New University Faculty Senate President and Board of Trustees member Dr. Tim Lenz got an early taste of Brogan and the FAU Board of Trustees’ inimitable freight train style at the BOT’s Audit and Finance Committee meeting on June 10 and the BOT General Meeting on June 17. Why are these meetings of significance? Because at each Brogan and the Trustees confirmed the administration’s policy on reorganizing colleges to target tenured faculty for reassignment or layoff while dismissing Professor Lenz’s convincing presentations of the faculty’s collective stance against such. Unlike some of his predecessors, Lenz seldom engages in flattery and does not shrink from honestly representing the faculty’s wishes and concerns.
On June 17 Lenz used remarks prefacing his vote against the FAU 2009-10 Operating Budget to remind BOT members of his fear that the administration is undermining tenure and proper faculty governance procedures. Lenz’s overarching concerns–that FAU’s most important faculty governance body is unanimously opposed to the administration’s reorganization of the College of Engineering and subsequent termination of tenured faculty–were in fact deemed worthy of consideration and discussion by Trustees Janke and Gupta (and Gupta is not a member of the Audit and Finance Committee, thus further legitimating his queries). Janke and Gupta’s concerns were quickly “addressed” by President Frank Brogan, BOT Chair Nancy Blosser, Vice Chair Scott Adams, and most forcefully by Trustee David Feder. The captured exchange is nevertheless informative particularly because it highlights the BOT’s overall dynamic and limited regard for faculty. In addition, Brogan and some BOT members’ remarks suggest general uncertainty over whether the reorganization and layoffs were initiated because of budgetary, or “efficiency,” concerns. In the end, perhaps not surprisingly, Lenz’s last ditch attempt to defend both tenure and meaningful faculty governance at FAU was safely corralled.
June 17, 2009 FAU Board of Trustees Meeting Approval of 2009-2010 Operating Budget
Nancy Blosser: Finally, on Action Item is approval of, uhm, FAU’s 2009-2010 Operating Budget [sic].
Robert Stilley: OK. This was reviewed today and approved by the committee and I move that it be approved.
Blosser: Is there a second?
Unknown: Second.
Blosser: Is there discussion?
Tim Lenz: Yes.
Blosser: Trustee Lenz.
Lenz: I’d like to explain my opposition to this budget and vote against it. My vote is based on some of the components that are related to the College of Engineering and Computer Science. Some of you have heard some of these concerns expressed but I have some additional ones as well. The procedural concerns that I have involve the College Bylaws which require that reorganization be presented to the Policy and Development Committee and the Personnel Committee and before meetings of the Faculty Assembly. A related procedural concern about the College bylaws is that the College of Engineering and Computer Science has provisions for academic departments and organized research units; the departments [being] the primary administrative units but there are provisions for the creation of other units. The creation of any other administrative or academic unit requires amendment to the bylaws. So the four “functional unit” reorganization that has been proposed or implemented, depending on whom you speak to, has not followed the College Bylaws. Nor has this reorganization been presented to the University Faculty Senate, and, as previously mentioned, I believe that this is a matter of general university educational and academic policy and therefore it’s within the purview of the University Faculty Senate. My substantive concerns are related to tenure. This reorganization gives the administration almost complete discretion to create or abolish units within the college. It also appears to give the administration the authority to assign and reassign faculty members to academic units, thereby significantly diluting tenure in ways that I think will seriously hurt our effort to remain competitive: Recruitment, retention, and institutional development are likely to be affected by this policy. My concerns are not about the intentions of Dean Stevens, or the intentions of President Brogan. I’m sure that if anyone here were to ask General Counsel Kian for advice about how to assess this policy he would recommend that we not look at the personalities supporting this but at the words in the policy. When I read the descriptions of this functional reorganization I read a policy that will belong to the University which will make it possible for people to use or abuse the assignment and reassignment of faculty members to units depending upon an annual evaluation, for instance. I find this concerning. I’m also concerned about another substantive impact of this change and that is that this seems to be creating more administrative units and therefore more administrators and fewer faculty at a time when I don’t think that’s the intended role of this reorganization. One of the goals is to focus on the core missions of the university and I don’t see this functional reorganization accomplishing that purpose. The College of Engineering has been fore cited; it already includes a provision for organized research units. I believe in 19—or 2006 or 2007 the College Bylaws provided for the creation of these units. These are exactly what you want to be doing—encouraging collaboration and innovation. We recently—we just heard a report from Dr. Moriarty talking about the importance of a holistic approach. The College of Engineering’s bylaws already provide for that approach. You can organize people into these organized research units. We don’t need to layer over that existing structure these four functional units. I think it’s duplicative. It reflects some of the problems with the way other colleges have encouraged interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity where we layered over everything else, and that’s where you get these cumbersome structures that we’re in fact trying to pare back. So, for these reasons, procedural and substantive, I don’t think that this functional reorganization is in the best interests of the University, whether it’s to save money in this budget cycle, or money next year, or for the long term institutional development. So I’m going to vote against this budget. Thank you.
Blosser: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Lalita Janke: May I ask a question?
Blosser: Certainly.
Janke: Can I address it back to Dr. Lenz?
Blosser: You may address it to anyone you like Mrs. Janke.
Janke: You were talking about the procedure and substantive impact on capital outlay that we had suggested. Are there any other colleges affected or is it just the College of Engineering? You’ve specified the College of Engineering.
Lenz: As I understand it this is a proposal to reorganize the College of Engineering but it—the personnel impacts if this reorganization, and I think the academic impacts of this reorganization, are a matter of general faculty concern. So if your question is directed at whether or not this is a matter that is internal to one college, and therefore a matter for the College Bylaws but not for the University Faculty Senate, I think that the University Faculty Senate’s bylaws give us the authority to address or express our concerns over matters of general faculty concerns. And I do think we have that kind of supervisory authority where something as important as the basic academic and administrative structure of the College is concerned.
Janke: So you’re speaking for the College of Engineering or for the entire faculty?
Lenz: I am a representative of the faculty. Therefore I am speaking for the University faculty. I am not authorized to speak for the faculty of the College of Engineering.
Janke: Could we ask somebody else from any other college about how they feel about it? Because if something that has an impact—
Rajendra Gupta: This is Rajendra Gupta. If the faculty is against the reorganization, uh, could we discuss with the faculty and come out with, uh–so we could keep them on board?
Lenz: Well, could I amend my statement? We had a special meeting of the University Faculty Senate, and I believe that there were members in attendance from all of the Colleges and from at least four of the campuses. And so I am expressing the concerns they expressed at that meeting. So in that sense I’m representing their concerns. I am not specifically authorized to speak for the College of Engineering faculty.
Gupta: Well that is my point. If the faculty is against it and the Senate is against it why don’t we have a discussion with them before we approve the budget?
Frank Brogan: Well, may I?
Blosser: Yes.
Gupta: This is Rajendra Gupta.
Blosser: Yes.
Brogan: Yes, well, trustee a couple of personal thoughts come to mind. First of all, uhm, I’m not personally going to address the issue of the College Bylaws. As a matter of fact, Dean Stevens is here if we need to do that because Trustee Lenz’s comments were specific to the College Bylaws of the College of Engineering and the dean is here and we need to address the specific application of those bylaws to the process of reorganization. On the, uh, issue of, uh, affected faculty I can only tell you that it is our plan to work with each of those individual faculty members relative to their assignments, their potential for assignments as we move forward with the reorganization and to provide them and the Dean in his college—and perhaps even other colleges—opportunity, if appropriate and practicable, to extend, uh, their term with Florida Atlantic University during some part or all of the academic year based on each individual and the possibilities and practical nature of each individual and what they, uh, can provide [sic]. Uh, so, we are in the process of already doing that Dr. Gupta, and we’ll be doing that right through the course of the summer and on into the fall. The-the issue of procedure in the college—and again I don’t, I’m not trying to usurp the authority of the Chair or the board but, uhm—since that was a major tenet it might be helpful if the Dean would care to address, uh, the issue of the, uh, bylaws in the College and, uh, how those were utilized during the course of the review for the, for the reorganization. And, again, that’s at your discretion Madame Chair. I’m just offering that up as … as an item.
Gupta: I just wanted to make sure if [the faculty] are happy with what we are doing.
Blosser: Well, they’re not.
Brogan: I would suggest they’re not. And I would suggest that, uh, faculty members at Florida State and the University of Central Florida, University of South Florida, uh, pick your university—are equally unhappy. As are we whenever we look at the prospect of laying off faculty or staff members. So, I hesitate to speak for them, but I would probably suggest–I’m probably safe in saying–that they are unhappy with this. But again, based on reorganization and based on our desire and ability to work with each of them for the potential for this upcoming academic year and where practicable is what we intend to do. Uh, so whether it was providing thirty days notice to a staff member who was being laid off. Whether it was providing seventy days notice to a faculty member who was-is being laid off. Or whether it is going beyond that and looking at the opportunity and the practical nature of offering even an extension to that where and when practicable, we’re trying to work through this thing not only in, in a procedurally appropriate way that’s cold and calculated—but important—but also in the most humane way possible because we’re dealing with individuals—human beings—and we’re trying to do just that [sic]. But, again, back to, uh, the nature of Dr. Lenz’s comments, and again we’ll feel more comfortable having the Dean if that is your wish Madam [Blosser].
David Feder: Didn’t we discuss at length at the last meeting that this new reorganization was put together from the ground up by the College of Engineering? After it was put together it was decided that these tenured professors—uhm, faculty—didn’t fit, and it just didn’t make sense, and based on that we all agreed and supported the College of Engineering’s decision, uh, to reorganize. Isn’t that the way it was explained to us last week?
Blosser: Yes.
Brogan: Yes, sir. Essentially the reorganization surrounded consolidation of the Departments from five to three —
Feder: Correct.
Brogan: –for purposes of greater efficiency. It utilized each individual faculty member’s, uh, portfolio and talents and ultimately what we ended up with in one of the four functional areas, uh, are simply—based on the nature of our undergraduate programming in the College of Engineering—more faculty than students to serve and by virtue of that fact ultimately made the tough decision that some of those faculty would have to be laid off.
Feder: Right. Right.
Brogan: So, so—
Feder: And then the Dean also explained for us last week that they looked at all the programs, took the programs that were not fully, you know, occupied by—by students and made this consolidation and that’s how they came up with the decision. So Dr. Gupta I don’t think was there at the time when we discussed this. But Dr. Gupta this came from the College of Engineering. This wasn’t a decision by the administration—from Frank’s office—to let go a certain number of-of-of tenured professors. Based on the new reorganization it didn’t work. That new reorganization was put together by the College of Engineering. A plus B equals C. I mean, obviously, the Faculty Senate is not happy whenever, you know, decisions are made, and changes to tenured faculty. But it just wasn’t gonna work with-within the new organization.
Blosser: I can—
Feder: I mean I thought the Dean explained it. But that’s the way I understood it and it made sense to—
Gupta: My question was just to what Mr. Feder already answered, you know … [Undecipherable.]
Feder: And Dr. Gupta we all understand. Nobody feels good about, uh, letting people go. I mean whether it’s private business or public education, it’s just happening every day now and it’s a-it’s a sad situation, but you know we all have to deal with our budgets. But, uhm, I mean—it made sense to all of us last week.
Gupta: [undecipherable.]
Blosser: I might-might also add that this entire discussion—all of it—uhm, the reorganization of any college, the, uh, specific layoffs, uhm, would not normally come to this Board for discussion or a vote because that is something that we have that authority we have delegated to administration [sic], which includes the deans of each of the colleges to organize their college in the way that they think they can deliver, uhm, services to-to the students, and provide courses and opportunities. That is—we delegate that. And I will reiterate that we have not delegated that responsibility to the Faculty Senate. And while we ask for input and, uhm, you know, feedback and advisory, in a—in an advisory capacity, we have not given the authority to the Faculty Senate to, uh, vote it up or down or to approve it or not approve it. So, I am happy to continue this discussion if Board members want to go further and have Dean Stevens, uhm, reiterate what-what he told us last week, or to answer any of the new questions that have come up today from uhm, from uhm, Trustee Lenz. But that’s only if you all want to continue this discussion. Would you like any further clarification on any of these points by Dean Stevens or, uh, our Provost?
Feder: Well, I know one thing—
Brogan: And I would just remind everybody—I’m not trying to curtail this, but those were discussed last week. A: was the process followed as far as the Dean and the Provost was concerned? And that answer was and continues to be “Yes.” We continue to talk about these issues. In their minds the process as it’s laid out was followed.
Anthony Barbar: And, I think, if I could just say one thing. I’m sure that the process seems to be a very open one that occurred over a period of months. And I don’t—I think you’re right on point. We-We’re dealing with the budget and not the reorganization of the College of Engineering or any other college. I think it’s the budget that we’re approving, or dealing with for the current motion.
Blosser: Scott.
Scott Adams: Yeah, I wasn’t at the tale end of the call last week. But I just wanted to ask a legal question. Does this Board, or should we be approving, or have we approved—I just don’t remember—each of the bylaws for the Colleges?
David Kian: No sir. We do not. And we have not. And you have not approved the bylaws or the constitution of the Faculty Senate. This board has delegated to the University Provost the responsibility to–for the administration of academic affairs. The Board has further delegated to the Deans of the several Colleges the responsibility to administer the academic and budgetary policies of the Colleges, and they must be responsible to the Provost in those activities. This board has authorized the Faculty Senate to pass a constitution but it has not approved that constitution and it has not provided to the Faculty Senate, uhm, the responsibilities it has provided to the Provost and the Deans for the administration of the Colleges.
Janke: So, in the final analysis what we did was legitimate and fine. Fine in the sense that we didn’t violate any procedural processes.
Kian: When you say “We,” do you mean the Board of Trustees?
Janke: Yes, I do.
Kian: The Board of Trustees has taken no action at all with respect to either the establishment of the bylaws of the College, of the organization or reorganization of the College, or anything in particular related to the College of Engineering. The Board of Trustees has delegated the authority to take those actions to the Provost and to the Dean. And the Provost and the Dean have taken those actions and reported to the Board for informational purposes what they’ve done and how they’ve gone about doing that. But the Board was not asked to approve that and the Board did not approve that, and the Board is not required to approve that.
Janke: And it’s not our goal to do that either—
Kian: Exactly.
Janke: Because we left that up to the administration to do that
Kian: Because you have that regulation [undecipherable]. You have delegated that responsibility.
Janke: We’re fine.
Kian: Yes ma’am.
Janke: Good.
Lenz: If I could add one other clarification. And that is that I believe that, uhm, that the administration has delegated to the faculty certain responsibility over curriculum and academic matters. [Reading] “UFS, as elected representatives of the Faculty have authority over curriculum, admission standards, and degree programs subject to the veto power of the President of the University.” So, we are nested in the system. The President can veto our actions over curriculum. But it is within our purview in aspects of University governance. That’s entirely consistent with the Board of Trustees relative to the authority delegated to the Provost and the adoption of the Constitution and Bylaws.
Brogan: And, Madam Chair, I would say, in, in lots of dialogue with the Provost, and the Dean that whenever and wherever they believe that it is appropriate to do so by bylaw, by rule, or matters of curriculum, they have consistently gone to the Faculty Senate, and also utilized the other—the other organizations within the university colleges to do exactly that. And the issue of reorganization, I feel strongly, is a different issue. But, be that as it may, uhm, I don’t want anybody to get the impression that the Provost and the Deans—not just Dean Stevens but the Deans in general—don’t use those vehicles, uhm, as, as they believe they are laid out to be used and tapped in this and many other processes along the way. That –that is a normal course of action. What-what we have here obviously is, uh, an agreement to disagree on-on the issue. Dean Stevens will tell you they followed the bylaws. My job is to make sure all of that is done, to the Deans and the Provost [sic]. I have been assured that the bylaws were followed and I have been assured that on issues of precedent that the organization has appropriately moved through the system based on the way that we traditionally move reorganizations through the system. So, relative to-to some of those issues, with all due respect to you [gestures to Lenz] I want to reiterate that I have been assured that the process that is traditional and, uh, and historic has been provided for. I have been assured that the reorganization that will much better serve not only the College of, uh, of Engineering, but because it is an important subset of the University, then therefore the University better moving forward in the future [sic]. And I have been assured—and I am reassured—as I did last week that I hoped—I attempted to—the fact that this institution and its leadership, and that includes in this case the Board of Trustees appreciates and respects and will continue to appreciate and respect the institution of tenure at Florida Atlantic University. So, with all of that, again, we’re all here. And I leave it to you [gestures to Blosser] to determine how you want to move forward.
Blosser: Uhm, any other questions? Discussion? Tim—do you—do you have—you made a statement [of] what your concerns were. But do you have a need to question anybody else who’s here today that you want clarification on anything that you haven’t heard before?
Lenz: No, I do not.
Blosser: Any other discussion? Uhm, then all those in favor of approving our 2009-2010 Operating Budget please, uhm, say “Yes.”
Board of Trustees [excluding Lenz]: “Yes.”
Blosser: Opposed.
Lenz: “No.”
Blosser: Please let the record indicate that we had one, uhm, opposing vote. Thank you very much.