From: Gross, Louis J Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 2:13 PM To: Daves, Phillip R Cc: Gross, Louis J Subject: Re: questions about BAM Phillip, Thanks a lot for carefully considering our conversation and writing it all so eloquently. It captures very well what we discussed. I’d be happy to discuss these matters further with Steve or anyone else. I have only one suggested addition regarding The Land Grabs section. I suggest adding: One possible solution to concerns over this is to rely on processes already in place through the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils. These already have responsibility for considering all curricular and course changes, and they require a budgetary impact statement for any change. Building a separate process would duplicate effort. It does add to the burden of these Councils, might require a representative of the Councils be appointed to some of the other BAM committees, and may benefit from addition to the Councils of someone with explicit knowledge of the BAM. Finally, I am hesitant to ask given all the work you have put into the BAM process, but I wonder if you would consider co-chairing the Senate Budget and Planning Committee with Tamah this year. Ken Baker has stepped off the Committee and this is a critical year for the budget process. Tamah has been great at getting regular minutes done, the salary analysis completed and meetings scheduled. I think the Senate would be well-served though by having a tenured faculty member as a co-leader of this Committee. You are an ideal person to help the Senate in this role, and I assume that the BAM Steering Committee effort, if it continues, would benefit from having a leader of the B&P Committee involved. Can I count on you? Stay well, Lou -- Louis J. Gross (he, him, his) Chancellor’s Professor and Alvin and Sally Beaman Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Mathematics Director Emeritus, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS.org) Director, The Institute for Environmental Modeling University of Tennessee - Knoxville President, 2006-2007, 2021-2022, UTK Faculty Senate Past-President, 2003-2005, Society for Mathematical Biology http://lgross.utk.edu/ From: "Daves, Phillip R" Date: Monday, June 21, 2021 at 11:56 AM To: "Gross, Louis J" Subject: questions about BAM Lou I’ve asked to talk with Steve Mangum about the concerns you brought up to see where we need to go to address them. Here’s what I’ve written so far so I’ll know I’ve correctly identified your concerns. We can have a larger meeting with you and in person but I think Steve has a lot of good sense and I’d like to start here. Would you add anything I missed from our conversation? And also, if I’ve misconstrued your concerns, then correct them? Thanks! Phillip Preliminary note: We’ve for the most part assumed goodwill on the part of everyone involved in the budgeting process—making tough decisions in good faith with input from those involved and with the overall best interests of the University in mind. But in real organizations, decisions are sometimes petty, sometimes ill-informed, sometimes biased, and sometimes just wrong. Lou Gross recommends, and I agree, that we should have processes in place to deal with and correct decisions that aren’t ideal. Appeal process The EBC has a lot of budgetary power. With all budgeting approval going through them it would be easier than in the past for a college or a department or even an individual researcher on the “outs” with some of them to have their funding shut down. Especially for a college that is in subvention. This is easier than under the past incremental budget process since the default isn’t as strongly biased towards a continuation budget as in the prior budgeting process. There should be a system in place to adjudicate and remedy arbitrary or discriminatory budgetary decisions by the EBC. This could look like some sort of budgetary appeal process. It isn’t clear either to me what this appeal process should look like. Perhaps a formal way to appeal back to the EBC for reconsideration given more information? Perhaps a non-binding review by a separate committee? Given the ultimate budgetary responsibility is with the Chancellor, it seems to me that any review would have to be non-binding. Faculty are similarly concerned with internal college budgetary decisions. We haven’t discussed internal college governance issues at all and it seems to me likely that internal allocation decisions will give rise to complaints and the need for a mechanism for redress or appeal within colleges. The appeal process established should also be able to accommodate complaints about equity/fairness in budgetary decisions. Interdisciplinary programs Lou would like a recommendation for a specific process to propose interdisciplinary centers. He argues that previously successful centers, for example, NIMBIOS, with multiple faculty lines across different colleges can’t be started—or proposed successfully—if the individual researchers have to “wrangle” multiple deans to get funding and staffing agreements. I explained about the SIF, but given these require multi-year funding, it isn’t clear how a 5-year funding plan that requires commitments across colleges could be designed for a proposal on a short fuse. It seems to me a description of how such a grant proposal might be realistically constructed would be helpful. And if there’s no realistic way that such a proposal could be developed, then perhaps we need a larger central SIF role. How would something like the Baker Center or One Health be proposed and funded under this model? Equity in raises/salaries How are raises determined? My assumption is they will be determined at the college level. Is that correct? If at the college level and funded by internally generated funds, then how is cross-college fairness achieved? Some units could go years without a raise and other units get raises every year. Diversity in hiring How will university-wide pushes to increase diversity in hiring be pushed down to the colleges? Land grabs A land grab is a college moving a course that was previously delivered outside the college inside to capture the credit hours. Statistics is a good example. Also, a department offering a course outside of its subject area to capture credit hours. For example, the finance department offering large online sections of Western Civilizations. We’ve discussed land grabs in our meetings. In the case of statistics, what constitutes a land grab? Who identifies it? What is done about it? It would be helpful to lay out specifically the process by which the University (EBC?) identifies a land grab. This would reassure a lot of faculty. Transparency When will everyone be able to see everyone’s budget items? Is this in the proposal stage or after the fact? Also, will the athletic department budget be transparent? What mechanism will interested faculty have to use to get access to this information? Phillip R. Daves 432 Stokely Management Center Department of Finance University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-0540 865-974-3216 (Department phone) 865-745-9423 (Google voice number. Leave a message.)