Dear Chancellor Holcombe,
I am writing to correct several statements in Dr. Lars Hafner’s letter regarding our alternative proposals
to five of SCF’s proposed bachelor’s degree programs. We have taken the liberty of including Dr.
Hafner’s letter to you as our guide for preparing our comments. Please see the highlighted comments
below.
As explained in the University of South Florida Sarasota‐Manatee’s (USFSM) alternative proposals, SCF
has not provided us with the courses proposed in the bachelor’s degree programs or the results of their
community needs assessments. SCF has also not invited USFSM faculty or administrators to participate
on the task forces developing the proposed bachelor’s degree programs. We continue our interest in
partnering on these activities and in providing our support of SCF offering degree programs in areas that
we do not offer, such as science. We also are very in tune with the workforce needs of the region and
the desire of the community leaders for our institutions to collaborate on using our resources and
efforts to move forward on addressing their needs.
My assistant will set up a telephone call with you next week to follow up on any questions you may have
after you have had the opportunity to review my comments below. Thank you for your interest in not
duplicating programs that are already in place serving workforce needs.
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Guilford, Ph.D.
Regional Chancellor
University of South Florida Sarasota‐Manatee
(941) 359‐4340
__________________________________________________________________________________
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Lars A. Hafner, Ph.D.
August 10, 2009
Dr. Willis Holcombe, Chancellor
Division of Community Colleges
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399‐0400
Dear Chancellor Holcombe:
My SCF colleagues and I received our copies today of the letter USFS‐M submitted as an alternative
proposal to five of our six proposed workforce baccalaureate degrees.
Having been down this path before, we made concerted efforts to keep USFS‐M informed about our
proposed new programs. We have been forthright and collegial and have kept communication open
between our SCF administrative team, faculty and staff and our USFS‐M counterparts, explaining how
our proposed programs do not overlap nor duplicate programs offered at USFS‐M.
1. SCF administrators’ means of keeping communication open was to describe in broad terms
what programs were being proposed and to make the statement, “There will be no
duplication.” SCF has placed the full burden of proving duplication on USFSM. I believe that
SCF is also responsible for showing evidence of non‐duplication of courses and degrees, not
just providing a statement.
Thus, we were disappointed that, just as they unsuccessfully contested our R.N. to BSN proposal, they
have chosen to repeat the incorrect assertion that they are providing these programs locally.
2. As outlined in our alternative proposal, USFSM provides over twenty (20) degrees to our
community that meet the workforce needs of five of the proposed SCF degrees. Further, we
have capacity in these programs to add more students since we are not limiting enrollment in
any of our programs.
3. USFSM did not contest SCF’s RN to BS. We notified FLDOE that we have hosted the same
program in the Sarasota‐Manatee community for twenty years through USF Tampa’s College
of Nursing . We wanted to ensure that you and our community leaders had the correct
information about what USFSM has to offer since materials provided to the Division of
Community Colleges did not explain our commitment to the RN to BS program.
Will, we did our homework in preparing the proposals, and we’re continuing our research and due
diligence while in the exploration phase of the application process. We agree 100 percent that it is in the
best interests of taxpayers and the community in general to avoid duplication of degrees. I am confident
that our completed application will substantiate without question that our proposed curriculum is not
duplicative of any program offered at USFS‐M ‐ but it IS responsive to the community’s requests.
4. SCF administrators have not shared their “homework” or “continuing research” with us, nor
have they invited participation by USFSM faculty or administrators in the application process.
SCF has not addressed the concerns we expressed about the duplication of degrees. We would
like to work collaboratively with SCF to proactively assure that programs are not duplicated.
Again, just as was the case when we represented the health care community’s needs in going forward
with the R.N. to BSN degree, we continue to fulfill our mission of responding to our community. Task
forces working on each of these proposed degree programs include high‐profile community
representation. In addition to letters of support, we already have funding commitments from a variety
of sources. This community engagement bodes well for the success of our proposed programs, just as it
did for our BSN program. In fact, the applicant pool for the new BSN starting in January already exceeds
our program application goals.
5. To advise us on workforce needs, USFSM faculty and staff rely on the expertise of our
Community Leadership Council, consisting of 48 high‐profile community leaders. I also actively
participate in both counties’ Economic Development Councils, Chambers of Commerce, and I
am a member of the Suncoast Workforce Board of Directors. I carefully use this information to
assist in the planning and development of workforce needs for the region. SCF has not
included us in any of its discussions with the community to assure that USFSM’s program
offerings have been fully explored before proposing more degrees.
6. It is more cost effective to the State of Florida to add resources to an existing program rather
than to start a brand new program from scratch. For example, offering a healthcare minor in
business administration would require fewer additional faculty than offering a new degree. It
would serve the workforce needs just as well and offer the graduates more career options
beyond healthcare. There is much cross‐over of courses, such as management, marketing,
finance, accounting, etc. that SCF would have to duplicate but that USFSM already offers.
7. We recognize the need for bachelor’s‐trained nurses in our community and are pleased that
SCF has reached its application goals for their RN to BS program.
In summary, not only does USFS‐M not offer any of our proposed degrees (except Special Education,
which they recently canceled, which we understand was due to loss of faculty and funding) but the
substitutions they have put forward will not suffice to meet the workforce needs our task forces have
identified. lt is puzzling as to why USFS‐M would choose to deny our students, workforce and
community these opportunities.
8. We have not cancelled Special Education. We have put the program on hold until the
economy turns around and the locally eliminated positions and demands are re‐instated. To
be responsible stewards of state funds, we shifted dollars to cover in‐demand programs. We
continue to offer courses for students still in the Special Education degree pipeline and plan to
re‐open new courses when the demand is again demonstrated.
9. SCF has not shared with us evidence that our degree programs are not sufficient to meet the
workforce needs identified by their task forces. In fact, SCF administrators told us that the
needs assessments have not been done yet and that is why they cannot be shared with us.
10. We are already offering programs and opportunities to our students, workforce, and
community, not denying them. We have capacity to offer more. Fragmented state resources
as a result of having duplicate bachelor’s degree programs in the community can lead to the
loss of programs at both institutions.
We look forward to finalizing our application process with you and the State Board of Education and
moving forward to bring these much‐needed workforce baccalaureate programs to the community.
11. USFSM offers to the community outstanding and much‐needed workforce baccalaureate
programs accredited fully by SACS, NCATE, and AACSB. In proposing five of the six bachelor’s
degrees, SCF’s administrators are positioning its programs to be in direct competition with
USFSM’s for students, state dollars, and community resources. Instead, we would like to see a
return to the spirit of our 2+2 partnership. We encourage you to suggest that SCF offer
bachelor’s programs that are not already offered in our community, such as science (biology,
chemistry, biotechnology). It would be in the best interest of everyone for the two
institutions to work together on developing programs to serve the region’s needs.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lars A. Hafner
President
cc: Dr. Judith Bilsky
Ms. Patricia Frohe
Dr. Arthur Guilford
Dr. Eric Smith