Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:55:09 -0400
Message-Id: <200903121455.n2CEt95Z006436@neihart.oit.umass.edu>
From: "UMass Chancellor's Office" <official-chancellors@admin.umass.edu>
To: massmail-l@oit.umass.edu
Subject: Chancellor Announces Academic Reorganization Plan
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Reply-To: budgetcomments@chancellor.umass.edu
Precedence: list
Sender: massmail-l-bounces@oit.umass.edu
Errors-To: massmail-l-bounces@oit.umass.edu


To: Campus Community

I want to thank the campus for its engagement in the process of 
reorganization. Over the past few months, I have received scores of 
emails from individuals, department faculties, department heads and 
chairs, and deans relating to reorganization. There are many views on 
what we should do, and not all of these views are reconcilable with 
each other. My job has been to come to a decision about what is the 
best path for the campus as a whole at the present time. Today, I want 
to share with you the process for moving forward.

While there are those who would oppose change, recent events dictate 
that we must act if we are to effectively deal with the economic crisis 
facing our Commonwealth and the nation. In recent news accounts, our 
local legislators are saying Massachusetts faces a multi-year economic 
downturn and a deficit of possibly more than $3 billion. These times 
are truly difficult, and my concern is the $46 million shortfall we 
face in the next fiscal year is not the last major fiscal crisis we 
will face.

In November, the campus embarked on the process of reorganizing college 
administration. The impetus for this process was mid-year reductions in 
the state allocation to the campus and the prospects of large 
reductions to our allocations in FY10 and in future years. Since that 
time, the news has gotten worse. The Budget Task Force was initially 
given the assignment of looking at administrative savings resulting 
from college mergers, and subsequently this task was passed to a 
special Task Force on Reorganization, whose report I received on March 
9th. Between November and March, I personally held close to fifty 
meetings with individuals and groups to discuss various aspects of 
reorganization. Many others on campus have met to discuss this topic as 
well. I am pleased with the high level of engagement; it can only 
benefit all of us going forward.

In developing the plan I share today, I gained insights, direction, and 
advice not only from the Task Force on Reorganization, but also from 
the meetings and other communications. I have incorporated much of this 
information into this proposal. The Task Force report on reorganization 
will be posted on the Budget Planning website at 
www.umass.edu/chancellor/budget.html

At the outset, savings in administrative costs was a rationale for 
restructuring. The reductions in our state allocations are severe, and 
there is no end to the crisis in sight. Federal stimulus monies may 
help us to forestall some cuts, but all legislators with whom I have 
spoken advise me and other leaders of higher education to reduce 
budgets for the future and, in doing so, to make significant structural 
changes. At a recent hearing of the Ways and Means Committee that I 
attended, Paul Reville, the State Secretary of Education, stated that 
all of education must look to be more efficient and focused if it is to 
successfully weather this unprecedented storm.

We must reorganize to be more efficient, to reduce administrative 
costs, and to avoid the more deleterious option of slashing programs 
and departments.

As the reorganization discussion proceeded, it became evident that the 
campus needed to look not only at the necessity of saving money, but 
also at how it can position itself for the future. In this context, it 
became evident that unifying the life sciences would be a positive 
result. Another desirable result of reorganization is placing programs 
in proximity that have the possibility of improving our curriculum by 
creating new and exciting programs and courses for our students and 
prospective students. In the past months, it has also become apparent 
to me that if we are going to reach the position of national prominence 
we all desire, then we must have stronger professional schools. A 
characteristic of almost every AAU institution is strong professional 
schools involved in research. In most cases, these are medical schools, 
veterinary schools, schools of engineering, or schools of public 
health. 

The reorganization I am sharing today realizes our goals in only a 
partial fashion. I believe we will need to proceed beyond the proposed 
structure, if we are going to compete with the top public research 
institutions in the country. In addition, depending on the financial 
crisis and its course over the next few years, we may have to revisit 
entities within colleges, propose consolidations of their operations, 
and thereby further eliminate administration, this time on the level of 
departments and programs, and perhaps eliminate instructional programs 
themselves. While none of us would choose this route, the financial 
picture may force these actions.

Our work is not yet finished, and I call on the campus to approach the 
current reorganization and future measures in the area of consolidation 
with an open mind and with sensitivity to the severe exigencies of our 
campus finances and our goal of becoming a top-echelon public research 
institution.

Following are details of the plan:

1. The establishment of a College of Natural Sciences effective in fall 
2009. (The exact name can be left to the faculty in the college.) The 
departments in that college will be Environmental Sciences; Food 
Science; Microbiology; Natural Resources Conservation; Plant, Soil and 
Insect Sciences; Stockbridge School of Agriculture; Veterinary and 
Animal Sciences; Psychology; Astronomy; Biochemistry and Molecular 
Biology; Biology; Chemistry; Computer Science; Geosciences; Mathematics 
and Statistics; Physics; and Polymer Science and Engineering.

This college helps the campus to accomplish one of its goals: it brings 
together most of the life sciences under one administrative structure. 
It better positions us to compete nationally and internationally, 
enhances our ability to attract and retain the best faculty, and 
facilitates research collaboration across the science disciplines. I 
also look forward to improved curriculum in the area of the life 
sciences and possible further consolidations as soon as possible. I 
have charged Deans Steve Goodwin and Jim Kurose with developing the 
implementation plan. The appointment of the Dean of the College of 
Natural Sciences will be determined by the Provost.

With the constellation of departments in this college, we still fall 
short of another campus goal: the strengthening of engineering and 
public health. I would therefore ask specifically that Polymer Science 
and Computer Science enter into discussions with the College of 
Engineering with the goal of maximizing their cooperation. These 
discussions should include the possibility of a merger of those units 
into Engineering and the advantages that would accrue to the 
departments, the college, and the campus. I have asked Dean Mike Malone 
and department leaders Shaw Ling Hsu and Andrew Barto to lead this 
effort. I would like a report on these activities no later than the 
spring semester of 2010.

With regard to Public Health and Health Sciences, I ask that 
individuals and departments pursuing research and teaching relevant to 
an expansive notion of PHHS meet to discuss how we might strengthen 
ties between the new science college and PHHS, including the 
incorporation of departments or programs into PHHS. I have asked Dean 
Marjorie Aelion to lead this effort and examination, and have charged 
her with preparing this critical analysis, also by spring 2010.

2. The proposal for creation of a College of Humanities, Arts, and 
Social Sciences has been accompanied by much angst from some quarters. 
Before proceeding with the creation of such a structure, I recognize 
several issues that must be addressed if we are going to be successful 
and have therefore asked for further study on this issue.

Repeatedly I have heard that the creation of a new structure could not 
be accomplished in a four-month period. We will proceed as follows: the 
Provost will appoint an interim dean in SBS for one year and assign 
that person and Dean Joel Martin of the College of Humanities and Fine 
Arts the task of working together to review thoroughly the concerns 
that have been raised about such a structure, including such issues as 
college committees, advising, administrative structure, research 
support, and curricular requirements. By the end of the 2009-10 
academic year, the two deans will report to me on the feasibility of a 
merger of the two colleges and the steps that would be required to make 
such a merger successful, as well as the appropriate mechanisms and 
structures to facilitate scholarly and curricular collaboration.

I have heard often about fears regarding the separation of the “north 
side” of the campus from the “south side” of the campus. While the 
creation of a new structure would not represent a step toward the 
elimination of this separation, neither would it contribute to the 
separation that already exists in the present college structure. On the 
positive side, it would create a college large enough to effectively 
represent the interests of the significant number of faculty members 
outside the natural sciences and the professional schools. I charge the 
deans with examining this issue and fully discussing the pros and cons 
of such an arrangement in this context.

In a related note, this fear of establishing two sides of campus 
appears to be connected in the minds of many individuals with funding 
and the perception of disparities in funding. While we have sought 
further study on the merger of these colleges, I believe we can take 
some action on this front now. To address the perceived inequity in 
funding, we are proceeding to establish a special fund for travel and 
research expenses aimed specifically at faculty on campus who have 
limited opportunities for external funding to support their research 
and scholarship. The Office of Research will administer these monies on 
a competitive basis. In addition, the Office of Research, in 
cooperation with college administrations will establish a minimum 
startup award for any faculty member coming to the Amherst campus. I 
will also be asking the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement to 
address the concerns of faculty members in HFA and SBS and to develop 
methods for promoting research and scholarship among humanists and 
social scientists. Finally, I will be asking the new Provost to examine 
carefully the funding of operating budgets across the campus and to 
make certain that a larger amount of Research Trust Funds (RTF) in one 
college does not result in greater general administrative support for 
daily activities connected with instruction. I am not convinced that we 
have paid insufficient attention to some of these areas in the past, 
but I am convinced that we must eliminate the perception of a rich and 
a poor side of campus if we are to reach our collective goals.

3. The School of Nursing will retain its autonomy and have a Dean from 
among the current School of Nursing faculty but will be administered 
through the College of Public Health and Health Sciences. I have heard 
from many with concerns about accreditation, and I understand these 
must be taken seriously and dealt with directly. Communication 
Disorders will move from PHHS to the School of Education. We will 
continue to work with PHHS and Nursing on accreditation issues and seek 
to strengthen it as a research and teaching unit on campus. I do 
believe there are benefits to the teaching and research missions of 
these organizations.

4. Resource Economics will be included in the Isenberg School of 
Management. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning will be 
included in HFA, where the Dean will determine the appropriate 
structure for its integration. These departmental moves will create 
better linkages between faculty engaged in related fields, and will 
help build the teaching and research strength of all units.

One additional issue that should be addressed is the proposal to create 
a College of Arts and Sciences (A&S). Various individuals and groups, 
including the Task Force on Reorganization, have contemplated the 
establishment of such a college. I am unconvinced that we should revert 
to this traditional structure for several reasons.

First, I do not believe we can avoid redundancy in A&S and in the 
central administration in many areas: research, undergraduate 
education, graduate education, and development. Worse than redundancy, 
this plan creates the real possibility of conflict between the college 
and central administration in these or other areas.

Also, if a divisional structure was introduced – and this structure is 
preferred by some constituencies on campus – we would be introducing 
another layer of administration. Divisional deans or associate deans 
would be doing essentially what the deans of HFA, NRE, NSM, and SBS are 
currently doing, while the dean of the new A&S would add a level of 
administration between these deans and the office of the Provost.   
Given the need to reduce administrative expenses in order to preserve 
our academic programs, such a move would be entirely counterproductive.
One key point -- it is not clear to me what the difference would be 
between the dean of the huge college and a provost. The dean would have 
responsibility for 600-650 members of the campus. In personnel cases, 
for example, what would be the value added by the extra level of 
administration at A&S? Almost all AAU institutions that have a CAS have 
professional schools with a large percentage of the faculty on the 
campus; at UMass Amherst the imbalance would be severe and in my view 
dysfunctional. Redundancy and conflict can easily result from such a 
structure, which will not serve us well as we face the challenges ahead.

Another important point that has been raised in many contexts is that 
department chairs have often pointed to fruitful exchanges at meetings 
of department chairs. If there were no divisional structures in a 
college of A&S, I count nearly forty departments that would be present 
at a meeting of the college (not counting directors of programs, 
centers, or institutes). Such a gathering is not likely to be 
intellectually productive for the participants or contribute in a 
productive fashion to the governing of the college. If there were 
divisional structures, the inherent advantage of the CAS is not readily 
apparent. If we depended on the establishment of centers and institutes 
to facilitate cross-disciplinary activity, we would not need a CAS to 
set up those structures.

For these reasons I have concluded that a College of Arts and Science 
is not the best fit for our campus.

The reorganization I have outlined touches every unit on the campus 
except for the College of Engineering, and I hope that the changes we 
are starting here will eventually affect that college as well. As I 
said, we are not in a position to resist necessary change due to the 
real crisis that grips our national and world economies.

There will be some members of the faculty who will be disappointed by 
the reorganization. I hope, however, that the majority will understand 
its necessity and take advantage of the possibilities inherent in the 
new structures. These are extraordinarily difficult times here in 
Massachusetts and around the world. In response to this economic 
crisis, our institution must do all we can to preserve the quality of 
education we provide our students and our service to the Commonwealth, 
the nation, and the world. To do that effectively, we must minimize 
cuts to faculty lines and to academic departments – the core of our 
institution. While no solution is perfect, to fail to act would be 
disastrous for our university.

I believe the structure discussed here gives us a better chance to 
reach our potential once we come out of this economic crisis. As I have 
said many times since my arrival, I believe strongly that UMass Amherst 
has the opportunity to be one of our nation’s best public research 
universities. While we face challenges, I continue to believe in our 
future together, and in the ability of the institution to deal with 
these challenges. I look forward to your continued engagement and 
support in building a great university.

Chancellor Robert C. Holub