Category III Preliminary Budget Discussion

[posted June 11, 2003]

Dear Colleagues,

Having completed the review of Category I and Category II reductions, I write to outline where we stand as we approach Category III. The legislatively required budget reductions we have achieved so far reach almost 16 million dollars. This represents a dramatic reduction in services and programs for many of our constituencies within and without the university and narrows the scope of the work that we do on behalf of the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, the careful review of these reductions by faculty, staff, students, and our many constituents outside the university has given us the ability to implement these reductions without fundamentally damaging the academic core of the institution. The process of implementing the reductions will take both time, energy, commitment, and a substantial investment. During the fiscal year beginning on July 1, we must close various programs and reduce the support infrastructure that has in the past made us particularly effective in delivering many important services to students, staff, and faculty and a wide range of people and businesses throughout the Commonwealth.

Even with this dramatic reduction of services and programs, the campus has not yet met the anticipated legislative reduction. Our best estimate is that this reduction will be in the range of 25 to 35 million dollars for our campus. As a result, even with the dramatic reductions already achieved, we have met only about half of the legislative requirement.

The remaining $15 million or so must come from additional budget reductions that will affect the academic core of the university and from increased revenue from various fees but primarily the curriculum fee.

Additional budget reductions fall into what we have described as Category III, which as you will remember from my initial memo involve academic programs. As I have considered this process, it appears best to look at Category III in two parts. Part A will include those reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations of academic programs that do not require the dismissal of tenure-system faculty or the premature termination of contracts for faculty on term appointments. Part B, should we fail to achieve our reduction requirements by other means, would require us to address the extremely damaging and destructive process of program elimination that would require the termination of contracts.

I will begin immediately with the process of developing a set of proposals for Category III Part A academic program reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations. These proposals, because they strike directly at the heart of the university’s academic offerings, must come from a careful conversation between the deans and the affected departments and academic programs, and between the deans and the Provost. In addition, because these proposals affect academic programs, their implementation will require the full process already established in our governance traditions that involves consultation with the Faculty Senate’s Program and Budget Committee and submission to the full Faculty Senate.

To begin this process, I have asked the Provost to work with the deans to develop proposals that can recover approximately 1.5-2.0 million dollars from the academic budgets of our colleges. These reductions must in all cases address specific program related actions and not across the board reductions. Once the Provost and I have approved the dean’s proposals by July 1, we will submit the relevant reductions to the appropriate Faculty Senate process for consideration and approval. None of these proposals can require the dismissal of tenure-system faculty or the premature termination of contracts for other faculty. We will update the schedule on the web site to reflect this process.

We must also identify increased revenue from various fees but primarily the curriculum fee. This is an inevitable consequence of the withdrawal of state support from public higher education. In our case, the budget reductions anticipated from the legislature threaten our ability to sustain first rank instruction for our students. The declining state support for public higher education inevitably shifts more of the burden of funding the core cost of quality instruction and student services to the students and their families. Our students already pay a substantial part of the cost of their education, and we turn to this alternative only after our budget reduction process has done everything possible without severely damaging our academic core. The President has not asked the trustees to address this issue yet, and we will develop a clear fee proposal to submit to the university’s management council and then to the President.

It is not likely that the President would ask the trustees to consider a fee increase until after we all have a clear understanding of the full impact of the legislatively mandated budget reduction on the academic programs of all campuses in the university system. At the same time, we will not move to implement additional budget reductions beyond those in Category III Part A, until after the President has determined how best to address this issue. Reductions in our academic programs (beyond those in Categories I, II, and III Part A) will seriously damage the core teaching and research mission of the university. If the trustees should approve a fee increase, the university’s investment in financial aid will also rise to meet the added burden on our students. But even so, many will find it harder to afford a public university education. This is, nonetheless, the inevitable consequence of the legislative reduction of financial support for our universities.

We will come out of this process smaller, with fewer programs and services for many of our constituencies, but we also expect to emerge with our core academic enterprise and our ability to compete at the national level in the areas we choose virtually intact. The state will lose many of the services we have traditionally provided. The students, and their parents, will assume a greater burden for the cost of the high quality education they receive. The faculty and staff will invest their time, energy, and creativity even more intensively than in the past. Even so, the university will continue to improve and enhance its academic performance.

We will post further information about Category III Part A reductions on the web site by July 1. We will update the tables and other information about the budget process as additional information becomes available from the legislature and any trustee actions.

My thanks to everyone for their commitment and engagement in this most difficult of processes,

John V. Lombardi
Chancellor




FY07 Budget Update Amherst 250 Plan: Step One, An Interim Report Amherst 250 Plan Financial Master Plan Budget Document Archive Home		Category III Preliminary Budget Discussion [posted June 11, 2003] Dear Colleagues, Having completed the review of Category I and Category II reductions, I write to outline where we stand as we approach Category III. The legislatively required budget reductions we have achieved so far reach almost 16 million dollars. This represents a dramatic reduction in services and programs for many of our constituencies within and without the university and narrows the scope of the work that we do on behalf of the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, the careful review of these reductions by faculty, staff, students, and our many constituents outside the university has given us the ability to implement these reductions without fundamentally damaging the academic core of the institution. The process of implementing the reductions will take both time, energy, commitment, and a substantial investment. During the fiscal year beginning on July 1, we must close various programs and reduce the support infrastructure that has in the past made us particularly effective in delivering many important services to students, staff, and faculty and a wide range of people and businesses throughout the Commonwealth. Even with this dramatic reduction of services and programs, the campus has not yet met the anticipated legislative reduction. Our best estimate is that this reduction will be in the range of 25 to 35 million dollars for our campus. As a result, even with the dramatic reductions already achieved, we have met only about half of the legislative requirement. The remaining $15 million or so must come from additional budget reductions that will affect the academic core of the university and from increased revenue from various fees but primarily the curriculum fee. Additional budget reductions fall into what we have described as Category III, which as you will remember from my initial memo involve academic programs. As I have considered this process, it appears best to look at Category III in two parts. Part A will include those reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations of academic programs that do not require the dismissal of tenure-system faculty or the premature termination of contracts for faculty on term appointments. Part B, should we fail to achieve our reduction requirements by other means, would require us to address the extremely damaging and destructive process of program elimination that would require the termination of contracts. I will begin immediately with the process of developing a set of proposals for Category III Part A academic program reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations. These proposals, because they strike directly at the heart of the university’s academic offerings, must come from a careful conversation between the deans and the affected departments and academic programs, and between the deans and the Provost. In addition, because these proposals affect academic programs, their implementation will require the full process already established in our governance traditions that involves consultation with the Faculty Senate’s Program and Budget Committee and submission to the full Faculty Senate. To begin this process, I have asked the Provost to work with the deans to develop proposals that can recover approximately 1.5-2.0 million dollars from the academic budgets of our colleges. These reductions must in all cases address specific program related actions and not across the board reductions. Once the Provost and I have approved the dean’s proposals by July 1, we will submit the relevant reductions to the appropriate Faculty Senate process for consideration and approval. None of these proposals can require the dismissal of tenure-system faculty or the premature termination of contracts for other faculty. We will update the schedule on the web site to reflect this process. We must also identify increased revenue from various fees but primarily the curriculum fee. This is an inevitable consequence of the withdrawal of state support from public higher education. In our case, the budget reductions anticipated from the legislature threaten our ability to sustain first rank instruction for our students. The declining state support for public higher education inevitably shifts more of the burden of funding the core cost of quality instruction and student services to the students and their families. Our students already pay a substantial part of the cost of their education, and we turn to this alternative only after our budget reduction process has done everything possible without severely damaging our academic core. The President has not asked the trustees to address this issue yet, and we will develop a clear fee proposal to submit to the university’s management council and then to the President. It is not likely that the President would ask the trustees to consider a fee increase until after we all have a clear understanding of the full impact of the legislatively mandated budget reduction on the academic programs of all campuses in the university system. At the same time, we will not move to implement additional budget reductions beyond those in Category III Part A, until after the President has determined how best to address this issue. Reductions in our academic programs (beyond those in Categories I, II, and III Part A) will seriously damage the core teaching and research mission of the university. If the trustees should approve a fee increase, the university’s investment in financial aid will also rise to meet the added burden on our students. But even so, many will find it harder to afford a public university education. This is, nonetheless, the inevitable consequence of the legislative reduction of financial support for our universities. We will come out of this process smaller, with fewer programs and services for many of our constituencies, but we also expect to emerge with our core academic enterprise and our ability to compete at the national level in the areas we choose virtually intact. The state will lose many of the services we have traditionally provided. The students, and their parents, will assume a greater burden for the cost of the high quality education they receive. The faculty and staff will invest their time, energy, and creativity even more intensively than in the past. Even so, the university will continue to improve and enhance its academic performance. We will post further information about Category III Part A reductions on the web site by July 1. We will update the tables and other information about the budget process as additional information becomes available from the legislature and any trustee actions. My thanks to everyone for their commitment and engagement in this most difficult of processes, John V. Lombardi Chancellor


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