Forum Post
Perhaps the most accurate reflection of an institution’s values is how it chooses to allocate resources.
The Administration aims for budget transparency and provides individual Senators the opportunity to have their voices heard on important advisory committees such as the University’s Athletic Budget Oversight Committee and the Athletic Program Advisory Committee (among others). But my sense is that most Senators, and indeed most faculty, feel they have virtually no power OR voice in decisions about how the University allocates resources. Fairly or unfairly, they may not trust the figures that are provided by the Administration; they think they are being “sold” a line. Although some may feel that this lack of trust is tied to a specific set of leaders, I suspect the structural problem would remain under nearly any leader operating under the same norms and procedures.
Indeed, WSU faculty members are not alone in feeling this way. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education highlights the rise of “faculty budget activists” at several U.S. public and private universities. The question: how can we build a stronger sense of shared *financial* governance here at WSU?
The Faculty Senate, of course, has no decision-making authority in matters of the University’s budget, and that is unlikely to change. But we do have in our Faculty Senate Constitution, the power of recommendation: Section 2, Part B(2) states that we shall formulate recommendations on the “review of the budget of the University to assess its general conformity with policies and priorities established or endorsed by the Senate.” I have only served as a Senator for 6 months, but it seems to me that the Senate is not making use of this power. In those six months, we have never voted on any non-binding resolutions or recommendations concerning the university’s budget. The Senate’s Budget Committee is also not actively engaged here either: the committee’s website says its purview is ONLY to review the budget implications of curricular changes or proposals, not the University’s finances.
How might the Senate make these recommendations and therefore give the faculty they represent a larger voice in budget decisions? My proposal is that each year the full Senate hold a non-binding, advisory vote on the University’s proposed fiscal year budget. This would be a regularly-occurring annual vote, but the Administration could select the timeframe most useful for them to receive this feedback –see here, for example, for the Budget Office’s FY24 budget timeline (PDF). Regularity is important. As the Chronicle article above highlighted, faculty budget activism at other universities has often been reactionary and, as a corollary, adversarial to the Administration. Having a regular, normalized process for voting on non-binding budget resolutions can build a *culture* of shared financial governance that will help the institution better weather painful choices.
With shared governance comes increased responsibility. University budgets are terribly complex, and we must recognize that our colleagues in the Administration have very difficult tradeoffs to make each and every day. Understanding university budgets requires Senators to have a willingness to learn new terminology and dig deep into issues that many would find boring or arcane. Senators are accustomed to representing (and protecting) their own constituencies, but this proposal would also ask them to keep in mind the broader mission of the University and the difficult choices that must be made.
However, it is hard to see how there can be real shared financial governance when the Senate has a tiny staff and is made up of folks who can realistically spend an hour or two per week (at most) on Senate business. As such, I propose that the Senate’s Budget Committee be empowered and resourced to be the Senate’s independent resource on university finances. Committee members would be expected to develop fluency with budgeting process and terminology. They would be expected to engage regularly with the Administration on budget matters, and report regularly to the Executive Committee. The Committee would hold an advisory vote on the fiscal year budget in advance of the full Senate vote. Before the full Senate vote, the Committee Chair would present an in-depth analysis and recommendation to the full Senate (presumably accompanied by a presentation by the Administration). Because of this large time commitment in service to the University, the Senate should request that each of the seven members of the Budget Committee receive support for the equivalent of a course release, perhaps 25% of salary. Committee members would rotate on and off, as they do now, which would gradually build broader budget knowledge across the faculty and down into colleges and departments.
To properly do its work, however, the Budget Committee would also require independent advice and expertise from qualified, permanent staff. Just as you should always hire your own lawyer to represent you in legal issues, so the Committee should keep its own counsel. This independence will build trust. The Senate should request that the Administration fund 1.0 FTE for a permanent staff member to the Budget committee, hired by and reportable to the Senate Chair. This would be a person with professional training in accounting and substantial experience (>10+ years) in higher education finance. They would also need to have access to the same set of financial data that the Administration uses, though likely with some restrictions on what data they could release publicly.
Finally, the Senate should request travel funding to bring the Senate *physically* together once per year in the fall or spring as a 1- or 2-day Senate retreat. This could rotate between locations to make sure faculty are familiar with other campuses and help strengthen the OneWSU vision. Some of this retreat could be used to onboard new Senators on institutional finance (perhaps a “crash course” co-led by staff from the Budget office and the Senate Budget Committee). Most of the time would be devoted to presentations to the full Senate and discussions on institutional priorities, draft budgets, deep dives on issues the Administration wants us to understand and advise on, etc.
Budget forecasts are grim, so this may not seem the time to be asking for new funding. But one could argue that it is precisely now when the Senate needs more resources to build trust in shared financial governance at WSU and weather the storm together.
~Faculty Joe Cook, School of Economic Sciences, CAHNRS
Response
The Faculty Senate Executive Officers have been notified of this forum post and will respond back once more information becomes available.
Comments