|
Impact of budget reduction on
operations
In FY 2003, Salisbury
University’s operating budget was negatively impacted by a
$5.6 million reduction made up of a $2,269,093 General Fund
Reduction, $1,124,503 in one-time fund balance reversion, and
operating budget reallocations of $2,206,404 necessitated by
insufficient general funds and tuition revenues to cover mandatory
fixed cost increases for FY ’03. The University has covered this
reduction in general funds by implementing a hiring freeze, a
reversion of many vacant positions, a mid-year 5% tuition increase,
reductions in operating expenses, an increase in tuition revenues
through a growth in enrollment, and by borrowing money from our own
fund balance.
Combining the FY ’03 general
fund reduction with anticipated fixed cost increases for FY ’04, the
University anticipates a roughly $3.1 million impact for FY ’04.
Although a tuition increase will help offset part of this impact,
the University will still need to extend the hiring freeze,
implement delays in hiring the most critical vacant positions,
institute campus wide furlough days, further reduce operating
expenses, and ultimately retrench a number of filled positions.
In consultations with our
University Fiscal Advisory Committee, the President’s Advisory Team,
and the SU community of students, faculty, and staff, I have
discussed how Salisbury University will manage current and
anticipated budget deficits in a fiscally prudent manner that will
maintain basic educational services and keep SU ready and able when
economic recovery occurs. For your information, I have
included a copy of “Community Dialogue on Budget Reductions:
Principles and Options” that I have been using in my discussions
with various campus groups (Addendum I). On my campus, we have
together identified and will be using a wide variety of tools in our
budget reduction tool kit. At this point in time, I anticipate the
possible use of up to 10 furlough days and the retrenchment of
approximately 6-12 administrative and staff positions through
personnel restructuring.
If additional general funds
reductions are implemented for FY 2004, these will only hasten the
erosion of quality in various academic programs and support
functions. Governor Erhlich has indicated that public higher
education can expect a flat budget for FY ’04, a pledge that I
appreciate given negative alternatives, but one that still leaves us
to contend with additional unfunded mandatory expenditures that
total approximately $3.1 million at Salisbury University.
Should there be a continuing worsening of the economy, any budget
reductions in ’04 would lead to faculty and/or academic program
retrenchment. At a time of great enrollment demands, this is a
terrible prospect. In light of burgeoning high school
graduation numbers and the demand for new teachers, nurses, and IT
professionals among other workforce needs, the State cannot afford
to discount the needs of its public higher education institutions.
As you may be aware, SU has been
forced to increase tuition for Spring ’03 by 5%. At SU, we
will be limiting increases in room and board and any student fees,
recognizing the burden that the tuition increase will already impose
on our students. Nonetheless, with the bleak budget picture
continuing into next year, an additional tuition increase for the
Fall ’03 semester will be necessary if the quality of education is
to be maintained.
Certainly, the Maryland public
universities are not alone in looking to tuition hikes as part of
the solution to the severe budget reductions we face. The State
University of New York system, for instance, just announced a 41%
tuition increase for next year. Where there has been a
precipitous drop in State funding, the choice to avoid tuition
increases is unrealistic. Nevertheless, I will fight very hard
to keep the burden of balancing our budget off the backs of our
students to the extent possible, and will seek to carve out
additional need-based financial aid for SU students.
Immediate Facilities Needs
I appreciate that I will be
coming before you at another time to speak on Salisbury University’s
capital budget request, but I do want to emphasize to you now the
crucial importance of keeping our proposed Teacher Education and
Technology Complex on track.
On our campus we are currently
converting recreational and study space into classrooms. Maryland
facilities guidelines indicate SU space deficits of 26,000 square
feet in classroom space, 44,000 square feet of laboratory space,
67,000 square feet of library stack/study space, 55,000 square feet
of athletic/physical education space, and 6,000 square feet of
office space. This is the result of enrollment growth promoted
at Legislative request in the light of growing student demand.
Today, only part of our Seidel School of Education and Professional
Studies can now fit in Caruthers Hall, a 50-year-old, one-story
building designed as a laboratory campus elementary school. It
is woefully inadequate to meet the current needs of the Seidel
School and certainly cannot address proposed expansion in the number
of education majors.
We are very grateful for the
support that you have given that allowed us to open our new Henson
Science Hall, a very much needed science building. But I was
deeply disappointed to learn that our Teacher Education and
Technology Complex, already delayed by 2 years, has once again had a
set back in its scheduling. We have requested $1.2 million in
the FY 2004 capital budget to allow for planning. I certainly
do not begrudge the $49 million that is being allocated for a new
library at Morgan State University, nor the $25.3 million for
fine-arts building additions at Towson University, nor the $47
million for UMB’s new dental school, nor $46 million for the second
phase of UMBI’s research facility. What I wonder about is the
conflicting messages sent on the importance of Teacher Education on
the one hand and the documented lack of facilities for Salisbury
University’s Seidel School of Education and Professional Studies on
the other. We need the new Teacher Education and Technology
Complex to respond to the demands that are being placed on us by the
Legislature, MSDE, and MHEC, and we need it as soon as possible.
Please take this project off the deferred list and
put it back in line for planning funds in fiscal year 2004. |
