DATE: November 2, 1998
TO: Senators
FROM: ECOS
RE: Budget Readjustment Plan
ECOS has obtained additional information regarding some of the items listed under
the heading "Identified Sources of Funds" on the document titled "FY99 Revenue Analysis"
distributed by V.P. Scott Cole at the Senate meetings of October 8th and 22nd.
The item labeled "Academic Equipment/Computing" refers to a fund created under terms
of two provisions in the "Four-Plus-Two-Year Plan" section of the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement. The 10/8 version of the document distributed to the Senate
showed that $500,000 was to be taken from that fund, leaving a balance of $104,000, to
which $300,000 was to be added from interest earnings, producing an ultimate fund
of $404,000. The 10/22 version shows that $200,000 of $304,200 is to be taken to
cover the budget shortfall, with the same net result, i.e., a fund of $404,200. The reason
for the difference between the two sets of numbers is that in the interim between
the two Senate meetings V.P. Cole discovered that $300,000 of the fund's nominal
balance of $604,200 had been used to cover a deficit in the fund carried over from the last
fiscal year.
"Credit Card Savings" refers to an estimated difference between the discount on tuition
and fees paid with bank charge cards and the discount amount budgeted. Like all
organizations which accept bank cards (VISA, MasterCard
, etc.) in payment, the University pays the company issuing the card a percentage
of the face value of the charge as a fee.
It is misleading to show $1,400,000 as the amount "Available" in the "Quality and
Access Pool". At least two-thirds of that money was spent for Fall Semester. The
current balance in the fund is not more than $368,696 and may be as little as $159,144,
depending upon what expenditures have been made but not yet posted. The Provost has
informed ECOS that he has a total of approximately $425,000--counting the entire
Quality and Access Pool amount--to cover requests from the Deans for additional funding
for the Spring Semester. From data supplied by the Provost ECOS calculates those requests
as totaling about twice the amount at the Provost's disposal ($853,816), with the
College of Arts and Sciences alone seeking $660,349. The requests may be revised
downward somewhat in view of the anticipated drop in Spring enrollment. ECOS was aware
prior to the October 22nd Senate meeting that there was disagreement in Main Hall
about the balance in the Quality and Access Pool, but we had not then had time to
get reliable information.
The item labeled "Executive Officer's Additional Allocation" is, in fact, simply an
additional amount to be recovered from existing allocations somehow, without saying
from where in the particular Executive Officer's budget the assessment is to come.
The amount shown as "Available" is actually the University's entire budget total for the
year. Clearly, the acceptability of this plan for resolving the budget shortfall
depends upon how that $320,694 is to be produced, especially the largest share of
it, the $221,760 assessed Academic Affairs. ECOS has requested that the Provost inform the
Committee of his plans for managing this cut as soon as they are reasonably firm.
We will pass that information on to the Senate when we receive it.