UW News

January 15, 2009

Many ideas received but more are welcome as administrators ponder UW’s budget

News and Information

So far, the Office of Planning and Budgeting has received more than 220 ideas from across the University on cutting costs, increasing efficiency and maintaining quality in what are expected to be lean financial times. The ideas were in response to an e-mail request sent out to all faculty and staff by the Provost’s Office. Many submissions contained multiple suggestions. And ideas are still being accepted at bgtideas@u.washington.edu.

“We’ve received some very interesting ideas,” says Paul Jenny, vice provost for planning and budgeting. “The most useful ideas are those that suggest broad, Universitywide strategies, or things that we might glean from the experience of other universities.”

For example, among the ideas that initially have attracted attention is whether it is time to look more seriously and systematically at eliminating the use of paper for many publications. “We need to look at whether this continues to be an effective way of reaching audiences,” he says.

Some members of the University community have written to suggest we find ways to conserve resources, whether these are energy resources (by turning off lights and equipment, or regulating building temperatures), time resources (by simplifying processes or eliminating redundant efforts), or basic office supply resources (by sharing unneeded supplies rather than sending them to surplus).

Others have suggested ways to improve time to degree for students and overall credit hour policies to free up classroom and lab space and save students tuition.

“We really want to hear from the front-line people who are responsible for implementing policies and procedures,” Jenny says. “They will see things from a perspective that those who design the policies may never see. They can help us find out why they are made to do certain procedures that may seem outmoded or unnecessary. Some of these are questions we should’ve been asking all along.”

Jenny’s plan is to divide the suggestions into broad categories, which perhaps will result in connections and commonalities. Some suggestions, naturally, are not going to pass muster, for a variety of reasons. Suggestions pertaining to self-sustaining units will be shared with those units; however, because these budgets are independent of state budget reduction pressure, any gains made won’t help alleviate UW’s budget challenges. “We do plan to respond to all suggestions on our Web site,” he says.

Although the budget situation is imminent and serious, that does not mean that people should refrain from offering ideas that require an investment now for payback in the future. “These may not be things we can enact immediately, but our budget situation may not brighten for several years, so any suggestion can be valuable.”

In addition to collecting ideas locally, Jenny is in contact with national groups — the Association of American Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Association of College and University Business Officers — to find out if initiatives at other universities may be relevant here.

It is hard to overstate the gravity of the situation in Washington. The governor’s proposed biennial budget calls for a cut at the UW of $116 million. For perspective, that is roughly equal to the biennial budget of the College of Arts and Sciences. The size of the University’s budget will not be decided until the legislature finishes its work, which will be no earlier than the end of April. But no one with knowledge of the situation believes that sizable cuts can be avoided.

To learn more about the budgeting process and the challenges the UW faces, visit http://www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/.