Budget Development 2002-2003

Lane Home Search Lane

TO:  Lane staff

Last week the Budget Advisory Group (BAG) reviewed and summarized the input we received from the campus community regarding the criteria to be used in balancing expense and revenues and to evaluate programs and services. The summary includes input from more than 60 responses that were received by our October 19 deadline. The following is the report we provided to the Executive Team (along with the non-personally identifiable actual input) on October 26.

You may also view the actual input we received and used for the summary (with the exception of personally identifiable information) here: http://2011sitearchive.lanecc.edu/budget/staffresponse.htm.   Thank you for your participation in this important process.

Among variables suggested for evaluating programs and services:

ï Internal or external duplication, replication, or fragmentation of service (many respondents mentioned this);
ï Strategic importance as defined by the Strategic Plan and other planning documents;
ï Whom and how many are served, i.e. students, community, staff;
ï Provision of high employment rate, living wage/benefits jobs in Lane County;
ï Demand for course offerings;
ï Growth potential;
ï Promotion of diversity, affirmative action goals and timetables;
ï Transferability of transfer courses;
ï Student retention;
ï Innovation, use of best practices, use of appropriate technology;
ï Five-year trend in enrollment or utilization;
ï Level of regional or state competition for a limited student pool;
ï Impact on quality of offerings and staff retention; impact on college climate and stability;
ï Marginal cost/FTE, not average cost/FTE, when cutting course sections without eliminating the course.
 

Among budget reduction approaches and priorities emphasized:

ï Don't make across-the-board cuts;
ï Look at other colleges' budget strategies; use comparative data;
ï Don't ask managers and others at division level to make difficult and politically costly budget cutting decisions, then fail to follow through at the executive or board level;
ï Evaluate executive services, administration, college operations, and support services before cutting instruction.  (An opposing view: "It is not reasonable to serve more or even the same number of students while cutting student services...")
ï Reduce or eliminate free or subsidized services, or make these self-supporting.
ï While evaluating instructional programs on a cost/FTE basis, also consider variables that reflect value to the community.
ï Consider the impact on students.  Maintain programs necessary to allow students to meet educational and personal enrichment goals.
ï Beware the potential for a downward spiral in revenue brought on by cutting FTE.
ï Outreach centers and night programs serve distinct student bodies.  It may not always be appropriate to evaluate these by the same standards as main campus day programs, but cuts should be made where costs are not justified by the level of service provided.
ï Staff should perhaps be given further opportunity and incentive to identify cuts or efficiencies in their area.
ï Evaluate use of facilities for efficiencies and support;
ï Consider student input.

Among suggestions for efficiency or revenue enhancement:

ï Expand low cost/high FTE course offerings in social science, math, etc;
ï Collect more indirects on grants and contracts;
ï Create an alumni association, and a self-supporting foundation office;
ï Collect parking fees to pay for security and lot maintenance (an opposing view: free parking aids retention);
ï Evaluate in/outsourcing of services;
ï Review lenient credit policies;
ï Charge differential tuition for high-cost programs;
ï Encourage some programs to tap philanthropic sources;
ï Reduce hidden costs of repeated hiring of part-time and temporary staff;
ï Charge students for submitting bad addresses;
ï Use more direct deposit of paychecks;
ï Offer some staff the option to work reduced hours or staggered schedules;
ï Renegotiate health insurance: go to single carrier, and/or smorgasbord health benefits;
ï Offer low enrollment classes or programs in alternate years;
ï Use a work order system to document productivity of service providers;
ï Is it "foo foo," such as catered or off-site meetings, extravagant travel, etc.?
 

Finally, it should be noted that many comments addressed the budget development process more generally, with emphasis on the need for a more transparent, open, and participatory process, informed by better, more comprehensible budget documents.