Report of Budget Advisory Group III

June 16, 2010

On April 7, 2010, President George Philip announced to the University community that he was
establishing a Budget Advisory Group to assist in responding to the emerging budget situation.
More specifically, the President’s charge included advising him as he considers the decisions that
must bring the University’s program and operation into alignment with available resources. He
noted that the current challenge is not only to address further decreases in State support but also
to begin to rebalance our resources to respond to student need and opportunities for the future.

Following input from the Governance Council of the University Senate, President Philip
empanelled a broad-based group composed of members of the University Senate's University
Policy and Planning Council, members of the two prior Budget Advisory Groups, as well as
others recently experienced in considering University-wide budgetary matters and priorities. A
list of the membership is provided in Appendix A.

As the newly empanelled Budget Advisory Group III, we convened for 11 meetings between
May 6, 2010 and June 10, 2010. The agenda for these meetings focused first on information
about the University’s overall budget history, current status, and projected reductions.
Presentations were made by the heads of the divisions of Student Success, Research, ITS,
Finance & Business, Communication & Marketing, Athletics, Development, and the President’s
Office. For Academic Affairs, presentations were made for each of the eight schools and
colleges (Arts & Sciences, Business, Computing & Information, Criminal Justice, Education,
Public Health, Rockefeller, Social Welfare) and for the Libraries, Undergraduate Education,
Graduate Support, Enrollment Management, and all other Academic Affairs support units
(combined). Following these informational sessions, we reviewed and responded to two models
for University-wide reductions, and undertook an exercise in reduction and reallocation of base
funding. Finally, we formed some special recommendations for further consideration and study.

Over the course of these meetings, we reviewed a broad array of information concerning
historical and projected fund sources and uses, planning documents, productivity information,
and projections for the results of the budget reductions. A full list of materials is presented in
Appendix B.

Working Guidelines, Strategies, and Priorities

Drawing on the work of the prior budget advisory groups, together with information from the
draft strategic plan, we developed Working Guidelines, Strategies, and Priorities to inform our
thinking about the budget reduction process. These guidelines and priorities (a complete copy
can be found in Appendix C) were then grouped according to weight we assigned to each in a
limited-choice exercise. The top-ranked guidelines are noted below:

1. Preserve and promote the University’s CORE MISSION [Expanding knowledge and
transforming minds to shape the future of our community and our world], and sustain
those areas that are essential to maintaining that core.

Page | 1
 2. Direct funds in ways that best support CORE activities/areas (defined as undergrad
education; scholarship/creative work; graduate education).
a. Within Academic Affairs, areas of study need to be considered “on the merits,”
including consideration of enrollment, reputation, and faculty productivity, in the
context of a comprehensive mix of strong undergraduate science/math, social
sciences, humanities, arts and professional programs, with strong graduate
programs, and appropriately resourced Libraries.
b. Within non-academic units, funding decisions should consider preserving and
enhancing the more productive services and activities that support the core
activities/areas, that improve the “student experience,” and that minimize risk.
3. Plan for STRATEGIC REINVESTMENT by taking deeper campus-wide reductions than
are specifically required to meet the near-term budget reduction.
4. Investigate and introduce initiatives designed to ENHANCE REVENUE.

The top-ranked priorities included:

1. Preserve / grow areas of strength, reputation, and/or quality academic programs.

2. Preserve / grow external funding.
3. Support efforts to secure external resources through fund-raising and development.
4. Enhance / invest in programs and initiatives that aim to improve students’ critical
thinking, problem solving, communication and analytical skills; enhance the availability
and quality of undergraduate writing instruction.
5. Retain high quality faculty.
6. Ensure sufficient support for technological and communication infrastructure.
7. Sustain services to students (advisement, financial aid) that directly support their
enrollment and retention; prepare students for successful futures though advisement,
career counseling, and mentoring.

Three Models of a Reduced Budget

After the initial presentations and information gathering, we were asked to develop and discuss
advice for the President, in the context of addressing three different budget reduction modeling
tasks.

We offer a description of these analytic tasks below with a significant caveat: While we
recognize the possible need for immediate presidential action, we urge caution against taking any
of the specific advisory points noted in this report and appendices as literal prescriptions for
immediate action. Instead, we offer these as useful starting points for further investigation and
consideration.

9% Across-The-Board

In the first budget reduction modeling task, we considered a 9% “across the board” (ATB)
reduction plan totaling approximately $13.5M. The initial thoughts about the budget reductions
derived from this model were largely critical:

Page | 2
We liked that the 9% ATB model . . .
• was realistic in total amount
• was somewhat strategic
• demonstrated shared sacrifice
• had relative less loss for CAS
• provided for some reinvestment

We also urged consideration of the following concerns and suggested changes:

• Is this strategic enough?
• What about reinvestment?
• What about aligning with guidelines, strategies, priorities, and strategic plan?
• What about the longer view?
• Worries about the impact in some noted areas
• What about administrative consolidation, reorganization, and reduction?
• Draw on different money
• Develop new money
• Free-up money; economize
• Design from the ground up

“Plan B”

In the second budget reduction modeling task, we considered a model (“Plan B”), in which the
same dollar figure was targeted, but with a more differentiated distribution of reductions and
greater information about the strategic investment thinking. Prioritized reaction to Plan B was
definitely more favorable than to the prior ATB model and is noted below:

We liked about Plan B that . . .

• it was a more differentiated, strategic model that shows areas/goals for investment
• it gave Academic Affairs a higher priority
• it addressed accreditation risks

Despite these improvements over the ATB plan, we still had some significant concerns (in
priority order) . . .
• that this model does not go far enough
• about the lack of larger organizational and structural changes
• about the impact of reducing infrastructure, particularly fund-generating capacity
• about particular areas of reduction (or lack thereof) in Academic Affairs
• about eliminating sustainability
• about Athletics
• about the longer-term view

In addition, we put forward a number of suggested changes, presented in priority order, below:
• Better articulate the vision for the future of the University
• Consider structural reorganizations
• Consider further adjustments within Academic Affairs

Page | 3
 • Consider extended planning processes/tools

Reduction and reallocation

In the third budget reduction modeling task, we were asked to consider focused areas for
disinvestment across the entire current university structure, as well as areas for investment. Each
member was asked to assign 25 “disinvestment points” and 7 “investment points” at whatever
level of specificity desired. This was a conceptual task; no dollar values were attached.
Constraints were placed against multiple point assignment, and we were asked to assign points
that would have meaningful financial implications.

This was a more difficult exercise to undertake, and its outcomes more difficult to evaluate. It
was noted that the quality of information available varied across areas, and further that our levels
of familiarity and expertise might well have led to different emphases as points were assigned.
Further, there was no provision for the “weight” of each point assigned, conveying the
impression that each point carries equal value. Concern was expressed that the rationale behind
the point assignments was not clear. Finally, it must be noted that there was no opportunity to
consider further the overall pattern of point assignment produced in this exercise.

With those caveats in mind, some “high level” observations include:

Across the divisions, comparing the disinvestment distribution to the current budget, two
divisions accrued relatively lower disinvestment (Academic Affairs, Finance & Business), three
accrued relatively higher disinvestment (Communication & Marketing, President, Research), and
the remaining accrued roughly the same level.

Comparing the relative assigned points between the Disinvest element and the Invest element of
this exercise, two divisions show a greater percent of Investment than Disinvestment (Academic
Affairs and Development), two show the reverse (President and Research), and the remainder
show approximately comparable percentages from each element.

At a more detailed level, the exercise also pointed to a broad set of areas of possible
disinvestment and investment, with some areas receiving a concentration of attention. Individual
members of the group provided elaborations of their point assignments, and these elaborations
were shared with the full group.

Conclusions and Special Recommendations

This report outlines our work, from learning about the breadth of the university, through
articulating guidelines and priorities, to undertaking three different analytic tasks. Each element
of our work presented a somewhat different angle on the task at hand, and each outcome
consequently highlights different facets of the matter. Although differences might be evident
across the different undertakings, we send a common, consistent message and conclusion:

• Protect the core academic mission, and that which supports it

• Make (re)investments strategically
• Preserve and grow areas of strength and opportunity
Page | 4
 • Economize further where possible—through consolidation, reorganization, or rethinking
• Support ways to enhance non-state revenue streams

We offer this conclusion with several cautionary notes and special recommendations. First,
given the shifting economic picture in the state, we recognize that the timing of budgetary
decisions will be evolving over the next weeks, months, and even years. Thus, it will likely be
important to consider reduction actions that must be taken immediately, and those that may be
able to benefit from further study and review, and from further information about the emerging
financial picture.

Second, we also recognize that the time constraints for the work of this Budget Advisory Group
prevented consideration of several perspectives and issues that would be important to address in
a fully thoughtful budget plan. On discussion of such issues, a number were identified as most
important for further consideration and study over a more extended period, through this and/or
other advisory groups. These are noted below.

1. Explore how to increase autonomy and independent control for this campus.

2. Consider how to generate/evaluate entrepreneurial, revenue-generating initiatives --

mission-directed priorities played out possibly in summer school, online, non-traditional
offerings, incentivized enrollment planning, incentivized cost savings, incentivized
development/external funding.

3. Consider different organizational structures to reorganize/consolidate administrative

units, including within Academic Affairs.

4. Consider the longer-term view: Address the question, “What does UA need to do to
position itself for the best longer-term future?”

Finally, while recognizing the possible need for immediate presidential action, we again urge
caution to preclude taking any of the specific advisory points noted in this report and appendices
as literal prescriptions for immediate action. Rather, they are presented for what they are—
responses to a set of analytic tasks undertaken with less than optimal time, and less than perfect
information. That said, they provide an important starting point for further investigation and
comprehensive consideration and decision making.

Page | 5
Appendix A

Budget Advisory Group Membership 
  
First Name  Last Name  Title/Affiliation 
Jim   Acker  Dist Teaching Prof 
Pierre   Alric  Member
Robert   Bangert‐Drowns  Assoc Prof and Dean 
Kevin   Bean  Assoc VP for Dev 
Tom  Bessette  Computer Application Instructor 
Scott   Birge  Assist Dir, Student Union
Peter   Bloniarz  Assoc Prof and Dean 
Adrienne   Bonilla  Director, Office of Regulatory Research Compliance 
Cindy   Brady  Assistant to the VP 
Andrew  Byon  Assoc Professor
Jennifer   Carron  Director of Marketing 
Mary   Casserly  Dean/Director Librarian 
Shobha   Chengalur‐Smith Professor and Chair
Edward  Cupoli  Professor 
Anthony  DeBlasi  Assoc Professor and Chair 
John   Delano  Dist Teaching Prof 
Diane   Dewar  Assoc Professor
Eric   Eisenbraun  Assoc Professor 
Nicholas   Fahrenkopf  Research Project Asst 
Patrick  Ferlo  Director, PAC & Page 
James   Fossett  Assoc Professor
John   Giarrusso  Assoc VP Fin and Bus/Facilities 
Teresa   Harrison  Professor and Chair 
Richard   Johnson  Assistant Prof
Linda   Krzykowski  Vice Dean for Admin 
Kajal   Lahiri  Distinguished Professor 
Hamp   Lankford  Professor 
Dustin  Lanterman  Undergraduate student
Cristian   Lenart  Assoc Professor 
Eric   Lifshin  Professor 
Andi  Lyons  Professor 
Sheila   Mahan  Assistant VP
Lee   McElroy  VP Athletic Admin 
Blanca   Ramos  Associate Professor 
Michael   Range  Professor, Senate Chair
David    Rousseau  Assoc Prof and Chair 
Benjamin    Shaw  Assoc Professor 
David    Wagner  Professor 
Robert   Yagelski  Assoc Professor
     
Co‐Chairs    
Susan   Phillips  Provost and VPAA 
Steve   Beditz  Interim VP Fin and Bus 

Page | 6
Appendix B

List of Materials and Handouts

Unit Document Title / Description

Academic Affairs Overview of Academic Affairs Units and Programs
Academic Affairs Summary: Faculty Headcount by College/School
Academic Affairs Reductions in Tsunami #1
Academic Affairs The Death Spiral
Academic Affairs GSS Doctoral Panel Review: Average Overall Evaluation of UAlbany Programs
Academic Affairs Dimensions
AA - College of Arts & Sciences Budget Reduction Scenarios
AA - College of Arts & Sciences Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - College of Computing & Information Budget Reduction Scenarios
AA - College of Computing & Information College Facts and Figures
AA - Enrollment Management Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - Graduate Studies Graduate Student Support
AA - Rockefeller College Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - School of Business Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - School of Criminal Justice Budget Reduction Scenarios
AA - School of Criminal Justice School Facts and Figures
AA - School of Education Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - School of Public Health Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - School of Social Welfare Activities of and reduction scenarios
AA - Undergraduate Education Activities of the Office of Undergraduate Education
AA - Undergraduate Education Budget Reduction Scenarios
AA - University Libraries Activities of and reduction scenarios
Athletics Configuration of and Dollars Allocated by Team
Athletics Activities of and reduction scenarios
Communications and Marketing Activities of and reduction scenarios
Finance and Business Activities of and reduction scenarios
General Economic and Budget Outlook for NY State and SUNY
General Working Guidelines, Strategies, and Priorities
General Strategic Planning Working Draft
General Budget Advisory Group Planning Metrics Errata
General Prior budget advisory documents
General The Volkwein published account of the UA budget reduction process from the
1970’s
General The Middle States Self Study documents
General Draft strategic planning documents
General Forecast data from the US Department of Labor
General / Finance and Business Breakdown of Expenses by Division
General / Finance and Business Base Budget Reduction History
General / Finance and Business FTE by Classification - All Divisions/Units
Information Technology Services Activities of and reduction scenarios
Research Activities of and reduction scenarios
Student Success Student Success Funding and Expense History
Student Success Comparison of Student Fees at SUNY State-Op Campuses
Student Success Comparison of Room and Board Costs at SUNY State-Op Campuses

Page | 7
Appendix C
 
Working Guidelines, Strategies, and Priorities 
(abstracted from BAG I, BAG II, Draft Strategic Plan, division deliberations) 
(further modified and ordered by the Budget Advisory Group III) 
 
These guidelines, strategies, and priorities are intended provide guidance for our recommendations about 
higher education, as carried out in our University. 
 
To begin, we affirm the University’s commitment to a diversified workforce, student body, and 
curriculum, to environmental sustainability, to ensuring campus health and safety, to complying with 
regulatory authorities, and to maintaining buildings/grounds occupancy and continued operations. 
 
“Guidelines and Strategies” 
 
These guidelines and strategies suggest ways to approach possible reductions in our University’s budget.  
These guidelines and strategies are grouped below according to the frequency in which each was 
selected in a limited‐choice exercise 
 
Chosen by 20 to 22 (59% to 65%) 
5. Preserve and promote the University’s CORE MISSION [Expanding knowledge and transforming 
minds to shape the future of our community and our world], and sustain those areas that are 
essential to maintaining that core.   
6. Direct funds in ways that best support CORE activities/areas (defined as undergrad education; 
scholarship/creative work; graduate education)  
a. Within Academic Affairs, areas of study need to be considered “on the merits,” including 
consideration of enrollment, reputation, and faculty productivity, in the context of a 
comprehensive mix of strong undergraduate science/math, social sciences, humanities, 
arts and professional programs, with strong graduate programs, and appropriately 
resourced Libraries 
b. Within non‐academic units, funding decisions should consider preserving and enhancing 
the more productive services and activities that support the core activities/areas, that 
improve the “student experience,” and that minimize risk 
 
Chosen by 16 t0 17 (47% to 50%) 
7. Plan for STRATEGIC REINVESTMENT by taking deeper campus‐wide reductions than are 
specifically required to meet the near‐term budget reduction.  
8. Investigate and introduce initiatives designed to ENHANCE REVENUE. 
 
Chosen by 7 to 10 (21% to 29%) 
9. Seek INSTITUTIONAL benefit before INDIVIDUAL benefit. 
10. Suggested addition:  We should consider restructuring/reorganizing current units to reduce costs 
while at the same time strengthen or support the university's core mission. 
11. Seek greater EFFICIENCY (while maintaining quality) before reducing resources.   
12. Establish the OPTIMAL LEVEL OF ENROLLMENT to serve the core mission, to provide adequate 
revenue, and to properly gauge infrastructure needs. 
13. Suggested addition:  Because our recommendations are likely to affect both the institution and 
the individuals comprising the institution, we must be mindful of the respective implications.  We 
should aspire to be not only efficient but also humane. 

Page | 8
 14. Suggested addition:  We should consider the role of emerging areas in the determination of what 
we consider as part of our core mission.  We could invest and continue to invest in a given area 
while it is still reaching its stride, or we can divest in it, risking the possibility that we will be 
behind the wave. 
 
Chosen by 2 to 3 (6% to 9%) 
15. Suggested addition:  We need to be mindful of the impact of budgetary decisions on the 
university's reputation in terms of both undergraduate and graduate education and the 
university's scholarly/research functions. (In other words, the perception that the university has 
been weakened by various budget reductions can adversely affect enrollments, the applicant 
pool, grants, etc.) 
16. Seek to implement the PRIORITIES below 
 
 
“Priorities” 
(from BAG I, BAG II, and the Draft Strategic Plan) 
(further modified and ordered by the Budget Advisory Group III) 
 
These priorities suggest what is more—and less—important as we consider fewer resources.  They are 
grouped below according to the frequency in which each was selected in a limited‐choice exercise. 
 
Chosen by 26 to 30 (greater than 76%) 
8. Preserve / grow areas of strength, reputation, and/or quality academic programs 
9. Preserve / grow external funding 
 
Chosen by 18 to 22 (53 to 65%) 
10. Support efforts to secure external resources through fund‐raising and development 
11. Enhance / invest in programs and initiatives that aim to improve students’ critical thinking, 
problem solving, communication and analytical skills; enhance the availability and quality of 
undergraduate writing instruction 
12. Retain high quality faculty 
13. Ensure sufficient support for technological and communication infrastructure 
14. Sustain services to students (advisement, financial aid) that directly support their enrollment and 
retention; prepare students for successful futures though advisement, career counseling, and 
mentoring  
 
Chosen by 8 to 14 (24% to 41%) 
15. Ensure adequate course availability to meet the needs of currently enrolled students 
16. Maintain / support the University libraries 
17. Sustain facilities maintenance and upgrade efforts, including work to Support / develop initiatives 
that maintain and improve the safety of our campus community 
18. Preserve / grow scholarly publication 
19. Attract and retain outstanding graduate students and support and prepare them appropriately 
20. Increase strategic partnerships for economic development  
21. Maintain / improve the condition of our classrooms and academic spaces  
22. Sustain extra‐curricular programs (e.g. Res life, alcohol education, educational programs, Danes 
After Dark) and other elements of the student experience (e.g., housing, transportation, dining, 
recreation, etc.) 
23. Increase, support, and recognize FT faculty engagement with undergraduate education  
24. Strengthen the graduate program evaluation process and use the results to focus resources  

Page | 9
 25. Create a strong sense of community among faculty, students, staff, and alumni, drawing on 
and/or creating opportunities for engagement between and among faculty. students, staff, and 
alumni 
26. Honor scholarship and support commitments to undergrad and grad students  
27. Enrich the undergraduate educational experience in the major and the minor 
 
Chosen by 6 or fewer  (9% to 18%) 
28. Create a more integrated u‐wide system for community‐engaged research, teaching, and service 
29. Suggested addition:  IT should be reflected not just as website, but as broader need ‐‐…IT as a 
major feature given the integration of teaching and research with IT now, and instead of 
highlighting just the website as a priority … reword slightly to include emerging marketing 
venues such as social media and the website. 
30. Suggested addition:  Improve our recruiting, make the UAlbany brand better known to the 
outside world, and especially the way in which it has changed in recent years (as potential 
applicants are unaware of these changes) 
31. Suggested addition:  add character formation to the critical thinking item:  ‐ invest in programs 
that improve critical thinking/problem solving/ communication/analytic skills, as well as programs 
that help with character formation. 
32. Improve support for post‐award services 
33. Preserve / grow efforts to improve the University website  
 

Page | 10