UIF committee submits recommendations

Committee debate has ended about whether the UW should spring for new, large-budget projects or protect the programs it already has. The verdict: both.

The University Initiatives Fund (UIF) five-year review committee released its recommendations on the program to President Richard McCormick last week. At the top of its list of proposed changes was the way the program is funded.

McCormick implemented the UIF in 1996 to fund large-scale projects, such as the UW's undergraduate major in neurobiology and the School of Information Sciences. The program currently gleans its operating budget by cutting 1 percent from every UW program every two years.

Because that approach led to a collapse in several smaller programs, such as the Tibetan language program last fall, the UIF question has notoriously caused "divisiveness" between staff of the large projects and that of the smaller programs, according to Mary Coney, chair of the faculty senate.

The review committee has recommended that McCormick phase out the cuts from the programs and that alternate funds be secured for the project.

"What we're wanting to do is move away from the 1 percent cuts on units, because that is becoming difficult to sustain," said Nancy Hooyman, the committee's chair, who would like to eventually see a UIF endowment fund to cover the program costs. "The overall UIF ... has been a really positive approach that is beneficial to the University as a whole."

According to the proposal, those funds could come from "private donations, endowment funding, state funds, tuition and any other resources available to the University."

Coney, as well as ASUW President Jasmin Weaver, said that this line in the recommendations is not likely to lead to increased tuition for students.

McCormick will use the recommendations to gather the opinions of any interested members of the UW community. He will make the final decision about the UIF in late spring, and will likely present his recommendation as well as the UW budget to the Board of Regents at its June meeting.

McCormick declined to express his personal reaction to the committee's findings.

"I don't think the person who makes the final decision should express his views at the beginning of the conversation," McCormick said. "I don't want to shut down the discussion or twist it in any way."

He did, however, express his satisfaction in the committee's work.

"It's an impressive report by seven outstanding individuals. I think their report needs to be considered seriously," McCormick said.

Another area of concern to the review committee was the input process to the UIF and publicity. A recent survey by a student UIF review committee found that many students on campus don't know about the UIF, much less know whether they support the program. The recommendations call for more community outreach about the program, and ask for multiple-student involvement in all future review committees.

Weaver said the student review committee was "really excited about the results," and they felt its suggestions had been listened to. Weaver said she couldn't be more pleased with the five-year review committee's recommendations.

As far as increasing publicity, Hooyman said a longer version of the UIF five-year review committee's report and recommendations will soon be available online or by e-mail.

"I think it'll be important to read the report and realize that this was an extremely thorough process," Hooyman said.