• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

UM Budget Situation Improves

PlayerRep

Well-known member
"In the 2019 fiscal year, UM planned on a $7.3 million deficit, Lasiter said. But he said UM took in about $3.4 million more than expected, spent roughly $4 million less than anticipated, and ended the fiscal year with a surplus of about $500,000.

UM has lost 34% of its full-time students since 2011 and has been trying to improve recruitment and retention.

Bodnar also noted he anticipated an uptick in freshman enrollment.

Lasiter said the projected $4 million deficit for the current fiscal year is “based on best guesses” on metrics like tuition revenue that could change. But he said the university has $11 million to $12 million in reserves to cover the shortfall.

It remains unclear how faculty and staffing will fare this fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Last fall, UM announced plans to shed 58 faculty (without cutting tenured positions) and cut $5 million by 2021. Lasiter said that the 2020 budget would contain “nothing new in terms of reductions,” beyond the implementation of plans announced last fall.

From the 2015 fiscal year to 2019, UM lost 13% of its faculty, or 87 full-time faculty equivalents (not all faculty work full time). Over the same period, UM lost 18% of its classified staff, or 97 FTE, although staff account for a much smaller portion of the budget.

While he considers a $4 million deficit next year healthy, Lasiter said “that stability is off of an expenditure base that is too low, in my opinion.

"We’re stable, but we’ve got to grow.”

https://missoulian.com/news/local/um-chops-deficit-from-million-to-projected-million/article_772e8315-3855-5006-947b-b7e643850858.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest
 
PlayerRep said:
"In the 2019 fiscal year, UM planned on a $7.3 million deficit, Lasiter said. But he said UM took in about $3.4 million more than expected, spent roughly $4 million less than anticipated, and ended the fiscal year with a surplus of about $500,000.

UM has lost 34% of its full-time students since 2011 and has been trying to improve recruitment and retention.

Bodnar also noted he anticipated an uptick in freshman enrollment.

Lasiter said the projected $4 million deficit for the current fiscal year is “based on best guesses” on metrics like tuition revenue that could change. But he said the university has $11 million to $12 million in reserves to cover the shortfall.

It remains unclear how faculty and staffing will fare this fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Last fall, UM announced plans to shed 58 faculty (without cutting tenured positions) and cut $5 million by 2021. Lasiter said that the 2020 budget would contain “nothing new in terms of reductions,” beyond the implementation of plans announced last fall.

From the 2015 fiscal year to 2019, UM lost 13% of its faculty, or 87 full-time faculty equivalents (not all faculty work full time). Over the same period, UM lost 18% of its classified staff, or 97 FTE, although staff account for a much smaller portion of the budget.

While he considers a $4 million deficit next year healthy, Lasiter said “that stability is off of an expenditure base that is too low, in my opinion.

"We’re stable, but we’ve got to grow.”

https://missoulian.com/news/local/um-chops-deficit-from-million-to-projected-million/article_772e8315-3855-5006-947b-b7e643850858.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

Bodnar is doing a good job. Now enrollment needs to increase and new programs need added that are attractive to the next generation. Ones that don’t have capped enrollment like Pharmacy, PT. Move aggressively with tech programs.
 
Copper Griz said:
PlayerRep said:
"In the 2019 fiscal year, UM planned on a $7.3 million deficit, Lasiter said. But he said UM took in about $3.4 million more than expected, spent roughly $4 million less than anticipated, and ended the fiscal year with a surplus of about $500,000.

UM has lost 34% of its full-time students since 2011 and has been trying to improve recruitment and retention.

Bodnar also noted he anticipated an uptick in freshman enrollment.

Lasiter said the projected $4 million deficit for the current fiscal year is “based on best guesses” on metrics like tuition revenue that could change. But he said the university has $11 million to $12 million in reserves to cover the shortfall.

It remains unclear how faculty and staffing will fare this fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Last fall, UM announced plans to shed 58 faculty (without cutting tenured positions) and cut $5 million by 2021. Lasiter said that the 2020 budget would contain “nothing new in terms of reductions,” beyond the implementation of plans announced last fall.

From the 2015 fiscal year to 2019, UM lost 13% of its faculty, or 87 full-time faculty equivalents (not all faculty work full time). Over the same period, UM lost 18% of its classified staff, or 97 FTE, although staff account for a much smaller portion of the budget.

While he considers a $4 million deficit next year healthy, Lasiter said “that stability is off of an expenditure base that is too low, in my opinion.

"We’re stable, but we’ve got to grow.”

https://missoulian.com/news/local/um-chops-deficit-from-million-to-projected-million/article_772e8315-3855-5006-947b-b7e643850858.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

Bodnar is doing a good job. Now enrollment needs to increase and new programs need added that are attractive to the next generation. Ones that don’t have capped enrollment like Pharmacy, PT. Move aggressively with tech programs.

the endless objectivity of egriz - bodnar is doing a good job. now he's just got to start doing good job to make what i said true.
 
I read an article a couple weeks ago saying freshman enrollment will be up based on their applications and acceptance. They want to make sure they keep growing these freshman classes to get back to the positive.
 
When we talk about offering tech programs and other such things, keep in mind that all the schools in Montana are part of the same system.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer things at the U of M that MSU or Tech already offer. It's about offering the greatest variety of opportunities across the system. Duplication of programming will just lead to robbing Peter to pay Paul. It might help the U of M's numbers but that isn't as big a concern to the overall health of the state wide system. What we as UM supporters might want is not always going to align with what's best for the whole state of Montana.
 
argh! said:
the endless objectivity of egriz - bodnar is doing a good job. now he's just got to start doing good job to make what i said true.
Yeah, we'd be in such better shape if your boy Engstrom was still in charge.
 
SaskGriz said:
When we talk about offering tech programs and other such things, keep in mind that all the schools in Montana are part of the same system.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer things at the U of M that MSU or Tech already offer. It's about offering the greatest variety of opportunities across the system. Duplication of programming will just lead to robbing Peter to pay Paul. It might help the U of M's numbers but that isn't as big a concern to the overall health of the state wide system. What we as UM supporters might want is not always going to align with what's best for the whole state of Montana.

There is already a crap-ton of duplication.

There is nothing magic or sacred about degree programs schools offer...policy perhaps.

If you want to be an engineer in Texas, you can go to UT, Texas AM, UT San Antonio, Texas Tech and about a dozen other State schools.

Perhaps the cats should shed their business school, or teacher programs...
 
SaskGriz said:
When we talk about offering tech programs and other such things, keep in mind that all the schools in Montana are part of the same system.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer things at the U of M that MSU or Tech already offer. It's about offering the greatest variety of opportunities across the system. Duplication of programming will just lead to robbing Peter to pay Paul. It might help the U of M's numbers but that isn't as big a concern to the overall health of the state wide system. What we as UM supporters might want is not always going to align with what's best for the whole state of Montana.

There is already a crap-ton of duplication.

There is nothing magic or sacred about degree programs schools offer...policy perhaps.

If you want to be an engineer in Texas, you can go to UT, Texas AM, UT San Antonio, Texas Tech and about a dozen other State schools.

Perhaps the cats should shed their business school, or teacher programs...
 
Soldier, please tell me you posted that duplication post twice on purpose. That’s the world in which I want to live.
 
Spanky2 said:
Is the wonderful man still employed at UM?

On the one hand, we have: http://apps.umt.edu/directory/department_search#directory_results

On the other hand, we have: http://hs.umt.edu/chemistry/people/faculty.php

Hopefully, the U just hasn't updated the directory.
 
wbtfg said:
Do the regents still divert $14 mil from MSU to prop up UM?

Do the Regents still say UM can’t take it to the next level because baby bro-bro isn’t tall enough to ride the roller coaster?
 
CDAGRIZ said:
wbtfg said:
Do the regents still divert $14 mil from MSU to prop up UM?

Do the Regents still say UM can’t take it to the next level because baby bro-bro isn’t tall enough to ride the roller coaster?

#moveupthread
 
CDAGRIZ said:
wbtfg said:
Do the regents still divert $14 mil from MSU to prop up UM?

Do the Regents still say UM can’t take it to the next level because baby bro-bro isn’t tall enough to ride the roller coaster?

The little bro now is UM. MSU set to exceed 17,000 enrollment this fall. UM still stuggling and has been a drag on the System.
 
SoldierGriz said:
SaskGriz said:
When we talk about offering tech programs and other such things, keep in mind that all the schools in Montana are part of the same system.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to offer things at the U of M that MSU or Tech already offer. It's about offering the greatest variety of opportunities across the system. Duplication of programming will just lead to robbing Peter to pay Paul. It might help the U of M's numbers but that isn't as big a concern to the overall health of the state wide system. What we as UM supporters might want is not always going to align with what's best for the whole state of Montana.

There is already a crap-ton of duplication.

There is nothing magic or sacred about degree programs schools offer...policy perhaps.

If you want to be an engineer in Texas, you can go to UT, Texas AM, UT San Antonio, Texas Tech and about a dozen other State schools.

Perhaps the cats should shed their business school, or teacher programs...

Both of your posts made good points. :lol:

Of course there will be some duplication, there are certain programs that are offered damn near everywhere. Especially ones that don't have a huge overhead to run; education, business, history/poli sci, etc. It's a bit different with tech programs that tend to have higher costs, and even more so with specialties like medical school/dentistry/vet.

I didn't say anything about degree offers being magic or sacred, in fact I was pointing out that it is often policy.

Texas might offer more opportunities for engineering because if I'm not wrong their student population is slightly larger than Montana's.
 
bigsky33 said:
CDAGRIZ said:
wbtfg said:
Do the regents still divert $14 mil from MSU to prop up UM?

Do the Regents still say UM can’t take it to the next level because baby bro-bro isn’t tall enough to ride the roller coaster?

The little bro now is UM.

The sun now rises in the West!
Did that work the same way?
 
Back
Top