Further to the post on February 25th, here are more details on the 2011-2012 provincial budget.
As you undoubtedly know, the Alberta government recently tabled the provincial budget in the legislature. The good news for the University of Alberta is that there are no surprises. The zero per cent increase to our Campus Alberta Grant for 2011–12, as announced in the budget, was what the government told us to expect, and thus, is what we have been preparing for with the university’s budget. Unfortunately, the zero per cent will result in an actual decrease of at least two per cent across the academy because there is no allowance for inflation or other cost growth.
I want to take this opportunity to go over the specific aspects of the provincial budget that are salient for the university and outline any particular implications for the U of A.
Here are the budget highlights as they affect the university:
Lights On Funding
The province confirmed lights on funding for the Edmonton Clinic Health Academy and for the Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science at $9.8 million base, with an additional $2.2 million in soft funding (which will eventually be rolled into base). This provides us with funding as originally agreed to by the province when the decision to go ahead with both projects was made. This is particularly good news as we are now able to proceed with our scheduled occupancy plans for both of these important projects.
AHFMR Funding
The government, via Alberta Innovates, is providing $118 million over eight years for AHFMR transition funding. We will be communicating a great deal more about this, certainly to those affected by the changes. Over the eight years, the university will work toward securing an agreement for base funding on the positions affected by the AHFMR changes. The $118 million is directed funding to be used only for AHFMR transition.
Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
We received a small increase of $1 million in infrastructure maintenance funding for a total of $22 million for 2011–12. This funding, too, can only be used for its allotted purpose.
$20 million for Post-Secondary Sector
The budget makes available to the province’s entire post-secondary education sector $20 million in order to relieve enrolment pressures. The university was informed by the government that these funds will not be distributed until the fall and the monies will be allocated to all post-secondary institutions in Alberta. The intent of the funding is to relieve some of the pressure we are facing with our current unfunded students.
$5 million Campus Alberta Allocation
The U of A is developing an IT-related proposal and will submit it for consideration for funding from this $5 million funding pool.
Recruitment and Retention Allocation
The budget allocated another $6 million to be dispersed among the four universities in the province to be used for recruiting and retaining faculty. The universities’ presidents will work directly with the provincial government and the Alberta Innovates councils to determine how the funding will be most effectively spent. It is our understanding that there are specific spending limitations tied to this funding.
Access to the Future Fund
While indicating it remains strongly committed to the Access to the Future Fund, the government has suspended fund payments for the next two years. The University of Alberta has more than $110 million in donations awaiting matching monies from the fund and stopped accepting donations with a matching option almost two years ago. We are working with the deans to develop mitigation strategies and will be communicating with our donors about how the fund’s temporary suspension may affect their donations.
Fiscal challenges remain for both the province and the university. We appreciate the very difficult financial situation the province is navigating. And we believe the province is sincere in its commitment to post-secondary education in the province – Advanced Education and Technology was, for example, one of just three ministries without budget cuts, and our minister was able to fulfil all commitments. We will continue to meet with government and make the case that we need a minimum of four per cent increases in future years, along with additional, targeted funding if we are to meet our commitments to providing excellence in research, teaching and learning.
When we know what the specific implications are to the deans' and vice-presidents' budgets, we will communicate that to the university community.
Carl Amrhein
Provost, Vice President Academic
Is this just in case we didn't read it on Express News?
ReplyDeleteAt this point and time, Express News does not have a place where individuals can comment. The blog does. As such, we felt it was important to place here as well as on Express News. We're also trying to share news and information across a variety of platforms, including new social media platforms such as the blog, Twitter, and Facebook. People gather their information from many places now, and we want to be where the people are.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. A.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the money that was previously used to pay our Health Care premiums? Where is that money going now? Thanks in advance.
What happened to the money that was previously used to pay our Health Care premiums? Where is that money going now?
ReplyDeleteHere is the answer we received from the Office of the VP Finance & Administration:
All the payments went as a credit into the money controlled jointly by the employer and the employee groups through the Academic Benefits Management Committee and the Support Staff Benefits Management Committee. It enabled those committees to address needs in the plans or to provide a cushion for current benefit payments.
Thanks for the question!
I am posting to this thread because comments have been disallowed for the posts relating to contract negotiations, on grounds that the administration cannot respond to comments or questions while negotiations are ongoing.
ReplyDeleteMay I point out that you could instead allow comments while underlining that the administration will not respond to these on the blog while negotiations are ongoing.
Why not allow readers to offer their own perspectives? You might learn something important about perceptions and morale on campus, and would underline the spirit of openness that you have said underlies Colloquy.
Besides, it's not like you're responding to all of the comments and questions in the open threads!
In the meantime, those of us wanting to share our views about contract negotiations and to read others' will settle for doing so on http://whithertheuofa.blogspot.com/
Thanks. Why would the university need that money to "address needs in the plans" when those needs should have been budgeted for? And why should the University benefit from the interest earned by this "cushion" when the money could have gone to the people it had been set aside for originally (in the form of salaries). Why was that money not made available for salary increases?
ReplyDeleteBesides, it's not like you're responding to all of the comments and questions in the open threads!
ReplyDeleteWe continue to work away at old questions that need to be answered. We have in fact answered some over the past couple weeks, and will continue to plug away as best we can.
Thanks. Why would the university need that money to "address needs in the plans" when those needs should have been budgeted for? And why should the University benefit from the interest earned by this "cushion" when the money could have gone to the people it had been set aside for originally (in the form of salaries). Why was that money not made available for salary increases?
ReplyDeleteHere is the answer we received from the Office of the VP Finance & Administration:
The AHC dollars did in fact remain as part of the total compensation package for employees, because the amount formerly spent on health premiums was reallocated to different benefit needs. The question of interest doesn’t apply because there was not a dedicated amount held in account that could collect interest. Each year, careful planning goes into the benefits plan and both usage and increased costs are budgeted for (some are more difficult to predict, such as prescription drugs or dental costs) but can still go over the budgeted amount. All decisions pertaining to benefits allocation are determined by joint committees that have equal representation from AASUA and NASA. So, while the cost of paying for AHC benefits disappeared, the total compensation package for employees remained the same since the funds were simply reallocated in the benefits package.
If I understand you correctly, the B of G perceives that money is needed to cover other benefits. However, they already had the responsibility to cover those benefits under regular allocations., so that should open up $500.00 per employee per year that could be used to help cover salaries that are out of step with those at other universities.
ReplyDelete