KFA Update on March 5th 2019 Proposed University Budget

To all KFA Members,       

This is to update you on the March 5^th revisions to the proposed University budget.

While there has been a shift in the budget proposal, we still view this proposed budget as unfair and imbalanced. It includes disproportionate faculty cuts at the same time administrative salary growth is occurring. Furthermore, this proposed budget reflects a set of values and a way of looking at and making changes to public postsecondary education that we are not convinced are shared with the faculty body or with the broader public. That is, it reflects a view of offerings that advantages more lucrative offerings at the expense of less lucrative offerings. It also reflects direct change in program offerings made without consultation with the affected faculty and other stakeholders through the established institutional policies and practices that are supposed to guide program review and program change.            

Shifts in the Proposed Budget

First, we should look at a summary of the changes from the first proposed budget to the current proposed budget (less ‘Central’ which we have been informed is essentially a holding account.)

Please note that the largest single area of change to the faculty salary cuts is the removal of most of the cut in ACA. As noted in the President’s communication of last Friday, the cuts in ACA have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the GV9 task force report. However, there are currently 16 faculty members in the ELS department on layoff notice. Thus, there will be a substantial real decreases in ACA despite the change in this budget proposal. We would argue that the low enrollments in that area have been caused by the Employer’s shifts in international student enrollment strategy, and what could be viewed as a deliberate cancellation of international student enrollments into ELS.

Administrative Growth

Despite a reduction in faculty and reduction in sections overall in the institution, there is still a proposed increase in administrative salary.

As the tables above show, administration salary overall is in a pattern of substantial growth, as indicated in the year over year increases.

It’s worth noting that faculty salary overall has increased by only 12.3% in the same period, and that all increases due to collectively agreed salary increases are fully funded. That is, the provincial government gives the institution additional funds to cover all collectively agreed increases. Administrative salary growth is not funded. That is, administrative salary growth comes directly out of the institutional budget, without additional funds to cover it.

One has to question the timing of this increase in administrative salary at a time when we are being led to believe that we must be fiscally prudent, and that we must reduce the overall sections in the institution by 8% over five years. All of the cost savings appear to be coming at the expense of one group, faculty.

And as we can see in the table above, there are increases in administrative salary across all the academic and student support faculty areas except in ACA, while the cuts to faculty, before considering the additions, total $-776,900. If we are going to be reducing sections by 2.2%, then why do we need to increase administrators’ salary within these areas? This, likewise, seems disproportionate. (NB: Increases to faculty salary in Governance and Teaching & Learning are time releases.)

Profit Before Programs

Not only are changes in faculty versus administrative salary disproportionate, but the way cuts have been made reflects a view of offerings that advantages more lucrative offerings at the expense of less lucrative offerings.

A budget reflects a projected set of activities, and it also reflects the values of those making the budget. In the case of this budget, there is a disconnect between the values and goals set out in Vision 2023 and the changes put in place by this budget. This budget makes Kwantlen Polytechnic University less comprehensive, and it removes unique programming. And it would appear most of these changes are being made on the basis of profitability.

Almost all of the programs targeted for change, (ACA; Fashion Design; Foundations of Design; Health Unit Coordinator; Music; Farrier; section cuts across most of Science and Horticulture) are offerings that have higher costs for program delivery. These higher costs are around such program features as lower class sizes, costs associated with labs, and so on. We also suggest that much of the increases in faculty salary seen in the School of Business are most likely due to the need to fill 3 Civic Plaza with cost recovery programs.                                        

Policy and Process Not Followed

We have institutional policies and processes that are supposed to guide change, yet they are not being used to guide these changes. Program review—which faculty members spend countless hours completing—is the institutional means, under University Policy AC3, for evaluating programs and making choices about how they function. University Policy GV9 contains the Policy and Processes that should guide changes made to Faculties. University Policy AC10 contains the Policy and Processes that should guide changes made to programs.

Yet, these institutionally mandated policies and practices are not being used to make decisions about what will or will not be part of the University. Why not? We have yet to receive an answer to that question.

Permanent Cuts?

And just as there has been a lack of process and a lack of transparency in the changes being made, there also appears to be a lack of honesty about the nature of the changes. Program and section reductions or suspensions made now seem unlikely to be restored anytime soon, given that the institution is proposing to make another 6% reduction in section offerings over the next four years. Where would the funding come from to restore the programs cut or suspended now? How would it be at all possible to restore them? There is no reason to suppose these are not permanent cuts. Yet they are not being framed this way.

Call for Further Revisions

It is time to step back from the set of actions embodied in this proposed budget, and take a better look, openly and consultatively, at what kind of changes we as a whole community, working collaboratively together, may want to make in the institution, including discussion around why such dramatic administrative growth is required at a time when the people with power to make financial decisions in the institution, administrators, are saying we need to exercise fiscal restraint.

The Union is continuing to do all we can to advocate with the Employer on behalf of faculty members. We continue to have discussions and seek to advance the well-being of all faculty members.

At the same time, advocacy and strong communication are needed from all of us, if we want to change this situation. The next Board meeting, March 27th, will see a debate and a decision made on the budget proposals.

We call upon all faculty members to speak up. Speak to your Senators and show up at the next meeting of Senate (March 25^th).  Show up at the next meeting of the Board, March 27^th. Write to the KPU President, Vice President Academic, and Vice President Finance. Write to the Minister of Advanced Education.  Write to KPU Board members. Express your concerns about the direction illustrated by this proposed budget, the lack of adherence to University Policy and Processes, and the troubling rise in administrative salary spending at a time when faculty in multiple areas are being targeted for cuts. We all must participate if we want to see this changed.

In solidarity,

Your KFA Table Officers

Bob Davis

Diane Walsh

Raphael Lagoutin

Suzanne Pearce

Romy Kozak