Present as members of Faculty Council
C. Baker, P. Baker, R. Beattie, M. Blagrave, P. Bogaard, C. Brett, A. Cannon, B. Cenerelli, I. Cohen, J. Drover, E. Edson, C. Ennals, P. Ennals, A. Fancy, M. Fancy, B. Fleming, W. Godfrey, R. Hawkes, P. Higham, R. Hudson, C. P. Hunter, C. Hunter, R. Lapp, S. Law, S. Lochhead, M. MacDonald, R. MacPherson, M. McCullough, B.A. Miller, A. Paskauskas, R. Polegato, C. Pollock, J. Read, V. Reinsborough, B. Robertson, D. Stewart, J. Stewart, C. Storm, R. Summerby-Murray, J. vanderLeest, P. Varma

Observer
C. Smith

Regrets
J. Keith (Senate), D. Cameron (Senate), W. McMullen (Senate), C. Riggs (Senate), R. Winters (Senate), K. Hamer (Senate and Faculty Council), N. Ralph (Senate and Faculty Council), W. Wilson (Senate and Faculty Council), D. Thompson (Senate), L. McGinnis (Senate)

01.04b.02 Approval of the agenda
S. Lochhead moved, seconded W. Godfrey, that the agenda as circulated be approved.

CARRIED.

Top of page

02.04b.02 Presentation of the Draft Budget
W. MacKay expressed his appreciation for the work of the Budget Advisory Committee and the members of the administration, especially Colin Smith and David Stewart.

C. Smith gave a presentation on the budget, noting increased expenditures and revenues and focusing on the manner in which the balanced budget addressed the university’s priorities. Highlighted issues in the Operating Budget included new arrangements regarding collection of property taxes, an increase in the provincial government grant, a tuition increase of 8%, three new faculty positions, new monies for faculty start-up grants, increases in student bursaries to off-set the 8% fee increase, allocations for technical and computing support, a commitment to international recruitment, and increased building maintenance and salaries/wages costs. The provision for shortfall had been increased to meet Board guidelines. Decreases had been made to the Vice-Presidents’ funds, reducing the flexibility of these offices. The Ancillary budget reflected good performance in the Bookstore operation, full residences generating surpluses for facility maintenance and investment, and a reduced expectation from Conferences. The Endowment budget projected a minor increase, with recent market losses being offset by the Capital Campaign.

Numerous questions (Q) and answers (A) followed the presentation, summarised below.

(Q) Was the Communication fee in residence compulsory? (A) Yes, because all rooms have to be equipped the same way. The costs are similar to those at other institutions; ours is visible as a separate fee.

(Q) Had consideration been given to matching Scholarships and Bursaries to the numbers of students as per the recommendation of the Budget Advisory Committee? (A) C. Smith noted that this might be explored in the future.

(Q) Expenditures on Women’s Studies appeared to be reduced. (A) C. Smith replied that the position was now included in Philosophy.

(Q) The interfund transfer from Continuing Education to departments appeared to still be in the Budget. (A) C. Smith replied that this was from a previous year and should be removed.

(Q) Increased costs of serials and services in the Library were not reflected in this Budget and should be in the future.

(Q) Where are the contingencies and provisions for shortfall included? (A) In Operating, in Ancillaries, and for the Vice-Presidents and Deans.

(Q) Does the allocated provision for revenue shortfall violate Board policy? (A) Not if the change in tax revenues is excluded.

(Q) Where is provision for the replacement Vice-President Academic included? (A) C. Smith noted that it wasn’t listed in this version of the budget.

(Q) Requests for technician support in all faculties were expressed including specific requests in Physics supported by the Science heads, two support positions in Social Science despite strong need, and a position in the Arts faculty. It was noted that Social Science will now have to consider which services and functions will be dropped. (A) C. Smith noted that part of the $12,000 provided for technical support might be allocated to Social Sciences but this decision has not yet been taken.

(Q) Why are the deans included in the faculty complement of each department? This inclusion distorts the faculty-student ratios and FTEs, as well as salary lines.

(Q) Who decides on the distribution of revenue shortfall provision once it is clear that it is not needed? (A) C. Smith replied that this allocation occurs well into the school year, once numbers are finalised, and is based on needs identified at by the senior administration to be spent in the academic year. The amount is set at 1% of budget ($250,000).

Increases in faculty positions are a major step forward.

(Q) To what extent are the recommendations of the Budget Advisory Committee incorporated into the draft Budget? (A) Generally, recommendations 1 and 2 are addressed. Recommendation 3 ‘appears sensible’ and might be considered. Recommendations 4 (on technical support) and 5 are dependent on resources. The breakdown of endowment allocations is under discussion, particularly in terms of the revised policy on named academic chairs. Recommendation 7 on changing the date at which endowment revenues are calculated (from April to 31 December) was being considered and any change would require action from the Board. Recommendation 8 on bringing the allocation of the recent federal government support ($407,000) for indirect research costs to Faculty Council for discussion was raised but the time constraints meant that the processes of allocation were underway already through the Vice-President Academic and Research, the academic deans, and heads of department. Recommendation 9 regarding the timing of the budget advisory process will be taken under advisement. Similarly, the advice of the Budget Advisory Council in establishing priorities for any revenues generated by the shortfall provisions (Recommendation 10) would be appreciated, although the Board has restricted how this money might be used and there may be further time constraints on a consultative process. Beginning the advisory process earlier in the year would be an advantage.

(Q) How firm is the estimate on the provincial government grant? (A) Still an estimate at this point.

(Q) Is it appropriate to be increasing student fees in a year where there are increased monies available from the provincial and federal governments. Is the conservative budget process creating an unnecessary burden on students? (A) These external monies are restricted in their use and cannot be allocated to many other things. Note also that the deferred maintenance bill is still considerable. Some things have been possible with these additional monies, such as computer network upgrades. In many cases, money is provided for infrastructure and must be spent there. It is increasingly important that other sources of funding be sought to allow the development of our human capital, those areas outside the infrastructure focus that appear to have some existing support from governments. For example, if the institution wishes to have academic chairs in each department, this will have to be identified as a strategic objective and monies sought for this, perhaps through the Capital Campaign. Similarly, increases in faculty complement will have to turn to these other sources also.

(Q) As a small institution, have we received our fair share of recent federal and provincial support for indirect research costs? (A) We are about in the middle, having benefitted from lobbying on the argument that the smaller institutions have special needs in the development of research capacity. There was considerable support from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Association of Atlantic Universities, and local Members of Parliament. If the allocation was simply pro rated to our NSERC and SSHRC research grants, our share would be around $260,000, considerably less than the $407,000 received.

(Q) How does Mount Allison compare in terms of the proportion of our budget that goes into academic salaries? (A) It’s difficult to generate meaningful comparisons as the comparative statistics provided in the Canadian Association of University Business Officers’ reporting does not break these figures out and reflects wide variation in internal accounting procedures.

With thanks to C. Smith for his presentation and responses to questions, the meeting adjourned at 3:53pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Summerby-Murray
Secretary of Senate