On Thursday, February 6, a large group of faculty, academic professionals, graduate employees, and staff (and administrators) attended the first of three information sessions scheduled, sponsored, and hosted by Kevin Reynolds, the VP of Finance and Administration, and Steve Percy, the Interim President of PSU.
The agenda for the forum was disappointing: a presentation of PSU budget projections, with no room for questions, followed by staged “small group” exercises to give feedback on how to continue running the university under significant budget cuts, on the premise that their revenue and enrollment projections into the distant future are reasonable. They are not.
Faculty and staff in attendance forced a change to the agenda, and, after a PowerPoint look into Kevin Reynolds’ and staff’s budget and enrollment crystal ball, an open conversation ensued which abounded in criticisms of, and fundamentally questioned their work. Here is a partial list of those concerns expressed:
-
Why are your enrollment forecasts so out of sync with the best data available about enrollment projections by reputable sources?
-
Why should one believe your revenue forecasts, if you have been consistently wrong for the last 6 years?
-
Why can’t you give us the data?
-
Why can’t you share the models?
-
Why do you say salaries of those who work here are “the culprit” when those who work here are PSU?
In response to the last question, President Percy recognized the choice of language was not the best, and asked to walk it back. The PSU administration team did not have persuasive answers to any of the other questions, but President Percy, looking to Kevin Reynolds, indicated that the administration will “produce a white paper” to answer all the questions raised before the next scheduled budget forum, Wednesday, February 26, 9-11am, in SMSU 238.
We look forward to getting acceptable answers to the unanswered questions about the “mystery box” underlying what otherwise looks like fanciful forecasting of revenue and enrollment meant to paint an unwarranted and dire picture. PSU management is currently in bargaining with PSU-AAUP, and soon will also be bargaining with PSUFA, the union of part-time faculty. One cannot but suspect part of the reason to manufacture a climate of budget pessimism has to do with (1) a management tactic aimed at bargaining, and (2) setting the ground for a new round of tuition increases.
Here, in a nutshell, is the reason we question the PSU Administration’s crystal ball.
Smoke and Mirrors, Scene 1: PSU Administration’s Revenue “Forecasting”
Using publicly available PSU data, we have been publicizing for much of the academic year that PSU’s annual revenue forecasts have been off — way off — the last 6 years. Off by almost 52 million. These revenue forecasts are contained in the approved budget for the beginning of each fiscal year (these approved budgets are planning documents, not actual). PSU Administration has not responded directly to this, but their non-response is telling. As PSU-AAUP has been sharing with the campus community actual data, the PSU Administration ignores that, and floods us with fictional forecasts, and is trying hard to make us believe projections are as good as data.
If PSU Administration is so bad at predicting revenue for the next twelve months, what stock can one put on its predictions through the next 5-6 years contained in the recent budget forum presentations? PSU Administration is not only consistently wrong, but also chronically “budget pessimistic” — predicting revenue shortfalls that don’t materialize.
The excess revenue above their forecast at the end of FY 2019 (17 million) itself exceeds the amount of the current PSU Administration’s forecasted “revenue shortfall” for FY 2020. This raises many questions, but at the very least we might start by asking: Where did those 17 million go? Why are you not using them instead of asking units to cut their spending in FY2020?
Smoke and Mirrors, Scene 2: Enrollment “Forecasting”
Their mysterious crystal ball for enrollment “forecasting” is the other half of the PSU Administration’s sky-is-falling fear-mongering.
Using the best available public data, we leave you with two observations, and let you reach the conclusions:
-
Enrollment declined slightly, but steadily, between 2012-19. Nonetheless, in those years slight enrollment decline went hand-in-hand with steady revenue increase.
-
As we examine the forecasts by the National Center for Education statistics, the premier government source of education data, we learn that enrollment for four-year public universities has leveled off, and is expected to increase slowly, but steadily, over the next few years.
It would indeed have to be a mysterious revenue-projection model that translates the 2012-2019 increases in revenue with declines in enrollment, into predictions of catastrophic declines in revenue in spite of slow rises in enrollment in the next few years. Hence our pointed, unanswered question to PSU Administration at the February 6 Budget Forum: how are you creating your enrollment-forecast sausage? It doesn’t smell right.
Another budget Forum is scheduled for Wednesday Feb 26, 9-11 in 238 SMSU. Come out and demand answers from the administration.