1

Faculty Concerns Regarding the Current Budget Crisis

Submitted to the Fort Lewis College Board of Trustees for the 13February 2009Meeting

By

Charles R. Riggs, Ph.D., RPA, Associate Professor

Faculty Representative to the FortLewisCollege Board of Trustees

Introduction

The national financial crisis and resulting state budget crisis will potentially have serious impacts upon Fort Lewis College, as we are forced to make difficult decisions about where to adjust the budget. As part of my responsibility to report to the Board of Trustees regarding those issues affecting the faculty, I felt that it was critical to assess the faculty response to this crisis. The data that inform this report were collected by contacting the council of chairs and asking for responses to the following open-ended question:

I intend to report on faculty reactions to and perceptions of the current budget crisis. To accomplish this, I am asking the chairs to send any and all remarks, perceptions, and suggestions based on the point of view of their own department. As a fellow faculty member I obviously have my own ideas and reactions to this, but I would like to make sure that my remarks are fair and represent the faculty, so please do respond to ensure that what I say does include as many points of view as possible.

I am going to the chairs instead of the entire faculty for two reasons: 1) time is tight and I have only until Friday, Jan. 30th to complete this report and 2) I do not wish to be inundated with an unmanageable number of responses. I am asking, as before, that the comments be thoughtful and constructive and not simply grousing.

Also as before, I will keep all responses anonymous and will accept email, regular mail and phone calls. I also respect any unwillingness to participate.

In all 32 individuals were contacted and I spoke with or received written responses from 19 chairs or directors for a response rate of 59%. All of the major units across campus are represented, including the Writing Program, the Freshman Math Program and the Library. Only SOBA is not represented here; those chairs exercising their prerogative not to respond. It is my sincere hope that the issues identified in this report will help to arm the college and the Board of Trustees with the tools they need to proceed through this difficult time.

Responses and Concerns

As expected, there were a variety of responses and possible solutions suggested, but all of the responses touched on a few common themes. First, the respondents realize that tough decisions are likely to be necessary, but all seemed to convey the very seriousimpression that this budget crisis hits at a time of already low faculty morale resulting from the salary gap and work load issues detailed in my October 2008 report to the Board of Trustees. As the Board is already aware, the Task Force on Hiring and Retention is looking into many of these, and I do not reiterate them here.

It is the overwhelming opinion of the chairs that in these desperate times we need to critically evaluate those programs and initiatives on campus that are not serving enrollment and retention and which are diverting funds away from the critical mission of the college. As we faculty hear rumors of cuts to the number of adjuncts and the possibility of salary decreases and even the possible non-retention of as yet untenured faculty, we implore the administration and the Board of Trustees to keep in mind that it is the faculty who perform the primary mission of Fort Lewis College – a high quality liberal arts education. To cut positions, to reduce salaries and to eliminate adjuncts is detrimental to this mission for many reasons:

  • Reduced numbers of faculty result in larger classes. The small and personal size of our classes is one of our primary selling points. This is borne out in not only casual discussions with students but also in the Lipman-Hearne branding and marketing study.
  • Faculty members who are overworked have two responses. One is to leave and the other is to disengage. Last year we watched a number of our faculty exercise the first prerogative, whereas a number of others have exercised the second. A college without young and vibrant junior faculty and with a disengaged tenured faculty is not a positive component of enrollment. Eliminating more lines, cutting adjunct faculty positions, and lowering salaries will exacerbate this.
  • Cutting lines and eliminating adjuncts will cripple many programs that have had to rely increasingly on adjunct and part time faculty to deliver core curricula. The best way to ensure that students will not attend Fort Lewis will be to make it impossible to complete a degree that is comparable to those offered elsewhere. The hiring freeze is already causing many departments and programs to consider cuts to core curricula.
  • Many programs are delivered largely by adjunct faculty, whereas several years ago this was not the case. Basically, the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty has continued to decline, but the number of administrative service obligations has only increased as programs are initiated and as the college is periodically reorganized. Because adjunct faculty do not have service obligations, this means that the tenured and tenure-track faculty have had to spread these increased committee loads among increasingly fewer faculty. Eliminating lines (should it come to this) will significantly exacerbate this problem.

Reflected in an almost universal response, there is a perception among therespondents that the college is becoming top heavy with respect to administrative positions. Although anecdotal at this point, this perception is prevalent enough that it should be looked into. Almost every chair is asking a version of this question: “In a climate of declining student enrollments and reduced faculty numbers, why doesthe number of administrative positions appearto be either holding steady or even increasing?” Whereas FTEs and faculty/student ratios apparently form the primary data set for making decisions about hiring and reappointment, the respondents are concerned that similar ratios do not appear to be used to evaluate administrative success and necessity. Just how many faculty lines and students does Fort Lewis need to bleed off to warrant similar reductions in the administrative staff?

The final theme of the faculty responses is related to the point above, but has to do with college identity, program necessity and efficiency. As universal as above is the impression among chairs that there are numerous programs around campus that are either not central to our liberal arts mission, are not working or are simply not efficient. Although CBLR was almost universally mentioned here, there are a number of others that appeared regularly. So as not to run the risk of alienating any of my faculty colleagues I do not list these here, but encourage the college to seek campus input on this issue, because it is a serious one. The chairs are of the opinion that this crisis represents an opportunity to eliminate excess; to critically evaluate the effectiveness of those programs that are unpopular with students, that are not serving their intended goals and which are not core to the liberal arts mission. These are both academic programs and non-academic programs and units that in the words of one respondent are “nice to have” but not central to our mission and goals, regardless of their mention in the campus mission statement. At times like this, it is necessary to look at what works and what doesnot and to “trim the fat” when it is appropriate. Programs that are a luxury and not a necessity or do not function as they should have no business in a financially stressed college, especially if people in other programs are losing their jobs or having their pay cut to support them.

Another component of efficiency relates to processes for course approval, faculty evaluations, purchasing guidelines and numerous other red tape generators that unnecessarily eat up faculty time and/or increase costs unnecessarily. We hope that these too can be opened up for evaluation as part of this dialog.

Solutions and Recommendations

For the sake of brevity I will provide the solutions suggested by the respondents in a bulleted list:

  • The campus needs to engage in a dialog, with faculty participating on a department by department basis in an air of “sympathy and respect.” Blanket statements about cutting lines, eliminating adjuncts and reducing salaries lead only to anxiety and distrust. FTEs and faculty student ratios are only a part of the equation. Decisions about departmental personnel needs should account for the effects of sabbaticals, release time, maternity leaves and other factors that lower FTEs in each department.
  • We need an open a dialog with the campus community about which programs work, which do not andwhich are simply luxuries. Regardless of the crisis, students are still opting out of Fort Lewis. There is a feeling among the chairs that some programs and initiatives, meant to attract and retain, seem to be only costing money rather than serving their intended purposes.Redirecting these funds to established programs and majors is the way to attract and retain students. The reputations of individual departments come from the efforts of the faculty, not outside incentives and programs. Overworked and underfunded faculty in fear of having their pay cut or losing their job cannot build programs that attract students. Indeed, they can only maintain the status quo, which, based on results, is not working.
  • If it comes to cutting adjuncts, we need to be mindful that the policies and financial crises of the past have forced many departments to rely heavily on adjuncts. Once again, a department by department evaluation is the only way to make sure that our current offerings are not gutted to the point that we lose more students.
  • If it comes to pay cuts, blanket policies and “one percentage for all” strategies are not equitable ways to proceed. We cannot take money from those who can afford to lose it the least. Before the crisis, faculty salaries were already at 80% of the national average, whereas many administrative positions were at or above national means. We need to be mindful that the crisis will end, the market will open up again, and the exodus of last year may be compounded by a decision that further alienates faculty. Every faculty member needs to be evaluated independently based on his or her salary with respect to national norms and we need to make sure that perceived gender-based inequities are investigated and, if real, are not increased by salary cuts.
  • Tuition increase is another commonly mentioned solution. Our recent raising of admission standards ought to correspond to a related tuition increase. Though anecdotal, it is apparent that there could be a “get what you pay for” mentality out there, wherein students of higher caliber expect to pay more for their education. Regardless, we are at the bottom in terms of tuition among our Colorado peer group and a tuition increase seems appropriate if we are to try to market our uniqueness as a premier liberal arts college.
  • One other solution is to temporarily lower our acceptance window so that we can increase enrollments to help see us through the crisis. We can always revert to our current selectivity standard when things are economically more favorable and after our new marketing campaign has had a chance to bear fruit. There is substantial faculty support for this solution.

The Board and others who read this report will surely note that there are other points of view and opinions, which are not reflected here. Given, however, that the aforementioned opinions are out there and are somewhat common, it is urgent that they be addressed as the college moves forward to address the budget crisis.

Conclusions

The faculty of Fort Lewis College is very concerned about the current budget crisis, and is aware that sacrifices will need to be made to ensure that the institution continues to function. It is our sincere hope that the tough decisions that will have to be made can be done in an air of open collaboration between the administration and the faculty. We are confident that if we engage in a campus wide dialog that we can weather this current financial storm and come out on the other side with a stronger set of academic programs that will attract the best quality students to our institution and which will forward our mission of becoming a premier liberal arts institution.