�鶹��Ѱ�����

Background

Over the course of this fall, the College of Arts & Sciences has worked diligently to define a resource-allocation philosophy and methodology that enables the college and its divisions to be flexible and responsive to changing needs. It’s important to revisit basic information: why this is happening, who is involved and what the goal of the effort is.

The impetus for this work is the reorganization of the college. The provost’s 2018 report on academic reorganization called for the creation of a new structure of divisional leadership in the college, with strong deans for the divisions of arts and humanities, natural sciences and social sciences who can determine budgetary and resource priorities, set academic priorities and, in collaboration with the dean of the college, advance the liberal arts imperatives of the college.

Accordingly, the provost appointed three deans of divisions who are officers of the university and have full authority and responsibility as deans. Some key details of how budget flows through the college and to the divisions have yet to be determined. That is, the campus budget model delivers net tuition revenue (NTR) to the college without specifying how NTR should be distributed within the college. A college “budget framework,” which the college’s leadership has discussed this fall, would define how NTR is distributed to college administration, the three divisions, and an intra-college supplemental fund.

College administration (referred to in previous discussions as “overhead”) provides common goods and shared services. Common goods and shared services include centers that cross multiple divisions, financial aid, student success, advising, MASP, and Honors; administrative units such as budget and finance, HR, communications, research support, infrastructure management, and the college DEI office; and public-facing entities including the Colorado Shakespeare Festival and Buff Bicycle Classic.

The college enlisted the services of the Huron Consulting Group to facilitate the final stages of the resource-allocation philosophy and methodology. Constructing an effective budget framework requires difficult decisions about resource allocation, and professional assistance has helped the college attain a good result.

The college’s budget framework team includes Deans of Division Irene Blair, Sarah E. Jackson and John-Michael Rivera, Vice Dean Amy Lavens, Assistant Dean Bernadette Stewart and Interim Dean of the College Daryl Maeda.

Engagement with College Constituents

Discussions facilitated by Huron Consulting Group included representation from faculty and staff shared-governance groups. Our colleagues who represent these constituencies are:

• Tobin Munsat, chair of physics, representing the natural sciences divisional council
• Jennifer Fitzgerald, professor of political science, representing social sciences divisional council
• Rob Rupert, chair of philosophy, representing arts and humanities divisional council
• Brian Cadena, associate professor of economics, representing the Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate
• Robyn Ronen, staff member of astrophysical and planetary sciences, representing the Staff Advisory Committee

As part of engaging with college shared governance, Interim Dean Maeda met multiple times with the Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate Budget Committee and the Staff Advisory Committee.

In addition to formal shared-governance participation, the college has also held two town-hall discussions focused on budget questions. Those fora drew scores of participants and generated lively debate. Finally, the college has updated the college weekly via college-wide email messages, and it has posted those messages on a budget-framework web page. That web page includes a webform that invites comments on the budget framework and supplementation decisions. So far, the form has drawn 64 responses, all of which have been read and considered and will continue to be considered as we complete the next stages of the process.

Framework Options

The college narrowed budget-framework proposals down to two scenarios, labeled Scenario A and Scenario C. The two scenarios do not differ monetarily; what distinguishes one from the other is the point at which college administration and supplemental funds are assessed.

Scenario A:

In Scenario A, NTR flows directly to the three divisions of the college, whereupon, the divisions fund college administration and contribute to a supplemental fund. The supplemental fund, whose size, destinations and guiding principles to be determined in the next two months, would then be distributed to divisions accordingly.

Scenario C:

In Scenario C, NTR flows to the college, where college-administration funds and revenue for the supplemental-fund pool are withheld; the remaining NTR is proportionally distributed to the divisions. The supplemental-fund pool is distributed to the divisions according to a structure and guided by principles that are yet to be determined.

In discussions with representatives from shared-governance groups and with faculty and staff at large, participants generally recognized that the difference between the two scenarios was not financial; rather, the difference was characterized as “philosophical” or “symbolic.”

Advocates of Scenario A characterized it as inherently more transparent than Scenario C, since it begins by showing NTR generated in each division, followed by deductions for college administration and supplementation. Another reason for preferring Scenario A was a belief that this way of showing the flow of funds emphasized that teaching and research, which are primarily conducted in the divisions, are at the heart of the college’s mission.

Advocates of Scenario C expressed their belief that C better depicts the idea that we are one college with three divisions, all sharing a common mission, values and costs. They felt that this message of unity more closely reflects the intention of the college reorganization, whose aim was to keep the college together—with greater autonomy for divisions but with enough cohesion that the college was indeed one entity united by the liberal arts. They also felt that the message sent with the Scenario A flowchart could be interpreted to mean that funding for college administration and supplemental-fund pools was optional or not critical to the functioning of the college.

No consensus emerged from the feedback taken as a whole, with strong support being expressed for both scenarios. The central tension in the feedback across constituency groups was how to prioritize both transparency and the united liberal arts mission of the college. Advocates of both scenarios were clear in their desire for both priorities.

Framework Selection

The four deans deeply appreciated and carefully considered input from the shared governance groups, discussion in meetings and open fora and web submissions. We concurred that both transparency and communicating the message of a unified college are of paramount importance. We want to acknowledge that many constituents preferred Scenario A and we recognize the critical priorities expressed in both A and C. In our deliberations, we considered how best to honor both points of view and design a solution that addresses concerns raised about both scenarios.

The deans have selected Scenario C for the budget framework in the belief that it conveys our conception of a college united around the liberal arts, with empowered divisions, and that we can employ this model in ways that fulfill the desire for transparency and collective discussion of common goods. Our selection reflects our collective commitment to the liberal arts mission of the college and our confidence that we can successfully address the priorities of those who preferred Scenario A. To ensure transparency, the college will share the calculations that show divisional investments in the college administration (meaning common goods and shared services) and supplementation.

The process by which investments in the college administration and supplemental fund, as well as distribution of supplement to divisions, will be determined is outlined below.

Next Steps

Creating the budget model entails three stages:

1. Selection of a Budget Framework
2. Specification of the Framework
3. Implementation

Selection of Scenario C, with a commitment to transparency, completes stage one.

Next we will turn to stage two, in which:

• Specific amounts or percentages will be assigned within the framework.
• Priorities and rules will be established to guide the disbursement of funds that are not directly allocated to divisions.
• The frequency with which the framework or specific parameters will be reevaluated will be determined.

Shortly after the completion of stage two, attention will turn to implementation, which will govern the rollout of the final budget framework:

• The timeframe of implementation will be defined.
• Methods for facilitating a smooth transition to the outputs dictated by the framework will be determined.

As we have done in stage one, broad engagement with constituencies will continue in the next two stages, with shared governance groups being called upon to provide perspectives and feedback throughout, open forums being held to solicit broad input, and weekly updates continuing to be provided. 

Dec. 17, 2024