I appreciate all the information we've received so far about the budget process.  However, after reading through all of it and attending as many of the budget hearings as I was able, it seems to me that there is an essential piece of information missing:  what is the total amount of money budgeted for each division, and what percentage does each division get of the total monetary pie?

We've been given vast charts of numbers and lengthy Powerpoint presentations, but, intentional or not, the overabundance of information seems to obscure the true financial situation rather than reveal it.  For example, the last budget meeting summary gives the following chart:

Requestor                        Total Requests
John Friedl                      $1,900,000
Richard MacDougall            193,000
Student Task Force             207,930
Steve Sloan                                    0
Bob Lyon                                       0
Bill Stacy                                        0
Richard Brown                    462,700
Total University               $2,763,630

Obviously these figures represent the requests for INCREASES in funds, not the total amount of money those divisions will receive, since we all know that Athletics, Development and the Chancellor's Office certainly must be receiving SOME money next year for their operations.  My question is exactly how much?  (In addition, the chart is deceptive because the Student Task Force is a new program, so the figure there is the total cost, not simply an increase over previous funding.) 

Could we please have a chart like the one above, but with the actual total amount that each division will potentially receive in next year's budget?  The chart above gives the appearance that almost 69% of the total money will be going to Academic Affairs, when (supposedly) the real figure is more like 43%.  If the budget process is truly transparent, we should be given the exact figures of the total allocations, NOT just the requested increases.

I would also be interested to know if the budget allocations could be broken down by function, rather than by division.  I seem to recall that some old budgets showed the bottom line figures for "Instruction," "Administration," "Research," etc., regardless of what administrative division or Vice Chancellor those costs fell under.  Don't we need to look seriously at how much we're spending for the various functions and try to get back to spending a larger percentage on instruction and a smaller percentage on administration?

Finally, an additional consideration in setting budget priorities should be what funds other than state money does each division have available?  I've heard some comments here and there about "soft money" and how it shouldn't count in our budget discussions, but I would argue that areas with vast amounts of soft money should not be siphoning off even more money from the "hard" budget (that is becoming harder and harder every year for most of us), and that those areas should not feel free to spend their soft money frivolously because they're assured of having essential areas covered by state monies.

If we're going to have a transparent process, let's make it truly transparent and put ALL the numbers out there for scrutiny.

Melissa Burchfield