Okay, I think we'll begin. Good afternoon. I am Steve Glemi from the Provost's Office.
I'm here broadcasting live from campus with Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs Carol Kim and Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, Kevin Williams.
Demalatessa also was us virtually as panelists to help with the question and answer session.
Before we get started, please note that this webinar is being recorded. Also, like previous
town halls, we have the Q&A enabled to take your questions. For the Q&A, today we will focus on
questions related to academic affairs proposed budget planning metrics. Now it is my pleasure
to introduce Provost Kim. Thanks Steve. Good afternoon everyone and thank you all for making
yourselves available today for this important community conversation. I hope you've all had a
chance for some downtime during the holidays and intercession. 2020 was an extremely challenging
year and so far 2021 has been just as tumultuous. We've been through a lot as a campus,
as a community and as a nation. However, we've entered a new chapter with some very promising
developments on some of the challenges we face in terms of COVID and the economy. Meanwhile,
we must press forward in our work as the spring semester is upon us. In addition to the academic
planning that's underway, we have to address the university's financial challenges.
As you're all aware, we're facing a $59 million deficit. There's no question. A significant portion
of the current deficit was caused by the pandemic. But the reality is, we've been living beyond
our means for some time now. Over the past several years, we've made efforts to grow our enrollments,
but overall, we haven't grown. Our enrollment targets for next year are quite conservative,
as all indications point to our numbers being roughly the same as this year. And the demographic
cliff will only become more of a factor in the coming years. The warning signs have been on the
horizon for some time now. We've been battling small deficits for several years, and the pandemic
has contributed to a substantial increase in the structural deficit beginning next year of $38 million.
We'll be spending down much of our reserves to cover the deficit, so we really don't have the
luxury of delaying decisions to reduce our spending. Now, we just come to grips not only with
recovering from the pandemic, but building long-term financial stability. We've been transparent
all along the way about our financial condition. Back in October, Vice President Forman held an
open forum with a detailed explanation of our budget situation. He also gave an update at the
extended President's Council on January 14. As Todd explained, we've picked the low-hanging fruit
with hiring freeze, non-essential spending directives, and other administrative reductions.
We're looking at a cut in state support, although possibly not as significant as previously thought,
based on the executive budget and a statement from the SUNY Chancellor. And there might be really
from the federal level that will help with the impacts of COVID-19. This is welcome news. However,
we won't have a final state budget until April 1. So we will hope for good news, but can't
bank on anything until that budget is done. But that won't solve our structural deficit, the
recurring costs that we currently can't afford. Some have asked, why are we developing new metrics
in the context of a crisis? But we've actually been working on developing this model since I got
here, because we really need a more transparent and strategic way to allocate resources.
This year, because of the financial environment we're in, by necessity, we must develop reduction
targets, but over time, these same metrics will be focused on resource allocation.
The fact remains, to balance this year's budget, every division will have to take a significant
reduction. Academic affairs is by far the largest divisional budget and the most complicated.
To develop a vision and framework for the long term, we needed a robust model that will allow us
to prioritize our budget allocations. The deans and I have been working on this for some time now,
and I can tell you that it's not going to be difficult, it's not going to be easy.
We've seen what has happened at colleges and universities across the country, including down
the road at St. Rose. We're not going to be immune from decisions that no one wants to make.
That's why it's so critical that we have this conversation now. This is a collaborative process,
and you need time to review and help determine the best path forward.
I'm not going to sugarcoat the fact that it's going to be difficult. At the same time,
I'm confident that if we make the best decisions for the institution, you all
been able to emerge as a stronger, more sustainable position for the long term.
It's going to require all of us to step into an institutional mindset.
I was amazed and so proud of what we were able to achieve together over the past nine months.
We need to come together again with that same collaborative spirit to design our collective future.
Our decisions would reflect where we want to go as our one public university and what will allow us
to reach our institutional mission, vision, and goals. That's why our strategic core priorities
are at the center of this new model, which we're going to walk through in just a few minutes.
First, let's talk about how we got to this point. To address the $38 million structural deficit,
each of the divisions was asked to take a proportional 15% cut from their base budgets.
For academic affairs that worked out to be $20 million in reductions over the next two years.
Discussions started in Dean's Council back in August. The first thing I did was to convene
three subcommittees, a budget group to develop metrics for resource allocation,
a futuring group to research enrollment trends, career growth areas, and mapped against
you Albany offerings, and a diversity inclusion group to assess the work being done at the
school and college level. I'm going to say more about these committees in a moment. But first,
what I'm sharing on the screen is the timeline we'll be using to guide us through the budget
planning process. A particular note are several points where we're seeking input from stakeholder
groups and from the campus at large. We're currently in the first phase of consultation where we're
seeking feedback from stakeholders on the model, specifically the metrics that we propose to use
as we move forward with budget reduction planning. The second consultation phase will begin in February
when we will present the proposed reduction plans that the schools and colleges have drafted
and solicit feedback and input from the stakeholder groups. In March, we'll have another campus-wide
town hall to present the proposed reduction plan and solicit additional input. So in summary,
in terms of the consultation process, we envision that many people will have at least two opportunities
to engage in dialogues on the budget model as well as the projected reduction plans. This will be
in stakeholder groups and through the town halls. During each of these consultation phases,
we'll collect feedback, which will assemble and organize by common themes. Then the Deans and I
will discuss and consider the feedback and incorporate modifications as needed.
In addition to aligning with strategic priorities, the model should optimize limited resources,
respond to the changing fiscal and educational landscape, acknowledge current and recent
performance, be rational and data informed, transparent, accountable and collaborative,
fair and equitable, and flexible to encompass values and emergent needs. So let me back up a little
bit. As I mentioned, our planning began during the summer where I created three work groups,
each consisting of a subset of Deans. To the budget work group, this group was charged with
recommending metrics to determine budget reduction targets for the schools and colleges. Dean Carl
Rathmeyer from Rockefeller College was the chair of this work group. The future work group identified
career areas with significant projected demand and future growth, and the top skill areas
important for employees to be successful in the job market. The underlying theme here is to plan
an academic experience that will make students successful and competitive as they enter the
workforce of the future. Data from Burning Glass, the Department of Labor Statistics were used
to conduct this analysis. Dean Jason Lane chaired this work group. The Diversity Equity and Inclusion
Work Group, led by Dean Valverde, reviewed all of the school and college diversity inclusion plans
that Dean submitted to me this past June. This work group developed a comprehensive diversity
and inclusion plan for the Division of Academic Affairs that included programs and initiatives
that address faculty, staff and student concerns and needs. So for example, the inventory
of the efforts to incorporate diversity throughout the curriculum was part of the school and college
plans. Now let's have a look at the budget model and the proposed metrics. The first over arching
metric noted in the model is enrollment, which is in terms of demand and retention. This category
includes undergraduate enrollment and intended majors, minors, graduate enrollment, and student credit
hours to Gen Ed. A description is provided for each metric along with the source of the data used.
And next you'll see the weight assigned to each of these metrics. For the research excellence
is there it includes scholarly works and booked awards and their two categories included
with booked awards separated into organized research and training grounds. We're also in the
process of developing metrics to reflect our core priorities of engagement and service.
The diversity inclusion internationalization area includes student race ethnicity,
faculty race ethnicity, and international students. For the efficiency and financial contributions,
we're considering net revenue generated, cost per credit, student faculty ratio, and FTE
student in this model. I'd also like to mention that the support offices within academic affairs,
so that means undergraduate education, graduate school, it law, ITS, OTL, were given budget
reduction targets and contributed about 20% to 20% of our total cut with the exception of the
graduate student support. We're preserving these funds for recruitment and retention of the
graduate students. And so that concludes my presentation and so Steve, let's go to the question
and answer. Thank you Provost Kim and thanks to all of you who submitted a question in advance via
my wall bunny. Since we had some similar questions you might not hear the exact question that you
submitted as we move through the Q&A. As I mentioned at the beginning of the town hall today,
we will focus on questions related to the proposed budget metrics. We will begin with the
presubmitted questions. The first question of the day is, I'm concerned about the
emphasis on enrollment, which has the largest percentage among the criteria listed in the metrics.
This focus on demand and retention has essentially reduced academic affairs to student
popularity and not on student educational value. Well such a measurement automatically devalues
small departments and programs and if so, how will you safeguard such programs which contribute
to the curriculum diversity? So we know that these metrics will not perfectly capture all of the
value our programs provide and the reason we're here today is to collectively work toward the best
version of them. As I stated before, tuition is the largest portion of our revenue and the most
readily available way to increase revenue is to closely watch enrollment and retention trends.
While we always advocate for increased state support, we can't ignore the fact that higher
education is primarily enrollment driven. Our metrics must acknowledge this reality even if
we really wish it were different. Thank you. The next question is, the metrics don't account for
different roles in different units. My unit for example has no majors in instructor contracts,
exclude research and scholarship, but we teach literally every student in the university.
My concern then is that these metrics were not well conceived and if executed,
we'll make the university as a whole much much weaker, not stronger.
So the budget metrics really are meant to be applied to the schools and colleges and not the
support offices. The very important support units such as the graduate school, ITS, OTL,
the libraries, and undergraduate education, which includes WCI, have been given a proposed
budget reduction target of 15 percent and this is an average across all of the units.
Thank you. The next couple of questions will work with our diversity and inclusion metric.
Why is the criteria of diversity and inclusion receiving such a small percentage in the metrics?
Given the emphasis on this issue at the university, how can it better be measured?
Also, keep in mind that diverse faculty are often found in smaller departments with fewer enrollments.
How will you ensure diversity and inclusion across the board, but especially in smaller units?
So the diversity, inclusion, and internationalization category makes up 13 percent of the total weight.
I do want to point out that in many universities, this category wouldn't even be included in the
metrics at all. The fact that it's here speaks to our commitment to diversity. We're trying to capture
the value that is not monetary, but clearly makes the university stronger. The metric also helps
recognize smaller departments with diverse faculty. Again, I come back to the notion that we
fully recognize that these metrics will not be without flaws. What we're trying to provide here
is a roadmap that is consistent and transparent. The purpose of these conversations is to get your
feedback and ultimately arrive at the best possible model to help us balance our values
with the very concrete financial realities we're facing now.
Thank you. Why does the metric for diversity and inclusion not account for students or
faculty members, LGBTQ identification? Why is the metric restricted solely to racial and ethnic
minority? Gender and sexuality are categories for historically underrepresented minority in the
SUNY system, and you Albany is lacking in true equity in these areas, particularly in relationship
to transgender and non-binary representation and needs. So this is a great idea, and this is why
we're seeking feedback. We really, for this particular question, we need to determine how to collect
the information and who would collect these data. In addition, individuals, of course, would need
to self-identify. But again, this is a great question or a great idea, and we'll explore this further.
Now we're going to switch to the research and scholarship metric. A couple of questions here.
In terms of scholarship, why do the metrics not distinguish between forms of publication?
Book-based disciplines, particularly in the humanities, tend to have less output than article-based
disciplines. A uniform metric based on quantity puts certain disciplines at a serious disadvantage.
So thank you for your feedback, and there have been several questions on this very issue.
The metrics currently do distinguish between forms of publication, but we may want to revisit the
weights for each form. For detailed information about how the various forms of publication are weighed,
I would suggest going to the academic affairs, Mayu Albany site, and there the documents are
posted with the definitions of how the weights are being made. That's correct. We have that information
on our Mayu Albany, you can sign in there, and we have an academic affairs budget planning tab
that you can access these data in these slides. The next question is, the category of booked awards
is given greater weight for scholarship than other categories. While funding opportunities do
exist in the arts and humanities, the opportunities are fewer, and the money's awarded are substantially
less than in other fields. So why do these metrics put the arts and humanities on worse
footing in this category? Well first, note that we have changed the categories for research. So
there's organized research, which includes federal grants, as well as MOUs and foundation awards,
and then there's training grants. There are opportunities for arts and humanities within
organized research. It's true that the number of awards in the size of the awards are less in
the humanities than some other areas. Also, not every program will rank highly on every metric.
That's precisely why we have multiple metrics that capture the various ways programs
contribute to the university. The point is that there are various ways in which programs may
contribute and we are soliciting feedback right now to make sure that we capture as many as we can.
Okay, continuing with some of our presumissioned questions, here's another question.
Can you please provide a description of the purpose of the cost-slash credit metric?
This type of metric seems an attempt to measure the efficiency of teaching, however,
this kind of metric is going to be more beneficial toward disciplines that can operate with large
class enrollment, for example in the social sciences, and penalize disciplines that cannot operate
well with large class enrollment for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, this type of metric would
weigh against departments that are active and bring in an external research money, which reduces
individual faculty teaching load, and hence will make the department look less efficient.
So again, this is a very good question. The statement is correct. It does recognize
efficiency of teaching and is more beneficial to those programs that teach larger classes.
Again, we are capturing the various ways programs contribute. If we measured only research grants,
the departments who teach large courses would be justifiably upset. Just like if we measured
only cost-procredit, the grant-producing departments would cry foul. The fact that some people are
saying research is not weighed heavily enough and others are saying teaching is not weighed heavily
enough might signal that we've struck the right bounds. Thank you. Next question.
Part-time lines have already been cut. How will you safeguard full-time lines? How will you ensure that
we still have a functioning university, which has not yet fully recovered from the program cuts
from 2010? First, I want to clarify, we haven't made any final decisions. However, because teaching
schedules are now being planned for the fall, we need provisional budget targets in place so
that departments can plan accordingly. I'm working very closely with the Deans, who will in turn
work with the department chairs, faculty staff to reach budget reduction targets. This process will
entail discussions across the schools, colleges, and departments to find areas where greater cooperation
may be necessary, and most of all, to ensure we can perform all of the functions needed to serve our
students well. Thank you. What are the plans for a more equitable distribution of full-time
faculty lines when there is an improvement in our budget situation? So the purpose of developing
these metrics is to build a transparent and equitable process, not just to make reductions now,
but to determine future resource allocations. Of course, these metrics will not be the sole
determining factor, but we must have a clear and transparent and rational system to guide our
decisions. We can't be a research university without, for example, the liberal arts, but there
must be some correspondence between the allocation of resources and contributions to our strategic priorities.
Thank you. Thank you. Well, faculty and Progans be given autonomy to make changes that may aid
in budget reductions such as program consolidation and reassignments.
So the decisions will be made at the school and college level within input from me,
and because the deans know their schools and colleges best, I'm working closely with the deans
to implement budget reductions. Steps such as consolidations and reassignments would be considered
at the school and college level. Next question. What happens to you Albany's ability to raise revenue
when cuts to departments and personnel result in students not wanting to enroll at you Albany
in favor of going somewhere where more resources and support are available?
The metrics reflect our strategic plan and applied correctly should strengthen our ability to
attract and retain students. In demand, high quality programs should be identified by these metrics.
Okay. Todd Foreman has said we can't cut our way out of this budget crisis. So why are we only
seeing cuts and not more focused on ways to increase revenue in each unit before making cuts?
Todd made these remarks in the context of developing revenue generating ideas, not just cuts.
While we are always advocating for increased state support, tuition remains the single largest
portion of our revenue. In addition, I'm working with the deans to develop other revenue generating
initiatives, but those are long term plans that can't replace the need for reductions now.
Thank you. We have one last question from the pre-submitted questions that we're going to ask.
And then we're going to go to the live Q&A questions. The last question that we have is the set of
metrics provided here are likely to create a set of incentives in future actions by individual
departments. Have you considered the potential negative long term actions that could result from
these set of metrics? For example, UAlbany continues to state that it is an R1 university,
yet a substantial amount of weight is being given to having the greatest number of students in classes.
In the long run, this is going to disincentivize research, which threatens UAlbany's
standing as an R1 university. Furthermore, decreasing research productivity is going to remove one of
the university's selling points to protect its students that UAlbany is a place where knowledge is
created and make the university less, this will make the university less distinctive. There are
likely other unintended incentives being created by this set of metrics that should be carefully
considered. Yes, we realize that the metrics will act as incentives for the future actions,
and that's in fact the intent. If we have the right metrics, the actions that advance our strategic
plan and strengthen the university will be rewarded. Research is obviously critical to our status as
an R1, and the weight should reflect that. One of the objectives of this stage of the process is to
identify what the weight should be, and this is why we're asking for your feedback now.
Thank you, Provost Kim. Now we're going to go to some of the live Q&A questions, but let me take
a minute to thank all of you who submitted your question in advance through my UAlbany. That was
very helpful. Thank you. Now for the first question that we have up from Q&A. The governor explicitly
said that in the worst case scenario, the state funding cut is going to be only 5 percent way
lower than that lower that what entered the projections that top foreman had previously presented.
Sorry, I'm why haven't our budget reduction targets been adjusted accordingly?
So yes, this is a great question. The governor's budget, as revealed, does give us a lot of hope
that our overall budget reduction will be less than we are anticipating. But as I mentioned,
the final budget will not be finalized until April 1st. So we really need to continue with our
planning. I think the best thing to do is to continue with the reductions as planned and hope
for the best, and hopefully we will have some relief. Thank you. Next question from Q&A.
How can it be a collaborative process if the cut metrics have been prepared over
span of years with the administration's default position being slash and cut?
It does make its sound as though the pandemic deficit is simply pretext to pass the pill of an
austerity agenda rather than the cuts being emergent from the deficit.
So this truly is a collaborative process. We're starting with these budget metrics so that we can
get feedback from all of you. We want to capture the best budget metrics. But as I mentioned previously,
you know, the slash and cut we are having to make reductions, but we're also trying to develop new
revenue generating initiatives as well. So, you know, for budgets, as all of you know,
there's either the revenues coming in and then what our expenditures are. And right now,
we have more expenditures than the revenues coming in. So if we can increase the revenues,
that will help our overall situation. Thank you. How is it fair and equitable to use a one-size-fits-all
list of metrics? Different apartments and units have different strengths based on their discipline
which are not uniform. So I actually don't believe this is a one-size-fits-all set of metrics.
We have a number of different metrics that are based on our strategic plan,
and which was a campus-wide discussion as well. And these, because of the variety of different
metrics and the weights that we're giving, and also as we're seeking feedback, I think that we can
develop a holistic and encompassing set of metrics that will fit our university.
Thank you. What is the relationship between these cuts which are meant to take place in the future
and the large cuts to adjunct budgets already occurring in CAS?
So I'll start with this question and I have Dean Williams and Dean Malatesta also here with me.
And so they can jump in if they want to add some more detail. And so please
let me get you out. So the cuts that are being discussed right now in terms of adjuncts
are just that, their discussions and being for planning purposes into the fall. So they're not
final. That's an important piece to really keep in mind that these cuts are not final,
but as we learn more about the budget and then from the state and to SUNY and then to our campus,
we'll have a better idea of what those cuts will be. I don't know, Kevin or Joanne, if you want to
jump in here? Sure, I'll jump in. I think you're right. I'm not aware of any
actual cuts that have been made. The schedule for the fall is being put together now. All units
have to plan for some level budget cuts. So I'm sure there's under discussion what to do
with the adjunct budget, but I'm not aware of any cuts in CAS at the moment.
So I don't know if Dean Melatesta wants to jump in. Sure, I can just jump in and add that
a number of programs in CAS and across the university have started talking with us about
the undergraduate programs. Again, as they're preparing for the fall, as Kevin mentioned,
we're all taking cuts. So I think that there's some proactive measures at this point and people
are trying to be conscientious of what they can and cannot put forward for the fall semester.
So those conversations are happening, but I don't know about any specific cuts.
Thank you. This one's more of a statement, but I'll ask the provost to address it.
Disabilities should be added along with racial gender identity when looking at diversity and
representation of underrepresented populations. Yes, this is a great point and a great suggestion,
and we will definitely put that into the hopper. I really like that idea, yes, to expand the diversity
to include disabilities. Okay, actually this is our last question from Q&A for the day.
Shouldn't diversity metrics be normalized by national values in the field? While diversity
improvement is essential, STEM departments are working with a different environment than some
other departments. So yes, that is true. And in terms of the diversity measure, again,
we are seeking feedback. We'd like to get and collect more information. So more suggestions
for any of these metrics are welcome and will help us with shaping our final metrics.
Where does EOP fit into this metric? So EOP is one of the support units that reports to academic
affairs to the provost office. And so that office, as I mentioned, the other support offices as well,
have been given a 15% reduction target. Thank you, provost Kim. We have another question that just
came in. So keep in the comment. We still have about 20 minutes. The metrics seem designed so that
departments and programs that suffered derling earlier cuts post 2008 will suffer yet again.
These budget processes produce the appearance of failure in departments and programs,
becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. I worry that college for students at state schools is going
to look less and less like the liberal arts experience wealthy families have access to. This is an
issue of social justice. As we mentioned, or as I mentioned in my remarks, the development of
these budget metrics are to be more transparent and clear about what our priorities are as a
university. Would like to work with all of you to develop the best metrics for our campus based
on our strategic plan. I understand the worries that people have about what may be reduced in some
way through these budget reduction targets. But we're working very hard, again, with the deans to
figure out the best solution that we have. And also, we're waiting for the final budget from the
state. So, fingers crossed. Kevin, Joanne, did you want to jump in?
I will only add that, you know, I think again, the metrics are trying to capture the different
ways in which programs can, in fact, contribute, do in fact, contribute to the university. Those of
you who have been around along as I have remember back after the 2011 cuts, the task force from
the Senate actually called for the development of metrics to guide decisions like this. And so,
I think this is an attempt to do that. My probals came, I certainly understand the worry that some
departments have. But again, we're trying to capture the different ways in which programs can
and do, in fact, contribute. Okay, our next question. Are there plans to cut or freeze hiring of
non-academic staff? So, there's already a hiring freeze in areas other than mission critical. So,
in other words, areas like health and safety. Thank you.
This is our last question, folks. Is there no consideration for alternatives to budget cuts such
as salary reductions? So, the thing is, we really can't do this unilaterally. So, SUNY or the state
would have to initiate this. And so, we'd have to work together with the state and with SUNY.
Great. So, that concludes our question and answer. I think that's almost in record time.
At least for the town halls that I've been on. Okay. So, what we're going to do right now is I'm going to
thank all of our individuals who've helped us out on our town hall that we're doing live from
the studio on campus. My thanks goes to the professional development program, support, and ITS
support as well as individuals in the Provost's office and the President's office that's helped
with putting this all together. Now, I will turn this over to Provost Kim for some closing remarks.
Okay. Thanks, Steve. And thank you all for your questions and your feedback. Very important,
again, to have this feedback. As I laid out, the process is moving forward and there'll be other
opportunities for feedback and for conversation, both in the schools and college town halls and our
next university-wide town hall in March. This process isn't easy, but the amazing engagement we have
here today makes me even more optimistic about our ability to develop an academic affairs budget
that will not only allow us to overcome our current challenges, but also build a solid foundation
for the future that our students need and deserve. Again, thank you for being here today,
and thank you for all of your continued participation in this critical process. Have a great day,
and see you all soon.
