Tuesday, October 14, 2008
In Praise of Boondoggles
As veterans of downcycles in the public sector can tell you, large-scale cuts are often done in an 'across the board' way. (“Every cc in the state will lose ten percent of its appropriation this year” -- that kind of thing.) That means that previous profligacy can actually save an institution, since there's fat to cut. It also means that previous frugality is punished, since the only way to sustain a serious reduction when the fat is already gone is to cut things that actually matter. Across-the-board cuts are made without reference to the spending habits of any given college, so an already-efficient college has nowhere easy to go.
Annoyingly enough, my predecessors seem to have been pretty good with budgets. What I wouldn't give for an “executive retreat” line item, or maybe an “annual vanity conference” appropriation. Those come in handy when times get tight, since you can cut them without giving up anything that really matters.
Capital projects often resemble boondoggles, but 'capital' and 'operating' budgets are typically kept separate, so savings from 'capital' won't save you if you need to cut 'operating.' There's also the unfortunate truth that once you've gone to a certain point in a construction project, it's actually cheaper just to finish it.
In a perfect world, of course, legislators would be savvy enough to know which colleges make a habit of spending money stupidly and which don't, and would distribute cuts accordingly. (Actually, in a perfect world, the concept of 'cuts' would be foreign and bizarre.) But that's not how these things play out. Typically we either get the flat percentage cut, or – and this can be worse – the percentage cut that also comes with rules (what we on campus call a “negatively funded mandate”). The rules are a gesture towards prudence, but since they're usually at least as blunt as the cuts, they wind up causing all manner of counterproductive response on the ground. I'd rather take a straight 10 percent cut than a 10 percent cut that also comes with a mandatory hiring freeze, for example, since some positions only have one person in them, and not-replacing is really not an option. In practice, we'd take a pretty strict line on hiring anyway, given a 10 percent cut, but it would be nice to be able to make those decisions according to actual need. (“Implement a 10 percent cut, but don't replace the auditor who just quit.” Alrighty then.)
The public image of higher ed doesn't help, either. The Harvards and Stanfords of the world dominate media coverage to such a degree that if you didn't know any better, you'd think that the major issue around higher ed finance is failure to spend enough endowment money. That's true of a remarkably small slice of higher ed – all of it private – but it doesn't help us rally the troops.
The lesson I'm picking up from all this is to be just a little less critical of Presidents who fund otherwise-inexplicable pet projects. When those horrible, thoughtless, across-the-board cuts arrive, it's good to have something relatively painless to sacrifice. Frugality in good times leads to brutality in bad. A little wastefulness in good times may actually serve a purpose.
But your example of negatively funded mandates, “implement a 10 percent cut, but don't replace the auditor who just quit,” really hit home. My institution, along with the rest of the state, last year was ordered to freeze hiring of "non-essential administrative personnel." I'm sure the thought was not to fill that executive VP of Boondoggle and Micklescarf, but the result was that every administrative loss had to be justified in terms of "essentialness." We need more people vetting undergraduate applications, which are rising so fast that decision letters are now sometimes lagging into June--but that, apparently, is not essential. We need more account managers to handle the external grants which, collectively, far outweigh the state's contribution to our annual budget--but they, too, appear to be non-essential.
Even in cases in which a position is deemed "essential," the appointment is often reduced by 30-50% on the grounds that not all of that "essential" position's duties are truly "essential." Consider that: you can hire someone to perform "essential" tasks, but they are not allowed to perform relevant supporting tasks because those tasks are not "essential."
Yes, you have been hired to drive, but no, you are not allowed to turn the steering wheel....
[kinda makes you wonder how the whole "offer a product that others are willing to pay for" would work in this case]
Unfortunately, in the case of education, no one can even agree on what "the product" is, much less what others would be willing to pay for it....
Take a look at a scaled version of our budget and see if you can figure out where to remove 1.0 from that 10.0 M$ budget. Not easy, yet it was done.
Where I disagree with your description of the problem (and with our college's response to ours) is when you write about "in a perfect world". Yeah, they should know, but why not educate them if they don't? What do you gain if you fail to point out that Profligate CC is wasting state resources while Frugal CC is managing them well? You gain nothing, and lose a lot.