UpDate - Vol. 11, No. 6, Page 3
October 10, 1991
Guidelines established for program reductions

     A special reduction in force (RIF) committee, created by the
University Faculty Senate, has established a list of guidelines to
aid administrators in the reduction and elimination of academic
programs.
     The guidelines list five major areas to be considered when
examining a program for possible reductions: centrality to the
mission of the University, quality of instruction, quality of
research and/or graduate education, public service and
cost-effectiveness. Copies of the guidelines were submitted first
to Provost R. Byron Pipes and then to all deans, chairpersons and
academic directors.
     Questions are listed under each of the five categories. Under
centrality to mission, for example, queries are made about a
program's contribution to students in other programs, to the
current and future plans of the University and to a leading
research university. Under the category, quality of instruction,
the guidelines include such questions as "What are the standards
for admission?," "Are a high number of students retained in the
program?" and "Are most students placed in careers appropriate to
their education?"
     To investigate quality of research and graduate education, the
guidelines seek evidence of excellent scholarship and external
funding. Whether the program is unique to the state or region and
whether its loss would affect the community are among the questions
listed under the category of public service.
     Finally, under cost-effectiveness, questions are asked about
the faculty teaching load at the undergraduate and graduate levels,
numbers of majors and degrees granted, redundancy with other
programs and administrative costs per full-time employee.
     "What we have produced is a negotiating tool, which will allow
deans and faculty to create a plan of action," Robert J. Taggart,
president of the University Faculty Senate and chairperson of the
RIF committee, said. "There should be both University-wide and
college-wide plans of action, because if the level of funding from
the state remains flat for the next few years, the University as a
whole will have to think hard about reallocation of resources."
     Any one department or program probably will not be able to
meet all the criteria listed, Taggart said. "For example, the
Department of Philosophy has no graduate program and not many
majors. But does the department service the rest of campus? Oh,
yes, it does. Plus, we know that philosophy is an important
discipline for all balanced undergraduate colleges."
     Taggart said the committee was trying to guarantee that some
negotiation will occur between academic units and the
administration "so that cuts can be made equitably."
     "If a department thinks some criteria are more important than
others, then they can try to justify that thinking," he said.
     Pipes said the committee has provided "carefully considered
guidelines that speak to the interests of all University
constituencies."
     "I think this is a good process that will allow us to receive
input from all interests before a decision is made," he said, "and
it is consistent with the goals of getting the best advice you can
and maintaining openness in the University community."
     A letter of understanding attached to a 1984 collective
bargaining agreement authorized the senate's Coordinating Committee
on Education to design procedures for faculty reductions "because
of financial considerations short of University-wide emergency."
Last spring, the coordinating committee proposed to the senate a
special RIF committee, made up of three members from the
coordinating committee (Taggart, Harrison Hall and Robert
Dalrymple) , two members from the University's Budget Council
(Margaret Andersen and Jack Ellis) and two members from the
senate's Committee on Budgetary and Space Priorities (Jackson
Gillespie and L. Leon Campbell).
     Taggart said members of the RIF committee called other
universities facing big budget cuts.
     The University of Massachusetts had a 20-page document "that
seemed to protect everybody," Taggart said. "It was so complicated
that no one could deal with it, and finally their administration
came out with the undergraduate teaching load as a major criterion.
That would be a disaster here because it would not recognize our
graduate colleges or the importance of research and it would reward
quantity, not quality."
     Although many more criteria could have been added, Taggart
said the new guidelines provide "terrific ammunition" for both
sides.
                                        - Cornelia Weil