In order for the University to reach its vision, it is critical for the planning process to consider the current resource situation and to devise strategies to effectively cultivate and use our financial, human and physical resources. The committee believes that although the campus physical environment needs attention, it is still a beautiful campus and that this factor is very important in understanding individuals’ perceptions and feelings about the University. In addition, the psychological environment of the University lends itself to critical discussion that is intellectually invigorating and leads to innovation and creativity. The committee believes that the faculty and staff at the University are strongly committed to the institution and its vision. The quality of the human resources is perceived to be excellent given the current financial situation. It was noted by the committee that it is remarkable how well the University has succeeded given the available financial resources. We can only wonder how much more could be accomplished with additional financial, human and physical resources.

The committee report is divided into the three major categories of financial, human, and physical resources. We interpreted the charge to answer the following three questions:

1. What are we doing well in each area?
2. What are the barriers or limitations in each of these areas?
3. What are the potential opportunities in each area?

• State funding for UNM will not be competitive with that of major state universities in other Western states unless the funding formula is revised to reward research productivity and New Mexico chooses to focus its limited higher education funds more effectively into fewer colleges and universities.
• Future increases in funding from higher tuition rates, endowments, and grant/contracts will not significantly improve the University’s financial status. Thus, other means must be explored to progressively increase the financial, human, and facilities resources.
• Enrollment growth, coupled with increases in efficiency, financial accountability, planning, reallocation of funds internally, and incentives offer the best hope of significantly improving the University’s resource base in the next 5-8 years.

• Many of the concerns for human resources could be addressed by better communication; improved trust; consistency in the application of policies; and inclusion of students, faculty and staff in policy development and decision-making processes.

• The strategic plan should give significant attention to recruiting and retaining students, and to making their experiences at UNM positive and rewarding. UNM should target specific areas for leadership at the national level, e.g., financial aid programs.
• The University should continuously monitor all aspects of its operation and planning in the context of benefiting the students’ educational experience. This should include improved attention to advisement, enhancing faculty/student interactions (within the classroom and research activities), improving services for students, encouraging aspects of University life that create a stronger sense of community among UNM students, and continuing to serve nontraditional student needs.

• Recruitment and retention of excellent faculty is essential to maintaining a top quality research university. The present efforts to increase faculty compensation should continue.
• Research needs to be recognized appropriately and reflected in the funding formula. The quality and amount of faculty research is the single most important factor by which a university’s stature is judged externally, and in attracting excellent faculty and graduate students.
• Focusing on high-quality teaching at all levels and throughout the University will produce benefits in increased enrollments, enhanced intellectual climate, and improved community and alumni relations.

• Given the financial situation at the University, compensation cannot be used as the only mechanism for improving faculty and staff recruitment, retention, productivity and morale. Unlike compensation funding, organizational structure and the business practices the university follows are within our control and can be changed to improve campus climate, employee morale and to build a sense of community. In addition to compensation, other recognition and reward systems need to be designed jointly by employees and managers to enhance motivation and morale in the workforce.
• The centralization of policy formulation and decision-making should be reviewed. Although some guidance through policy is useful to maintain order in a large bureaucratic system, the flexibility, innovation and empowerment advantages obtained through decentralized decision-making cannot be overemphasized.
• Through effective leadership the University has the ability to establish a new foundation for conducting business to streamline bureaucracy, consolidate services, improve customer service, encourage collaboration, and focus on accountability.

• The strategic plan should suggest the relationship between the allocation of physical resources (space, technology, facilities) and the academic, research and service areas the institution chooses to emphasize.
• The plan should help define the role information technology (including its physical infrastructure) will play in the future of the university and suggest strategies by which it can be organized, facilitated and managed both inside and outside the institution.
• Access to the University for all its constituents (and how physical resources are allocated to accommodate them) should be guided by the strategic plan in terms of relative priority given to constituents’ needs and the degree to which they should be accommodated.
• The qualitative values of the University’s physical resources (campus grounds, landscape, architectural style, specialized facilities, communal spaces) should be advanced by the strategic plan to foster the importance of UNM as a truly special destination in the state and region.

Over the past decade, UNM’s academic reputation has increased considerably, as has our ability to obtain outside funding in the form of grants and contracts. These are huge successes of which we should be proud. A consequence of this success, however, is an ever-increasing demand for financial resources – particularly unrestricted resources – to fund competitive salaries, facilities, information technology, and administrative services. The result is that UNM’s financial resources have been stretched to the breaking point:

• Budgets in academic and support departments are generally inadequate relative to mission;
• Salaries for both faculty and staff average about 10% below the market;
• Facilities and the supporting infrastructure often are substandard;
• Fund balances are shrinking to dangerously low levels in several areas.

Clearly, our strategic plan must incorporate a realistic, no-nonsense assessment of the university’s current and prospective financial resources.

1. Limitations on state funding and private gifts

New Mexico is a low-population state with 1.8 million inhabitants (37^th of 50 states). The economy of New Mexico is heavily dependent on government and small business. The level of industrialization is low, and only twelve publicly traded corporations are headquartered in the state. New Mexico per capita income typically ranks in the bottom two or three nationally, and in the 1990 census, only 13,438 New Mexico households reported incomes of $100,000 or more.

New Mexico has six universities, two of which (UNM and NMSU) were Research I in the old Carnegie classification system. We calculate that New Mexico has more universities relative to population than any other state in the west except Montana, and that New Mexico has the least ability to support its universities based on total income per institution. A little-known fact is that New Mexico already has the second-highest state appropriation per capita for higher education in the nation, about 50% higher than the national median.

These facts compel us to conclude that, for the foreseeable future, severe limitations exist on the amount of additional state funding that UNM can expect to receive. While population and enrollment growth likely will help in the longer term (as discussed below), over the next decade, our core funding will not be competitive with major research universities in more populous, higher income states. Further, the demography and economy of New Mexico strongly suggest that we cannot rely on private gifts to be our financial salvation.

2. Effects of grant/contract funding

Most grant/contract funding (as well as most gift funding) is restricted, meaning that the money can be used only for the purposes specified in the award, typically the expenses of a highly defined project. Collectively, however, grants and contracts utilize resources that must be funded primarily from unrestricted sources. These resources include space, administrative services, libraries, computing facilities, cost-sharing, and permanent faculty and staff positions.

The "overhead" ("IDC" or "F&A"), which accompanies some awards, is intended to cover the indirect costs of doing grant/contract work. For a number of reasons beyond the scope of this report, overhead does not actually cover all these costs. In 1999, for example, the university’s overhead income was $23.9 million on direct grant/contract expenditures of $187.3 million, an effective rate of less than 13%. Moreover, overhead is not intended to cover direct costs, such as cost-sharing commitments or the additional faculty positions needed to maintain a major research program.

We recognize that increasing grant/contract funding is very desirable from the point of view of the university's stature, and we are reluctant to list it in connection with "barriers." The fact remains, however, that our success in this area creates financial pressures that are very real and must be dealt with head-on. We cannot continue to assume that restricted funding is a replacement for unrestricted funding. On the contrary, the two need to increase in tandem if financial health is to be maintained.

3. Limitations on tuition/fee increases

Traditionally, New Mexico has been a low-tuition state, with rates well below the national average. UNM is no exception: our in-state rates for tuition and required fees have been toward the bottom of our peer group for many years. Our relative position has led some to conclude that tuition and fees at UNM can be raised substantially. In fact, over the past two years, rates for both in-state and nonresident main campus students have been raised by nearly 25%.

A number of factors suggest that we will not be able to continue to raise tuition and fees at rates several times that of inflation:

• We are a public institution committed to access. Carefully packaged financial aid can help provide this access, but in the final analysis, we have to be affordable – and be perceived as affordable.
• Tuition is a price, and like any price, it affects demand. There is already some evidence that our recent tuition increases have affected student recruitment and retention, especially among non-traditional students. And enrollments drive much of the funding formula that determines our core state support.
• UNM’s non-resident tuition and fees are now relatively high compared to many other state universities, and this has become a substantial issue in marketing UNM outside the state. Non-resident undergraduate enrollments fell 8% from fall 1999 to fall 2000.
• There likely will be changes in the mechanics of the state lottery scholarships that cap the tuition funded by those scholarships.

1. Enrollment growth

The population of New Mexico is expected to grow by about 40% over the next 25 years.

During this period, there will be increasing competition for students, both from other New Mexico public institutions and from a growing variety of private and out-of-state providers. Nevertheless, population growth combined with the increasing economic value of higher education should allow UNM’s undergraduate enrollments to grow in the long term. In addition, UNM’s graduate enrollments have been weak in recent years, reflecting national trends. We have the opportunity to strengthen graduate enrollments as our academic reputation increases, especially as national trends change course.

Enrollment growth is a particularly attractive opportunity because it will generate much-needed unrestricted funding for the university. Most of this money will come from the state, which has almost always provided for enrollment growth through the funding formula. Moreover, the intricacies of the formula operate in such a way that the additional cost of growing enrollments should be less than the additional funding provided by the formula. The difference can be put into improving the resource base generally.

The financial opportunities presented by enrollment growth are considerable. Clearly, strategies to intensively recruit students are crucial, as are strategies to retain students once they are at UNM.

2. Increased accountability

Accountability in this context is a broad concept with several different facets:

• Cost. We have been very casual over the years in our evaluation of the full cost of programs. For example, a number of non-instructional activities contribute nothing toward the indirect costs of operating the institution, such as space and administrative services. While this might be entirely appropriate in some cases, the university must fully recognize that its ability to subsidize these activities is limited, and that any subsidy reduces the resources available for other programs.
• Relationship to mission. UNM has a number of research and public service programs with little or no connection to our educational programs. These programs use the university as an administrative home but do not contribute materially to our most basic mission: the education of students. The university’s scarce resources will be much more effectively utilized if all programs contribute as broadly – and synergistically – as possible to the core mission.
• Financial. A number of activities throughout the university have not maintained control of their expenditures, and deficits are the result. These deficits effectively take resources from other, more responsible programs. For the good of the university as a whole, UNM cannot continue to allow program deficits.

The common thread that runs through all facets of accountability is that each program must be able to justify its use of resources, and to do so in terms of the overall strategic plan. UNM must seize the opportunity to increase accountability. By doing so, programmatic growth will be more deliberate and selective than in the past, and programs that are not accountable can be phased out.

1. Increased efficiency

Efficiency should not be a dirty word. To quote the planning committee on financial affairs, " Efficiency is the prudent and effective use of scarce resources to meet goals, including the goal of quality." We have identified two areas in which we believe UNM can substantially increase efficiency: organizational structure and curriculum.

UNM is organized into many small "silos," some of them academic and some administrative. Money is wasted on duplication of services and on unnecessary administrative costs (e.g., directors and administrative assistants). Perhaps more importantly, the silos are often too small to be effective or noticed, and the work of each silo is uncoordinated with that of the others’. The vested interests that perpetuate the silos are powerful, but ultimately, they are much less important than the long-term interests of the institution. Our planning needs to incorporate the persistent elimination of silos.

We agree with the planning committee on financial affairs that the curriculum should be reviewed in terms of efficiency. We are not suggesting that small classes and electives be scrapped – they greatly enrich the university. But the number and frequency of these offerings must be reasonable, and required courses – some of which are in short supply – must be covered first. This is not just a matter of efficiency, but is also crucial to the overall quality of the educational experience we provide and to the retention of students.

2. Leadership in funding issues

UNM is the flagship institution of New Mexico. We are also one of the principal minority-serving institutions in the country. Consequently, we have the opportunity to be a leader in shaping – or reshaping – policies that affect our financial resources. Following are a few examples of important funding issues over which we might have greater influence:

• At the state level, we are profoundly affected by the structure of higher education in New Mexico, including the number of institutions and their missions, the extent of programmatic duplication, and the mechanisms for funding off-campus programs.
• Also at the state level, the funding formula itself is a major issue. The current formula expressly recognizes only "instruction and general" activities. It could, however, also recognize research, public service, and clinical activities, all of which are vitally important to the well being of the state.
• At the national level, UNM is uniquely positioned to lead in the area of programs for minority and/or low-income students, especially financial aid programs.

5. Comprehensive financial planning

We agree with the planning committee on financial affairs that UNM’s financial planning has been limited in the past, focusing primarily on I&G funding provided by the annual state appropriation process. Only about a quarter of our total funding is provided by the state, so we need to develop financial plans that incorporate gifts, grants and contracts, student fees, and sales and service revenues. These plans should take into account the full direct and indirect costs of non-instructional programs, as discussed above, as well as their revenue potential. They should also consider the longer term, including the effects of enrollment growth and other programmatic growth over a period of years. Finally, the plans should take into account the effects of university policies on funding sources other than I&G

6. Incentives

Last, but by no means least, are incentives. Again, we completely agree with the planning committee on financial affairs that incentives are key to UNM’s financial and strategic success. While there are powerful incentives in place for individuals and units to pursue external funding, we have been much less concerned about incentives to teach, advise, or render service to the university community. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that so much of the institution’s energies over the past several years have been devoted to the pursuit of grants and contracts while other activities have suffered.

We strongly believe that our strategic plan must contain as an objective the development of appropriate incentives in the areas of teaching (quality and quantity), advising and related student services, and university and community service. Incentives must also be devised to encourage accountability and efficiency.

In closing, it is worth noting that our barriers and our opportunities are interrelated. For example, state funding is limited in the short-run, but it can increase longer-term as population and enrollments increase. Grants and contracts put pressure on the resource base, but that pressure can be managed through greater accountability. Limitations on tuition and fee increases can be softened through leadership in financial aid programs. And all the barriers can be made less formidable by operating more efficiently, planning more comprehensively, and creating more balanced incentives.

Human resources (students, faculty, staff) are the most fundamental of UNM’s resources; without them, there is no university. The ability of students, faculty and staff to accomplish UNM’s vision and mission is closely tied to the financial resources available to support them. We believe the quality of UNM’s human resources is excellent given these financial resources. However, even in the current financial situation, the University has many means to improve the utilization of its human resources. Thus, maximizing human resources involves not only improvement in financial resources but also better utilization of the resources that are available. In this part of the report, we consider both perspectives, and discuss some important aspects of UNM’s student, faculty and staff populations that deserve attention in UNM’s efforts to advance the responsible, effective and strategic cultivation of its human resources.

Students are the lifeblood of the University, and providing large numbers of students the highest quality education possible is one an important aspect of the mission. For this reason, and because the number of students at UNM is critical to its budget, attention must be directed towards recruiting, retaining and advising students, and to making their experiences at UNM positive and rewarding.

The University of New Mexico provides an undergraduate educational experience typical of that offered by most large, state-assisted, research universities. UNM faces a challenge which is present at only a very few research universities in the United States: our students are significantly more likely to be low income, first-generation college students, deficient in pre-college course work, living off campus, working 30 or more hours a week, and notably underachieving in national entrance exams. UNM is a developing research university, in a transitional phase in history, inadequately funded and simultaneously expected to provide a first-class, challenging, and advanced educational experience to a student body who must overcome difficult social, academic, and financial obstacles on the road to a degree. Further, the urban, commuter student profile directly contributes to the absence of a sense of community at UNM. Understandably, the faculty, students, and the administration of the University all feel the tension generated by this unique dilemma.

1. Recruitment

Current undergraduate recruitment methods include concentrated efforts with high schools in the state and college preparatory programs. The ethnic centers assist with outreach and recruitment to include a Kellogg Foundation grant for partnership with high schools with high Latino populations. Out of state undergraduates have received increased focus from Recruitment Services and recent increases to the Amigo award. Articulation agreements with New Mexico schools in addition to focusing on agreements with other states garner transfer students. Programs such as Minority Graduate Recruitment and Retention and the Ron McNair program augment the Graduate Studies effort recruiting graduate students. The number of international students primarily from Mexico and Latin America at the graduate level has increased due to work with the Commission on Higher Education to convert a portion of Amigo awards to be offered to international students and seeking to get larger number of Amigo awards designated for internationals combined with an increased recruitment effort in the Admissions Office. Recruitment goals include enrolling better prepared students leading to higher retention rates.

2. Retention

Currently, 92% of all people who apply to UNM are accepted and only 4 out of 10 students graduate. In other words, UNM is accessible but we do not have enough students graduating. Based on Fall 1999 retention and graduation rates, UNM is at the bottom of the Carnegie I Research Universities. Long-time reasons for urban institution retention problems have often been pointed out as typical commuter issues such as poor preparation in high school, hectic work and class schedules, and lack of connectivity to the campus and learning environment. Given UNM’s unique challenges we have had to do more than other schools to get our students through. Programs and services such as the Minority Graduate Recruitment and Retention programs, College Enrichment Program, El Centro de la Raza, African American and Indian Student Services, Women’s Resource Center and Student Support Services/Upward bound are boosting graduation and retention rates. Further, innovative academic program changes such as the expansion of freshman seminars and the implementation of learning communities engage undergraduates in enriching and exciting experiences in their lower division courses in a similar manner successfully utilized in upper division courses.

3. Advisement

The number of advisors in many academic divisions of UNM is too small to provide timely, individualized, knowledgeable service to their students, and in some cases the qualifications (in training and education) expected of advisors is too low. Most students will meet with advisors only two or three times throughout their college days, and consequently, may not be able to effectively chart their way through their academic programs at UNM in order to get the most of their education.

1. Student Perception of UNM

High schools students have a more negative perception of UNM than is desired for recruitment. The visibility of UNM in high schools in southern New Mexico is no greater than that of such universities as Arizona and Texas Tech. Furthermore, the level of community spirit and involvement has been a concern of attending students for years. Students often do not develop significant bonds to the institution and have little or no desire to contribute to its advancement after graduation.

2. Lack of finances

Expanding and diversifying innovative programs to recruit, retain, and advise students is expensive.

3. Poor service

Many student services are not as efficient and effective as possible. Students must often wait in long lines to accomplish some tasks, or experience other difficulties in having a problem solved expeditiously. In addition, those providing the service are often not as friendly and helpful as would be expected when dealing with an important constituent to the University. Parking is also a concern for students. The campus is not easily accessible to students and provides a barrier for recruitment and retention.

4. Graduate student enrollment

Graduate students also form an essential part of UNM’s human resources, and produce a significant amount of the teaching and research accomplished at the University. Recruitment of excellent graduate students adds much to the University’s academic programs, and, because many of these students become the next generation of faculty at public schools and universities across the country, they also can play an important role in directing new undergraduate and graduate students to UNM. The University has recently taken important steps to improve graduate student recruitment (e.g., higher stipends, provision of insurance) and these should continue. Better processing of applications from potential graduate students is needed; the Office of Graduate Studies now receives applications before forwarding them to departments, which sometimes results in delaying departmental evaluation and admission of students, and in the offering of financial aid packages. Such delays may result in the loss of applicants to other institutions, in disciplines where the annual competition for the best new graduate students is fierce.

1. Recruitment

UNM is an excellent university with diverse programs, opportunities, and high quality of undergraduate education. Numerous opportunities are available to increase enrollment of students.

• UNM has the opportunity to enhance recruitment efforts to forge strong and broad ties with high-school teachers and counselors within the State. The culture that could be fostered within high schools is one in which UNM is the obvious and best choice of a university in our region to attend. UNM trains most of the high school teachers in the state, and these individuals have a strong influence on a student’s choice of a university. Constant contact with these alumni-teachers, and provision of information and support where possible, might make these teachers more enthusiastic advocates for UNM.
• Currently high school students can take college-credit courses at UNM. This gives these students experience in a university setting and helps to establish ties with UNM programs. Expansion of these currently existing programs could assist in recruitment. However, a state statute decrees that public schools must pay for the courses students take at the college level. An opportunity exists to change the statute allowing for more high school students to enroll in college classes. Any opportunity to bring high-school groups or classes onto campus for tours or visits should be encouraged.
• Neighboring states have large populations that could be tapped for students. Increasing our presence and recruiting efforts in high schools in neighboring states, such as Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, and making certain that these students have detailed information on UNM’s programs, areas of excellence, and uniqueness is an opportunity for credit hour growth. In addition, these students would enhance the diversity of the student population. Lowering tuition rates for out-of-state students to actual cost may increase enrollments from these students. Scholarships specifically designated for students from adjacent states would also aid this effort.
• Generally, the goal for international enrollments in our peer institutions is 10% of the undergraduate student population. Currently, international students compose about 1.3% of UNM’s undergraduate population. Clearly, an opportunity exists to further tap into students from other countries to boost our enrollment figures as well as add to the diversity and intellectual climate of the campus.
• UNM has several branch campuses that could serve as feeder institutions. Closer coordination with the branch campuses to encourage students at these institutions to complete their degrees at the main campus or through distance education is an opportunity for UNM.
• The most eloquent statement about recruiting graduate students comes from the Committee on Graduate Education’s report: The most important factor in attracting graduate students to UNM is the quality and reputation of UNM faculty members. Therefore, the most important action that UNM can take to improve the number and quality of graduate student applicants is to hire excellent faculty and support them in their research and scholarly work.

2. Retention

The dedication, talent, and motivation of UNM students is vast, but the University must continuously monitor and evaluate all aspects of its operation and activities to ensure that the educational (in its broadest sense, experiences outside as well as inside the classroom) needs and expectations of its students are being met. For many students, their career at UNM begins with LOBO orientation and ends with commencement. Between the two events, UNM has an opportunity to encourage and assist students in obtaining their degrees and in becoming more involved in the UNM community.

• One way to increase the sense of community among students is through the continued support of athletics and student organizations on campus. Although some may disagree, successful athletic programs increase activity and involvement with the university from students to alumni. By encouraging students to become more involved in the wide range of activities outside the classroom that UNM offers, the total university educational experience is enhanced, and the ties of students to their university are increased. Students who are involved in and care about their university today become supportive alumni of tomorrow.
• The relationship between students and faculty at UNM is one of the most valuable aspects of day-to-day university life for undergraduate students. Increasing the bonds between teacher and student is a process that should be nurtured continuously. Expansion of departmental honors programs and undergraduate research under the mentorship of faculty members would enhance the educational relationships between individual faculty and students. Most undergraduate students take large lecture courses in which contact between instructors and individual students is limited or nonexistent, yet most students strongly prefer small classes where student-instructor interaction is frequent, and the educational benefits of small classes are beyond question. The University’s current ambivalence about this situation is manifested in a constant emphasis on a more efficient education (large classes with many SCH), while concurrently selectively promoting small-group courses such as the freshmen seminars and courses in the honors program. There may be no optimum solution to these conflicting needs, but adopting a policy of encouraging small study/discussion sessions to be scheduled as part of large lecture courses might help.

Retention of students should always be a primary goal of the institution, and this involves not only enhancing educational opportunities, but also providing a welcoming environment, easily accessible and competent services, and the opportunity to obtain knowledgeable advisement at every stage of their academic careers.

3. Advisement

Increasing the number of advisement positions, and upgrading qualifications (and compensation) would improve the quality of advisement, and further the goal of having more undergraduate students complete their programs in 4 or 5 years. Because a large number of non-traditional and working students attend UNM, we will never be comparable to a small liberal arts college, where most students complete their degrees in 4 years, nor should we be.

The faculty at UNM operate in a divided, somewhat contradictory culture. On one hand, they are responsible for fulfilling the University’s mission in providing a high-quality education to UNM students, in an environment where enrollments and student-credit hours (SCH) generated are the dominant factor in establishing UNM’s budget. On the other hand, UNM is an institution where research, scholarship, and creative work are valued equally with instruction, but success in research is not rewarded by the state, although significant amounts of external funding brought in by research provide an additional component to UNM’s overall budget. Because a research culture is entirely appropriate to a major university like UNM, is essential to the recruiting and retention of excellent faculty, and likewise is essential to the training of graduate and undergraduate students, it must be maintained, even in the present climate that looks to increased enrollments as a major strategy to increase UNM’s financial resources. As the faculty perform the great majority of both teaching and research at UNM, they are at the heart of any efforts to improve the institution, financially and otherwise. In an important sense, the activities of the faculty define the institution and are responsible for the quality of education it provides to its students, as well as for the stature and reputation of the University as a whole. Thus, faculty must play a central role in any examination of UNM’s resources.

Support for research by the University has generally been good, and this has resulted in the hiring of high-quality new faculty, and dramatic increases in research productivity and external funding over the past 10 years. Support for start-up and equipment needs through cost sharing, though sometimes uneven, inefficient, and redundant across colleges and departments, also has generally been good, and is likewise a factor in UNM’s increased research effort. UNM faculty who generate external funding benefit from an enlightened policy of distributing nearly half of the overhead funds brought in by grants and contracts back to the colleges, departments, and faculty who produced these funds. Proximity to the national labs benefits faculty in many disciplines who collaborate with or are funded by the labs. New Mexico’s location and environment make it the ideal place for a wide range of studies, from Latin American and Native American history and culture, to anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and many others.

There are some factors that inhibit the full development of a productive and successful faculty. Some are listed below:

• Compensation averages 10% below the average for peer institutions. This has had a significant effect in the loss of unacceptable numbers of our best faculty to other institutions. It has also on occasion prevented the University from hiring excellent new faculty.
• The conflict between the need to generate more SCH and to be productive in research stresses many faculty; time is finite, and significant increases in time spent, for example, teaching, will inevitably result in decreased research productivity. On the other hand, increase in research and external funding may create additional needs in space, facilities, and equipment that the University becomes increasingly hard-pressed to meet (even with IDC funds) with a state budget that is based solely on teaching.
• There is a general feeling among faculty that they are not encouraged/allowed to be significantly involved in major decisions affecting the University, which are often reserved for the Administration. This has led to a sense of disenfranchisement in planning and other decision-making. It should also be noted that many faculty do not seek, or choose not, to become involved in University-wide issues, probably for a variety of reasons.
• Faculty are constantly frustrated in accomplishing their teaching, research, and service missions by the activities and decisions of non-academic units that are supposed to assist them but which more often are perceived as hindering them (e.g., Human Resources Office, Physical Plant, Accounting Office, etc.). Increasingly burdensome paperwork, uninformed rules made without faculty input, a feeling that rules are promulgated mainly to avoid the possibility of lawsuits or audits rather than to advance the University’s mission, and a strong sense that these non-academic units expect the faculty to bend to their needs rather than vice versa, all contribute to a sense of frustration and a lowering of productivity among the faculty.
• The internal allocation of resources available to the University is not understood by most faculty (with the exception of IDC funds, which have been outlined in detail by the former interim Associate Provost for Research). Why is it, for example, that units that generate the lion’s share of SCH seem always to be under funded and have numerous unfilled faculty lines, while other units that generate few SCH are by comparison lavishly funded? Is there any real correlation between faculty efforts in generating SCH (the main thing affecting the core I&G budget), and the resources from this budget that are returned to them, their department, or their college?

Given these positive and negative aspects of the faculty experience at UNM, how can the University’s faculty resources be more effectively cultivated and utilized?

• Given the differing missions among the existing providers of higher education in the State, it would improve equity in funding if the state’s funding formula was changed. The current funding formula is both insufficient compared to peer institutions, and obsolete, since it does not reflect what a large research university does in the 2lst century. The current funding formula is based on SCH (arising from the University’s teaching success), but does not reward research productivity, yet faculty are expected to contribute about equally in both areas. An award of additional state funds to the University’s core budget, indexed to the University’s yearly success in research productivity and generation of external funding should be a goal in a revised funding formula.
• The University’s present efforts to increase faculty compensation to average levels enjoyed by peer institutions, if successful, will help to recruit and retain excellent faculty leading to improvements in attainment of the University’s mission.
• A full, comprehensive review of nonacademic "service" units, to ascertain how well they are assisting the University in accomplishing its mission, would enable the University to attain its goals more effectively and efficiently.
• The quality and amount of faculty research is the single most important factor by which a university’s stature is judged externally, and in attracting excellent faculty and graduate students. Vigorous research programs also benefit the University in many other ways, including enhancing the quality of undergraduate education, adding many millions of dollars/year to the University’s budget via the IDC funds it generates, and in producing patentable, potentially income-producing new products and applications. Research/scholarly activity will remain one of the two most important responsibilities of faculty. The University’s support for faculty research could be enhanced at little cost by such measures as increasing opportunities for mini-sabbaticals and research semesters, increasing funding for the research allocations committee (which may provide critical support for faculty in disciplines for which there is little external funding), maintaining its present policy of returning nearly half of IDC to the college/department/faculty level, maintaining the current balance between teaching and research, and by reiterating constantly (to the legislature and state government as well as on campus) its support of research as a fundamental endeavor of the University and its faculty.
• Following the previous point, the University, with the assistance of a faculty research advisory committee, should review the uses to which it puts IDC funds produced by faculty research, in order to assess possible support for nontraditional or interdisciplinary strategic initiatives, the degree to which present funded research projects are cost-effective (do not cost the University more to maintain than the research funds bring in), and to eliminate redundancy in research programs and facilities among different academic units. Such a review might produce, for example, a cost-benefit analysis of the South Campus Research Park, which consumes $1.6 + million annually, or more than 10% of the total IDC funds managed by the Office of Research Services.
• Although teaching is nominally regarded as of equal importance to research, often in practice (e.g., tenure and promotion decisions) it takes second place to research. Enhancing high-quality teaching throughout the university cannot help but to produce payoffs in increased enrollments, as well as in better educated students. Some possible strategies for accomplishing this are (following many of the recommendations of the Undergraduate Teaching Committee): an institutional commitment to reemphasizing teaching, with incentives, greater rewards and recognition for excellent teaching; strong encouragement for departments and colleges to weigh teaching equally with research in merit-based salary increases; provide a semester-long course on effective teaching techniques for new faculty, whom often are inexperienced in teaching.

• Ideally, one of the benefits for undergraduate students attending a research university rather than a smaller college are the opportunities for students to interact with professors who are active in research and noted in their disciplines. Yet, according to the Undergraduate Teaching Committee report, relatively few faculty teach lower-division undergraduate courses. Although that committee’s suggestion is to allow most of the lower-level undergraduate teaching load to be handled by non-tenure track instructors and by graduate student teaching assistants (a proposal that would clearly save money because of lower salaries for these groups), this is not a desirable course of action in our view. There has been much discussion across the country of the negative effects of using adjunct faculty and graduate students instead of regular faculty to teach undergraduate courses. It creates a second-class citizenry, often poorly paid, of teachers within universities, denies the important linkage between research and a high-quality undergraduate education, deprives undergraduate students of the opportunity to learn, not just facts, but how new knowledge is discovered, and dilutes the integrity of the University as a place where professors pass on their knowledge, enthusiasm, and wisdom to students at all levels. Instead, we would recommend that all faculty be strongly encouraged to teach courses at all levels, and that this be made a requirement for all new faculty.
• Current enrollment-management procedures, to get more faculty into higher-enrollment courses and out of courses for which there is a history of inadequate demand, should be continued, but with attention paid to the educational advantages of some small courses, and the need for some small-enrollment courses to be offered periodically so that matriculation requirements may be met. Similarly, scheduling of evening/weekend courses, and even some degree programs should be continued and possibly expanded for nontraditional students.
• In the area of teaching, probably the greatest potential for increasing enrollments/SCH, requiring no new University funds, would result from a re-examination of the internal allocation of funds to all UNM academic units to determine if current allocations are consistent with each unit’s generations of SCHs. Traditionally, this has not been the case. Obviously, the University must support numerous units that produce few SCHs, but if increasing enrollments is to be a viable strategy for mitigating the present funding crisis, then the health of those colleges and their faculties that generate the most SCH must be of primary concern. Any significant increases in the University’s SCH will almost entirely come from those colleges. (Especially A&S, which teaches the core curriculum, and accounts for some 60% of UNM’s SCH each year). For these essential programs, it would seem imperative that their budgets increase to more closely approximate the proportion of SCH that they are generating, and for them to receive preference in the allocation of new faculty lines. Other programs will need to be maintained, but in the present funding crisis, current UNM resources should be more focused towards those colleges with the greatest potential for increasing SCH, and barriers existing (e.g., under funding, many unfilled faculty lines) that prevent them from maximizing SCH production should be removed. Draining resources from large, SCH-producing units to support small specialized units to the extent that UNM has done in the past may not now be a luxury we can afford.

Overall, UNM staff employees are dedicated to their professions and desire to perform in a manner that is beneficial to the university’s mission. That said, inherent with the nature of a university setting in tune with academic freedom is a propensity to vocalize dissent.

Although dissension and/or dissatisfaction are often heard more frequently and loudly than areas of staff satisfaction, there also seems to be recognition by most staff employees that the administration is attempting to take action regarding retention of staff.

UNM has demonstrated its commitment to staff (and faculty) by making compensation its top legislative priority for the last three years. Unfortunately, in spite of the best efforts made by the University, this tactic has not succeeded in generating the salary increases needed to bring staff salaries in line with market. Realistically the staff may not be well served if the university makes compensation its top priority indefinitely because it will eventually lose its impact with the legislature and will likely not be perceived as a priority at all. This illustrates the point that looking to compensation as the primary mechanism for improving staff recruitment, retention, productivity and morale is an uphill battle. A review of the working committee reports, open forum discussions, and the report to the President on Staff Issues and Environments unfolds some common themes.

The report to the President on Staff Issues and Environments examines compensation for staff from various perspectives. The report acknowledges the difficulty obtaining funds from the legislature for compensation and states that staff generally accept that, other than making it our top priority, it is something over which the administration does not have a great deal of control. It can be concluded through a review of the other compensation issues raised such as pay equity, merit pay, UNMPact, recognition/rewards, and salaries of administrators/managers/supervisors that UNM does have control over the problems inherent in these matters. In general, the root of many of the concerns expressed by staff stem from poor communication, distrust, inconsistency in the application of policies, and being minimally included in the policy development process. Unlike compensation funding, organizational structure and the business practices the university follows are within our control and can be changed to improve campus climate, employee morale and to build a sense of community.

The Electronic Management Information Systems (EMIS) Project Newsletter did a fair job of characterizing the climate in which UNM has traditionally conducted its business:

• Add more rules when rules are broken.
• The most effective control is centralized control.
• Keep information and decision makers apart.
• Undocumented changes to policy and procedure are OK if you have sufficient "rank."
• If you can get your transaction "past people," that makes it right.
• Exceptions to policy and procedure can be granted from the top without worrying about the systemic impacts.
• Having many rules provides increased flexibility of interpretation.
• Rather than fix underlying process problems, add people and automate the process.
• Fix things quickly rather than doing a thorough analysis.
• Implement new programs without evaluating the results of the old program.
• Measure process activities, not process effectiveness.
• Everyone has the freedom to choose which policies and procedures are important enough to him or her to follow.

Below are a few examples of how improvements initiated with the best of intentions, but are implemented in the environment described above, can have less than desirable consequences:

1. Policy Development (University Business Policies and Procedures)

Staff employees appear to be appreciative that administration takes their views into account through Staff Council and public comment regarding university policies. However, not all staff employees care to have Staff Council act as their representative. There is also dissatisfaction with the process for public comment and it is felt that by the time the policy is placed upon the web for public comment the policy direction has already been determined and there is little likelihood that substantive changes will be made. More involvement is needed at the front-end instead of the back-end. In other words, we should establish a policy development practice that encourages our staff to be proactive and positive rather than reactive and negative.

2. UNMPact

Although UNMPact is not as volatile a subject as it was four years ago, the adverse effects still linger. There was an expectation that longevity (years of service) would be rewarded through UNMPact. However, UNMPact served other needs such as reducing the number of titles, uniformity of job descriptions with like job functions, and the implementation of a salary schedule that was to reflect market. While the salary schedule allowed for competitive wages for some newly hired employees, it also added to the discontent with salary for many staff employees. Most staff salaries fell within the first and second quartiles of the salary range. A Salary Review Committee has been formed to address longevity inequities. However, salary adjustments are contingent upon available funding. While most staff employees appreciate the effort made by the administration to obtain a higher percentage annual increase through the state legislature process, there appears to be a growing number of staff employees (grades 8-10) who have turned to unionization to bargain for higher salaries.

3. Career Ladders

The Career Ladder is innovative and will probably contribute to retaining expertise. However, as presently implemented, the plan mostly addresses job families with an obvious hierarchy (i.e., Admin Asst I, II, III) and offers little guidance to many other positions that do not have obvious hierarchies. The direction planned by Human Resources to reward experience within the same job title with salary increases deserves additional investigation, but is closely aligned to a step-wage increase utilized by most union contracts.

A new performance review process has recently been developed for staff. The adoption of this process is to ensure that all staff receive meaningful performance reviews and to increase employee accountability and effectiveness. Although it appears to be a valuable tool for assessing performance, it serves as an example of a centralized process that did not get staff "buy-in" before it was implemented. Policy implications and the related issues often are not understood unless a constructive two-sided dialog occurs. Had a more thorough and active dialog occurred (or even a pilot project) at the managerial/supervisory level during the formulation of the policy rather than requesting feedback through a passive comment period, skepticism, distrust, and complaints would be minimized and less likely to detract from the value of the process.

It goes without out saying that funding and adequate financial resources are barriers to compensating staff at market levels. However, the barriers to improving the University’s business practices are largely internal and are both political and part of the campus culture. Individual programs and projects are likely making improvements, but the University as a whole must be willing to take an honest look at itself, demonstrate a collective willingness to serve a common purpose (our academic mission), and accordingly determine actions to be taken to improve our business practices.

The Report to the President on Staff Issues and Environments (President’s report) contained many useful and well thought out remedies, as did the strategic planning committee working papers. Although some action has already taken place regarding the President’s study, at this point, more action and less study would be beneficial. The foundation and environment for such action should be based on the following principles (from the EMIS Project newsletter):

• Every employee should know the University's mission and goals.
• Administrative systems, support systems, and policies should sense and support the goals and mission of the University.
• Given the right information and tools, decision-making authority and accountability should reside with the end user. If accountability is clearly defined, every employee can be held accountable for his or her actions.
• Our reward and disciplinary systems should support decentralized accountability.
• We should capture data only once - at the source.
• Systems and processes should expect the best of people, not the worst.
• Rules and processes should be as simple and clearly stated as possible.
• Simple is better.
• A policy is not a policy unless it is written down.
• Central administrative offices should function as facilitators rather than policemen. Business information should be continuously communicated to everyone in the organization.

Some suggestions that have been offered to move us forward include:

• Realistic yet challenging goals. Based upon our resources, where can we excel? Focus our energy on what we can do rather than what we cannot do. The remedies suggested in the Report to the President on Staff Issues and Environments were remedies within control of the University and were cost effective.
• Compaction. The salary inequity based upon longevity as compared to newly hired positions is more detrimental to morale than any other salary issue. When solutions suggest that an employee quit only to be rehired at a more competitive wage, something is amiss with the current system. The Salary Review Committee, designed to deal with this issue, is in progress and the results are unknown. The process, if successful, should continue to prevent future compaction. If unsuccessful, alternative processes should be pursued.

• Management/supervisor training. Provide management/supervisor training on methodologies that contribute to high employee moral and accountability. In the President’s report the managerial lack of input or time with employees were seen as a key to distrust.
• Policy/program assessment. Evaluate results of policies/programs and make adjustments accordingly. Examples include the employment tracking system, the career ladder, the employment review policy, and merit pay implementation.
• Funding mechanisms for merit pay. Linking merit pay with cost of living adjustments is problematic. The current system of having to give less to one employee in order to reward another is inherently flawed and, for many units, does not serve its intended purpose. A system should be in place to ensure that those deserving merit pay can receive it.
• Education equivalency. Eliminating equivalent years of experience for years of education in hiring, according to the Report to the President, undermined the hope and belief of fairness by UNM administration and had an extremely detrimental impact on the morale of staff.
• Benefits. The university’s total benefits package is exceptional if the employee has a need for the benefits offered. Exploring possibilities such as cafeteria-style plans can more broadly meet the needs of our diverse employee population.
• Communication. The need for better communication intersects and spills over into all of the areas identified as needing improvement. Continue to implement the many recommendations regarding communications detailed in the Report to the President on Staff Issues and Environments.

More broadly, the following capture the direction the university should follow with regard to staff:

• focus on manager training

• increase employee accountability

• improve campus dialog in policy development practices

• balance consistency with flexibility

• increase attention to developing a sense of community

• eliminate organizational "silos"

• encourage inter campus cooperation rather than competition

• promote the concept of "one university"

• improve the perception of the university (marketing and with the legislature)

Through effective leadership the University has the ability to establish a new foundation for conducting business to streamline bureaucracy, consolidate services, improve customer service, encourage collaboration, and focus on accountability. These improvements will deepen staff loyalty and increase the likelihood that valuable staff will be retained and attracted to UNM.

Physical resources include all of the capital resources required to provide education, conduct research and meet community needs. For practical purposes, it is helpful to divide these resources into physical space (buildings and the infrastructure needed to support building use), land, technological resources (computers, classroom technology, laboratory equipment, etc.), and access.

1. Physical space

The physical space of UNM is one of the University’s greatest assets. The campus itself is aesthetically beautiful and this positively impacts the intellectual climate of the organization. Thus, the maintenance and enhancement of the physical environment is a crucial concern for the strategic plan. UNM maintains records of all building space and its use. These records follow the format required by the Commission on Higher Education, a format that provides basic data for tracking space use but only partially meets the needs of campus planners. In 1991, the University completed a study of building space and depicted space allocation/student by different academic divisions. This data makes it possible to compare the University’s use of space with peer institutions. However, these standards have not been adapted for specific uses and the CHE has not established standards for use across the state. Several points related to understanding our current physical space are important.

• Currently, 2/3 of the University’s facilities are over 30 years old. Significant amounts of maintenance have been postponed. This means that the University must decide when to invest in renewal/replacement of facilities and when to build new. In addition, state formula funding has not kept pace with the recurring need to maintain/upgrade infrastructure to meet the needs of new buildings or new building uses.
• In 1991, the University had 185 square feet of space for every student (total of all space/student-headcount). If the additional space constructed during the last decade were added to that number, the University’s space would approach 200 square feet/student. (At the branches, there is approximately 250 square feet of space/student). This number would place UNM in the middle of its peer institutions, suggesting that the University faces issues about the allocation of space and the quality of that space rather than issues about insufficient total gross square footage. As reported to the CHE, approximately 46% of the University’s instructional square footage is used for classrooms and laboratories, 16% for research, and 37% for offices/support. For rough comparison, a University of California science and technology department research model suggests 40% of the square footage should be used for instruction, 40% should be used for research and approximately 15% should be allocated for administrative offices/support. This suggests UNM does not resemble a conventional research model in terms of space allocation. The current planning process does not suggest what allocation or division of space would be appropriate for UNM. The five-year planning process lists and prioritizes major capital projects but it is mostly for legislative funding purposes. There is no plan that indicates how UNM envisions its needs in the future or how UNM might prepare for a maximum enrollment target of 35,000.
• As noted above, two-thirds of all UNM facilities are over 30 years old. This suggests that many of these facilities are less than optimal research facilities. The university, however, does not have a clear planning process for determining if available space is adequate but poorly allocated and maintained, or if major new facilities with additional gross square footage are needed. Furthermore, the current planning process does not encourage different units (departments, schools, etc.) to coordinate their needs. A national Physical Plant Administrator’s (APPA) rule of thumb suggests that if the renewal costs of a facility exceed half its total replacement value, a new building should be considered. Historic preservation sometimes trumps this consideration. Similar problems exist for technology in that it is not clear what resources are available or how easy (or difficult) they are to access.

2. Land

UNM has received national recognition as an arboretum. Its unique architecture and extensive grounds provide a community resource to all of New Mexico. However, physical space is limited and there are competing demands for the open space.

3. Technological resources

Computer and other technological resources have become increasingly important to both UNM’s teaching and research mission. A recent study by the UNM Faculty Senate noted that faculty access to computers was not adequate. Furthermore, infrastructure problems (specifically, limited space in the current underground tunnels for cables) has limited the rate of technological innovation at UNM. Information technology at UNM is managed in a very decentralized fashion. That is both good and bad. Local control permits adaptations to specific departmental needs, but there are enough commonalities in technology infrastructure and equipment to suggest centralized management strategies.

In addition, demands for library resources and space are increasing. A strong library is needed to maintain a significant presence in research. These rapidly increasing physical and financial costs are universal and make knowledge of the most current practices and planning in library science critical.

4. Access

An important UNM goal for student facilities use can be summed up in one word: Access. Access, however, is not a simple concept. Access includes the availability of the following:

• Transportation to campus,
• Appropriate classroom space,
• Student housing and leisure activities,
• Library and other instructional resources.

Physical resources rely primarily on two scarce factors: space and money. Each of the areas listed above is greatly constrained due to these scare resources. Currently the lack of an adequate plan to address issues of scarcity related to physical resources is a primary barrier to making necessary changes.

As an urban institution, UNM plays an important role in providing arts facilities (e.g., Popejoy), athletic facilities, and public open space. UNM also provides continuing education, community non-credit classes, and spaces for public-private partnerships to develop. The biggest obstacle to more community participation on campus is transportation and parking.

Strategically, there is a need for space (and resource) allocation criteria as it relates to enrollment or other factors in those areas of the institution where emphasis is to be placed. Understanding this relationship and how to use it would direct UNM’s allocation of physical space.

• UNM is an urban campus facing the same transportation/parking and other land use issues most urban campuses face. As UNM grows, decisions about land use will remain important. A clear statement of what the University of New Mexico chooses to emphasize should logically influence those decisions.
• As the major teaching and research facility for the State, and as a university that is linked to high tech research centers like Sandia and Los Alamos Laboratories, maintaining and improving our technological resources are essential to the University’s mission. Information Technology impacts every facet of campus life. It is critically important to articulate the role technology will play in UNM’s future and, as important, to devise an organizational structure within the institution that cultivates the most efficient use of these resources. This suggests consolidation, realignment or other strategies designed to maximize technology’s benefits.
• We have very good library resources currently. However, in order to keep pace with the expanding technological and physical space demands of an intellectually rigorous climate, the most current practices related to efficient use of space and finances in library maintenance are needed.
• The strategic plan should be prescriptive in its direction for how much emphasis will be given to research, instruction and services. It should quantify, to the greatest extent possible, if a relationship exists between enrollment and space/resource allocation. It should state if any other factors should be considered in the effective distribution of physical resources.
• A comprehensive articulation of the information technology needs of the university and how they relate to the strategic directions of the campus is needed. Although it is easy to say that resources for facilities and technology are inadequate for UNM’s research mission, what is needed is a clear process for facilities and technology planning that is campus-wide and consistent or that involves use of some standards by which we can be compared to our peers.
• The accommodations to be made for public constituents are key to prioritizing use of our land and other limited resources. How those accommodations are made in the context of needs of students, faculty and staff is also important.
• Access implies physical and psychological access to faculty and to research facilities. This has several practical implications for UNM’s strategic planning, including the need for the following:
• A transportation plan that recognizes the urban nature of UNM and the part-time status and employment levels of our students.
• A facilities plan that groups students services together and that recognizes the need for access during evening hours.

• An assessment of how the availability of facilities affects the successful recruitment and education of graduate students.
• A facilities/campus plan that is ADA compliant.

The University can only grow and improve according to its financial, human and physical resources. In order for the University to accomplish its vision, the resource base must be cultivated and utilized in a responsible and efficient manner. The committee has attempted to be innovative in defining the domain of our resource base. We have taken both a short-term as well as a long-term perspective in this discussion and hope that although some of the ideas may not be feasible at this point in time, they are considered by the planning committee as strategies for the future. The bullet points in the executive summary contain the general conclusions of the committee.