Describing a university in terms of its finances is like describing a cathedral in terms of the weight of its stones: the figures may be accurate, but somehow the main point is lost.

Across the University of Maine System today some 34,000 students are learning, writing, studying, thinking. Fifteen hundred faculty members are lecturing, arguing, experimentlng, grading, counseling. Both groups are engaged in the age-old process of transferring the accumulated wisdom of humankind to yet another generation, and in adding to the sum of that wisdom.

We cannot easily measure the output of that process, despite the acknowledged fact that education changes lives, because many of the seeds planted today will not bloom for many years.

On the other hand, all human activity consumes resources, and we can count the resources that go into making a university run — work hours, equipment, electricity, paper — and we can measure them in the common denominator of dollars. At the risk of being both irrelevant and irreverent, therefore, let us weigh out the stones of our cathedral, recognizing that we are measuring only its cost, not its worth.

By any measure, the University of Maine System is a complex and costly enterprise. For the fiscal year ending June 30, total payroll costs were $146 million. We spent $10 million on health benefits on employees last year and $21 million for their retirement, including Social Security.

Expenses for other purposes, including student aid, amounted to $115 million. As was true for families and for business, most goods and services in 1990 cost us more than in 1989.

What we term auxiliary enterprises — residence and dining halls, bookstores, and other self-supporting activities — generated and spent $43 million. Electricity, food, books, and other cost categories were up significantly. Other expenses could be listed, but the point is clear: the university is a large institution and it is expensive to run, facing the same inflation pressures as other Maine employers.

Within the University System we have begun a major initiative to contain these costs, not because they have been out of control, but because, under the most optimistic scenario, we see even tighter budgets ahead.

Our campuses have an excellent record of operating in the black, of making difficult decisions, of postponing expenditures until they can afford them. Our faculty and staff are careful in their expenditures: They know how to make do. Any activity can, of course, be made more efficient, but the reasons for our cost-containment drive come not from concern about how university money is spent today, but from what we see down the road.

As we look ahead a few years we see disturbing trends — discouraging prospects for large increases in state appropriations, limited revenue from tuition increases, and a general economic outlook that is not promising for new private gifts, higher endowment income, or grants from sponsors of research, including the federal government. Very likely the most optimistic revenue scenario is staying even with inflation.

Worse, we need additional funds just to maintain present operations. Energy could cost an extra $1 million this year in price changes alone. We are not spending enough to maintain the physical plant. The operation and maitenance of just the new space we are adding — under existing authorization — will add $2 million a year when completed. The costs of library journals, scientific equipment, and technological support are rising rapidly. Disposal costs of hazardous materials, including asbestos, continue to rise.

Moreover, benefits costs are growing sharply. Health costs, for example, for the first quarter of fiscal year 1991, are 21 percent above the same quarter a year ago. We have a demonstrated need for day care, we face higher workers compensation costs, and risk insurance has not stopped rising. The new reduction in Medicare coverage increases our obligation to retirees. Under proposed new accounting standards, we may have to fund post-retirement health benefits at an annual cost of millions.

None of these added costs helps us achieve our mission. None adds a single student, or program, or extends our reach in any way. None adds to faculty compensation.

Given this likely divergence of the University System’s total revenue and cost lines, the administration at every campus recognizes we must take steps to assure that we spend money only where we absolutely have to, and that we spend the minimum needed to gain the results we want.

Our cost-containment program operates under the direction of the campus presidents, each of whom is advised by groups drawn from faculty and staff. The campus task forces are committed to achieve the following:

A review of activities to determine which, if any, can be eliminated or reduced in scope.

A review of purchasing procedures to assure that no wasteful procurement practices exist.

An examination of energy use to identify savings and to build awareness of the need for conservation.

A quality-first campaign, to point up the savings involved in doing it right the first time.

Reduction of accident and injury costs by investigating the circumstances of each accident involving employees, students, or others, and taking steps to avoid recurrence.

A review of the information needed by managers. This could result in a reduction of certain kinds of reports or the addition of others.

An examination of paper-flow practices to determine whether any can be reduced or eliminated.

The goal is to reduce costs so that campus funds can be freed to meet unbudgeted obligations. The emphasis, furthermore, is on real savings, either immediate or prospective, rather than simply on providing a demonstration of diligence. It is important that we be seen to be cost-conscious, but the best way to achieve that is to behave in a cost-conscious manner and let the reputation follow the fact.

Campus leaders are eager to find ways to reduce their operating costs. They know the cost pressures they face, and they know there is no other source of funds to pay this year’s higher costs than their own ingenuity.

William J. Sullivan is Vice Chancellor for Administration and Treasurer of the University of Maine System.