1. Campus Budgetary Affairs Committee Survey for FY2006: Report and Recommendations

2. Survey Details Faculty were polled to solicit their opinions regarding the following general budget issues: –The model to be used for addressing the budget shortfall (two models: flat 5% cut and the Provost’s model) –Facets of the plan to address the budget shortfall e.g.: tax indirect returns, require academic year release before allowing 3 months summer support, delay start of new programs, etc.) Data was evaluated at the campus and school levels (i.e., top five priorities for reductions) Results summarized: model favored, priorities for areas to save, campus vs. school responses 113 faculty members responded to the survey Survey was reviewed by members of Eng. Man. to eliminate bias in questioning

3. Model A vs. B Model A: Flat 3.372% cut for each unit (academic and administrative) Model B: Suggested by Provost Shah after discussions with various campus constituencies

4. Results of Model Application Examples: Model A Model B COAS $474,476 $450,000 Eng $625,013 $700,000 SMIS $98,985 $100,000 SoMEER $204,234 $250,000 Enroll Man $107,543 $50,000 Spon Prog $87,819 $125,000 Univ Adv $105,648 $50,000 Ext. Learning $39,176 $75,000 Adm. Services $227,691 $250,000 Info Access & $241,616 $250,000 Tech. Services Student Affairs $106,673 $70,000 Chancellor $29,845 Provost $27,088

5. Survey Results: Model A vs. B 51% 36% 12%

6. Response to Proposed Campus Cost Reductions Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1 st choice, 4 pts for 2 nd choice, etc. Increase consolidation and streamlining of administration: 339 Increase efficiencies and consolidation of services: 218 Reduce support to research centers: 164 Freeze all hiring: 139 Reduce payroll by closing something down: 139 Eliminate E&E increase: 107 Require acad. yr. release before 3 months summer support: 97 No raises: 95 Reduce dedicated indirect from 25% to 20%: 76 Support graduate education through research: 61 Department scholarship funds used to offset GO funds: 35 Other suggestions: 28 Note: question – Please indicate priority you would Give to each of the above proposed campus cost reductions

7. Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1st choice, 4 pts for 2nd choice, etc. Delay start of new programs: 364 Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 212 Tax Distance Education Returns: 144 Reduce funding for GRAs: 133 Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 124 Reduce departmental E&E: 110 Reduce funding for GTAs: 86 Tax Indirect returns: 84 Move part of faculty & staff S&W to soft money: 78 Tax endowment income & development accounts: 74 Other suggestions: 20 Note: Above question – Indicate your level of overall support for possible alternatives/additional academic unit cost reductions Response to Proposed Academic Unit Cost Reductions( All Schools)

8. Arts and Sciences Response (25 responses) Rating scheme: 5 pts for 1st choice, 4 pts for 2nd choice, etc. #1: Delay start of new programs: 84 #2: Tax distance education return: 50 #3: Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 48 #4: Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 35 #5: Reduce funding for GRAs: 29

9. School of Engineering Response (32 Responses) #1: Delay start of new programs: 105 #2: Reduce the Dean’s Reserve Fund (if any): 68 #3: Move part of Faculty & Staff to soft money: 37 #4: Tax carry forward accounts from prior FY: 36 #5: Reduce departmental E&E: 34

10. SoMEER Response (9 responses) Delay start of new programs –7 strongly support; 2 neutral Reduce the Dean’s reserve fund, if any –2 strongly support; 2 support; 4 neutral; 1 oppose Tax Distance Education Returns –1 strongly support; 1 support; 6 neutral; 1 strongly oppose Tax carry forward accounts –4 support; 2 neutral; 3 oppose Move part of Faculty & Staff to Soft Money –3 support; 3 neutral; 3 oppose Reduce Department E&E –1 support; 6 neutral; 1 oppose; 1 strongly oppose

11. SMIS Response (4 responses) Delay start of new programs: –1 support; 1 oppose; 2 strongly oppose Reduce the Dean’s reserve fund, if any –1 support; 2 neutral; 1 oppose Tax Distance Education Returns –1 strongly support; 1 support; 1 neutral; 1 oppose Tax carry forward accounts –3 support; 1 neutral Move part of Faculty & Staff to Soft Money –1 support; 3 neutral Reduce Department E&E –1 support; 3 neutral

12. Summary of Responses on New Programs and Building Issues Start in FY’06 Delay till new funds obtained Delay until FY’07 No opinion or no answer Bio-Eng Program 23.056.615.05.4 MBA Program 12.467.314.26.1 UCE Renovation 12.470.811.55.3 ME Building 21.264.66.28.0 All values reported as percent of 113 respondents.

13. Summary of Faculty Consensus Increase consolidation and streamlining of administration Increase efficiencies and consolidation of services Delay funding of any new programs Delay construction of new ME building and renovation of UCE

14. Committee Recommendation Academic Council forward the report to the Chancellor, Provost, and academic Deans for their deliberation of FY2006 budget adjustments.