COLLEGE OF ARTS March 11, 2010

Structure of Presentation College of Arts Budget at a Glance Where we are now, where we have to go Steps taken to date Three possible scenarios to respond to the present situation Guiding Principles Goals of this Process Framework Proposal Timeline

College of Arts Budget at a Glance People $$ = 95%

Where we are now, where we have to go Projected Faculty complement reduction to attain $6M total

Two Budget Lines to Respect Permanent Positions Operating Faculty positions Staff positions $3.775M yet to go Approx. 38% achieved to date Sessional instructors, graduate program, operating Deficit for this year

Steps taken to date: to date 1 Faculty: current complement at 127 FTE from 134 FTE in Some retirements signalled and pending Support Staff: as of July, 2010 = 49, after early retirement program (2007 = 56); Support staff review committee (2008; revived 2010) Sessional Instructors: (currently approx $1.2M) has been reduced by $500K cover a percentage of sabbatical replacements Fine and Performing Arts requirements are generally higher in this area than in Humanities

Steps taken to date: to date 2 Graduate Program: : Total (including ineligible) – 2011: Total (including ineligible)182 (est.) This still leaves us with a $433K deficit in grad support. Humanities requirements are higher than F/P Arts Operating Costs: support College operations (photocopy, phones, office supplies, awards ceremonies, convocation, contracted labour, repairs, recruitment, software, mileage, student activities, SSHRC 4A, etc.): $761K

Steps taken to date: to date 3 Creation of Teaching Plans: budget procedure for sustainability, submitted on a yearly basis to AC for approval (every section, every dollar, every instructor); must ultimately fit into base budget Manager, Finance and Administration: improvement in quantity and quality of information for analysis and planning Preparation of Campaign Priorities Discussion of scenarios in Dean’s Council AC develops framework plan

Three Possible Scenarios Number 1 : the ‘do nothing’ extreme  hope that the storm will blow over, that Central Admin will leave us alone, hunker down

Possible Scenarios Number 2: take the extreme radical route: stop things completely Eliminate areas, disciplines, etc. Involuntary job reductions In UK and USA: significant closures, layoffs (cf. Guardian Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Insider Higher Ed)

Possible Scenarios Number 3: find a creative solution  that corresponds to our goals that does not harm the College (which is not the same as saying ‘does not change’ the College) that helps to maintain sustainability in the current and foreseeable climate that increases our own internal flexibility so as to respond to multiple pressures upon us AC proposes framework solution for discussion

Guiding Principles: 1 Sustainability: as the College is currently configured, our activities are not sustainable with either the funding that we have, the model that has been used to distribute/manage resources, or the curriculum as it is currently configured. This is in part due to the financial pressures which have come to bear upon the university; this is also part of the evolution taking place in the environment around us This means: living within our base funding, with some margin for flex; removing deficits

Guiding Principles: 2 Flexibility: many of our structures and internal relationships serve us well for certain things, less well for others, particularly as circumstances change This means: rethinking ourselves along principles of flexibility so we can respond more easily to various events impacting on the College, use our resources better in response to these pressures, and open up new areas of creativity/activity for colleagues and the College This nonetheless still has to operate within certain parameters: eg. Collective Agreement, Faculty strengths in research and teaching

Goal of this Process Position the College for the years ahead in light of faculty reductions, curricular and research initiatives Sustainability Flexibility Curriculum Reform Open up new areas of activity Resolve structural deficit

Proposal: 1. Structure The College of Arts will create three Faculties: these extend across departments and disciplines Departments / Schools remain as is Associate Deans and Dean head one Faculty each Fine and Performing Arts Humanities Interdisciplinary Studies

What is a Faculty at UG? 1 Guidelines for Definition of Academic Units (Senate document, 1966) Is a distinctive academic unit; Functions within an educational program, with responsibility to Senate At UG, “Faculty” has been used to designate: a coordinating and administrative structure that crosses departments, schools, and/or colleges Over the years we have created: Faculty of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Management, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, and most recently (April 2009) the Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science “Faculty” is used to allow people from various departments or colleges to work on a common program or theme – it is a way to support and administer inter- and trans- disciplinary cooperation

What is a Faculty at UG? 2 Seen from another perspective, the creation of a “Faculty” is a way to redefine for attaining goals: faculty members can make decisions about where they would like to make their contribution to the College This helps position the College for greater funding opportunities by giving a clear sense of our identities  CAMPAIGN There are academic merits and benefits associated with the creation of a “Faculty”: integration of activities and bridging programs, greater flexibility in the use of human resources

Proposal: 2. Workload All faculty members in the College contribute to the community; the proposal recognizes what is already a widespread practice in the College. In the proposal, each faculty member would choose to work in at least two Faculties As per the Collective Agreement (18.19) the Dean will assign the Workload in consultation with the Chair/Director and the Faculty Member This principle would apply across the College with the proviso that: the faculty member has recognized competence in multiple areas; that the College / Dept – School / Faculty member agree to the work assignment

Article Workload “18.19 In recommending/determining a Member’s teaching workload, the Chair and Dean shall use a fair, equitable, and transparent method. A Faculty Member’s teaching assignments may vary from year to year in recognition of the needs of the University and when possible to reflect the interest and teaching strengths of the Faculty Member. These variations will be taken into account by the Dean when approving teaching assignments. The Dean will ensure that the teaching assignments of Faculty Members are as fair and equitable as is reasonably possible, both within the academic unit and across the College.”

Proposal: 3. Recognition Unit T & P documents have not yet been revised and approved in light of the Collective Agreement The new documents would include recognition for work in any of the Faculties The College T & P committee would ensure that this provision is observed when judging performance

Participation The principle is common to all faculty members The intention is to maintain current disciplinary integrity (including programs) and departmental/school structures while encouraging cross-disciplinary activity

Advantages Allow faculty members greater scope and flexibility in professional life Ease staffing pressures on College as numbers decrease Increase interconnections between individuals and disciplines Focus image of College for internal community Focus image of College for external community in Campaign Focus planning, budgeting, resource allocation for College All areas of the College have the potential to benefit

Hypothetical examples, 1 1. Professor B teaches in French, has skills in History, Linguistics, Digital Applications, Science and Literature. Unfortunately, cannot paint, draw, or play music. Declares himself for Humanities and Interdisciplinary Faculties Teaches in French, European Studies, BAS program, and new ventures at GH: ex. professional MA targeted at teachers upgrading and people moving into management; ‘applied GH

Hypothetical examples, 2 #2 Professor M teaches in History, has strengths in History of Science, Latin American History, Environmental History. Like professor B, little talent in the fine arts. Declares himself for Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies. Teaches in History, the Latin American and Caribbean Studies Program, the Collaborative Program in International Development, and occasionally teaches in Faculty of Environmental Science.

Hypothetical examples, 3 #3 Professor W, teaches in English and Theatre Studies, with skills in directing, literary studies, and history Prof W declares for Humanities and Fine and Performing Arts Teaches in Theatre Studies, English, History, ‘applied humanities’ and English GH

Timeline March – April: Focus groups work through and refine the framework proposal, develop recommendations for implementation Early May: Focus groups meet again together to finalize recommendations Mid May: College-wide meeting to discuss proposal; AC to finalize proposal over summer based on recommendations September: College-wide meeting to discuss final version October: final version goes to Senate for approval