an articulated approach across both the divisions of Academic Affairs and
Administration and Finance. Faculty governance should work with the Provost and
the CFO to identify what the specific problems are, and to develop a series of
2
recommended steps for resolving or ameliorating these effects. This will also
provide administrators with clear information and rationales in their efforts to push
for policy changes at the system level.
4) Recommendation: That the Academic Planning Committee work with the
School of Extended and International Education to create a permanent Council
of Department Chairs-like advisory body for SEIE, to provide better (more
timely and more relevant) faculty involvement in curriculum development in
that school. Faculty chosen to serve on this body should have some direct
connection to programs or courses offered through Extended and International
Education.
Rationale: Survey results consistently identified two factors relating to current
perceptions of SEIE: 1) strong faculty interest in using SEIE to generate revenue,
especially by attracting students from outside our traditional student demographic,
and 2) strong faculty reluctance to attempt course or program development under
the current SEIE operational procedures. The Academic Planning Committee is
already developing a set of guidelines for course and program development in
collaboration with SEIE. This recommendation would broaden that charge to
include development of a faculty curriculum advisory group for the school. This
group could work together with SEIE staff to improve information flow between
existing departments and programs and the school, to trouble-shoot potential
difficulties, and to improve overall perception of the feasibility of program
development through SEIE.
3