Category II Proposed Budget Reductions

[posted June 4, 2003]

Dear Colleagues,

We are now ready to present the Category II proposals for your review and comment. As background for this discussion, let me clarify as much as possible the difference between a Category II and Category III item. Category II items include a variety of programs that support academic or student affairs, administrative reductions, and intercollegiate athletics. The only items that fall into Category III are those that affect the existence of a degree program or reductions that would require the university to break faculty and librarian contracts.

As is true of the items in Category I, these proposals will have a significant impact on many high quality programs and activities, since the budget reduction imposed on us by the legislature provide no way to avoid these consequences. At the same time, we will ask each area for a plan that allows us to implement these reductions with the least damaging impact on students, faculty, staff, and services. In the case of the administrative reductions, each Vice Chancellor will have the reduction target indicated in the proposal included below, but their plans to implement these reductions must make specific readjustments rather than across the board reductions. The goal here is to reduce what we must but keep what remains as strong as possible.

Several special circumstances affect some of the proposed reductions in Category II. I include the savings achieved through the consolidation and combination of academic programs. Note that these actions do not eliminate or remove academic programs but simply provide administrative savings through the combination of units and activities. I also include a reduction in the university’s anticipated spending on capital which is the most I believe we can avoid without damaging our ability to provide a safe and competitive campus for our faculty, staff, students, and visitors. UMass Extension and the Cranberry Station have special legislative language that limits the reductions here to the average for the UMass Amherst campus. We have used an estimate for this purpose here and will adjust that when we know the exact amount of the reduction. Using the same method, I have included an estimate for the savings from reductions in the university’s assessment for central university services. In the case of intercollegiate athletics, the substantial reduction proposed here requires consultation with the athletics committee of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees, and I will make the detailed recommendations on how to implement this reduction to this Committee for its review and consideration.

I will be very pleased to hear from any members of our community who have an interest in these issues or advice and counsel to provide. Email to lombardi@umass.edu is by far the most effective means to provide comment. I will do my best to respond to those who write me within the time provided by our schedule, but in the event email writing campaigns appear that echo the same themes in multiple messages, I may run out of time to respond to everyone.

Once we have concluded the review of Category II proposals and post the final Category II reductions, we will then take stock of where we are in this process and decide whether we have exhausted all possibilities before having to consider a Category III process. While the savings anticipated in Categories I and II do not add up to the full amount we expect to need to meet the state budget reduction, a number of issues that have a significant impact on our planning remain unresolved. The Chancellors have had conversations about the need to ask the Trustees to consider a fee increase for the second semester, annualized for the following years. Should the budget be as dramatically reduced as it currently appears, this may be an unavoidable request and will have a major impact on revenue as well as on our financial aid obligations. We do not yet know the impact of the apparently increased yield in admissions for the Fall semester, and that will also have an impact on revenue. The impact of other issues such as an additional retirement program funded by the campus for faculty or the consequences of a possible tuition retention program under consideration by the legislature will also affect our planning. While we do not know when we will have all of these answers, we will collect as much of this information as possible before determining whether a move to Category III is necessary. I will write another note on this matter as these major issues become clearer.

With thanks for all the thoughtful messages that helped me understand the Category I items and for the additional comments I look forward to receiving on the proposals for Category II reductions,

Sincerely yours,

John V. Lombardi
Chancellor

FY04 Budget Proposed Category II Reductions (PDF)




FY07 Budget Update Amherst 250 Plan: Step One, An Interim Report Amherst 250 Plan Financial Master Plan Budget Document Archive Home	Category II Proposed Budget Reductions [posted June 4, 2003] Dear Colleagues, We are now ready to present the Category II proposals for your review and comment. As background for this discussion, let me clarify as much as possible the difference between a Category II and Category III item. Category II items include a variety of programs that support academic or student affairs, administrative reductions, and intercollegiate athletics. The only items that fall into Category III are those that affect the existence of a degree program or reductions that would require the university to break faculty and librarian contracts. As is true of the items in Category I, these proposals will have a significant impact on many high quality programs and activities, since the budget reduction imposed on us by the legislature provide no way to avoid these consequences. At the same time, we will ask each area for a plan that allows us to implement these reductions with the least damaging impact on students, faculty, staff, and services. In the case of the administrative reductions, each Vice Chancellor will have the reduction target indicated in the proposal included below, but their plans to implement these reductions must make specific readjustments rather than across the board reductions. The goal here is to reduce what we must but keep what remains as strong as possible. Several special circumstances affect some of the proposed reductions in Category II. I include the savings achieved through the consolidation and combination of academic programs. Note that these actions do not eliminate or remove academic programs but simply provide administrative savings through the combination of units and activities. I also include a reduction in the university’s anticipated spending on capital which is the most I believe we can avoid without damaging our ability to provide a safe and competitive campus for our faculty, staff, students, and visitors. UMass Extension and the Cranberry Station have special legislative language that limits the reductions here to the average for the UMass Amherst campus. We have used an estimate for this purpose here and will adjust that when we know the exact amount of the reduction. Using the same method, I have included an estimate for the savings from reductions in the university’s assessment for central university services. In the case of intercollegiate athletics, the substantial reduction proposed here requires consultation with the athletics committee of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees, and I will make the detailed recommendations on how to implement this reduction to this Committee for its review and consideration. I will be very pleased to hear from any members of our community who have an interest in these issues or advice and counsel to provide. Email to lombardi@umass.edu is by far the most effective means to provide comment. I will do my best to respond to those who write me within the time provided by our schedule, but in the event email writing campaigns appear that echo the same themes in multiple messages, I may run out of time to respond to everyone. Once we have concluded the review of Category II proposals and post the final Category II reductions, we will then take stock of where we are in this process and decide whether we have exhausted all possibilities before having to consider a Category III process. While the savings anticipated in Categories I and II do not add up to the full amount we expect to need to meet the state budget reduction, a number of issues that have a significant impact on our planning remain unresolved. The Chancellors have had conversations about the need to ask the Trustees to consider a fee increase for the second semester, annualized for the following years. Should the budget be as dramatically reduced as it currently appears, this may be an unavoidable request and will have a major impact on revenue as well as on our financial aid obligations. We do not yet know the impact of the apparently increased yield in admissions for the Fall semester, and that will also have an impact on revenue. The impact of other issues such as an additional retirement program funded by the campus for faculty or the consequences of a possible tuition retention program under consideration by the legislature will also affect our planning. While we do not know when we will have all of these answers, we will collect as much of this information as possible before determining whether a move to Category III is necessary. I will write another note on this matter as these major issues become clearer. With thanks for all the thoughtful messages that helped me understand the Category I items and for the additional comments I look forward to receiving on the proposals for Category II reductions, Sincerely yours, John V. Lombardi Chancellor	FY04 Budget Proposed Category II Reductions (PDF)


© 2006 University of Massachusetts Amherst. Site Policies. This page is maintained by University Advancement Communications.