Facing Reality First | Faculty Senate | SIU

By Tom Guernsey, Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost 
(presentation given at the October 26, 1999, Annual Faculty Meeting)

Much of what I am going to say has been touched upon by Dr. Jackson in his remarks. Perhaps, however, I can place a slightly different perspective on the issues and focus only on Academic Affairs.

Strategic planning, and more importantly, strategic action, requires a clear statement of a mission, goals, measurable objectives and actions that lead us to those objectives. Meaningful strategic planning, however, also requires an assessment of existing resources and a realistic view of the potential additional resources that can be marshaled to meet those goals and objectives. Let's those of us within Academic Affairs face the reality of accomplishing this process.

The first reality: Given current budgetary constraints on the University, the risk we run in strategic planning is that all that happens is that we create a wish list followed by a statement that we need more money to accomplish a particular objective.

Meaningful strategic planning assumes a structure that allows the efficient use of resources. To have an efficient use of resources you need to have control over the resources and a data base that allows you to make rational plans and decisions about the allocation of those resources. We currently have neither effective control of our resources or the data upon which to make decisions.

A second and clearly related reality: The Provost's Office is bankrupt. I started the fiscal year as Provost $161,000 in debt. As I am sure each dean would be more than willing to tell you, my office has made no new financial commitments except those necessary to fill key positions (including new deans) and to distribute a small amount of Undergraduate Education dollars to cover emergency teaching needs in CoLA, CASA, MCMA, and COS.

The reasons for the lack of money are numerous. Clearly growth in unfunded mandates plays a role. Medicare and Social Security payments alone account for much of the deficit. But what is central to the problem is that for too long the Provost's office has been a conduit for money that goes out to the colleges without requiring adequate accountability for the funds and/or the ability to recover funds that are not being used consistent with the University' current priorities.

The clearest example of this lack of accountability is the experience we have had with funds designated for minority faculty recruitment. In FY 92 over $400,000 was available to recruit minority faculty. The money was used effectively to recruit faculty members. That money was transferred to the colleges on a recurring basis. Over time, through normal attrition, many of those faculty lines opened and are now filled with non-minority faculty. The money, however, despite its original purpose remains in the colleges.

Third reality: There is a current budget crisis. Aided by our lack of enrollment growth and our poor retention record, but primarily because of a decrease in tuition rates for out-of-state and international students, we have suffered a $2.8 million base budget reduction. That money has to come from somewhere. Cuts that totaled $1.8 million were made back in the spring. These cuts were made in a way that did not directly impact the colleges. They were made in centrally held accounts. That, however, still leaves $1.1 million. If we don't cut the base budget by that much this year, even assuming a constant enrollment, the base budget cut next year will be between $1.5 and $1.8 million. Let me repeat, that money has to come from somewhere.

Fourth reality: It is mostly irrelevant why we are in this shape. There is plenty of blame to go around -- central administration, colleges, faculty.

My favorite example of this fact, in addition to our experience with the minority recruitment money that we no longer control, is something that happened in the Faculty Senate just last year. I was not there, but I have confirmed this story with many who were. A Dean proposed to do away with a department. The department had 5 faculty members and 19 students. The Dean came to the Faculty Senate with a proposal to eliminate the department, moving the faculty to other departments. No faculty line would have been lost. No faculty member would lose a job. Immediately there would be a savings in equipment and other expenses. Long term, as people retired, those faculty lines could be reallocated to other pressing needs within the college. The Faculty Senate voted by a one vote margin against the proposal. One of the senators voting against the proposal was the chair of the department. The administration chose not to close the department. Here is as humane a proposal for internally reallocating resources as you can find and we still can't do it. As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy and he is us."

The fact is if we don't make major changes in the way we deal with our existing we'll just be in worse shape next year.

Premised on these four realities what follows is the proposed first two phases of what I believe must precede any meaningful long term strategic planning process. While clearly the short term and the near term can proceed concurrently, it seems unlikely that meaningful progress can be made on long term actions until these short and near term actions are taken.

Short Term Strategic Initiative (with 3 Goals)

Goal 1: Reorganize the Budgeting Process Within Academic Affairs To Allow More Effective Use of Existing Resources. Objective:

Provide the Provost with authority to move resources within Academic Affairs consistent with current University priorities, or

Adopt for individual Colleges a modification of the School of Law and School of Medicine model and identify those resources that will remain within a particular academic unit to use in an autonomous way such that the University center's contribution to that college is fixed by formula related to income and current general revenue.

Yes, this would be either position control in the Provost or a modified version of responsibility centered management.

Actions (4):

* Collect data on current use of existing resources, including salary, OTS, and space. 
* Conduct bench marking study to compare SIUC's use of resources to those of peer institutions. 
* Develop an open, participatory process by which Provost allocates Academic Affairs resources to the University's priorities, or in the alternative, develop an open, participatory process to identify those resources that will remain within a particular academic unit to use in an autonomous way. 
* Integrate assessment and program review into the budgetary process, rewarding programs that meet appropriate outcomes and strengthening or eliminating, depending on the University's priorities, programs that do not.

Goal 2: Reorganize Academic Affairs to Increase Provost's Ability to Lead the Academic Program While Increasing Coordination of Services to Students.

Objectives (3):

Create a Vice Chancellor for Research position and have that person lead the research mission of the University, while retaining a separate Graduate School Dean who reports to the Provost.

Transfer Admissions and Records to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

Change the title of the Provost to Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost to more clearly delineate the authority of the Provost.

Actions:

* Develop appropriate Board of Trustees documents to effectuate change.

Goal 3: Work To Insure a Constant Income Flow To The University Objectives (2):

Increase retention of students

Increase recruitment of students.

Actions:

* Retain a consultant to advise on a strategic plan for increased recruitment and retention of students.

* Continue work of the Council on Undergraduate Experience.

Near Term Strategic Initiative

Goal 1 (of 2): Rebuild the infrastructure for undergraduate education.

Objective 1 (of 4):

Through internal reallocation and new program dollars we must strengthen and expand existing academic programs where there is high student demand.

Actions:

* Make the University's first non-salary priority for state funding, an increase in OTS, including technology, sufficient to allow all departments on campus to increase quality delivery of undergraduate education.

* Increase resources, through internal reallocation in the short term and new funds in the long term to CASA and MCMA to allow them to take advantage of strong demand in aviation, information systems technology, architecture, and communications.

Objective 2:

Using reallocated and new program dollars, strengthen programs recognized on a national level as programs of excellence.

Action:

* Increase resources to such programs as creative writing, art and design, archaeology, aviation and communications.

Objective 3:

Build the core curriculum into a nationally recognized model of excellence.

Action:

* Through internal reallocation and new program dollars develop and fund.

Objective 4:

Commit to new programs only if they build on an existing strengths, have high student demand, clearly meet the Illinois Commitment, and facilitate the rebuilding of the existing infrastructure

Actions:

* Seek funding for new programs such as:

B.S. degree in Computer Engineering, 
Living learning environments such as Saluki Advantage, P-16 research center, 
Digital Communications, 
Writing Center, 
Equine center, 
Workforce Education, 
Information Technology.

Goal 2: Strengthen the Research Mission of the University.

Objectives:

Be in the top 10 of all Carnegie Research II Universities. 
Be nationally recognized as a center for creative and artistic activity. 
Provide a modern state-of-the-art technology environment for research and creative activity.

Actions:

Adopt the Indirect Cost Recovery Plan 
Create Vice Chancellor for Research position. 
Allocate increased resources from internal reallocation and new state dollars for additional start-up costs for faculty. 
Provide realistic teaching assignments for faculty who are productive researchers, scholars or creative artists, and for those who are not. 
Maintain accountability for internal research dollars. Make OTS, including technology, highest nonsalary RAMP priority.

I believe that without such fundamental change, we are destined to continue this cycle of frustration and cynicism that currently engulfs this campus. Indeed, I fear that to engage in extensive strategic planning and action without such fundamental change will increase those feelings.

Last update 11/01/99