Updates to faculty layoff plan and other stuff

[vatusay]

Sounds like take money from school construction funding.

[WIU0812]

That actually makes sense unless I am missing something. Typically if you are hurting for money you do not do an addition on your house rather you pay the bills and wait until there are extra funds again and then build. Maybe I am missing something though.

[Neckfansince71]

Legally you can't mix capital funds with Ed funds. The same holds true with transportation funds for school districts. When you get funds for building at the university level, you better use them or lose your place in line! jc

[ibleedpurpleandgold]

it's stupid that you can't take money from one area for another area but know one said that our law makers are smart.

[WIU0812]

it's stupid that you can't take money from one area for another area but know one said that our law makers are smart.

Actually it is very smart or they could just pull it from anywhere at any time and throw it at what they think is important. Plus with all of the corruption we have had it may be only thing that has saved tons of great programs from being defunded to benefit something that a politician sees more fit. So say a governor goes into the office and doesn't really care about outdoor recreation or nature, he could just quickly and easily pull funds from that area and move them into funding something else leaving that fund dry or insufficient which in turn would hurt or end that sector and all the benefits it created. In government sometimes if not most times it is a good thing that items like moving money take time.

Even though both items involve higher education they both are for specific purposes which keeps them secure. If someone was highly backed from U of I in different circumstances without that law they could possibly take funding for map grants(or something similar) and sneak them into the construction of a new building at U of I if this law was not in place.

[rocki]

it's stupid that you can't take money from one area for another area but know one said that our law makers are smart.

Actually it is very smart or they could just pull it from anywhere at any time and throw it at what they think is important. Plus with all of the corruption we have had it may be only thing that has saved tons of great programs from being defunded to benefit something that a politician sees more fit. So say a governor goes into the office and doesn't really care about outdoor recreation or nature, he could just quickly and easily pull funds from that area and move them into funding something else leaving that fund dry or insufficient which in turn would hurt or end that sector and all the benefits it created. In government sometimes if not most times it is a good thing that items like moving money take time.

Even though both items involve higher education they both are for specific purposes which keeps them secure. If someone was highly backed from U of I in different circumstances without that law they could possibly take funding for map grants(or something similar) and sneak them into the construction of a new building at U of I if this law was not in place.

That may well be true, but why have they (in years past) thrown money at everything under the sun just so they wouldn't lose on the next year's budget? I distinctly recall instances of them finding anything plausible to purchase to use up any leftover funds so their next budget wouldn't be cut by that much. Saving should be rewarded, not punished, I think. (Like it matters what I think, )

[vatusay]

I think in this case, taking money from the construction fund to keep the doors open makes more sense than not.

How many time has the road fund been raided for other state debts that aren't anywhere near related to infrastructure? Blago was really good at that and he was democrat.... Hahahaha blago. This $@!$ is golden!!!

Don't get me wrong Rauner doesn't even have a budget after nine months, and he's supposed to be the leader of the state, but madigan isn't helping the cause either.

Im neither right or left (I despise the two party system), just seems like common sense. Or what it seems like to me lol.

Edit:after some quick google searches, blago attempted to steal from road fund to make up budget shortfall but later backed off those attempts.

[LocalYokelFan]

I'm not saying moving construction money to operations funding isn't the only option available, it might be unfortunately. But it's so d@M^ risky. That campus needs facility dollars badly. Go turn on the tap water in Currens Hall... it's safe, but it's not pleasant looking. So by deferring construction, you're bleeding a slow death; death by a thousand paper cuts if you will. No HS student who has a 2nd option is going to want to come to a school that rarely builds something new and who's tap water in some academic buildings is reddish/brown. So WIU's viability just gets extended by a few years.

There's two things at play here in my mind. The first is obviously state funding which we're all well aware of. The other is tied to that, but it's simply getting WIU's financial house in order. I really think President Thomas and the Board are doing all they can on that font, but their hands are tied by a couple of unions, particularly the faculty union, that reside somewhere off in Neverland. The thing about collective bargaining is that you have to have something to bargain for. There is nothing, part of that is the State's fault, but right now there is nothing. So get all the red tape out of the darn way so the President and Board can make changes necessary to save the Institution. That means deep and overdue faculty cuts and merging / closing of under-performing departments and majors.

There's a great letter that the sensible conglomerate of the faculty started circulating to recall their union leadership and elect people that will assist in making some of these necessary, although difficult, structural reforms. I'd encourage you all to do what you can to support those faculty and this cause.

[rocki]

I'm not saying moving construction money to operations funding isn't the only option available, it might be unfortunately. But it's so d@M^ risky. That campus needs facility dollars badly. Go turn on the tap water in Currens Hall... it's safe, but it's not pleasant looking. So by deferring construction, you're bleeding a slow death; death by a thousand paper cuts if you will. No HS student who has a 2nd option is going to want to come to a school that rarely builds something new and who's tap water in some academic buildings is reddish/brown. So WIU's viability just gets extended by a few years.

There's two things at play here in my mind. The first is obviously state funding which we're all well aware of. The other is tied to that, but it's simply getting WIU's financial house in order. I really think President Thomas and the Board are doing all they can on that font, but their hands are tied by a couple of unions, particularly the faculty union, that reside somewhere off in Neverland. The thing about collective bargaining is that you have to have something to bargain for. There is nothing, part of that is the State's fault, but right now there is nothing. So get all the red tape out of the darn way so the President and Board can make changes necessary to save the Institution. That means deep and overdue faculty cuts and merging / closing of under-performing departments and majors.

There's a great letter that the sensible conglomerate of the faculty started circulating to recall their union leadership and elect people that will assist in making some of these necessary, although difficult, structural reforms. I'd encourage you all to do what you can to support those faculty and this cause.

How?

[ST_Lawson]

So get all the red tape out of the darn way so the President and Board can make changes necessary to save the Institution. That means deep and overdue faculty cuts and merging / closing of under-performing departments and majors.

This is something that will likely be happening, but is a bit trickier than just instituting furlough days. That was the "easy" first step, so they rolled that out first. They are currently examining what they need to do to combine departments and eliminate some positions/offices. Nothing is official, but I've heard that a couple of the likely possibilities include some combining of the various "multicultural studies" programs, and combining the Geology and Geography departments. I'm sure there's a few others on the table as well, but it's just going to take a bit of time for that to happen. Some processes that involve changing the classes that we offer (reducing classes, eliminated an entire department, etc.) will likely not take effect until Fall 2017, since the schedule is already pretty much set for Fall 2016 and students will be starting to register for those fairly soon. Combining offices or departments without changing classes (at least, not right away) would be a bit "easier" to do and you would likely save a bit of money by eliminating an office support position or two and/or possibly an advisor position (just for reference, I'm not saying "easier" in a "it's easy to let people go" way...I just mean that logistically doing that would be easier than changing the course schedule).