Budget Committee

Academic Year 2022-2023

Committee Members

Yaron Ayalon, - Jewish Studies

Tim Barker - Chemistry

Adam Jordan - Teacher Education - Secretary  

Johnathan Neufeld, - Philosophy  

Clift Peacock – Studio Art

Robert Pitts - Management and Marketing - Chair 

Agnes Southgate - Biology

Non-voting ex-officio members:

Provost (or Provost's designee), Suzanne Austin

College Budget Director (CFO), John Loonan

 

The Budget Committee is charged with supporting the Senate and making recommendations prior to its consideration of an issue.  From the Faculty/ Administration Manuel -

  1. “… reviewing College policies relating to long-range financial planning, budget preparation, the allocation of funds within budget categories, and the recommendation of policy changesbefore vote by the Senate.

            In particular “… projected costs of proposals for new College programs, initiatives, and program termination (brought forth by the Provost).”

 

  1. “… review each annual College budget....”

 

In 22-23 the Budget committee continued to address fundamental issues relevant to the accomplishment of its charge as described in previous reports. These issues were.

  • Effective inclusion of the Committee (and thus Senate and faculty) in strategic budget decisions
  • A strong relationship with the CFO and Provost and transparentness in budget processes
  • More detailed information and review of yearly budgets
  • Role of the Budget Committee in long-range budget planning

During the year strategic topics explored by the committee included:

Strategic budget considerations of the college’s “5 Signature Programs”. The committee discussed the issues surrounding the identification of signature programs and learned that the programs selected for the initial round of designation will receive a one-time funding allocation.  Further new programs may be named signature programs at a future date.  

Budget Implications for Doctoral Program Strategy – DBA, EED & Ph.D. Math-Computing - DBA & EED

  • Investment versus self-support requirement
  • Budget implications - Faculty orientation & resources in evolution to National “Research” University from a regional master designation
  • Budgeting for doctoral programs given BPP – should all three programs have the same budgeting structure?

The Committee notes that although the Budget office has instituted a refined budget proposal form there are several approaches being used in budget reviews for doctoral programs. For example, the EED will use unused – slack teaching resources in the School of Education and as proposed would not require additional faculty resources but make better use of the school’s existing faculty resources. The EMBA while projected to produce a significant revenue surplus (profit) shared between the School of Business and the College will be funded against any loss by existing MBA fund reserves. While actually requiring minimal new resources the Department of Engineering was proposed as part of the strategic initiatives of the college and its strategic plan. 

Budgeted Strategic Action Items for Fiscal Year 2023 - Detail of E&G Incremental Expense. The committee continues to receive extensive budget reviews from CFO Loonan and Provost Austin. A detailed presentation was made to the Senate based on these reviews in Fall 22.

PBB v RCM Update The committee discussed the implications of the cancelation of a planned strategic shift from a Responsibility Centered Management and budgeting process to a newly identified Performance Based Budget process with CFO Loonan. The Committee obtained and reviewed the Kennedy and Company consultant's presentation in which the RCM metrics were presented and the change to a different model (PBB) was identified. We noted that the RCM model indicated significant operating income losses for the School of Education and Science and Mathematics and positive bottom lines for the other schools with Humanities and Social Sciences producing approximately $8 million dollars in operating income. Under RCM operating positive schools would be “taxed” via the concept of “subvention” to support income-negative programs in the budget model. The consultant report proposed a Performance Based Budget model using “an internal credit hour rate” set at the school's cost of credit hour production to set all schools at a net revenue of 0 for future funding allocation decisions. 

Discussion indicated that the implementation of the BPP model as a strategic decision-making tool that would give schools greater autonomy to encourage innovation and efficiency would require further refinement and the development of policies for future implementation.

For FY 23 & 24 Schools will be allowed to carry forward a portion of unspent budget allocations for non “personnel accounts” from the prior year as a study period prior to implementation of a carry forward policy for unspent funds.    

Presentation and discussion of budget implications of revised procedures for the creation of Schools and departments. These procedures calling for early review by the academic planning and budget committees, discussion by the Senate, and a period of online comment were implemented during 23-23.  

23-24 planning and 5-year-long range planning

New Program Reviews

In 22-23 the committee reviewed and made positive recommendations for a number of proposals including:

Department of Engineering: the committee supported the establishment of the department using the new department and school formation proceedures

Certificates in Musical Theater for Actors, Singers, And Dancers

Degrees

  • A. and B.S. in Environmental and Sustainability Studies
  • A. in Biochemistry
  • MAT Multilingual Learners
  • S. Heath Services Administration and Management, B.S.
  • EED
  • EMBA

Minors 

  • Health Informatics
  • Statistics
  • FinTech – Finance & Computer Science
  • Computing in the Arts
  • Digital Technology Manufacturing

We noted that the current process in which the committee chair is engaged early in the proposal process before or during the “Executive Review” step, works with the proposer to address issues early, and passes the information on to the committee facilitates a timely review of proposals. This timing allowed the Budget Committee to review complex proposals including the proposal for a department of engineering and the EED and EMBA proposals with sufficient lead time to ensure a comprehensive budget review. 

The Budget Office has taken steps to ensure that credit hour revenue estimates are consistent with existing rates. This should eliminate an inconsistency observed between several proposals that had to be corrected during the review. 

The Committee also noted the effect of the Executive Review process on proposal resources and net operating income estimates. Proposals are presented with minimal new resource requirements, are presented with revenue models making them self-supporting, or have any new dollar needs guaranteed as part of the Executive Review phase as a strategic priority. CFO Loonan described the review as a review to determine if the proposal had a reasonable chance for financial success given the college’s strategic initiatives.