February 15, 2009

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:05:32 -0800
From: Eric Turnblom
To: CFR Faculty Email
Subject: [Faccfr] EFC budget poll - Results

Dear CFR Faculty:

I would like to take a moment to report the results of the EFC "budget poll" which closed earlier this week. Thank you to the 21 faculty who responded either by email, anonymous letter to my mailbox, or just stopped by my office to chat. I appreciate it, very much.

Please keep in mind I used a rather unscientific method in crafting the poll, framed the questions in a manner suggested by Faculty Senate Leadership, and consulted other EFC members for the final wording in the poll. The intent was to gather information from the faculty for input to the dean as he considers various budget reduction scenarios and to report the results back to the faculty.

Most consensus was found among the faculty for the items that should receive "protection" from budget reductions, two or three items stood in front of everything else. There was much lower consensus on most items for where reductions should be focused. Only one item stood out from the rest. Here are the results.

Items to "protect" in CFR:

  • TA support
    - stated by 24% of respondents
    - a few suggest stronger links to enrollment
  • Faculty lines (refers to tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty)
    - stated by 19% of respondents
  • Critical "mass" of student services/grant writing support/etc.
    - stated by 14% of respondents
  • Community outreach by UWBG
    - stated by 10% of respondents
  • IT support
    - stated by 10% of respondents
  • Health of undergraduate majors (PSE/ESRM)
    - stated by 5% of respondents

    Items on which to focus "reductions" in CFR:

  • IT support
    - stated by 24% of respondents
  • Wasteful administrative/faculty bureaucracy (includes admin supplements)
    - stated by 10% of respondents
  • CFR communications
    - stated by 10% of respondents
  • Water Center
    - stated by 10% of respondents
  • Auxiliary teaching (includes salary for Research/WOT faculty to teach)
    - stated by 5% of respondents
  • Outreach functions
    - stated by 5% of respondents

    Other cost-cutting measures were suggested such as giving back a portion of faculty tenure, putting motion detectors on lights, securing office supplies, etc.

    The faculty were split on the issue of returning a portion of tenure, or other forms of pay cut. Exactly half who responded directly to that issue (8 faculty in total) found it "palatable" (the wording in the poll), half found it unpalatable.

    The EFC is reviewing these poll results, reviewing what the BAC has recommended, and will be providing its input to the dean as quickly as possible. The timeline for this whole process has been quite short; in my opinion, way too short. The Provost shortened the timeline substantially after the BAC began deliberations. However, I do not see how the BAC could have shortened its deliberations any more than it did, given the complexity and sometimes conflicting nature of the issues involved.

    Thank you again, for providing your valuable input to this very important process. Please feel free to contact me or any other members of the EFC with further ideas and / or discussion on these matters.

    Sincerely,

    Eric Turnblom
    Chair, CFR EFC

    To Return to:Prof Bare's Page, Dean's Office, College of Forest Resources