document you're about to see on the screen here is an extension of work that was started in the benchmarking committee. And portions of this I've sent over to Diane as chair of Ed policy, but this is continually being updated. So this is more for information and this will also inform as we talked about, what is likely to be kind of the the merger of committees as we're talking about structure, I just want to highlight a couple of things for you here. And I think this is later than the version I sent today. And so this this will be new to her and the committee. So what I did here was look at okay, yeah, I'm, I'm gonna read off some of the information on it. So what the benchmarking committe was identify several peers, which are about our size, or the size that we're going to end up at. So we have SIU Edwardsville, which is actually a bit larger than us. But notable in several ways University Wisconsin Eau Claire, Cal Poly Humboldt, and UMass Dartmouth. And in this particular analysis, what I looked at were proxies for our missions and divided things into two categories, instructional faculty, instructional staff, as they're defined in IPEDS, which essentially is the faculty and non instructional staff, which is everything else, the administration, support staff and so on. And one, I looked at three things again, this is all from IPEDS data from the most recent data available fiscal year 21. Three groups: full time, part time and full time equivalent, I'm going to focus on the full time equivalent for each of those two groups. And what came out was rather eye popping. One, I looked at the ratio of how many non instructional staff we have two instructional staff, basically how many administrative and support staff we have for each faculty member, our ratio at present, or at least as of this, which is just here, 21. One was 2.86. In other words, almost three people this university for every instructional faculty member, our peers, are between 1.39 and 1.94. We have far more non- instructional staff than we do instructional staff, proportionally. Okay, now that the absolute numbers are up here as well, I would note as well, in terms of non instructional staff, in essence, this is the size of the administration, although not just the senior administration, but but all non instructional. We have more folks in the non instructional category than all but one of our peers. And that is an institution that has almost doubled our enrollment. We have the fewest of all full time, FTE instructional staff of all of our peers, including fewer than two of our peers whose enrollments are lower than ours. In short, we have far fewer faculty relative to our peers, and far more non faculty relative to our peers. We are administratively top heavy, okay? And I would draw this, in contrast is something that Chancellor Keon had reportedly said is we're running as lean as we possibly can. That is not the case, as I will certainly defer to my mathematician colleagues can tell you, there are two ways to fix the ratio, you can change the numerator or change the denominator. So one way we could rectify this would be by adding a lot more instructional faculty to do that would require something on the order of 100 or 150 new Faculty, I've talked to the provost, that does not seem to be terribly likely given our budgetary situation. The other way to rectify this to get us in the ballpark of our peers would be to cut about 400 non-faculty positions. Okay, that's the situation we're in. Given that we have so many more non instructional faculty than instructional faculty, relative to our peers. So either adding somewhere in the range of 100 faculty or cutting about 400, non-instructional faculty, that wouldn't put us better than our peers that would put us in the middle of the pack of our peers again. So that's the situation we're facing. And when we get to talking about the Structural Task Force, that's one of the issues that will have to come up, we definitely have an imbalance in terms of our mission. We are not prioritizing our academic mission anywhere near as much as our peers are. I would note as well, Alan, if you could scroll that to the right. Within the graphs over here, you will see all of our peers from the other time period I looked at fiscal year 17 have improved on this measure, we have gotten worse. So not only are we in bad shape, but we are heading in the wrong direction. Okay, with that I will open up the floor for any questions or comments about these
