UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Reports Jan 13, 1982

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubcreports-1.0118702.pdf
Metadata
JSON: ubcreports-1.0118702.json
JSON-LD: ubcreports-1.0118702-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): ubcreports-1.0118702-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: ubcreports-1.0118702-rdf.json
Turtle: ubcreports-1.0118702-turtle.txt
N-Triples: ubcreports-1.0118702-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: ubcreports-1.0118702-source.json
Full Text
ubcreports-1.0118702-fulltext.txt
Citation
ubcreports-1.0118702.ris

Full Text

 SPECIAL EDITION
Volume 28, Number 2
SPECIAL EDITION
January 13, 1982
Budget reductions, fee increase proposed
An advisory committee on
retrenchment to President Douglas T.
Kenny has proposed reductions of non-
faculty and faculty budgets and an
increase in student tuition fees to meet
an annualized shortfall of $7,483
million in operating funds in the
1982 83 fiscal year and beyond.
This special edition of UBC Reports
contains the full text of the report
from the 15-member committee which
was chaired by Prof. Michael Shaw,
UBC vice-president, academic, and
provost.
The committee proposes that almost
half of the $7,483 million shortfall be
made up from reductions in the
budgets of non-faculty units, such as
the library, research, and academic
service units.
The balance of the shortfall would
be made up from reductions of nearly
$2 million in faculty budgets and
student tuition fee increases of
approximately 30 per cent.
The report of the advisory
committee on retrenchment is in the
hands of the deans of UBC's 12
faculties and three vice-presidents,
who have been asked to:
• Identify specifically the affected
areas and dollar amounts that would
be removed to meet the total target
for their faculty or administrative
area;
• Indicate the academic impact
that would result from the removal of
funds; and
• Indicate, in the case of faculties,
if consideration will have to be given
to limiting course offerings or placing
a ceiling on enrolments if the dollar
figures proposed in the report have to
be removed.
President Kenny said he would
review these statements with deans and
vice-presidents and with the Senate
budget committee before making his
own recommendations to the Board of
Governors.
He said recommendations approved
by the Board would have to be
implemented on April 1, the start of
the 1982 83 fiscal year.
In addition to Prof. Shaw, members
of the advisory committee on fiscal
retrenchment are: Prof. John
Dennison, Education; Dr. J.R.
Auman, Geophysics and Astronomy;
Dr. D.H. Copp, Physiology; Dr. G.A.
Feltham, Commerce and Business
Administration; Dr. William M.
Keenlyside, a member of UBC's
Senate; Dr. R.W. Kennedy, Forestry;
Dr. A.J. McClean, Law; Dr. V.J.
Modi, Mechanical Engineering; Dr.
G.G.E. Scudder, Zoology; R.A.
Shearer, Economics; Dr. Olav
Slaymaker, Geography; and Kenneth
Young, UBC's Registrar.
Text of retrenchment report to president
I. TERMS OF REFERENCE    »
The committee's task was to
consider the entire spectrum of the
University's programs and operations
and to advise the president how the
University can meet an annualized
shortfall of $7,483 million in operating
funds for fiscal 1982-83 and beyond,
with minimum damage to the scope
and quality of education at UBC.
II.  PREAMBLE
The budgetary shortfall of $7,483
million in 1982-83 should be seen
against the background of four facts.
First, while annual operating grants
have increased in each of the seven
years from 1975-76 to 1981  82, the
increases have been substantially less
than the amounts requested by the
University (difference columr, Table
1). These contained substantial
amounts for the development of
existing programs, including
additional faculty and staff, which
were not funded. Second, because the
operating grants have not kept pace
with inflation in salaries, wages, and
non-salary expenditures, the University
has had to effect reductions in
continuing operating expenditures in
order to balance its budget in each of
the five preceding fiscal years (Table
2).
Third, these budgetary reductions
have been forced on the University
even though there has not been a
corresponding reduction in enrolment.
To complicate the problem,
enrolments have shifted in favor of
relatively costly programs. If
enrolments are weighted by the cost-
factors used in the Universities Council
allocation formula, UBC has had to
cut budgets in the face of a substantial
increase in the number of cost-
weighted, full-time equivalent students
(from 45,494 in 1975-76 to 48,803 in
1981-82; i.e., an increase of 7.3%).
Fourth, the internal re-allocations of
operating funds have necessarily been
accompanied by such adjustments as
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF OPERATING GRANTS
REQUESTED AND RECEIVED
GRANT $
DIFFERE
$
NCE
Fiscal Year
Requested
Received
%a
1975/76
$ 99,442,581
$ 91,988,957
$ 7,453,624
7.50
1976/77
$127,708,689
$103,920,766
$23,787,923
18.63
1977/78
$129,804,130
$111,315,322
$18,488,808
14.24
1978/79
$133,800,583
$122,286,000
$11,514,583
8.61
1979/80
$142,726,633
$131,831,768
$10,894,865
7.63
1980/81
$152,147,771
$143,323,783
$ 8,823,988
5.80
1981/82
$169,214,750
$161,781,475
$ 7,433,275
4.39
Mean
$136,406,448
$123,778,296
$12,628,152
9.54b
a% of $ requested.
"Column mean; total difference as proportion of total requested
is 9.26%.
increased class and section sizes which
have not been consistent with teaching
effectiveness and academic excellence.
Although the University has had to
make several budget cuts, this is the
first time that it has been faced with
the necessity of making such a massive
readjustment — an annualized
reduction of $7,483 million effective
April 1, 1982 — in a single fiscal year.
So far as we are aware, no other
Canadian university has had to
implement a budgetary reduction of
this magnitude in one year. Since
money has to be found quickly, the
committee's decisions could not be
made solely on the basis of academic
considerations, because such decisions
can often only be implemented over a
long period of time. Thus, it became
clear to the committee that the fiscal
recommendations would inevitably be
constrained by the "art of the
possible."
There are several severe constraints
on the adjustments that can be made
in the short run.
1. The termination of academic
programs is a matter of serious
consequence which cannot be
undertaken without careful
deliberation, including the approval of
Senate. Among the important
considerations are the potential
injustice to students already enrolled
in such programs, the legitimate
ambitions and aspirations of students
and their parents, and the unique role
of UBC in providing specialized
programs which are not available at
other provincial institutions.
2. The application of the allocation
formula currently employed by the
Universities Council to divide the
operating grant from the province
among the three provincial universities
can create the paradoxical result that
certain retrenchments could actually
make the deficit worse. This could
Continued on page 2
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF INTERNAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS
FISCAL YEAR
BUDGET REDUC
1976/77
$1,750,430
1977/78
$1,364,806
1978/79
$   689,165
1979/80
$   826,649
1980/81
$2,098,000
Subtotal 1976-80
$6,729,050*
1981/82
$7,483,000**
Total 1976-81
$14,212,050
*The sources of these funds were academic salaries 55%; support staff salaries
36%; non-salary items 9%.
**This is an annualized shortfall flowing out of fiscal 1981-82 into fiscal
1982-83. UBC Reports January 13, 1982
occur if retrenchment involves a
reduction in enrolment. A fall in
enrolment may reduce the grant
revenue to the University by more than
the amount saved (e.g., immediate
cancellation of the entire Guided
Independent Study program might
save approximately $240,000 in
expenditures, but under the allocation
formula, UBC would receive $630,000
less in grant revenue, not to mention
fee revenue).
3. The University is bound by its
contractual obligations with its faculty,
staff and other employees.
4. Under the University Act, the
University is not permitted to run an
operating deficit. Section 28(1) of the
Act states that "The Board shall not
incur any liability or make any
expenditure in a fiscal year beyond the
amount unexpended of the grant
made to the university by the
universities council and the estimated
revenue of the university from other
sources up to the end of and including
that fiscal year, unless an estimate of
the increased liability or
overexpenditure has been first
submitted to the universities council
and approved by the minister and
Minister of Finance."
Because of these constraints, the
committee's recommendations have to
be considered as transitional. During
its deliberations, it became clear to the
committee that there is a number of
potential adjustments that could not
• be studied adequately in the time
available. These include constraints on
curriculum expansion and a careful
evaluation of the appropriate scope of
programs offered by UBC, enrolment
limitations, the level of operation of
branch libraries and reading rooms,
and the exploration of early retirement
options. While these issues cannot be
considered in this report, they should
be studied by an appropriate body.
Furthermore, in emphasizing that the
recommended reductions in the
budgets of the faculties and the units
reporting to the vice-presidents and to
the president are transitional, the
committee recognizes that
fundamental adjustments undoubtedly
will be necessary. However, these
cannot and should not be made
without further study and
consultation.
III. MEETINGS AND
PROCEDURE
The committee met 35 times
between late September, 1981 and the
present for a total of approximately 90
hours. Several early meetings were
spent in discussing the criteria which
should be applied in effecting
retrenchment. At an early stage in its
deliberations, the committee
recommended that the Board of
Governors delay a decision on student
fees for 1982-83 until the president
had had the opportunity to study the
committee's report. This
recommendation was endorsed by the
Senate Budget Committee and
accepted by the president and the
Board of Governors.
In the discussions with the deans
and vice-presidents, the primary
concern of the committee was to assess
the impact of various levels of
potential budgetary reductions on the
scope and quality of academic and
support programs. In order to provide
a sharp focus for these discussions,
each dean and vice-president was
given a pessimistic working target and
was asked to give priority rankings to
the dollar amounts identified as
potential reductions, and to document
the impact of these on their programs
and operations.
The committee received
presentations from and interviewed the
twelve deans of faculties, the coordinator of health sciences, the acting
librarian, the directors of the Schools
of Physical Education and Recreation,
Architecture, and Nursing, the
director of the Botanical Garden, the
president of the Alma Mater Society,
the president of the Alumni
Association, the three vice-presidents,
and the registrar and acting vice-
provost. Deans of the faculties
concerned were present when the
directors of schools were interviewed.
The Faculty Association was invited to
make a presentation to the committee,
but declined to do so.
IV   PRINCIPLES
The committee was guided by the
following considerations which
emerged during its deliberations:
1. Retrenchment must occur with as
little damage as possible to the scope
and quality of the academic programs
of the University. The programs of the
professional faculties have unique
importance to the province, including
the development of the professions,
business, industry, health care and the
management of renewable resources.
The programs of the core Faculties of
Arts and Science have a crucial role in
providing fundamental education for
students in the arts, humanities, social
sciences, and science; they are also
crucial to the cultural, social, and
scientific vitality of the province and
the nation. In addition, the core
Faculties of Arts and Science
contribute essential instructional
support to the programs of the
professional faculties. Excellence in
this dual role of the two core faculties
is the hallmark of a first class
university.
2. Some faculties and administrative
units, including the central
administration, are by any reasonable
measure already understaffed,
underfunded, and therefore under
severe pressure.
3. Thus, the option of an "across-
the-board" reduction in the budgets of
all major units is undesirable, indeed,
indefensible.
4. Nevertheless, each major unit
should contribute toward the shortfall
target of $7,483 million.
5. However, no faculty should be
permitted to effect savings by reducing
its service to other faculties without
appropriate consultation and
agreement. If this were permitted
unilaterally, it could damage academic
programs in other faculties and would
allow a faculty to isolate itself from
the rest of the University.
o.  It is essential to maintain
academic and administrative support
services and to maintain buildings and
grounds at an acceptable level.
7. Student Services at UBC are
funded at a level below prevailing
norms elsewhere in the province and
in the country and must therefore be
protected to the greatest extent
possible.
V. ASSESSMENT OF BUDGET
REDUCTIONS
To simplify the presentation, the
budget of the University is divided into
two parts: i) the budgets of the twelve
faculties; and ii) the budgets of the
administrative units that report
directly to the president and the vice-
presidents. The former are referred to
as the faculty budgets, and the latter
as the non-faculty budgets.
Continued on page 3
TABLE 3
ASSESSMENTS — NON-FACULTY BUDGETS
FUNCTION AND UNIT
BUDGET
REDUCTION
BALANCE
ACADEMIC SERVICES
Animal Care
B.C. Studies
Berwick Centre
Botanical Garden
Canadian Literature
Computing Centre
Faculty Publications List
University Press
Centre for Continuing Education
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,000
2,000
88,000
100,000
2,000
290,000
3,000
20,000
100,000
$   607,000
CREDIT COURSE PROGRAMS
Correspondence Courses
Extra-sessional Studies
113,000
141,000
$   254,000
LIBRARIES
$
564,000
$   564,000
STUDENT SERVICES
Athletics
Canada Employment Centre
Student Health Service
5
7,500
800
12,000
$     20,300
RESEARCH
Research Committee Grants
Overhead on Contracts
$1,000,000
$     80,000
$1,080,000
ADMINISTRATION
Alumni Association
President's Office
University Resources Office
Registrar's Office
Institutional Analysis
and Planning
$
$
$
$
$
76,000
61,000
35,000
6,000
2,000
$   180,000
GENERAL EXPENSES
5
5,000
$       5,000
PHYSICAL PLANT
Campus Mail
$
$
990,000
20,000
$1,010,000
TOTAL REDUCTION — NON-FACULTY
$3,720,300
TABLE 4
ASSESSMENTS
— FACULTY BUDGETS
FACULTY
BUDGET REDUCTION ($)
Agricultural Sciences
$
80,200
Applied Science
[Nursing
[Architecture
[Engineering
s
$
$
$
108,300
52,150]
16,050]
40,100]
Arts
$
541,400
Commerce & Business Admin
$
36,100
Dentistry
$
36,100
Education
$
361,000
Forestry
$
24,100
Graduate Studies
$
120,300
Health Sciences
$
6,400
Law
$
32,100
Medicine
$
288,800
Pharmaceutical Sciences
$
12,000
Science
$
280,700
$1,927,500 UBC Reports January 13, 1982
1.  Non-Faculty Budgets
We recommend that the non-
faculty budgets be reduced by a total
amount of $3,720,300, and that the
reduction be borne by the various
units in the manner listed in Table 3.
The proposed budget reductions will
severely curtail aspects of the support
provided for academic programs, the
services provided by the University to
the community and some of the
broader educational activities of the
University.
The major impact of the proposed
reduction in academic services would
be felt in the Berwick Centre
($88,000), the Botanical Garden
($100,000), the Computing Centre
($290,000), and the Centre for
Continuing Education ($100,000).
Responsibility for the funding of the
Berwick Centre is to be assumed by
the B.C. Mental Retardation
Association. The committee notes that
the responsibility of the Botanical
Garden includes the maintenance of
some parts of the University grounds
and service to some other units of the
University as well as the development
of the Botanical Garden proper. It is
the committee's view that a decision to
retrench grounds maintenance and
other services to the University should
be co-ordinated through the
President's Office. The reduction in
funds for equipment rental in the
Computing Centre will inevitably
affect the level of service provided to
users. The retrenchment in the Centre
for Continuing Education will inhibit
the ability of the centre to service its
various constituencies and impair the
University's responsibility under the
University Act to "provide a program
of Continuing Education in all
academic and cultural fields
throughout the province" (part 10,
section 46, clause e).
The recommendations under Credit
Course Programs recognize that the
University's role in providing Guided
Independent Study courses ought to be
re-evaluated following establishment of
the Open Learning Institute. Further,
it was felt that adjustments must be
made in the budget in the Department
of Extra-Sessional Studies.
The proposed reduction in the
Library will result in a reduced level
of service. A reduction in hours of
opening, in the range of bibliographic
and other services, and possibly in the
number of separate library units, is
regrettable, but nevertheless
unavoidable given the magnitude of
the problem the University faces.
The proposal that the entire sum
budgeted for Research Committee
grants be deleted was arrived at
reluctantly, especially because this will
inevitably interfere with the ability of
beginning faculty members to get
research programs started. It is hoped
that a way will be found to provide
some assistance to such faculty
members.
The Alumni Association provides
valuable services to the University
which are not widely known (such as
maintenance of the Convocation list,
and certain fund raising activities).
However, the committee is confident
that the Alumni Association will
provide the funds necessary to
continue these important services in
the face of a reduction of $76,000 in
the University's contribution to the
Alumni office. This proposed
reduction reflects the painful reality
that the University can no longer
continue to support the Alumni
Association operations at past levels.
The committee is most concerned
about how the reduction in the budget
of Physical Plant is spread across this
large unit. For example, the
committee is not sure whether an
appropriate balance is being
maintained between the level of
expenditures on the maintenance of
grounds and of buildings. In the time
available, the committee was not able
to pursue these concerns as fully as it
would like to have done.
2.  Faculty Budgets
The assessment of $3,720,300
against the non-faculty budgets leaves
a balance of $3,762,700 to be found to
make up the shortfall target of
$7,483,000. After careful and detailed
consideration of the submissions of the
deans and the health sciences coordinator, the committee was
unanimous and emphatic in its
conviction that an assessment of
almost $3.8 million against the
faculties would wreak permanent
damage on the teaching and research
programs which are the University's
raison d'etre. In the committee's
judgement, such an assessment cannot
be contemplated.
We recommend that the faculty
budgets be reduced by a total amount
of $1,927,500 and that each faculty be
assessed the amounts shown in Table
4. These assessments were arrived at
after careful study of the submissions
of the deans and the co-ordinator of
health sciences and in light of the
principles enunciated in Section IV
above. The proposed assessments
against some faculties are relatively
light because the committee recognizes
that some academic units are already
operating on totally inadequate
funding. Other faculties should be
asked to bear a heavier share of the
reduction, not necessarily because they
are adequately funded, but because
they are not in quite so perilous a
financial state.
We wish to stress that a total
reduction of almost $1.93 million in
the combined budgets of the faculties
in a single fiscal year must inflict
major damage, coming as it does after
the cumulative adjustments of the last
five years (Table 2). In particular, it
will make it very difficult to fill vitally
important faculty and staff vacancies
which have arisen because of
retirements and resignations, and to
appoint department heads and
directors of schools from outside of
UBC. Such appointments are
sometimes essential in the normal
evolution of an academic unit.
Furthermore, it must impinge on the
level of instructional support to
students. In general terms, it will
retard the development of existing
programs which are already under
severe pressure.
The assessments of $3,720,300
against the non-faculty budgets, and
of $1,927,500 against the faculty
budgets sum to $5,647,800. This
leaves a balance of $1,835,200 to be
found to meet the shortfall target of
$7,483,000. Apart from an increase in
the operating grant from the province,
there is only one possible source of
these additional funds, namely tuition
fees. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase in tuition
fees.
VI. ANALYSIS OF REVENUE
FROM TUITION FEES
Table 5 shows the basic tuition fees
for 1971 and 1981. Over the same
period of time, the cost of all goods
and services increased dramatically as
TABLE 5
UBC TUITION FEES — CURRENT DOLLARS
Degree Program 1971 Fees       1981 Fees
Agriculture 440 725
1971 Fees in 1982 $*
1188
Applied Science
Architecture
Engineering
Nursing
Arts
Arts B.A./B.F.A.
Home Economics
Librarianship
Music
Social Work — 1st Year
Social Work — 2nd Year
Commerce
1st Year
Other Years
Dentistry
D.M.D.
Dental Hygiene
Education
B.Ed.
Phys. Ed. & Rec. Ed.
Forestry
Law
Medicine
M.D.
Rehabilitation Medicine
Pharmacy
1st Year
Other Years
Science
Ph.D./Ed.D. - 3 year total
Masters - 2 year total
522
522
380
428
428
474
544
474
428
428
506
644
506
428
428
506
506
644
380
428
506
428
1200
800
850
850
695
670
670
770
850
670
670
695
820
1050
820
670
695
820
820
1050
695
695
820
670
2105
1405
1409
1409
1026
1156
1156
1280
1469
1280
1156
1156
1366
1739
1366
1156
1156
1366
1366
1739
1026
1156
1366
1156
3240
2160
4982 Average Vancouver CPI Index estimated at 270 (1971  =  100)
indicated by the 170% increase in the
Vancouver Consumer Price Index.
Tuition fees have not kept pace with
inflation. If tuition fees had been
increased in accordance with the CPI,
the level of fees would have been as
indicated in Table 5, and the
University's revenue from fees would
have been 93% greater than it
actually was in 1981-82. The Board of
Governors of the University has
already expressed serious concern
about the declining share of the cost
of education at UBC being provided
by tuition fees, and has enunciated as
a matter of University policy that
"tuition fees be not less than 10% of
the net budgeted general operating
costs for the current year (i.e., fiscal
year in which review is made)."
Education at UBC is by any measure a
bargain.
It is the committee's considered
opinion that tuition fees must be
increased substantially above the
minimum increase required to meet
the Board of Governors policy. The
minimum increase involves a lift of
15.3% on the 1981-82 base of
$15,716,000; this sum (i.e.,
$2,396,000) forms part of the
budgeted revenue for 1982-83 which
has been set against anticipated
additional commitments (increases in
salaries and wages, student aid, and in
non-salary costs taking effect in
1982-83). It is not considered to be a
contribution to the shortfall.
Consequently, in the explanation of
the two alternative proposals for
increases in fee revenue presented
below, the aggregate increase is
divided into two components, (i) an
increment to implement the current
Board of Governors policy increase
(contribution to 1982-83 University
revenue); and (ii) a special increase (to
meet the shortfall).
The committee is convinced that
this substantial fee increase must not
interfere with access to higher
education at UBC. Accordingly, the
committee proposes that the fee
increase be accompanied by a more
than proportionate increase in the
funding for student aid.
The committee has considered two
alternative levels of fee increase, both
of which are substantially below the
indexed increases shown in Table 5.
These two levels are set out below as
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, which
propose increases of 29.5% and 32.8%
respectively.
VII. RECOMMENDED INCREASE
IN TUITION FEES AND
THE ALLOCATION OF FEE
REVENUE
We recommend (i) that fees be
increased by a minimum of 29.5%
and that the additional revenue be
Continued on page 4 UBC Reports January 13, 1982
ALTERNATIVE 1
Current revenue from fees
1.
2.
Increment to implement minimum
Board policy (15.3% of [A])
Special increment (14.2% of [A])
Total Increment (29.5% of [A])
Allocation of increased fee revenue
1. Additional provision for
student aid (from [B] and [C]:
5.4% of [A])
2. Provision for inflation on
current operations in 1982/83
(from [B]: 12.5% of [A])
3. Special provision to meet shortfall (from [C]: 11.7% of [A])
$15,716,000[A]
$ 2,396,000[B]
$ 2,246,000[C]
$ 4,642,000
$     849,000
$ 1,957,800
$ 1,835,200
$4,642,000
$   849,000
$1,957,800
$1,835,200
$4,642,000
The provision for increased student aid was calculated using $2.0 million as the
current base figure for student aid:
29.5% of $2,000,000 $590,000
10% of $2,590,000 $259,000
Total Increase in Student Aid $849,000
It should be noted that (1) the current base for student aid has been increased
by the same percentage (29.5%) as the proposed increase in student fee revenue;
and (2) that a further lift in student aid of 10% has been added to cover new
cases of hardship which may arise from the proposed increase in fees. The total
new student aid under this alternative is $849,000, representing an increase of
42.5%. This would provide, for example, 1,132 bursaries of $750 each.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Current revenue from fees
1. Increment to implement minimum
Board policy (15.3% of [A])
2. Special increment (17.5% of [A])
Total Increment (32.8% of [A])
Allocation of Increased Revenue
1. Additional provision for
student aid (from [B] and [C]:
5.9% of [A])
2. Provision for inflation on
current operations in 1982/83
(from [B]: 12.5% of [A])
3. Special provision to meet
shortfall (from [C]: 14.4% of [A])
$15,716,000[A]
$ 2,396,000[B]
$ 2,764,000[C]
$ 5,160,000
$5,160,000
$     921,600
$ 1,968,100
$ 2,270,300
$   921,600
$1,968,100
$2,270,300
$5,160,000
The provision for increased student aid of $921,600 was calculated as in
Alternative 1. It represents an increase of 46.1% in student aid which would
provide, for example, 1,228 bursaries at $750 each.
Alternative 2 is intended for comparison with Alternative 1. It should be noted
that it would yield $435,100 ($2,270,337       $1,835,218) more than Alternative 1
to the provision for the shortfall.
allocated as in Alternative 1 in Section
VI above.
We also recommend that, should it
be decided that the increase in fee
revenue be 32.8% in accordance with
Alternative 2 in Section VI, the
additional funds available ($435,100)
be used to provide offsets (possibly as
non-recurring funds) against the
assessments against the non-faculty
budgets in Table 3. We have in mind
particularly, the Library, Research
Committee grants and the Computing
Centre. Other areas might also be
considered.
Finally, the committee notes that
implementation of either Alternative 1
or Alternative 2 would mean that
student fees at UBC would result in
only a modest increase in the
contribution of student fees to the
financing of the operating costs of the
University. Implementation of the
minimum Board of Governors policy
for 1982-83 would increase revenue
from student fees as a percentage of
the preceding year's operating budget
from 9.84% in 1981-82 to 10.03% in
1982-83 (Table 6). Implementation of
Alternative 1 would increase this
figure to 11.27% and of Alternative 2
to 11.56%.
By the way of contrast, among the
universities of Ontario fee revenue
provides an average of 15.2% of
annual operating costs. Moreover, as
recently as 1970-71 fees provided 17%
of annual operating costs at UBC
(Table 6).
VIII. SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
That non-faculty budgets be
reduced by $3,720,300 as set out in
Table 3.
Recommendation 2
That the budgets of the faculties be
reduced by $1,927,500 as set out in
Table 4.
Recommendation 3
That tuition fee revenue be
increased by a minimum of 29.5%
and that the resulting increase in
revenue employed to provide
a) $849,000 for increased student aid
(i.e. an increase of 42.5%)
b) $1,957,800 to meet new costs
arising in 1982-83
TABLE 6
BUDGETED FEES AND NET OPERATING BUDGET
1970-71 — 1981-82
Year
Budgeted*
Fees
Net Operating
Budget
Fees as a
% of Budget
Fees as a
% ot Preced.
Year's Budget
1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
1978/79
1979/80
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
9,643,801
9,897,892
8,938,160
8,564,369
9,920,771
$10,612,079
$10,589,778
$12,998,413
$12,882,984
$13,394,888
$14,138,758
$15,715,952
$18,111,873(
$20,357,618(
15.3%)
29.5%)
$20,875,578( + 82.8%)
56,
63,
67,
71,
84,
$103
$116
$125
$136
$146
$159
$180
$220
$220
$220
467,511
723,885
872,060
801,269
898,215
394,536
431,494
877,115
853,015
913,499
795,884
614,354
,000,000(est.)
,000,000(est.)
000,000(est.)
17.08%
15.53
13.17
11.93
11.69
10.26
9.10
10.33
9.41
9.12
8.85
8.70
8.23
9.25
9.49
- %
17.53
14.03
12.62
13.82
12.50
10.24
11.16
10.23
9.79
9.62
9.84
10.03
11.27
11.56
*A11 credit courses; includes incidental fee revenues such as Application Fees, Late Registrations, Transcripts, etc.
c) $1,835,200 toward the shortfall of
$7,483,000
Recommendation 4
If it is decided that tuition fee
revenue be increased by 32.8%, then
we recommend that the resulting
increase in revenue be employed to
provide
a) $921,600 for increased student aid
(i.e. an increase of 46.1%)
b) $1,968,100 to meet new costs
arising in 1982-83
c) $2,270,300 toward the shortfall of
$7,483,000 and further that
d) the additional funds provided
toward the shortfall of $435,100
(i.e. $2,270,300-$l,835,200)be
employed to offset the assessments
against the non-faculty budgets
proposed in Recommendation 1.
Included as appendices to the
Report of the President's Advisory
Committee on Fiscal Retrenchment
were the following documents:
A. 1981 University Program
Inventory: British Columbia
Institutions.
B. Summary of Criteria for the
Evaluation of Academic
Programs and Academic Units.
C. Letter from Dr. Shaw to
President Kenny of Oct. 15,
1981: Resolution on the Board
decision on student fees for
1982/83.
D. Board of Governors Policy on
Tuition Fees (Dec. 4, 1979)
Interested members of the
University community who wish
copies of the appendices can obtain
them from the UBC Department of
Information Services, 228-3131.
UBC Reporli is published every second
Wednesday by Information Services.
UBC. 6328 Memorial Road.
Vancouver   B.C.. V6T 1WS
Telephone 228 3151. Al Hunter,
editor. Lorie Chortyk, calendar editor.
Jim Banham. contributing editor.
I*
Canada
Pott Canada
Postage paid   Portpaye
Third   Troisieme
class   classe
2027
Vancouver, B.C.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.ubcreports.1-0118702/manifest

Comment

Related Items