Finance & Policy Planning

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

Co-Chairs: Maurizio Porfiri & Daniel Smith(fall)
Members: David Backus, Nick Economides, Sydney Ludvigson, Sharon Weinberg, David Zagzag

Agenda Items

  • Budget recommendation for next academic year
  • Creating and sharing a template for presenting and analyzing financial data (in each school)
  • Creating a financial dashboard (for each school)
  • Obtaining "executive-level" (i.e. Board of Trustees) financial data on the GNU
  • Meeting with the new Presidential administration on the university's budget process
Budget Recommendation

To: Martin Dorph
Cc: Anthony Jiga, Members of the Senate Financial Affairs Committee
From: Maurizio Porfiri and David Zagzag for the Finance and Planning Committee of the Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Senators Council
Re: Budget Planning Parameters for Fiscal 2015 Date: April 14, 2016

This document was drafted by the T-FSC Finance Committee after a meeting on April 11, 2016 and was amended and officially endorsed by the T-FSC on April 14, 2016. We see it as a discussion document, intended to convey some of the issues we would like to see the budget process address.

This request builds on efforts of this Committee during the last two years, which have sought to go beyond the traditional call for a higher salary pool and suggest 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. Because faculty are the engine of the University through their commitment to research, teaching, and service, we underscore the importance of maintaining levels of compensation that make NYU an attractive employer for talented scholars and teachers. We recognize that the University provides significant non-monetary compensation to faculty that comes from outside the official salary pool, including healthcare benefits, tuition remission benefits, and housing for some of them. But, without discounting the value of such non-monetary compensation, we again bring to your attention that since 2000, salaries of tenure/tenure-track faculty have not kept up with inflation. In line with the recent AAUP’s Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession regarding continuing full-time faculty, and as a way to begin to offset the loss in our faculty’s earning power over the past fifteen years, we recommend an AMI pool increase of 3.5% for tenure/tenure-track.

2. Budget framework. We applaud the creation of the affordability initiative, which has sparked an outpouring of compelling ideas for budget savings and increased revenue. We hope the University takes these ideas seriously and supports the implementation of as many of them as feasible. Faculty have also expressed concerns about disproportionately high salary increases of the upper administration versus other members of the University community and encourages the University to examine this issue within the context of the affordability effort.

3. Supporting data. The efforts envisioned in numbered paragraph 2 will work best in an environment of equity and transparency, if faculty groups have access to University (Central Administration), school, and department budgets along with related information about resource allocation. Toward that end, this Committee with endorsement from the T-FSC has prepared a budget template that we would like the University to recommend so that such data can become available and shared by faculty within each school. 

Budget Planning Parameters (April 14, 2016)