Does the budget reduction process truly recognize “the importance of the faculty voice”? After a lot of digging into our own bylaws and established norms, my assessment is that no, it does not.
Shared Governance
Colleges and universities have never been like other organizations. Their structure reflects their purpose – to educate students and engage in research to the highest standards set by each field of study. As such, faculty play important and unique roles in the shared governance of higher education institutions.
Shared governance is the principle that faculty must be involved in all aspects of decision-making, including selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, long-term planning, and academic programs and policies. Academic program elimination falls squarely in the remit of faculty participation in decision-making.
Concerns about the Current Process
As a member of the UNL chapter of AAUP (American Association of University Professors), I found it curious that UNL claims to follow standards set by AAUP when cuts are necessary, and in fact requires that “participants in the process must be sensitive to the relevant guidelines of the American Association of University Professors” (“Procedures to be Invoked for Significant Budget Reallocations and Reductions,” page 2).
The university’s procedures document for significant budget reduction specifically cites the national AAUP’s “sound practices” for recognition of the “faculty voice”:
Essential to a quality university is recognition of the importance of the faculty voice in matters of academic decision-making and long-range planning. These procedures are designed to reflect that recognition; they represent sound academic practice consistent with standards set by the AAUP and other professional organizations.
Given the AAUP’s 100+ year track record of advocating for shared governance, it is no wonder that universities view the organization’s guidelines for decision-making during financial turmoil as best practices, especially when proposing the elimination of academic programs and faculty. I carefully reviewed the AAUP’s guidelines to gauge if and how the current budget process proceeded and if it did indeed live up to its proposed ideals. Spoiler: I find numerous ways it did not.
While some of the criteria have been followed, to some extent, the importance of faculty input into decision-making has not been recognized. I remain deeply concerned by the precedent set by this process: from the lack of complete financial information clearly depicting a financial crisis that requires terminating faculty appointments; to the unclear criteria used to select departments for elimination and inconsistent communication about the data; to a failure to properly inform and empower the university Academic Planning Committee (APC) or include the Faculty Senate or faculty in general in these momentous decisions. With this precedent of giving shared governance short shrift and more budget cuts in our future, who is to say what programs will be next or upon what basis they will be cut?
Analysis
AAUP maintains two documents offering guidance on shared governance in cases of financial crisis: most can be found in “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure” and a few more in “On Institutional Problems Resulting from Financial Exigency”.
Guideline: An elected faculty body should decide that financial exigency is imminent and that “all feasible alternatives to the termination of appointments have been pursued”. (Section 4.c.1)
What happened: Public communications from the Chancellor suggest that it was University administrators who made the decision that our current financial situation necessitates cutting faculty and departments, not the APC or Faculty Senate.
Importantly, UNL’s own bylaws (section 4.17) require the Board of Regents to declare a state of financial exigency. We understand, based on communications, that we are in a bona fide financial crisis, but that financial exigency has not been declared by the Board of Regents.
If the bylaws and AAUP guidelines have not been followed in securing the vote of the Board of Regents, or pursuing consultation of an elected faculty body, it does not give me confidence that “all feasible alternatives to the termination of appointments have been pursued”.
Guideline: “The faculty or an appropriate faculty body should also exercise primary responsibility in determining the criteria for identifying the individuals whose appointments are to be terminated.”(Section 4.c.1)
What happened: My understanding is that the APC was provided a tentative plan for budget reductions from administrators, but that the plan was not created by the APC or the Faculty Senate. Further, it appears that Department Chairs were asked to provide input on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), without true context for how they might be used. Likewise, the broader faculty were never asked to review or provide input on the data they would be judged on. Ultimately, these KPIs were used to reduce Departments to one z-score (or metric) that ranked departments against each other. These rankings include data meant to compare departments to like units across the country, not within a university.
Guideline: The elected faculty body will have access to five years of financial statements and detailed cash-flow estimates, as well as information on budgets and revenue for program, department and administrative units. Further, impacted faculty will have 30 days to respond. (Section 4.c.2.i,ii,iii)
What happened: How complete the financial records provided to the APC for the affected departments were is unclear. What is the loss in revenue that comes from eliminating a program? This goes beyond tuition but to grants and other income generated by departments.
Faculty in affected departments were first informed on September 11, and the first official hearing for Departments with the APC is on October 1. That would be 20 days, and guidance for how the hearings would proceed was only recently provided to the affected Departments.
Guideline: Impacted faculty get a hearing, and in the hearings, discussion can include the existence and extent of financial exigency, as well as the validity of the criteria for termination. (Section 4.c.3)
What happened: Impacted departments have received conflicting messages about whether they would have access to the underlying data. As departments plan to refute the bona fide necessity of eliminating their programs, they have sought additional data from offices such as Graduate Studies and the Registrar and have received identical emails stating that they have been directed not to share data with impacted units.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the University has compiled specific reasons why the programs and departments identified to be cut were selected, as these have not been provided to departments. There are programs and departments facing cuts that are ranked within the top 25 departments, and many within the bottom 25 rankings that will not face cuts at all. How were these rankings made and what is their point if they are not determining what is cut? These inconsistencies paired with a lack of rationale for the suggested cuts beyond “low overall ranking” contribute to the lack of transparency in this process.
Guideline: “Before terminating an appointment because of financial exigency, the institution, with faculty participation, will make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position within the institution.” (Section 4.c.5)
What happened: The administration has been inconsistent in communicating about retention. For example, the announcement of program cuts noted that for the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences “high performers” will get to stay, and this has already been communicated to some. Other departmental faculty were told “maybe” they’ll get placed in another department while others have not received any indication they will be placed elsewhere within the University. This sets an extremely inequitable and problematic precedent, with faculty we speak with across the University, even outside of those affected right now, worried about their own futures.
Guideline: Crucially, “there should be early, careful and meaningful faculty involvement” when deciding to cut or reduce programs. When this occurs it should be the “primary responsibility of the faculty to determine where within the program reductions should be made”. Finally “reductions should follow considered advice from the concerned departments.” (1,2,3)
What happened: The administration has apparently followed none of these exhortations in earnest. The APC was provided a draft of reductions and given limited decision-making power to change what was released to the public on September 12. Faculty Senate was never involved. And while the outcome of public hearings is still unknown, affected departments can only guess what arguments or advice they can provide to change the APC and Chancellor’s final decision, because the standards used to determine these cuts–if, in fact, they were standards at all–are opaque to those defending against them.
To Sum It Up
The university’s procedures document notes:
Therefore, the process that follows was developed to maximize the likelihood of achieving an appropriate result by emphasizing the following: the need for open communication; the need for ongoing consultation among unit administrators, faculty, students and staff; the desirability for confidentiality during exploratory considerations; the need for common understandable data and information about programs; the need for time for discussion and negotiation among the various participants in the process; and the need to protect the safeguards contained in the Bylaws and Policies of the Board of Regents and the Bylaws of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with respect to faculty tenure and due process considerations.
As someone who cares deeply about our University and our students, I will follow this process carefully and continue to advocate for achieving an “appropriate result” that properly incorporates the faculty voice.
Andrea Basche is an Associate Professor of Agronomy & Horticulture.
