M E M O R A N D U M

April 15, 2005

TO: President Michael V. Martin

FROM: Taskforce Members:

Garrey Carruthers (Co-chair) Michael Hites Jennifer Taylor

Mickey Clute Brent Howe Jack Thomas

Waded Cruzado-Salas Jim McDonough (Co-chair) Ben Woods

William Flores Tim Nesbitt

Ben Haines George Petty

SUBJECT: Report of Taskforce on Administrative and Support Services Efficiency

In accordance with your charge to the Taskforce members as outlined in your November 30, 2004 memorandum, the following report is submitted for your consideration.

The Taskforce’s first meeting took place on January 5, 2005 and we attempted to meet every two weeks for at least two hours up until the recent past. During our initial meetings we wrestled with the task of coming up with a definitive purpose for which the Taskforce was organized. The following represents our collective thoughts on the purpose of Taskforce on Administrative and Support Services Efficiency:

The purpose of the Taskforce is to make recommendations to President Martin in pursuit of meaningful efficiency and effectiveness in supporting and administering the primary vision of the University. To this end, we the Taskforce will review the current structure, effectiveness, necessity and efficiency of all administrative and support services of the University.

Members of the Taskforce formed two subcommittees to address:

1. the organizational structure of the University

2. to review cost saving measures.

The subcommittee on organizational structure met and discussed at length the current structure and revisions that might be recommended. A revised organizational structure was taken to the full Taskforce for their review and comments. The primary concern voiced by Taskforce members was why we should be making a recommendation to you. After much discussion and debate, it was the consensus of the Taskforce members that the current University organizational structure needed to be realigned especially since there were common functions reporting to the Provost and Vice Presidents that encourage duplication of effort, complicate administration of basic functions by dividing key components between multiple parties or otherwise caused inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the University as a whole. In addition, the current organization is awkward, as opposed to organizational focus and potentially hampers decision making and coordination of actions. Also, the number and variety of direct reports to the President tax his ability to focus attention on high priority issues facing NMSU. It also concluded that while a revised organizational structure might not address cost savings, it certainly could have a significant impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the University and provide opportunity for new energy and ideas to be brought to bear on challenges we face.

While there were reservations and concerns voiced by various members of the Taskforce regarding the proposed organizational chart, it was the consensus that we should forward to you the chart as shown on Appendix A. The chart was developed in such a way as to more clearly define administrative responsibilities centered on the concept of functional alignment. The Taskforce recognizes that ultimately you will decide on an organizational structure that meets your management style, which will be altered to take advantage of the pool of talent available to you.

While the Taskforce reached consensus on the functional organization chart as a whole, there were reservations and concerns voiced by individual members that you should be aware of when considering the chart:

1. The colleges are named under the Deans and there was some sentiment that we should have a more comprehensive description of various Deans’ responsibilities. We chose to leave the chart as it is for simplification purposes in light of fact that we are primarily looking at administrative organization and procedures.
2. Information Technology is displayed as reporting to the Senior VP for Administration. Some members stated that this function was similar to a utility function and its efforts, at least during the next few years, should be mainly directed to the change in administrative systems, i.e., Banner. A few Taskforce members believe that the role of this office is much broader servicing many, if not all of the academic and administrative operations of the campus and should report to the President or Provost.
3. Most Taskforce members thought that we need a person at the most senior level to head up our marketing for the University and therefore, have included this function under a Vice President for University Relations.
4. One Taskforce member suggested that the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics report to the Senior Vice President for University Relations to minimize the number of direct reports to the President. In addition, he believed General Counsel and offices reporting to him could be placed under the Senior Vice President for Administration.

One last suggestion was made on the need to restructure central administration committees. Some Taskforce members believe that much of their time is not efficiently utilized by attending

up to four committee meetings that are in part a rehash of the same materials. One structure that might be considered is:

• Cabinet – President and Senior VPs
• Provost Council – Provost, Vice Provosts and Deans
• Administrative Council – as currently structured

The above would eliminate Dean’s Council and attendance by some at other meetings.

Overall, we think the organizational chart as recommended to you under Appendix A makes a lot of sense in that it transfers those functional units that should report to academic affairs, administration and university relations under three vice presidents. We believe this will empower the University through its organizational structure to focus on priority mission goals and objectives and encourage accountability at the executive level. Of NMSU’s primary sources of funding, there are really only two factors that have the potential of being revenue drivers from a financial perspective, capable of directly “growing the business” of NMSU: enrollment and fund raising. All other revenue sources are mechanisms designed primarily to cover costs incurred in providing the services involved. The proposed organizational chart demonstrates a focus upon these two drivers, and streamlines the resources committed to the oversight of cost centers that indirectly support the main missions of the University. We recognize that there is no magic in any organizational chart but it is important that you as President of the University have a limited number of people reporting directly to you so that you can effectively utilize your time for the betterment of the University.

The other subcommittee and Taskforce members spent a good deal of time reviewing and discussing areas we believed offered opportunities regarding possible efficiencies and cost savings.

We believe the following two recommendations, while not necessarily offering savings are so important to the success of the university that we carried them forward from an earlier document under consideration some years ago:

1. Co-locate student support functions for convenience of students to enable sharing of administrative resources between offices; co-located functions should offer flexible and extended hours, and focus on first-year support/mentoring programs.
2. Extend student recruiting and retention efforts to improve current enrollment and related revenue.

While the Taskforce believed that the co-location was a long-term plan for consolidating Student Support Services so that there might be one-stop shopping for students, they recognized that this would not come to fruition for some time as resources might not be available to construct a structure that could house all these support functions are now located in the Ed Services building, Corbett Center, Garcia Annex and the like. We believe, however, that the underlying principle of this recommendation is that the services to students have been neglected on this campus for many years and further efforts need to be directed to entice students to enroll and stay on NMSU’s campus. Examples were shared by Taskforce members in which students were recruited heavily by NMSU but chose to go to other campuses simply because in the eyes of the Taskforce members the students did not perceive NMSU as student-oriented university. In addition, once they were on campus the retention efforts were so minimal that after their first year they chose to drop out from NMSU or transfer to some other institution. While the success of those students that we recruit and retain was upper most in the minds of the Taskforce members, it was emphasized that we should realize that both recruiting and retaining students is important to the financial stability and growth of the University.

A number of issues were reviewed and discussed which resulted in the following Taskforce members’ recommendations:

1. Taskforce members believe that the University should establish reallocation targets for all of the major units on campus and charge the senior administrators to develop plans for meeting these targets. The range of reallocation could go from a minimum of 5% to a maximum of 10% of the total budgets of major units or whatever percentage you chose. Such things as functional consolidation, early retirement programs, reduction in force by attrition and shifting of duplicative functions between colleges and central offices were just a few of those items mentioned that might be utilized in reaching whatever targets were agreed upon. It was recognized and we would encourage that this reallocation process be taken over a two-year period since the implementation of some of the aforementioned plans in meeting the reallocation may take time. The two-year timeframe is also encouraged in order for attrition to take its natural course and thus avoid any reduction in force (RIF) through layoffs.

In order to facilitate this process, it was recommended that you decide the most important areas that need additional funding within the University so that the reallocation process could be sold to the campus. One might consider closing the gap for faculty and staff salaries compared to our peer institutions. For example, you might target a reallocation of 5% in the first year and 5% in the second year and devote two-thirds of these funds to raise the level of the salaries of all faculty and staff. We would suggest that the entire campus, not only I&G units, but all funding sources be tapped during this reallocation process. It was suggested that whatever reallocation target is established that the most senior level people (e.g., Senior VPs) be charged with setting realistic goals for each unit based on some agreed upon criterion. This point was especially emphasized for academic units taking into consideration their enrollment and retention trends, growth or lack thereof in sponsored programs, and the like. The funds, of course, would stay within the major funding categories of I&G funds, non-I&G funds and sponsored programs. Five percent (5%) of the total I&G budget would yield in the vicinity of $5 million. If the reallocation took place for two years you would have the ability to give raises equal to whatever portion you decide to allocate to raise the level of the faculty and staff salaries, i.e. 6 to 7%. The Taskforce members also thought it was important that a portion of these funds, i.e. the additional 3 to 4% be targeted for some crucial plans that you may have regarding where you want the University to go in the future.

2. Assign a small taskforce to consider streamlining of research administration staffing and functions across multiple offices that are now defining the responsibility for accuracy and compliance of research transactions. Included in the streamlining study should be a consolidation of college research centers into one or more central research centers. The basic rational for this recommendation is that we are spending millions of dollars in central offices for pre and post award functions as well as millions of dollars spread throughout the colleges to perform functions many of which may have a great deal of duplication and redundancies. There is also a strong feeling that the research faculty should be supported in such a fashion as to assist them in obtaining contracts and grants and then attempting to free them up from the day-to-day administrative burden that is now placed upon them to track the funds that they spend.
3. Develop and implement a centralized marketing plan, with the goal of optimizing and diversifying revenue sources. Many of the Taskforce members believe that the creation of Senior Vice President for University Relations should be charged with this responsibility so that we are putting our best foot forward to sell the University to all our constituents in such a fashion as will not only attract more students and retain more students, but also have the support of our alumni and friends so that we can successfully service our students.
4. Review how automation of functionality could support consolidation of current administrative functions related to the library, ICT, printing, instructional support services and distance education.
5. Develop and implement an operating budget process that is integrated with strategic planning, which should include both capital/space budgeting and a central review of recharge center rates in the operating budget process.
6. Perform a detailed space utilization review which should include developing a formal space allocation methodology to more effectively consolidate like functions on a university-wide basis, review opportunities for commingling I&G and non-I&G space use, and consider moving our research to the high cost space on campus in order to recover as much overhead cost as possible from grantors and contractors.
7. Consider consolidation of motor pools as there are currently at least four on campus including Office of Facilities and Services, PSL, Ag Experiment Stations/Cooperative Extension Service and NMDA. In addition, there are more than 35 departments with five or more vehicles, 9 with 20 or more vehicles with total university vehicles exceeding 900.
8. The purchasing of key commodities by one central office especially in the area of office supplies, certain equipment and the like would afford the University cost saving opportunities. Currently most commodities are purchased by individual departments, which does not afford saving via bulk purchasing. In addition, goods are delivered all over campus which adds to congestion on campus and we believe that the central receipt of such goods and equipment would afford the University efficiencies and possible cost savings.
9. Printing and Duplicating have presently major operations in PSL, the College of Agriculture, Central Printing and Duplicating and the Doña Ana Branch campus. We recommend that consideration be given to consolidating these operations to offer efficiencies and effectives throughout the campus.
10. The Conference Services department manages Corbett Center facilities only, but there is no central point of contact for all usable conference space on campus. We believe the responsibility should be placed somewhere such as Auxiliary Services that would coordinate all assignment of conference space including the Fulton Center, Golf Course Clubhouse, Corbett Center and the like.
11. Mail services, both US mail and interoffice mail, are handled almost exclusively by in-house operations. We believe that alternatives should be explored with the US Post office where they could deliver mail directly to buildings on campus.
12. Streamline the search processes for filling positions by assigning the administrative oversight tasks to a staff member in Human Resources and have that office suggest the most efficient/effective way of conducting the searches. In the non-academic areas, it was suggested that search committees were unnecessary unless the position was one at a very high level that had a significant impact across the entire campus.

The Taskforce recognizes that the recommendations included in this report will require much more study but we believe that they include issues that if appropriately addressed will result in an administrative support structure, cost savings and efficiencies that will benefit the University. To assist you in further study and implementation of the recommendations you consider worthy of further pursuit, we suggest you assign each of the recommendations to the appropriate vice president and have them report back to you within an appropriate timeframe of their findings and recommendations for implementation. The Taskforce stands ready to meet with you to discuss further defining recommendations.