The Search For Fairness

Questions have come to me recently

expressing concern about the fair-
ness (or lack thereof) of distribu-
tion of funds. throughout the Col-
lege, This kind of unease and ques-
tioning is understandable.

These concerns are grounded in the
knowledge that our dollars come to
us based on formula provisions, .
which take into account instruction-
al activities and full-time-equival-
ent students. These funds are dis-
tributed based on administrative
recommendations to the Board, and
eee ty Board approval of an in-
ternal budget.

It is helpful to look at this issue
from two perspectives--that of the

fairness and propriety of internal

decisions pager cing distribution of
the budget; and alternatively, that
of the issue of the degree to which
formula funding assumptions (a peav-
incial set of decisions and pat

of the college.

INTERNAL EQUITY

It is possible to take too much for
granted the procedures for budget
analysis and decision manne Else-
where in this issue of the Mad Hat-
ter, I have asked for expressions of
interest in a college assembly de-
voted to this topic, at which time a
public review and discussion could
Occur .

Leaving aside questions of specific
machinery and responsibility, there
are a_ number of controls in our in-
ternal system which are calculated
to provide general equity.

These include departmental and div-
isional consultative committees,
pare slery. review of proposed budgets
by departmental personnel, open dis-
cussion regarding annual plans at
the Management Committee level and
EPPCO, review by the comes: Board
committees, and the separate devel-
opment of a Strategic Plan focusing
on institutional objectives and pro-
aa This plan is developed from

ivisional recommendations, and crit-

pees. By the Educational Policy &
Planning Committee.

A heavy conditioner of major deci-
sions and policies affecting budget
allocation, is the college philoso-

i erns)
should narrowly direct the operations

 

Mad Hatter Page 2

phy statement.

Douglas College operates a quite
open and consultative framework
that results in budget decisions
that are equitable, in the context
of institutionally-defined ob joct-
ives. Obviously, these decisions
do not necessarily coincide with
the aspirations of any_particular |!
unit of the college. Fairness is
always in the eye of the beholder,
and is perceived most easily when
one is not damaged or limited by a
decision.

COLLEGE DECISIONS VS.
PROVINCIAL DECISIONS |

At times, especially when the poli-
tical stance of the moment, or the
mechanical assumptions built into
a formula are ty a particular as-
ect of the co Lege enterprise may
e given an external "valuation"
that is higher than the dollars.
actually expended within the insti-|
tution. poneerees 1: some activit-
ies within the college may well
cost more than the amount of money |
eooressae by that activity within
he formula. Indeed, some college
activities are not provided for at
all under the formula.

It should be noted that the Minis-
try of Education explicitly expects
institutional decision making re-

garding the pee Ree budget, once
oes by the formula, rather old
lind transfer through to the oper-

ations level of funds generated by
the formula.

The Be pietty of Education formally |
recognizes the necessity for an
institution that is responsive to
its local learning environment to_ |
make local decisions that best suit,
community needs prowess ag the -gen-—|
eral res onsibili y of the institu-|
tion to the province is carried
out. This can be done only Dy
granting to the institution the |
ace and responsibility to make
Judgements regarding the deployment
of resources.

 

teak eee a ee Tt. 2s also @leat
that many, if not all, of our pro-
geans and services were called into
eing because of a perception of
community need. To yield to the
temptation in the short term to de- |
end on the Ministry of Education
or support in any particular en-
terprise, is to open the identical
activity in the long term, to re-
striction or elimination by the