NDUS Budget Cuts (changed name to be system-wide)

[The Sicatoka]

Ed is a former Republican Governor. McFeely is clearly smarter in all things ... in his mind. The problem? McFeely heard what Ed had to say here:

Quote

The Forum is too soft on NDSU, he said, and doesn’t ask the right questions. We should be asking how a major research institution can put off its Grand Challenge Initiative for a year and call it a “cut.” We should be asking how Bresciani gets away with not fixing Dunbar Hall and then goes to the State Board of Higher Education to plead for money for Dunbar Hall in the current budget atmosphere. Schafer questioned whether Bresciani would be sending students and faculty into an unsafe situation and how can he get away with that?

McFeely knows deep inside that Ed is right but can't fathom that someone would dare say it. 

[Hammersmith]

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:37 AM, UNDBIZ said:

The Chancellor directed the campuses to first consider ongoing cuts, rather than one-time.  McFeely knows nothing.

You have proof of that, right? Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all. Pretty much the opposite. They basically say: "You've got two weeks to make your budget reductions, so make quick and easy cuts to get it done. And then start thinking about deeper and permanent cuts for the next biennium(2017-19) because you've got a year to work on those." That's what every campus but UND did. And UND didn't do it, not because Schafer is some financial and political genius, but because Kelley had already used up all of those quick and easy cuts to shore up the $5.3M shortfall before he left.

However, I did come across these little tidbits in the semi-annual budget report from FY16:

Quote

NDSU +$2,999,539/+6.4%; Variance is due to conservative revenue estimates, continued high residence hall occupancy and increased Bookstore revenue primarily related to playoff and national championship game sales.

and

Quote

UND In addition to the 4.05% allotment, UND is addressing an FY16 budget shortfall of $5.3 million, plus $8 million for the following: ongoing commitments made in prior years that do not yet have base funding (previously carried year-to-year using one-time funding) and various one-time expenditures that were not included in the FY16 annual budget. Examples include costs for the president search and transition, internal audit, marketing, extraordinary repairs required match, scholarships, athletics and EERC. The $13.3 million is being addressed through salary savings, operation reductions, use of cash balances and additional revenue. Off campus private apartment developers have a continued impact on occupancy in the Residence Halls, Apartments and University Place. UND Housing implemented a first-year live-on requirement from fall 2015 to attempt to address this issue.

 

So before UND had to deal with the 4.05% cut, it also had to deal with $13.3M in other areas. While NDSU was $3M in the black before the cut. Gee, wonder why the two campuses were able to approach the cut differently?

But don't let the facts get in the way of your little circle jerk.

[UNDBIZ]

14 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

You have proof of that, right? Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all. Pretty much the opposite. They basically say: "You've got two weeks to make your budget reductions, so make quick and easy cuts to get it done. And then start thinking about deeper and permanent cuts for the next biennium(2017-19) because you've got a year to work on those." That's what every campus but UND did. And UND didn't do it, not because Schafer is some financial and political genius, but because Kelley had already used up all of those quick and easy cuts to shore up the $5.3M shortfall before he left.

However, I did come across these little tidbits in the semi-annual budget report from FY16:

and

 

So before UND had to deal with the 4.05% cut, it also had to deal with $13.3M in other areas. While NDSU was $3M in the black before the cut. Gee, wonder why the two campuses were able to approach the cut differently?

But don't let the facts get in the way of your little circle jerk.

The campuses had 2 weeks to identify the line items to cut from, seeing as they only have 2 lines, that wasn't real difficult or involved.  The only decision was whether to cut building maintenance or something else.  I'm also looking at the guidelines he sent out right now, and although they do not specifically state to make deep ongoing cuts, they certainly don't say the opposite.  Accelerate ongoing efficiency efforts, examine academic courses, and evaluate faculty course loads certainly sound like items that may have an ongoing effect on the budget to me, and go figure, they also sound like what UND did.  UND also used the budget issues as an excuse to nix programs that have been on the chopping block for a decade.

As for the rest, I've never said UND didn't have a steeper hill to climb from the start due to Kelley's mismanagement. 

[The Sicatoka]

Hammer, if you're looking for someone here to argue Kelley ran UND's finances wonderfully, well, you'd better have a whole bunch of free time to look. 

[UND1983]

1 hour ago, Hammersmith said:

You have proof of that, right? Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all. Pretty much the opposite. They basically say: "You've got two weeks to make your budget reductions, so make quick and easy cuts to get it done. And then start thinking about deeper and permanent cuts for the next biennium(2017-19) because you've got a year to work on those." That's what every campus but UND did. And UND didn't do it, not because Schafer is some financial and political genius, but because Kelley had already used up all of those quick and easy cuts to shore up the $5.3M shortfall before he left.

However, I did come across these little tidbits in the semi-annual budget report from FY16:

and

 

So before UND had to deal with the 4.05% cut, it also had to deal with $13.3M in other areas. While NDSU was $3M in the black before the cut. Gee, wonder why the two campuses were able to approach the cut differently?

But don't let the facts get in the way of your little circle jerk.

Sit tight for your next round of cuts.  Dean did next to nothing on this round, even when he knew next round's are going to be the same or worse.  Schafer cut everything right now, knowing what he needed for the next biennium, also.  Dalrymple told them all that next rounds cuts are coming.  Kennedy won't need to do a damn thing in the next 2-3 years.  

[UNDBIZ]

2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Sit tight for your next round of cuts.  Dean did next to nothing on this round, even when he knew next round's are going to be the same or worse.  Schafer cut everything right now, knowing what he needed for the next biennium, also.  Dalrymple told them all that next rounds cuts are coming.  Kennedy won't need to do a damn thing in the next 2-3 years.  

I wouldn't go that far, he does have a head start though.  There also seems to have been a slight shift in culture at UND, where departments are now looking to save money even when they aren't being specifically asked to.

[UND1983]

33 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

The campuses had 2 weeks to identify the line items to cut from, seeing as they only have 2 lines, that wasn't real difficult or involved.  The only decision was whether to cut building maintenance or something else.  I'm also looking at the guidelines he sent out right now, and although they do not specifically state to make deep ongoing cuts, they certainly don't say the opposite.  Accelerate ongoing efficiency efforts, examine academic courses, and evaluate faculty course loads certainly sound like items that may have an ongoing effect on the budget to me, and go figure, they also sound like what UND did.  UND also used the budget issues as an excuse to nix programs that have been on the chopping block for a decade.

As for the rest, I've never said UND didn't have a steeper hill to climb from the start due to Kelley's mismanagement. 

Kelley really was a poor budget manager.  He didn't cut a damn thing.  Only kept asking for more money to fill in the gaps.  

[UND1983]

1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

I wouldn't go that far, he does have a head start though.  There also seems to have been a slight shift in culture at UND, where departments are now looking to save money even when they aren't being specifically asked to.

We'll see.  Was told it is pretty much setup, meaning the areas to cut from are already identified.  

[Hammersmith]

44 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

The campuses had 2 weeks to identify the line items to cut from, seeing as they only have 2 lines, that wasn't real difficult or involved.  The only decision was whether to cut building maintenance or something else.  I'm also looking at the guidelines he sent out right now, and although they do not specifically state to make deep ongoing cuts, they certainly don't say the opposite.  Accelerate ongoing efficiency efforts, examine academic courses, and evaluate faculty course loads certainly sound like items that may have an ongoing effect on the budget to me, and go figure, they also sound like what UND did.  UND also used the budget issues as an excuse to nix programs that have been on the chopping block for a decade.

As for the rest, I've never said UND didn't have a steeper hill to climb from the start due to Kelley's mismanagement. 

 

Quote

Where not already in place, elevate approval processes to the president or senior staff for all hiring, salary adjustments, out-of-state travel, equipment purchases, and other items at the discretion of the president.
   - Note: For smaller campuses, the authority may best elevate to the president; for the larger campuses, perhaps this would be done by senior staff.

IOW, stop new hirings, limit raises, cut travel, and restrict purchases. All short term fixes.

Quote

Presidents have the flexibility to adjust salary increases in accordance with campus needs.

Limit raises. Short term.

Quote

Accelerate ongoing efficiency efforts in administrative processes and consider shared service agreements with other institutions that yield more immediate cost savings.

Save money administratively if you can. Not really short or long term.

Quote

Examine academic courses for those that lend themselves to more cost-effective delivery methods. (e.g. collaborative, online, etc.)

If you can offer a class in a cheaper way, do it. That's a short term fix because you're not dropping a course or major, you're just making it cheaper to deliver.

Quote

Evaluate faculty course loads and class sizes.

Reduce sections of a course if at all possible. Short term fix.

Quote

Prioritize building repairs and maintenance to those that most closely relate to safety and student/staff well-being.
Consider utilizing available reserves for essential one-time projects.

Hold off on building repairs that aren't critical(short term fix) and use reserve funds if available(short term fix).

 

 

Everything about Hagerott's guidelines point to using short term fixes to get through the 2015-17 biennium cuts. If you think different, you're lying to yourself. Now the 2017-19 budget cuts are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but the campuses have plenty of time to work through those cuts with permanent solutions. But you don't want to hurry with permanent cut choices if you don't have to, which is why Hagerott advised campuses to avoid them with the 4.05% reduction. UND had to, the rest of the system didn't. Don't get mad at the others just because Kelley got UND into a financial situation just as, or almost as, bad as Chapman did at NDSU.

[UNDBIZ]

13 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

Everything about Hagerott's guidelines point to using short term fixes to get through the 2015-17 biennium cuts. If you think different, you're lying to yourself. Now the 2017-19 budget cuts are a whole 'nother bucket of fish, but the campuses have plenty of time to work through those cuts with permanent solutions. But you don't want to hurry with permanent cut choices if you don't have to, which is why Hagerott advised campuses to avoid them with the 4.05% reduction. UND had to, the rest of the system didn't. Don't get mad at the others just because Kelley got UND into a financial situation just as, or almost as, bad as Chapman did at NDSU.

You have proof of that, right?  Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all.  Pretty much the opposite.

[Hammersmith]

27 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Sit tight for your next round of cuts.  Dean did next to nothing on this round, even when he knew next round's are going to be the same or worse.  Schafer cut everything right now, knowing what he needed for the next biennium, also.  Dalrymple told them all that next rounds cuts are coming.  Kennedy won't need to do a damn thing in the next 2-3 years.  

As I just posted above, the 2017-19 cuts are a completely different animal than the 2015-17 cuts. With an organization as complicated as a university, you don't want to rush major changes if you don't have to. Because of the timeframe of the 2015-17 cuts(directive went out on Jan 14, first budgets due back Feb 1, final version due back Feb 17), presidents didn't have enough time to dig deep with individual departments. That's why short term fixes were the better choice to get through the current biennium. But campuses have over a year to get ready for the 2017-19 cuts. You can bet that every department on every campus is currently working to reduce costs without cutting programs or faculty.

Schafer was in a unique position in that he had no choice but to make permanent cuts(all the short term fixes were already used up before he got there) and that he could afford to piss people off because he was going to be gone in a couple months. But you can't argue that he had to make rash choices. Maybe they were the best choices, maybe better choices could have been made if there had been more time available to brainstorm. We'll never know.

However, I can guarantee that if Brescaini had used his authority to unilaterally cut programs with minimal campus input(like Schafer did) when there were short term fixes yet available(like there were at NDSU), you guys would be calling for his head for acting like an imperial president.

[Hammersmith]

9 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

You have proof of that, right?  Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all.  Pretty much the opposite.

Cute. But crappy reading comprehension, huh? I showed exactly how those guidelines focus on short term fixes. Go on, show us where they encourage major permanent changes(like cutting entire programs). I'll wait.

[UNDBIZ]

21 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

IOW, stop new hirings, limit raises, cut travel, and restrict purchases. All short term fixes.  When you stop new hires you identify positions that don't need to be filled and thus make permanent cuts (the majority of UND's staff reductions were vacant positions).  

Limit raises. Short term.  When you limit raises without the intention of providing a larger raise the next year you are making a permanent cut.

Save money administratively if you can. Not really short or long term.  Efficiency efforts and shared services often result in long term efficiencies.

If you can offer a class in a cheaper way, do it. That's a short term fix because you're not dropping a course or major, you're just making it cheaper to deliver.  Realizing you can efficiently and effectively offer a class online rather than in person or making it in some way cheaper to deliver is a permanent cut.

Reduce sections of a course if at all possible. Short term fix.  Enrollment throughout ND is relatively flat.  Reducing sections of a course would be a permanent cut (until enrollment necessitates an increase, in which case increased revenues are also available).  Also, evaluation of course loads results in the realization we have more faculty than necessary --> permanent cut.

Hold off on building repairs that aren't critical(short term fix) and use reserve funds if available(short term fix).  You're right.

Now, from the memo:

Quote

The following should not be considered in our plans:

• Increasing tuition or student fees to offset this general fund budget allotment.
• Cuts to essential student services.
• Reductions in emerging, high priority programs and initiatives.
  • UAS, high performance computing, cybersecurity, energy related workforce, teacher education, retention/attrition initiatives.

I'm sure it must say avoid permanent solutions in there someplace.

[Hammersmith]

So you got nothing. Understood. Everything you've said just goes to show that your original assertion is incorrect. Hagerott was pushing for short term fixes just like McFeely and his sources said. It's too bad your prejudices get in the way of your critical thinking.

If you try to extend short term fixes the way you suggested, you create an unstable system. Short term fixes are short term for a reason. Keep open positions unfilled for too long and students suffer. Combine too many positions and faculty are overworked. Continually restrict raises and you can't keep and attract quality faculty & staff. Permanently increasing class sizes hurts the students and makes the university less attractive to student recruits.

The guidelines Hagerott wrote and I reworded get you through one year okay, but the interpolations you added would be harmful to a university within a few more years.

 

Before someone starts, there's a difference between cutting jobs by eliminating open positions and actual well thought-out permanent cuts. When you cut jobs by eliminating open positions, you are necessarily restricting your choices to just the departments that happen to have open positions at that time. That's what happened to music therapy. No one really knows if that was the best program to cut. There may well have been other programs on campus that brought less to the university or affected fewer students. But that's not why it was cut. It was cut because it happened to have a significant number of open positions compared to its size. In the long run, that's a bad way to make the choice to drop a program. Schafer cut it because time was of the essence, but that didn't make it the optimal choice. Hagerott's guidelines were meant to avoid those sorts of decisions.

[UNDBIZ]

So Hagerott didn't tell the campuses to avoid permanent solutions.  Understood.

Petty arguments aside (I'll admit we were both wrong/misleading on certain items), permanent solutions are needed.  I think everyone is beginning to recognize that now (some recognized it earlier). Schafer believes in planning ahead and preparing for the funding cuts now.  I don't think he's wrong for that, as mcfeely implies in his conspiratorial rant (which I can only assume must've been alcohol/drug-infused).

[Kab]

I see mcfooley is reporting on potential cuts at ndsu that their committee came up with

what happened to mcfooleys idea that ndsu was in much better shape than UND so it didn't have to make more cuts

[bison73]

2 hours ago, Kab said:

I see mcfooley is reporting on potential cuts at ndsu that their committee came up with

what happened to mcfooleys idea that ndsu was in much better shape than UND so it didn't have to make more cuts

He didnt say they didnt have to make cuts. I believe he said we had more time before we had to make them.

[Hammersmith]

2 hours ago, bison73 said:

He didnt say they didnt have to make cuts. I believe he said we had more time before we had to make them.

Pretty much. Here is exactly what he wrote back in April:

http://www.inforum.com/news/4013620-mcfeely-theres-pain-und-because-its-mess

Quote

I've talked with people from administration, faculty and athletics at NDSU and they've all said the same thing: The school escaped major heartburn this time, but if oil and agriculture prices don't bounce back, they expect another round of cuts that could be far more painful.

 

He repeated it almost verbatim last week

http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/07/is-schafer-angling-to-do-at-ndsu-what-hes-done-at-und/

Quote

everybody I’ve talked with at NDSU has consistently said they are in good shape now, but expect pain (and maybe serious pain) when the next round of cuts come

Both versions have been completely true. The 2015-17 cut wasn't a major problem, but the 2017-19 cut is.

 

But here's something to note. The 2015-17 budget cut was announced in mid January and the revised budgets were due on Feb 17. The 10% reduction to the 2017-19 budget was announced on May 4. According to Schafer and folks on here, NDSU was just twiddling their thumbs and were caught by surprise. But look carefully at McFeely's latest blog post(the one that restarted this thread):

http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/13/ndsu-work-group-recommends-cutting-administrators/

Quote

The budget study work group consisted of 14 administrators, faculty and staff members who met weekly from late February until early June. It was charged with collecting and evaluating recommendations “regarding a potential adjustment in NDSU’s appropriation,”

So as soon as the 2015-17 cuts were finished, NDSU formed a group to start getting ready for the 2017-19 cuts. Isn't that exactly what they were supposed to do? Make emergency cuts quickly, then sit down and start figuring out the best long-term cuts? Or doesn't that fit an anti-Brescaini/anti-NDSU narrative? The alternative would have been to make hasty long-term cuts. How are hasty cuts better than carefully considered cuts when you have the option to do either? (an option UND didn't have)

[moser53]

NDSU has had  20 years of everything going there way. UND and Grand Forks  has been full of Quislings. Tomorrows Republican primary  may say alot. Will NDSU's enrollment go to 20,000 or will Bismarck State go to a 4 year institution. Seems like Mr. Burgum is trying hard to protect his baby. We in the northern valley just take orders.   

[bison73]

41 minutes ago, moser53 said:

NDSU has had  20 years of everything going there way. UND and Grand Forks  has been full of Quislings. Tomorrows Republican primary  may say alot. Will NDSU's enrollment go to 20,000 or will Bismarck State go to a 4 year institution. Seems like Mr. Burgum is trying hard to protect his baby. We in the northern valley just take orders.   

Obviously you havent been paying attention to the disparity in state funding.

[moser53]

Old reliable comes thru again. The cuts at UND have just begun. Duplication get use that word UND. 

[jdub27]

9 hours ago, Hammersmith said:

Pretty much. Here is exactly what he wrote back in April:

http://www.inforum.com/news/4013620-mcfeely-theres-pain-und-because-its-mess

 

He repeated it almost verbatim last week

http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/07/is-schafer-angling-to-do-at-ndsu-what-hes-done-at-und/

Both versions have been completely true. The 2015-17 cut wasn't a major problem, but the 2017-19 cut is.

 

But here's something to note. The 2015-17 budget cut was announced in mid January and the revised budgets were due on Feb 17. The 10% reduction to the 2017-19 budget was announced on May 4. According to Schafer and folks on here, NDSU was just twiddling their thumbs and were caught by surprise. But look carefully at McFeely's latest blog post(the one that restarted this thread):

http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/13/ndsu-work-group-recommends-cutting-administrators/

So as soon as the 2015-17 cuts were finished, NDSU formed a group to start getting ready for the 2017-19 cuts. Isn't that exactly what they were supposed to do? Make emergency cuts quickly, then sit down and start figuring out the best long-term cuts? Or doesn't that fit an anti-Brescaini/anti-NDSU narrative? The alternative would have been to make hasty long-term cuts. How are hasty cuts better than carefully considered cuts when you have the option to do either? (an option UND didn't have)

You keep making it sound like everything that Schafer did at UND was needed to be done on the spot, which is absolutely false. Ed knew the second round of cuts was coming (it's like he's had experience in the arena or something) and didn't want to have to pull the Band-Aid off twice. Yes, UND had to make more cuts up front than some of the other schools. However Schafer went above and beyond not only what was required to fix the short-term projected shortfall (due to the legislature capping tuition) and to address the first round of cuts, but also to set up the budget so that it was already in a position to take on the cuts that were coming from the next biennium. UND now is projected for a surplus and is using some of that money to address some deferred maintenance (boiler system) in case the state doesn't fund it next year. It's a novel idea within the NDUS system to use operating expenses to actually take care of some maintenance, which is made glaringly clear when looking at the deferred maintenance list (led by NDSU, with UND next on the list).

The McFeely comments that everyone was referring to and you also managed to not bring up were the ones where he didn't differentiate or explain what Schafer did because it was done all once, which he used as a front to try to show that UND was in significantly worse financial shape than the rest of the NDUS when in reality, the only real difference was the small projected deficit. Schafer went ahead and made the permanent cuts that a lot of the other schools gambled on and didn't make the first time through. Even if Schafer was wrong (which he wasn't), it was still something that needed to be done at UND and all the other schools within the NDUS.
 

Edit - The first article you linked had a quote from Schafer on exactly what his point has been the whole time. He knew permanent cuts were needed and coming. It appears that there were apparently people in Fargo that agreed with him, even if they didn't let McFeely in on despite the fact he mentioned multiple times that he "talked to people". He failed to mention anything about the committee being put together to look at permanent cuts until almost two months after his first couple articles and four months after it was put together. Going to go ahead and guess that would have changed the tone of his articles. Or maybe he knew and was being disingenuous for the clicks.

Quote

Schafer has noticed. He told the Herald in a Sunday article: "There's a lot of screaming in the street here. There's no screaming in the street in Fargo, but what's this university going to look like in five years versus what's the university in Fargo going to be like in five years? That's the debate going on in the public right now, and there are two different philosophies."

 

[The Sicatoka]

NDSU to offer early retirement buyouts to fight budget woes

[UNDBIZ]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

NDSU to offer early retirement buyouts to fight budget woes

Blasphemy.

[The Sicatoka]

And now we cut live to Mike McFeely's web cam ...