I recently received feedback on one of my posts from a reader who posed the question, “How does the College of Communication receive a $30 million grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation, yet still struggle to pay a visiting journalism professor a reasonable annual salary?” I was intrigued by the inquiry, so I decided to look into it.
First off, the Scripps Howard grant received by the School of Communication on September 12, 2006, was for $15 million, intended to support growing curriculum, technology improvements, teaching fellows and scholarships. As I've mentioned, this type of grant falls under a budget separate from faculty salaries and other operational costs. However, President McDavis and his administrators have repeatedly reported their intentions to provide employees with a three percent raise on average, while also spending $1.2 million to fund the first year of a five-year plan to increase faculty compensation. I personally think this displays some progress, yet some faculty members believe that the three percent raise merely suggests a cost-of-living increase, and that the implementation of higher healthcare premiums will offset the raise.
In a "Reader's Forum" in Monday's Athens News, Kenneth Brown, a professor of chemistry who serves on Faculty Senate, made this point, noting that "OU is literally putting money in faculty members' right pockets, while taking it out of their left pockets."
But Bill Decatur, Vice President for Finance and Administration, said in an Ohio University news release that the university is raising healthcare costs only to avoid bigger cuts elsewhere in the budget. "This helps us protect jobs and our core academic mission while still providing our employees with a very competitive benefits program," he said. Faculty Senate will continue to hash out the details with administration before the final budget plan is due at the end of June.
Hope this clears up some of the confusion about different spending procedures and how they relate to different types of Ohio University budgets.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
More on Off-Campus Living: "As the pool shrinks up top, it shrinks for us, too!"
There is an emotional way to look at the situation with the Off-Campus Living Office at Ohio University, and then there’s a more practical and logical way to examine things. As a PACE employee for Off-Campus Living, I've been so distraught about the current state and future well-being of our office that I’ve been unable to see the reasoning behind the budget cuts and reorganization scheduled to occur next school year. That is, until I spoke with a knowledgeable and objective source in Student Affairs (whose name and position will remain confidential). This person was gracious enough to provide me with some insight on Ohio University’s fiscal situation and the direct effects the budget has on university departments.
As I mentioned before, most of OU's fiscal problems relate to a reduction in student retention rates as well as to a reduction in state funding by 18 percent. My source explained that when administrators needed to start planning for cuts earlier this year, they looked at three separate budgets – capital, auxiliary and operational. The capital budget relates to buildings and was used to fund the construction of the new Baker Center. Auxiliary budgets are revenue-generating and are the least likely to be cut when financial problems arise. Operational budgets, which involve program resources and salaries, are often cut first and assessed by their potential to sustain with limited resources and generate revenue. So, the question that administrators pose to a number of university departments is, “Can we generate money from investing in their services?” When is comes to Off-Campus Living, probably not. Therefore, the idea of saving approximately $50,000 by not rehiring for Jim Hintz’ former position and putting the Off-Campus department under a revenue-generating department such as Residence Life (as mentioned in my previous post), seems pretty appealing to President McDavis and his crew.
Yet, I still questioned whether all of my department’s services would remain intact.
“Programmatically, it'll be fine,” I was assured by my source. You see, the main goal that was established by the office when it was created in 2004 was to make every off-campus student as knowledgeable as possible and empower them with enough information to handle roommate and landlord issues appropriately. So as long as there is dedication to this mission and a willingness to learn on the part of the Department of Residence Life, those employees should be able to make progress by following the methods and resources we’ve already put in place. We can only hope that Resident Directors with give the same attention to the Community Assistant program as they do to the Resident Assistant program.
Then I asked, “Was there anything we could have done to prevent the proposed reorganization of our office and other departments under Student Affairs?”
From the response I received, it sounds like the best thing that Off-Campus Living could have done would have been to establish a better reporting line, as we were a bit buried in the hierarchy that is typical in higher education. We seemed to have done a good job in “creating demand” and “building a need” for off-campus services among students, but fell behind in creating that need for members of the administration. Overall, I see this situation as an instance that commonly occurs in the changing arena of higher education, where students have turned into consumers and universities have turned into businesses. We are quickly moving beyond the traditional, non-profit purpose of providing a liberal arts education and creating well-rounded citizens; instead, universities remain competitive by producing highly skilled young adults to feed employers in our business-oriented world.
Disappointing? Yes. But there's really nothing that can be done at this point. Once I was able to set aside my emotions and hear the facts, I gained a better understanding of the reasoning behind departmental cut-backs. It doesn’t mean I agree with it, but at least I understand what's going on in terms of a business model rather than administration’s lack of respect for quality departments and faculty.
As I mentioned before, most of OU's fiscal problems relate to a reduction in student retention rates as well as to a reduction in state funding by 18 percent. My source explained that when administrators needed to start planning for cuts earlier this year, they looked at three separate budgets – capital, auxiliary and operational. The capital budget relates to buildings and was used to fund the construction of the new Baker Center. Auxiliary budgets are revenue-generating and are the least likely to be cut when financial problems arise. Operational budgets, which involve program resources and salaries, are often cut first and assessed by their potential to sustain with limited resources and generate revenue. So, the question that administrators pose to a number of university departments is, “Can we generate money from investing in their services?” When is comes to Off-Campus Living, probably not. Therefore, the idea of saving approximately $50,000 by not rehiring for Jim Hintz’ former position and putting the Off-Campus department under a revenue-generating department such as Residence Life (as mentioned in my previous post), seems pretty appealing to President McDavis and his crew.
Yet, I still questioned whether all of my department’s services would remain intact.
“Programmatically, it'll be fine,” I was assured by my source. You see, the main goal that was established by the office when it was created in 2004 was to make every off-campus student as knowledgeable as possible and empower them with enough information to handle roommate and landlord issues appropriately. So as long as there is dedication to this mission and a willingness to learn on the part of the Department of Residence Life, those employees should be able to make progress by following the methods and resources we’ve already put in place. We can only hope that Resident Directors with give the same attention to the Community Assistant program as they do to the Resident Assistant program.
Then I asked, “Was there anything we could have done to prevent the proposed reorganization of our office and other departments under Student Affairs?”
From the response I received, it sounds like the best thing that Off-Campus Living could have done would have been to establish a better reporting line, as we were a bit buried in the hierarchy that is typical in higher education. We seemed to have done a good job in “creating demand” and “building a need” for off-campus services among students, but fell behind in creating that need for members of the administration. Overall, I see this situation as an instance that commonly occurs in the changing arena of higher education, where students have turned into consumers and universities have turned into businesses. We are quickly moving beyond the traditional, non-profit purpose of providing a liberal arts education and creating well-rounded citizens; instead, universities remain competitive by producing highly skilled young adults to feed employers in our business-oriented world.
Disappointing? Yes. But there's really nothing that can be done at this point. Once I was able to set aside my emotions and hear the facts, I gained a better understanding of the reasoning behind departmental cut-backs. It doesn’t mean I agree with it, but at least I understand what's going on in terms of a business model rather than administration’s lack of respect for quality departments and faculty.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Budget takes bite out of another crucial resource: Office of Off-Campus and Community Services
Over the past year, I’ve found quite my niche as the Community Affairs Assistant for the Office of Off-Campus and Community Services. This PACE position allowed me to utilize my skills as a communicator, through resolving issues between tenants and landlords and educating off-campus students about their rights and responsibilities. However, recent budget cuts have resulted in what feels like a constant reorganization of the office (and the Department of Campus Life as a whole) and has ultimately led to the relocation of my former supervisor Jim Hintz.
Jim said farewell to the office last Friday, May 18, to take an off-campus living position at the University of Connecticut – a school which has paralleled many of its off-campus initiatives to those of Ohio University. And despite OU Student Senate’s fight to maintain the entirety of our office and its resources, administrators are still considering the altogether elimination of Jim’s position.
I’m shocked by this thought, and cannot understand their inability to recognize the helpful services provided by our staff. Beyond dispersing housing and tenant information, we work to educate students about safety and legal issues relating to Halloween and spring street festivals. Additionally, the office assists in off-campus move-in and move-out and engages students in donation and recycling initiatives.
The anticipated reshuffling of the office would place us under the Department of Residence Life, entailing that the Community Assistants and the CA program would fall under the responsibilities of resident directors. From my experience, there is an obvious difference between a CA living off-campus and facilitating a genuine network of support and an RA overseeing a group of students contained in a residence hall; it’s a shame that administrators want to consolidate a set of resources that would perform much better if kept separate.
All this pondering has made me realize that I need to get some more concrete information about the situation. Therefore, I've decided to talk to a knowledgeable and objective source inside the department of Student Affairs. Look for a blog post (and some better insight) this weekend!
Jim said farewell to the office last Friday, May 18, to take an off-campus living position at the University of Connecticut – a school which has paralleled many of its off-campus initiatives to those of Ohio University. And despite OU Student Senate’s fight to maintain the entirety of our office and its resources, administrators are still considering the altogether elimination of Jim’s position.
I’m shocked by this thought, and cannot understand their inability to recognize the helpful services provided by our staff. Beyond dispersing housing and tenant information, we work to educate students about safety and legal issues relating to Halloween and spring street festivals. Additionally, the office assists in off-campus move-in and move-out and engages students in donation and recycling initiatives.The anticipated reshuffling of the office would place us under the Department of Residence Life, entailing that the Community Assistants and the CA program would fall under the responsibilities of resident directors. From my experience, there is an obvious difference between a CA living off-campus and facilitating a genuine network of support and an RA overseeing a group of students contained in a residence hall; it’s a shame that administrators want to consolidate a set of resources that would perform much better if kept separate.
All this pondering has made me realize that I need to get some more concrete information about the situation. Therefore, I've decided to talk to a knowledgeable and objective source inside the department of Student Affairs. Look for a blog post (and some better insight) this weekend!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Student advisory committee creates proposal for reallocation of OU funds
Members of the Student Senate Advisory Committee recently voted to reallocate $570,000 from different Ohio University departments, submitting a proposal to the OU Board of Trustees this past Friday, May 18. Their most substantial proposed cut of $500,000 came from the athletic department, though the reduction would only be a small slice of the department’s massive $13.6 million budget. When the department cut four sports teams in January, it saved approximately $685,000 million. But, according to the student committee in a recent Post article, the athletic department could stand to shave off plenty in expenses related to travel, entertainment and honoraria, and still generate enough through ticket sales to compensate for the loss.
Career Services and Judiciaries, which are currently supported by the general student fee, would experience $13,000 and $2,600 in cuts. This to me seemed ridiculous considering that the committee wants to remove the two departments from the general fee, and allocate $340,000 in funds to an Arts for Ohio program. To my knowledge, the program is focused on providing students with free admission to fine arts events and is scheduled to be in place by 2009. Now it’s not that I don’t value the incorporation of fine arts into the collegiate experience, but I’d rather see a portion of my four-year investment put toward career resources and services that will help me maneuver the already saturated, entry-level job market.
The committee also voted to give more than $100,000 to Counseling Services, $65,000 to the Student Activities Commission and $32,000 to Psychological Services. I guess we’ll see how these suggestions pan out when the OU Board of Trustees meets to discuss the propositions, and then finalizes the university’s budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year at the end of June.
Career Services and Judiciaries, which are currently supported by the general student fee, would experience $13,000 and $2,600 in cuts. This to me seemed ridiculous considering that the committee wants to remove the two departments from the general fee, and allocate $340,000 in funds to an Arts for Ohio program. To my knowledge, the program is focused on providing students with free admission to fine arts events and is scheduled to be in place by 2009. Now it’s not that I don’t value the incorporation of fine arts into the collegiate experience, but I’d rather see a portion of my four-year investment put toward career resources and services that will help me maneuver the already saturated, entry-level job market.
The committee also voted to give more than $100,000 to Counseling Services, $65,000 to the Student Activities Commission and $32,000 to Psychological Services. I guess we’ll see how these suggestions pan out when the OU Board of Trustees meets to discuss the propositions, and then finalizes the university’s budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year at the end of June.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
An eloquent proposal of fluff....where's the info?
I'm not sure what everyone else was expecting from Monday's Presidential address, but I was pretty pumped to get some concrete information about the state of the budget. Results!...Plans of action!...This is how the administration will be allocating funds!
And here follows, once again, a sigh of disappointment. What I did get to hear as I sat in my bedroom, eating my turkey sandwich and watching the address via streaming media from the OU Front Page, was President McDavis's plan for Provost Kathy Krendl to take over a large portion of his responsibilities while he focuses on fundraising efforts and "maintaining the academic mission of this institution."
There was brief mention of the state funding proposal, which states that Ohio colleges can receive five percent more in state money next year if they freeze tuition for in-state undergraduates; however, McDavis did not give any indication of how OU would accept the proposal! There have been talks for months now about whether to flat line tuition, raise it three percent or even six percent and forgo the state support.
Anyhow, I guess that's a "yay" for a strong focus on the academic mission and a well-developed plan for Krendl to take over the research and academics of this university, and a "nay" for the lack of information regarding the budget. I'd like to wish President McDavis luck in his proposed fundraising efforts as he travels across the state of Ohio. The rest of us will just sit here and wait for the money to roll in, as departments and programs struggle to avoid anticipated cuts for the upcoming school year.
And here follows, once again, a sigh of disappointment. What I did get to hear as I sat in my bedroom, eating my turkey sandwich and watching the address via streaming media from the OU Front Page, was President McDavis's plan for Provost Kathy Krendl to take over a large portion of his responsibilities while he focuses on fundraising efforts and "maintaining the academic mission of this institution."
There was brief mention of the state funding proposal, which states that Ohio colleges can receive five percent more in state money next year if they freeze tuition for in-state undergraduates; however, McDavis did not give any indication of how OU would accept the proposal! There have been talks for months now about whether to flat line tuition, raise it three percent or even six percent and forgo the state support.
Anyhow, I guess that's a "yay" for a strong focus on the academic mission and a well-developed plan for Krendl to take over the research and academics of this university, and a "nay" for the lack of information regarding the budget. I'd like to wish President McDavis luck in his proposed fundraising efforts as he travels across the state of Ohio. The rest of us will just sit here and wait for the money to roll in, as departments and programs struggle to avoid anticipated cuts for the upcoming school year.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Welcome!
I’d first like to start by welcoming you to my new blog, dedicated to updating students, clarifying developments and analyzing future implications regarding However, officials continue to reiterate that a budget shortfall will not cause them to abandon their promises of “bettering undergraduate and graduate education,” increasing the number of faculty members and providing them with more competitive salaries.
If you’re anything like me, you have TONS of questions about this issue. What happened to all the money? Was reducing the deficit the main reason behind the athletic cuts that took place nearly three months ago? And we must not forget about departmental restructuring and the effect that these proposed cuts will have on many University offices, programs and student resources.
So, over the next few weeks, I’ll be diving into many of the above-mentioned issues as they develop and are reported in local newspapers and on the Ohio University Web site. Additionally, I’ll be chatting with students and faculty members, as well as attending forums or events related to the budget (Heads up: This Monday, May 7, President McDavis will be holding a meeting in Baker Ballroom B at noon, where he will reveal plans about the latest budget developments from Columbus, what they mean for the University and how his administration will invest in any additional resources from the state. A live Webcast will also be available from the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
