Proposed 2009-11 Operating Budget: Questions, Discussion, Observations

i didnt see anything in the budget report about non-resident tuition- how are the budget cuts affecting those numbers?

Ditto! How will this affect non-resident tution?

Thanks for the question about out-of-state tuition.

Because Western's 2008-09 out-of-state tuition for non-resident undergraduates remains approximately 18.3% higher than the average of our national peer institutions, tuition increases for non-resident undergraduates are not recommended in this budget proposal. 

Graduate tuition at WWU is also higher than the average of WWU's peer institutions nationwide and the proposed budget similarly does not currently include a recommendation to increase tuition for graduate students (resident or non-resident). However, WWU is closer to the national average on resident graduate tuition and this category may be re-evaluated in the future.

Here's a link to a chart we prepared relying on the Higher Education Coordinating Board's (HECB's) tuition and fee comparisons for all Washington institutions of higher education.  This chart is interesting insofar as you can see how WWU's tuition compares to UW and other Washington state institutions of higher education.  (As with all tuition comparisons, please check the footnote so that you can see what fees are included in this particular comparison.)

http://www.wwu.edu/upb/FactsandComparisons/peerinst/tuitfeeHECBpeercompare.pdf

Paula

I am wondering if the new budget has any effect on the price of outreach programs such as Huxley on the Peninsula.

how much will tuition be next year for in state students? Is the price for housing/meal plan also increasing next year?

 Washington state is apparently the second state in the nation with the highest budget cuts to higher education (Nebraska is number one). Why is our governor choosing to do this? Can't we implant a progressive tax on the millionaires and billionaires in Washington state that would go towards higher education? I'm going to put myself on a limb here and say that the Boeing, Microsoft, and Starbucks corporations hire a large number of people with college degrees. If it became harder to obtain a college degree, then the applicant field would essentially decrease and this would essentially affect the businesses across the state. Just my two cents...

The tricky part of this argument is that there is no requirement that companies located in Washington hire people educated in Washington, especially for jobs that require a college degree.  People move here all the time for jobs!  These big employers tend, I think, to be concerned with the quality of K12 education since many of the folks they hire for jobs that DON'T require a college degree are, in fact, already state residents.

The mobility of people with college degrees works both ways here, too, since there is nothing to prevent a graduate of a college or university in Washington from getting a job in some other state.

I think the importance of education to employers argument is fraught with peril as a result. 

 The last thing the government should be doing during an economic recession is cutting funding to higher education. It leads to decreasing the quality of universities and increasing the already heavy financial burden for student to attend college. I can not understand why Washington, a state that prides itself on being well educated and a leader in innovation, would want to put up such a giant roadblock for students attempting to get a college education. 

I know that personally I will no longer be able to afford to live in Bellingham and attend Western. Many other students across the state will be put in a similar position, and many will probably have to consider taking fewer classes or dropping out all together. This will also decrease the amount of revenue for the universities, and I see it becoming a huge downward spiral. I honestly think that this is one of the biggest mistakes that our state's government has ever made. The last thing we should sacrifice is education.

...

I'm not a political activist here, but when something as obvious as this doesn't seem to be getting through to people, I just have to say something. Writing your Washington state legislature, or bitching to WWU about how pissed off you are about the higher education budget cuts doesn't solve the problem. The problem is washington is broke, and the solution is much easier than you think. Washington is one of only seven states without a State income tax, so write your legislature that you want to introduce the state income tax to washington, and, badda bing, problem solved. Imagine the state taxing all those multi-millionaire Microsoft croonies, including Bill Gates. That should cover the state cuts alone.... people need to tell this ass backwards state to get with it. I'm from California, hense the bias, but one thing you can't complain about the golde state, is $3500 a year tuition at CSU's, or $60 bucks a class at the community colleges.

Thank you for your question.  

Proposals for tuition rate and mandatory fee increases will be presented to WWU's Board of Trustees at its meeting on June 12. 

The proposed Resident Undergraduate Tuition rate for 2009-10 is $4,890 (including the capital building fee & tuition operating fee), a $600 increase over the 2008-09 rate of $4,290.

Proposed increases for mandatory student fees for 2009-10 will be presented to the Board at the same time.  Mandatory student fees include the service & activity fee, the health service fee, the student technology fee, the non-academic building fee, the renewable energy fee, the student recreation fee and the transportation fee. 

At this time, we do not have a firm estimate on possible increases for mandatory student fees since possible 2009-10 increases for most mandatory student fees are still under consideration.

2009-10 increases for housing and dining rates were approved by the WWU's Board in April 2009, and 2009-10 costs will vary, of course, depending on plans chosen.  Generally, the increase is approximately 4.75% over 2008-09 rates (for example, a Double Room with Meal Plan that was $7,712 in 2008-09 will be $8,077 in 2009-10).

Paula

carterl3 said - Western should stop re-doing buildings and building new ones...

First, it's very important to understand some fundamental differences between the capital and operating budgets.  Simply put, the money comes from two different funding types with different objectives.

Our operating budget keeps the university going on a day-to-day basis, paying salaries, utilities, supplies, etc.  This cash funding comes from state operating appropriations and tuition.  The funds are consumed, so to speak, as they get utilized each year to operate the university.

Conversely, the funds appropriated in the capital budget for building projects result in new or improved long-term assets for the university, such as renovation or construction of campus buildings.  Due to the long-term nature of this type of State investment, projects funded through the capital budget are typically financed by state-issued bonds, a long-term financing mechanism similar to a home mortgage.  The state does not allow capital appropriations to be used for operating expenses.

I know it's confusing but the bottom line is this: receiving capital appropriations does not help or hurt our operating budget (but would simply help some other campus with their building priorities).

Its not confusing at all.
To be frank, it does not look good for this university to hike up tuition... while still building new facilities, in fact during the
current economic crisis it looks pretentious and quite simply... silly. According to your response part of the budget is used for and I quote, "utilities, supplies" which is going to the running of these new buildings.

Thanks for your question.  There will be no impact on Huxley's outreach programs according to Dean Brad Smith.

Paula

First, I really appreciate all of the efforts to provide forums such as this, and the many opportunities for input in this difficult process. If you look at other places, such as the University of Florida, where cuts are being made in an opaque manner, I think we can all be glad that we are using a better process.

Now for a difficult question; I'm mixing threads, but in the Budget Rumors forum I asked about the many rumors floating around that ex-administrators were still on contract and being paid, and Paula Gilman confirmed that this is the case (for example, President Morse is on pay status until sometime in 2010, according to the contract she and the Trustees agreed to).

Given the fact that the faculty gave up about $400k in Special Merit Raises for both 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 through an MOU between the Union and University Presidents, are any of the contracted-but-retired administrators willing to, or planning on, a similar set of MOU-s? Perhaps this can be viewed as a challenge-match between the Meritorious Faculty and the Emeritorious Administrators?

Please do not view this as a dig at the Emeritus Administrators; just as the faculty who were awarded Special Merit, these folks are without doubt making valuable contributions to the mission of Western, and (like the contract negotiated between the UFWW and the Administration) their contracts were justly awarded based on the merit of their contributions and efforts made on behalf of WWU in their present positions. 

is president shephard making more than president morse this year while my tuitions is raised and services cut?

It appears that the "high cut" reduction proposal is being expanded from what was presented originally and is attached above (bud_over_report_final5609.pdf). In the proposal it shows Telecommunications losing 1 FTE but I know that Telecommunications is now losing 2.3 FTE. This appears to be more along the lines of a 20% reduction to this area.

Were the original numbers incorrect or are some IT areas being cut further to fund the new "security officer" position?

Why are the actual numbers/layoffs so different than the proposals that were presented on March 18th & 19th and included in the document attached above?

Tuition has been raised by the maximum allowable amount (nearly 7%) for the past several+ years -- long before this terrible budget chrisis came upon us, and even during our State's last budget surplus a few years ago now under President Morse's tenure.

Taking a swipe at the president is so easy and satisfying, though.  I like where you're going with this -- we could do it like mad libs:

• "Is president shephard making more than president morse this year while _______________?" 

For me, I think i'd fill in the blank with stuff like "the Bellingham Herald is running the LA Times cross-word puzzle", or "Bill Gates is still charging to much to license Albert Einstein's likeness".  Oh -- I forgot about global warming...  And depreciation on new pick-up trucks -- can you believe they lose half their value in just 2 years?  Crimeny!  What about the outcome of Dancing with the Stars?  Can you believe that little teenie-bopper high-school student won it? 
You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe this is just too much for one person to accomplish...  Shephard's got somebody helping him -- there's no other explanation for it.  Barack Obama -- has to be.

 If you call me asking a question about President Bruce Shephard's monetary value as a president a swipe at him then I'm sorry you see it that way.  I feel that the people who I'm paying tuition too ought to be held accountable.  But please sir, don't be confused.  I'm NOT apologetic for asking questions when I see something shady happening.  I'm NOT going to just going to cease talking about salaries or wages at my damned university that I love as well as you do.  I'm NOT going to ignore the article the WF printed (although I often question it's integrity and journalistic quality) where it asked president shephard why he isn't willing to take a pay cut while service slashes are being made across the board.  This prompted a 5-6 paragraph response where he managed to hedge around the issue and describe his professional worth and talents as being on par with an experienced, sitting president (which apparently is worth 300 G's on the market these days).  Please.  President Shephard was a "chancellor" before in Wisconson, not a president.  So I'm NOT making a damned petty swipe at our president and I'm not trying to make this "terrible economic crisis" seem any less terrible.  I'm just a considerate, skeptical, and curious paying student.

  But serisouly, who needs 300 G's to live in Bellingham.  Unless his lifestyle requires 300 grand, I suggest he ask some of the undergraduate students, who are having their tution raised not just "~7%" this year but "~14%" the next two years, how they can afford to live in bellingham for less than that much money.  Maybe he can learn some cost-saving lessons.

You are correct that the actual numbers of reductions in Telecommunications is higher than the original 10% proposal presented during the budget presentation. However, it is not due to an expansion of budget reduction caused by the State's reduced funding. Regrettably the budget had to be reduced further in Telecommunications due to a revenue shortfall from the decision of Residential Life to not fund telephones in the student rooms. Their reasoning was that most students come to college with a cell phone and that the in-room telephone service was not used and no longer necessary. This created a 230 thousand dollar shortfall in revenue for Telecommunications. While not having to maintain those lines did allow us to reduce some fixed costs (maintenance for a small portion of our telephone switch gear, a very modest reduction in 'trunk lines', etc.) the reality is that much of the non-personnel costs cannot be reduced and still maintain adequate telephone service to the rest of the campus. It is also important to know that while state funds have been allocated for the telephones, the growth of the data network has not. The result is that the income from telephones supports both telephone costs and network costs.

A long winded answer to say that because of the revenue reduction from the loss of income from student residential telephones, we had to make further reductions in our staffing to balance the departmental budget.

At this time no ITS areas are being reduced to fund a future security officer position. At the request of the Board of Trustee's Audit Committee, an IT security audit will be performed this summer and fall. The results of that audit may, or may not, indicate Western's need for a security officer. Data security is everyone's responsibility!

I am very cognizant of the impact it has on the lives of the people affected and the impact it will have on our ability to provide service to the institution. I regret very much that these additional reductions had to be made.

I hear you -- you're mad.  Your points (if I've read your post well enough):

• Your tuition is going up.
• The president doesn't deserve 300k because he was only a chancelor before in Wisconson, not a president
• The president is not holding himself accountable
• There's something shady happening here
• Nobody needs 300k to live in Bellingham
• The president should take a pay cut, as long as services are being cut

I don't mean to argue the point of what a president should be paid here, nor belittle your opinions in that regard.  I took your first post as a swipe, but maybe I shouldn't have.  I can tell you are very passionate about this, and it's nice you have an opinion and aren't afraid to speak out about it.

I hope you'll stay interested in the budget problem in general -- there's an aweful lot going on at the university right now, with folks trying to figure out every way they can to mitigate the negative impact on students caused by the state's budget woes.  I would be willing to bet that if you called the A.S., or even the president's office for that matter, to ask what you could do to help, they'd have a way for you to get involved.

Just curious, but why does Web4U list my 2009-2010 tuition and fees as $5,868?

 Hi bernieh,

While I was not around for the negotiation involving President Morse's retirement, I do know that the sorts of arrangements that were included are standard components when both the Board and the President agree to a final contract after a long period of distinguished service.  

To directly answer your question about others, I have not made any commitments to any WWU colleague involving continuing employment after retirement.  What has been done -- for faculty, staff, administrators -- is, upon occasion, to offer a retired colleague an opportunity to return and serve the university.  Here, it is the needs of the university that dictate the offer and not any prior commitment or obligation on the part of the university.  

To be complete in my answer, though, I also want to mention "at will" appointments: e.g. when a faculty member becomes a dean.  These administrative appointments can be ended at any time.  It is not a retirement as the person has a continuing position as a faculty member.  An "all eyes open" appointment letter must make clear, at the outset, what happens if an "at will" administrative appointment is ended.  The faculty member, before agreeing to be a dean or provost or whatever, should know exactly what will happen regarding salary and, possibly, other matters in the event of the administrative appointment being ended.  That's only fair.  We have tended to rely upon custom and past practice here, people thinking they know what will or should happen.  That can create lots of problems where expectations do not match.  We are now making these matters explicit in initial letters of appointment.

Bruce