Communication with Phyllis Clark

David Bakan (
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:41:32 -0500 (EST)

Phyllis Clark:

Again thank you for your patient reply.

I have put some comments and questions to your post ad locum below

At 17:54 15/12/97 -0400,Phyllis Clark wrote:

>You have quoted total income for the university rather than looking at
>operating income which supports the faculty. So, the corresponding
>numbers for the operating income since 1992 are:
>1992 288.1 m.
>1993 307.6 m.
>1994 291.7 m
>1995 296.3 m
>1996 302.2 m
>1997 284.9 m

Good. I understand this. Note, however, that there is considerable
stability in these figures. And again I point to the stability of even
these numbers against the fall in faculty.
1992-1996 Full time faculty and professional librarians went from 1285 to 1160.
1992-1996 part time faculty went from 1317 to 702.

But you claim below that

>Even switching to those numbers as shown in the financial statments
>masks some of the restrictions on the use of those funds. For example,
>the total tuition income is recorded in the total for 1997 but the
>province mandated that 10% of the tuition increase had to be used for
>Student assistance.

Two things about what you say above. First it is about information that I
do not have in any of the audited statements. Second, it is about something
very current, and my concern is with the long term decline in the faculty.

PC .
In 1997-98, the percentage of the increase is up
>to 30%. That number also includes the ECR's which go right through to
>the use they were earned for. In 1997, that number was about 17m,
>Nevertheless, we are still having to operate on less funding that we
>have had since 1992.

Again, you are talking 1997. The information about the number of full-time
faculty professional librarians, and part-time faculty has not even been
made available. .

What you are saying about the current situation is for a future
conversation. My point, let me repeat, is that over the years the number of
faculty has been going down. These observations do not reach that as far as
I can tell.

>The increases which you are seeing in the total revenue numbers which
you quote are mainly due to the growth in trust and endowment because of
>the OSOTF programme and the capital campaign. These are externally
>restricted money and can not be used for other than their designated
>Money which is not restricted to use can be transferred but funds in the
>trust and endowment and the sponsored research funds are restricted.
>Capital funds are restricted by the province in use for capital

Two things:

First, I am not talking about fund transfers OUT OF Capital funds into other

Second, The audited statements clearly show transfers OUT OF the Operating
Funds, the Sponsored Research Funds, and the Trust and Endowment Funds INTO
Capital Funds and Ancillary Funds.

But, there are also debts sitting in the ancillary and the
>capital funds which must be paid off.

So you DO take money out of the Operating Funds to pay for costs incurred in
connection with Capital and Ancillary expenditures!. And is it therefore
for this reason that there is reduced money in the Operating Funds to pay
for faculty?

The interfund transfers are
>discussed in the year end in review. Such transfers are sued to settle
>expense claims against the operating fund.

What "year end in review." Where is this discussion? What are these
"expense claims against the operating fund" that you cite?

>The essential fact with the 15% cut in operating expenditures is that
>our flexible revenue sources have dropped more quickly than our expenses
>and we are working to get back into balance.

As you say. But I do not find any justification in what you have pointed to
for the great reduction in the faculty complement of the University. I
still find the claims about the effects of the cuts exaggerated. And I
still remain appalled when I think of how the administration could allow the
faculty complement of the university to run down this way!

It's like eating the seed corn!

Thank you for your patience. I will try to maintain mine.

Best wishes

David Bakan

>On Dec 13, 1:51pm, David Bakan wrote:
>> Subject: The use of money at York University
>> To: YUFA=L
>> [Caution: There are some tables here. E-mail sometimes distorts
>> The order of columns is year, income, the number of full time faculty
>> professional librarians, and part-time faculty.
>> Income and number of faculty at York University
>> Year Income Full time facultyand professional librarians Part
>time faculty
>> 1992 377.8 1285 1317
>> 1993 399.6 1262 1018
>> 1994 362.2 1216 860
>> 1995 366.1 1206 796
>> 1996 382.1 1160 702
>> 1997 386.1 N/A N/A
>> Source: York financial reports, and York fact book.
>> I keep reflecting on these figures.
>> Note stabilities and increases in income versus decline in faculty!.
>> Questions: Have the effects of the cuts by the province been
>> Where is the money going? Why have they allowed the faculty complement
>to go
>> down while the income has been stable to up?
>> The answer to the first question is yes. This is due in large measure
>> compensating rises in student fees.
>> On the second question: I have been told that to look only at the
>> income is deceiving because money that comes in is specifically
>> for other things than faculty, and cannot be used to pay faculty.
>> This is explained as follows: The university maintains its money in
>> fund groups as follows: Operating, Capital, Ancillary, Sponsored
>> and Trust/Endowments.
>> They say that the money cannot be transferred among funds. Thus,
>because of
>> the cuts by the province in the operating fund they had to cut
>> Is that an explanation or a red herring?
>> Note that there something labelled "Inter-fund transfers" in Statement
>2 of
>> the financial reports.
>> The administration appears to feel quite free to move money around
>> these funds.
>> It is not that they failed to move money from other funds into the
>> fund so as to pay for faculty.
>> They took MONEY OUT of the Operating Funds, as well as out of
>> Research and Trusts and Endowments, and put that MONEY INTO Capital
>> Ancillary Funds!
>> Below the data from the last two years.
>> [The columns in order are year, operating funds, capital, ancillary,
>> sponsored research and trusts and endowments.]
>> 1996 [1258] 2546 478 [840] [926]
>> 1997 [3258] 3431 2358 [582] [1679]
>> [In thousands] Source: York financial reports.
>> If I am making some kind of mistake, and someone can point it out to
>me, I
>> will be glad to acknowledge it.
>> Frankly, I would be more glad than anyone to be wrong.
>> .
>> David Bakan
>> cc:Lorna Marsden, Michael Stevenson, Phyllis Clark, Harry Arthurs,
>Board of
>> Governors c/o M. Ransom, The Senate c/o M. Ransom, Faculty of Arts
>> Governance Committee
>>-- End of excerpt from David Bakan
>---End of forwarded mail from "Phyllis Clark" <>
>Phyllis Clark