Why was the proposal for the infrastructure charge announced during the semester break, and were student leaders consulted and informed about the need for the charge?
The University Budget Council has been working since late October on a five-year financial plan for the University. This effort was prompted by general concerns about the near-term outlook on the part of the President and the Provost. This planning is at a significantly higher level of detail and involves a longer horizon than in the past. The effort is large and complex. A coherent budget picture, including possible remedies, was not available until Dec. 20, although it was clear by mid-November that there were sizable problems. President Faulkner alerted the Presidential Student Advisory Committee (PSAC) on two occasions last semester that there were serious issues to be addressed after the fall semester. The last PSAC meeting of the fall semester, on Nov. 26, was closed with such comments. The President similarly alerted the Faculty Council in a public session on Dec. 10. The timing of the specific proposal was necessitated by the overall approval process and budget cycle. Implement
Related Questions
- Under the President’s Proposal, won’t the 35,000 jobs that comprise the existing student lending infrastructure be redirected to other individuals by the federal government?
- Why does The New School charge a Student Health Services fee for my semester(s) abroad?
- How does the modified infrastructure charge differ from the initial proposal?
