U Of E Faculty Senate Executive Committee Letter To The Board Of Trustees

Dear Members of the Media,

Attached you will find a letter from the University of Evansville Faculty Senate Executive Committee to the Board of Trustees sent via certified mail on July 31^st, 2014.

The Executive Committee distilled the faculty’s anger over the failure of then-President Thomas Kazee to execute the recommendations of the prioritization committees that reviewed every administrative and academic program across the campus. As you can see in the letter, the faculty did not fail in their duties to make actionable recommendations to reduce the size of the university.

President Pietruszkiewicz’s assertion in his October 5^th e-mail to the faculty that the faculty failed is false and so is his assertion that the faculty are calling for a new prioritization process to be undertaken. The faculty are calling for a direct participatory role in any decisions regarding academic programs, as is clearly required by our governing documents and the Faculty Manual.

The current president and the current Board of Trustees are actually continuing the poorly thought out cuts that have occurred for the last six years and are the stewards of the decline of the university’s enrollment. They have failed to listen as the faculty has made recommendations and suggestions through the internal committees of the Faculty Senate. The UE AAUP supports the faculty’s efforts to save the University of Evansville.

 Sincerely,

Daniel Byrne

Secretary-Treasurer, UE AAUP

FOOTNOTE: Attached you will find a letter from the University of Evansville Faculty Senate Executive Committee to the Board of Trustees sent via certified mail on July 31^st, 2014.

An Appeal to the University of Evansville Board of Trustees Issued July 31, 2014, By the Faculty Senate of the University of Evansville

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, the Faculty Senate of the University of Evansville met to discuss President Thomas Kazee’s “Report to the Board of Trustees”(April 25, 2014).  Over 75 faculty attended the event to voice their concerted disappointment with the president’s report which concluded the prioritization process begun the year prior.  Dr. Kazee’s report contained recommendations to the Board of Trustees of a two-year action plan. The university community had anticipated the release of this document after having invested many months and thousands of person-hours into the prioritization process.  However, the assembled faculty widely agreed that Dr. Kazee’s recommendations both failed to incorporate the recommendations of the two program prioritization committees and articulated a path that will be distinctly harmful to the university’s continued success.  This document serves as a preliminary response of the Faculty Senate to what is believed to be the wrong course of action presented to and approved by the Board of Trustees.  It is the hope of the Faculty Senate and the broader university community that corrective actions will be considered in broader consultation that will avert the destructive path on which the university currently has been placed.  The Faculty Senate asks that the Board of Trustees begin its own full review of the prioritization process in conjunction with the faculty to review alternatives and that the faculty and the Board enter into a direct dialogue to address these changes.

The prioritization process began with the arrival of consultants from Academic Strategies Partners late in the spring semester of 2013.  The consultants laid out a yearlong process of accumulation of data from across the entire university to be examined by two prioritization committees, one academic and one administrative.  Both committees organized their reviews about clearly defined criteria shaped by a steering committee.  These criteria were used in an effort to rank academic and administrative programs into quintiles that would allow Dr. Kazee to make key decisions about enhancements, maintenance, and termination of programs. The five criteria used to evaluate the reports were: impact and essentiality, internal and external demand, investment in program, productivity, and quality, and opportunity analysis.  With these criteria in place, the university began an arduous five-month process of assembling reports for each program as designated by the steering committee.  All the data, reports, and recommendations were available to the faculty and staff as well as administrators.

On March 24, 2014, both committees produced their comprehensive recommendations in addition to their ranking of all academic and administrative programs into quintiles.  The committee recommendations made specific, actionable proposals to improve the academic and administrative programs while reducing costs in line with the president’s stated goals of nearly $4.5 million in three years.  Both committees focused their cost-cutting on administrative areas and no academic programs were singled out for elimination or loss of resources despite being in the lower quintiles.  

Following the submission of the two Program Prioritization Committees’ recommendations, the academic deans and senior administrators provided President Kazee with public responses to the recommendations along with their personal interpretation of the program reports.   Despite having written program reports for areas under their administrative control, the senior administrators had the opportunity to add additional information and interpretation of the data.  Equally, they maintained the opportunity to directly refute the recommendations of the program prioritization committees.  The result of this phase of the process served to present Dr. Kazee with varied and conflicting interpretations, often based on data outside the purview of the prioritization process.  

On April 25, 2014, Dr. Kazee presented his prioritization recommendations to the University of Evansville’s Board of Trustees that was released to the faculty only after Board approval.   In anticipation of the document, the Faculty Senate organized a meeting to examine Dr. Kazee’s response.  For over three hours, Faculty Senate met in executive session and concluded that the document entitled “Report to the Board of Trustees” emerges as a document with very little detail and very low fidelity to the recommendations of the authorized and carefully selected Program Prioritization Committees. Following months of anxiety, the release of the document did little to relieve the anxiety of faculty members worried about non-renewal or program cuts.  Instead, the faculty is presented with clear cuts in the number of faculty lines that are unrelated to the academic committee’s ranking of programs.  Equally, administrative programs clearly marked for reduction or for stringent review are preserved by unsupported projections of enrollment and revenue increases.  Most importantly, Dr. Kazee’s recommendations for enhancements, maintenance, and termination of programs failed to align with the criteria established by the prioritization process.  Indeed, it is apparent that Dr. Kazee used his own unpublished criteria to evaluate programs.

As defined by the President at the beginning of this process, “The Strategic Program Prioritization process will review and prioritize all programs and services at the University, so that we can more strategically focus our resources on those programs which are most central to our mission. The process will achieve four goals.

• Align the allocation of University resources with our mission and vision
• Provide incentives for continued innovation through reinvestment
• Strengthen the best University programs for a more successful future
• Produce a plan, with initial implementation in 2014-15, that will result in a balanced budget, including adequate provisions for contingency and reserve, as soon as is practicable.”

It is not clear how the recommendations contained in the report to the Board of Trustees will achieve the aforementioned goals. 

During the Faculty Senate meeting of May 14, a myriad of criticisms and concerns emerged during the discussion.  The below commentary on the President’s report consolidates the questions raised into several key areas of concern.  They are not presented in a ranked order of concern.  Rather, they highlight areas that repeatedly emerged from the three-hour conversation.

CRITERIA

A critical area of faculty concern centered on the disconnect between the criteria, logic, and reasoning behind Dr. Kazee’s cuts and investments and the recommendations of the two prioritization committees.  As stated above, the committees operated from clearly defined criteria, which were publicly available.  However, in several instances, Dr. Kazee’s recommendation employed new criteria such as student to faculty ratio or the 2011 strategic plan in determining the centrality or importance of programs.  Neither of these were part of the committees’ criteria.  In both cases, Dr. Kazee’s introduction of new criteria or his disregarding of the committee criteria resulted in recommendations that were completely at odds with those of the committees without any explanation on his part. In particular, there was considerable concern regarding the student to faculty ratio that was a focus of his recommendation document. One question arose about the choice of the 14.5-to-1 ratio in 2009  being used as the baseline number year.   In some academic areas the ratio is well above the 14.5 to 1 ratio and extra faculty members would be needed to get down to that number. Many of the faculty were dismayed that, in the same section of the recommendation document, the University of Evansville was portrayed as a mediocre school whose best years are past (“It seems clear the UE was a school of profound impact….”).(4)  According to the Academic Programs Prioritization report, the faculty and programs at the University of Evansville are do have profound impact.  Equally, faculty found it particularly troubling that the President’s decision to reject the administrative program committee’s recommendation of a review of the possibility of transiting from NCAA Division One to NCAA Division Three athletics contained language that UE is committed to Division I athletics based on the 2011 Strategic Plan. If UE’s commitment to Division One athletics was finalized in 2011, then the review of athletics program was flawed from the inception of the prioritization process which boldly claimed that “The process shall be open and transparent, with no a priori decisions having been made, and with decisions made based on the criteria we have established.”

ACADEMIC PROGRAM AND FACULTY CUTS

The President indicated to the Board of Trustees that “We must reject the notion that we can ‘cut our way to excellence’”(1).  Yet, the entire purpose of the prioritization plan was to reduce the university budget by $4.5 million over three years (as presented by Dr. Kazee to the university community on November 11, 2013) and the actual plan presented and approved by the Board purportedly cuts over $3 million over two years.  The faculty agrees that cutting core programs does not work toward sustaining and enriching core academic programs and the academic programs committee clearly cited evidence of the damage that could be done in eliminating or weakening programs across the university. A suggested method of program elimination is by discontinuing peripheral academic programs. A definition of peripheral, as used for the President’s recommendations, would be helpful. One particular statement that is troubling is, “faculty contracts for 2014 – 2015 were prepared and signed during the spring, as is our practice every year, thus limiting our ability to reduce academic expenditures in the short term”. This disheartening statement implies the inability to eliminate more faculty members due to contract commitments.  Equally, although mentioned by the academic program’s committee, the decimation of the faculty through the use of early retirement or “aging out” the faculty damages both the quality of instruction at the university and the proper balances of senior and junior faculty needed for many accreditation processes.   It is also important to note that this “aging out” process results in the Biology program (the most highly ranked program from the academic program committee) losing a critical faculty line at the same time that the university intends to expand its course offerings in areas that will require extensive use of Biology courses.  This is but one example of the failings of the President’s approach to reducing budgetary expenditures. 

DIVISION ONE ATHLETICS

In addition to using criteria outside the prioritization process to determine the importance of the athletics to the university, Dr. Kazee’s recommendations regarding the athletics program belie the severe impact that the athletics program has on the university budget.  The prioritization process itself only focused on the operational budget of the athletics programs without regard to the $4.5 million in athletics scholarship offered (these costs were absorbed by academic programs in which student-athletes studied).  While praising the efforts of the student-athletes and their coaches, the administrative programs committee highlighted that “strong evidence was provided in the athletic prioritization reports that maintaining the status quo is not a viable option for the University”(6).  The Administrative Program Prioritization Committee clearly stated: “The committee’s concern is not with individual sport programs, but rather with the overall level of financial commitment needed to support NCAA Division 1 athletics. During the past three years, annual expenses exceeded revenues by an average of 1.9 million dollars, excluding scholarships (prioritization reports). It is clear that the University needs to act now and pursue one of two courses of action; 1) commit the additional resources requested to provide the staff, travel budgets, and facilities necessary to sustainably compete at the NCAA Division 1 level, or 2) reorganize the athletic program to substantially reduce the University’s commitment of financial resources, which may include movement to NCAA Division 3” (6).  In response, Dr. Kazee ignored the committee’s recommendations and proposed a reduction in “spending on intercollegiate athletics from the operating budget of the University by a percentage commensurate with prioritization reductions taken in other areas”. Why are reductions commensurate when spending is not commensurate?  Additionally, he authorized the athletics department to engage in much more extensive fundraising to make up for budget short falls without reigning in actual spending.  These are in clear contradiction to the administrative program prioritization committee’s recommendations.  In both cases of spending restraint and of consideration of alternatives to the current burdensome athletics program, Dr. Kazee ignored the committee and failed to “embrace a culture of evidence.”

LEADERSHIP

The faculty attending the May 14^th meeting also indicated a deep and abiding concern about the vision and leadership of our senior administration.  While the president’s recommendations highlighted aspirations of increased enrollment and revenues, a distinct lack of details undermined the foundations for hope in such increases.  The university community has been offered rosy projections in the recent past only to be deeply disappointed by the returns on those investments.  The senior administrators’ responses to the Academic and Administrative Program Prioritization Committee recommendations reveal a distinct lack of a responsibility for the current need for budgetary cuts.  Indeed, the current financial crisis results from the failure of the institution’s leaders holding the fiduciary responsibilities to:

a.       devise a plan to make the institution less tuition-driven for its operating budget

b.      devise and execute a recruitment plan that will ensure increased enrollments and income

c.       devise and execute a development plan that will enhance significantly the endowment

d.      devise and execute a financial plan that will eliminate any contributions from the general fund to non-academic “peripheral” programs, such as Athletics and the Institute for Global Enterprise.

e.      devise and execute a financial plan that will guarantee the institution’s ability to borrow at the best possible rate

f.        devise and execute a marketing plan that will advertise nationally the remarkable academic work taking place on this campus 

The two Program Prioritization Committees outlined key areas for immediate reforms, administrative changes, or outright cuts that the senior administration failed to engage in any significant manner.  The Faculty Senate urges the Board of Trustees to review those reports directly without reference to Dr. Kazee’s response, but the below evidence offers but a portion of their recommendations.

ENROLLMENT 

Since the university is so dependent on enrollment, it was expected that strategies to increase enrollment would be included in the president’s recommendations. The Academic Program Prioritization Committee provided a recommendation for an Enrollment task force “charged with developing innovations in recruitment and retention”. In addition, the Administrative Program Prioritization Committee provided recommendations for technology upgrades and staffing levels in Enrollment Services. Faculty suggestions for enrollment enhancement include an ad hoc committee including faculty members who have demonstrated best practices for successful recruitment to increase the student population at the university.  

Additionally, the Administrative Program Prioritization Committee provided recommendations for facility enhancements that may move toward a “significant enhancement in recruitment and retention”. However, the president’s recommendations did not address enrollment enhancements in any detail. 

OFFICE OF MARKETING

Dr. Kazee has mentioned many times over the years during faculty meetings that UE fails to tell its story. Therefore, it was surprising that no strategies were included to address the concerns in the administrative prioritization report regarding the Office of Marketing.  The Administrative Program Prioritization Committee made several recommendations regarding Marketing including decentralization of the process to better allow programs to tell their own stories and widen the appeal of the institution.

OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ALUMNI RELATIONS

Both the Administrative and Academic Program Prioritization Committees provided concerns and suggestions to improve quality and accessibility of alumni information. In particular, the Administrative Program Prioritization Committee pointed out the “critical need for a stronger coordination of effort within the Office of Development and Alumni Relations.”  However, no strategies were included in the president’s recommendation to Alumni Relations.   

ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION 

The proper academic administration configuration is critical to the efficient daily operation of the university academic structure.  Thus, much disappointment was expressed that an immediate action plan was not outlined to work toward an academic leadership reorganization plan immediately. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT

The Administrative Programs Prioritization Committee clearly highlighted the need for ongoing, data driven assessment of the effectiveness of programs falling under the administrative categories.  The committee ranked the Dean’s Office of the Schroeder School of Business, the Institute for Banking and Finance, the Institute for Global Enterprise, and the Center for Adult Education in the lowest quintile and called for these programs to undergo immediate review or possible reorganization or elimination.  The President’s report ignores the committee’s assessment and actually highlighted Adult Education as an area for growth.

CONCLUSION

A sense of profound dismay permeated the extraordinary meeting of the University of Evansville’s Faculty on May 14, 2014.  Disheartened faculty repeatedly expressed their belief that Dr. Kazee’s recommendations to the Board of Trustees belied the prioritization process and undermined the efforts of the faculty and staff to assist the senior administration to save the University of Evansville from its current fiscal crisis.  Equally, the assembled faculty articulated their clear sense that the President’s recommendations actually injure the future prospects of the University of Evansville emerging from this fiscal crisis as “a school of profound impact.”  As a result, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to form an ad hoc committee to review the prioritization reports again and propose an alternative budget and program reform proposal in the upcoming months.  Unwilling to censure or condemn Dr. Kazee or the Board of Trustees at this time, the Faculty Senate reserves judgment as it seeks to alter the dangerous course that Dr. Kazee has set the University of Evansville upon.  It is hoped that the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees can open a conversation to consider alternatives so that the University of Evansville can face the future unafraid.

Donald Rodd, Ph.D., Chair

Daniel Byrne, Ph.D., Vice-Chair

John Stamm, Ph.D., Past-Chair

Joyce Stamm, Ph.D. Corresponding Secretary