Faculty Senate Financial Advisory Committee Report Faculty Senate Meeting February 16, 2005 fffff

Committee Members Buddy BabcockRo DiBrezzo Judy BrittenumLuke Howard Uche EwelukwaPhyllis Miller Tim KruseRobert Brady

Faculty Handbook Charge Standing committee composed of a representative from each college Solicit ideas from the faculty and communicate to campus administration –Cost Saving –Budget Priorities Nominated by the Committee on Committees and appointed by the Chair of the Campus Faculty Five year terms

Special Senate Chair Charge Benchmark Adm. & Faculty Salaries against National/Regional Groups Compare Adm. & Faculty Raises at U of A Analyze, Report, & Recommend Five Year Period from FY 2000 – FY 2005

Mode of Operation Met monthly for approximately 1-1/2 hrs. Two special called meetings Various tasks assigned between meeting dates Collected data from: –Institutional Research Office –Annual Budget Documents –Various benchmark websites –A few personal interviews –Human Resources Office

Data Groups Alabama Study - Administrators –Southern Universities Group (31 Public Doctoral Granting Univ. from Ariz. to Del. AAUP Study – Faculty Oklahoma State Study Delaware Study

Relative Size of Faculty & Non- Classified Staff FY05FY04FY03FY02FY01FY00 Prof 310/46* /36 Assoc 226/ /59 Asst 154/ /69 Instr &Lect 107/ /66 Total 797/ /230 Staff

Definitions No. of faculty is a head count including Instructors and Lecturers as defined by the AAUP study (800) Administrators were limited to the following groups: –Cat. 1 President, Provost, Chancellor & Vice Chancellors (7) –Cat. 2 Associate Vice Chancellors (10) –Cat. 3 Deans (10) – Others Included Administrative Directors/Selected Equivalent Positions (34)

Benchmarking Faculty – Regional Uof A avg /SUG avg 1000’s $ FY05FY04FY03FY02FY01FY00 Prof85/XX82/91 90% 81/90 90% 78/87 90% 76/84 90% 74/78 95% Assoc63/XX61/65 94% 61/64 95% 59/63 94% 57/59 97% 55/57 96% Asst56/XX53/56 95% 53/55 96% 52/53 98% 50/51 98% 48/49 98% Inst40/XX37/40 93% 37/39 95% 37/38 97% 37/38 97% 36/34 106%

Benchmarking Administrators-SUG UofA avg /SUG avg 1000’s $ FY05FY04FY03FY02FY01FY00 Cat 1 194/XX173/201 * 86% 181/193 93% 173/ % 170/174 98% 159/168 95% Cat 2 104/XX105/118 89% 101/112 90% 90/108 83% 89/102 87% 85/98 87% Cat 3 161/XX161/171 94% 150/163 92% 151/160 94% 149/153 97% 135/146 92% All( ) 112/XX109/125 87% 106/120 88% 103/115 90% 102/111 92% 93/107 87%

National Comparison It’s Lucrative at the Top – Chronicle of Higher Education by Basinger & Henderson, Nov 19, 2004 Top 20 Paid Public Univ. Leaders Salaries range from $762,000 down to $477,650 U of A Salaries do not even begin to be competitive with these salary ranges

Faculty Yearly % Raises Benchmarking - SUG FY05FY04FY03FY02FY01 Prof3.2/XX1.7/0.72.8/3.62.6/3.83.8/4.1 Assoc3.3/XX0.4/0.63.3/3.13.0/3.53.6/3.9 Asst2.6/XX0.2/0.83.3/3.13.6/4.25.9/3.9

Administrators Yearly % Raises Benchmarking - SUG FY05FY04FY03FY02FY01 Cat /X-4.3/4.34.6/11.2.1/-.46.8/3.7 Cat /XX3.9/ /3.0.9/5.95.0/4.6 Cat. 30.2/XX6.9/ /2.1.0/4.010./5.0

Cumulative % Raise Benchmarking - SUG ProfAssocAsstCat. 1Cat. 2Cat. 3 4 Yr Cum 11/1311/1212/149/2024/2019/17 5 Yr Cum

BU 5 YR Budget Increases CHAN Business Unit –Salaries $374,452 to 569,775 52% –Total All CC $585,635 to 855,38246% VCAC – Academic Affairs –Salaries $277,510 to 472,17070% –Total All CC $1,510,231 to 2,031,09734% VCAD - Advancement –Salaries $254,907 to 338,16833% –Total All CC $304,594 to 394,14329%

BU 5 YR Budget Increases VCFA – Financial Affairs –Salaries $336,582 to 398,53318% –Total All CC $478,274 to 770,747 61% UDEV –Salaries $1,077,285 to 2,721, % –Total All CC $ 1,402,993 to 3,294, % GNSS –Salaries $571,207 to 592,260 4% –Total All CC $ 742,847 to 1,407,84190% –Salaries 1,874,899 to 3,194,02570% –Total Hard Budget 2,2821,394 to 3,434,791 22%

Academic Colleges 5 YR Hard Budget Increases AGRI (1000’S $) –Total $ 4,662 to 5, % ARCH –Total $2,418 to 2, % ARSC –Total $30,761 to 34, % BADM –Total $10,239 to 13, %

BU 5 YR Budget Increases CTED (1000’S $) –Total $ 3,035 to 3, % EDUC –Total $8,655 to 10, % ENGR –Total $10,138 to 13, % LAW –Total $6,122 to 8, % GRAD –Total $1,376 to 2,754100%

Distribution of 5 Yr Increase To Colleges ($17.695MM) MM$$ / Stu 04 $/$ 04 Resh$ / Fac 04 AGRI ,517 7 ARCH ,222 4 ARSC ,652 6 BADM ,156 2 CTED N/A EDUC ,833 5 ENGR ,517 3 GRAD N/A N/A LAW ,259 1

Historical Comparison of Revenue FY 2000 to FY2005 FY00 MM$ % Total FY05 MM$ % Total % Incrse Tuition & Fees State Approp Other Total % %

Historical Comparison of Budget Allocations (Selected Cat.) FY00 MM$ % Total FY05 MM$ % Total % Incrse Instr Resh Schola Studen Service Facility

Additional 5 Year Trends Student enrollment has increased 13.4 % Total payroll salaries increased 19 % Six year graduation rates have risen to 52.9 % (1998 Cohort) Entering Students HSGPA has risen from 3.44 to 3.59 Research Dollars have risen 30% to $91MM

5 Year Conclusions(1) Faculty numbers have remained constant Total employees has only slightly increased(2%) The number of staff including administrators has increased significantly(40%) Both faculty & administrator’s salaries averages are below the SUG averages, but not egregiously so. At this campus, administrator’s absolute and % salary raises have been disproportionately large over the past 5 years compared to that of the faculty

Conclusions (2) Tuition & fee revenue has increased 84% and the overall campus budget increased 44% while the Instruction budget category increased only 20%. Administrator’s budget unit % increases are high compared to academic college budget unit increases. Scholarship expenditures have increased 89% to $31 MM.

Recommendations (1) Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, in concert with FAC, report to the faculty senate each spring semester on trends in pertinent budget categories The Chair of the Financial Advisory Committee, the Faculty Chair and the Chair of the Faculty Senate be included in the yearly budget planning process

Recommendations(2) Performance criteria be established and outcome assessments made of all administrative BU’s. Process reviews conducted on all administrative BU’s activities with a goal of reducing overhead costs Six sigma procedures be investigated as a means to achieving stated goals and objectives