To UTC Faculty and Staff:
In the week since I presented a proposal to the University Budget Committee
for the Academic Affairs budget for 2004-05, there has been a great deal of
discussion across the campus on Raven and in telephone calls, email and
letters to me and to Chancellor Stacy. For the most part I think this
discussion has been healthy. A good, strong debate on fiscal priorities for
this campus helps to inform everyone and it brings into focus the urgent
need to establish priorities for how we will deal with shrinking financial
support from the State of Tennessee.
Over the past year there have been many requests -- in some cases demands
-- for increased funding in certain areas of our budget. The most prominent
demand has been for increased salaries for faculty and staff, in the form
of both across-the-board raises and specific adjustments targeted at
perceived inequities in UTC's compensation structure. Other funding issues
in Academic Affairs have included the restoration of the $1.4 million in
faculty positions that were eliminated from our budget this year in
response to the 9% reduction in state funding, restoration of travel
support that was eliminated as part of the same reduction, funds for
equipment for classrooms, laboratories and faculty and staff offices,
increased support for library acquisitions, operating budgets for academic
departments and support units (which have remained static or declined over
the past decade), increases in compensation for our part-time adjunct
faculty, conversion of more adjunct faculty to full-time status, support
for graduate student assistantships, and, most recently, the proposed
adoption of an incentive pay plan that would divert University funds to
faculty who obtain extramural funding for grants and contracts.
In my presentation to the University Budget Committee, I addressed many of
these needs. Based on discussions among the faculty, the Deans Council
developed a list of priorities for new funding for Academic Affairs,
totaling $1.9 Million. I don't expect that amount of new funding to be
available next year, but when the Budget Committee determines the amount of
new money in the 2004-05 budget and the amount to be allocated to Academic
Affairs, we will have a prioritized list to guide us in how to spend it.
What has proven most controversial has not been the list of priorities I
presented to the Budget Committee, but the recommendation I made for a way
to increase the amount dedicated to our academic priorities by an internal
reallocation of funds already included in our budget. For those of you who
were not in attendance at the Budget Committee meeting last week, I believe
it may be helpful for me to explain my recommendation in more detail.
To begin with, next year's budget for the University includes a 0.9%
reduction in the State allocation (equal to $400,000), and a 2%
across-the-board raise which is required but not funded by the State. This
means that the University must find the funding source within its current
resources to pay for the raise, and each unit (including Academic Affairs)
must make some budget cuts to contribute to the overall $400,000 reduction.
Instructional units in Academic Affairs have been exempted from any further
cuts, but what are termed noninstructional units are not exempt. The share
that Academic Affairs must contribute to the $400,000 cut is $74,262, which
must come from noninstructional units, the largest of which are:
Institutional Research, Records and Registration, Advisement, Graduate
School, Financial Aid, and ADA requirements. In addition, there are three
units which are supported by Academic Affairs through subsidies to their
operating budgets: Cadek Conservatory, the Challenger Center, and the
Children's Center. More about those in a moment.
In addition to the $400,000 budget cut, Chancellor Stacy has requested that
$600,000 be reallocated from existing budgeted activities to instruction.
Half of this amount is to come from anticipated savings in our financial
aid expenditures resulting from the lottery scholarship program. The
remaining $300,000 must come from all noninstructional units on campus.
Again, the noninstructional programs in Academic Affairs must contribute
their share, which was determined to be $55,697.
In sum, I must come up with a plan to reduce the budgets of those
noninstructional units by a total of $129,959. The overwhelming majority of
the budgeted amount for each of those units is devoted to personnel --
administrators, secretaries and support staff: from the Provost and
Associate Provosts to academic advisers and financial aid counselors to the
people in our records office who provide transcripts and record grades for
our students.
This brings us to the three units I mentioned above. Each unit has a source
of income to provide partial support for its operations: Cadek Conservatory
charges a fee for music lessons; the Challenger Center charges a fee for
the educational services it provides to school children and teachers in
Hamilton County and beyond, and it receives grant funds from state and
federal agencies; the Children's Center charges a fee to parents who place
their children in day care at one of the two downtown schools where
services are provided.
In each case, the fees charged to those who use the services are inadequate
to cover the entire expense budget for the unit. In 2002-03 the Division of
Academic Affairs paid an additional $184,757 to support the Cadek
Conservatory, $145,347 for the Challenger Center, and $235,554 for the
Children's Center -- a total of $565,658. Let me briefly address issues
involving the support of each of these three units.
In the Cadek Conservatory, fees for private music lessons help cover the
cost of operating the conservatory, but there are administrative costs and
fringe benefits for some of the instructors that are not covered. In
addition, the University provides the use of the building and certain
musical instruments at no charge.
In the Challenger Center, school systems are charged a fee for educational
services provided to children and teachers, but those fees do not cover the
full cost of operations. In addition, the Challenger Center receives
funding from grant agencies. At the Budget Committee meeting last week Mr.
Patty, the Director of the Center, indicated that the Center is currently
in the middle of a multi-year grant from FIPSE totaling $961,000. However,
the funds from this grant are not being used to reduce the University's
subsidy. Instead, the University's contribution is being reallocated to a
holding account for the purpose of creating a fund to pay for construction
of an addition to the Challenger Center building. Last year $208,042 was
placed in this special account.
The Children's Center is different in some respects from the other two
units because it is more directly involved in the education of college
students. Majors in early childhood education and in certain related
disciplines use the Children's Center as a field placement to gain
essential experience in preparing for their careers as teachers and
counselors. Dean Tanner has assured me that the use of the Children's
Center as a teaching laboratory does not add in any way to the cost of
operating the two sites for the Children's Center.
The Children's Center serves 128 children at its two locations. Last year
the Children's Center brought in $645,206 in revenues, but had expenditures
of $880,760. The fees charged to the parents are not sufficient to support
the salaries, fringe benefits and operating expenses of the Children's
Center, and Academic Affairs must provide a subsidy of almost $2,000 per child.
For comparison, I investigated the situation at UT-Martin. Provost Tom
Rakes reported to me that Martin operates one such site serving 99
children. The expense budget is $272,186 plus approximately $68,000 in
fringe benefits, or a total of $340,232, at a net subsidy to academic
affairs of $97,698, or less than $1,000 per child.
My recommendation to the University Budget Committee was to terminate UTC's
support to the Challenger Center, terminate financial subsidies to Cadek
Conservatory (but continue to provide the building and instruments), and to
reduce by one-half the financial subsidy to the Children's Center. The
total savings projected for these moves would be $447,881, which would be
used to cover the required contribution of Academic Affairs to the budget
reallocations ($129,959), and would add $317,922 to the Academic Affairs
budget to be reallocated to other academic priorities.
Let me assure you that there is no hidden agenda in this recommendation. I
am not personally opposed to child care or music lessons or space
exploration. My wife and I raised six kids, all of whom benefited from
excellent pre-K child care, and I know how important it can be to concerned
parents to have the security of knowing that their children are in a safe,
nurturing and caring environment. As for music, I started taking piano
lessons at the age of four, and to this day music remains an important part
of my life. My wife for many years gave private music lessons to children
in the neighborhood.
Here is what I ask you to consider as you continue the debate over funding
priorities. Ever since I arrived here in 2002, the faculty and staff have
spoken out to express their concerns and to advocate for their preferred
programs and activities. In response, I have said on many occasions that we
cannot be all things to all people, and that we cannot do more with less.
My first year at UTC saw a significant budget cut, and we tried to continue
to support our academic activities at the same level. My second year, the
current year, has seen an even greater reduction in support, and we have
had to make painful cuts, particularly in the number of faculty positions
and in support for faculty and students such as travel and equipment. Next
year, even with a modest growth in enrollment and a significant tuition
increase, we will not see much growth in funding for Academic Affairs
beyond the salary increases to faculty and staff.
I have no personal stake one way or the other in my recommendation
regarding the Cadek Conservatory, the Challenger Center and the Children's
Center. I would not have suggested reducing support to those programs had I
not heard and believed the messages I have been receiving from faculty and
staff that their top priorities are for increased salaries and support for
academics. My recommendation, if adopted, will reallocate more than
$300,000 to those areas that you have identified as top priorities. It is
not my desire to see any one of these three units close -- on the contrary,
it is my hope that each will find other sources of support to continue its
operations as they exist today.
On the other hand, if the Budget Committee decides not to adopt this
recommendation, we will continue to provide the subsidies required to
maintain the operations of these three units. I have no problem with that
outcome. I would not view it as a personal defeat, any more than I would
see the reduction of funding to those programs as a personal victory. My
job is to see that Academic Affairs does the best it can to educate our
students, and I rely heavily on the advice and collective wisdom of the
faculty and staff on this campus to guide me in setting priorities. But I
ask that you recognize and acknowledge that continuing our support for
Cadek, Challenger and the Children's Center will result in less money
available for other needs.
I realize that this letter is far too long, but I thought it was important
to get accurate information out to you so that as the debate proceeds we
are all equally well informed. I invite everyone who is interested and
concerned to attend the meetings of the Budget Committee throughout the
rest of this semester and to make your feelings known to the members of the
Committee.
Sincerely,
John Friedl
John Friedl, Ph.D., J.D.
Provost and Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
102 Founders Hall, Dept. 5555
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
Phone: (423) 425-4633
Fax: (423) 756-5559
Email: [log in to unmask]
|
