College weighs budget cut options

At open meetings on Jan. 25th, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz and Dean of Planning and Assessment Susan Campbell presented the results from the College Finance Survey. The survey was made available to faculty, staff and students over a two-week period last December. Almost three-quarters of staff and faculty provided their views on the college budget, but less than half of students responded to the survey. In total, 1,924 responses were received out of 3,889 surveys.

All three groups of respondents demonstrated expected vigor in protecting their own interests. Opinions on most options were widely divergent.

Both faculty and staff were quite opposed to reducing benefits for College employees, with more than 50 percent of staff choosing it as the least preferable budget reduction option.

Students and faculty were against any changes in financial aid — it was the least preferable option for these groups, with 60 percent of students strongly opposed to it.

This data is a likely reflection of the opinions of students who receive financial aid, who have made up around 40-50 percent of recent incoming classes. Some faculty believed that the increased socioeconomic diversity among the student body have improved the quality of academic discussion over the years, which may explain their reticence to any changes in financial aid policy.

Faculty and students were in favor of reducing maintenance of campus grounds, but staff opposed it, as it could decrease working hours for them.

An increase in the number of students was one of the most preferable budget reduction options for all three groups of respondents. Liebowitz explained that while “there is a marginal revenue to be gained by adding a certain number of students,” the administration was not considering the option at the moment. However, the administration is debating whether to keep the 50 additional students that matriculated in the class of 2011 or to admit fewer students in the future year to make up for the “over-matriculation.”
When weighed equally between faculty, staff and students, the survey showed that “sentiment was generally more positive about reducing spending on campus maintenance and increasing the size of the student body, and generally less positive about reducing financial aid and employee benefits.”

The presentation also summarized general impressions taken from the comments left by survey participants. Both students and faculty thought funding for athletics should be cut, as they often hinder students from focusing on academics. Liebowitz said that “it’s very difficult to make additional cuts in athletics without doing anything major,” implying that what cuts that could be made without cutting entire teams have already been made. NESCAC is starting discussions on budget cuts as a league.

Staff also communicated their dissatisfaction as they felt that they were carrying the burden of all the budget cuts. Staff reduction in dining and custodial services has put extra pressure on remaining employees, and the administration is carefully avoiding any additional initiatives that would put more stress on these employees.
Liebowitz ended the meeting by saying, “For the last 20 years or so, Middlebury has tried to meet its aspirations on all fronts. We tried to do it with resources that were beyond our means. We have leveraged ourselves, we are more in debt that other schools, [and] we have a 15 to 16 million debt service we have to fund every year.”

However, Liebowitz also expressed that it was time “to close this chapter of budget cuts” and to augment Middlebury’s competitiveness among liberal arts colleges.  In an address on Feb. 12, Liebowitz will address the College community on the administration’s plans to move forward in the improving economy.