HOWARD UNIVERSITY Budget... · recommendation that faculty compensation at Howard be made...

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

OFFICE OF THE FACULTY SENATE

May 26, 2011

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau

President

Howard University

2400 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 402

Washington, DC 20059

Dear President Ribeau:

As per your request, I am submitting the Faculty Senate Budget Recommendations for AY2011-12.

The Faculty Senate concurs with the University-wide Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) that

establishing competitive salaries for current faculty is the University’s highest budgetary priority. As a

correlate to faculty productivity, the Senate has also focused its recommendations toward increased

investment in physical and intellectual capital resources that are of primary importance to our research,

teaching, and scholarly goals.

Consistent with last year’s recommendation and efforts toward academic renewal, the Senate urges that

the University establish a fully-funded Office of University Ombudsman as an independent resource for

problem resolution. This office can provide confidential and informal assistance to help resolve issues

related to workplace and learning environments to ensure that all members of the University community

are treated equitably and fairly.

The Faculty Senate anticipates future discussions and input with regard to an improved BAC process that

is aligned with and strategic priorities related to the implementation of Academic Renewal.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Eric Walters, Chair

Faculty Senate

cc: Dr. James Wyche, Provost and Chief Academic Officer

Dr. Eve Higginbotham, Sr. V.P. Health Sciences and Executive Dean

Faculty Senate Council

525 Bryant Street, NW Rm. C-119 Phone: (202)806-7595 Washington, DC 20059 Fax: (202) 806-7396

2

Faculty Senate

Presented to President Sidney A. Ribeau

May 26, 2011

3

Table of Contents

Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................5

BAC Recommendations of Expenditure Priorities for AY 2011-12 .........................................................6

1. Faculty Salaries .................................................................................................................................. 6

2. Modernize / Upgrade Smart Classrooms .......................................................................................... 7

3. Labs, Facilities and Equipment .......................................................................................................... 7

4. Adequate Staffing ............................................................................................................................. 8

5. Investments in Systems, Software and Process Improvements for Externally Funded Research .... 8

6. Creating Locations for Informal Meetings ........................................................................................ 8

7. Academic Renewal ............................................................................................................................ 8

8. Additional Financial Support for Graduate Students ........................................................................ 9

9. Automation of the Application, Notification and Admission Process in the Graduate School....... 10

10. Functional and Aesthetic Enhancements to Improve the Teaching/Learning Environment ...... 10

11. Classroom Technology and Technology Infrastructure .............................................................. 11

12. Campus Web Presence ............................................................................................................... 11

13. Library ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Additional Faculty Senate Budget Recommendations – Expenditure Priority ..................................... 12

A. Establish a Fully Funded University Office of the Ombudsman (UOO) for Institutional Integrity .. 12

B. Target Investments to Promote Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations ................................... 13

C. Establish a Postdoctoral Scholars Association ................................................................................ 14

D. Establish “The Howard Institute” Think Tank ................................................................................. 15

E. Establish a Robust and Fair Retirement Incentive Program ........................................................... 15

F. Competitive Start-Up Packages and Support for New Faculty Hires .............................................. 16

BAC Revenue Priority Recommendations for AY 2011-12 .................................................................. 17

1. Fund Raising .................................................................................................................................... 17

4

2. Campus Renewal ............................................................................................................................. 18

3. Form Partnerships ........................................................................................................................... 18

4. Other Sources of Revenue .............................................................................................................. 18

5. Increase Funded Research .............................................................................................................. 18

Other Fiscal/Operational Recommendations of the BAC for AY 2011-12 ............................................ 20

1. Capital Planning .............................................................................................................................. 20

2. Organization Chart. ......................................................................................................................... 20

3. Student / Staff Ratio ....................................................................................................................... 20

4. External Contracts ........................................................................................................................... 20

5. Accountability of Construction/Maintenance Contractors ............................................................ 21

6. Student Expenditures ...................................................................................................................... 21

7. Administrative Renewal .................................................................................................................. 21

8. General Spending Guidelines .......................................................................................................... 22

9. Soliciting and Rewarding Ideas ....................................................................................................... 22

BAC Recommendations for Improving the BAC Process for AY 2011-12 .............................................. 23

1. Leadership of the BAC ..................................................................................................................... 23

2. Meeting Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 23

3. Review the BAC Charter .................................................................................................................. 23

4. Fiscal Engagement at the Unit Level ............................................................................................... 23

5. Revising the Budget Development Methodology and Timing ........................................................ 24

6. Routine Provision of Data ............................................................................................................... 24

7. Web Presence ................................................................................................................................. 24

8. Staff Unions ..................................................................................................................................... 24

9. Sub-Committee on Faculty Compensation ..................................................................................... 25

5

Foreword

A recurring and persistent challenge of the Faculty at Howard University is its inability, despite sustained

efforts, to develop a collaborative and productive relationship with the Administration. In their

persistence to secure such collaboration, the Faculty is complying with the substance of language that

was crafted in major institutional documents that were jointly produced by both Faculty and

Administration, and subsequently approved by the Board of Trustees. As guardians of the Academy in its

local setting, and as the ultimate safeguard of the integrity and quality of academic life, the Faculty of

Howard University take seriously its appropriate characterization in the Constitution of the Faculty

Senate (January, 1993) “as a partner with shared responsibility” (Article XI, Section C.1). The principle of

shared governance, which mandates the collaborative efforts of Faculty and Administration, represents

the fundamental condition, indeed, the sine qua non for ensuring that the best that we collectively have

to offer will guide our discussions and, ultimately, our decisions for the benefit of our beloved Institution

and especially, those who live, learn and labor in association with Howard University (Faculty Manifesto,

p. 1).

Reclaiming the Academy begins with the affirmation of the Faculty role in re-claiming its primary

responsibility (1) to be the guardians of the Academy in its local setting, and (2) to recognize that direct

Faculty action in all matters related to the academic life of the Institution is prerequisite to the

academic health and long-term welfare of the University. By virtue of what the Faculty does or fails to

do in all academic matters, the character and quality of the Academy at Howard University depend. By

acknowledging primacy in the Faculty for the integrity and strength of academic programs, the Faculty

re-affirms its commitment to work to … collaborate with the Administration “as a partner with shared

responsibility” as mandated by the Constitution of the Faculty Senate (Faculty Manifesto, p. 6).

Within this context, the Faculty Senate has prepared the following submittal of its Budget

Recommendations1 for AY 2011-12 to President Sidney A. Ribeau. This report contains:

The Faculty Senate’s Response to the itemized budget recommendations of the University-wide

Budget Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as BAC Recommendations) for AY2011-12;

Additional budget priorities and recommendations of the Office of the Faculty Senate.

1 These Recommendations have been informed by the following documents:

- The Faculty Manifesto, 2007

- Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees and Students of

Howard University, Washington, DC 20059, 2010

- Howard University Faculty Senate Report on Academic Renewal, August 2010

6

BAC Recommendations of Expenditure Priorities for AY 2011-12

1. Faculty Salaries

The BAC feels strongly that the University’s highest expenditure priority should be more

competitive faculty salaries for current faculty. It is BAC’s assessment that faculty salaries at

Howard are uncompetitive with local universities and Howard’s comparison institutions, and

that Howard’s salary distribution has a high level of compression. Various methodologies for

addressing the problems of low salaries and salary compression were considered by BAC

(including fixed dollar increases; fixed dollar increases by rank; COLA plus fixed increases; COLA

plus merit increases, etc., documented in the BAC minutes), but it is BAC’s strongest

recommendation that faculty compensation at Howard be made competitive, even prior to

significant hiring of new faculty at competitive levels necessitated by the proposed faculty

phased retirement program.

Faculty Senate Response: AGREE, with Qualifications

Commentary:

The Faculty of Howard University is at a crossroads. The implementation of Academic Renewal

requires faculty to assume more responsibility to develop innovative academic programming

and interdisciplinary research and teaching. However, more than two-thirds of Faculty are at or

near retirement age and are among the lowest paid among faculties in area colleges and

universities.

The August 18, 2010 issue of U.S. News and World Report published the "U.S. News Best

Colleges" rankings. In the ranking methodology section, faculty salary was one of the most

important components. Faculty salary was defined as (1) the average faculty pay, plus (2)

benefits, during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in

the cost of living using indexes from the consulting firm, Runzheimer International. Howard

University must stabilize its academy by providing competitive, market rate salaries for its

faculty. This will enhance recruitment and retention of its faculty and ensure that salaries serve

to optimize 403b contributions toward retirement.

The faculty at Howard University needs to be considered as a respected and essential part of the

University’s infrastructure and as such, are deserving of thoughtful and immediate increases in

salaries, benefits that provide the best quality of health care, and retirement incentives that

allow them to gradually retire while giving academic programs an opportunity to replace senior,

retiring Faculty. To that end, the Faculty Senate makes the following recommendation:

It is recommended that the Administration, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, develop plans to align Howard faculty salaries with those of regional/area universities IMMEDIATELY

7

(While a proposed 3% increase is welcomed, it does not ameliorate or correct the protracted income loss to faculty, nor does it address the historic problem of salary compression at Howard University).

2. Modernize / Upgrade Smart Classrooms

Update the approximately 25 University smart classrooms, including the two in the Law School,

many of which are no longer functional.


Commentary:

The University should invest in appropriate resources to provide certification of key staff

personnel responsible for ensuring maintenance and upgrade of 25 smart classrooms across

major sectors of the University (i.e., COAS, COEACS, Law, Divinity, Medicine, Dentistry, etc.).

Additional resources should be provided at the departmental level (on a need basis) for

“portable” technologies (i.e. LCDs, computers, specialized software, etc.) that enhance the

learning environment.

3. Labs, Facilities and Equipment

In the past the BAC has proposed that the University set aside a fund of at least several million

dollars to repair, modernize, replace and purchase teaching and research lab equipment and

facilities, with the emphasis being on resources which are most broadly accessed and shared.

The BAC renews that request.

Faculty Senate Response: AGREE

Commentary:

Faculty should be consulted to determine priorities for investment in physical infrastructure

upgrades, renovations, and improvements. The demand for new, interdisciplinary approaches,

consistent with the recommendations for Academic Renewal, require immediate dialogue

between the Ribeau Administration and the faculty with intentional focus on Core Facilities and

Infrastructure that will support the 5 Research Pillars as previously recommended by the Faculty

Senate (1. Health and Wellness; 2. Technology and Environmental Sustainability; 3.

Internationalism and Human Rights; 4. Financial Literacy and Acumen; 5. Communication Arts

and Humanities):

Digital Imaging/Photography/Publication

DNA-Genome/Cell Technology Core (Microarry, Sequencing and Synthesis)

8

The Howard Institute

Language Laboratory

Center for Academic Excellence (Currently the Center for Academic Reinforcement

(CAR)

4. Adequate Staffing

Ensure that there is adequate administrative support for instruction in each academic

department based on the number of total students enrolled in courses offered by that

department, the number of student majors, and the complexity of providing required student

services (e.g., the support requirements of labs).

Faculty Senate Recommendation: AGREE, with qualification

(see FS Additional Recommendations B and C, below)

5. Investments in Systems, Software and Process Improvements for Externally

Funded Research

Attention should be given to pre- and post-award processes, minimizing the administrative

requirements of PI’s and contract awardees, routine reporting to granting agencies, expedited

hiring and expenditure of grant funds, and grant identification and proposal development.


6. Creating Locations for Informal Meetings

Faculty and students have long expressed the view that the university should create meeting

spaces where faculty and students can meet informally, collaborate, network and even socialize.

Particularly as the University embraces multidisciplinary approaches in its research and

teaching, such meeting venues become even more important. In some cases meeting spaces

might be reserved to support formal meetings.


7. Academic Renewal

Funding to support implementation of the Board’s academic renewal decisions, including

revising the university’s General Education program, the university’s undergraduate program

9

more generally, student advising, changes to the graduate school, and changes to individual

programs.

FACULTY SENATE Response: AGREE, with Qualifications

Commentary (Implementation of Academic Renewal):

Implementation of Academic Renewal recommendations should be conducted in accordance

with the principles of shared governance and transparency. Thus, a University-wide oversight

committee must be established to monitor and guide this process.

A. COMPOSITION:

An Academic Renewal Implementation Committee (ARIC) should consist of faculty, staff, students, administrators, and alumni.

The membership of this committee would be developed via consultation amongst the Administration and the Faculty Senate.

B. CHARGE: the ARIC charge would include but not be limited to:

Aligning clinical-related Faculty activities with PCAR objectives

Refining proposed recommendations after consultation with Faculty

Prioritizing the implementation of planned recommendations

Establishing timelines, benchmarks and completion schedules

Monitoring implementation of planned recommendations

Consulting with the BAC to ensure budgetary feasibility of academic restructuring

Reporting regularly to Faculty and University community

Ensuring that mission-centered objectives are addressed

Ensuring that the restructuring process is consistent with the Faculty Handbook (1993)

Documenting all activities for historical preservation and reporting to external agencies

8. Additional Financial Support for Graduate Students

As strongly recommended by PCAR, the University should makes its stipends for Ph.D. students

more competitive as well as offer stipends and tuition waivers to more Ph.D. students


Commentary (Graduate School Structure, Graduate Training Stipends):

10

The Faculty Senate endorses the original PCAR recommendation to restructure the

Graduate School to provide greater administrative jurisdiction of graduate student

training and affairs at the School/Dept level. PCAR members were in strong support of a

Graduate School model wherein a Graduate Faculty Council would be empowered to

choose the next Dean of the Graduate School. Currently, the Ribeau Administration’s

actions are inconsistent with the proposed PCAR model.

Monetary support must be specified for Graduate programs within: a) Academic

Affairs; b) Biomedical Sciences programs of study.

The Faculty Senate recommends significant improvement to graduate student

stipends/salaries to competitive levels compared to peer institutions. In addition,

stipends should include travel monies (competitive, non-competitive programs) to

enrich graduate student participation in national/international conferences and

specialized training programs in pursuit of Masters and Ph.D. degrees.

The Faculty Senate recommends support of faculty (i.e., supplies, vouchers, summer

salary) engaged in research training of graduate and undergraduate students. First

priority incentives would be aimed at faculty who are involved in graduate student

training, as a means to stimulate the acquisition of preliminary data and increased

grantsmanship.

9. Automation of the Application, Notification and Admission Process in the Graduate

School

The University should implement systems and technology for on-line application and electronic

processing of applications to the Graduate School, with a focus on the robustness of the system,

making records electronically available to faculty and others who need to review them,

improving the integrity of application files, reducing errors, and speeding processing.


10. Functional and Aesthetic Enhancements to Improve the Teaching/Learning

Environment

Continued attention, effort and investment should be devoted to the repair, renovation and modernization of teaching and lab facilities. Teaching and learning spaces should be both functional and appealing. This should include general purpose classrooms, teaching laboratories and support spaces, notably including bathrooms. These enhancements are needed both for effective learning and required to make Howard appealing as part of its marketing strategy.

11


11. Classroom Technology and Technology Infrastructure

Additional teaching spaces should be modified to provide network connections and all the facilities needed for computer-based instruction and projection. As the university’s courses increasingly become hybrid (traditional instruction mixed with on-line components), the instructional spaces to support such instruction needs to change. Similarly, computer access in faculty offices, student labs and other teaching/learning spaces needs to support modern instructional and research needs, requiring investment in technology infrastructure and support systems including staff. Faculty Senate Response: AGREE

12. Campus Web Presence

Staffing and other resources should be made available to improve the consistency, accuracy and level of currency of Howard’s many web sites. Notable among the deficiencies are the difficulty of locating people and offices, finding needed information and the prevalence of outdated information. Redesign should include a higher level of interactivity. Faculty Senate Response: AGREE, with Qualification Commentary: Investment should focus on redesign and renewal of email and internet/web capabilities, including establishment of Internet 2, high-bandwidth interconnectivity, including Skype video technology. Exploratory phase analysis of internet phone services should be initiated.

13. Library

Though it will necessarily be a multi-year process, the University needs to begin rebuilding its library resources. Emphasis should be on materials made available electronically, librarian support and strengthened partnerships with area schools. Faculty Senate Response: AGREE

12

Additional Faculty Senate Budget Recommendations – Expenditure Priority

A. Establish a Fully Funded University Office of the Ombudsman (UOO) for

Institutional Integrity

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Standard 6 states the following:

“In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it

serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies,

providing support for intellectual and academic freedom” (Middle States Report, p. 10).

In response to MSCHE Standard 6, the 2009 Howard University Self-Study Report found the

following:

1. There is insufficient inclusion of ethics and integrity as core components in the

orientation process of students, faculty, and staff.

2. There are insufficient procedures to ensure a systematic evaluation and monitoring of

compliance with university policies related to integrity.

3. The University’s various official policies are not readily available in a single central

location (Middle States Report, p. 64).

The plan to transition Howard toward a research intensive university obligates the

University stakeholders to ensure that fairness and equity will be upheld to the highest

standards. A UOO provides valuable insight and feedback to university stakeholders with

regard to Standards of Best Practices to maximize ethical and professional practices across

the university. An ombudsman is confidential, independent, and neutral. As an outsider, the

UOO would be free of internal politics at the University and have no vested interest in the

outcomes of dispute resolutions other than to serve justice and the public's interest. A

University Office of the Ombudsman would operate independently of the Board of Trustees,

Administration, and Faculty, consistent with the code of ethics and standards of practice of

the International Ombudsman Association.

The UOO would be accessible to all Howard University faculty, staff, fellows, students and

retirees. The UOO would serve as an independent resource for research, investigation, data

collection, and problem resolution to ensure that all members of the University community

are treated equitably and fairly. It would provide confidential and informal assistance to

help resolve issues related to workplace and academic environments. A visitor may choose

to dialogue with the UOO under circumstances that retain anonymity, while considering

http://www.ombudsassociation.org/

13

possible options of resolution. The UOO would produce a confidential annual statistical

report that summarizes the activity of the Office and may identify systemic problems.

Investigatory capacities include but are not limited to:

Changes in computer security systems

Safety programs

Access and information regarding University Counsel

Ethics cases

Bullying cases

Racial or sexual harassment cases

Contractual disputes

B. Target Investments to Promote Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations

The Faculty Senate envisions that our process of Academic Renewal must be defined on the

basis of shared goals and priorities that originate from the Faculty. This is of most significance

with regard to scholarship and research goals and initiatives. To this end, the Faculty Senate has

proposed five broad categories of Research Initiatives (5 pillars) to serve as a guide to train

students, our most precious resource, for the future. The Faculty Senate encourages vigorous

debate about these initiatives in an effort to reshape the academic landscape at Howard in

fulfillment of its mission.

14

Recommended Actions:

1. Funding and investment (fiduciary, personnel) for interdisciplinary initiatives is derived from:

a. Infrastructure efficiencies

b. Academic renewal: innovation, conflation, restructuring, elimination

c. Phased separation: retirement incentives, post-retirement affiliation

2. A coordinator to be in charge of each pillar

3. Portfolio investment for each pillar ($2 million minimum per pillar)

4. Competitive interdisciplinary seed grants

5. Incorporation within the Budget Advisory Council process

C. Establish a Postdoctoral Scholars Association

Postdoctoral researchers contribute the bulk of hands-on investigation at major research

universities. Establishing a research intensive campus will require that Howard University

augment efforts, infrastructure and resources to increase the recognition and viability of

postdoctoral researchers.

Postdoctoral researchers should become an integral force at Howard University and, as such,

they will require representation and voice with regard to employment policies and needs. At

the present time, issues that directly pertain to the unique status of postdocs are often

undervalued and overlooked.

Awareness of the need of postdocs to network and have significant representation within

various research and scholarly environments is demonstrated by the vast network of

postdoctoral organizations (http://www.phds.org/postdoc/grad-student-and-postdoc-

organizations/postdoctoral-associations/) within governmental, public, and private institutions.

Howard University must:

Develop guidelines and practices for postdoctoral candidates Develop policies that draw clear distinctions between postdoctoral fellows, postdoctoral

appointees, postdoctoral research assistant/associates, national and international postdocs

Provide targeted, competitive funding and support of postdoctoral candidates within strategic areas

Develop policies that clearly define employment benefits Establish formal integration of postdoctoral representation within the University

framework Establish postdoctoral representation on various University committees

http://www.phds.org/postdoc/grad-student-and-postdoc-organizations/postdoctoral-associations/)

http://www.phds.org/postdoc/grad-student-and-postdoc-organizations/postdoctoral-associations/)

15

Maximize infrastructure to allow postdocs to compete for extramural funding in efforts to expand research base

Maximize recruitment efforts and potential for postdoctoral transition into research- and tenure-track faculty status in professoriate

Establish professional and career development for postdocs

D. Establish “The Howard Institute” Think Tank

The challenges put to Howard University in the twenty-first century by a flattened Congressional

Appropriation, the global economy, competition for students, and new research funding

necessitate greater involvement of Faculty on administrative and governance issues. Chief

among these issues is a clear if not altogether shared vision of the University. This is a pathway

for the life of the University that acknowledges its past and keeps it on track out of harm’s way

of vacillation and chaos. There is a need at Howard University for its Trustees and President to

make a symbolic gesture of their common desire for greater and sustained scholarship at the

highest degrees from the Faculty on issues of vision. That symbol is The Howard Institute. The

Howard Institute will be a think tank located at Howard University. The responsibilities of the In-

stitute shall include the following:

Publish the Institute’s vision and opinions on existing and openly proposed Uni-

versity policies

Organize seminars and workshops on vision issues for the Howard University

community

Maintain a library on visions of Howard University and opinions on them.

The Howard Institute shall seek to be consistently evaluated by the Howard community as

having the most influential, the most quoted, and the most trusted independent opinions on

Howard University policy and foreseeable futures.

E. Establish a Robust and Fair Retirement Incentive Program

The Faculty Senate recognizes that more than two-thirds of the current faculty are at or near

retirement age, and that many remain on the faculty past retirement age because of the high

costs of health insurance and living expenses in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

Accordingly, the Senate recommends that a thoughtful program of phased-retirement be

introduced to the faculty this Academic Year, 2010-2011 and that appropriate incentives, such

as health care, tuition remission, emeritus status, access to the university's space and facilities,

extra salary, at a minimum, be available to retiring faculty as a part of the retirement plan.

16

Retirement incentives have increasingly become accepted practice among institutions of higher

education. These are designed to encourage tenured faculty members to retire prior to age

seventy. From the AAUP survey, institutions offering phased-retirement also offered

contributions to health insurance (78%), partial retirements and salary (50%), extra retirement

payments and credits (34%), extra salary (34%) and other incentives (23%). Other incentives

included, but were not limited to, secretarial assistance, parking, library privileges, parking,

access to computer networks, tuition remission, office and lab space, and emeritus status

F. Competitive Start-Up Packages and Support for New Faculty Hires

17

BAC Revenue Priority Recommendations for AY 2011-12

1. Fund Raising

The level of annual giving is inadequate for Howard’s needs and low relative to its comparison

schools. Emphasis should be placed on fund-raising both centrally and at the College/School and

department/program levels; all funds raised by Colleges/Schools and departments/programs

should remain in the unit generating the funds and should be allowed to carry over from one

year to the next. Attention must be given to cultivating alumni by involving them in the life of

the university and developing their financial support. Increasing the percentage of alumni who

donate and total annual alumni giving must be a priority.

FACULY SENATE Response: AGREE, with Qualifications

Commentary:

“While the constant level of federal support actually has provided some stability during the

period of the economic downturn, the University knows that it must increase revenue from

other sources in order to maintain and strengthen its programs and to accommodate

inflation…. Howard has identified a set of actions that are aimed at: addressing its financial

realities; instituting adequate financial controls for effective management of institutional

resources, assessing the University’s financial performance and position and maintaining its

financial health; and positioning Howard to realize its aspirations for moving forward. This

will require that the Institution: prioritize; improve the efficiency and quality of services

provided to students, faculty, and staff; and increase its overall level of financial resources”

(Middle States Report, pp. 4-5).

The PCAR report places much emphasis upon evaluation of programmatic activity,

which includes data pertaining to research and scholarly productivity. Notwithstanding

a healthy research infrastructure (grantsmanship, fiduciary accountability,

resources/core facilities), the University Administration must also contribute to the

support of the academic environment by expanding the Institution’s private support so

the University may continue to grow as a national research university. The Faculty

Senate makes the recommendation that:

The President, Provost/Chief Academic Officer and Senior Vice President of Health Sciences develop fundraising goals

The Administration develop a strategy to increase alumni giving

The Deans of Schools/Colleges be charged and empowered to develop and enact fundraising goals

18

All administrators provide regular updates to the University community of its plans for fundraising, and the status thereof

Fiduciary information/data of fundraising revenue and activities be shared with University community and its contributors

The Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) ensure that there is transparency in how funds are disbursed

2. Campus Renewal

Take the impressive Campus Master Plan and academic renewal program across the country to

inform alumni (and other friends and supporters) of the University’s plans and use the

opportunity to solicit financial support for new construction, renewal and academic projects.

Faculty Senate Recommendation: AGREE

3. Form Partnerships

Create partnerships with specific entities (e.g., Athletics) with a view to generate additional

revenue from association with external stakeholders.


4. Other Sources of Revenue

Consistent with University policy, encourage and support faculty innovative, creative and

scholarly contributions (entrepreneurial activities, patents, discoveries, process innovations,

etc.) with revenue generating potential, with the goal of both the university and the faculty

member benefitting financially.


5. Increase Funded Research

Externally funded research is low relative to Howard’s potential and its classification as a

University with (Carnegie Classification) High Research Activity. Improving research awards is

highly beneficial to the University in many areas, but increasing awards requires investments in

facilities and systems (see expenditure recommendations above) as well as attention to campus

climate, motivation and morale. Clear guidelines on the allocation of costs and financial

19

benefits associated with externally funded research, including allocation of indirect cost

recoveries, would help encourage externally funded research.

Faculty Senate Recommendation: AGREE, with Qualifications

Commentary:

(see FS recommendations B “Target Investments to Promote Interdisciplinary Research

Collaborations”)

20

Other Fiscal/Operational Recommendations of the BAC for AY 2011-12

1. Capital Planning

Faculty should be more involved and involved earlier in determining and reviewing the

statement of campus priorities, the Campus Master Plan, and specific plans for construction and

renovation/modernization projects.


2. Organization Chart.

The University should develop and make available on the web a comprehensive organization

chart for all administrative units including the central administration. This will help members of

the campus community locate the unit and related individuals who provide specific services as

well as facilitate administrative review and improve accountability.


3. Student / Staff Ratio

Parallel to the commonly published faculty/student ratio, the University should calculate its

student/administrator ratio using FY2011 information and benchmark this with peer

institutions.


4. External Contracts Review all service and supply vendor agreements that have been in effect for at least a year to determine their effectiveness, including convenience and cost. Examples of contracts to review are those with Omega Travel and Guy Brown.


21

5. Accountability of Construction/Maintenance Contractors

The university should improve the inspection and sign-off process that follows the completion of

work by maintenance and construction contractors. Contracts should be written in such a way

and then enforced to ensure that the quality of work, including guarantees of workmanship for

a period of time, meets all contracted standards.


6. Student Expenditures

Student organizations should be judicious in the expenditure of student monies. While spending

of University money should be subject to the same guidelines that apply to other university

operations, spending of student activity fee money should remain guided by student

government regulations and processes.


7. Administrative Renewal

As the University reviews and improves operational processes (including increased levels of centralization of services and reduction of duplication of locally provided services), the first priority needs to be maintaining and improving the level of service to user organizations even as efficiencies are pursued to reduce costs. Costs that are captured need to be invested in the academic enterprise, with administrative costs being reduced both next year and on an on-going basis. Funds will need to be invested in infrastructure, technology and staff training to make process change successful.

Faculty Senate Recommendation: AGREE, with Qualifications

Commentary:

Establish a Process for Evaluation of Administrators by Faculty

The purpose of the evaluation process is to begin a regular, ongoing and constructive review of

the performance of the Deans and other administrators. This constructive evaluation will

enable Faculty members to substantively participate in shared governance of their own

academic units and of the University and to provide a mechanism of documenting achievements

and progress.

22

The Faculty Senate is committed to the principles of shared governance enshrined in the Faculty

Handbook and the Faculty Senate Constitution. It is the Senate’s strongly held belief that the

academic environment of the University is the responsibility of its Faculty, which should hold

each administrator accountable for his/her performance. To this end, the Faculty of each unit of

Howard University is asked to review and evaluate the performance of Deans and

Administrators by focusing on the key components of successful and productive administration

including Leadership, Faculty and Program Development, Fairness and Ethics, Communication

and Administration.

Goals of the Evaluation Process:

Document the achievements and progress of administrative units

Provide a framework for strategic planning and periodic review and re-evaluation of the goals and priorities of administrative units

Foster continuous improvement of programs and services of the administrative units

Provide helpful feedback to administrators regarding their performance vis-a-vis faculty expectations

Inform the administrators of the views and needs of the Faculty

Provide Faculty advice and counsel to administrators

Serve as a basis for dialogue between administrators and the Faculty

8. General Spending Guidelines

Guidelines should be developed to improve consistency and accountability in the way

employees determine appropriate spending (i.e., one person’s necessity is another’s luxury).

Such guidelines would allow consistency across units and longitudinally, thereby reducing

inequity and reducing the need to restrict units from spending (or imposing new limits and

processes) at the end of the fiscal year.


9. Soliciting and Rewarding Ideas

Implement a web-based “Suggestion Box” mechanism for soliciting ideas for improving efficiency, innovating for cost reduction or performance enhancement. Award and recognize a minimum of one (1) idea per month including the possibility of a financial reward.

Faculty Senate Recommendation: AGREE, with Qualification Commentary: Programs like these are successful within environments that embrace transparency, accountability, and respect for all workers.

23

BAC Recommendations for Improving the BAC Process for AY 2011-12

1. Leadership of the BAC

In keeping with the University’s core purposes being around teaching/learning and research, the

BAC should continue to be led by one of the University’s academic leaders. The President

should appoint either the Provost or the SVPHS to lead the BAC for the entire year; this position

can rotate on an annual basis if desired.


2. Meeting Frequency

Beginning early in the fall semester, BAC should meet as an entire committee monthly

throughout the academic year. At its discretion, the BAC may create sub-committees with

focused agenda to support through research and analysis the work of the larger group.


3. Review the BAC Charter

The BAC has now been operating for three years. In light of what the BAC has learned during

this period of time, the University’s changed operational and fiscal environment, and changes in

leadership, the BAC should review its original charter and propose changes via the BAC chair to

the University President. The issues to be reviewed should include BAC size, composition,

appointment methodology, member rotation, specific duties, methodology, and deliverables.

Other items could be included in the review.


4. Fiscal Engagement at the Unit Level

When the BAC process was developed it was the intention that broad engagement around fiscal

issues at the University level would be the first step, to be followed by comparable engagement

at the College/School level, and Division level for non-academic units. The campus should now

move forward in ensuring that all budget proposals at the College/School/Division level are

developed with active engagement of faculty/staff/students prior to having these budget

proposals brought forward to the University level. Faculty, particularly, need to have a say not

just in reviewing budgets, but in developing budgets.


24

5. Revising the Budget Development Methodology and Timing

The University should move towards a multi-year budget process, with drafts of at least three

years being planned and the budget of the immediately upcoming year being “finalized’ rather

than being developed from scratch. The Board of Trustees would approve the budget for the

upcoming year while using the longer plan as appropriate context, just as the campus itself

would see the longer term budget as an expression of the University’s fiscal priorities and plan.

This and other changes would allow the upcoming year’s budget to be known in at least draft

form much earlier in the year, so that unit planning around deployment of that budget could

occur on a timely basis. Budget planning should extend to Colleges/Schools, and College/School

budgets should be provided to the BAC.


6. Routine Provision of Data

The BAC should recommend specific data and analyses it would like to routinely have available

to support its work, thereby obviating the need to make regular requests for data/analysis it can

predict in advance it needs. Similarly the BAC should recommend the data/analysis it would like

to routinely publish to the campus via the BAC’s web site for the purposes of allowing the

campus to better understand the financial environment and performance of the university.


7. Web Presence

In addition to a properly updated and maintained web site for sharing BAC minutes, resource

documents, reports and recommendations with the campus, the BAC should have a secure site

available for internal on-line discussion. Supplementing face-to-face BAC and sub-committee

meetings, the secure web site could be the venue for budget-related proposals and related

discussion. The intent would be to inspire continuing dialogue among BAC members between

meetings and allow members to better anticipate proposals and prepare related analyses.


8. Staff Unions

There has been a request to determine the status of staff unions.


25

9. Sub-Committee on Faculty Compensation

Given the BAC’s determination that faculty salaries should be the University’s highest fiscal

priority, it is recommended that the BAC establish a standing sub-committee with responsibility

for reviewing faculty salaries and total compensation including benefits. This sub-committee

would support the work of BAC by doing analyses around Howard’s salary level, salary structure

and possible inequities. Among other studies the sub-committee would compare Howard

salaries to its comparison groups. It would recommend salary adjustment levels and

methodology, and strategies for dealing with salary compression, inversion and other

compensation-related problems.


HOWARD UNIVERSITY Budget... · recommendation that faculty compensation at Howard be made...

Documents

Transcript of HOWARD UNIVERSITY Budget... · recommendation that faculty compensation at Howard be made...