Lassen's Plan - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 15, 2004

Lassen's Plan

Date: Nov 15, 2004

"I think it's important to realize we've been doing the budget the same way for a long time here," Lassen said.

Why is this a bad thing?

I think the poster who noted elsewhere that the Trent Lott center needs $3M and this plan would yield $4M probably hit the nail on the head. Don't you imagine that Lassen is under intense pressure to come up with the money??

Date: Nov 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Chicken Soup Lady
""I think it's important to realize we've been doing the budget the same way for a long time here," Lassen said. Why is this a bad thing? I think the poster who noted elsewhere that the Trent Lott center needs $3M and this plan would yield $4M probably hit the nail on the head. Don't you imagine that Lassen is under intense pressure to come up with the money??"

That wouldn't be so bad C.S. Lady. What is frightening is they have used this "one time" money for raises. The money is "one time" because next year the departments will not save, but rather spend their whole budget. Saving no longer benefits the departments. So where will the salary money come from next year? Increase enrollment and more grants funding says SFT. Lassen said they realized the risks; so next year will be veeeeerrrrrrry interesting.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

Drs. Henry and Folse seemed to hit on a more important aspect than the capturing of $4 million from the departments. Where was the shared governance in this newest financial maneuver? Once again, the premise upon which universities are supposed to run was completely undermined. Lassen is valued in his finance position for EXACTLY that reason. His background is industry, politics, and for profit internet education. He is thinking outside the proverbial box because he's never been in the box and he doesn't understand or appreciate its intricate academic workings. His disdain for academics is becoming increasingly apparent. Shelby supporters are going to laud this newest creative development because there is no powerful voice at the state or community level to speak up for principles that effectively run the Academy. Meanwhile, the benevolent dictator will be able to single-handedly dole out rewards, further reducing the identity, cohesion and influence of faculty committees, departments, and colleges. What a way to co-opt the fence-sitters! Once again, the administration will love nothing more than for the faculty to get all worked up about raise concerns while it continues to strategically dismantle the academic foundation of the university.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

If this plan comes to pass, departments are going to "zero out" their allocations at the end of each budget year, even if it means spending it on unnecessary trivia. There will be a wild spending spree in each department at the end of the budget year in order to prevent the funds from reverting to the administration. It happened at USM prior to the current policy. I saw it happen. It is likely to happen again if the proposed plan materializes.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Avian Ocular
"Drs. Henry and Folse seemed to hit on a more important aspect than the capturing of $4 million from the departments. Where was the shared governance in this newest financial maneuver? Once again, the premise upon which universities are supposed to run was completely undermined. Lassen is valued in his finance position for EXACTLY that reason. His background is industry, politics, and for profit internet education. He is thinking outside the proverbial box because he's never been in the box and he doesn't understand or appreciate its intricate academic workings. His disdain for academics is becoming increasingly apparent. Shelby supporters are going to laud this newest creative development because there is no powerful voice at the state or community level to speak up for principles that effectively run the Academy. Meanwhile, the benevolent dictator will be able to single-handedly dole out rewards, further reducing the identity, cohesion and influence of faculty committees, departments, and colleges. What a way to co-opt the fence-sitters! Once again, the administration will love nothing more than for the faculty to get all worked up about raise concerns while it continues to strategically dismantle the academic foundation of the university."

Very perceptive and probably right on target. avian ocular.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

Although the HA article mentions only Drs Henry and Folse speaking out and questioning this budget policy, I hear that at the PC meeting many others spoke out against it. I hear that Lassen was surprised because of all the problems pointed out by Professors Bobby Middlebrooks(facilitator), Tammy Greer and Trellis Green. Graduate student David Johnson (Secretary) spoke out as did staff member Eric Hatcher. Several other members had problems with the policy, but their names were not given to me. I hear the only people speaking in favor of the policy or defending it was SFT and Lassen.

I'm told that Dr. Green pointed out the risks and that resulted in the response quoted in the HA article, "Met with resistance at the meeting, Lassen said, "I'm not an idiot. I understand the risks here. This requires a cultural change."

Seems like I heard the quote "I'm not an idiot" or "I'm not a complete idiot" before.
Hmmm, I wonder where?

Date: Nov 15, 2004

Check out the following link http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5928 for pro's and con's of zero-based budgeting. If Lassen had a real degree in the area he would be aware of the large body of research concerning this approach to budgeting. Zero-based budgeting went through a brief period of interest some years ago, but current budgeting thinking does not embrace this concept.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

I predict that the zero-based budgeting won't happen next year, but the administration WILL take all the departmental end-of-year surplus this year. After they have the money, they'll decide to "rethink" the budgeting plan. Watch and see.

Date: Nov 15, 2004

If the chairs take this latest governance outrage lying down, they should be denounced by their faculty. If the deans allow it without the most severe protest, they should be castigated by their chairs. If the provost permits it, he should be reviled by his deans as a mockery of the office of academic chief, unworthy of any following.

NOTE TO BOB BATEMAN AND THE COUNCIL OF CHAIRS: WAKE UP AND RAISE HELL BEFORE ALL OPPORTUNITY IS LOST! Tell the deans, tell the provost, tell Lassen, tell the president, tell the press, tell the IHL -- "We will not acquiesce in this mugging of our departments and our capacity to lead them. We will not."

Date: Nov 16, 2004

How to earn back your departmental dollars...

(20,000 student goal - 15,050 current enrollment) / 53 departments = 93.39 students

Just up your recruiting efforts and that which is yours may become yours again...

Date: Nov 16, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Tom Paine
"If the chairs take this latest governance outrage lying down, they should be denounced by their faculty. If the deans allow it without the most severe protest, they should be castigated by their chairs. If the provost permits it, he should be reviled by his deans as a mockery of the office of academic chief, unworthy of any following. NOTE TO BOB BATEMAN AND THE COUNCIL OF CHAIRS:

WAKE UP AND RAISE HELL BEFORE ALL OPPORTUNITY IS LOST! Tell the deans, tell the provost, tell Lassen, tell the president, tell the press, tell the IHL -- "We will not acquiesce in this mugging of our departments and our capacity to lead them. We will not.""

I have heard that the Council Of Chairs is looking into this issue. Apparently all of this has yet to be settled.

Date: Nov 16, 2004

The concept of zero-based budgeting is not that bad. Using non-recurring pots of money to fund recurring expenses like salaries is bad.

Date: Nov 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
"The concept of zero-based budgeting is not that bad. Using non-recurring pots of money to fund recurring expenses like salaries is bad. "

Maybe so. But if zero-based budgeting is the policy, that should be made clear to department chairs and others at the time the funds are allocated - not late in the year. If a chair is to manage, let them manage. Don't let them operate under the assumption that their allocation can be carried over to the next year and then suddenly surprise them with another policy.

Date: Nov 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
" I have heard that the Council Of Chairs is looking into this issue. Apparently all of this has yet to be settled. "

Unless there is pressure -- loud pressure -- the "plan" will go forward. Departments will be robbed of their reserve funds, and "zero-based budgeting" (i.e. departments get zero while dome takes all the money) will be the new rule. Once centralized, money can be doled out by the dome in a fully politicized manner, further consolidating the Thames tyranny under the banner of "budgetary efficiency and effectiveness."

A similar dictatorial subterfuge is unfolding in regard to departmental faculty lines for the '05-'06 academic year. Some positions have been approved for advertising, while many remain "under review." Mark it: Most if not all the positions "under review" will be cut according to no justifiable criteria (e.g. faculty/student ratios, accreditation needs). The real reasons are two-fold: 1. the dome is desperate for funds to meet overextended obligations; 2. compliant colleges and departments can be rewarded with "reallocated" positions (keep an eye on Ed/Psych) while punishing the malcontents (look out Arts & Letters).

The deans should be outraged by these shenanigans, but so far only their silence is deafening. Will the chairs follow their lead into voiceless oblivion?