Transcript of the October 30, 2020 Presidential Musings event. The Zoom recording had no closed captions or transcript, so this transcript was auto-generated by a free third-party captioning tool and lightly edited to indicate speakers and correct obvious transcription errors. The Zoom recording page includes a capture of the Zoom chat window, the text of which is included at the bottom of this page for additional context.
This is a lengthy transcript (it was a 1-hour meeting), so key points have been emphasized in bold to aid skimming.
In order of speaking
Jim Roberts, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Owens, University President
Mark VanEtten, VP of Finance and Administration
David Rehm, VP of Academic Affairs
Glenn Bozinski, VP of Enrollment Management
Hello, everyone. I see that people are joining our event. We're up to 45, 54 participants.
Welcome to the October 2020 Musings with the President, also joined by President's Cabinet, and we have some extra folks on to help us with processing the questions as they come in today to the Q&A feature. We'd ask you to hold on to your questions until the beginning part of the presentation is done so we have some of the information out there - and see our audience continue to build right now - so, again, hold on to your questions please until we get to the informative part of the presentation. And welcome to the October 2020 President's Musings, and with that I'll turn it over to our President, Dr. Kathleen Owens. Kathy?
Thank you. Thanks, Jim, and good afternoon colleagues. I am pleased today to have this opportunity to share with you my thoughts and reflections on the Board of Trustee meeting last Friday. uh Once again, I certainly wish that these Presidential Musings was an in-person event with the opportunity to pass the microphone around for questions and answers following my comments. Nevertheless, as Jim said, the questions will uh be accepted via the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. And I welcome uh here, joining me, my colleagues on the President's Cabinet may also participate in answering some of your questions. This webinar is being recorded and will be available for viewing in the event someone needs to sign off, or for our colleagues who are unable to join in uh today. Like all of us here, the Board is similarly adjusting to the Zoom environment, having conducted all of its committee meetings and Board meetings on the Zoom platform. I would also prefer that those meetings were in person. I have found that at least one of the advantages of the Zoom environment is uh exceptionally strong attendance by Board members at committee meetings and regular meetings. My plan today is to comment on several topics from the Board meeting, including our new covenant agreement, some financial reporting, a little bit on enrollment, strategic planning, and the tenure/tenure-track decision made by the Board of Trustees.
Let me begin with the historic covenant agreement that the Board of Trustees approved on last Friday. After many years of planning and dialogue, the Mercy colleges and universities across the country are entering into a new relationship with the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas. It's a covenant agreement, rather than a corporate agreement, with all the various legal obligations as is the case now. It is expected that all Mercy colleges and universities will transition to this covenant relationship by the end of 2020. At the Board meeting last Friday, the Trustees unanimously approved Misericordia's participation in the covenant agreement, which is an agreement between the University, the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and with the Conference for Mercy Higher Education acting on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy. Our covenant agreement describes the intentions, aspirations and assurances that enliven and inform the relationship between the Sisters of Mercy and the Mercy colleges and universities. It seeks to clarify the relationship between the Sisters and the colleges and universities, and it reflects and documents the mutual trust and understanding among the member institutions. The covenant calls forth a spirit of willingness to participate in collaborative and creative activities across the network of Mercy colleges and universities, and all in service of deepening the Mercy mission in American Catholic higher education. The covenant that was approved is a mutual commitment and spells out the mutual accountabilities for the Conference for Mercy Higher Education, which, as I mentioned, is acting on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy, commitment to the Board of Trustees, particularly the Chair of the Board, and for the University President. While there are various elements in the in the agreement, I do not intend to read the entire document, but let me give you some examples of some of the items that are included. It requires that the University Board Chair, the University President, and the Conference for Mercy Higher Education Executive Director will convey the significance of this covenant to their respective members at their annual Board meetings. It requires that the President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, the Board Chair of the University, the President of the University, the Executive Director of the Conference, and the Chair of the Conference Board will meet biennally- biennially to discuss the covenant, and share perspectives on the sponsorship relationship between the University's Catholic identity and Mercy mission. And it requires that the covenant agreement will be signed by new Presidents as they assume their leadership role, and as the mission peer reviews and follow-up reports are presented and discussed between the institutions and the Conference Board of Directors. So while there are many other pertinent details, uh the agreement does formalize the responsibility for Mission between the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas and the University, and at the same time it acknowledges the Board of Trustees' fiduciary responsibility for the academic integrity and financial health of colleges and universities.
I also want to move on then to the topic of finance and the discussion with the Board and various resolutions, and I'm going to ask Mark to talk about that, given that there were lots of details. Mark?
Thank you, Dr. Owens. It's a pleasure to be able to make some comments today on the finances of how we finish the year. First I'd like to thank Ron Hromisin and Matt Hornak and their staff in the Finance Office for the amount of hours of time they put in wrapping up this year's financial results. The audit was ongoing and had to be done a little early this year, so it was a lot of time they put into this. I did have an opportunity this week on Tuesday- I met with a group of- a feedback group- Enrollment Management, members of Faculty Senate and Staff Council- and gave a more of a lengthy review of this last past year's financial results and the audit, so today I'm just going to uh provide uh some brief comments and if necessary we can get together and do some more, a deeper dive if you will, with some of these groups again if they are still interested in some more detail.
First of all for the fiscal year 2020, it was a clean audit. Financial statements reflected a strong balance sheet and a healthy bottom line. Every year we always talk about the composite score index which is really a set of key ratios that monitor the financial strength of the institution, with 3.0 being the benchmark on a chart that would indicate that we have moderate financial strength. Our ratio this year is 3.96, which is a reflection of- what 3.96 means is that we're an institution with an opportunity for strategic investment with institutional resources to help optimize and enhance our mission. So it really is a good score, for not just Misericordia, but just any college and university. The financial statements, remember, just overall, they really are a summation of the past 12 months. It just gives us a point in time when we can look to see: how are we sitting from from a balance sheet perspective with cash to operate, are we paying our bills, and then from a from a operation standpoint, it just lets us know how are we doing year to year. But this year is really a difficult year to do that comparison. So- and I- I mention I just- to put some things in context to- The last third of our year was disrupted by the pandemic, and all the operations were really set on a different pathway than any other year. And we're still operating in a in a different type of year, without letting athletic programs running, without camps and conferences occur, so it really impacted many operating expenses of the University, so we can talk about comparisons, and we have, but some of the- some of the things we normally would look at really aren't really appropriate this year. We at least need to put it in context. If you recall back in- in March, you know, there was a lot of concern over what was going to happen with board - room and board refunds, the mandatory closing of campus, the market value of loss of the endowment, there was uncertainty if we would receive any federal dollars or not to assist in all of these additional costs, and in addition to that and planning for the incoming year, there was the growing realization that the nationwide job loss and impact on personal wealth- Really it's a lot of concern about how that would impact the incoming class. So we immediately began rebudgeting, starting the budget process over, to plan on a year with fewer students, but also we started to make the immediate cuts and reductions of areas that we felt were necessary to put us in a position at year end, that we had reserves and that we were in a good position to really come out of this as quickly as we could. And so, between in that last quarter, the last third of the year, really, when we started with the layoffs, the furloughs, the athletics stop traveling, all of those costs that we were able to- that that were reduced- including right into the summer of assigning staff their work schedules, which then resulted in some tax credits that we were able to get- those savings amounted to $2.7 million out of our complete surplus of $2.9. So we had a $2.9 million surplus this year, but $2.7 million of it were from those permanent and temporary reductions of expenses that we- that we put in place. And, in keeping with our theory- in our thought process- of how we are going to- what we're going to do, or why we were doing those things when we did them- we've allocated the surplus, with Board approval, in that manner. So $700,000 is going to be put into the quasi-endowment to support future scholarships. There is $1 million that's going in the physical plant maintenance. Through a number of years you probably heard me talk about the maintenance fund, that it is lower than it should be. This really puts us back there, closer to where it should be. We have been cutting dollars out of some physical plant budgets, which creates some maintenance concerns. So this provides us the safety net that we need in that fund. There's $600,000 going to go into the capital project fund. That's the project fund that we're using, that the Board's been allocating. We've used it for the science building project, we're going to use that on the McHale or the uh the Payne project for example, and this- this allocation brings his up to where we need to be to meet the matching requirements of State funding that we receive. And then the final piece is $623,000. That portion's going to be used to support operating- operations and initiatives that we need to rebound out of this pandemic. Dollars will be spent in things such as marketing and then uh new marketing strategies, as well as strategic planning. It's not all going to be spent in one year. This is going to be supplemental budget dollars. The plan is being worked on through Enrollment Management about how those dollars should be spent, and, again, we're going to be supplementing existing budget, so as we develop next year's budget, for example, this will be a portion of the resources available for us to develop uh marketing strategies.
Okay. Thanks, Mark. Thank you. And I'm going to, as I said, I'll have a few comments on enrollment and strategic planning and want to save most of the time for uh the opportunity to talk about the Board's decision with regard to tenure and tenure-track appointment. So-
With regard to enrollment, the Board did receive a comprehensive overview of enrollment by student type at both the enrollment management committee meetings, and at the general Board meetings. Uh the total University enrollment, as has been reported uh before, is 20-20- 2,398 and total full-time undergraduate enrollment was 1,473. Uh Enrollment Management and Marketing are cognizant of the need to return to a typical class size post-pandemic and have been given additional resources to facilitate a quick return to enrollment norms. Included in these resources are a one-time campaign focused on admitted student yield and a videography project highlighting individual academic programs in groups of program. The Board has also, as Mark just mentioned, authorized some long-term resources for increased marketing efforts. As we near the halfway point in the first year application cycle for next year, 2021, uh submitted applications are running slightly ahead of last year's very high number. More importantly, completed and admitted applications are- are running significantly ahead of last year and enrollment deposits uh similarly at this early stage.
With regard to strategic planning: Among the Board's various responsibilities, the University's Bylaws explicitly call for the Board's "engagement in strategic planning" and "oversight of the strategic plan." Given the changing landscape of American higher education and the Board's responsibility, not only for the present, but for the future of our University, the Board has decided that the time is right for us to now initiate a strategic planning process, rather than waiting until sometime next year to begin the process. Over the next many weeks you will be hearing more about the process and the manner in which you will be invited to participate in that process. The Board acknowledges that- and recognizes that a new President will be in place next year, and thus a process has been developed that takes our unique circumstances into consideration. The process will begin with the uh Ca- uh the President's Cabinet Retreat uh this semester, towards the end of the semester, with community input and a Board Retreat next spring. The data, information, and inputs collected in this early phase will become available as the new President assumes leadership. The heavy lifting of building the plan and gaining consensus for its implementation will occur after the arrival of the next president, giving her or him ample time and input into the final document. The goal is to have the plan completed for Board approval next – February, February of 2022, during the next academic year. This early start and adjustment to the planning cycle recognizes the need for action now to address what forecasters have called "the lean times for the higher education sector." Uh even before we uh these forecasters, even before we experienced the global pandemic and the volatile stock market and protests against racial injustices- these issues that have defined 2020, having arrived early in the new decade and all at once, are challenges that will continue to confront us in the years to come. Thus, the Board seeks not to delay our planning process.
Let me then move on to the discussion on tenure and tenure-track appointments. At its meeting last Friday, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution to suspend tenure, and to place a freeze on new tenure-track appointments, and to conduct a study of tenure. This study is to be completed by the end of the next academic year. I am aware that this decision is more than upsetting and causing great concern within and beyond our university community. I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the university community and to further speak with the Faculty Senate at its meeting next Wednesday. Clearly, the current reality of the coronavirus pandemic has transformed higher education more than any other event in recent memory, and while COVID-19 certainly brought focus to the influence of external, impactful, and unexpected circumstances that can lead to transformative change, it was not the major factor that led to the Board's decision. The Trustees are well aware of their responsibility to look, not only to the present, but to the future of the University. As a University Trustee, one of the Board's primary responsibilities is to hold the University in trust for future generations. Acting in the context of this responsibility to be faithful to both the present and future of the University, the Board recognizes that in addition to executing its significant role in making tenure decisions, including assuring the academic quality of programs and academic credentials, teaching excellence, scholarship, professional development, and service, it is obligated to take into consideration, additionally, the needs of the University. The Board is aware of the challenges facing all of higher education at this time. The higher education news and the national news regularly report stories about changes and challenges facing colleges and universities across the country. In our own backyard, the Board of the State system is looking to merge Bloomsburg, Mansfield and Lock Haven Universities. As we enter the ninth month of this coronavirus pandemic, the year has shown us the importance of thoughtful and intentional planning to ensure the longevity, and the chance to fulfill our mission, well beyond our forthcoming centennial anniversary in 2024. With this framework in mind, the Board looked carefully at the relationship in- between enrollment, on the one hand, and full-time faculty on the other. Over the last six years, between fiscal year 2014 and 2020, the number of full-time faculty positions has increased from 111 to 144, and the total number of student credit hours has decreased by 10,931 credits. According to the most recent data available, in Fall 2018, our student-faculty ratio was 10.9 to 1, among the lowest in the relationship to our peer group of 27 institutions, ranking 23rd. The average among peer institutions is 12.48, and the median is 12.36. Furthermore, the Board is mindful of a fact that, of tenure-eligible faculty, 65% are already tenured, and the additional tenuring of faculty in 2021 would have raised that percentage to over 70%. The Board had decided that, if faculty eligible for tenure applied for tenure, they would not be able to approve tenure due to their fiduciary responsibility to consider the needs of the University both now and into the future. Thus, those faculty applying for tenure would have been denied and then been issued a terminal contract for next year. The Board decided that rather than make a decision that would lead to terminal contracts, they would suspend tenure and conduct a study. To suspend tenure, as the definition of tenure states, is to temporarily prevent from continuing, or being in force or effect. In conducting a study, I expect that recommendations about how tenured and tenure-track positions might best serve our mission and students going forward would be co- would be forthcoming from that study. Moreover, in light of the changing nature of the professoriate, this will be an opportunity for the University to engage and broader reflections about faculty appointments, promotion and more. Faculty eligible- who would have been eligible- to apply for promotion and tenure this year may still apply for a promotion. They retain their position as a tenure-track appointment, as do all faculty in tenure-track appointments. This is the right time for us to study the issue of tenure across the University, and in the near future I will appoint a task force, including faculty, Trustees, and administrators, to conduct the study. The Board also recognizes that out there are other factors influencing enrollment, aside from the ones that I just mentioned, including recruitment and marketing initiatives, declining traditional-age student population, with a low point anticipated in 2026, especially impactful in the Northeast and Midwest, changing demographics, and attention to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, the role of new program development, transfer student friendliness, adult student enrollment, inclusive inequitable- and equitable online learning experiences, proposals for free colleges - at the community college level and at the four-year public institution level - and the escalated - and I daresay broken - tuition discount business model, and more. These and other issues are top-of-mind among Board members and support their decision to initiate the strategic planning process right now, rather than waiting for another year or two.
So let me uh stop uh now with the formal remarks and look to some of the questions that uh have uh come through uh via the Q&A feature.
We have a question on the calculation of student-faculty ratio, which I don't know, personally, how that's calculated. I don't know if anyone can take that one.
David, can you?
Off hand I do not know exactly how independent studies are calculated um into-
Independent?
Yeah, it's whether it- how in independent studies and internships are included in the um student-faculty ratio. Um I'm happy to check on it. I can't tell you [now]. However whatever approach we are using, we are using the standard approach that all institutions used as required by IPEDS. I think that's the most important issue.
Kathy are you seeing questions as they pop up?
No.
So if you go into the Q&A…
Okay.
Mark uh Mark uh There's a question regarding paying down the debt. Will you take that one please?
I can. Uh The debt we have is structured debt, and we are making our debt payments. We've just begun making- uh- we just made our first year's worth of debt payments on the new bond issue. There is no plan to pay off the debt early outside of the scheduled debt schedule.
Okay, I see- I see a question here on uh Why should the faculty have any faith in the Board going forward if they have prevented us from participating in the conversation to the awarding of tenure? As well- Okay. I can address uh Certainly in my- in the participation of the Board, the Board has every intention of allowing faculty to be partners in those decisions, and the- the conversations and involvement of faculty in uh discussions about the enrollment uh initiatives, and concerns with enrollment have been ongoing for a number of years. And faculty have been involved and are- these kinds of discussions with anticipated some cuts and faculty lines that may be occurring- I have been ongoing for or sometime and are not new conversations. I don't know, David, if you want to add anything, you know, to do that?
I don't I have anything additional at this point. I mean, part of the challenge was, this is a Board-level decision, the Board has that prerogative, and we had to honor it. I mean, it's relatively straightforward in that regard.
I- I would comment that it was uh not a decision made easily, and made with the intention of looking at uh a model that is going to serve the University well into the future.
There are a bunch of questions from faculty. I'm happy to try to um, work through them with you, Kathy.
Okay. Okay.
At the top of what I'm seeing, David Wright asks: Do you believe that the Board intends to keep the number of tenured faculty at 66 maximum? Uh, I can assure there's been no conversation about that. [Owens echoes: conversation about that] That eliminates the "if so," um so I don't need to proceed further. There was no discuss of particulars. What needs to occur is a discussion about where we are and how to move forward.
Mmhmm.
But none of those particulars were addressed. I hope that represents things fairly.
[Indistinct] why- "if we are in strong financial health, why has the Board been so impressed to take this move now? There seems to be both the desire to blame finances and claim strong financial health, both the desire to blame COVID and to point to long-term metrics/changing factors. The decision to still allow the six to go up for promotion seems directly to contrdict the claim that financial duress that is at the heart of this decision." I don't think financial duress is at the heart of the decision, though I'm happy to be contradicted there. What we're looking at is the overall balance of faculty in relation to enrollment. That has been the fundamental driver in the context of reflecting on things, and that, in conjunction with the percentage of tenured faculty, particularly in specific areas of the University, that's where the challenges lie, and and our hands would be tied too much moving forward. That would be my response. Kathy, I'm sure you have-
In looking at this conversation and how it has been- how it has gone on in the past, I was looking at some Board minutes or discussion, back in 2017 on this very same topic, where there was a conversation by the Board about the number of full-time uh faculty in relation to uh student population and the uh- the student-faculty uh ratios uh at that time, and the budget that year did include, at that particular point, the decision to reduce the number of full-time faculty members by ten. At the same time that discussion was going on, um there was a decre- the Board noted that were was a decrease in full-time students that was attributable to an approximate 20% decline in transfer students who were enrolled. And so, with that conversation, while there were no- those faculty cuts did not occur, it was anticipated that transfer student enrollment um might increase, and there was conversation at that time with the faculty concerning um the, perhaps, the 'lack of friendliness' of our transfer student policies and the- there was engagement in discussion on how we can make that change in the curriculum so that we might have a model that mirrors other universities, where students who are transferring from a community college have their credits accepted and can be guaranteed the opportunity to graduate in- in two years. That conversation is still ongoing. The enrollment increase that led uh perhaps not to pursue the faculty um lines at that at that time uh you know, it didn't occur because there was hope- hope, anticipation, that we would have those curriculum changes. And they did not occur. Mark?
If I can, I'd like to add to that, Kathy, that the number of reduced faculty of ten that was suggested at the time would have got us balanced to be in range of our mid-point uh comparison. The continued uh reduction of full-time students, transfer students, is now down into the- I think it's at 41 this year. It was at 50 last year. And each of those years, we've seen a 10% decrease in part-time credits. So it's been a continued slide, rather than a rebound on any of those numbers.
There's a question-
[Indistinct] Uh yeah, go ahead
There's a question on enrollment that's related to that. Um our enrollment performance over the last several years relative to our local competitors who may have outperformed us. Glenn, do you want to take that one?
Sure I'd be glad to. Let me make sure I have my microphone on. I do. Um. Regarding performance. One thing I'd mention is that every year we focus on enrollment we are first and foremost focused as an institution on doing better. Um doing better has a large context because it's not just about the number of students, it's about the various types of students, it's about a sustainable net revenue, all of which are factors. And regarding our- our uh local competitors, what I would say is each of the schools that we're alluding to - I know we speak about King's, Wilkes, Scranton, and others - have a different portfolio of programs, different perception within the community with regard to- to quality, uh um and content, extracurricular opportunities, and certainly those discounting practices I mentioned. Having said that, it's- it's interesting as we look at our local competitors, and I've done a pretty detailed assessment, um when you look at the four-year average, prior to the pandemic year, we have seen that the size of our first year class is down 17% from that four-year average. The size of Wilkes's class over their four-year average is down 16%, the size of King's's four-year average is down 12%. So while we feel strongly the need to do better, and it's exceedingly important that we do better in this particular year, knowing that we carry the weight of- of a smaller first year and transfer class, we could say that, comparable to our local peer institutions, we have had similar outcomes over a five-year period. Um not to say we can't do better, not to say we shouldn't do better, but also we look at the- what we know about the discounting practices at some of those institutions, some of those institutions have discounted their way out of the enrollment concern in a way that doesn't necessarily, or at least wouldn't necessarily serve us as an institution to do the same from a revenue perspective.
Thanks, Glenn. I think David, maybe- maybe the next question might be for you. If you're seeing on the screen.
Uh- Oh! Sorry. So um uh the question is- "So what I'm understanding is that the tenure and tenure-track is put on hold for next year until you conduct the study, is that correct?" That is correct. Appointments of tenure and promotion uh uh to tenure. Um. It is not the suspension of tenure overall, it is only the appointment and promotion to. "And then from that study will be decided if tenure or tenure-track is going to continue?" Um, technically, I would say that's correct, but I would reformulate it to say "how" tenure and tenure-track are going to continue. At the end of the discussion with the Board, the uh Chair of the Academic Committee- Academic Affairs Committee indicated this is not some effort to undo tenure, it's an opportunity to pause and see where are and how to move forward.
This is- this is tricky, right? Every question is very tricky. The question from Chris, and I respect the question: "If the financial condition of the University has been problematic for a few years, as stated today, why only now is the University taking the extreme measure of suspending tenure?" I would challenge the conditional, there. I'm not- we're not saying that the financial condition of the University has been problematic. We have worked out, and Mark can speak much better to this than I, but- we have worked within the parameters that have been provided, um by means of enrollment and our staffing, but it's not something that we can continue, long-term, moving forward. At some point, if you're the frog with the water heating up around you, you better get out of there. And- I- from my perspective, that's the action we're trying to take. Mark, I don't know if you can speak to that better than I.
Yeah, well every year we go through a budget process. We know what's ahead of us as far as fixed costs. Uh and- and they are the first costs that go into our budget - the- the items that we can't change, so uh, and then in the end we have to make some decisions on how we make things balance. We have always operated through a process of balancing the budget. We had one year that we had a negative budget and we were tasked through the year to get it balanced, which we did. Uh and the current year is no exception to that. The current year that we're operating in, 2021-2022, we had taken uh, in order to meet the obligations of payroll, we had reduced $1 million, about $1.8 million out of general operating expenses to fund the payroll portion as we worked through this plan. There was about $1.2 million that was a savings in this year's budget that came from staff layoffs. And so if we look- if we look going back, what's been behind us, then, behind us we have- we have balanced our budget every year and we have worked for it, but it has been at the expense of other things. Capital, for example. We have been spending a million and a half dollars less in the last few years than we normally do in physical plant, replacement, and just upgrades of space. And we heard- we heard concerns from all across campus, in programs that say "My space is no longer relevant, I have competition at this school and that school," and these are areas that we have shrunk those budgets, uh knowingly, temporarily as was our plan, so that we could ride through this together while still producing positive financial results. So, the question about why now, you know, just keep in mind: what's behind is a process of how we balance things. The going forward is the fiduciary responsibility of looking for the long-term health of the institution and what changes need to occur to ensure that that health- that we remain healthy and viable.
[Indistinct] going to Jen Black's question, Jim?
I think so. On the covenant, right?
Kathy, the question is: "Will the covenant you spoke of re: the Mercy Higher Education and the Sisters include any kind of direct consolidation of operational tasks?"
That is not intended. At the present time. That there would be a consolidation. Uh it is simply a framework for the Sisters of Mercy to own directly the relationship with the institution with regard to the mission. And it really moves them away from the operational aspects of the University and intended to focus on the mission, recognizing that it's part of the individual Boards of Trustees responsibility to uh hold the academic integrity and financial health of the institution. Certainly, there can be conversations among universities independently or collaboration, cooperation, um mutual type- types of programs or events, but that would be between the universities themselves, independent of the Conference for Mercy Higher Education and um the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas in their new role.
Kathy, there's a general question: "Do you believe in shared governance?" [chuckles]
I do believe in uh in shared governance, and in my discussion with the uh the Board on how to proceed when they asked about the study, I talked to them about the essential role of faculty, uh administrators, and Trustees uh in shaping uh whatever the recommendations are that come uh from the study. Um so I can absolutely say I believe in shared governance, I'm uh will be present. I'm not sure- I am looking forward to next Wednesday, to have the opportunity uh to uh talk to the Senators and uh faculty colleagues through the Senate next Wednesday on these issues.
And then there was one question that came in very early, um, which, because of the ordering of things was moved around. Um, and it's a loaded question, but I will pose it: "Do you agree with the statement that the Board has been negligent in their fiduciary responsibilities and in their oversight of the current strategic plan during the time of Tom Botzman's tenure?"
I can't comment on Tom Botzman's tenure.
Exactly. Exactly. [nodding]
I can't comment on uh his tenure. I would say the Board right now is absolutely acting with the best interests of the University going forward. They recognize that they are the ones that need to hold the University in trust for future generations.
Thank you.
Mm.
There's a question regarding the consideration of all aspects of the suspension of tenure. The negative- the negative aspects. Um. "Many believe that there are considerable negative impacts, not only to all faculty who are on tenure-track, but also reputation." Um.
There was extensive discussion of this, um, at the Academic Affairs Committee, at the Finance Committee, and at the full Board level. I can start with that. Kathy, I'm sure you can add.
I mean, in terms of um the reputation of the institution, I would uh- Certainly the Board is fully supportive of tenure and um, is looking for the best way to implement tenure and tenure-track positions, but we have uh significant faculty who are um making valued, wonderful contributions to this institution who are not on uh tenure-track, and uh those uh colleagues are equally responsible for the success of our graduates, and add to and enhance, strengthen, the reputation of this fine institution. So, I do not- it has not been my experience, uh here or elsewhere, that suspension of tenure, a pause, an examination, in anyway will hurt the reputation of the University.
There are additional questions in the- in the stream. One concerns why a study of tenure is necessary, and what are the gains expected from this study? Um.
Certainly, as um the study is being formulated, one of the things that uh I would hope, as I will uh be asking the committee to look at, is to uh examine the role of uh the professoriate that has broadened, and we currently have faculty colleagues uh who are- a large number of faculty colleagues who have uh contracts for a certain length of time that are not eligible uh for tenure, nor are they eligible for promotion, and I would like to see us examine a system that allows for uh promotion of faculty in positions. There's a large number of institutions that have implemented what is called a Professor of Practice, and the responsibilities for uh those faculty who bring their expertise to the uh to their positions, their teaching excellence, their uh practical involvement with their engagement of students and student research projects demands that we look at that as an option, to enhance uh the possibilities for so many of our faculty colleagues, and so I see that as a part of the study.
There's another question regarding the surplus: "There's approximately $3 million, yet none of the money is going into actual instruction or educational programs, how does that speak to the University's fundamental mission of educating students?" Mark, I think that's one for you?
Sure. Uh actually all of that surplus is going into exactly that purpose.
Heh.
The- the uh investment in the quasi-endowment is an investment in the students. That provides an affordable education to the students. And then the physical plant money that's being utilized is- is directly to create the academic space uh as well as uh other space needed for student learning on campus.
We've got several additional questions coming in and lined up. There's a question: "Has the Board looked at the growing number of faculty against shrinking student enrollment over the past six years? How is the Board looking at growth of other areas, such as administration over this same time period?"
Yeah uh somebody, anybody could probably answer that one here, or participate in it, but uh- there's been a substantial reduction in the number of- of- of employees that are not faculty on this campus in the past year. And I'm not referring only to what occurred this this spring. Uh in the prior year we had been on a reduction of reducing staff. There is today about fifty fewer employees in our staff payroll than were on the payroll a year ago at this time. Uh the first eight payrolls, there's a $600,000 savings in a year-to-year comparison. So uh yes, absolutely, is the answer, and those- those adjustments have already been made.
If uh- there's a question out there regarding the conversations back in 2017 and uh why were appointments of tenure-track faculty continue- continue to have been made?
I can't speak to conversations that happened before I arrived, but I will say that the hires we made were done on good faith and in the assumption that enrollment would continue- would progress reasonably. Um it hasn't, but that's the spirit in which those hires were made.
I'll take the next one, Jim.
Thank you.
Uh, sure. "Earlier this year, during our weekly meeting updates, faculty were told there would not be consideration for removing any faculty benefits or cutting salaries to save positions because of fear of rippling effects. Doesn't the suspension of tenure for faculty who are well-deserving seem to diminish the work they have put forth over the past six years?" I'm sure it could be interpreted that way. There's no intent of that, and in the conversations that I had with each of the six um, you know, I tried to indicate that- from my perspective at least, I'll speak on behalf of myself, uh the value the community finds in each- each individual who is here, the importance that I saw of um the ability to apply for um promotion and a raise - we're not trying to take everything away here, we're just trying to be careful about the long-term viability and strength of the University. And that's really the kind of mindset with which this decision was taken. Kathy, you may have something more to add, but that's my thought.
I mean, that certainly was the uh, you know, the intention. I mean the Board never uh mentioned or expressed a thought taking tenure away permanently, but the need to stop, and study, and make the decisions that are right for all of the professoriate here at the University and um the contributions of the individuals who um were to apply uh for tenure at this time will be considered at an appropriate time down the line. We are not taking- as David said, I'm just repeating his words- the opportunity to apply for promotion, to get that and the acknowledgment that the promotion implies.
Jim, I'm going to keep going because there are a number of academic questions here.
Right. Okay.
Um. And- just to say that there's been implications in the Q&A, perhaps the chat, that people have seen that we're censoring questions. We're honestly just going through the list, and in fact one faculty was concerned that a question had been posed earlier. It went to the bottom of the list. I made sure to get it because of that indication of concern. But right now we're going down the list as it appears. Uh the next question focuses on revising the Core [curriculum] in 2017, that "that effort was taken up in good faith, faculty were not told it was an ultimatum and we might lose tenure if we didn't deliver in three years." There was never an ultimatum.
Yes.
There was never such a statement and I was here for that much, and I can attest to that. But what I can say is that our circumstances have changed, and if we don't respond to the changing circumstances, and we just stop, we're gonna hurt ourselves. And we're trying to figure out, collectively, how best to move ourselves forward at a very, very difficult moment. Right? 90,000 cases of COVID yesterday in this country. I don't see that these are normal times. So there was no intent in 2017 to proceed this way, but here we are, and we gotta figure out how collectively to the work.
To the participants on the call, we hit the hour as promised. There are more questions, obviously, in the box. There will be more opportunity for dialogue, try to follow up on some of these questions outside of the forum, uh um. Dr. Owens and Dr. Rehm will be at Faculty Senate next week, there will be additional opportunities developed on all campus news, including many of these serious issues. Um. Kathy, do you have any concluding words before we wrap up?
Yeah, just to um, you know, thank everyone for your uh ongoing contributions to our University community. I'm pleased to have this um opportunity to uh participate in this webinar. Perhaps, you know, if I was more uh fluid at using that Q&A function um I meant have, we might have gotten through more of the questions, but I will look forward to the opportunity to speak on Wednesday at the Faculty Senate. So uh thank you all for being with us for this hour. Thanks.
Scott Blanchard (01:00:30)
I have posted a question that is being avoided.
Scott Blanchard (01:01:47)
Here was my question on the Q and A:
Scott Blanchard (01:02:10)
o you agree with the statement that the Board has been negligent in their fiduciary responsibilkities and in their oversight of the current Strategic Plan during the time of Tom Botzman's tenure?
Callie Rimpfel (She/Her/Hers) (01:07:29)
Thank you for your questions. Please add questions to the Q&A box instead of this chat.
georgewsheaiv (01:12:29)
My question has also been ignored: How do the VP’s, you President Owens, and the Board reconcile the strategic mission to enhance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion while simultaneously laying off faculty, suspending tenure without input from the faculty, and abrogating the university’s contractual commitments to faculty? In other words, why should anyone believe that the university can carry out this mission publicly when it’s proven incapable of realizing this mission with its own faculty?
Amanda Caleb (01:15:13)
That question was specifically about the administration, and was clearly stated as such. It is NOT about staff cuts.