Most Frequently Asked Questions About USM and the Strategic Plan: An Interview
Although both the Faculty Senate and AFUM have held periodic discussions about the strategic plan, most members of the USM community have not been able to participate in these conversations. Questions and fears have arisen. I thought it might be helpful for us all to have a written statement concerning the promises and challenges the strategic plan will present for faculty at USM. The questions were generated from what people have asked me and from concerns expressed in a recent document distributed by our union; the responses, from an interview with the President and the Provost on October 25. They wish me to emphasize that their observations are based upon the assumption that the plan will proceed essentially as written and as discussed--in other words, that no significant changes will come down from the system office. Please feel free to send any other question you have----Lucinda Cole, USM Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees Q: Will the Strategic Plan, including the consolidation between USM and Augusta, actually save money? President Pattenaude: Over time, it has the potential to control costs. The entire centralization conversation, found elsewhere in the strategic plan, has a major impact on costs and strategies. In the future, for example, we may be able--but only after careful study by professional staff--to reduce costs in admissions by centralizing aspects of the application process. Provost Wood: The issue is really minimizing the expected increased costs, not actually cutting present costs. That part has not been well articulated. At USM, we have reduced or controlled costs over the last few years even as we have increased salaries and benefits and therefore overall costs. We did so through a combination of no longer paying for some things while increasing tuition revenue or other sources, like indirect cost recovery. The anticipated reduction from the UMS plan is from similar reallocation, even as other costs increase.
Q: Given that Augusta is one of the most under funded campuses in the system, why wouldn’t a merger involve a net loss of revenue for USM? Provost Wood: UMA is under funded by the state relative to other UMS institutions, but it runs in the black due to low instructional costs offset by adequate tuition revenues at Augusta, Lewiston, and the University Centers. Our best estimates are that UMA can sustain this situation by reducing its very heavy reliance on part-time instruction as enrollment declines. We do not anticipate as great an enrollment decline as do some, since many two-year students are actually in 2+2 programs, i.e., associate degree programs leading directly into UMA baccalaureate programs. Finally, and most importantly, no USM revenues will be used to offset any UMA costs that may occur.
President Pattenaude: I agree with Joe. We will keep the budgets segregated for the foreseeable future.
Q: What if UMA's present subsidy is siphoned off into the Community College system? President Pattenaude: I believe the plan is built upon the assumption that it won't be. Provost Wood: It's up to the legislature to establish the level of state appropriation for each system.
Q: Would a USM/UMA merger mean that Augusta faculty automatically become members of departments at USM? President Pattenaude: No, they do NOT become de facto department members. Faculty participate in any such decisions and we’ll need to look at each discipline. Provost Wood: No, they would not become part of departments, unless by mutual agreement. Remember: LAC is the model, i.e., there will most likely be one or more collegiate units akin to Lewiston-Auburn College at the Augusta campus to which present UMA faculty will be appointed. Moreover, it's a basic principle that here at USM people are not moved from departments against their will, or added to departments without being invited to join them.
Q: Will the USM-Augusta merger involve layoffs for faculty? President Pattenaude: No. There is plenty of work to go around; there is considerable turnover, providing flexibility; and this process will take three to four years, thereby providing ample time for adjustments. Provost Wood: I don't see a need at all for faculty layoffs at UMA or at USM. We have too much enrollment demand all around, and we can't find people to teach as part-timers in some areas and some locations here at USM--at some of our University Centers, for example. Remember, most UMA students are in 2+2 degrees, so most are not going away. But I also have no formal analysis of enrollment impact five years from now.
Q: How would a merger affect present promotion and tenure standards at USM and at Augusta?
Provost Wood: It will have no affect on USM standards. Over time, as faculty work together to build baccalaureate programs at UMA, we will also work together to increase standards. President Pattenaude: I agree with Joe that USM will be largely unaffected. At UMA the situation is more complex, given the changing nature of the institution. For the foreseeable future, we'll need to be flexible. Plus we'll need to respect existing contractual agreements, including the present criteria for tenure and promotion.
Q. Will some USM programs have their accreditation status threatened by a merger? President Pattenaude: If we are careful, no, they won't be threatened. We'll proceed in a manner that preserves accreditation status. Provost Wood: We are working directly with relevant accrediting agencies on this and are confident that no accreditation will be threatened. In particular, we have been concerned about AACSB accreditation for the School of Business, but we expect that the separation of the USM School of Business from business-related programs at UMA can be handled in the same fashion as with Leadership and Organization Studies at LAC, for instance.
Q. Could faculty from Portland be reassigned to teach at Augusta, and vice versa? President Pattenaude: Technically, yes, because the present contract allows this. I would make every effort, however, to avoid any reassignment. This merger is not about disrupting people's lives. Provost Wood: Under the present contract, deans have the right to assign people to teach at university centers or at Lewiston, so it's theoretically possible we could assign people to teach at Augusta. This isn't a practice we wish to encourage, though.
Q. What implications will the merger have for our present governance structures? Provost Wood: The answer to this question depends on faculty choices. Faculty approval would be required for any change in configuration or structure, such as a single faculty senate. President Pattenaude: I agree with the Provost. Q: Programs and hiring have traditionally been the province of faculty. Many people fear that a forced merger interferes with these rights. How do you intend to maintain faculty control over these areas while bringing Augusta into USM?
President Pattenaude: Programming and hiring have always proceeded via shared governance. I see no change. Provost Wood: Faculty control over programming and hiring are protected by the faculty contract and by the USM Governance Constitution. Nothing changes with respect to appointments and programming.
Q. Since Augusta faculty have publicly resisted the merger, and since many USM faculty have bad memories of the Portland/Gorham unification, how will it be possible to avoid what a recent USM-AFUM document refers to as a potential “human relations disaster”? Provost Wood: First, the Portland-Gorham merger was one in which faculty members from two different institutions were merged into single departments. The UMS proposal does not call for such a merger of academic departments, schools, or colleges. For all intents and purposes, it's an administrative realignment--as opposed to a genuine merger-whereby USM assumes administrative responsibility for the operation of Augusta. We understand the feeling of loss on the part of UMA faculty, and we'll work to minimize the effect of administrative realignment during implementation of the plan. Most importantly, we will continue to invite faculty, staff, and student input as how best to implement the plan. President Pattenaude: If we work together as colleagues, there's a wonderful opportunity to build a significant university that will provide greater benefits to students and to the state than our two separate institutions now do. This is the shared work of faculty, staff, and students. Ours will be a collective and bottom-up endeavor.