Engaging faculty senates in the budget planning process: the opinions of faculty may add to the development of productive strategies during tough economic times.

Archibald, James G. ; Conley, Valerie Martin

Multiple rounds of budget cuts have created tensions on many campuses, prompting questions from faculty about whether institutions are using resources wisely and spending funds appropriately (Minor 2003). As institutions respond to fiscal challenges, it is important that administrators and faculty have a common understanding of budget issues and the roles that faculty can be expected to play in the campus budget planning process. Some faculty senate leaders feel they do not have a voice in budget planning at their institution; conversely, many administrators feel that faculty input is solicited throughout the budget planning process. To help inform these discussions, in this article we use data from a national survey to describe faculty senate leaders' perceptions of how institutions allocate funds in specific areas and the level of involvement faculty senates have in institutional budget planning. Results indicate that there is variability in the perceptions of how institutions allocate funds and that there could be opportunities for increasing the involvement of faculty senates in institutional budget planning. Based on these results, we conclude by recommending strategies for engaging faculty senates in the budget planning process. Faculty senate leaders are major institutional stakeholders, and including them as strategic partners in the budget planning process would add to the development of productive strategies to keep institutions financially stable during tough economic times.

The Budget Planning Process

Budget planning processes vary from institution to institution. The chief financial officer (CFO) and other financial administrators are responsible for making decisions regarding an institution's financial and budget planning. Budgets are usually developed by the administration with input from constituents, and effective institutional action is more likely when all constituencies have some joint responsibility and have collaborated on the process (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 2010). However, different groups have different perspectives, which often makes collaboration challenging. Faculty members generally emphasize quality over efficiency; however, when faced with fiscal constraints, administrators tend to focus on efficiency and expediency. Because these two constituencies may have different points of view, effective communication and cooperation are vital to making decisions that are in the best interest of the institution as a whole, particularly when resources are limited.

The Faculty Senate Leader Survey

Data for this study were extracted from the National Study of Faculty Leadership (NSFL) conducted by Ohio University's Center for Higher Education. The purpose of the NSFL is to investigate faculty's role in shared governance and to collect broad information about faculty leaders. The inaugural survey of the NSFL, the Faculty Senate Leader Survey (FSLS:09), was directed at faculty senate chairs, and its use was endorsed by the American Association of University Professors in 2009.

The FSLS:09 collected information from senate leaders regarding the characteristics of their faculty senate and the critical issues of concern to faculty at their institution. The survey also provided senate leaders with an opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions on the current state of higher education. The survey consisted of 41 items across 9 sections: (1) demographics and background, (2) critical issues facing higher education, (3) public trust, (4) scope of responsibilities, (5) budget planning, (6) policies, (7) faculty opinions, (8) leadership, and (9) final thoughts. This study focuses specifically on information collected regarding the faculty senate's role in budget planning.

The sampling frame for the FSLS:09 targeted public and private master's and doctoral institutions that are accredited, degree-granting, four-year institutions according to the 2005 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Lists of institutions were extracted from the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data center. To be considered eligible, institutions had to have an identifiable website for their faculty senate or similar organization.

Using the list of four-year public and private institutions' website addresses extracted from IPEDS, researchers searched the sites of all doctoral degree-granting institutions and an approximately equal number of master's degree-granting institutions to identify the faculty senate's website and/or the contact information for the presiding faculty senate officer. A total of 434 faculty senate leaders were identified to participate in an electronic survey. Responses to the survey were collected, stored, and analyzed using a statistical software program. Senate leaders from 105 master's degree-granting institutions and 102 doctoral degree-granting institutions completed the survey, yielding a 47 percent response rate.

Characteristics of Faculty Senate Leaders

The majority of senate leaders who responded to the survey were white, non-Hispanic (93 percent), male (60 percent), and over the age of 55 (53 percent). The results indicated that 58 percent of senate leaders have been faculty members for more than 16 years.

Perceptions of allocation of funds. In the budget planning section of the survey, senate leaders were asked to rate how their institution allocates funds to the following areas: academic programs, administrative salaries, athletics, employee benefits, facilities, faculty salaries, instructional support, libraries, parking services, professional development, recruitment, research support, retention, scholarships/financial aid, staff support, student activities, and technology. Specifically, senate leaders were asked to indicate if they perceived their institution "spends too little" "spends about the right amount" or "spends too much" in these areas.

The majority of senate leaders from master's and doctoral institutions indicated that about the right amount of funds are allocated to student activities (77 percent), parking (76 percent), employee benefits (67 percent), and scholarships/financial aid (63 percent). About half of these senate leaders believe that too much money is being allocated to administrative salaries (53 percent). Nearly 50 percent of senate leaders at doctoral institutions, but only 32 percent of senate leaders at master's institutions, believe too much money is allocated to athletics. Seventy-two percent of senate leaders at doctoral institutions and 64 percent of senate leaders at master's institutions believe too little money is allocated to faculty salaries. Senate leaders also indicated that not enough funds are allocated to the following areas: professional development (57 percent), instructional support (57 percent), research support (57 percent), and academic programs (61 percent).

Perceptions of involvement. Senate leaders were also asked to respond to the following item: "Is the faculty senate involved with budget planning at your institution?" The available responses were "yes, in most instances," "sometimes" or "no, it is rarely the case" Lastly, senate leaders were asked to indicate how often they meet with the CFO of their institution. The available responses for this item were "weekly" "monthly" "quarterly" "as needed" or "never"

Only small percentages of senate leaders reported frequent meetings with their CFO. For example, 6 percent of senate leaders reported meeting with the CFO on a weekly basis, 14 percent reported meeting monthly, and 7 percent reported meeting quarterly. Approximately one-quarter (26 percent) of senate leaders said that they never meet with their CFO. Almost half (47 percent) did report meeting with the CFO as needed (see figure 1). These data are difficult to interpret. "As needed" could possibly indicate that the senate leader meets with the CFO when the senate has a budgetary question or when the institution is experiencing a budgetary crisis. It is also difficult to determine the reason why some senate leaders indicated they "never" meet with the CFO. Time and scheduling conflicts could possibly prevent the parties from meeting. The CFO may not want to meet with the senate leader or the senate leader may not want to meet with the CFO.

At doctoral institutions, only 3 percent of senate leaders reported meeting with the CFO weekly, 17 percent reported meeting monthly, and 8 percent reported meeting quarterly. About half (49 percent) of these senate leaders reported meeting with the CFO as needed, and 23 percent reported that they never meet with the CFO. When asked if the faculty senate at their institution was involved with budget planning, 30 percent of senate leaders at doctoral institutions responded yes, 36 percent responded no, and 34 percent responded sometimes.

In comparison, 8 percent of senate leaders at master's institutions said they meet with the CFO weekly, 12 percent meet monthly, 6 percent meet quarterly, 45 percent meet as needed, and 29 percent never meet with the CFO. When asked if the faculty senate at their institution was involved with budget planning, 27 percent of senate leaders at master's institutions responded yes, 38 percent responded no, and 35 percent responded sometimes.

Recommendations

Based on these results, we recommend that institutions consider engaging faculty senate leaders more frequently in the budget process. The results from this study show that senate leaders do not often meet with their CFOs. Although 47 percent indicated they meet with the CFO "as needed," interpretation of this response is absolutely subjective. Further analysis is necessary to fully understand what "as needed" means to the respondents. The most alarming finding is that 26 percent never meet with the CFO. In order for the faculty senate to be engaged in the institution's budget planning process, the leader of the senate must meet with the CFO. It is the responsibility of the faculty senate leader to initiate contact with the CFO. The senate leader should gather budget information and share it with the faculty at large.

The results indicate that while about 30 percent of faculty senates are involved in the budget planning process at their institutions, roughly 35 percent are not involved at all. The remaining percentage is comprised of faculty senates that are "sometimes" involved in the budget planning process; however, it is difficult to determine the full range of "sometimes." The approximately 30 percent of faculty senates actively involved in budget planning may indicate institutions with an influential and functional senate. The assumption is made that administrations at these institutions likely include faculty members in the budget decision-making process. The 35 percent of faculty senates that are not involved with the budget planning process may indicate institutions with damaged institutional governance. It could be the case that the opinions and views of the faculty senate are not considered when institutional decisions are made.

Because faculty senates provide faculty members with a voice in institutional governance, they play an integral part in the institution's function (Minor 2004). Faculty senates represent the views and opinions of the faculty at large, and the faculty's perceptions of the allocation of funds and their views on budget planning should be incorporated into the budget decision-making process. During these times of financial challenge, it is important for the faculty senate to be engaged in the budget planning process as much as possible.

The current fiscal environment presents unique opportunities for financial planners to demonstrate a commitment to joint responsibility and collaboration in budget planning. We recommend that faculty senate leaders, CFOs, and others charged with the administration of finances at the institution look for opportunities to collaborate on the budget planning process. For example, senate leaders could invite the CFO or a member of his or her staff to attend monthly or quarterly faculty senate meetings and provide updates on the institutional budget. The presentation of this information should be clear enough that a person with a basic understanding of budget planning can comprehend what is being communicated. We also recommend that the dialogue extend beyond presentations of information to having someone from the finance office serve as a representative or liaison to the senate. This person should set aside office hours to be available for faculty members and other members of the institution who have questions or concerns.

It is important to recognize the complexity of the budget. Many faculty members are interested in getting involved with budget planning at their institution, but may lack the knowledge of how the university budget is managed in its totality. Senate leaders, as well as all faculty involved in budget planning, must have a general understanding of how budgeting works at their institution. They must understand the difference between operating budgets, auxiliary budgets, capital budgets, and reserves. They must also have a basic understanding of incremental budgeting, zero-based budgeting, and responsibility-centered budgeting. There are several ways that faculty may acquire the resources and gain the knowledge necessary to understand budget planning. Senate leaders should consult with other faculty members whose expertise involves an understanding of budget management, such as those in accounting, business management, and finance. They should attend a budgeting course taught by a faculty colleague or enroll in a workshop or seminar offered by a professional association or organization.

Faculty senates and CFOs can be proactive by meeting with one another on a regular basis. The opinions and viewpoints of faculty members may add to the development of productive strategies to keep institutions financially stable during tough economic times. CFOs and other institutional budget administrators should provide feedback on the allocation of funds and the utilization of resources. Our results indicate this practice is not consistent across institutions. Presidents may also hold forums with administrative staff and faculty members to discuss the budget process (Frew, Olson, and Pelton 2009). We recommend going beyond open forums to include senate leaders as strategic partners.

Final budget authority generally rests with the institution's board of trustees, which delegates much of the financial planning process to the institution's president (Frew, Olson, and Pelton 2009). As Kissler (1997) notes, "To varying degrees on different campuses, presidents typically consult with faculty leaders before closing programs and cutting budgets" (p. 431). Thus, faculty should understand that while their views are supposed to be heard, their advice may not necessarily be heeded (Slaughter 1993). We recommend that faculty senates be proactive and not reactive.

Discussions regarding the budget planning process between administrators and faculty can be difficult and thorny (Frew, Olson, and Pelton 2009). Senate leaders should choose strategies that position the senate as credible and cooperative.

References

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 2010. Statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Frew, J., R. Olson, and M. L. Pelton. 2009. Creating a Flexible Budget Process. Academe 95 (6): 29-30.

Kissler, G. 1997 Who Decides Which Budgets to Cut? Journal of Higher Education 68 (4): 427-59.

Minor, J. T. 2003. Assessing the Senate: Critical Issues Considered. American Behavioral Scientist 46 (7): 960-77.

--. 2004. Understanding Faculty Senates: Moving from Mystery to Models. Review of Higher Education 27 (3): 343-63.

Slaughter, S. 1993. Retrenchment in the 1980s: The Politics of Prestige and Gender. Journal of Higher Education 64 (3): 250-82.

James G. Archibald is a doctoral candidate in the higher education and student affairs program at Ohio University. He is also the senior graduate research associate with the Center for Higher Education. He has served on the graduate senate as a liaison to the faculty senate. His research interests involve organization and governance, diversity issues, and student affairs' leadership and administration.

Valerie Martin Conley is an associate professor in the higher education and student affairs program and director of the Center for Higher Education at Ohio University. She teaches courses on organization and governance in higher education, conducts research on faculty issues, and has served on the faculty senate.

Figure 1 Frequency of Meetings with CFO

Weekly       6%
Monthly     14%
Quarterly    7%
As Needed   47%
Never       26%

Note: Table made from bar graph.