I don't know if we have any members from the great state of Alaska but maybe there's some background info re this decision https://www.kcaw.org/2019/07/03/uas-braces-for-budget-cuts-distance-learning-at-risk/
brain drain https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alaska-fears-brain-drain-after-41-percent-proposed-cut-university-n1026466
It looks like it's all going to happen https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-13/alaska-lawmakers-fail-to-override-unprecedented-university-cuts
The whole UA system is in trouble https://www.ktva.com/story/41121214/ua-system-receives-warning-letter-from-accrediting-agency
There needs to be a re-organization; the vast infrastructure is riddled with issues related to how vast AK is and how spread out people are. People don't want to leave their "local" area to go to school so over time they created many campuses, all requiring their own administration/instructors/money, instead of centralizing.
This is just a bunch of "educators" shrieking. (If you even look at an "educator" in a way they don't like, they shriek. The world's most pampered profession.) Here's the U of Alaska's proposed 2020 budget request: https://www.alaska.edu/swbudget/files/Approved_Budget/FY20-Proposed-Operating-Budget-Request---Revised.pdf They were proposing to spend $917, 918,500 in FY 2020. This is an increase of $29,370,700 over the FY 2019 operating budget. In FY 2019, the UofA operating budget was $888 million, consisting of $327 million from state general funds and $561 million from other sources (federal, research grants, sales of services etc.) The actual FY 2020 cut in state general fund appropriations is $25 million beneath 2019 general fund appropriations. Far from the apocalypse in the "news" (actually propaganda) stories, that's a 2.8% reduction in the total operating budget. But the state still plans $45 million in additional state finding cuts in coming years ($25 million next year, $20 million the year after that. Added to the $25 million this year, and it's $70 million total when all the cuts are put through. https://gov.alaska.gov/newsroom/2019/08/13/university-of-alaska-and-governor-dunleavy-reach-budget-agreement/ https://gov.alaska.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/8.13.19-UA-SOA-Compact.pdf Bottom line: The UofA allotment from State general funds is going down from $327 million in 2019 to $257 million in 2022. That's a 21% reduction. But if non-state-revenues hold at the 2019 level, the total university operating budget will only shrink from $888.5 million in 2019 to $818.5 million in 2020. That's less than an 8% reduction. Considering that a majority of the university operating budget goes to pay and benefits, pay/benefit cuts (say 15%) and/or staff reductions could easily absorb that 8%. (And still leave the UofA paying much better than the typical Alaska salary.) The UofA's hugely bloated administrative structure could easily stand some trimming. Some might start shrieking about a "brain drain", but if many of the cosseted current professors choose to leave, the U. of Alaska would have lots of good professorial jobs open (at perhaps 85% of the current plush salaries). (Still very nice in other words.) And given the difficulty many newly minted PhDs have finding tenure-track positions, many young PhDs would probably leap at the chance to work at the U. of Alaska. The U. of Alaska might even gain a reputation as a place where bright and promising young academics on their way up go to make names for themselves. These are the kind of ambitious people who publish a lot and produce many new ideas. So the U. of Alaska's research profile might actually rise. I don't see the university as having any lack of job applicants. There might be more churn and turnover though.
Curious, why the disdain for educators or the profession? Who on earth would accept a 15% cut in pay or benefits? If they’re heavy in administration, which is not uncommon, that is more of a reflection on their board of trustees and the structure of the board. For what it’s worth, I know of many colleges and universities hat have struggled to find applicants for engineering and technology faculty positions. Churn or turnover are also incredibly costly, and are some of the surest ways to kill an organization. Any reorg plan that leans heavily towards that, is precarious at best.
The irony is that the argument that an educational system will necessarily improve if it replaces experienced faculty members with cheaper inexperienced ones is usually the sort that only an administrator would love.
When the current Alaska Governor took office, Alaska faced a $1.6 billion budget deficit. (Based apparently on previous administrations basing future budgets and expenditures on anticipated high oil prices, which turned out to be lower than anticipated.) It's a big deficit in a state with an estimated population of 735,000. (My California county is bigger.) Total 2019 Alaska State expenditures were only $10.272 billion, of which some $4 billion came from the Federal government, and much of the rest was restricted funds which could only be spent for specified purposes. The 2019 General Fund expenditures were $5.490 billion. So to bring state expenditures in line with revenues, $1.6 billion had to be cut. Many parts of the Alaska state government were trimmed back, triaged according to how essential the services were. (In a state with a geography like Alaska's, some services are vital to the survival of remote communities.) But the University of Alaska (its unions, probably) has really good connections to the media it looks like, and soon scare-stories were circulating about how the UofA supposedly faced a 40% budget cut. Except first off, the cuts are simply to the university's general fund appropriation which in 2019 represented $327 million out of a total $888 million in university revenues. And second, even after the cuts all come into effect over three years, they will only total $70 million, representing a 21% cut in general fund appropriations. If non-state revenues hold steady, the total loss to University of Alaska revenues will only be 8% from 2019 levels. (Not 40%.) Less if the university manages to find other sources of revenue, selling services, making better use of its extensive lands and so on. That's the difference between a near fatal body-blow to the university, which is how the media seemed to be trying to portray it, and the kind of smaller top-line miss that normal businesses face and have to deal with all the time. Since the majority of U. of Alaska spending goes to salaries and benefits, cuts are going to mean losses to employees. That might indeed take the form of layoffs. But layoffs might not even be necessary if everyone was willing to take a 15% pay and benefit cut. That was simply my idea, I don't think that anything like that has actually been proposed. I think that it would be a good humanitarian gesture by university faculty and staff to help their fellows keep their jobs who might otherwise be let go.
Are you from Alaska? Why is there a deficit? With how Dunleavy campaigned, did anyone not doubt a deficit would appear? May be a personal opinion, but I think that I would rather have an organization face a lay-off than to ask for a 15% kick back from my top performers. I’ve kicked a contract back to HR before, with a solid no.
In fairness, none of that refutes what heirophant said. Agreed. Done right, it could be handled by encouraging early retirement, etc., rather than involuntary separations. Morale matters in organizations, and cutting compensation would seem to be the most demoralizing option.
Wasn't intended as an argument. Hope it did not come across as such. I'm simply bewildered at the process of how that turn of events have unfolded.
