The Massachusetts State House
Photo credit: James Trosh

Over the past few weeks, Chancellor Robert C. Holub has continued to email the campus community with updates on the budget crisis. His latest news is Governor Deval Patrick’s proposed allocation of $81.6 million in federal stimulus money to the UMass system in fiscal year 2010.

If the plan is approved, approximately half of that amount would come to the Amherst campus, easing the impact of the current $46 million budget deficit. The final budget for the stimulus money will not be determined until later this summer, but Holub has outlined in his emails the effect that the stimulus money would have on the campus if the budget proposal is approved.

Holub hopes that the stimulus money will mitigate “the elimination of 80 full-time positions, 160 part-time teaching assistant positions, more than 100 staff positions and a variety of reductions to operations and campus life” that the current budget deficit would necessitate. He has also stated his intent to “lessen the impact” of the $1500 student fee increase recently passed by the Board of Trustees. The hefty increase has outraged many students, but possible rebates could lower the increase by as much as $1100.

However, Holub also stated that he plans to go forward with his planned reorganization of the university’s colleges, as he believes that it will ultimately be beneficial to the campus regardless of the possible influx of federal funds.

Patrick announced his plans for the stimulus money at UMass Boston on March 24. Holub also spoke at this event, both on the merits of UMass Amherst and on the impact that the current budget crisis could have on the university. The speech, which was e-mailed to the campus community, toted UMass Amherst as the only public campus in the state with the designation “very high research activity” from the Carnegie Foundation and as 18th amongst 50 leading colleges in the nation with regard to “return on investment.”

Although Holub says that government officials have been adamant that the stimulus money is not to be counted upon as a solution to the budget crisis, Holub believes that it would greatly ease the pressure caused by the sudden drop in funding from the state announced this January. To promote the governor’s proposed allocation of the stimulus money, Holub is launching an advocacy effort by encouraging parents of students and alumni to voice their support for the plan to their state senators and representatives.

The greatest change that the campus faces is the creation of a new college of life sciences in the fall that will merge the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the College of Natural Resources and the Environment, and the Stockbridge School of Agriculture. The new college will also absorb the department of psychology from the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Currently being referred to as the College of Natural Sciences, the official name will be chosen by the new college’s faculty.

In addition, the department of Resource Economics will move to the Isenberg School of Management, Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning will move to Humanities and Fine Arts, and Communication Disorders will relocate to the School of Education. The School of Nursing will remain autonomous but will be administered by the College of Public Health and Health Sciences.

Although these are the only concrete reorganization plans Holub announced, he discussed more large-scale changes under consideration for the future. He has tapped several administrators to research the possibility of further mergers over the 2009-2010 school year. The largest change currently being discussed is the merger of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and the College of Humanities and Fine Arts into a College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences.

Holub is also considering merging the departments of Polymer Science and Engineering and Computer Science with the College of Engineering. Finally, he is reviewing the possibility of moving some departments and programs that will fall into the new College of Natural Sciences into the College of Public Health and Health Sciences, although he did not specify which.

If all of Holub’s proposals are ultimately carried out, this would be the new structure of UMass:

Click to enlarge.

Holub mentioned that he had considered the creation of a College of Arts and Sciences, a traditional structure used in many universities, but he does not believe it would be effective. Generally schools that have a College of Arts and Sciences have professional schools with a large percentage of the faculty. Because this is not the case at UMass, Holub believes that such a college would create an imbalance that would require more convoluted, expensive layers of administration, the very thing the reorganization intends to eliminate.

One final point that Holub discussed was the issue of a perceived divide between the north side of campus and the south. Traditionally, the north side represents the research sciences, while the south side commonly houses arts and social sciences. Holub said that he is “convinced that we must eliminate the perception of a rich and a poor side of campus if we are to reach our collective goals.” To this end, he is instituting a special fund for travel and research expenses for faculty who have limited opportunities to support their research and scholarship with external funding, as well as a minimum start-up award for any faculty member coming to campus. He plans to further research the issue of unbalanced funding, specifically whether larger amounts of research funding results in greater administrative support for teaching activities.

“Do more with less” is Chancellor Robert Holub’s message to UMass faculty as he presents and outlines a campus reorganization plan to address the $46 million budget deficit that the campus will face in fiscal year 2010.

“That’s what happens when you’re in an economic crisis that hasn’t been seen by anybody in this room,” the Chancellor said, during a formal presentation Thursday.

“You have to go back to the Great Depression to see an economic crisis like this. I think that this is the best alternative among a bunch of alternatives that I don’t like.”

The proposal would merge several colleges and eliminate three deans’ positions along with associated support staff, saving the university $1-2 million while preserving tenured and tenure track positions. But numerous members of faculty felt that the reorganization will mean disorder and confusion during an already trying time, and offered some critiques during a lengthy question and answer period.

Professor of philosophy Louise Antony voiced concerns that for students, “there could be overwhelming difficulties in advising,” and ultimately a campus divided between new students and students who began earning their degree under an entirely different system.

Associate Professor Christine King worried that making the school of nursing less independent would be detrimental to its image, hurting nursing students applying for competitive jobs.

David Kotz, professor of economics, objected to the elimination of three deans’ positions. Kotz said that deans at the university are already overworked, and that the loss would seriously impact faculty, who benefit from a close working relationship with their college’s dean.

Another issue raised was whether the move would truly save money.

Kotz felt that it would be necessary to hire assistant deans to manage the extra workload, while Sara Lennox, director of the Social Thought and Political Economy program, said that if the deans return to faculty positions, eliminating them would only save the administrative stipend. Much of the audience signaled its agreement with applause when Lennox said, “The reorganization, which is taking an enormous amount of time, is 2 to 4 percent of the entire deficit. What’s going to happen to the other $44 million? We’re wasting a lot of time talking about not very much money.”

The relatively small amount of money to be saved prompted some faculty to wonder about the political motivation behind the plan. Holub spoke about the expectations of donors, the board of trustees, and politicians to see eliminations. “In order to be taken seriously in the management function of this university, if I say we’re going to lose fifty faculty lines — we’re not going to have any layoffs, we’re just not going to replace people — that’s not impressive at all,” Holub said. “If I say that I’m eliminating three colleges, and at the same time in eliminating three colleges can preserve the essential functions of the units and programs, then I think we’re much better off.”

Assistant Professor Steven Brewer was the most outspoken in his condemnation of these motivations. “It’s simply a public relations coup, where you can say we’ve made this big change,” he said. “It’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

One recurring theme throughout the faculty’s grilling of the Chancellor was anxiety over the current vagueness of the plan and the lack of a concrete proposal for either the reorganization or the new budget that it would generate.

At one point Holub said, “I don’t know if you want me to discuss specifics of the reorganization,” and was met with a resounding and collective, “Yes!”

However, despite the desire of the faculty to understand more concretely what this impending reorganization is going to look like, Holub continued to defer discussing specifics until after his final meetings with several faculty members, scheduled for Jan. 30, the day after his presentation to the faculty in general. He stated that he could not make any definitive decisions until after that point, and plans to present his final proposal, along with a complete budget, by mid-February.

Despite extensive objections to the plans for reorganization, faculty members did not unequivocally insist on taking the idea off the table. The main demand was for more input during the formative stage rather than later reviewing a definitive proposal. Lisa Selkirk, head of the linguistics department, suggested that a faculty committee be formed to consider multiple models of reorganization.

By the end of the meeting, it was clear that there is no simple solution to the problems presented both by the proposed reorganization and by the economic situation as a whole. Lennox expressed deep concern over the effects of layoffs by the area’s largest employer on the community. “If we’re going to cut a million dollars from the dean’s offices, we’re not cutting high paid administrators, we are cutting staff,” she said. “We’re going to be cutting lots and lots of staff. That is going to devastate the economy of Western Massachusetts.”

Holub’s response was composed but revealed his personal conflicts. “I appreciate what you’re saying about not wanting to live in a depressed area, not wanting to lay people off. I assure I didn’t take this position thinking that I would be in this role right now,” he said, “but if you look at the budget and you see what alternatives we have, you’ll see that there are precious few alternatives.

Holub’s reasons for seeking a reorganization on campus revolved around his sentiment that he would rather cut back $1 million in administrative costs than lose ten faculty lines. He spoke a great deal about his history as a faculty member and how he still considered that a large part of his identity, using anecdotes from that history to illustrate how he felt this reorganization could be positive by promoting new collaborations and synthesis among colleges that would find themselves with “new neighbors.”

“I think that we can run our colleges on a leaner basis. This is a difficult time, and we’re going to have to do more now with fewer resources,” said Holub. “That isn’t something that I wanted, but that’s the reality of the situation, and when I see that I can save faculty positions, that’s what I’m going to try to do.”

• Support units of the Chancellor’s Office and the Office of the Provost will be merged and some positions eliminated, resulting in a savings of over $500,000.
• Some capital construction projects have been halted, freeing up $5 million for critical one-time need areas.
• Additional cuts to base spending on maintenance and capital construction on campus will total approximately $1.5 million. This includes:
  • $500,000 cut from funding earmarked for refurbishing academic offices and laboratories.
  • $464,000 cut from long-term deferred maintenance funds.
  • $500,000 cut from funding for moves on campus, reducing the campus’ ability to relocate administrative and academic units for renovations.
• Centrally controlled thermostats on campus will be lowered to 67 degrees. A previous estimate of this move predicted a savings of $300,000 per year.
• In addition, the administration plans to curtail spending on administrative travel, outside contracting for advocacy for federal support, and support of community events at the Chancellor’s residence.

The complete message from Chancellor Holub is available at the Office of the Chancellor’s website.

Watch the highlights here:

Read the write-up on The Daily Collegian:

“The crisis entails an anticipated $38 million deficit facing the University next year. The deficit comprises of a $20 million cut of state funding, an anticipated $2 million for the operations of the new recreational center, $3 million spent on fringe benefits for University employees and $6.5 million from a decline in investment income.” More…

The meeting will be broadcast in its entirety on UVC-TV channel 19 today at 4:00 and 11:00 p.m. To join the ongoing conversation on the budget crisis, visit the SGA’s blog on the subject.

The changes the university faces
One major aesthetic eyesore stands out at UMass Amherst — lots of ongoing construction for the “New Dirt” initiative. And the Amherst 250 Plan strives to balance and build faculty and invest in key programs to enhance the university. Many of these measures have been taken to enrich the experience of students enrolled at UMass. These efforts could soon be diminished.

About 30 state universities, colleges, and community colleges exist in the Commonwealth, all of which would be affected by a repeal of the state income tax. State funded higher education grants lower income families’ access to college, but this could change.

Gov. Deval Patrick has already announced a mid-year budget cut of about five percent in response to the international financial crisis. According to a mass e-mail sent by Chancellor Robert C. Holub, UMass Amherst’s campus alone will lose $12 million. Holub says cuts will begin immediately and will affect next year’s fiscal budget. If the Question 1 initiative passes, those cuts would be added on top of these.

“To recover from [losing] that amount of money would include very substantial increases, probably a double in fees,” said Ed Blaguszewski, Director of News and Information for UMass Amherst.

Everything, including university programs, faculty, staff, services, scholarships, would be up for review. Fees for out of state students already exceed in-state fees by $3,000, this would increase much higher as well. Scholarships could be restricted and UMass’ praised financial aid office could have their hands tied in terms of giving students the packages they need. Although the university wants to be sensitive to fee increases a certain level of quality needs to be obtained in services and programs. A university cannot increase prices and also cut back on programs. This asks students to pay more for less.

“We don’t know what path the legislators will take,” said Blaguszewski, “So we’ve worked out a couple of sample scenarios if the proposition passes.”

This fiscal year, UMass received $227 million in state funding. A 50 percent cut means UMass would lose $113 million. Scenario two implements a 65 percent cut, that figures out to $149 million in cuts. But additional costs would result from fringe benefits. Currently faculty and staff are on the state payroll; this would change. The university would have to take on these fringe benefit costs, roughly $26 million in scenario one and $34 million for scenario two, on top of slashes in state funding.

“The state budget has doubled in the past 15 years; taxpayers shouldn’t have to account for the state’s reckless spending,” said Aucoin, a member of Committee for Small Government.

The State Board of Higher Education controls tuition for UMass and all of it goes back to the State Treasurer. Since state would need to find alternative funding because of the tax cut, it is likely tuition will be increased in order to sustain the weight of the lifted income tax.

Such changes in turn would shift costs of higher education from the state to the students and families, far outweighing the savings of the income tax cut.

“There would be a change in landscape for higher education in Massachusetts,” said Blaguszewski.

vox pop: [origin: Latin vōx populī] noun — the voice of the people; popular opinion.

Have an opinion? Make it heard!

AW Vox Pop is an ongoing forum for UMass students to voice their thoughts on community issues. We go on campus, film your opinions and publish them online, and invite you to participate through posting comments or sending in your own video responses.

Our first issue is the UMass budget cut. On Oct. 15, Chancellor Holub announced in an e-mail to the campus community that approximately $12 million will be cut from the university’s budget in response to Governor Deval Patrick’s mid-year budget cut of 5 percent due to the economic crisis. Your reactions to the announcement and opinions on what you think UMass should (or shouldn’t) reduce funding for.

Go to this issue now →