In an emergency Faculty Senate meeting marked by significant tension between faculty and administrators, professors voiced concerns about their involvement in USM’s restructuring plan and the plan’s timetable.
USM President Selma Botman repeatedly told faculty they would only serve as advisers and would not help write the restructuring plan. “We want you to help us grapple with the momentous choices that have to be made. I take your advisory choices very seriously,” said Botman.
Botman said problems could arise for faculty members if they were part of the committee in charge of developing the restructuring plan. Botman voiced concerns that this could put the faculty at odds with their union. She also said if cuts are needed, the faculty being affected should know before others. Botman recommended that faculty members help analyze the document after it has been drafted instead of assisting in the writing aspect.
Faculty members quickly offered counters to the president’s reasoning.
“The union is at odds with the faculty all the time,” said Bill Steele, theater professor and Associated Faculties of the Universities of Maine Chapter President for USM, dismissing Botman’s assertion. He also suggested to President Botman that “when administrators are being cut, you should back away and let faculty decide” — a statement met with praise and laughter from the faculty.
The suggestion for the financial woes that garnered the most faculty support came from Economics Chair Joe Medley, who suggested extending the restructuring process for one year and use the “rainy day” reserve fund to cover the $3 million budgetary gap in fiscal year 2011 in order to make better decisions using the “collective knowledge” of the faculty, administration, and others. The university has set the deadline for the draft of the restructuring plan for Feb. 26.
Steele agreed with Medley and suggested the university has other motives in speeding up the decision than solely academic. “We’re going to be forced to make huge decisions in four weeks for the university based on a money date,” said Steele. “We’re rushing this for a dollar reason and not an academic reason.”
Botman responded by saying, “We are required to not only balance the budget but to be stewards of this university. If there are ideas the faculty have then they should be put forward. There is an elegant way to do this.”
Other faculty members joined in voicing their opinions about faculty involvement.
“I have a lot of discontent about the faculty not being involved in this. It isolates them from the process, not includes them,” said Tara Coste, professor of leadership studies at the Lewiston-Auburn Campus.
“There are ways of doing this so that faculty members are responsible along with administration,” said Bruce Clary, public policy professor at the Muskie School. “I’m disheartened that the [administration] treats me like I treated my children when they were under seven,” he added. “There are a lot better reasons for us not being involved in the decision than looking out for my best interest.”
Student Body President Maggie Guzman reminded everyone of the need for student input as well. “I think [students] being included along with faculty is incredibly important,” she said.
Botman reassured the Faculty Senate that the administration is not out to get them, and faculty would be involved in the restructuring process. “I do not go to work and think, ‘who can I lay off today?’,” she said. “Collaboration is a good thing and it’s not something we’re going to shy away from.”
The Senate also discussed the wording of a motion presented by Steele in a December meeting. The motion said that any future reductions in staff to balance the USM budget should not come from “full-time faculty or staff engaged in the core mission of educating students unless by attrition.” Although the Senate agreed with the sentiment, some were unsure whom the motion would include and asked if “core mission” was too broad.
Eileen Eagan, professor of history and USM’s AFUM representative said the Faculty Senate feels it needs to speak up for the full-time faculty at the university. She also pointed out that faculty would not be able to serve the students without administrative assistants in their offices.
In a comment aimed at President Botman, Steele said, “It’s merely a recommendation. I don’t think we have any power besides to recommend.”
“All of the information we have will be considered,” Botman responded sharply.
The Senate agreed to tweak the wording in the motion without changing any of its core elements
Some of the faculty’s discontent stemmed from the news that the German program has been targeted for possible elimination by the university. Professor Angela Gulielmetti would lose her job if the program were eliminated.
“No decision has been made in regard to this program,” said Botman.
The Faculty Senate voted to save discussion on the Resolution on Retrenchment for their next meeting on Feb. 1. The resolution states that the Faculty Senate does not support the decision to fire professor Gulielmetti and “the hasty ‘frank appraisal’ and elimination of the German Program” because they happened before the completion of the economic analysis which is set to be finished Feb. 1. They also agreed to save the discussion of a resolution in support of the Student Senate to express the opinions of the students on the financial issues facing the university until next meeting.
After the meeting, Medley said the first step should be a transparent process in which the university sets the criteria for ranking academic programs. “The administration here have not yet given a list of criteria that would present a ranking of programs,” he said
Medley said in setting the criteria, input should come from administration, community and students, “experts” on the process and faculty. “We know this school. We know the state of Maine. We know the students.”