May 10, 2004

 

 

To:       Douglas Hastad

            Chancellor

 

From:   Robert Hoar, Chair

            Faculty Senate

 

Re:       Budget Reduction and Related Issues

 

At its April 8th and April 29th meetings, the Faculty Senate discussed and reviewed the enclosed report prepared by the Faculty Budget Committee, and unanimously approved the following three motions:

 

Motion #1

The faculty senate requests the chancellor to work with the appropriate offices to find answers to the ten questions listed on Page 4 of the report:

 

  1. Where are the resources associated with the UW-L reductions not returned to the state (35% cushion, salary savings and fringe benefit savings).  When and how will it be restored?
  2. What is the projected situation for F04?
  3. Is there a credible plan for meeting EM21 non-resident targets by 2006?
  4. Is there a plan to develop additional financial resources that can be used to recruit the required number of non-resident students?
  5. Is there a plan to coordinate the various student recruitment targets across UWL offices?
  6. Is there a plan to predict and compensate for fluctuating student FTE?
  7. Will the proposal for matching differential tuition adversely affect instruction?
  8. Is the proposal for matching differential tuition viable in the long term?
  9. How do other campuses provide financial incentives to non-resident students?
  10. Are there differences between UWL and other system campuses in terms of the way the AFIR reports are structured?

 

Motion #2

The Faculty Senate recommends that university funds used to match differential tuition not come from instructional budgets.  This includes not reallocating faculty, academic staff, program assistants, graduate assistants, student help, and Work Study support from instructional budgets to the initiatives associated funded by differential tuition.

 

Motion #3

The Faculty Senate reaffirms the following recommendation related to proposed budget reductions made at its 4-3-03 meeting: 

 

The Faculty Senate finds that the instructional reductions do not represent academic priorities but rather are largely based upon opportunities and should therefore not be viewed as a plan for permanent budget reductions.  The Faculty Senate insists that any instructional budget reductions above those required be restored and that this process be directed through the appropriate committee structure.

 

 

saw

Enclosure

cc:        Ron Lostetter