In the first meeting of Faculty Senate this year on Monday, Jan. 29, senators representing the educators of UW continued toward their goal of striking the right balance of power for governance of the university, primarily between faculty, the office of the president and the board of trustees.
As 2017 drew to a close, the board of trustees began the process of reviewing and revising UW’s many regulations after the recent budget crisis made apparent the need for cleaner, clearer regulations. The first major item was Regulation 1-101, a ‘master regulation’ that defines what regulations are in general, their intent and how they are to be changed.
Revisions to that regulation suggested by the board of trustees roused concern among faculty that the trustees might end up with too much power as a result, including but not limited to their ability to restrict tenure. Professor of Veterinary Sciences and Faculty Senate Chair-Elect, Dr. Donal O’Toole, has advocated that UW faculty to be especially vigilant against such overreach, in the past and again at the most recent meeting.
“Some trustees say, and say to faculty, that tenure is a mistake—that’s out current trustees,” O’Toole said. “They say that once faculty get tenure, they sit back on their ass and tenure is not a good idea. There’s a reason tenure exists and that’s troubling to hear.”
General Counsel Tara Evans, speaking for the trustees, stressed that no such intent existed and matters of contention simply came down to different perceptions of the language used. Since then, faculty have considered that language and proposed their own version, which is now in the hands of the Trustees for further consideration before being finalized.
As 2018 takes off, the first Faculty Senate meeting took a look at proposed revisions to existing regulations and new regulations primarily addressing responses to budget cuts or losses of revenue, whether small or large reductions, as well as the doomsday scenario of financial exigency—in which the university’s financial situation would be severe enough that it might not continue on.
The recent budget crisis came close, during which President Laurie Nichols entered into her presidency at UW.
“We all know that budget reductions can and occasionally do, happen,” Nichols said. “It’s critically important that we have good regulations to guide the institution when they have to deal with a revenue decline. Last year, when we worked on it, we didn’t have good regulations to work with.”
Senate Chair Michael Barker presented two sets of proposals for those regulations—the versions initially composed by the trustees and the revisions suggested in turn by the executive committee of faculty senate.
“The board of trustees have given us their versions—we have real issues with those,” Barker said. “We have come up with what we think are really rational amendments to that which still meets their desires, their objectives, but yet protects this university.”
Barker began his agreement with what he saw as the trustees’ objectives to create a framework that properly empowers them to deal with budget reductions, academic reviews and reductions in faculty force when necessary.
“Hopefully that never happens,” Barker said. “But we do have to write regulations to deal with it.”
Issues that faculty had with the trustees’ versions included concerns for the rightful authority of the UW president and intrusions upon it, the level of flexibility granted by regulations and, once again, protections for both tenured and extended-term faculty property rights.
One particular example was that proposed language by the trustees gave a broad range of situations in which otherwise secure faculty could be dismissed, such as during the re-organization of a given academic program. In response, faculty returned a version that kept such dismissals limited to no less than the full elimination of a program—setting a higher bar for job security.
Within the same proposed regulation, the board of trustees would be able to impose hiring freezes, dropping of courses, consolidations of departments and more. The Executive Committee’s response trimmed these actions all the way down to imposing budget restrictions and reductions on the administration, while consulting relevant organizations within the university.
“That’s the way a university should be run: the president is the CEO, they have to make those decisions; the board of trustees is oversight, they just tell us that we need to,” Barker said. “When you read them, you’ve got to remember that saying that if we were just writing regulations for angels it’d be easy. We have to write them for the devils that may come after this administration leaves.”
