University of Evansville (UE) Faculty Senate Formal Response To The UE Board of Trustees

University of Evansville (UE) Faculty Senate Formal Response To The UE Board of Trustees

Tuesday, January 17, 2020 

Evansville— 1/13/20 —The Executive Committee of the University of Evansville (UE) Faculty Senate has issued a formal response to a January 6th letter from the UE Board of Trustees to the university’s faculty. In the Board’s letter, it explained why it was unwilling to allow the faculty to construct an alternative institutional realignment plan. The Senate Executive Committee’s response addresses that denial. 

Attached below is the letter from the Senate Executive Committee to the Board of Trustees has a cordial and respectful tone throughout and this can be seen from the letter’s opening: 

We would like to thank you for reaching out to the faculty to share your position on President Pietruszkiewicz’s proposed realignment plan. While we may disagree about the plan, we are encouraged by this opening of dialogue. From the time President Pietruszkiewicz first declared his intention to make changes, faculty have suggested that an open, collaborative process would yield the best solutions. We still feel this way, and we also agree with the key point of your letter: The University of Evansville’s financial situation is not sustainable. Changes must be made to eliminate the budget deficit and position the University to succeed in the changing higher education landscape. Our concern is that the realignment process being used is flawed in a number of ways. 

The letter then goes on to examine the flaws within the President’s realignment process. It does so first by noting a number of problems with the data from which the President’s draft academic realignment plan was built: 

• The data ignores the fact that UE students often major in multiple subjects. 

• The data overlooks how eliminating courses and faculty in one major affects students in other majors. 

• The data does not consider Student Credit Hours. 

• The data contains no modeling of the future enrollments, costs and revenues of the university’s current programs. 

• The data lacks any projections for either the programs in which the Senior Administration now intends to invest or those that it seeks to add. 

• The data fails to recognize the importance of programmatic diversity to enrollment and, thereby, the university’s finances. 

The second problem with the President’s realignment plan that is considered within the Senate Executive Committee’s letter is the fact that that plan is “inconsistent with the University’s shared governance system.” The Senate Executive Committee do not “dispute the President’s right to develop,” as the Board put it, “proposals for the reallocation of resources,” but they do dispute the President’s “right to enact changes that would fundamentally alter the university’s educational policy without involving the faculty in a determining capacity.” 

One of the Board’s reasons for refusing to allow the faculty to create an alternative institutional realignment plan was that it considered the proposed process for the construction of that plan to resemble that of the prioritization process utilized by the University of Evansville in 2013-14, and so the Senate Executive Committee’s letter goes on to address that prioritization process. It begins by summarizing what occurred in 2013-14: 

Across the fall of 2013 and the spring of 2014, two groups consisting of faculty and administrators from across the campus worked together to compile recommendations for positive and productive changes. One focused on academics and the other on administrative matters. After those groups submitted their recommendations to President Kazee, he reviewed them and then put together his own recommendations. The President’s recommendations were submitted to and approved by the Board of Trustees. 

The letter then lists all of the key academic and administrative recommendations offered by the faculty and the President. In doing so, it notes “the extent to which the recommendations offered by the President and endorsed by the Board of Trustees differed from those of the faculty.” The letter’s discussion of prioritization leads to this conclusion: 

We acknowledge that the prioritization process was challenging and that some faculty were upset. At the same time, the Prioritization process was an open, considered process that meaningfully involved faculty, administrators, and Board members. It is disingenuous to suggest that any failures of Prioritization were due to faculty resistance. The entire process was a joint effort and any failures must be laid at the feet of all concerned. In light of this, it is difficult to grasp how the Prioritization process can be used as a justification for moving forward with a realignment process that, as noted, is so out of keeping with the university’s shared governance structure that it violates the University charter, the Faculty Manual, and AAUP guidelines. 

The Senate Executive Committee’s letter ends by bringing together all of its central ideas: 

Our issue is not with the President’s desire for change but rather the manner in which he is pursuing it. The President’s draft academic alignment plan draws upon inadequate data and lacks many necessary components. The President’s draft academic alignment plan is at odds with the mission and the identity of the university. The President’s draft academic alignment plan does not present a vision for what the University of Evansville will be. The President’s draft academic alignment plan is being developed in a manner that violates the university’s shared governance structure and, thereby, both the Faculty Manual and the university’s charter. In considering these points, we hope that you will also reconsider our proposal for the creation of an Ad Hoc Realignment Committee. There is a better way to do this. 

We, the UE AAUP chapter, thank the Senate Executive Committee for this thoughtful and measured response. Their letter offers a host of significant points and each point is supported by compelling evidence. The offered accounts of the realignment process and the prioritization process are entirely accurate. Like the Senate Executive Committee, we hope that their letter will lead to greater dialogue between the faculty and the Board of Trustees. 

To learn more:

• Visit our website at saveue.com • Follow us on Facebook at Save UE 

• Follow us on Twitter at @Save_UE • Follow us on Instagram at save.ue 

• E-mail us at ueaaup@gmail.com

FOOTNOTE: Contact(s): Daniel Byrne, Secretary-Treasurer UEAAUP, ueaaup@gmail.com, 8122055889