Preliminary Report on
Factors Contributing to Increased Instructional and Academic Affairs Spending
Prepared by the Planning and Budgetary Council for Faculty Senate
December 6, 2011
The Charge
The Planning and Budgetary Council (PBC) received the following charge from Faculty Senate on
October 18, 2011:
The Planning and Budgetary Council (PBC) in consultation with the Academic Program Review
Council (APRC) of the Faculty Senate is charged to:

Examine factors that may have contributed to the increased instructional and
academic affairs spending between FY 2008 and FY 2011, including the following:
o Enrollment
o Curriculum
o Teaching load
o Instructional budget
o Overload/ad hoc
o Administrative appointments

Address the following questions relating to unbudgeted overload and ad hoc:
o What factors contribute to the long-standing reliance on unbudgeted ad hoc and
overload?
o What factors contributed to the growth of unbudgeted ad hoc expenditures
between FY 2008 and FY 2011 despite investment in new faculty lines?

Develop criteria for resource reallocation to help align our spending to our budget
authority and to make strategic investments in:
o programs and/or
o positions, and/or
o changes to practices
1
The associated timeline for this charge was the following:
Timeline
To ensure that our integrated planning process allows time for governance input and provide
recommendations to the Executive Budget Committee to allow for the Chancellor to make
decisions that impact the FY13 budget, recommendations must be delivered for approval by
Faculty Senate by December 6, 2011. A special meeting of the Faculty Senate will convene on
December 6 at 2:30pm to consider these recommendations.
Introductory Comments
A perusal of the charge and timeline reveals both the magnitude of the task and the limitation
of the timeline. The spending situation in question has developed over time and will require
thoughtful analysis and consideration. This effort will also require the support, cooperation,
and participation of faculty governance, departments and department chairs, and
administration.
The PBC has begun this process. The following data have been requested:
1. Number of degrees conferred by program for past ten years.
2. Number of majors and minors by program for past ten years.
3. Student credit hours by level (remedial, lower, upper and graduate) by program for the
past ten years.
4. The names and number of credits taught by ad hoc by discipline for 2009-2010 and
2010-2011.
5. The names and number of credits taught as overload by discipline for 2009-2010 and
2010-2011.
6. The names by discipline of all full time academic staff and part-time academic staff for
past two years.
7. Distance Learning (DL) information by discipline and load to determine who taught
during 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and what the related arrangements were:
a. Is the person regular tenured faculty and also teaching DL as part of load?
b. Is the person someone hired directly from outside the given department (but
approved by the department) by DL to teach?
c. Is the person someone from a given department or program who is teaching the
course(s) as an overload?
8. Payments made to faculty and staff members in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 by
semester, type and budgetary source.
2
The PBC has been receiving excellent support from LeAnn Brown and Jeff Kahler to provide the
requested data. These data are still being developed and will require additional time to fully
digest and analyze as they are received. Department data from 2008-2009 is difficult to develop
and examine due to reconfiguration and has to be looked at by program. Similarly, additional
data requests are anticipated as the PBC digs more deeply into questions posed by the charge.
Initial Analysis and Findings
The first data set analyzed was an FTE Yearly Report for the 2010-2011 academic year. This
report, by department, included: teaching faculty and staff (by name), course identification,
course credit hours (by semester), assigned credits, teaching load, student numbers, course
capacity, and course enrollment. The PBC decided to meet with each department chair (in
teams of two) to review these data for relative accuracy and to explore a series of questions
related to the charge. These questions are contained in Appendix A at the end of this report.
They focused, in particular, on these four factors from the charge: teaching load, instructional
budget, overload/ad hoc, and administrative appointments. The meetings were scheduled
between November 9 and November 21. The Chairs were very helpful and their participation
and cooperation is acknowledged.
Observations and findings from this initial analysis and series of meetings are as follows:
1. A major concern or theme is the lack of a budget process to guide departmental
decision making as a part of the overall integrated academic and institutional budgeting
and planning system
a. While there are several (possible) reasons for this, the issue is that there is not a
clear budget process for planning and organizing department business
i. The S & E budget, allocations, and budget process, in contrast, is fairly
clear
ii. The student work allocation budgets and budget process, in contrast, is
fairly clear
iii. The staffing budget and process is not clearly defined
b. There is not a clear budget tracking mechanism that is “user friendly”’ and
tracks what is “encumbered” to assist departments in budget-related decisions
across the semesters
3
2. Another theme that emerged is one of inconsistencies across departments
a. There needs to be more clarity in terms of departments’ instructional and
budgetary arrangements with Distance Learning
i. Some faulty/staff receive payment for teaching the same class
simultaneously on campus and on-line
ii. Assignments to teach Distance Learning courses are handled differently
across departments
1. Some faculty teach courses on overload
2. Some faculty and staff have complete or partial appointments and
compensation through Distance Learning
3. Some ad hoc staff are brought in to teach courses with complete
department involvement in the hiring and course content
4. Some ad hoc staff are brought in to teach courses with minimal or
no department input
b. Other areas of inconsistencies across departments that were identified include:
i. Process of determining class capacities
1. What factors are involved in the decision – room size, pedagogy,
etc.?
2. Are budgetary implications considered?
3. Who has final authority for the decision – faculty person,
department chair, or dean/provost?
ii. Process of determining reassignments for faculty
1. What factors are involved in the decision – accreditation,
scholarship, funded research, administrative needs, special
program-related activities, etc.?
2. Are budgetary implications considered?
3. Who has final authority for the decision – faculty person,
department chair, or dean/provost?
iii. Release time for chairs and financial implications
1. How is the proportion of load determined from department to
department – size of department, number of programs, numbers
of majors, etc.?
2. Are chairs actually taking or using release time?
3. Are new chairs expecting/taking release time if a previous chair
did not?
iv. Determination of load
1. Use of credit hours versus contact hours as a basis for load and
pay
4
2. Methods of determining how internships and field work credits
are counted with respect to load – noting that internships are
defined differently across departments
3. Whether academic staff carry 15 or 12 credits plus service (per
semester) as their load
v. Assignment of courses
1. Assignment of General Education courses to academic staff and
ad hoc rather than faculty
a. What factors are involved in the decision?
b. Are budgetary implications considered?
c. Who has final authority for the decision – faculty person,
department chair, or dean/provost?
2. Potential imbalance of credit hour production between faculty
and staff
c. Ironically, one consistent finding was that many faculty and staff carry extra load
(or overload) with no compensation
i. Examples include instruction, independent study, field work, etc.
3. Another theme was lack of education on the budget process (assuming there is a clear
and well-defined process operational at the department level) for old and new chairs
a. Chairs do not receive a complete budget with which to work while planning
schedules that includes all faculty and staff allocations
b. The actual allocations for faculty and staff lines may vary from those published in
the “Red Book Budget”
c. New chairs do not know the “budget process” and allocations
i. May assume that unfilled positions remain and fill them with ad hoc
ii. May assume they can hire additional ad hoc for their courses
d. Chairs may depend on ad hoc positions that are not in the budget
(“unbudgeted”)
i. A number of departments have recurring and regular ad hoc budgets due
to historical, staffing, and/or discipline-specific instructional needs
Recommendations and Next Steps
1. The PBC recommends that the timeline of the charge be extended to the Faculty Senate
meeting on April 17, 2012. The PBC is still digesting the information received, will be
receiving more information that has been requested, and anticipates requesting
additional information as its pursuit of the charge continues.
5
a. The PBC is currently seeking clarification on different aspects of academic
spending and clearly identifying “unbudgeted” ad hoc and overload
expenditures.
b. The PBC intends to expand the historical part of its analysis from the initial 20102011 academic year to include the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years as
specified in the charge.
c. The PBC intends to pursue more information and analysis related to the
enrollment and curriculum elements of the charge.
2. The PBC recommends that the institution continue to work toward implementing a
coherent budget process, particularly at the department level, as part of the integrated
institutional planning and budget process. This process should:
a. Directly and effectively involve department chairs.
b. Provide/include timely communication between chairs/departments and the
administration on the budget process.
c. Enable chairs and support staff to readily monitor budget expenditures and
status on an ongoing basis.
d. Include a formal process for determining reassignment of time.
e. Include background information and training for those involved in the budget
process.
3. The PBC recommends that this previously-outlined budget process include
a. Provision of information on current and previous years’ budgets.
b. A process for requesting a comprehensive annual budget – including faculty,
staff, and ad hoc allocations; student worker budgets; and S&E (including special
needs and approved initiatives).
c. Incorporation of the comprehensive budget into WEAVE.
d. Accountability for how the budgeted resources are spent.
4. Distance Learning has grown as an important component of instructional delivery at
UWS but the processes by which decisions are made related to staffing and budgeting
have not evolved in a coherent and consistent manner. The PBC recommends that a
clarification and integration process with respect to the instructional and budgetary
arrangements between Distance Learning and departments needs to be pursued. Items
to consider as part of this process include:
a. Determining how Distance Learning positions and teaching responsibilities can
and should be integrated within departments.
b. Defining processes for determining faculty needs and compensation with respect
to Distance Learning courses.
6
c. Involving the Provost in these arrangements so that there is a clear partnership
and understanding of how the two processes (departmental on campus and
Distance Learning courses) are working, interacting, and affecting each other.
5. The PBC recommends improved means for collecting, organizing, and accessing
academic and budgetary data at the program and department levels. The PBC has been
made very aware of this need as it has sought to acquire information in pursuit of its
charge.
6. The PBC recommends that budgeting and staffing processes be institutionalized to
provide stability and consistency during periods of “institutional churn” due to changes
in administration.
7
Appendix A
QUESTIONS FOR CHAIRS NOVEMBER 2011:
MEETING WITH PBC MEMBERS
REVIEW OF THE DATA SHEETS AND CORRECTIONS
1. For 2010-2011, which of these people were fulltime tenured or tenure-track faculty?
2. For 2010-2011 which are the permanent academic staff – full or part time
a. How are assignments made to the FTAS – 5 /5 courses or 4 plus/4plus _____?
3. For 2010-2011 which persons were the temporary ad hoc staff?
HIRING DURING 2010-2011 FOR 2011-2012:
4. During 10-11 did you have anyone retire or resign?
a. How many Tenure Track _____ FT Academic Staff _____
5. During the 10-11 year did you search for and hire any positions?
a. How many: Tenure Track _____ Academic Staff _____
6. How many hires for 11/12? Tenure track ____ Academic staff FT _____
7. How many of these hires were replacements and how many were new positions?
AD HOC ARRANGEMENTS
8. For what replacement arrangements for 2010-2011 did you have to have ad hoc
coverage?
a. Replace for Chair reassigned time
i. What % reassignment are you given as Chair? _____% each semester
ii. Did this chair reassignment create a need for you to teach overload?
b. Replacement for any 50/50 (administrative)? (how many)
c. Replacement for LAP DIN
d. Other permanent or temporary reassignments?
e. Did you need ad hoc staff to cover any of these situations?
i. Extra sections requested by Provost,
ii. Lost a faculty person, and not given permission to replace
iii. Lowering a cap created need for more sections
iv. Change to curriculum created a need for additional ad hoc
v. Sick leave or maternity leave coverage
8
vi. Sabbatical coverage
vii. Agreements with Provost Office for on-going ad hoc coverage (i.e., FNS
gets one ad hoc once a year. Period. Per agreement with Provost.)
viii. Other circumstances that created need for ad hoc?
9. What is your process for requesting ad hoc staff each year?
LOAD & OVERLOAD
10. Who/number in 2010-2011 teaching in DL as part of load?
11. Who/number in 2010-2011 teaching in DL on DL overload?
12. Did campus “buy-out” by DLC have any effect on department/program ability to offer on
campus courses?
13. Did this kind of buy-out then cover any replacement costs for the campus program?
14. Do you combine any on-campus online sections with a DL on line sections (on-paper
different sections but delivery is taught as one section)
a. How is this decided? By whom?
b. How is the load assigned to campus? To DL?
15. Do you have internships in your department?
a. How are credit loads determined for internship arrangements?
16. Do you have independent studies and how is load assigned for that?
REASSIGNMENTS
17. Do you have student research or other student projects that receive credit-load
assignments with them?
18. What is the process for deciding reassignments for other duties within the department?
19. Are faculty given reassigned time for their own research?
a. How much?
b. How often?
c. Who decides this and authorizes this in your department?
20. How are course caps set? Who decides and authorizes this in your department? What is
the process for this?
21. How typical is this 2010-11 year data?
9