December 13, 2013
TO: Chancellor Wachter
Provost Hensrud
FROM:Wendy Kropid, Faculty Senate Chair
Bill Simpson, Faculty Senate Chair Pro Tem
Brent Notbohm, Faculty Senate Secretary
Nick Sloboda, UW-Superior Faculty Representative
Jerry Hembd, Faculty Senate Executive Committee Senator-At-Large
RE:Campus Program Prioritization Process
The officers of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee believes that,in order to find positive and accepted solutions to the complex problems we face as a campus, we must share some concerns with Chancellor Wachter and Provost Hensrud about the Program Prioritization Process.
How this process was rolled out has been metwith frustration and a fear-based mentality by departments and faculty members across campus. We feel it is essential to understand why and to consider the consequences of this on campus morale, in addition to how it will affect the validity of the results produced by the Program Prioritization Process.
First, the fact that it was introduced mid-semester as an “add-on” to an already work-intensive Strategic Planning Process has led many to question whether the leadership of our university truly understands the already challenging work and service load of faculty at UWSand what is realistic to accomplish in a given period of time. While this statement may seem harsh, it does accurately reflect the real concerns of the faculty.
Second, an imposed process that was not developed collaboratively among administration, faculty and staff through traditional shared governance channels has truly undermined the notion that “good processes lead to good results.” As a result, this has led many to doubt the process itself and to doubt those who are leading it. Even more importantly, it has led many to doubt how decisions will be made based upon it, using quickly-put-together rubrics that were developed via a process that lacked transparency and opportunity for response from all involved.
In many ways, the forthcoming rubrics are symptomatic of what happens in the absence of collaboration to develop the tools to assess. Do the rubrics reflect the realities and nuances of our programs? After reviewing the Dickeson text (and it should be noted that the process in the text is not one specifically tailored for our campus), many of us feel the answer is, unfortunately, no. Several elements of the Template are too generic and often lack relevancy or accuracy for this University.Many of us fear that forcing our admittedly unorthodox program array into a traditional paradigm may have, to say the least, unfortunate programmatic consequences and an equally unfortunate impact on faculty morale – faculty who have dedicated themselves to their programmatic development.
Furthermore, the notion that data will be used to drive all decisions is very disconcerting, as the kinds of data UW-Superior has available do not completely reflect the realities of our programs and their importance to students and campus. It seems that the narratives are becoming secondary to the data driven criterion; the narratives provide opportunities for programs to explain their uniqueness, but they carry little to no weight in the rubric.
We have repeatedly heard that “no decisions have been made” and that “we must stifle all these rumors;” however, it is vital to understand that rumors have a source—they are based in an absence of trust and a culture of fear, all of which a collaboratively developed process would have substantially diminished.
Coming up with a plan and making the tough but necessary decisions based on it should be only the first steps in creating the campus we all want UW-Superior to be. It is crucial to understand that implementing the plan and living with these decisions should be the final stage - one that we would all need to be apart of.
We are already witnessing a never-before-seen low campus-wide morale; valued members of our community are filled with fear and/or resignation.The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, accordingly, is deeply concerned that this will lead to further flight by the very people who are necessary and essential to help us meet the challenges we face in the future.