THIS IS FOR WIZARD KIM...

Institute for Educational Management UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI (A) ACADEMIC CUTS PLANNED FOR MISSOURI DRAW FIRE By Gene I. Maeroff COLUMBIA, MO., May 28--Budget conscious administrators at theUniversity of Missouri's main campus here have proposed droppingsome programs and sharply curtailing others. But the plan hasbrought a flood of protest letters, emergency hearings in the StateLegislature and criticism from three of the University's nine boardmembers. "More people have talked about the University of Missouri in thelast 30 days than in the last 30 years," said Dr. Wilbur Miller,Associate Dean of the College of Education, which would lose one-third of its $3.6 million budget under the proposal, jeopardizing manyof its undergraduate programs. Provost Ron Bunn has proposed abolishing two of theuniversity's 14 schools and colleges and sharply reducing theoperations of seven others over a period of three years. The moneyfreed by those actions could then be reallocated to the remainingprograms to improve faculty salaries and buy equipment forresearch. --The New York Times, May 30, 1982 It was June 1, 1982 and Ron Bunn, the Provost at the University of Missouri's Columbiacampus, faced several questions. He wondered how the administration's effort to developa long-range response to financial pressures had led to such a political maelstrom. Hewondered whether there was anything the administration could have done to prevent eventsfrom careening out of control. Most important, he wondered what, if anything, he could donow.---------------------------------------------------------------- This case was written by Jacqueline Stefkovich, Chris Harris, and Lee Bolman, for theInstitute for Educational Management, Harvard University, and is based in part on theresearch of Professor David Kuechle, Harvard Graduate School of Education. The case wasdeveloped for class discussion, and is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffectivehandling of an administrative situation. © 1986, Institute for Educational Management University of Missouri2 Nineteen eighty-two marked Ron Bunn's second year at the University of Missouri. Hewas new to the state, but not to higher education. Before coming to Missouri, he had beena full-time faculty member at the University of Texas and at Louisiana State University. Hewas a graduate dean at the University of Houston for seven years and Vice-President forAcademic Affairs at the State University of New York in Buffalo from 1976 to 1980. He haddirected long-range planning efforts at the last two institutions, but neither involved programreductions on the scale contemplated at Missouri. From the beginning of his tenure, Bunn was aware of the university's fiscal problems. Heknew from the outset that cuts in programs would be difficult, but he also wanted to help auniversity that he believed "was beginning to enter a period of protracted financial stress".He had been optimistic about his reallocation proposals. He felt they had the potential to saveseveral million dollars and to strengthen the programs that were most central to the missionof the university and most needed by the citizens of Missouri. The University of Missouri Founded in 1839 as the first state university west of the Mississippi and approved as aland-grant institution in 1870, the University of Missouri at Columbia is part of afour-campus system (the other sites are Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis). The University isgoverned by a Board of Curators whose nine members are appointed by the governor to servesix-year terms. State law requires that each curator come from a different Congressionaldistrict and that no more than five be members of one political party. Most of the curatorswere alumni who served on a part-time basis while maintaining full-time commitments inlaw, business, agriculture or other professions. In 1982, the membership of the boardincluded eight men and one woman who was also the only Black member. Reporting to the Curators was the President of the University and system-wide chiefexecutive, James Olson. Each of the four campuses was headed by a Chancellor. TheChancellor at Columbia, Barbara Uehling, was regarded as a strong and vocal advocate ofhigher education. Columbia, Missouri is a classic college town. The 90,000 residents include 25,000students at the Columbia campus. The streets carry names like College and University andthe 75,000- person football stadium dominates the southern edge of town. The university'steaching hospital is a major health facility for Columbia and central Missouri. The universityoperates half a dozen museums and galleries, and fields surrounding the town are sites foruniversity-based agricultural experiments. University of Missouri3 The local visitor's brochure proudly proclaims the institution as "one of the mostcomprehensive universities in the world", a university that "belongs to all Missourians". Beside the nation's oldest School of Journalism, the campus includes Colleges ofAgriculture, Arts and Sciences, (with twenty-five departments), Business and PublicAdministration, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Home Economics, Public andCommunity Services and Veterinary Medicine and professional schools of Law, Medicineand Health Related Services, Nursing, and Library and Informational Science. The University of Missouri system is the only public institution in the state to offer Ph.D.and professional degrees, and the Columbia campus, with its 100+ Ph.D. programs, confersmost of these. Administrators at the Columbia campus emphasize the important research inareas such as plant biochemistry and genetics, arthritic disease, hazardous waste managementand the effects of diet on cholesterol levels. Students and community emphasize the school'sexcellence in teaching. The university distributes an information brochure, stylishly dressed in the school's blackand gold colors, that sums up the institution's philosophy with these lines:There are few earthly things more splendid than auniversity. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values ,when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, whenevery future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold hasbecome something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, itstands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged onto full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs. --John Masefield Administration, faculty and staff are proud of the University. As the Dean for Communityand Public Service, a former mayor of Columbia, said, "I came to this university as a sopho-more in 1945 and have stayed ever since. I like it here." The Financial Context Missouri was operating on a narrow tax base and ranked next- to-last among the states inits per capita appropriations for higher education. In 1980, droughts had hampered the state's agricultural economy and national economictrends were hurting other major Missouri industries. The governor had withheld three percent University of Missouri4 of the higher education appropriations and announced a ten percent reduction for thefollowing year. The Hancock Amendment, an anti- tax bill, had recently been enacted via theinitiative process. Bunn doubted that the governor or Missouri citizens would, or could,support an increase in state taxes. James Buchholz, the University's Vice-President for Administrative Affairs, predicted thatreductions and inflation would cause the university to lose twenty percent of its operatingbudget during the 1981-1982 school year. Although endowments and research support madea significant contribution, they were designated for specific areas and contributed little tothe school's operating budget. Substantial increases in student tuition were planned, but these accounted for less thanthirty percent of the school's total operating budget. (Over sixty percent came from statesubsidies and most of the remainder from federal land-grant monies.) Over ninety percentof the students resided in state. (See Appendix A for budget information, and Appendix Bfor enrollment figures.) The university's commitment as a land-grant institution obliged it to maintain reasonabletuition rates for its residents. Administrators viewed massive tuition hikes as out of thequestion. To further compound the problems, the state of Missouri was not legallypermitted to deficit-spend. Bunn and Uehling both believed that the University of Missouri could maintain andimprove its status and capacities as a major university in the Midwest only if it could attractand retain talented faculty. The institution was already several percentage points behind theother Big Ten and Big Eight schools in its faculty salaries. (See Appendix C for thesecomparisons.) Offering competitive salaries was crucial to this effort. Bunn and Uehling saw a major dilemma. Either the university could spread broadly thedecline in resources throughout the campuses and hope for a better day, or it could take stepsto reduce its range of commitments so that existing strengths could be maintained andremaining programs strengthened. Both Bunn and Barbara Uehling believed that it wasessential for the Columbia campus to concentrate its resources on its strongest and mostsignificant programs. Uehling had frequently and publicly expressed concern over theUniversity's tendency to skim all programs across the board at the expense of those centralto the institution's mission.History of the Reallocation Process On November 21, 1980, a few months after Bunn was hired, the University's Board ofCurators adopted a revised academic plan for the 1975-1985 decade. It read: University of Missouri5 The University of Missouri cannot do everything. It is important toremember that the University is only one of the segments of publichigher education in Missouri and should maintain its historic role ofstrength in research, advanced graduate and professional programsand extension. The University should do well whatever it does. In August 1981, President Olson asked the chancellors to consider salary increments inlight of the state's withholding of ten percent of the university's funds. Uehling, describedby the press as a tough administrator, an iron fist in a velvet glove, assumed what sheconsidered to be a hard, but fair and reasonable stance. She responded to Olson's request: To plan for next year and beyond, we will be developing a processto identify entire programs that may be substantially reduced oreliminated, thereby supplanting our need to spread reductionsthroughout the campus. The early planning that we have done, at yoursuggestion, indicates a need to reduce our commitments by 10 to 20percent in the next three years. After years of expansion, a reductionof that magnitude will be very difficult to achieve. But we must doit. . . To paraphrase Philip Brooks who spoke of individuals: 'Greatnessafter all, in spite of its name, appears to be not so much a certain sizeas a quality in human lives. It may be present in lives whose range isvery small.' As this is true for human life, so is it true for education,with programs depending on their inherent quality rather than size.The success of this endeavor depends on the cooperation and goodjudgment of all. On the Columbia campus, some faculty feared Uehling's hard line, while othersfelt it was long overdue. A majority appeared to support her convictions, at least in principle.On November 19, 1981, the Faculty Council reaffirmed its long-standing "opposition toadditional budget cuts applied uniformly to all academic units". That same month, thecampus paper conducted a non-scientific opinion poll. It reported that eighty-seven percentof the faculty who responded answered "yes" to the question, "Would you be in favor ofdropping entire programs on the Columbia campus to preserve and strengthen others?" University of Missouri6 Throughout 1981, President Olson had referred to the University's financial difficulties ina number of speeches and public announcements. It was not a surprise when he addressedthe Curators on the subject at their December 16, 1981, meeting. As the planning processes in which we are now engaged moveforward, we will be bringing to you recommendations which emerge.The decisions you will be asked to make will be difficult, painful and,in some cases, controversial. We will need your help and support aswe move toward preparing the University to maintain program qualityand to address difficult decisions about the future. This is theapproach we are taking. If it does not meet with your generalapproval, we should know it now. Olson's address reminded the Curators of the financial difficulties facingthe university, but he gave only a series of general illustrations of the painfuldecisions they might be asked to make. The possibilities included: "limitenrollment in specific programs", "adjust admissions standards to better reflect theunique role of the University of Missouri", "combine programs within a campus oreven among campuses", " reduce the range of options for specialization in selecteddegree programs", and "discontinue entire degree programs and eliminate depart-ments or even schools and colleges". The Board approved this measure with little discussion and no formalaction. Only one Board member questioned the process. Everyone heard the speechand was given a copy. Whether all the Board Members understood the possibleramifications of their action was less clear. (The text of Olson's speech is inAppendix D.)The next week, the chancellors were asked to submit a list ofrecommendations for determining reductions or eliminations. The President woulduse the suggestions as a basis for establishing criteria for retrenchment. Because theprocess would involve changes in programs and faculty, the Board had to vote onthe final proposals at their annual budget meeting in July, 1982. As a result of thesestringent timelines, chancellors had three weeks to suggest criteria and six monthsto provide a plan for eliminations and reductions based on the criteria. Thecountdown began. . . . University of Missouri7 At the Columbia campus, Barbara Uehling was ahead of the game. Shehad spent the previous year encouraging President Olson to take action.Anticipating that some action would be mandated, she had, in October, 1981,appointed a sixteen-person committee to develop criteria to be used in the event thatcut- backs were needed. Uehling later described her perceptions in the following terms: The rationale and the data for the whole effort were supplied by thecampus Institutional Research and Planning Office, working with me.The model for the need to take these steps was based on some verybasic assumptions regarding needed revenue to reach Big 8/Big 10salaries and to meet inflation on the base budget in ensuing years.Projected revenues from the state fell short. The committee consisted of faculty, professional staff, two deans, and two students.Uehling selected the faculty members and students from panels nominated through theFaculty Council and Student Association, respectively. Each committee member was toconsult with the groups they represented. After Olson's December announcement, Bunn realized that programmatic decisionswould have to be made soon. Anticipating these moves, he discussed possible strategies attwo of his weekly meetings with Academic Deans. He also initiated a meeting with theexecutive committee (officers) of the Faculty Council. He proposed three possible ways toproceed. The first was to organize a committee, provide them with the criteria and necessaryinformation and let them make the decisions. The second was for an officer, possibly Bunn,to gather all the data and make the decisions. Third, the deans could suggest programs forelimination or reduction based on the criteria. Both groups suggested that Bunn should make the decision. Twelve of the fourteen deansfavored the approach. There was some hesitation among members of the Faculty Council,who felt that this should be a long, carefully planned process. But they concurred that thesecond option was the most feasible in light of time constraints. Bunn discussed his plan privately with several faculty members. These individuals werenot on the Faculty Council Executive Committee, but they were people whose opinion Bunnrespected. He felt "their achievements placed them in an especially good position to speakwith some authority about evaluating academic programs". They agreed with the others. University of Missouri8 "Even though I had some concerns about any single officer taking the initiative to identifythe programs," Bunn concluded, "in light of the time frame, and the willingness of the groupsconsulted, I finally advised the chancellor that I was prepared to do it, if she judged that Ishould." Chancellor Uehling approved this proposal, and asked each of her Vice-Chancellors(including development, student services and administrative services as well as academicaffairs) to follow the same procedure in developing tentative conclusions. (See Appendix Efor the administrative chart.) Uehling stated clearly that all final decisions were contingentupon her approval. Recommendations would be reviewed by an ad hoc committee appointedby the chancellor in each of the divisions. The ad hoc committees included representationfrom the faculty, staff, and students, although some faculty later criticized the committeesas unrepresentative of the diversity of the Columbia campus. By January 1982, the list of criteria was approved. It consisted of four categories, eachincluding ten to twelve questions. They were: a.) quality of the programs; b.) centrality ofthe programs to the mission of the campus; c.) cost-effectiveness and d.) demand and needfor the program. (The report of the criteria committee is in Appendix F.) Uehling and the criteria committee set the target reductions for the Columbia campus at$12 million or twelve percent of its state-provided budget. Savings would be redirected overa three- year period in the form of salaries, wages and operating budgets. With about seventypercent of the entire campus budget, Bunn was assigned reductions amounting to $7.5million. This was the largest dollar amount of the planned reductions, but it represented asmaller proportion of the total than the targets for the other divisions. Bunn's office had already compiled a substantial body of information. Becausecost-effectiveness reports were available, the quantitative evaluation seemed fairlystraight-forward. (Appendix G contains the data for each program, including teaching-student ratio, program costs, availability of the program at the other University campuses andat other institutions in the state.) Sorting out programs to determine if one was "of greater distinction" than another provedto be the more difficult task. As Bunn carefully considered each of the University's thirteenschools and colleges, he realized that all seemed to have legitimate arguments in their favor. The College of Agriculture had been awarded several large research grants and it wasmandated as an integral part of the federal land-grant legislation, for which it received federalfunding. University of Missouri9 The College of Arts and Sciences was already under severe financial restraints; its survivalwas crucial. It enjoyed the greatest student demand, and its offerings constituted fifty percentof the required courses for the Colleges of Business, Home Economics, Agriculture, Engi-neering, Education, and Public and Community Services. It was Columbia's most diverseprogram. It had a strong history of research and graduated more Ph.D.s than any other collegeon the campus or, for that matter, any public institution in Missouri. The School of Journalism was the oldest in the world and had a reputation for being oneof the best in the country. It had a thousand current students and a number of influentialalumni. This school ran a commercial television station and published a commercialnewspaper. Consequently, it was one of the most viable programs--and a politicalbombshell. The professional Schools of Medicine and Law had powerful constituencies and only oneother state public institution offered these programs. Although reduction of weaker medicalprograms to save stronger ones seemed advisable, Bunn approached these recommendationswith caution. The School of Library and Informational Science conducted little research and servedcomparatively few students, but it was the only program in the state and the Universitylibrary system relied upon the school's students and resources. In Bunn's assessment, the School of Nursing and the Colleges of Public and CommunityService and Home Economics were comparatively weak on most criteria, but served thelargest numbers of women and minorities. The College of Home Economics also offeredthe only such Ph.D. program in the state and was ranked among the best in the nation in anational survey. Bunn struggled with the decisions. He knew that the departments with the weakestresearch capabilities were also the youngest on campus. Established during the heyday of the1960s and early 1970s, they barely had time to establish a track record. Should he sacrificethem for older, more established programs? Bunn and his five-person staff spent the next four weeks--a time he later characterized asa "lonely month"--judging each program on the four criteria (quality of program, centralityof the mission, cost effectiveness and demand). The most difficult decisions revolved aroundprogram quality. He used a variety of methods to judge this aspect. These included:program reviews conducted by faculty committees, the most recent accreditation studies, andreputation studies that had been previously requested of the deans. Centrality was difficult to assess because the Columbia campus' mission statement wasbroad. It consisted of a few paragraphs referring to teaching, research and public service. University of Missouri10 Bunn developed an interpretation that emphasized three dimensions: intellectual andscholarly leadership; diversity of programs and students; and importance to the university'sidentity as a land-grant institution. (Bunn interpreted the last according to the original intentof the federal law, activities associated with agriculture.) Given the budget targets, Bunn felt clear that some programs would have to be eliminatedentirely. He felt that any other approach would result in across-the-board cuts or thecrippling of a significant number of programs. He estimated that a minimum of two collegeswould have to be completely eliminated with an additional six experiencing substantiallosses. Bunn created a five-point scale where he attempted to quantify his judgement, and ratedeach program on each of the four criteria. He double-weighted the criteria of quality andcentrality, and produced scores for the different schools and colleges that ranged from a lowof 15.5 for Public and Community Service to a high of 25.0 for Agriculture and Arts andSciences. (Exhibit 1 shows the rankings for the different schools.) Bunn developed a report that recommended closing two schools and making substantialcuts in six other programs with a projected saving of about $7 million. (The recommenda-tions are detailed in Exhibit 2.) Realizing that colleges marked for elimination and reduction included the largest numbersof female and minority staff and students, Bunn's office set aside funds for affirmative actionstrategies such as hiring in the remaining departments. He agreed with Uehling's premisethat women and minorities should enter fields that need their skills. The affected programs had powerful constituencies in the state. Bunn wondered if hisplan could sustain outside pressure. Would his definition of the University's mission and hisinterpretation of the data withstand scrutiny? Would faculty and students still supportselected cuts after the targeted programs were announced? On April 1, 1982, Bunn forwarded his suggestions and supporting data to the 17-member,ad hoc "Provost's Advisory Committee on Program Reductions". In his memorandum to thecommittee, he emphasized that his conclusions were "tentative" and asked the committee to"test your judgment against mine". He also emphasized the seriousness of the task: To the extent that my recommendations are accepted andimplemented, a number of faculty and staff will lose their positionsat UMC. Careers will be interrupted, relocations will be necessary,families will be distressed, and financial hardships will ensue.Though administrators are occasionally seen as being oblivious to University of Missouri11 these consequences, I have to record that I know of none on thiscampus who is untroubled by these prospects. Events of April and MayThe University of Missouri's flagship campus here,normally a place where the loudest outcries are the Saturdayafternoon cheers for "Mizzou" in the football stadium, is an unlikelysetting for such academic furor. "My advice to other universities," said Dr. David West, chairmanof Missouri's Faculty Council and a proponent of the reductions, "isthat you may think you are ready for this and everyone may agree inthe abstract, but all hell will break loose when you name the specifictargets for cutting." What the university's administration apparently did not foresee wasthe extent to which the various schools and colleges would fight toremain alive, taking their case directly to the Legislature and to theuniversity's board, which is appointed by the Governor. --The New York Times, May 30, 1982 When Bunn delivered his proposals for academic cuts on April 1, 1982, he viewed themas preliminary: they were to be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of administrators, facultyand students, and were subject to final approval by the Chancellor of the Columbia campus. The news of the Provost's recommendations traveled rapidly. His proposals and rankingsof individual programs were published in the campus newspaper. A firestorm began to build. What disturbed Bunn was that, in his view, key administrators and faculty in the affectedprograms largely ignored their opportunity to participate in the campus review process, andmoved instead to "get the word out to interest groups, alumni, professional groups and otherpublics that their programs were earmarked for reduction or elimination." Bunn felt therewas a failure to recognize that his proposals were only tentative, that alternatives would be University of Missouri12 considered, and that the basic purpose of the cuts was to secure the funds needed tostrengthen other programs at the Columbia campus. George Nickolaus, Dean of the College of Public and Community Service, saw itdifferently. His college was slated for extinction in Bunn's recommendations, and he washighly critical of the proposed changes. "Deans are supposed to be advocates for theirprograms," he said. " I couldn't sit back. Small schools and programs dealing with humanservices were attacked." Nickolaus believed that the issue was not "retrenchment", but anattempt to enhance faculty salaries when the state was in a recession and many Missourianswere out of work. He criticized the administration for not providing timely and accurateinformation. In particular, he noted that the administration was specific about cuts, but notabout where the redirected resources would go. His faculty united behind him. One faculty member gave Nickolaus a replica of a famousrevolutionary war flag depicting a snake and the legend "Don't Tread on Me". The dean of another school slated for a significant reduction had similar views. "I havealways been a team player, and I was never much of a feminist," said Bea Litherland, Deanof the College of Home Economics. "I thought that if you worked hard, you would berewarded. But when I realized that the targeted programs were those most affecting women,I knew that I had to take action." Students in her school began wearing red T-shirts with themessage, "H%@*! No; We Won't Go", shortly after Bunn proposed eliminating two of thecollege's five departments. In all of the affected programs, administrators and faculty sharply criticized Bunn'sprocess and attacked the validity of his conclusions. He was accused of using data thatwere unsystematic and out-of-date. He was reproached for making arbitrary decisions basedon his own personal vision of what the University ought to be. He was criticized for puttingtoo much emphasis on research and graduate education and for trying to create a "Harvardon the Hinkson" (Hinkson Creek runs past the campus). Engineers said that he was "anti-engineering". A professor of education condemned Bunnfor "a flagrant display of political expediency that would strangle the human servicesprofession." Supporters of the extension programs said that he was an outsider who did notreally understand Missouri and its people. Women and members of minority groups sawovertones of sexism and racism in his proposals.Bunn did not get all the blame. Uehling was sharply criticized and, on April 19,1982, the faculty passed a resolution urging Uehling either to clean up the mess or resign(the vote was 237 to 70 out of a possible 1500). Since only twenty percent of the facultyvoted, and this was the second time that they had voted in favor of her resignation (the first University of Missouri13 time had been the previous Fall when faculty were dissatisfied with their salary increments),Uehling minimized the significance of this expression of faculty sentiment. Many faculty rejected the assumption that there was a fiscal crisis, and argued thatthe university was in excellent financial condition. In the words of one faculty member,"Objective conditions did not mandate drastic reductions. This was an adminis-tration-induced crisis that was mismanaged." Faculty also complained that the Faculty Council was unrepresentative and hadfailed to keep them informed about the seriousness of the situation. There were complaintsthat the ad hoc advisory committee to study the proposed cuts was "stacked", so that it waslittle surprise when the committee came back with a report that was generally supportive ofBunn's recommendations. University administrators, members of the Board of Curators, and state legislatorsreceived hundreds of calls and thousands of letters. Both houses of the state legislaturescheduled hearings, and one legislator called Bunn to say, "Ron, I have two things to tell you.First, I think what you are doing is right. Second, I'm going to have to fight you on it."By May, 1982, four of the nine Curators had announced that they opposed thecuts, including three who had been silent six months earlier when President Olson addressedthem on the need for retrenchment. One curator said the faculty was there to teach and notto write books, so the problem could be solved by increasing teaching loads. Otherscriticized Uehling for being a poor administrator and not keeping the board informed. Thepress reported running battles between Uehling and at least one of the Board Members.Uehling felt that she was in a bind, because she had relied on President Olson, at his request,to communicate to the board. It was hard to defend herself without giving the appearancethat she was publicly criticizing her boss.Bunn and Uehling were troubled by the reactions and puzzled about what to do.Much of their time was spent in a frustrating effort to keep up with events which had movedbeyond their control. According to Bunn, "it soon became unmanageable for theadministration to respond to every report and every allegation transmitted through the media.The volume of work involved in such continuous responding was overwhelming, and theground shifted so rapidly that yesterday's response was not addressing today's allegation. Itwas like the remark attributed to Disraeli in the nineteenth century: "Every time the Britishhad an answer, the Irish changed the question." In addition to everything else, Uehling had to contend with a student occupationof her office, and the mysterious appearance of "For Sale" signs on her lawn. University of Missouri14 During the month of May, support for the administration and its recommendationssteadily deteriorated. Although President Olson maintained that he had kept the boardfully-informed, only two of the curators still supported cut-backs on June 1. One Curator ex-plained, "It is hard to ignore the stacks of anti- reallocation mail that we have received fromMissourians." One faculty member commented that even Barbara Uehling "began to distance herselffrom responsibility for Bunn's specific proposals. She continued to give the impression thatreductions would be necessary, yet it almost looked as if she was allowing Provost Bunn tohold the bag." Bunn felt that Uehling's difficulties with the Curators on one side and the faculty on theother made it very difficult for her to defend him. If anything, he said, she probably defendedhim "more than she should have". At a hearing before a standing committee of the state Senate, Uehling and Olson testifiedfirst, seated side-by-side. When Bunn's turn came, the committee chairman asked, "Are youalone?" Bunn replied, "Yes, but I am getting accustomed to the idea." Reflecting on the events of Spring, 1982, Bunn drew an analogy: It is recorded that upon losing the election in 1945, Churchill wastold by his wife, in an attempt to console him, that "perhaps the losswas a blessing in disguise". Churchill responded, "That may be, butI wish it weren't so well disguised." Retrenchment and reduction maybe blessings in disguise, but for most of us, they are painful business.It may be necessary. It is not fun. University of Missouri15 Exhibit 1: BUNN'S RATINGS OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMSCOLLEGE/SCHOOL QUALITY MISSION COST NEED TOTALAgriculture 3.5 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 5.0 25.0 = 7.0 = 10.0Arts and 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 5.0 25.0Science = 6.0 10Business & 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 4.0 4.0 24.0Public Admin. = 6.0 = 10.0Education 3.0 x 2 4.0 x 2 3.0 3.5 20.5 = 6 = 8Engineering 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5 = 6 = 10Home 3.5 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.5 3.5 20.0Economics = 7 = 7Journalism 5.0 x 2 3.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0 = 10 = 6Law 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.0 4.0 23.0 = 6 = 10Library/Info. 3.5 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.0 3.0 16.0Science = 7 = 4Medicine 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5 = 6 = 10 Nursing 3.0 x 2 3.5 x 2 2.0 5.0 20.0 = 6 = 7Public/Commu- 3.0 x 2 2.0 x 2 2.5 3.0 15.5nity Service = 6 = 4Veterinary 3.0 x 2 5.0 x 2 3.5 5.0 24.5Medicine = 6 = 10 University of Missouri16 (continued next page) Exhibit 1 (continued) KEY TO RATING SYSTEMQuality 5 = Nationally eminent 4 = Strong by National Standards 3 = Adequate by National Standards2 = Below Average by National Standards1 = Unacceptable QualityMission5 = Indispensable to Campus Mission4 = Highly consistent with Campus Mission -- Support Function Strong3 = Consistent - Moderate Support Function2 = Peripheral to Campus Mission1 = Inconsistent with Campus MissionCost5 = Highly Productive per Unit Cost/Investment4 = Better than Average Productivity3 = Productivity Average by Norms2 = Productivity Lower than Average1 = Productivity Much Lower than AverageNeed/Demand/Accessibility5 = Need Critical as Compared with Accessibility4 = Need Strong as Compared with Accessibility3 = Need Moderate as Compared with Accessibility2 = Need Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State1 = Need Very Weak as Compared with Accessibility in State University of Missouri17 Exhibit 2: BUNN'S RECOMMENDATIONSUNIT RECOMMENDED CUT PROCESS ACTION________________________________________________________________Library & Elimination $526,000 Three-year phase-outInformationScienceCollege of Elimination $1,100,000 Three-year phase-outPublic & (Possibly retain ($750,000)Community social work mas-Services ter's program)College of Reduction $1,200,000 Review school in con- Education junction with outside consultants. Phase re- ductions over 3 yearsExtension Reduction $1,000,000 Review by extension div-Division ision. Reduce during 1982-83.College of Reduction $525,000 Review by college. PhaseHome in reductions over threeEconomics years. College of Reduction $400,000 Review by college. PhaseEngineering in reductions over three years. College of Reduction $325,000 Review by college. PhaseMedicine in reductions over three years.General aca- Reduction $1,500,000 Review by provost in con-demic admin- sultation with deans andistration & directors. Phase in re-support ductions over three years.services TOTAL REALLOCATION $7,071,000 ($6,721,000 if social work master's program is retained) University of Missouri18 University of Missouri19 University of Missouri-ColumbiaCurrent Fund Revenues (in 1000's)GeneralOperating1978-791979-801980-811981-821982-83Tuition andFees Incidentalfees$15,104$16,057$18,078$20,547$24,878 Non-res.tuition$2,866$3,164$3,668$4,324$4,989 Supplementalfees$472$1,080$1,164$1,306$1,564 Ext. -Credit$1,904$2,436$1,604$1,638$1,859 Ext. -Noncredit$1,345$1,196$1,372 Other $359$292$127$135$100 Total$20,705$23,029$25,986$29,146$34,762FederalAppropriat. ColumbiaGeneral$195$195$195$35$35 Ag. Exp.Station$3,082$3,373$3,651$3,887$4,043 Coop. Ext.Service$1,417$1,929$2,061$1,659$2,036 Total$4,694$5,497$5,907$5,581$6,114StateAppropriation Regular$66,410$72,675$78,549$73,242$78,398 FICA$2,849$3,357$3,500$3,792$4,540 Total$69,259$76,032$82,049$77,034$82,938 University of Missouri20 Recovery ofI.C.$2,559$2,832$3,100$2,757$2,678EndowmentIncome$98$86$119$165$148Sales andService ColumbiaGeneral$579$591$142$182$97 Ag. Exp.Station$1,380$1,543$1,691$1,662$1,554 Total$1,959$2,134$1,833$1,844$1,651Other$612$835$571$569$817TOTAL GENERALOPERATING$99,886$110,445$119,565$117,096$129,108Designated andRestricted Tuition and$766$991$1,711$2,130$2,184 StateAppropriation$3,846$3,788$4,062$3,986$4,082 Grants andContracts$23,751$25,319$29,729$32,381$33,882 MPIP$9,076$10,721$12,147$15,490$17,957 Sales -Aux.Ent.$22,997$25,854$26,875$29,502$30,501 Other$5,266$6,613$7,533$8,143$9,125 Total Des.and Rest.$65,702$73,286$82,057$91,632$97,731GRAND TOTAL$165,588$183,731$201,622$208,728$226,839 University of Missouri21 University of Missouri-ColumbiaCurrent Fund Expenditures and Transfers (in $1,000s)1978-791979-801980-811981-821982-83Generaloperating Instruction$46,583$51,641$57,085$56,479$61,100 Research $11,123$12,177$14,544$14,104$15,187 PublicService$4,260$4,674$5,167$5,124$5,335 AcademicSupport$11,939$13,146$13,755$14,111$15,332 StudentServices$4,605$5,273$5,454$5,066$5,767 Inst.Support$7,657$8,651$9,861$8,948$9,594 Oper. andMaint. of Plant$9,691$10,411$10,823$11,093$10,728 Scholarships$847$1,171$1,085$1,126$1,359 Transfers $1,884$2,836$3,450$2,405$3,465TOTALGENERAL OP. $98,589$109,980$121,224$118,456$127,867Designated &Restricted Aux.Enterprises$22,271$26,100$28,404$29,664$33,382MPIP$8,490$9,851$11,219$15,400$16,129StudentActivities$732$775$822$941$905 University of Missouri22 Restricted(Grants, Contracts,etc.)$27,997$29,750$34,197$36,800$37,744Other$4,062$4,942$6,192$5,113$7,606TOTAL DESIG.& RESTR.$64,002$71,418$80,834$87,918$95,766Grand Total$162,591$181,398$202,058$206,374$223,633 University of Missouri23 Appendix B:Faculty Salary and Tuition Comparisons Among Big 8 and Big 10 Institutions (1981-82)AssistantProfessor AssociateProfessorFullProfessorAll RanksAveragesalary forBig 8/Big 10$28,764$34,502$44,460$37,663Averagesalary forMissouri-Columbia$26,760$31,979$38,948$32,870UMC Rank12th of 1713th of 1716th of 1717th of 17MissouriDeficit7%7%12%13% University of Missouri24 Appendix D:Report of the Criteria CommitteeREPORT OF THE CHANCELLOR'S CRITERIA SELECTION COMMITTEE October 9, 1981The University of Missouri-Columbia is a university in the traditional andacademic sense. It is charged with major program thrusts of a university in thehistoric tradition and assumed under the Land Grant mission of teaching,research, extension, and service. It is the principal public institution inMissouri for granting the Ph.D. degree and professional education.The University is an institution which serves the publicthat supports it activities and into which it sends human resourcesthat will fashion the future society. This mission is accomplishedby preserving the connection between knowledge and a zest for life,uniting the young with the old in any imaginative consideration oflearning. Youth is a time of imagination, energy, and vision whichcan be combined with facts and experience that enables eachgeneration to construct its intellectual image of a new world andset upon the path to attain it. The task of this community ofscholars is to use all available resources to weld togetherimagination and experience in classrooms, laboratories andlibraries; to provide new knowledge and new configurations of oldknowledge; and to acknowledge by commencement those young mindsdisciplined by facts and necessary habit.Financial resources proceeding from the State of Missourihave become limited by circumstances of revenue collection anddispersion. It is necessary to provide criteria to determine howthe University can maintain quality in its mission in thisconstrained financial setting. The criteria provided here aredrawn from individual experience. The criteria statements are set in a four dimensional matrix(see Appendix) of quality, utility, efficiency, and socio-politicalimpact. No single criteria in itself should determine thediscontinuation or reduction of a program. The order in whichthese criteria are applied (i.e. quality first) is important tomaintain the integrity of the academic community.The academic community is its students, faculty, and staffor it is nothing. In our current circumstances, budgetaryconsiderations become all consuming. It is, however, crucial that University of Missouri25 the budgetary decisions should conform to academic policy, notdetermine it.We propose that in evaluating every program or activity thefollowing criteria be applied:I.Does the program or activity significantly strengthen thequality of this university?A.To what extent does it provide a quality educationalexperience for its students? For example, -- How does its curriculum compare to that of leadinginstitutions in the field?-- Does it have the facilities necessary for success(for example, library, laboratories, computerservices)?-- Does it have national accreditation (in fields wherethis is applicable)?B. Does it have a critical mass of faculty members whoseresearch production, publication, and professionalaffiliations demonstrate national visibility andleadership?C.Do its programs in research, teaching, extension, andservice attract external support on a level appropriateto the field?D.Is its faculty broadly recruited from the leadingacademic departments in the field?E. Does it attract able students, as measured, forexample, by nationally normed examinations, winning ofnational prizes and fellowships, and achievements innational competitions?F.Does it produce high-quality graduates, as measured forexample by:-- admission to the leading postgraduate trainingprograms?-- performance on national and state certificationexaminations?-- achievement of distinction in later careers?II.Is the program or activity useful? University of Missouri26 A. What is its contribution to the teaching, research,extension, and service missions (i.e., its contributionto the "core" of UMC)?B. How important is it for other programs or activities onthe campus? For example,-- Does it provide courses needed for other degreeprograms?-- Does it contribute to the research effort needed forextension work?C.What do its enrollment projections and anticipatedemployment opportunities for its graduates indicateabout probable future need?D.What is the current and future need for theinstructional, scholarly, creative and extensionservices that it produces?E.Does it duplicate other UMC programs or activities? Canit be effectively consolidated with similar programs oractivities?F.What is the availability of the program on other campuses(public and private) in the state and region?G.Does it conform to the mission assigned to UMC in thesystem-wide academic plan?III.What are the costs and the revenue of the program or activity?A.Is it being operated efficiently? How do its costscompare to costs for programs with comparable missionsat other institutions as measured for example by:--ranked faculty/student ratios?-- unranked faculty/student ratios?--total teaching faculty/student ratios?-- costs per student credit hour?-- faculty/staff ratios?--other measures of efficiency appropriate forresearch, extension and services.B.What are the total costs of operating the program atvarious levels relative to its contribution toachievement of institutional missions? University of Missouri27 --costs at present level of operation?-- costs of improving quality or increasing scope orsize?-- magnitude and timing of savings that would berealized from reducing or eliminating the program?-- possible alternative assignments for the faculty,staff, and physical facilities presently invested inthe program?C.What are the present and potential levels of revenuegenerated by the program from:-- student fees and tuition?-- grants and contracts?-- gifts?-- auxiliary enterprises?IV.What is the socio-political impact of the program or activity?A.What do the several constituencies of the university(e.g. students, faculty, staff, the legislature, otherfunding and regulatory agencies, the general public andspecial interest groups) expect of the program oractivity? What will be their reaction if it is reducedor eliminated?B.What will be the impact on the university's policy ofaffirmative action if the program or activity isreduced or eliminated?C.What will be the impact on the local and state economy ifthe program or activity is reduced or eliminated?D.What contribution does the program or activity make tothe quality of life for the university community, thestate, the intuition, and the world. University of Missouri28 Appendix G:Cost-Effectiveness DataCost-Effectiveness of M. U. ProgramsComparison of Costs of Schools and CollegesCollegeFaculty/StudentRatioDollars/FTEStudentStu. FTEPer Fac.CreditHours Fall19811980-81Expenses (G. O.) DegreesAwarded Expense/DegreeAwardedAgriculture1:20$2,21919.617,996$11,220,668B-442M- 78D- 17$5,270Arts &Science1:18Composite figures notavailableBusiness &P. A.1:22$1,62528.822,422$3,091,308B-496M-166D- 8$3,554Education1:19$2,05321.020,754$3,771,247B-481M-324D- 89$3,357Engineer-ing1:12$3,78812.918754$5,686,628B-369M- 96D- 24$9,530HomeEconomics1:14$2,28216.08380$1,538,635B-217M- 20D- 2$5,493Journalism1:12$2,73314.68,991$2,031,548B-377M- 67D- 3$4,280 University of Missouri29 Law1:21$2,58122.56,504$1,397,563P-138$8,464LibraryScience1:7$4,27112.21313$526,162M- 44$8,270Medicine1:9$8,4699.213,537$8,434,134M- 34D- 6P-113$42,892Nursing1:5$5,8526.93,110$2,156,485B- 92M- 37$11,785PublicComm.Service1:11$3,48210.02,041$625,201B- 71M- 34$4,775Social Work$3,18011.81,984$485,893B- 48M- 37$5,206Vet. Medicine1:6$9,7617.05,697$4,193,177M- 7P- 72$45,556Forestry$3,47713.72,428$1,271,082B-101M- 20D- 5$4,468Health Rel.Prof.$3,73110.23,666$961,913B- 99$10,303