About the President
Points of Pride
A Special Place
Dille Fund for Excellence
President's Remarks & Updates
Vision Task Force
University Reaccreditation 2007
Office of the President
203 Owens Hall
1104 Seventh Ave. S.
Moorhead, MN 56563
Review of MSUM
Programs and Services
January 15, 2009
budget challenges mean that we can no longer operate in the same way.
With a double-digit base budget reduction, we can no longer fiscally
support our current operation. Changes in the state and national economy
suggest that this is not a short-term situation, and we cannot afford to
replace lost state appropriations completely with student tuition
dollars. To quote a former president of another university that faced
this challenge, “we simply cannot afford to be what we have become” (Dickeson,
1999, p. 71).
The challenge we face today is not new to
public higher education. Over the last two decades, other universities
have confronted the same challenges. We can learn from their experiences
and mistakes. One of the most useful guides from such experiences is
Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to
Achieve Strategic Balance by Robert C. Dickeson (1999). We will be
using this text as a guide as we plan together for the future. In
addition, we will be using the processes and committees that are
consistent with our culture and traditions.
Even as we
reduce budgets, we must strategically invest in our future. To do this,
we must carefully review and prioritize all of our programs and services
(both academic and administrative). This review will inform discussions
and decisions regarding future investments. In addition, if we are not
able to achieve the necessary base reductions through attrition and
spending limits, the review will inform discussions and decisions about
which programs or services to suspend, reduce, or reorganize. Following
is a brief outline of the process.
Focus of Reviews
All programs and services will be reviewed. This will include all
academic programs, instructional and student support programs, and
administrative programs. Although this document uses illustrations from
academic programs, we will also review administrative and support
programs with criteria appropriate for their units.
We will use the following criteria for instructional program review,
which are described more fully in the text:
History, development, and expectations of the
External demand for the program
Internal demand for the program
Quality of program inputs and processes
Quality of program outcomes
Size, scope, and productivity of the program
Revenue and other resources generated by the
Costs and other expenses associated with the
Impact, justification, and overall essentiality of
Opportunity analysis of the program
(Dickeson, 1999, p. 54)
Dickeson also provides criteria for administrative and
instructional support services (see pp. 137-138). The divisions will be
working to adapt these criteria as appropriate to their units. In
addition, he provides suggestions for weighting of criteria in order to
come up with overall rankings for each program on a five point scale
that will guide future investment, or, potentially suggest possible
Process to Assure Input and Bargaining Unit
Although final decisions rest with the President in consultation with
the Chancellor and where appropriate the Board of Trustees, it is
important that everyone in our university community has the opportunity
to review and provide input and feedback on their programs and
prioritization. To that end, we will work with each of the divisions to
create processes that provide for such review and input.
Academic programs will be reviewed first at the department level and
then at the college level. The reviews will then roll up to the Academic
Affairs Budget Advisory Committee, which consists of 5 Deans and 5 IFO
appointees. This group will be convened by VP Midgarden.
In the other areas, reports will be developed at the unit level and then
roll up to a divisional level committee with an equal number of
directors or administrators and bargaining unit representatives. The
following divisional groupings will be used.
Dean Goodman’s areas (Library, Instructional
Technology, Distance Learning, Continuing Studies, Instructional
Media). Dean Goodman will convene this group.
Academic and Student Affairs Support Areas
(Records, ARO, Admissions, Financial Aid and Scholarships,
Counseling and Career Services, International Programs, National
Student Exchange, Orientation and Transitions, Data/Planning,
Services to Students with Disabilities, Multicultural Student
Affairs, and General Area Administration). VPs Wiese and Midgarden
will jointly convene this group.
Student Affairs – Revenue Fund and Auxiliary
Services (Student Union and Activities, Housing and Residence Life,
Bookstore, Hendrix Health Center, and the Wellness Center). VP Wiese
will convene this group.
Facilities and Administration (IT, Veterans
Services, Physical Plant, Capital Planning and Construction, General
Administrative Affairs, Business Office, Accounting, HR and Payroll,
Security). VP Kirk will convene this group.
Athletics. AD Peters will convene the Athletics
Presidents Office, including any functions not
reporting to other divisions (e.g., advancement, printing) and
Alumni Foundation. This group will be convened by VP Justesen.
In the academic area, the same Academic Affairs Budget
Advisory Committee will also advise on prioritization of faculty
positions to be filled when resources become available. We plan similar
uses of committees in other divisions to advise on long term
Reviews and the division level prioritization of
programs responses will be reviewed by the University Planning and
Budget Committee (UPBC). The UPBC will recommend overall prioritization
of programs and services to the President. As noted earlier, this
information may inform the president’s decisions on where to make budget
cuts. In addition, it may inform future strategic planning.
It is our intent that the process for review of our
programs and services will be done in a manner that is sensitive to
others and respectful of the work performed by all involved. By working
through the process to review programs and services, we will be
positioned better to face the challenges of the coming years.
The timeline will be a challenge. If we are not able to achieve the
necessary base reduction through attrition, we will need to use the
information from the review to guide program and service reduction.
Given contractual deadlines, we will need the full process to be
completed no later than July 1st. Following is the draft timeline.
January 26 Review process finalized in all
February 1-20 Academic programs receive data from
March 1 Divisional level review committees are in
March 6 Initial program reports are completed by
the originating unit. Academic programs are sent to the college
level committees. Other division reports are sent directly to the
April 7 Review of reports by college level
committees, which include faculty appointed by the Faculty
Association, and college level town meetings are completed.
April 7 Non-instructional divisional committees
complete town meetings.
April 21 Reports and recommended prioritization
are reviewed at the divisional level by committees and then
forwarded to the University Planning and Budget Committee (UPBC) for
April 23 Initial Meet and Confer with IFO Faculty
Association regarding programs considered for reduction, suspension,
elimination, or reorganization.
April 28 UPBC completes reviews of all divisional
programs and prioritization lists and recommends to the President
those programs or services to be considered for reduction,
suspension, elimination, or reorganization.
April 28-May 5 Initial Meet and Confer with other
bargaining units regarding programs or services considered for
reduction, suspension, elimination, or reorganization.
May 7 Final Meet and Confer with IFO regarding
programs or services considered for reduction, suspension,
elimination, or reorganization.
May 12-20 Final meet and confer with other
bargaining units regarding programs or services and positions
considered for elimination.
June Reviews and recommendations are discussed
with the Chancellor and members of his staff.
July 1 If needed, layoff notices are sent.