|
June 16, 1996
Response to the President's
Report
Response to the Executive
Summary
Response to Academic Plan
Diane Felicio, Kathleen Kesson, in consultation with Steve Schapiro - June 1996 In order to assist the board in its important deliberations over the weekend, we have prepared this response to the President's Report. To make an informed decision as to whether or not to approve the President's budget proposal and the action plan that he has developed, it is very important that you understand how his recommendations vary from those of the College Executive Committee, and how his proposed personnel cuts will impact the College's ability to provide the academic programs in which our students have enrolled in good faith. The plan proposed by the President was developed without our advice or consent, and he has provided no means to replace the essential services of those he has eliminated. Statements from the President's plan are in italics, followed by our response. Regarding the rationale for his plan: "I have developed an action plan that follows the spirit of CEC's budget recommendations as closely as possible... " -Many of the cuts were not in accord with CEC recommendations. Kiko Nobusawa (campus program coordinator), Jennifer Tripp Meade (off-campus program coordinator), Manuel O'Neil (director of financial aid), and Margo Macleod (core faculty member in sociology/multicultural studies and lead faculty/director of the individualized BA-MA programs), were at the absolute bottom of the categorized priority list for lay-offs. All of them have a history of exemplary performance evaluations. No off-campus associate faculty positions were impacted by the cuts, although those positions are part time and temporary and designed to be cut back in times of fiscal need. Cuts should be made in that group before even a half-time core faculty position such as that of Richard Schramm (founder and director of the Goddard Business Institute) should be eliminated. CEC did not intend for these essential positions to be deleted. -The pattern of the cuts suggests that they were in retaliation for people speaking out against the President and/or engaging in union organizing activities. There is no other logical rationale for them. It appears to be clear that those named above were targeted for political reasons: three of them (Kiko, Margo, and Richard) are among those who spoke out at the October board meeting. In fact, everyone who spoke out at that meeting who is not on a long term contract has been eliminated. Also, it is well known that Kiko and Manny were among the union organizers, and they along with Mark Greenberg, the other organizer and oncampus associate faculty member whose job was also eliminated, were the only ones among those laid off who were told that they would not be permitted to be on campus. Jennifer has questioned the President at staff meetings, and apparently is "guilty by association" due to her good relationships with faculty. The anti-union and anti-dissent intent and impact of these actions should be clear to anyone. In regard to performance issues, and the essential nature of the positions, there is no acceptable rationale. -The cuts are far greater than needed to balance the budget, but they are all supposedly being done for that purpose. CEC's budget called for an additional 360K in personnel expenses (including benefits). The announced cuts to date would produce a savings of some 427K, not counting the one or two senior administrative positions which apparently will be cut but have not yet been publicly announced. Those cuts would add another 60-120K to the total, meaning that the total will be approximately 490-550K, which is 130-190K more than necessary. That amount of cuts should therefore be restored. In addition, Nora Mitchell, core faculty member in writing and literature and director of the M.F.A. in writing program, has not yet received notice that her contract will be renewed, and that if it is she will receive at most a one year appointment. In terms of the core faculty contract cycle, she is up for a three year renewal, has superlative performance evaluations, and is largely responsible for the very fine shape that the MFA program is now in. As explained in the personnel handbook in effect at the time that Nora was hired, "core faculty members serve under appointments issued by the Dean for terms in a sequence of two one year appointments, followed by however many three year appointments may follow." This policy has not been changed.
Regarding the impact of the cuts:
1. "To promote cost-savings initiatives.... " Since these cuts will make it impossible for the College to provide or administer the educational programs it promises to students, we can expect drastic drops in enrollment to result, leading to a new fiscal crisis in the fall, and more lay-offs. This does not "lay a solid fiscal foundation for future years," but rather is likely to push us into the sort of downward spiral that nearly ended the College in 1980. 2. "Return full time fauclty to full time teaching..." This does not mention what canceling the 2.5FTE faculty release time from teaching/advising to do administrative work will leave undone; including the roles of: teacher licensure coordinator; and lead faculty/program director for our five off-campus programs and the campus program. These positions currently involve an average 1/3 time release time each, for what in almost any other college, including Vermont College that has very similar programs, are full time positions. 3. "To realign and restructure faculty patterns of organization...in order to improve the academic integrity of the programs.... " There is no explanation for how the cuts he suggests here will lead to increased academic integrity. Indeed, the cuts he has announced, along with faculty who will be on leave, or those whose contracts have not been renewed, will leave many areas of inquiry in the campus program with no faculty. The chart below outlines what is missing, and what is left.
Is what's left enough for a liberal arts college, or to provide our students With opportunities to meet our own degree criteria? The total of 6.25fte faculty (five full time, one 3/4 time, one 1/2 time) left as campus program core will be able to provide advising for only 78 students, approximately 60 short of those expected to enroll. There is no plan for how to provide advising to the others. Work program supervision and lpg membership will also be reduced below functional levels. "The administrative staff will be more streamlined and less hierarchical, while providing the necessary support for faculty and students." With no lead faculty, just one dean (who has not yet been hired and will be unfamiliar with our programs) responsible for administering all of the academic programs, the structure will be more hierarchical, not less. With the administrative coordinators for both the on-campus and off-campus programs also eliminated, along with an additional half-time administrative assistant, in a situation in which faculty and students were already not getting the full support that they need, there will be no administrative support at all, and the programs will be in chaos. In addition, there is no plan to replace the 50-60 hours of work/week that Manuel O'Neil has been tirelesssly performing for the past 10 years as director of financial aid. 4. "All persons affected will be offered a severance package based on their years of service to the college." The packages are offered on the condition of signing a gag order and agreeing not to sue. 5. Use adjunct faculty on a per course basis... Increased use of adjuncts will further erode the academic integrity and quality of what we are doing. Goddard teaching is unique, and requires considerable training and supervision. The associate faculty model moved us away from past excessive use of adjuncts. This will be moving us back in the wrong direction. 6. set a minimum of 10 advisees for all off-campus associate faculty Currently such faculty are paid per student advisee, in addition to a flat fee for work at the residency, with a range of 6-12 advisees (5-8 for MFA), and an average of 8-9. This model gives the college flexibility in response to fluctuations in enrollment. Since a minimum of 10 would also presumably obligate the college to pay the faculty for that many students, The President's proposal would gain us nothing, would eliminate our ability to reduce costs when enrollment is lower than expected, and would require us to do last minute hiring of additional associate faculty if enrollments are higher than expected.
1. "Continue to develop a clear academic focus.... " The faculty have not been consulted about these suggested priorities. 2. "Re-establish the college-ts-ide committee on experimentation and research...." Without adequate time and staff support, this is meaningless, and with faculty teaching and advising so much more, even less time will be available for new program development, experimentation, and research. The two year development of the Center for the Study of Progressive Education, which would have supported and helped to fund such efforts, has been stalled due to internal management problems at the College. 3. "Increase normal teaching load...." This will bring faculty teaching loads to the equivalent of 5.5 courses per semester, given our mentoring/teaching form of advising (with six campus advisees or four off-campus advisees considered equivalent to one group study). Such a load is unheard of at a liberal arts college, and would leave faculty with inadequate time to prepare for their teaching, and no time for collegial and governance activities, curriculum and program development work, or time to engage in any professional development activities. Faculty would certainly have no time to take on additional responsibilities for administrative work and program leadership, with or without cash stipends. 4. "Increase academic benefits for faculty..." With the exception of clerical help, these are benefits that faculty are already supposed to have. 5. "Eliminate the core part-time faculty category..." What propose would this serve? This category has enabled us to attract and hold onto some very fine faculty whose life circumstances make it desirable for them to work less than full time. The number of part time people at any time should be limited, but the important issue is the quality and performance of the faculty. At the very least, people now in this position should be given the option of moving to full time. In sum, the cuts were vindictive, excessive, and in man cases not in line with the CEC recommendations. The cuts will devastate the campus program academically, leave the off-campus individualized BA-MA program (our largest) and perhaps the MFA program as well (our second largest Off-campus program) with absolutely no leadership or coordination, and leave the other off-campus programs with totally inadequate leadership and staff support. For our two largest program, the campus and the BA-MA, this will make the college vulnerable to suits from students and to scrutiny by NEASC in regard to breach of contract and failure to deliver the program for which they had enrolled. Is this any way to run a college? This is not a plan, it's a purge. Suggested Board Actions
1. Delay approval of this budget and the personnel cuts it calls for,
pending a full investigation.
Kathleen Kesson, Diane Felicio
Response to Goals Goal 1 - Any formal decision to prioritize teaching in the campus program was never discussed with the deans or full faculty, nor were off-campus faculty formally notified by the president about his thoughts regarding possible changes in work load (e.g., the current plan to assign campus advisees to off-campus core). Goal 2 -- We agree with the group study sizes targeted, but would like to clarify a process if these numbers are not met. Goal 3 -- The Campus Associate Model was never officially eliminated. Campus Associates were eliminated. Goal 4 -- Kathleen approved the advisees numbers for off-campus associates: 10, except in the case of the MFA Program, for which the average is 8. This does not explain Nora Mitchell's new contract which calls for 15 advisees. Goal 5 -- How are cash stipends determined? Will they be proportional to the level of salary that other administrators receive? Other Comments -- Richard refers to the Honan report by stating that the "consultant" noted the complex array of faculty and the various types of teaching structures (independent studies, group studies). This is somewhat meaningless since anything Honan noted was merely a reflection of what faculty reported - he offered nothing new. In fact, Diane raises similar issues in her workload proposal. -- There's no such thing as "associate core faculty." -- Richard claims that if faculty do not have sufficient group study numbers they will be given extra advisees? How does he suggest we design this process, given that advisee assignments are made well before accurate group study numbers are available? -- Diane and Kathleen did propose changes in workload and noted that some changes are open to more discussion than others. -- How can he discuss teaching load and group study size (and administrative work), and not mention a thing about faculty development time?! Does he have any commitment to this?
Kathleen Kesson, Diane Felicio Interim Acting Deans
Richard asked me to foward you the enclosed document for your input. He would like to distribute it to the Board tomorrow, so the sooner your input comes, the better (sorry for the late notice). Thanks! Mindy
****************************
PLAN OF ACTION Summer Off-Campus Residencies and Fall Course Offerings
Four of the five summer off-campus residencies will not experience any core faculty changes.* We have actually added a full-time faculty member in the Psychology program and a new half-time faculty member in the Master of Fine Arts program** (the process for hiring these new faculty members has taken approximately two years to complete). All four programs (Psychology, MFA, Teacher Education, Social Ecology) are staffed by both full-time and associate part-time faculty who have been here for a long period of time.
* Nora Mitchell has not yet signed the
one-year contract that was offered to her, thus potentially leaving
the MFA the without a full-time Core Lead faculty. The only off-campus residency that has been directly affected by the personnel reductions is the BA/MA Individualized program. *** That residency takes place in August. Three core full-time faculty**** members are returning to that program (one had been on sabbatical but has returned for the August residency). The associate part-time faculty members are also veteran staff and should be able to carry on with the program. It is my intent to have the new Dean for Academic Affairs provide the administrative oversight for the BA/MA program***** as one of his/her responsibilities.
*** The BA/MA Program is the largest
Off-Campus Program. The off-campus coordinator position is presently being filled * by two outstanding staff members -- Frances Malgeri**, who has been at Goddard over nine years (and some of her previous duties were to help coordinate the programs), and Jackie Barnett ***.
*It is not clear whether or not Jennifer
Tripp-Mead's job has been eliminated. On-Campus Program - Fall 1996 If the Board of Trustees approves the new faculty teaching load, there will be more full-rime faculty teaching in the undergraduate campus program* than in recent years, despite the personnel reductions. An analysis of the Fall 1995 group studies shows that approximately 18 of the 35 courses were taught by full-time faculty. Given the proposed teaching load changes, approximately 25 of the 35 courses can be taught by full-time faculty**.
*It is my understanding, based on our
conversations, that teaching loads can not be increased in the middle
of a contract cycle. The only Core Faculty up for renewal this year,
with the possible exception of Nora Mitchell, were not rehired. Thus,
the new faculty teaching load, even if approved by the Board of
trustees, can not be implemented until the 1997-98 contract year. In addition, given the increase in advisees per faculty, more students will have full-time faculty as advisees. That ratio will increase in terms of full-time faculty teaching/advising as present faculty members are renewed under the new teaching load guidelines*. *Same concern as above. It is important to note that the earliest that increased advising loads this will take place for most Faculty members will be 1997-98. What provisions will be made in the interim? The Campus program, after the non-renewals, will be left with 6.25 FTE Faculty. Even if each faculty member advises 15 students, only 93.75 students will have advisors. Even at no-growth (approx. 144 campus students), that leaves 49.25 students without advisors. If the Miller & Cook initiatives prove successful and we have even greater enrollment in the campus program, the problem will be magnified - it takes a special set of skills and knowledge to provide it effectively. Last-minute hires have proven detrimental to the integrity of the program in the past. All academic programs and fields of study have been maintained for next year, none were eliminated in the budget process*. In regard to this issue, it appears that we will need to hire some faculty (part-time) for those areas in which the current faculty are offering courses but presently do not have expertise. These areas are Media Studies, Music, and Ceramics; these areas had been covered by the part-time associate faculty**. Goddard will continue to use part-time faculty in these areas in the Fall but the model will be different. We will need to have a limited number of adjunct faculty, similar to last year but in the fields cited previously***. *The following areas no longer have faculty coverage:
History In addition, because of Faculty leaves, Anthropology and Writing will not be covered in the Fall.
**It is not clear what you mean by
your statement "...it appears that we
will need to hire some faculty ...for those areas in which the current
faculty are offering courses but presently do not have expertise. These
areas are Media Studies, Music, and Ceramics...". The implication in this
statement is that the current faculty in these areas (which, to be clear,
after the non-renewals, is no one) are not qualified to teach. The faculty
who were teaching in these areas were immensely qualified. The Women's Studies program still has at least two faculty capable of teaching courses in that area*. The Womyn's Center will remain open under the direction of a faculty or staff person**. The Center for Multicultural Studies and Experiences, under the direction of Tom Arner***, will formulate a plan to keep the Center an active and involved part of our community. Tom plans to bring together students, faculty and staff during the opening weeks of the Fall semester and establish an action plan collectively with all concerned. He has indicated that he will devote more of his time to this area.
*The faculty you refer to who are "capable"
of teaching Women's Studies will be unable to teach in that area as
they are already committed to teaching Education and Psychology; one
is a half-time core and one is three-quarters, therefore, there are
limited opportunities for group-study offerings in one of our most
highly subscribed areas. Aside from the personnel reductions, two faculty members (in Writing and Social Ecology) have requested unpaid leaves of absence. One replacement faculty has already been selected, and the new Dean for Academic Affairs will find a qualified replacement in the other area. It is anticipated that all areas of study will be fully staffed once the faculty have completed their curriculum deliberations for the Fall*. *It is extremely difficult to find qualified academics at the beginning of a semester. Given the time frame, we will most likely be forced to hire local people, who could be underqualified. Recommendations were given by the Deans that these non-renewals be layoffs so that qualified, trained faculty could be easily re-hired in the event of anticipated increased enrollment. This suggestion was rejected. Cuts in personnel were ostensibly made for budgetary reasons; therefore, it is financially impractical and, indeed, impossible to anticipate that all areas of study will be fully staffed, if we take into consideration the need for qualified and trained advisors.  |
