|
 |
Recent Announcements |  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
                      |
Provost's Office >
Meet the Provost > Recent
Announcements > February 19, 2002 Charlena Seymour, Provost Dear Colleagues: We opened the semester with many new developments and many questions about the future. This communication is the first in a series intended to share with you what we know about our situation, what we can expect in the future, and what we are doing to ensure that we remain a strong and vibrant institution. These are difficult times, but we all share a long-standing commitment to our students and the Commonwealth. They are relying on us to work together as we address current issues and plan for the future. The Planning Challenge UMass Amherst has engaged in many different academic planning efforts over the past fifteen years. In the late eighties, with resources relatively plentiful, the emphasis was on fine-tuning the distribution of faculty across disciplines by reallocating small numbers of anticipated faculty vacancies, primarily to respond to shifts in student demand. In 1992, following the loss of nearly 200 faculty positions to state budget cuts, the focus of planning shifted to fine-tuning the number and organization of academic programs. The planning task today is much different. Enrollments have rebounded while the faculty has continued to shrink. The ongoing loss of faculty positions – driven by random attrition – has created severe imbalances in some academic programs. Virtually all flexible funds have been removed from academic programs as they have struggled to meet higher costs with fewer allocable dollars. For the past year Academic Affairs has been preparing to respond to this very difficult trend by looking to the future: matching anticipated faculty vacancy savings with key investments. While this strategy would take time to implement, it did offer the prospect of reallocating some resources to address instructional needs, preserve our strongest programs, and perhaps permit growth in a few areas of emerging importance. The chief limitation of this approach is that the pattern of anticipated vacancies is itself highly skewed: some programs will have many vacancies, some very few. Many of the vacancies will come in areas from which resources cannot easily be moved. Prior to the announcement of the FY02 state budget reductions and the early retirement program it was estimated that it would take several years before significant numbers of faculty positions could be reallocated. Much has happened over the past few months. The FY 02 state budget cut, at one time anticipated in the 1-2% range, came in at 5%. The state-sponsored early retirement program, once seen as a tool to help us meet our reduction targets, now appears to be an additional cut that cannot be depended upon to provide revenue to reduce losses. What the future holds beyond that we do not know, but we have been warned that additional cuts might be needed in FY03. So, even before a process of rebalancing and reinvestment could be put in place, the planning task changed yet again. The FY 02 state budget reduction required cuts in Academic Affairs that could only be met through the loss of approximately 60 additional faculty positions (in FY 03 and FY 04). In addition, it is estimated that the early retirement program could result in the loss of between 50 and 100 positions. For all practical purposes, this means that most of the anticipated vacancy savings for the next three years will be consumed by budget reductions. The rebalancing and reinvestment hoped for through the planning process will be even further delayed. It may take the better part of a decade to make meaningful reallocations. Nearly all the faculty vacancies for the next several years will be consumed by budget reductions of one kind or another, robbing us of the only flexibility we have as we attempt to rebalance Academic Affairs. At the same time, we must anticipate even more stress on the system as scores of faculty positions suddenly go vacant. The stakes for planning have increased dramatically, and the task has grown: we must now not only set long-term priorities, but also determine how we will meet our basic obligations over the next year or two. And, we need to ensure that both immediate and long-term decisions mesh. I therefore seek your help in supporting a planning approach that can help the campus deal quickly and effectively with its immediate challenges and also set a future course that can win broad support. In this environment, planning will need to operate in two dimensions at the same time. We will need to make immediate decisions about curriculum, enrollment, facilities, and the wise use of the limited funds available for backfill, but we must be sure that these short-term actions are guided by the priorities of a long-term recovery plan. Put another way, we must understand our future in order to makes sense of the present. These will be high-stakes decisions, requiring careful thought and considerable imagination. The Planning Process With this challenge in mind, we have developed an academic planning process intended to permit the University to make investments (or allocate reductions) in a way that will:
Because the principal resource available for future reallocation will be faculty vacancies, and because of the critical need to be able to move resources to meet the most pressing needs, all vacancies must be seen as a common resource, to be invested according to priorities emerging from the planning process. Making wise decisions in both the short and long term requires a process with three separate but related tasks. Timing considerations suggest that the three tasks be undertaken roughly in parallel:
This process should allow the campus to assess its remaining capacity after faculty losses are clear, to set realistic long-term priorities, to make the wisest possible stop-gap decisions in the near term, and to reorganize academic programs in the most productive possible way. Clearly, decisions of this magnitude require the best thinking of the entire campus community, as well as a clear process for defining key questions, gathering feedback and information, and framing choices. I have asked a group of faculty, students, departments heads and chairs, and deans to serve as a Steering Committee for the academic planning process.
This group will have overall responsibility for advising me on the different aspects of the planning effort, including:
In addition, I have asked the academic Deans to address broad questions relating to the organization of academic programs, opportunities to increase revenues to support the academic enterprise, and obstacles to innovation and renewal. To ensure the broadest possible consultation and support for the planning process, I have asked the Faculty Senate leadership to participate in a new, "joint" approach in which Senate involvement will be embedded in the process. Designated members of the Rules Committee serve on the Steering Committee; the Academic Priorities Council is engaged in the development of program review criteria; and other councils and committees will be asked to participate as the process evolves. I will also consult on an ongoing basis with student governance groups, representatives of which are also serving on the Steering Committee. The work of the Deans, the Steering Committee, and faculty and student governance groups, taken together, should allow us maintain open lines of communication, to focus on both the "big picture" and the detailed planning necessary to promote future success, and to deal with the immediate, unpredictable daily turn of events. We must adjust so that the institution can meet its basic obligations in the face of this FY02 cut as well as any additional reductions in the future. We hope for patience, and understanding, on the part of the campus community. Charlena Seymour Other links:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2007 University of Massachusetts Amherst.