RCM Oversight
To print this chapter in pdf form, click here: RCM Oversight
2. RCM Oversight
2.1 Operational Oversight
2.1.1 Central Administration Roles and Responsibilities
The UNH President provides oversight for the University as a whole and serves as the chair for the Central Budget Committee (CBC). Any changes to the RCM model require the approval of the UNH President. The office of each Vice President provides oversight for those RC units reporting to it and ensures that unit budgets reflect priorities as described in the unit’s and the University’s strategic plans. Each Vice President is a member of the Central Budget Committee (CBC) whose responsibilities include overall stewardship for the RCM model. The VP for Academic Affairs and Provost is responsible for leading the academic planning process and ensuring academic quality. The VP for Finance and Administration is responsible for ensuring that all units are using resources efficiently and effectively and within designated authority. This is accomplished through various means including management reporting, the budget process, mitigation planning and RC unit projections.
2.1.2 Responsibility Center (RC) Unit Roles and Responsibilities
Each RC unit is responsible for developing strategic and financial plans that fit within the overall Academic Plan http://www.academicplan.unh.edu. All operating decisions must comply with USNH and UNH policies www.finadmin.unh.edu/pol_proc/. Financial modeling for existing and new programs is the responsibility of the RC unit although assistance is available from the UNH Office of the VP for Finance and Administration. RC units are responsible for the overall fiscal performance of the unit encompassing all funds assigned to the unit and have the flexibility to implement incentives for improving fiscal performance. RC units are held accountable for the effective and efficient management of their resources and are required to report periodically to the VPFA Office on the financial status of the unit. Units operating with financial difficulty are required to develop and discuss mitigation plans with the responsible Vice President and the Vice President of Finance and Administration, if different (please see “Units in Financial Difficulty” in Section 4.2).
2.1.3 Business Service Center (BSC) Roles and Responsibilities
The Business Service Centers (BSCs) exist to support the RC units in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. The BSC for each unit is the central point for several key functions including:
• finance and human resources transaction processing
• budget development, analysis and monitoring
• projections and financial modeling
• adherence to USNH and UNH policies and procedures
Each RC unit is supported by a BSC although some BSC’s support more than one RC unit. Those RC units that do not have a one BSC-to-one RC unit relationship include:
BSC |
RC Unit |
Academic Affairs |
Library, Student Affairs, Academic Affairs |
Business Affairs |
Housing, Hospitality Services, Whittemore Center Arena |
Central Administration |
Athletics, General Administration, Institutional Accounts |
EOS BSC- Space and Ocean Sciences |
EOS |
EOS BSC - Earth Sciences/RCC |
EOS |
2.2 Academic Oversight
2.2.1 Faculty Senate and University Curriculum & Academic Policy Committee
The Faculty Senate is the legislative body that reviews and develops policies concerned with the academic mission of the University. The purpose of the University Curriculum & Academic Policy Committee (UCAPC), a standing committee of the Faculty Senate, is to “uphold the academic mission, integrity, and priorities of the University”. The UCAPC seeks to support and balance the three levels of core academic values-
• commitment to excellence in our particular fields of study,
• commitment to teaching and research beyond the boundaries of individual departments and colleges, and
• commitment to the idea of a university as a community and a contributor to the larger community to which we all belong.
In balancing these three levels of values, the UCAPC focuses on academic excellence and integrity, independent of budgetary issues. The UCAPC ensures academic integrity in an environment of responsibility center management.
Responsibilities of UCAPC
The responsibilities of the UCAPC include (1) serving as an appeals and fact-finding body to consider academic and curricular matters which have inter-college and/or campus-wide effects or which are likely to affect the quality or integrity of the realization of the university’s academic mission and (2) advising the Faculty Senate on its findings and recommendations. The UCAPC does not replace the curriculum and academic policy committees in the schools and colleges but it does have the authority to review decisions made by these committees if the decisions have an impact beyond the school or college in which they originate. The Faculty Senate considers the UCAPC’s recommendations, acts and forwards the recommendations arising from the senate’s deliberations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
UCAPC Structure and Organization
The UCAPC currently consists of 15 members. The membership consists of:
• eleven tenured faculty members who are not also administrators; at least two must be members of the Faculty Senate,
• two students- the chair of the Graduate Student Organization and the president of the student body (or their designees)
• two members of the administration- the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the chair of the Academic Standards and Advising Committee (or their designees).
For the UCAPC charter dated 10/31/05, see Motion on UCAPC Charter Revision.
2.3 Central Budget Committee (CBC)
RC Units enjoy a great deal of financial flexibility and independence under RCM, as unit heads are empowered to develop their own policies and practices for planning and budgeting. The Units are expected to adhere to the University’s overall mission and values as articulated in the Academic Plan. The Central Budget Committee (CBC), an advisory group to the UNH President provides the means for institutional oversight of the budget system through financial planning and coordination of units’ budgets and determining funding priorities.
Duties of the Central Budget Committee
The Central Budget Committee advises the President on budget policy and financial planning for the campus community and in that capacity will:
• Establish institutional funding priorities and budgetary guidelines consistent with the overall institutional strategic plan
• Review the performance of service units, through the periodic use of ad hoc Service Unit Advisory Board
• Regularly update the institutional financial plan, consistent with strategic academic plan updates
• Finalize the institutional budget and assessment rates
• Review requests for internal fee increases above inflation or new internal fees
• Serve as the steward for RCM
Principles of the Central Budget Committee
• Supporting the University: Resource allocation shall be in the best interest of the institution as determined by the University Planning process.
• Rewarding Excellence: Excellent programs and new initiatives within or between RC units should be rewarded and encouraged.
• Upholding the Institution’s Mission: RC units that contribute to the University’s mission should be supported, regardless of their “profitability.” The bottom line is only one of many criteria that should be used to allocate resources.
Members of the Central Budget Committee
Each member of the Central Budget Committee has a continuing, individual charge to serve as a representative of the campus community as a whole and to avoid behaving as a partisan advocate. The Committee shall have the following members:
• President (Chair)
• Two Deans of Colleges and Schools (one appointed by the Provost and one elected by the Deans’ Council) – 3 year terms
• Vice Presidents (five)
• Chair of Faculty Senate
• Chair of the Faculty Senate Finance Committee
• Two at-large faculty (appointed by the Provost from five nominations from the Agenda Committee of the Faculty Senate) – 3 year terms
• One Student Representative (Chair of Student Fee Oversight Committee)
• One Graduate Student Representative (Treasurer of Graduate Student Organization)
• Two at-large RC unit heads (appointed by the President) – 3 year terms
• Assistant Vice President for Financial Planning and Budgeting (staff)
• Associate Provost for Academic Administration (staff)
See UNH - Central Budget Committee Membership for list of current members
Reports of the Central Budget Committee
The Central Budget Committee submits annual reports at the end of each fiscal year, highlighting major recommendations to the UNH President and the status of the recommendation. These reports can be found at UNH - Central Budget Committee Reports
2.3.1 Service Unit Advisory Board
One of the components in the RCM system is the allocation of the net costs of service units to other RC units. Service units represent infrastructure operations that are necessary to run the institution. Appendix A provides a list of service units at the University. The net costs of all service units are funded from assessments paid by all RC units. The mechanism for periodic review of central services is through a Service Unit Advisory Board (SUAB) which is appointed by the Central Budget Committee (CBC), and includes both CBC and non-CBC members.
Objectives of the SUAB
The Board shall strive to serve as an oversight mechanism that ensures the integrity and balance of the system by:
• Providing a customer review of internal fees to ensure they are reasonable
• Ensure customer understanding of internal fees and the allocation of funds
• Recommend to the Central Budget Committee what costs should be covered by general assessments versus fee for service
• Recommend funding priorities to the Central Budget Committee
General Description of the Budget Process for Service Units
Every five years each service unit will prepare a strategic plan (operational and programmatic components). Every year, service units will prepare a financial plan, with a separate analysis of reserves and employee FTE levels. The plans will include proposals for any new services or changes to existing services and proposed fees. Service units will provide justification for service changes, fees, and resulting costs. Service units will submit their plan to the responsible Vice President, who will then submit the plan to the Central Budget Committee for consideration by December 1st.
The CBC will then decide which units (if any) to subject to review in a given year, depending on the magnitude of service unit operations, budget changes, service quality changes, fee structure changes, and changes in service levels.
Duties of SUAB
• Organizational Mission and Vision: reviewing future direction of service units, and providing recommendations for proposed changes in service offerings or levels to the Central Budget Committee
• Benchmarking: assessing objectively how well service providers are performing against established guidelines
• Customer Input: assessing how well service providers are satisfying customer expectations
• Strategic Planning and Budgeting Process: To provide customer input in the development of service unit priorities in their Strategic Planning process
• Financial Considerations: review new fee and fee increase proposals
The SUAB will work collaboratively with service units (and the responsible Vice President) in an effort to achieve a consensus report. The SUAB develops and submits a written report (which may or may not concur with the Vice President’s recommendation) to the Central Budget Committee (CBC). The SUAB must have at least two-thirds of its members in agreement to support its position for the report. It is not mandatory that consensus report be developed, and in this instance the service unit through its responsible VP may submit a management response to the SUAB report.
2.4 RCM Reviews
2.4.1 5-Year Review
When RCM was implemented in FY01, a provision was in place for a formal review to occur after the fifth year of implementation. The review committee was appointed by the UNH President at the beginning of FY05 and was co-chaired by the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) and the Vice President for Finance and Administration (VPFA). The review provided an opportunity to consider the impacts of RCM and to identify areas where refinement of the model may be necessary.
The 5 year review of RCM began in early 2005 with the gathering of data and trends for the review. The subcommittees of the review team began meeting in July 2005 and the Steering Committee presented its recommendations to the CBC in December 2005. In March 2006, the UNH President issued the final document outlining the changes to the RCM model.
The subcommittees of the review team, led by the Steering Committee, included State Appropriations, Assessments, Facilities, Research, Undergraduate Tuition and Financial Aid, Graduate Tuition and Financial Aid, and Quality and Governance
The criteria used to evaluate RCM included, but was not limited to, trends in academic quality, student quality, institutional financial health, and faculty and staff morale. The review will consist of five parts- 1. Quantitative academic quality review; 2. Research and scholarly activity review; 3. Qualitative academic quality review by college; 4. Qualitative general interviews and comments; 5. Quantitative budget review.
The primary goals of the review included:
1. evaluate the effects, if any, of RCM on academic quality
2. review the success of RCM in achieving its goals of
a. decentralized financial authority and accountability
b. simplified budget process
c. improved budget forecasting and planning
d. increased central administration focus on strategic matters
e. improved institutional flexibility to match resources with program demands
f. clearer financial information to the University community
g. fairer management of budget surpluses
h. increased incentives for revenue generation
3. assess the relationship of resource allocation to unit performance
4. recommend changes, as needed, in RCM allocation procedures
5. recommend changes, as needed, in the decision-making powers of RC Units
6. recommend changes in the budget process itself, including the role of the Central Budget Committee and any corresponding policy changes, as needed
In general, the review committee found there to be campus-wide support for decentralized budgeting at the University of New Hampshire. Further, there was no qualitative or quantitative evidence to suggest that RCM has negatively impacted academic quality, funded research activities, or collaborative ventures among individual or groups of faculty or staff despite widespread perceptions to the contrary. RCM is only a tool to help achieve the goals set forth in the University’s academic plan and should continue to be reviewed periodically.
There are some key reasons for the changes in the RCM model. First, the Academic Plan, finalized in 2003, did not exist when the RCM model was developed. The 5-year review team used the Academic Plan as the foundation for the review. Second, the current RCM model did not support the notion that we are one community whose purpose is to support the teaching, research and public service mission of the University. Third, there was a misalignment of the goals of the Academic Plan and the incentives within the RCM model to achieve those goals. Fourth, the committee recognized that the University has experienced important changes in the six years since RCM was implemented, as a result of both internal and external factors and this influenced the deliberations of the committee. Finally, the committee felt that greater diversification of revenue streams, where possible, would reduce financial risk and resulted in some recommended changes to the model.
Additional information related to the 5-year review can be found on the RCM website-
RCM Five-Year Review Home Page
UNH - RCM Steering Committee Report
President's Response to RCM Review
2.4.2 Future Reviews
The 5-year review committee recommended that the RCM model be reviewed again after FY10 to assess its effectiveness and to identify areas where further refinement may be necessary.
