On Friday, Nov. 19, the university announced that the Board of Trustees had officially voted to support the academic reorganization plan put forward by the administration.
“We appreciate the board’s support of our vision for UW, and we are ready to move forward with these changes and work with our various stakeholders to make this the best university it can be,” President Ed Seidel said in a statement to UW Institutional communications. “I couldn’t be more excited for the future of Wyoming’s university.”
After much-outspoken dissent from the community, the plan has been adjusted and reportedly altered using the feedback from UW staff, students, and faculty.
Despite the plan’s reported adjustments, it still has gone forward seemingly without much support.
The reorganization was first announced this summer, and since then has been reduced in size of potential changes as well in the timeline.
Less than a month ago on Oct. 28, Senator Minority Leader Chris Rothfuss sent a letter to the Board along with Seidel, Provost Kevin Carman, and many others outlining his issues with the plan.
“The reorganization process has been deeply flawed,” Rothfuss wrote. “My many conversations with UW faculty and staff have made it absolutely clear to me that there are deep internal concerns with nearly every aspect of the proposed reorganization.”
In regard to concerns about stakeholder input, Rothfuss wrote that “…the complete lack of stakeholder input on both the reorganization and the proposed schools of computing has resulted in many organizational decisions that superficially appear reasonable but make little sense when thoroughly explored.”
Faculty Senate has also asked that the process be slowed down and held off. On Oct. 26, Faculty senate Chair-Elect Renee Laegried spoke to WyoFile and released a statement saying that the Faculty Senate did not endorse the proposal and did not ask for a specific length of time to review the proposal.
With Faculty Senate asking the decision to be put off indefinitely for further discussion, the planned reorganization has experienced pushback from many other areas.
In a survey regarding UW Restructure Plan 2-13, 715 responses were recorded in regard to support for the plan. 538 responders indicated they did not feel the plan moved UW in the right direction, with 146 saying it did and 31 choosing to leave the question blank.
In the face of pushback, the university did implement changes and scale backs to the plan.
Provost Carman wrote the university in a memo on Oct. 12 on some of these changes.
“While the proposed reorganizations were catalyzed by the necessity of implementing further budget reductions, the proposed reorganizations will not yield substantial budget reductions per se,” Carman wrote. “Rather the proposed realizations are intended to position UW for a strong future as it fulfills its tripartite land-grant mission of learning, discovery, and engagement.”
In July, Seidel argued that UW needed to implement the reorganization as a cost-saving measure for nearly $4 million by the start of the next fiscal year.
Since then, the issue of the budgetary crisis has been countered.
“There is no longer any immediate budget crisis,” Rothfuss wrote in his letter. “When the reorganization began, there was an expectation of significant additional cuts to the University block grant, requiring dramatic measures and a rapid response.”
However, Rothfuss went on to argue that revenue from rising natural gas and oil prices as well as support from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 helped to avoid this issue.
In a statement to the university on Nov. 5, Seidel said that the budget concerns were still in place.
“Reductions in state funding necessitate a reconsideration of how we’re structured and what we offer,” Seidel said. “While it’s true the proposed reorganization in and of itself would not produce major budget savings, the envisioned consolidations and moves of academic departments would set the stage for new synergies, scholarly coherence, and efficiencies that aren’t possible under the current structure.”
Dr. Donal O’Toole of Veterinary Sciences and former Faculty Senate Chair has been an opponent of the reorganization and the School of Computing for some time now.
“What we’re hearing from Seidel and Carman is that there will be synergies,” O’Toole said. “Synergy means nothing to me. I mean I have a phone [and] I have a computer…I know how to go over to the Union to see someone.”
O’Toole believes the claims of synergy are unsupported and said, “The only thing I ask is prove it, show me data where a department of 90 people is better than four departments that will equal to 90.”
O’Toole argued that the primary reasons for the reorganizations come in a two-fold manner.
“There are two counterweights to ideas coming from Old Main,” O’Toole said. “One is Faculty Senate and they are becoming ignored and less influential over time. The other is to shrink the amount of department heads down to three. So, you can also discount faculty for disciplines.”
The Branding Iron reached out to Faculty Senate Chair Adrienne Freng, Senate Chair Chris Maki, and President Seidel for comment on Dr. O’Toole or the rest of the university’s concerns, but none responded.
Provost Carman’s office did respond and was only able to review the request and schedule a time potentially after the Board meeting.
ASUW President Hunter Swilling was also asked for comment and responded to that request; however, time complications kept an interview from occurring.
“We’re happy that we have been able to achieve our budget targets without eliminating currently filled faculty positions, and our deans are focused on making strategic decisions to position their colleges to best serve our students and the state,” Seidel says. “We’re excited to move forward with our plans to improve the student experience and help grow and diversify the state’s economy.”
The School of Computing proposal which has often been tagged alongside Reconstruction Plan 2-13 is set to go through a review process involving Faculty Senate. The plan is to present the proposal before the Board of Trustees in January.
