Staff editorial: Stoking the fireside

It wasn't too long ago that the issue of transparency dominated the dialogue at the university. But university President Dan Mote's retirement, last week's riot and other issues have combined to push the debate over the administration's willingness to open its inner dialogue over budget cuts to outside views out of the minds of most. Surprisingly, it doesn't appear to have slipped the minds of administrators.

Earlier this week the administration unveiled a redesigned "Budget Central" website loaded with information for those wishing to understand the budgetary process. The administration should be lauded for its willingness to follow through on an issue that students have expressed as important even after other events have moved public attention away from the issue.

The redesigned site also makes dramatic improvements over its predecessor. There are now flowcharts that lay out how budgetary decisions are made for various sectors, from student affairs to research, in addition to new "fireside chat" videos that feature Mote answering students' questions. While slightly corny, if not propagandistic, it's still good to see administrators making an effort.

But despite all of these improvements, one thing remains missing: a copy of the budget in an explanatory and easy-to-read format. The firestorm that originally erupted last semester was about this very factor. The administration refused to post the budget online for fear that other schools would attempt to recruit professors who may be underpaid, despite the fact that this very newspaper publishes a salary guide annually. And even with this salary information already accessible, the administration's refusal to post the budget in its entirety led students to do it themselves. A PDF file of the 900-page document can be viewed in many places now, including the Student Government Association's blog and The Diamondback website.

Yet the administration remains reluctant of doing everything it can. In place of the actual budget, there are PowerPoint slides that give an overview but lack concrete specifics. Administrators must understand that this demand will not cease. Despite the dramatic improvements they have made in such a short period of time, it is not enough. As history shows us, the administration was just as reluctant to unveil faculty salaries in the 1970s. Some things never change, including student pressure.

Students may never have an actual say in what gets cut, but they can exert their opinions. Administrators even welcome suggestions about what to cut on their new website from students and faculty alike. But these suggestions will never be as informed as they could be as long as the actual budget remains hard to find and hard to comprehend.

If administrators really want their actions towards improving transparency to be taken seriously, they should give students and faculty a real chance to think critically about university spending. That can only start with a PDF file and a truly transparent Budget Central.