Stanford Daily Op-Ed: Community center budget cuts unavoidable by Greg Boardman, Vice Provost for Student Affairs at Stanford University May 21, 2009
During my five-year tenure at Stanford, I have had the pleasure of working with all the community centers and have developed a deep appreciation for the benefits they provide our students. They are an important presence on campus for both undergraduates and graduates who are preparing to become leaders in a global society. Lately, a group of concerned students has raised questions about the recent budget process and its impact on the community centers in particular. I would like to take this opportunity to address those concerns, as well as some of the misinformation that has been circulating which has left much of the campus community with an inaccurate impression of events and discussions. I think it’s fair to assume that we’re all familiar with the continuing global, national and local economic situation that has produced an unprecedented decline in the university’s endowment, a decline that we estimate is 30 percent. By necessity, offices and departments throughout campus were required to reduce their budgets dramatically and the Student Affairs division had to reduce its general funds operating budget by $3 million for Fiscal Year 2010. To achieve a reduction of this magnitude, the VPSA Budget Group and I spent months evaluating the division’s finances, discussing possible options for curtailing expenses, talking with student affairs program and unit directors, and rehashing numbers and alternatives. During this period I personally communicated with the ASSU leadership and other students to help inform the ultimate decisions which shaped our budget reductions. Throughout the process, the VPSA Budget Group relied on several criteria to insure consistency in its considerations. We felt that core services to students should be protected from budget reductions as much as possible and priority should be given to programs and services that focus on student health, safety and well-being, compliance obligations and risk management, and academic success. Moreover, we knew that budget cuts would have to be sustainable and would not necessarily be uniform across the division. Since the VPSA budget consists primarily of staff salaries, we had few options for reducing expenses that did not involve reducing salaries or laying off people. Reductions to the community center budgets were typically less than those of other Student Affairs units. In total, 25% of VPSA staff is affected, some with a reduced summer schedule beginning in July 2010. This includes the staff of the community centers. Since most Stanford undergraduates are not on campus during summer, we believe that a staff reduction to 50% time in July and August will have the least negative impact on direct services to students. Of the 13 full-time staff members in the community centers, none were laid off. When we focus on the Student Affairs budget, it is important to keep in mind that all sectors of the university, and many valuable programs just like the community centers, have been affected.
In Student Affairs, beyond the community centers, there were significant budget cuts related to the Registrar’s Office, Career Development Center, Haas Center, Bechtel International Center, Office of Accessible Education, Student Life, Residential Education and Vaden Health Center. At the university level all staff salaries have been frozen and it is my understanding that there will be more than 350 layoffs with approximately the same number of staff reduced from fulltime to part-time status. Dozens of university administrators have taken voluntary pay cuts. At the same time, the university stands by its commitment to provide an extraordinary level of financial aid, virtually unmatched in the country. The financial aid budget, for both undergraduates and graduate students, is the one part of Stanford’s budget that has been protected from cuts. In fact, financial aid will increase substantially due to the heightened need of our students and their families. In this time of declining resources the university believes that its financial aid program remains a top priority in assuring a broad and inclusive student body. I have heard comments about the budget process not being transparent. Frankly, students should understand that budgeting is a management and financial tool internal to the operation of all fiscally responsible organizations. Decisions are often based on complicated and interrelated factors that managers must weigh in light of their obligation to the organization as a whole and its future well being. Some information and decisions, by necessity, are confidential. In many cases decisions regarding personnel cannot be disclosed. Knowing that students would be interested, I have deliberately shared as many details as possible in a number of venues. In addition to meetings with the ASSU leadership and leaders of the concerned student group, I have responded directly to over 300 e-mails which I received. The ASSU also held town hall meetings to engage and inform students. I appreciate all the feedback and acknowledge the passion and commitment that students continue to demonstrate in support of the community centers at Stanford. The reductions to the community centers’ budgets were unavoidable and do not reflect a lack of commitment to or appreciation of their significance on campus; they reflect the reality of an extremely difficult financial situation.