The $44.5-million challenge: bringing expenses in line with revenue by 2016

By OCN
May 25, 2012, 10:20 am

VP Finance and Resources Greg Fowler (left) and VP Academic and Provost Brett Fairbairn

VP Finance and Resources Greg Fowler (left) and VP Academic and Provost Brett Fairbairn

A projected $44.5 million annual gap between revenue and expenses has the University of Saskatchewan considering the possibility it may no longer be able to be all things to all people.

At a town hall meeting May 16 to outline how the institution plans to adjust its operating budget between now and 2015-16, Provost Brett Fairbairn said the reality is that “attempting to be everything to everyone … that doing so much in the ways in which we’ve been doing them may no longer be financially sustainable. We have to prioritize more clearly. We will need to focus on doing what we do well, and not always on doing it all.”

A downward trend in funding for post-secondary education across the country, rising compensation costs, increasing pension payments and the expense of operating and maintaining campus buildings have all combined to put pressure on the university’s operating budget, explained Fairbairn. The change necessary to bring expenses in line with revenues will require a level of change “most of us have not experienced in recent memory at this university.”

To provide perspective on the magnitude of the challenge, Fairbairn said that by 2015-16, the projected $44.5 million deficit will represent about 8.5 per cent of the university’s operating budget, a number that is greater than the annual funding allocation to all but its two largest colleges. “There is no one action that will solve an issue of that magnitude,” he continued. “We’re going to be thinking about budget adjustments that make sense … not simply what we can do most quickly.”

Before describing the budget adjustment strategy university administrators and the Board of Governors have put in place, the provost acknowledged that difficult choices will have to be made over the next few years, and that it will be a time of uncertainty, but fundamental change is necessary to ensure the university achieves its goals.

The approach the university will take to narrowing the gap between expenses and revenues will be deliberate and measured, multi-pronged and research based, he said, adding decisions will be “guided by evidence and by examples of what people have done in other universities.” The goal is to find solutions that are both long term and sustainable.

After Greg Fowler, acting vice-president of finance and resources, provided information about $6 million deficit in the 2012-13 detailed operating budget (please see budget story Page 8), Fairbairn highlighted the principles that will govern the budget adjustment process. These include alignment with the priorities outlined in the university’s third integrated plan, taking a holistic view of the university and its resources, and following a transparent and collaborative process.

He also spoke about the university’s strengths going into budget adjustments: a surplus from the 2011-12 fiscal year and operating reserves that will provide transition and one-time funding; clear institutional priorities; and ideas and people. “We will need many hands and many minds to address the kinds of issues we will have in the coming years.”

The reduction target of $44.5 million “is going to have to be achieved in chunks” with permanent annual reductions of $9 million to $13.5 million annually through to 2016, amounts Fairbairn described as “manageable.” A number of work teams, overseen by a steering committee, will be set up to examine administrative and academic expenditures that occur both centrally and across the university. “It is unlikely,” added the provost, “these types of targets will be met by focusing on administrative actions solely.

“It is clear no one group of people is going to solve the problems of the magnitude we’re looking at here today. It will take the collective effort of everybody to make this process successful.”

Fairbairn said the Service and Process Enhancement Project (SPEP) is one example of work already underway to find savings and efficiencies on the administrative side. On the academic side, he said the university could, for example, see changes to the programs and courses it offers, and the modes and methods of delivery.

Fairbairn stressed that change on these various fronts will take place at different rates. Administrative measures will likely be the quickest to develop and implement while academic change could take years.

Describing the governance structure of the process, the provost said the Board of Governors provides overall direction but approval of all budget adjustments will rest with the Provost’s Committee on Integrated Planning. That committee will also provide direction to the steering committee overseeing the work teams. And he encouraged the campus community to continue to provide cost-saving ideas.

Next steps include appointing steering committee and work team members, he said, and dealing with the $6 million deficit in the 2012-13 operating budget. Research will continue on best practice for budget adjustments, and Fairbairn assured the audience that regular updates on progress will be provided to the campus community.

The effort to avoid a $44.5 million annual deficit will mean change for the University of Saskatchewan, said the provost, “but our mission and our ambitions as a university remain the same. We may not any longer be able to try to be everything to everyone but by strengthening our focus, we will become stronger in areas we’ve identified as most important.”

More information and a video of the May 16 town hall presentation can be found at usask.ca/finances

For more information, visit http://www.usask.ca/finances

 


Categories: Community

OCN welcomes comments that relate directly to the story. Editors reserve the right to close stories to comment and to moderate posts.

  • Wayne Eyre

     The financial problem the U of S is facing stems largely from its over-building—and not anticipating the subsequent, concomitant operating costs of so doing. 
     Surely it will now be apparent that the proposed Aboriginal Student Centre, for example, will be a no-go. No university should consider building an ethnic-specific centre anyway, especially on one of the campus’ last and best green spaces. But the Aboriginal Centre aside, how wonderful it would be to see the College of Education substantially decimated. Few who have attended its killing programs would grieve its passing. All teachers in training would benefit from more academic and fewer “professional” classes.Wayne EyreBEd’64, MA’73 

  • Paul Thompson

    Mr. Eyre,

    I would respectfully disagree with you on several points:

    The University’s financial problems stem from a lack of funding, not overbuilding. The expansion of the Health Sciences building was part of necessary steps taken to ensure future accreditation of the U of S’ M.D. program. Having a province of one million people without a training program for medical doctors is a disaster situation. Saskatchewan already faces shortatages of physicians.

    The 3 million annual operating cost of the D wing was foreseen for by the university, and was understood to be a cost that would be covered by the provincial government. The government declined to commit to this funding, and the University has had to come up with the money on its own.

    Moreover, the Gordon Oakes Redbear centre will proceed as planned. The total cost is estimated to be $10 million, a substation portion of which has been donated by private industry specifically for a building supporting aboriginal students. I find it disappointing that a highly educated and well-spoken person such as yourself does not see the need for a cultural center of this nature. I believe it is vital to have one building out of the dozens on campus that is designed to accommodate aboriginal culture rather than Euro-Canadian culture.  Financially speaking, the cost of the building will represent somewhere around 0.02 percent of the University’s 2012-2013 operating budget of 453 million.

    The College of Education is the second largest college at the university and is the largest source of teacher education in our province. I simply do not see the “how ” of eliminating it, much less the “why.” However, I do agree with you that teacher candidates would benefit from more academic training in addition to their professional training.

    The above article is a function of a lack of commitment by government to funding post secondary education. 73% of the university’s operating budget comes from the provincial government. The University had asked for a 5.8% increase to funding in able to fund its academic programs. The government responded with a 2.1% increase. In times of prosperity, there just doesn’t seem to be a priority placed on funding post secondary education.

    Paul Thompson, BA’12