Presentation for College Senate

Committee on Administrative Review

Presentation for College Senate

Monday, Oct. 23, 2017

The Committee on Administrative Review has reviewed Provost Mackin’s proposed restructuring of Academic Affairs. This is our report on that review.

Background

Provost Mackin first proposed restructuring Academic Affairs in August 2016 to reduce administrative bloat and thereby release funds for added faculty hires. He presented a half dozen restructuring scenarios last winter and solicited input from faculty and staff. CAR took up that task of soliciting a broader range of concerns and interests regarding restructuring by visiting with nearly every department. We presented our results to the Senate on April 3, 2017. You received that report again last week to remind you with our findings at that time.

Provost Mackin convened a meeting of Academic Affairs late last Spring at which he hoped to find a consensus favoring one of the restructuring scenarios in hopes of moving forward. When no consensus was reached, he announced that he would meet with each department in the Fall to discern their preferences and finalize a proposal. He has spent the first half of Fall semester carrying out those meetings.

Provost’s Response to CAR’s Spring Report

At this point, it is worth revisiting what CAR recommended in Spring 2017. [Slide]

CAR recommended

1. Delay the decision until the following issues are addressed to the satisfaction of shared governance:
2. Identify the balance between Liberal Arts and professional programs;
3. Draft, disseminate, and adopt a general policy on the role of deans;
4. Identify the exact savings that can be obtained from two, three, and four dean models;
5. Identify and adopt policies and practices that ensure fair and equitable distribution of resources within Academic Affairs.
6. Implement a more deliberative planning process.

Provost Mackin responded substantively to these recommendations,either in statements to CAR, the College, or through his actions. To wit:

1.a.Provost Mackin argues formaintaining a balance between professional and Liberal Arts programs by creating two schools for each of these broad categories.

1.b.In response to our April report, Provost Mackin immediately distributed a description of the responsibilities of deans.

1.c.Provost Mackin has stated that the savings from restructuring are roughly three new faculty lines for any dean and school eliminated. In salary dollars, he has estimated this as $150,000 +/- $20,000. There are negligible OTPS savings as those would mostly be redistributed, there would be no immediate staffing savings, but one or two offices would be available for reassignment.Three new faculty lines already have been filled.

1.d.Provost Mackin has told CAR that resource allocation is mostly determined by formulae(based on enrollments, staffing, and other requirements) which restructuring will not change. There will need to be changes to the composition of certain committees where representation is by school.

2.Lastly, by continuing the discussion of restructuring well into the Fall, Provost Mackin did carry out a more deliberative planning process.

The Proposal

Provost Mackin presented his final proposal to CAR on October 4. He has proposed eliminating one school—the School of Social Science—and redistributing its departments across three modified schools. [Slide]

It is CAR’s understandingthat all impacted departments have seen the proposaland that every department has had the opportunity to give input. It is evident that Provost Mackin has considered faculty preferences, as several departments obtained changes to their placement in the final proposal.

Last Spring, many faculty questioned keeping a School of EconomicsandBusiness. In addition to accreditation needs shaping his decision, Provost Mackin has stated that naming rights for the School could be lucrative to the College. In response to questioning from CAR, he has stated that Administration believes naming rights may be worth millions of dollars, most of which would go toward student scholarships.

The proposal will create two new schools for which deans will need to be hired. Last Spring, faculty strongly stated concern regarding the high rate of turnover among deans. Provost Mackin has responded by proposing internal searches for these two dean positions. The departments from which deans are hired both will be compensated with a new tenure track line.

CAR believes this is a suitable response to this particular faculty concern. We believe that these searches must otherwise follow standard procedures, with search committees empaneled and application open to all qualified local candidates. However, this is a special circumstance in which the faculty have raised a specific, well-grounded concern. In other circumstances, we would argue that a national search should be conducted. Just not this time. Provost Mackin has told CAR that he supports search committees having representatives from each department of the School plus an independent dean (and CAR).

Conclusion

CAR made specific recommendations last Spring regarding process. CAR is satisfied that those recommendations received substantive response from Provost Mackin and that the Faculty have been presented with a plan on which they have hadsignificant input which has resolved many major concerns. We have no further recommendations at this time.