Finance & Policy Planning

studies faculty salaries, working conditions, negotiation processes; examines long-range issues; addresses other relevant financial matters

Co-Chairs: David Backus & Daniel Smith
Members: Sewin Chan, Jeff Goodwin, Sydney Ludvigson, David Stokes, Raghu Sundaram

N/C-FSC Representatives: Tommy Lee, Susan Stehlik, Ethan Youngerman

Budget Planning Parameters for Fiscal 2016


This draft was written by Dave Backus and Dan Smith for the T­FSC Finance Committee after
discussion at the T­FSC meeting on February 19. It does not at this point have the official
endorsement of the T­FSC or its Finance Committee. We see it as a discussion document, intended to convey some of the issues we would like to see the budget process address.

Last year we went beyond the traditional call for a higher salary pool and suggested that we
“explore ways in which the University can save money that might go toward higher salaries for
faculty.” We would like to continue along the same path and have some concrete proposals for
moving forward.

With this in mind, we make these recommendations:

1. Salary/AMI. We understand that raises sometimes come outside the official salary pool, and that the University provides significant non­monetary compensation, including housing and healthcare benefits. But we want to reiterate the key role played by faculty in the education of our students and the importance of maintaining levels of compensation that make NYU an attractive employer for talented scholars and teachers. Our colleagues have a wide range of opinion on the subject (see poll summary). We recommend their modal response of an AMI pool increase of 3.5%.

2. Budget framework. We would like the University to endorse the idea that NYU and its component parts will entertain constructive proposals from faculty to reduce costs or increase revenue, with the understanding that part of any financial benefits be contributed to faculty salaries. We do not want to limit ahead of time the range of ideas considered, but would guess that most will be at the school or department level.

3. Supporting data. The effort envisioned in #2 will work best if faculty groups have access
school or department budgets and related information about resource allocation. We therefore
recommend that the University provide the T­FSC with school­level data as appropriate. This will
be an ongoing process, but we think we could make a good start with (a) a breakdown of school expenses and (b) a listing of courses taught throughout the University and their enrollments.

Recommendation and Response regarding Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 (April 28, 2015)

Report from the Committee Co-Chairs: January 2015


  • Budget submission. We will submit our usual request to add money to the faculty salary pool. Committee members in the past referred to this exercise as “valuable but futile.”
  • Data collection. We also plan to continue to work with the University, and specifically CFO Marty Dorph, to make additional financial information more broadly available to the faculty. We think this is essential for us to play a constructive and strategic role in the NYU’s governance. Specific requests this year are:
    •  NYU’s Global sites. The budget numbers we have collected to date leave some ambiguity about how these sites operate and whether they generate net revenue for the University. The committee specifically requests income statements and balance sheets for each of the portal sites in the GNU. 
    • School budgets. Recognizing that school-level, line item budgets are unobtainable, the committee requests a total expense or expenditure line for each school and college.
    • Teaching allocations. The committee requests data on faculty teaching loads by school and college, in addition to course-specific enrollment data by school and college.