When authorities start to turn out your lights, you better know how to find the emergency power switch. If the recent experience involving the University of Washington School of Communications is any measure, heed advice to plan for a financial emergency that may next strike your campus. Initiative 601 was passed by Washington state's voters in 1994 to cap spending by the state government. Even before it is operational the legislature has started responding. Among other things, public universities have been told to cut their budgets in advance of any real intelligence about the effects of 601. Although budgets in the state's public sector have been static for the past three years and faculty have not received raises in that time, more measures are thought to be necessary, and higher education is no longer viewed with special favor. Many believe the current budget crisis at the University of Washington is exaggerated--that there is no real crisis. At question in particular is the university's decision to siphon money to create a reserve fund for innovative programs, possibly at the expense of existing programs. Before the budget was announced, public universities in Washington were told to trim their budgets by three percent. Most of these institutions chose to wait and see what the state higher education budget actually would provide them. In fact, the legislature has actually increased the UW budget for the coming biennium. The dean and college council of the College of Arts and Sciences contended they had already taken too many across-the-board cuts and could preserve quality better if some departments were eliminated. On Nov. 30, 1994, the School of Communications received word that it, along with five other programs including Applied Mathematics, Slavic Languages and Literature, Speech Communication, Systematic Musicology, and Fiber Arts, would be reviewed and possibly eliminated. The school's response In the five hours before the formal announcement was made several things were accomplished. Graduate students organized a grass-roots operation that created press kits highlighting the school's ranking in the country, distinguished alums, faculty profiles, and biographies on the graduate students. Press kits were available for the local media, university administrators, and regents by the 3:30 p.m. meeting. Local media were contacted and informed of the meeting and the fact that the School of Communications was targeted for possible elimination. It was no accident the announcement was made in proximity to the winter quarter break; approximately two weeks, including final exam week, remained in the quarter. In that time, the School of Communications set up the organizational framework that remained in place for the duration of the review process. A non-profit fund was established and campaigners promptly began securing funds from supporters to defer the cost of materials necessary to maintain the campaign. And five action groups gained outstanding departmental representation from faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate students: *The Alumni Action Group was primarily responsible for contacting graduates, especially those in media-related fields, and alums working at other universities. Record keeping in this area was exemplary at the graduate level, but the considerably larger number of students at the undergraduate level challenged the group. Alums were asked to write letters of support to the review committee and central administrators. *The Educational Institutions Action Group requested academics throughout the nation to write letters of support to the review committee, central administration, and regents. *The Industry Action Group contacted companies in Seattle and surrounding areas involved in the mass communication industry. The group urged companies to speak out against the possible elimination of the school, to donate time in working on the campaign, and to speak with administrators and the review committee about the value of school programs to the Seattle area. …