University Times

A presentation on the University’s budget request and related state government issues dominated the Senate budget policies committee’s first meeting of the new academic year (see related story, this issue), but several issues from last year will be revisited in upcoming BPC business.

• BPC chair John J. Baker reported on the issue of receiving detailed University financial information for the committee’s review. BPC has sought to review the University’s attribution report, which attributes revenues and expenses to the University’s academic units and other responsibility centers. (See Dec. 4, 2008, University Times.)

However, the University administration has questioned the relevance of the document for BPC’s purposes, and has balked at its public release. (See March 5, 2009, University Times.) BPC has discussed options for some substitute information.

Baker said he had raised the issue of a substitute report with Provost Patricia Beeson and hopes for progress this fall.

Pro tem member Phil Wion raised the question of having a more detailed review of the athletics budget that at one time had been brought to the committee as part of the attribution study. “For a number of years it was made public through this committee,” Wion said, noting that ceased about three years ago. “I always thought it was to the advantage of the University to show that unlike many institutions the revenue sports were making a profit and helping subsidize other collegiate sports, and therefore the general funds were not as heavily impacted by those sports,” Wion said. “Presumably somebody doesn’t agree that making that kind of information public is to the advantage of the University because that hasn’t been happening.”

Baker noted that some information on that budget is included in reports the University submits to the state.

Wion argued that the attribution study provided a more detailed analysis. “That was a fuller, more accurate, more formal set of data,” Wion said, noting that the reports demonstrated the University’s efficiency and good management in an often-criticized area. “Athletic programs generally in higher education get a bad rap — and probably it’s mostly deserved at most institutions — but I think we’ve done well, and to show that was an advantage.”

• BPC requested the Office of Budget and Controller again include salary appeal process questions as part of its survey of University units’ compliance with planning and budgeting system requirements.

The budget office, at BPC’s request, polls University units on issues related to the planning and budgeting process. In last year’s survey, units were asked whether they have a process by which employees can appeal salary increases and whether employees are informed about that process. Responses indicated widespread but not universal compliance. (See June 11, 2009, University Times.)

• In new business, Baker announced the need for a new co-secretary to replace committee member Barbara Warnick who, he said, has a conflict with BPC’s meeting schedule this term. Pro-tem member Balwant Dixit agreed to fill in when necessary in the absence of the committee’s other co-secretary, Michael Semcheski.

• BPC’s remaining fall term meetings are set for 12:10 p.m. Nov. 12 and Dec. 10 in 527 CL.

—Kimberly K. Barlow