Report to Faculty & Professional Staff • May 4, 2001

SUNY New Paltz implemented a new Campus Budget Process in the 1999-2000 academic year, following a unanimous vote of support by faculty and professional staff in October 1998 and joint approval by the university administration and the Budget, Goals & Plans Committee (BGPC) in April 1999. The process was singled out as "a model for making other administrative processes more transparent and inclusive" in the SUNY New Paltz Strategic Plan 1999.

Monitoring the on-going implementation of the budget process and modifying it as needed has been a top priority for Budget, Goals & Plans. In 2000-01, BGPC formed a budget sub-committee to work with campus administrators to revise deadlines and to clarify the type of financial information to be provided in the administration’s semi-annual reports to faculty and professional staff. These efforts culminated in a second revision of the calendar-year version of the process. The Committee as a whole discussed the importance of departmental budget meetings with the deans, who agreed to require that minutes of these meetings accompany annual budget requests, as stipulated in the Campus Budget Process.

The process also stipulates that BGPC submit a report at the May Faculty Meeting which considers feedback from the campus community on "the appropriateness of allocations and the effectiveness of the campus budget process." To solicit that feedback, we administered our second annual Budget Information Survey in late March/early April.

The most notable differences from last year’s survey were in the number of respondents and their level of awareness of the Campus Budget Process. We were pleased to hear back from a greater number of our colleagues this year and can see that

 continued communication is needed to build awareness of the process.

Other than in these areas, this year’s responses are very similar to last year’s. The percentage of faculty and professional staff who were involved in budget discussions in their departments is approaching 50%. Yet about 40% of our co-workers still have not been given an opportunity to participate.

Forty-eight percent of faculty and staff reported "no change" in financial information-sharing in their departments, similar to the number from last year. At first blush, this may appear disconcerting. However, "no change" could also be a positive statement, particularly in light of comments such as "Our department works well to review the budget together," and "It’s a pleasure to work in this department!"

Written comments on the survey fell into a number of categories, which form the basis for most of our recommendations below. Complete survey results are attached to this report.

• There remains substantial uncertainty on the part of department heads about what constitutes "consultation." Many faculty and staff commented on a distinct lack of consultation, particularly "after-the-fact" communication, in their areas.

BGPC’s interpretation of budgetary consultation:

Consulting differs from informing in that consultation offers participants the opportunity to contribute to a discussion. It involves input from faculty and staff and therefore must occur before decisions are made. Since consultation entails an exchange of views, we believe it must take place in a meeting, a face-to-face forum where ideas and opinions can be stated and reacted to in real time. Electronic information-sharing (via e-mail, listserv, Web Board, etc.) is a prelude to, not a substitute for, such a meeting. Budget meetings should address all components of the budget: full-time (PSR) and part-time (PST) staff, and supplies/travel/equipment (OTPS).

• Deans should provide to chairs and chairs should provide their departments with information about budget allocations and actual expenditures at least annually in advance of budget meetings. Significant variances must be explained.

• There is a concern about equity within departments in the allocation of resources for travel and other professional development needs. The methodology for allocating these resources should be discussed at the department’s budget meeting.

• Chairs should make a concerted effort to allot a reasonable and adequate amount of time for faculty and staff to develop budget requests and prepare for budget discussions. There is sufficient time from the point that Vice Presidents initiate the budget process to the deadlines for request submissions. Deans and chairs should keep these dates in mind so that decision-making isn’t compressed into too short a period.

• BGPC will try to help keep department heads and faculty/staff apprised of budget deadlines by publicizing important dates in the process. Our committee web page (www.newpaltz.edu/budgetcommittee) also includes the latest calendar-year version of the Campus Budget Process for reference at any time.

• Another concern revealed in the survey was the lack of involvement of some part-time faculty and staff in financial discussions and information. Chairs should consider whether their part-time faculty and staff are given an appropriate opportunity to participate.

• Some chairs express a lack of knowledge about their role in involving their departments in the budget process. Deans should see that chairs are made aware of their responsibilities well in advance of deadlines and should provide support to chairs for whom this is a new undertaking.

• A number of faculty and staff would like more information about the university’s finances and about individual department budgets. The Campus Budget Process calls for the Vice President of Administration and the Provost to make budget presentations at faculty meetings in the spring (May) and fall (Sept./Oct.). These reports will provide institutional and school-level data. More detailed data about departmental allocations and expenditures will be forwarded regularly to BGPC and kept on reserve at the library for anyone on campus to review.

• Finally, we reiterate a recommendation we made last year: Faculty and staff should take an active role in asking that the budget process be followed in their departments. If financial matters concern you, educate yourself about the process. The Budget, Goals & Plans web page is being developed to serve as a resource for those interested in budgets. In addition, any faculty and staff member can be given authority to view his/her department’s state and IFR accounts online. Request the form from Administrative Services, have your chair approve it, and Administrative Services will show you how to access and understand the information available.

Respectfully submitted,

BUDGET, GOALS & PLANS COMMITTEE

Barbara W. Petruzzelli (chair), Library
Peter D.G. Brown, Foreign Languages
Christine DeLape, Fine & Performing Arts
Paul J. Donadio, Business
Devon C. Duhaney, Secondary Education
Mark Dziuba, Music
Baback A. Izadi, Engineering
Julieta M. Majak, Administrative Services
S. Craig Mourton, College Activities
Michael L. Muffs, Educational Administration
Louis H. Roper, History
Aileen Schulte, Sociology

1. Are you aware that the campus implemented a new budget process beginning with the 1999-2000 academic year?

            Yes 101             No 48

 

YEAR	YES %	NO %
2001	67.8	32.2
2000	84	16

 

2. The purpose of the budget process is to make financial decision-making more inclusive, transparent and consultative. Were you given an opportunity to participate this year in a departmental meeting regarding budgeting for:

-- Full-time faculty/staff (PSR) for 2001-02?

            Yes 75         No 51         Not Applicable 15         No response 8

 

YEAR	YES %	NO %
2001	50.3	34.2
2000	48	39

 

-- Full-time faculty (PSR) for 2002-03?

            Yes 43         No 48         Not Applicable 26         No response 32

 

YEAR	YES %	NO %
2001	28.9	32.2
2000	39	45

 

-- Part-time faculty/staff (PST) for 2001-02?

            Yes 48         No 42         Not Applicable 28         No response 31

 

YEAR	YES %	NO %
2001	32.2	28.1
2000	30	43

-- Supplies, travel & equipment (OTPS) for 2001-02?

            Yes 70         No 46         Not Applicable 7         No response 26

 

YEAR	YES %	NO %
2001	47	30.9
2000	50	39

 

3. In general, what changes do you see in budget discussions and information-sharing in your department/unit/division?

            More consultative 66         No change 72         No response 11

 

YEAR	MORE %	NO CHANGE %
2001	44.3	48.3
2000	39	50

 

4. What suggestions do you have for further improvements in communicating about and involving faculty and staff in the budget process?

                95 Faculty
                44 Professional Staff

Back to BGPC home page