News

 

Faculty calls for larger role in budgeting processes

Douglas College Faculty Association confronts deterioration of working conditions in college

by Jim Chliboyko

hile students were
preparing for exams,
the Douglas College

Faculty Association was doing
some preparing of its own,
formally presenting the College
Board with a harshly-worded and
exhaustive paper entitled DCFA
Inquiry into the Douglas College
Budget Processes.

The preamble to the paper,
written by Roslyn Dixon and
addressed to Bob Buzza, College
Chair, says “our motivation in
_ undertaking this research project
was based on concerns raised by
many faculty about the current
budget development process: the
College’s decision last spring to
address the Ministry directive to
cut 1.5% form the operateing
budget.”

“Few faculty
understand how
and why budget

allocations are
made...”

The paper, presented to the
College President Dr. Lloyd
Morin and the Board on Thurs-
day, December 12, contains five
main recommendations from the
DCFA: that the budgeting process
be more open; the budget needs to
be prioritized; that more informa-
tion is required regarding budget-
ary decisions; that separation and
further prioritization of non-
instructional areas be undertaken;
and that the ratio of faculty
salaries to the operational budget
needs to be examined.

The paper demands specifics;
attached to the inquiry is a lengthy
list of questions which the DCFA
expects the College Board to
answer.

Inclusion, one of the key points, -

is referred to throughout the
document. “Few faculty under-
stand how and why budget
allocations are made,” the report
claims in one section, while
“employees often mistakenly
view budget preparation and
execution as the domain of the
financial managers.” Quoting

Budgeting for Not-For-Profit
Organizations by Robert Vinter

and Rhea Kish, the report calls for

“budget documents which are
clear and accessible to non-
financial managers, with support-
ing documentation showing the
links between budget allocations
and program delivery.”

The current budgeting proc-
esses are deemed by the DCFA as
being far too’exclusive to be
successful. “Most faculty have
little opportunity for input during
the budget development process,
nor even at the final stage when
the VP Finance presents an
information session to the College
Board and to any members of the
college community who

Capilano is 56%. While instructor
salaries are referred to throughout
the document, they are seen as
being a barometer of instructional
priorities as well as indicating the
quality of working conditions for
faculty.

Though presented in restrained
language, the DCFA seems
horrified at the growing deteriora-
tion of working conditions at the
College as reflected in budget
changes between the budgets of
1995/96 and 1996/97. The DCFA
also seems shaken by what is seen
as the increasing financial appe-
tite displayed by the administra-
tion and bureaucracy at Douglas.
Even in addition to the new David

The inquiry states that, “with 4%
of the overall budget, Systems
and Computing seems to have
developed a disproportionately
large infrastructure, especially
given the general dissatisfaction
felt by college employees about
the inconsistent if not poor level
of service provided by this area.”
The inquiry also quotes from the
analysis conducted by KPMG
(Report on Douglas computers
calls for action, November 26,
Other Press). The report suggests
that decentralizing the computer
system to Department level might
be an option. While acknowledg-
ing that Systems and Computing
is currently undergoing a systems
review, the report calls for a

 

wish to attend.”

The DCFA didn’t only
consult textbooks for their
findings. A large part of
the paper’s conclusions
came from interviews that
the DCFA conducted with
officials and administra-
tion of other Lower
Mainland colleges and
school districts. The DCFA
are not lone crusaders
when it comes to budget
reformation: Capilano
College was hailed as
being particularly enlight-
ened when it came to open
and inclusive budgetary
processes.

The report says that

 

“the overall budget
across the six faculties in
the Instructional area
decreased by 0.05%,”
while “the VP Finance
and Administration
Office, which carries no
instructional
responsibilities, received
a significant
proportional increase
this year” of 13.7%.”

financial assessment of the
area.

The report, however, pulls
no punches when it comes to
administration. Focusing on
the recent in-house reorgani-
zation undertaken by the
college, the DCFA appears
worried about the subse-
quent job reclassification by
some of the college’s top
administrators; “the four
vice-presidents, each of
whom previously was a
dean, received a significant
salary increase through
reclassification.” The report
states that members of
faculty “are concerned on
principle about what appears

 

 

Marie Jessop, Capilano
College’s Director of Financial
Services, “is extremely proud of
their budgeting system, which
involves the active participation
of all who choose to be involved
who are affected by the budget—
from the Director of Financial
Services to front-line workers.”
Though this inclusive process is
more exhaustive, Jessop acknowl-
edges that it is also more time
consuming. However, the report
states that, in Jessop’s opinion,
“the byproducts of goodwill and
group ownership of the budget
have real benefits that carry
beyond simple procedures.”

Capilano College is also cited
as posting better numbers than
Douglas. While Douglas College
faculty salaries make up 47.6% of
the school’s budget, the percent-
age of instructor salaries at

Lam campus, “the overall budget
across the six faculties in the |
Instructional area decreased by
0.05%,” while “the VP Finance

and Administration Office, which .

carries no instructional responsi-
bilities, received a significant
proportional increase this year” of
13.7%. Other figures included the
raise given to Communications
and Marketing, a 5.7% increase,
and college utilities, the rates of
which increased 26.9%.

Another bone of contention for
the DCFA is the ill-defined nature
of some of the items on the
budget. Under the miscellaneous
column lies over two million
dollars, or 5% of the College’s
total budget.

And for the second time in a
month, Systems and Computing
has been targeted for criticism.

to be unwarranted salary

increases for administrators,
especially in view of the Ministry
policy of fiscal restraint.” The
report looks enviously towards
the North Shore, where Capilano
College has actually downsized
their upper echelons. Capilano
now operates with two vice-
presidents. Meanwhile, the report
claims that Douglas, after reor-
ganization, seems more devoted
to the bureaucracy than ever. The
report credits ex-president Susan
Hunter-Harvey for putting the
kibosh on other salary increases.

The report’s penultimate section
is devoted to working conditions
at the college, or more specifi-
cally, while salaries are decreas-
ing, workload is increasing.
Exhausting schedules are com-
mon, usual 50 hour weeks in-
crease to 70 hour work weeks in

Another reward
ee

education...

Get $750 towards the purchase or lease of any new GM vehicle.

March and November. These
numbers do not take into account
time spent helping with college
reorganization, time served on
presidential selection committees
and the effort in helping to get the
David Lam campus up and
running.

According to the report, “fac-
ulty are now expected to be
involved in various initiatives
related to bringing revenues into
the college over and above our
normal workloads, so are asked to
perform entrepreneurial functions
and community liaison activities.”
Despite the increasing size of the
student body, “faculty are now
expected to provide support
services which until recently were
performed by non-instructional
port staff,” while “because of
declining clerical support, faculty
are expected to perform their own
clerical functions, while increased
technical responsibilities, but

“faculty... are asked to
perform entrepreneurial
functions and
community liaison
activities.”

without efficient or effective
computer or technical support
systems.”

The report concludes by saying,
“most of the questions and
concerns raised here reflect the
lack of clarity, information,
evaluation, and apparent lack of
process prevalent in the current
budget development system.
Moreover, some of our questions
and concerns reflect what is a
growing concern by faculty that
many of the funding allocations
decisions are based on what
appears to be an insidious view
that faculty no longer need be
central to the educational proc-
ess.”

The report, along with Novem-
ber’s KPMG audit of Systems and
Computing, provides a view to
the chaos underlying the calm
facade of the College. The first
term of 1997 promises to be a
busy one for everyone involved.

 

 

The Other Press January 61997 3