2. UCLA Council on Planning and Budget (CPB) Chair - Ajit Mal, 2003-04 CPB involvement in the budget process STANDING ORDER OF THE REGENTS The Academic Senate is authorized to select a committee or committees to advise a Chancellor concerning a campus budget and to select a committee or committees to advise the President concerning the University budget.

4. 2004-05 Budget Analysis Guidelines from EVC, Sept 15, 2003 Each unit is requested by the EVC to submit preliminary budget plans for 2004-05 incorporating a 5% reduction in state (19900) funds. All proposals prepared by the academic units should be developed in consultation with appropriate Faculty Executive Committees (FEC). Due date: Dec 1, 2003.

5. Winter Quarter, 2004 CPB has received the budget plans and related documents from APB, and has assigned a lead reviewer or a review team to study them. A special subcommittee has been assigned to review the Administration’s Budget. CPB lead reviewer and the FEC Chair of each unit are being encouraged to discuss the unit’s budget planning process.

6. Winter Quarter, 2004 CPB lead reviewers present their reports to full council. Each report is discussed and revised as needed. CPB is planning to carry out a cross- disciplinary analysis of the Budget Plans, to the extent possible, after all the budget plans are reviewed

7. Spring Quarter, 2004 CPB’s integrated report on the Budget Plans will be submitted to Senate Chair, Senate Vice Chair, EVC, and VC Finance. Chancellor will make final budget decisions in June?

8. Budget plan from Unit X Total State Funds: $32,000,000 Faculty Salaries: $17,000,000 5% Budget Cut:($1,600,000) Temp Faculty (667,000) GSR Support (163,000) Staff Support(222,000) Supplies and Equipment (548,000) Effective 10% cut in non-faculty-salary items Cumulative cuts for the last 3 years > 20%

9. Budget plan from Unit Y Total State Funds: $160M Ladder faculty Salaries:$85M 5% Budget Cut: ($8M) Equivalent to more than 10% cut in temporary lecturers, supplies, staff, recruitment and retention activities, etc. This unit also has a large structural deficit that must be eliminated within the next few years!

10. All preliminary budget plans indicate strong negative impact on: Undergraduate instruction Graduate student recruitment/retention Further deterioration of infrastructure Faculty recruitment and retention Etc, etc. Etc, etc.

11. Issues of concern Negative impact of approximately 3% budget reduction in 2003-04 and 5% (or more?) in 2004- 05 on academic units’ core missions. 2004-05 budget plans from most units propose cuts in staff (already at subsistence level), supplies, instructional support and reductions in temporary FTE. How would these cuts affect students’ academic programs, faculty workload and faculty/graduate student research?

12. Possible Scenarios (All Painful!) Across-the-board cuts Strategic cuts Smaller cuts for units with highly ranked programs Smaller cut for the College Higher cuts for professional schools with large non-state funds Higher cuts for administration Etc. Suggestions welcome. nykiel@senate.ucla.edu or ajit@ucla.edunykiel@senate.ucla.edu ajit@ucla.edu