On the heels of Jack Kay’s resignation/firing/leaving came this email from the “Office of the Provost” on the budget process update:
President Martin’s email of April 20 presented preliminary University budget actions to respond to the likely decrease in state funding.
I wish to make it clear that Academic Affairs has not been asked to cut a specific amount from our budget. We have been asked to identify reduction scenarios up to $5.5 million and to demonstrate the impact of the various scenarios. Discussion along these lines has been taking place in the departments, schools, and colleges for some time.
In addition, I reiterate the President’s call for creative ideas on revenue generation. Please send ideas pertaining to Academic Affairs aa_budgetforum@emich.edu. Think big and we welcome all ideas. Let us keep working together to face this difficult situation, and turn it to our advantage, as much as possible.
So, if you’ve got ideas, you know where to send them.
Think scenarios?
Well, the College of Arts and Sciences was given a specific number that works out to an average of $83,333 per department.
I walked past Warner gym today and was surprised to see the entire parking lot being redone. In a time of economic crisis at EMU, how is it possible that this type of work, work that is not essential to the core mission of the university, is funded?
This definitely shows where the Regents’ priorities are not.
I sure hope no one trots out the totally lame “but the contract was signed a long time ago” excuse.
Generally, when it comes to things like resurfacing a parking lot (or other infra-structure sorts of issues), I usually would disagree with you, Jamin, and argue that these are “different pots of money.” But given the “all hands on deck” and “everything is on the table” nature of budgeting this year, I think you’re absolutely right. We cannot completely stop investing in stuff like this on campus, but I’m not getting this parking lot job either.
Dear Dr. Eisenbach et al,
I read the following story on FocusEMU today and could not help but think of your posts a couple weeks ago about the Bowen Parking Lot upgrade.
Here is the link: “Twenty-three EMU faculty receive sabbatical leave awards”: http://www.emich.edu/focus_emu/051011/sabbaticals.html
You wrote: “I sure hope no one trots out the totally lame “but the contract was signed a long time ago” excuse.”
Hmmm. I hope the faculty does not trot out the line “We are contractually entitled to this benefit”.
Much like the arguments you and other faculty made about the Bowen Parking Lot, you could make the exact same argument about the huge expense EMU will have to incur to fund these sabbaticals. While such is certainly a valued component of higher education, like the argument you and others initially made about the parking lot, where are the faculty who are making the sacrifice to forego their entitled sabbaticals this year when the budget looks so dire?
What is that I hear? Crickets chirping.
BTW – I also know that there ended up being a major drainage reason for redoing the lot that will save EMU a lot of money by doing the repair now. Where is the absolute and immediate need for the expense of the sabbaticals?
“They will receive either a one-semester leave with full pay or a two-semester leave with half pay.”
That is a LOT of money. Enjoy your sabbatical Dr. Eisenbach and all your fellow faculty.
Actually, in terms of money, sabbaticals are basically a break-even or even savings proposition for EMU. The reasons for this are sort of insider baseball, but the folks who are awarded full year sabbaticals get half the pay, which makes up for whatever costs are incurred by the half-year sabbaticals. Besides, people on sabbaticals are a tiny cost compared to whatever it is costing for that parking lot, and unless the drainage problem was something along the lines of “the buildings near it were in danger of washing away,” I’m not buying that as an excuse.
Actually Sitedad I believe these sabbaticals will cost EMU hundreds of thousands of dollars
Why/how can I make such an assertion?
Tenured faculty at EMU who are eligible for sabbaticals make what per year (including benefits)? $90,000? I will lowball and say $80,000.
12 professors are taking one semester sabbaticals at full pay/benefits. That means $40,000 x 12 equalling $480,000.
11 professors will be gone for a full year at half pay (but likely full health benefits?) $40,000 (half pay + benefits) for a year x 11 equals $440,000.
That already is at LEAST $920,000 and I am lowballing these estimates to pay people not to teach.
Then we get into the the cost of the “substitute teachers” (adjuncts and lecturers) EMU needs to hire to teach the courses that would otherwise have been taught by those on sabbatical.
This is the real expense of sabbaticals because the tenured professors would be earning their salary if they were here teaching.
Say these “subs” cost just 40% the salary/benefits of tenured faculty means that expense is at least $368,000.
So, I see these 23 sabbaticals costing EMU at LEAST $368,000. (I personally suspect it is closer to $450,000-$500,000)
That savings would certainly help significantly in covering EMU’s budget woes for next year.
To use your own words Sitedad, where are the “all hands on deck” and “everything is on the table” sacrifices the faculty are offering to make?
Dear EMUGrad96,
May I remind you that this is a university, and one of the professional duties of faculty members here is to conduct research, engage in creative professional work, and to contribute to their field of expertise. These activities are the reasons for sabbaticals — indeed, the person getting a sabbatical is obliged to return to teaching the next term or year, and typically they do so with new energy and insights and effectiveness. Under your estimation of costs of sabbaticals, you seem to count no benefits from the sabbaticals, only costs. I would point out that the benefits are considerable, and they too should be estimated in your reckoning. Ah, but that reckoning was done purely on guess work.
A friend of mine told me today that all of EMU’s sabbaticals will cost, next year, less than the salary and benefits of EMU’s football coach. That may be so, I’ve not calculated it, but it might be the right ball park. But I’d wager this much: The sabbaticals will yield a greater return, for educational benefit, on money they costs than will the money spent on the coach’s salary and benefits.
The faculty going on sabbaticals have all earned it, and they are professional obligated to return to the classroom. This nationally known to be a very cost effective way of maintaining faculty skills and grants and teaching capacity.
The coach, in contrast, is paid his money based on a gamble and a hope that someday he’ll have a winning team and that EMU will, somehow, benefit from a football program that costs maybe $7 million more than it produces. There is no credible scenario by which EMU football pays for itself. It is nearly certain that each person on sabbatical will return to the classroom more productive and able to serve EMU students.
Is there something out of balance, EMUGrad96, with the topic you criticize EMU for funding, while being silent on the much greater expense of university athletics, which equals about 10% of the General Fund spending?
Education First!
Oh dear, EMUGrad96, your numbers are ridiculously wrong. You’re estimating faculty salaries and the cost of replacement (aka part-timers) WAAAAYYYY too high. Especially the replacement costs. This varies from department to department, but there is no way that replacements cost 40% of what a full prof makes. So while it does cost a bit to pay for faculty on half-time leave, it is definitely a savings to pay faculty half as much. I’m probably wrong when I say it’s a break-even proposition for EMU, but it isn’t a lot of money overall.
I think that all of what Mark said about the “return on investment” for sabbaticals is significant, too. Keep in mind that sabbatical isn’t supposed to mean “vacation;” it means working on a larger research project of some sort that has tangible and intangible benefits– helps students, helps the field, helps the institution, etc.
That being said, I was surprised at the number of sabbaticals that EMU granted this year. I guess that’s a good sign that even in times of financial woe, the suits see the benefit in investing in the future of faculty. I just wish they would recognize that there’s less of a future worthy of investment in football. Oh, and in parking.
I just want to say that I am furious. For weeks I’ve been depressed with the budget cuts EMU is facing. These are painful cuts that will directly affect our ability to provide education to our students. CAS is being asked to cut $1.5 million from 18 departments. And then I walk to the Student Center and see that they have torn up the Bowen Parking Lot. The lot had a couple of cracks in it but was perfectly usable. How much is this going to cost? You can bet it isn’t cheap and you know it isn’t necessary. This could easily have been deferred. I cannot think of a greater waste of university money at this time. Clearly this work had to be approved all the way up through John Lumm. The university knew that budget cuts were coming as soon as Snyder was elected. Am I going to hear that the contract for the lot was signed before the election? Am I going to hear that the contract couldn’t be cancelled? Maybe the lot is crucial for the central mission of the university? All of this is nonsense and is typical of the fiscal mismanagement for which EMU is infamous.
The two biology professors make excellent points. Yet too little of the spending decisions at EMU are based on a comprehensive look at the total organization – instead, they remain still very silo oriented. We as a university, this year, will make cuts that will severely impact the academic mission of the campus, and prevent students from achieving academic success; but the plans to resurface parking lots will be minimally affected and dreams of Division 1 glory will continue to be funded, despite our pathetic 6 year graduation rate.
CAS has a target of $1.5 million in cuts. But no such number has yet been brought before the University Budget Council, or, as far as I know, before any body that provides faculty input.
Sitedad,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I asked about the repaving of the Bowen Lot today and I was told that the cost is being paid for by revenue generated by the EMU parking department (through parking ticket revenue). It makes sense and the information came from a reliable source.
That may be true. I don’t know one way or the other (your sources are probably better than mine), and if it is true, it does make more sense and it does make it a little more palatable. That said, revenue is revenue and just because EMU generated it as a result of parking doesn’t mean it has to be spent that way. For example, the biggest revenue maker at EMU by far is tuition. But obviously, we don’t take tuition dollars and then use that money to exclusively finance academic affairs at EMU. If we did, then athletics and student life and other related enterprises would mostly not exist.
If this was a normal budget year/cycle, sure, pay for repave the lot with parking lot money. But this isn’t a normal budget cycle. Depending on how this all works out, the cuts to academic affairs are going to be pretty awful, but hey, at least parking will have a shinny new lot, and at least the football team will have the chance to win 3 games this year.
That lot was in pretty good shape, as I recall – certainly better than the moonscape that is the Roosevelt lot. I was told that drainage under the Bowen lot was a problem, and it needed fixing sooner rather than later or more expensive damage would happen when there are more people on campus. I can’t back that up with fact, and I don’t even remember who told me, but it’s plausible.
In a mildly factual mood today –so, currently, there is great variance in lecturer replacement dollars. The cost varies from department to department and even from college to college. This variance may change with the adjunct union contract. Currently, the average lecturer replacement cost is $3000.00 for a three credit class.
Right– which is what I mean that replacing faculty who are on sabbatical with part-timers is no where near 40% of the costs. Of course, the problem with these discrepancies are a) part-time faculty usually don’t have the same qualifications (there is a “you get what you pay for” factor here), and b) this is the same inequities that lead to hiring of more and more part-timers.
So here is my idea about how to save the University money: stop giving golden parachutes to folks who serve for a year or two (or longer) as administrators, and then return to faculty. And when they return, expect them to carry a full teaching load again within a year. The rest of us do it – why can’t they?
As for adjuncts, anyone who thinks that the cost of employing adjuncts as replacements for faculty on sabbatical is too high, should do the math. EMUGrad96: A typical adjunct at EMU might teach 8-9 classes a year for a grand salary of $24,000 and no benefits. Nice, huh? Just think, some of your professors probably qualified for food stamps while teaching at EMU. Education first, educators last? This is not a sustainable model.