An Unprecedented Challenge
McGill is facing the most serious financial challenge in its recent history. I wanted to use this space to provide our community with some background on how the University got here, why we think the situation is so serious, and to solicit your input on what we can do to address it.
One year ago, in February 2012, when we were planning our budget for this fiscal year (May 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013) and projecting it over a five year horizon, the Government of Quebec had promised increases in both government funding and tuition – increases that would be steady and regular over the period.
With the promise of these extra resources, we put initiatives in motion that cannot now be stopped in a matter of months, as the Government has asked us to do.
In September we were informed there would be no tuition increases, reducing by $6 million dollars the revenues we projected in the FY2013 budget. In December, just before the break, we were told that Quebec would cut 5.2% or over $19 million in funding for McGill this year. The government suggested that these cuts would persist into at least FY2015.
Nearly 75 percent of McGill’s core operating budget goes to salaries, and we have contracts, commitments to staff, and other expenses that cannot be reversed so suddenly. Costs other than salaries (such as energy, space, equipment, office and lab supplies) represent about only $160 million per year, and with most of the year over, most of that money is either already spent or committed to third parties.
The coup de grace came last week when the Government announced that if universities fail to make at least 50 percent of their imposed cut in this fiscal year (before April 30), we will also lose the “conditional grant”, or last installment, on this year’s transfers. For McGill that figure is approximately $32 million.
Some of you may remember, or have been told about, the drastic funding cuts of the mid-1990s – not a good time for the Quebec university system and not a pleasant time at McGill. However, at least then we had time to plan in order to reduce the impact of those cuts on our academic mission because the government of the day informed us they were coming and that they would last for five years.
But as you can see, the first cut (the tuition freeze) was announced 4 months into our fiscal year, and the second cut (the reduction in our operating grant) was announced nearly three-quarters of the way through our fiscal year. And the threat of holding back the last installment comes with only 90 days left in our fiscal year! Each week seems to bring new and worse news. VP Di Grappa in his blog lays out the interesting and disturbing chronology of policy reversals.
McGill has achieved and been able to maintain its position as one of the world’s top universities despite scarce financial resources, because we plan for the long-term and we execute on those plans. But these cuts, combined with reductions in provincially funded research and associated indirect cost recoveries, represent an unprecedented assault on McGill, and indeed on higher education in Quebec. We will do everything we can to protect McGill’s core mission of teaching, research and service to the community, but we face an extraordinary challenge.
We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend one of the Town Halls being held on February 11 and 12 to discuss the situation. We also welcome your comments online, which can be left below this blog post.
Follow the Red blog reader to be updated whenever a new post is made.
Follow What's New @ McGill on Twitter to stay up to date on the latest McGill news.
I attended one of the Town Hall meetings. It was made clear that cuts from several areas of the University budget must be proposed.
Since the bulk of the University operating budget is for salaries, from a purely economic point of view, the logical step is to make cuts here. There are a few options:
- a hiring freeze (i.e. don’t replace people who leave the University)
- layoffs
- a salary freeze
- a salary cut
Clearly, layoffs would be the least desirable option because it is the most disuptive and least likely to get any support from the McGill community.
A hiring freeze may seem less “painful” but can have strange ramifications. For example, what happens if one department or unit has 4 retirements in the next year and these people are not replaced? This unit could simply collapse. It is also possible that there would be no retirements in other units, meaning that some units would “bear the brunt” of a hiring freeze policy.
So that leaves the last two options: a salary freeze and/or a salary cut. An outright cut is not very palatable, but it would help the University (or help the Ministry of Education, depending on your point of view) meet its goals sooner. Also, one could argue that it would be better to swallow that bitter pill now and “get it over with”. The difficulty with a salary cut is that employees may have already made financial commitments (e.g. mortgage payments) based on their current salary.
So perhaps a salary freeze is the best bet (or maybe I should say the “least bad” bet: how’s that for NewSpeak?). But how many years of salary freeze would be needed? And would all employees be subject to a salary freeze? Or would this only apply to academics (being non-unionized)?
Anyway, that’s my two-cents worth.
Regards,
David Wees
I would take a 20 percent paycut and work four days a week if this would prevent my co-workers and myself from becoming unemployed. If the result of these budget cuts is shutting down or reducing certain University services on Fridays or Mondays, then so be it.
The government’s position is obscene and aims to bribe the student community in order to build a future voting block. This is at best a short term vision which will condemn the very country that the PQ wants to build to a future of academic mediocrity. From the various pieces of information available from the media, it is clear that the government’s mind is already made up. I suggest that interested parties read Lysiane Gagnon’s February 12th column in Cyberpresse (http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/lysiane-gagnon/201302/11/01-4620534-aux-recteurs-de-jouer-maintenant.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B13b_lysiane-gagnon_3265_section_POS1). University administrators must refrain from endorsing any sort of deal which will further weaken the quality of our excellent teaching institutions.
A comment was made at one of the Town Halls suggesting that it would be more strategic to make cuts that are perceivable to the entire community rather than those that may be less disruptive. I suggest that we lower office and classroom temperatures to 19 (even 18.5) degrees in the winter (similar compensating adjustment in the summer months) and suggest that the students/staff dress accordingly. While this may seem draconian (even ridiculous – A Modest Proposal), it is suggested in the spirit of a sacrifice felt by every sector of the McGill community and would probably save a lot of money (regardless of the budget that pays the expense). What it shows is that the McGill community is willing to sacrifice and it shows students that there are consequences to their actions of refusing fee hikes.
My suggestion would be to NOT accept these drastic cuts and fight this government in every possible democratic way, with demonstrations and support of other parties than the PQ. I would certainly not be willing to accept a salary cut for a government that has already in its first months raised taxes and doesn’t allow my children to go an English public school, although I pay taxes for it, as I pay taxes for the French school system with its high drop out rate and only one hour of English per week. And the money this government wants to save, goes to things not even 1/3 of the population is in favor of.
I work hard for McGill, its students and for Quebec and Canada, and don’t deserve a salary cut for it.
In a way the crazy, cynical, shabby, stupidity of the way the government has done this should help us speak to the wider public. If the government had waited for a new budgetary year, these cuts would still have been deeply unwise; as it is, they are also clearly incompetent in their cavalier disregard for any normal process. I recall people standing outside my office chanting “education is a right.” Where are they now, that their ideals have been so casually betrayed, to eviscerate the system that makes education possible? The way the government has proceeded has removed any normal duty of civility or restraint in the University’s response: I am glad the Provost and the Principal are speaking with blunt horror. As a whole community we should be looking for ways to take as dramatic a stance of resistance and non-compliance as we legally can. What colour square should we wear? At the same time we should be careful to maintain solidarity, ensuring that damage and burden are not distributed unequally or irreparably.
The situation is still changing. Today (13 February), I heard on Radio Canada that the Ministry of Education is now planning to allow universities to increase their deficit and some of that increased deficit would be paid back in a new budget year.
Given that this goverment has gone back on decisions (the latest, today, is the partial reinstatement of money cut for research), it makes it difficult to plan intelligently.
I think that before you ask your working class to to make sacrifices that would directly result in food being taken from their tables or homes to be foreclosed on. The well to do in the McGill should lead by example. Reduce their salaries to reflect the needs of the university. For the 10+ years I’ve been at McGill I’ve had my salary increased just over 25% while I’ve witnessed the very top of the McGill food chain get increases in the range of 200%. So while I sympathize with the universities government imposed challenges I do know where the cuts could be the most effective, and it’s not taking pennies away from pay check to pay check people. Skim the fat off the top. The argument that top salaries need to be paid to get top talent has been proven wrong time after time in recent studies. You would think that McGill administration would know that too since they teach it.
Cancel all “merit increases”.
Where does the 75% number come from? McGill’s financial statements say that non-student salaries are 473million, with another 104million in benefits. This is close to 50%. Clearly cuts have to come all over, but we should all ask for an explanation of these numbers before agreeing to a pay cut, layoffs, etc.
http://www.mcgill.ca/vpadmin/sites/mcgill.ca.vpadmin/files/742041-mcgill_university_audited_financial_statements_2012-final1.pdf
There are some many M’s, casuals and non essential academics (lecturers, associate academic directors) at McGill. You should lay off these employees.
We are being asked for suggestions, ideas, and proposals on the looming budget crisis. Thank you, Provost Masi for this opportunity.
As you turn over every stone to find ‘the right path’ to take, please don’t forget to look under that stone you stand on.
If one can imagine the Principal at top of the pyramid of senior administration, let’s look below.
There is a Provost. Then, a Deputy Provost and two Assistant Provosts, and then at least seven Vice-Principals. Many of these VP’s have Assistant or Associate VP’s to help them.
Under the Vice Principals, there are the Deans and many of the Deans now have Assistant or Associate Deans to help them.
Each senior administrator has large ‘offices’ with more senior administrators to help them. Please check out the links below for more details. For example,
http://www.mcgill.ca/provost/people
http://www.mcgill.ca/studentlifeandlearning/deputyprovost
http://www.mcgill.ca/about/administration
Each of these positions listed above has staff; some have so many staff that a position called Chief of Staff is needed just to supervise all the senior management work being done.
Underneath the Senior Administration there are about 1500 middle managers in the University to do “the heavy lifting”, carrying out the directives from above.
Now I’ve been here too long. I do remember David Johnston (I haven’t burnt all my brain cells, yet). Principal Johnston started with six Vice Principals but in the financial difficult 1980’s, when Dr. Yaffe (VP Administration) retired, he was not replaced and Mr John Armour, became VP Finance and Administration to save money. Principal Johnston worked for almost ten years with only 5 VP’s in his senior administration with one Associate VP (Sam Kingdon) before reaching the dean level.
During that time period I was President of MUNASA which ‘represented’ all non-unionized Non-Academic staff. About 2300 at the time, of which 1700 were C’s, T’s and L’s and there about 500 M’s (managers).
Today the 1700 have unionized (MUNACA) and now there are about 1500 managers. (if you hadn’t noticed that’s about 1000 more managers)
During Principal Johnston’s time there were not that many more students than there is now and McGill was highly regarded in the world.
And while there were complaints during that time, complaining about the McGill bureaucracy was not one.
There is more, but I’ll stop now. Hopefully, my point is made.
Yes, there will be cuts…but the butcher only cuts himself by accident.
If you have read this far, thank you for your attention.
allan youster
Ps. One wonders at what the new principal will be like…a leader with a hands on approach or someone who’s good a running a large bureaucracy, but never really gets in touch with our University.
I’m hoping for the best.
As a retired member of staff, permit me to fully associate with the remarks of Allan Youster. My memory goes back to Roch Robertson as Principal which pre-dates The current Governor General by some years. The Administration has become so top heavy it is falling under its own weight. To his Allan’s list let me draw attention to establishing the post of Student Life when we already had a Dean of Students ( no insult to Morton intended). The amoeba continues to divide quite unnecessarily, which at least to some degree is responsible for the bloating of the budget. A complete reassessment of the bureaucratic structure should be the starting point, with those on contract not renewed. In addition, and I may be wrong, the Principal has forbade senior administrators from teaching. In a self-governing institution these folks should come from the teaching staff and continue to teach at least one course per academic year. When Sam Freedman was VP Academic & Bob Vogel was Dean of Arts each continued to remain engaged, Sam with his ckinic at the Hospital and Bob his course on the History of War. How many positions across the University would this absence from the classroom of Senior Administrators add up to? Before touching a no longer existing penny from either the teaching or support staff a comprehensive realignment of the Administration is called for.