Lincoln, Neb., Nov. 27, 2002--Over the course of the last year I have been required to reduce the budget of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by approximately $16 million. These decisions have been difficult and these cuts have been painful to the university and to those we serve, and the prediction is that we will face more reductions in the future. However, some people recently have expressed concern that my decisions have unfairly targeted rural Nebraska. This concern stung more than others for two reasons: I am a product of rural Nebraska and the concern is not well-founded.
The closing of the South Central Research and Extension Center (SCREC) at Clay Center and the veterinarian diagnostic labs in North Platte and Scottsbluff, have been among the most visible of the cuts. The cuts on the Lincoln campus have not created as much public response as the ones in rural Nebraska, and this is understandable. I am painfully aware that the elimination of jobs in a small community has a very significant impact. But the reality is that the campus in Lincoln has incurred a far greater dollar reduction than rural Nebraska.
Any reduction in the budget of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR), will impact rural Nebraska. That is what the Institute does. In each of the three budget cuts, the Institute took the same proportionate share of the reduction as its overall budget bears to the total UNL budget. Of the more than $7.5 million reduction for UNL during this last round, slightly more than $2 million came from the IANR. That leaves $5.5 million that I removed from the budget of the city campus.
To put things in perspective, the closing of SCREC saved the university about $600,000, and the closing of the West Central Vet Diagnostic Lab saved about $200,000. More than this total was taken out of the on-campus programs of the academic colleges, even though we avoided cuts targeted to undergraduate education. In addition, I removed $1 million from our summer school budget. This will directly impact faculty on the Lincoln campus, who will be asked to teach summer classes for less money, and college administrators who will be asked to administer the program during the summer with no reimbursement.
I removed $1 million from our Division of Business and Finance, which is going to directly impact the students and faculty on campus in Lincoln. Custodial and landscape services are being reduced across the campus. The very thin schedule for repainting interior spaces will be stretched even further. Students and faculty may incur greater inconvenience as we reduce our staffs performing business functions.
I removed $900,000 from our Division of Student Affairs. We will be unable to be as responsive to students in career services, admissions, registration, and financial aid because of staff reductions. Students will pay more in registration and application fees. By asking some of our activities that are not state supported to take over some state responsibilities, the Student Health Center will reexamine and probably increase its fee schedule, the Student Unions will cut back on services provided students, and the student recreation center will cut its operating hours.
In addition, we are counting on the $500,000 in early retirements from faculty. Their departure will impact the academic programs because they will not be replaced.
And I eliminated the Division of Continuing Studies on the Lincoln campus which will save almost $900,000. However, very little of this reduction came at the expense of distance education which is the one unit in the Division that directly serves rural Nebraska.
Some would have had me "protect" our physical presence in rural Nebraska by making more reductions on the Lincoln campus. I made every effort to protect our undergraduate programs because I strongly believe that Nebraska's future depends on this university's ability to keep our own young people at home and attract young people from other states. It should be emphasized that a very significant percentage of our undergraduates are the children of rural Nebraska.
We have not forgotten our land grant mission. We have protected the rural initiative that seeks to help rural Nebraska during this difficult time. We continue to serve rural Nebraska. But we cannot sustain the same level of service with declining resources.
This university is committed to all of Nebraska, both rural and urban, because the future of the state depends on both. The university has not unfairly targeted rural Nebraska in these reductions. We have done our best to preserve the university's ability to continue to serve, to continue to keep our young people here, and to continue to help build economic growth throughout our state.
Nebraskans will make their own decisions about where the university fits in their priorities relative to other state services and relative to their willingness to pay taxes. But they must also expect that reducing the university's budget will be felt throughout the state.
Harvey Perlman, Chancellor
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
CONTACT: Meg Lauerman, Director, University Communications, (402) 472-0088 (mlauerman1@unl.edu)
For questions regarding these releases, contact:
tsimons1@unl.edu
(402) 472-8514, Fax: (402) 472-7825