NOTE:   Because of declining state revenues and possible additional budget cuts for the FY2011 fiscal year and beyond, the Faculty Senate has begun to review policies and procedures in the  Faculty Handbook that might have to be invoked in the future to deal with the budget crisis.  There are two main sections in the Handbook that are relevant:  Section 2.7 Policy for Academic Reorganizations and Section 3.4 Nonrenewal or Termination of Appointment.   Section 3.4 is included in its entirety below.

Our current policy on termination of faculty is very brief and incomplete, especially our policy for termination of faculty in case of  “extraordinary financial crisis”.  Our current policy says little more than terminated faculty will be given 12 months notice.   No definition of  “extraordinary financial crisis” is given, nor any criteria for determining if one exits.   The term “financial exigency” is used by the AAUP and by many universities in comparable policy manuals to describe the financial condition that a university must reach before tenured faculty can be terminated.  Financial exigency is better defined, and numerous court cases have clarified when financial exigency can and cannot be used to terminate tenured faculty.  Should we replace the undefined concept, “extraordinary financial crisis”, with the much better defined and more standard concept of financial exigency?

On November 20, 2009, the Governance Council unanimously approved the following “white paper” that examines our current policies and procedures in Section 3.4  and outlines the policies and procedures that should be included in an ideal policy for termination of faculty for financial exigency.

The Executive Board will take up this white paper at its December 1, 2009 meeting, and it will probably be brought up for discussion at the December 8, 2009 Faculty Senate meeting.   The Faculty Senate leadership would like feedback from you about what policies and procedures should be included in a revised version of Section 3.4 of the Faculty Handbook and also possibly  in Section 2.7.

Policies and Procedures for the Termination of Faculty

and Discontinuance of Academic Programs and Departments

Faculty Senate Governance Council, Approved November 20, 2009

DRAFT V1.51

Background

Because of changes in disciplines, the development of new disciplines or shifts in student interests, universities periodically need to reorganize or refocus their academic programs and their departmental and/or college structure.  Nevertheless, proposed changes in the organization of academic programs and departments always have to be carefully scrutinized by the Faculty Senate for their implications for students and for faculty, both tenure-track and non-tenure eligible (NTE).

Reorganizations ostensibly driven by a financial crisis need especially careful scrutiny by the Faculty Senate because such reorganizations have the potential to be used as excuses for terminating tenure-track faculty.   Alleged financial crisis have been used for this purpose at other institutions.  The courts later ruled that these crises were not severe enough to warrant terminating faculty.  Thus, the definition of the only kind of financial crisis, a financial exigency, that warrants the termination of faculty needs to be carefully considered.

ISU grants tenure in accordance with AAUP policies and procedures.  Because the termination of faculty for any reason potentially threatens tenure, the Faculty Senate’s guidelines for dealing with the termination of faculty, because of financial exigency and/or discontinuation of an academic program or department, are also based on AAUP guidelines.   These guidelines allow the termination of faculty, including tenure-track faculty, but only after very specific conditions have been met.  The AAUP’s recommended policies and procedures can be found in the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (2006).  Relevant sections are found in Appendix A. The AAUP has also issued a number of clarifying reports that deal with financial exigency and termination of faculty:  Faculty Issues in Tough Times (2001), and Financial Exigency, Academic Governance, and Related Matters (2004), provide good summaries of AAUP guidelines, as well as a review of legal cases involving the termination of faculty due to financial exigency and/or discontinuation of academic programs or departments.

Relevant section of the ISU Faculty Handbook (2.7 Policy for Academic Reorganizations, 3.4 Nonrenewal or Termination of Appointment, and 10.8 Development of Courses and Curricula) are found in Appendices B, C, and D.  The Policy for Academic Reorganization (2.7) provides very specific procedures for carrying out the reorganization of departments and colleges that are compatible with AAUP guidelines.  Consequently, there is no need to expand on them in this document.  The Nonrenewal or Termination Policy (3.4) is based on AAUP guidelines as found in the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (2006), but is not very detailed.  In this document, the policies and procedures that should be used for terminating faculty appointments are outlined in more detail.  Section 10.8 of the Faculty Handbook provides a convenient synopsis of the responsibilities of various groups and individuals for changes to academic programs, degree programs, and reorganization of departments and colleges.

Financial Exigency

The AAUP defines “financial exigency as more than a temporary cash crunch or a passing budget deficit.  Rather, it is a severe crisis threatening the survival of the institution as a whole and which cannot be ameliorated by less drastic means than the termination of faculty appointments.”  Financial exigency exists only when (1) the survival of the entire institution is at stake, not just some college or other unit; AND (2) all means have been exhausted to solve the financial crisis short of terminating tenured faculty and other faculty whose contracts have not expired.

The termination of faculty for financial reasons can occur only after a state of financial exigency has been declared.  The AAUP calls for a faculty body to participate in making the determination that a bona fide financial exigency exists. If a bona fide financial exigency is judged to exist and is declared, the faculty, and ultimately the Faculty Senate, shall have the primary responsibility for deciding what academic program will be discontinued and which faculty will be terminated.   This is because such actions “involve considerations of educational policy, including affirmative action, as well as faculty status.”

Discontinuance of Academic Programs

Normally faculty appointments can be terminated only because of the required discontinuance of an academic program or department.   The decision to discontinue a program or a department should be based on “educational considerations” and the determination that a program should be discontinued should be made primarily by the faculty.   A long-term decline in student enrollment, student clock hours, student credit hours, etc. should be the primary reason for the discontinuance of an academic program or department.  The exact criteria for a minimal enrollment or other threshold plus any additional criteria for discontinuance of programs or departments need to be established by a joint faculty senate-administrative group prior to any reorganization plan being proposed.

Termination of Faculty

Motives or reasons other than financial exigency or required discontinuance of a program or department for educational reasons cannot be used to terminate tenured faculty or faculty whose contracts have not expired.

In the case of a financial exigency, the termination of faculty cannot begin until all new administrative, faculty and staff hires have been suspended across the university.   The Faculty Senate will establish the criteria for choosing faculty appointments that will be terminated.

Every effort has to be made to find a faculty member another position within the university before they can be terminated.   This may require given a faculty member time to retrain for a new position.   Faculty are tenured to the institution, not to a department.

The responsibility for identifying faculty to be terminated will be made by a group approved by the Faculty Senate that must include members of and appointed by the Faculty Senate.

Faculty members who have been given notice that they will be terminated must be afforded an opportunity to appeal this decision prior to the date of termination.  In this hearing, the institution will bear the burden of proving the existence of a bone fide financial exigency or of proving the educational justification for discontinuing the program or department in which the faculty member works.

Faculty will be terminated in the following order:

(1)   Non-tenure-eligible (NTE) faculty,

(2)   Non-tenured tenure-track faculty,

(3)   Tenured tenure-track faculty based on years of service or seniority.

Tenure-track faculty cannot be terminated because of financial exigency “in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result.”  In other words, financial exigency cannot be used to replace tenure-track faculty with less expensive NTE faculty.

Tenure-track faculty terminated must be given a one-year notice or severance pay equivalent to one year of service.  NTE faculty must be given adequate notice of termination depending on their length of service of up to one year or its equivalent in severance pay.

A new faculty member cannot be hired for at least three years into position that is similar to one held by a terminated faculty member, unless this position has first been offered to the terminated faculty member and the terminated faculty member has declined to accept it.

Note:  All text in quotes comes from the AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (RIR).

Appendix A. Relevant sections of the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (2006).

To save space this appendix is not included.  This document is available on the AAUP Website.  Just click on link to Faculty Handbook above.

Appendix B. Policy for Academic Reorganizations section of the Faculty Handbook

To save space this appendix is not included.  This document is available on the Provost’s Website.  Just click on link to Faculty Handbook above.

Appendix C.  Nonrenewal or Termination of Appointment section of the Faculty Handbook

3.4 Nonrenewal or Termination of Appointment⁴

Written notice that a term-appointment is not to be renewed shall be given to the faculty member in advance of the expiration of the appointment, according to the following minimum periods of notice:

• not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service at Iowa State, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination
• not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service at Iowa State, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or if an initial two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination
• at least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years at this institution

In the event of extraordinary financial crisis leading to termination of faculty members with continuous appointment (tenured), notice of termination shall be given not less than twelve months prior to the effective date of termination.

A tenure-eligible faculty member being considered for reappointment shall be given the opportunity, well in advance of the final decision, to present to the departmental committee charged with making the recommendation any evidence he or she believes may be relevant and helpful to his or her case.

A tenure-eligible faculty member who is not recommended for reappointment shall be given an explanation of the action in an informal conference with the department chair and, if he or she requests it, shall be given a statement of reasons in writing. A faculty member who is denied reappointment or tenure can secure a review of the decision either through administrative channels or the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee if the faculty member believes that it results from improper procedure, or rests on grounds which violate academic freedom or constitutional rights, or is substantively arbitrary or capricious. In such appeal procedures, the burden of proof is on the faculty member.

⁴ Appointments of Lecturers and Clinicians is sometimes done on a year-to-year basis and do not require notice of intent not to renew.

Appendix D.  Development of Courses and Curricula section of the Faculty Handbook.

To save space this appendix is not included.  This document is available on the Provost’s Website.  Just click on link to Faculty Handbook above.

Faculty Termination, Financial Exigency, Suspension of Tenure, budget cuts No Comments November 21st, 2009

NOTE:  The following remarks were presented by Arnold van der Valk, President of the Faculty Senate, at the October 29, 2009 meeting of the Iowa Board of Regents at which the Board received the plans of each of the Regents’ universities for cutting 10% out of their current budgets.

On behalf of the faculty of Iowa State University, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed reductions in expenditures being considered today.

The faculty of Iowa State University are well aware of the distress, hardships, and pain created in Iowa and around the nation by the ongoing economic crisis.  Many of us have spouses, relatives, friends, or neighbors who have lost their jobs.  We are willing to make the necessary sacrifices that will enable the university and the state to weather the reductions in state revenues created by this crisis.  The faculty senate devoted most of its October meeting to a discussion of ways to reduce expenditures, including those suggested by the Board at its October 14^th emergency meeting.  In the brief time available, I would like to comment on three proposed cost-cutting measures:  faculty furloughs, reducing university contributions to retirement plans, and increasing tuition.

When evaluating the various proposals to reduce expenditures, we have used a number of criteria, the most important of which are:

(1)   Preserving the core missions of the university, teaching and research.

(2)   Making sure that measures proposed to reduce short-term expenditures do not have unintended, long-term consequences.

Given the size and timing of this latest budget cut, we agree with the Board and President Geoffroy that it is impossible to reduce expenditures by nearly 25 million dollars without having to put faculty and staff on furloughs during the remainder of the current fiscal year.  The proposed plan for progressive furloughs has been widely supported by the ISU faculty as the most equitable way for faculty to contribute to reducing university expenditures.  It should be noted, however, that furloughs not only mean a de facto reduction in salaries, but also a reduction in some benefits, most notably university contributions to retirement accounts.  In short, furloughs will enable us to preserve the core missions of the university during this economic crisis with minimal long-term, negative consequences.

Reducing the university’s contribution to retirement accounts, temporarily or permanently, has been almost universally condemned as bad policy.  This is not because of its additional negative impacts on faculty compensation, but primarily because of its negative impacts on the future of the university.  ISU faculty are among the lowest paid in our peer institutions.  For example, in the humanities some non-tenure-track faculty are paid less than many custodians and secretaries.  One of the few attractive features for ISU’s new faculty has been a decent retirement plan.  The reduction in the university’s contribution to retirement plans would significant reduce our ability to hire first-rate faculty.

It is the long-term negative consequences of reduced retirement contributions, however, that are the most disturbing.  Reducing retirement contributions will adversely affect the amount of money available to future faculty as they approach retirement age.  The net result is that they will continue to work longer.  All of the collective savings in reduced university contributions to a faculty member’s retirement account are eliminated and then some if that person opts to remain even one more year on the job because they cannot afford to retire.  The inability of senior faculty to retire because of insufficient retirement funds is already a problem.  In the last year, many senior faculty opted not to retire because of significant declines in their retirement accounts.  Even before the ongoing economic crisis and the resulting declines in retirement accounts, this was already a problem in some disciplines.  There are senior faculty who would like to retire and administrators who would like to see them retire, but these faculty cannot afford to retire.  This blocks the hiring of new, junior faculty, and the revitalization and/or redirection of academic programs that often results from hiring new faculty.  Thus the proposed reduction in contributions to retirement accounts exacerbates an already serious problem.

In short, any short-term savings from reducing retirement contributions will be more than offset by its long-term negative consequences for individual faculty and for the university.  The best early retirement plan that the university can have is one that allows faculty to retire when they feel that they are ready to retire.  Forcing faculty to remain on the job because they cannot afford to retire is in no one’s best interest.  It is a classic example of a short-sighted, penny-wise-pound-foolish policy.

The ongoing shift of support of the Regents’ universities from the State to students and their parents is deplored by the faculty — most of whom are also parents — but it is something over which we have no control.  Because of significant state support, tuition at Iowa’s public universities historically has been low when compared to tuition at public universities  in our neighboring states and  at our peer institutions.  Without seriously jeopardizing the quality of our universities and thus the value of our degrees to graduates, our low tuition rates are unsustainable.  Unfortunately, in both the short- and long-term, raising tuition will be the only way to preserve the quality of ISU’s academic programs.

In summary, of the major measures proposed to reduce expenditures, the ISU faculty support the use of furloughs, do not support reduced contributions to retirement accounts, and reluctantly support raising tuition.

Faculty Furloughs, Tuition, budget cuts, budget reversion 1 Comment October 30th, 2009

NOTE:  This is an edited version of the remarks made by Arnold van der Valk, President of the Faculty Senate, at the October 20, 2008 meeting of the Senate that was largely devoted to a discussion of the 10% budget cut announced by the Governor earlier in the month.  Dr. van der Valk serves  as a representative of the Faculty Senate on the University Budget Advisory Committee, a university-wide committee, as the name suggests,  that advises the Executive Vice President and Provost on budgetary matters.

Introduction

Faculty have no direct control over salaries and benefits at ISU.  All budget advisory committees, like the University Budget Advisory Committee (UBAC), can do is comment and make suggestions on proposed budgets and budget re-allocations.  Final decisions about all budget matters are in the hands of the President.  The President will present his plan for reducing university expenses to meet the latest budget cut at the October 29, 2009 meeting of the Board of Regents.

The university administration has known for months that a 5 to 10% budget reversion was going to occur.  Unfortunately, relatively little was done to plan for this reversion by UBAC beyond creating a list of possible ways to reduce expenditures and running some models of how different levels of cuts would affect the budget.  No plan or planning strategy was developed to deal with it.

UBAC will meet on October 27, 2009,  and it will have a chance to comment on the proposed budget cutting plan being presented to the Regents on October 29, 2009.  Your comments and suggestions for dealing with the budget crisis could not be timelier for UBAC members.

Background

(1) We need to keep in mind at all times the central missions of the university, teaching and research, as well as our unique mission as a land grant university. It is the faculty who do the teaching and do the research.  Protecting faculty lines is essential during a budget crisis.

(2) The latest budget cut (10%) announced by the Governor plus the 15% cut to the FY2010 budget have reduced state appropriations by 22% in three months.  It is likely that the FY2011 budget will be cut beyond 10%.

(3) The magnitude of these cuts requires a permanent adjustment in the university’s non-academic and academic programs.  We need to realign the university so that it is programs are congruent again with budget realities. We need to “refocus” university missions, as the Regents put it.

What should we do?

We need to keep in mind several time frames when making decisions about how to cut the university budget:  in the short-term,  the need to reduce the FY2010 budget by nearly $25 million and the need to make permanent changes in university expenditures on programs for FY2011; and in the long-term, the need to consider the long-term consequences of any proposed changes for the faculty and  university.  Some of the short-term ways proposed to cut expenditures could have long-term negative consequences.

FY2010 Measures

(a) Using carry over funds to meet the reversion

(b) Reducing expenses, including travel on the general university budget.

(c) Suspending temporarily or permanently non-essential services and centers

(d) Deferring maintenance as recommended by the Regents

It is essential that expenditures be cut to the limit before more drastic measures are taken.  The more drastic measures suggested by the Regents include benefit cuts and furloughs

In discussions with the Provost and President, faculty senate concerns have been raised about cutting retirement contributions, especially beyond FY2010.  The Provost and President understand the arguments and the concerns expressed.  They have yet to decide what to do.  I personally do not favor a reduction to retirement contributions because of the negative long-term consequences for both the faculty and the university — more on this below.

Furloughs are almost certain to be used to cut expenses for the remainder of the year.  The number of furlough days would be a function of pay. Faculty have internalized the effects of previous budget cuts, e.g., by teaching larger classes or more classes. Consequently, there have been no significant negative consequences of previous budget cuts that can be seen by the pubic or politicians.  It is time to reverse this policy. For example, if furloughs are imposed, closing the university down one day each month or for one week during the spring semester. For classes that would not meet on furlough days, reading, writing, or other assignments or take home quizzes or tests would be given for students to work on.  In other words, the work required in the class would still get done even if the class does not meet.  The students would not be cheated out of part of their education or short changed on their tuition..

An alternative to furloughs should be considered, deferred pay.   Faculty and staff would, in effect, loan the university the money needed to cover as much of the cut as needed.  The money loaned by each faculty and staff member would be in the form of a deduction from their salaries, and the amount loaned would be paid back over the next two or three fiscal years.  This method would not require furloughs and the problems associated with them for students, faculty, and staff.

FY20111 Measures

There have to be permanent changes in university programs, both non-academic and academic to bring the university into alignment with budget realities. This will require a consensus of what to close down, scale down or possibly scale up.  The faculty and staff directly and indirectly will taking a substantial cut in salary this fiscal years  so that the university can balance its budget.  They need to be at the table during discussions of how to “refocus the missions” of the university.  We need to establish a university-wide committee to oversee the refocusing of the university during the remainder of this year. In return for their salary concessions, the faculty and staff need to be well represented on this university-wide committee that will over see the refocusing the missions of the university.

Long-term Consequences.

The budget cuts to date plus those likely in the future will numerous negative impacts on our academic and non-academic programs.  Here, I want to focus on two long-term negative consequences:   reducing contributions to retirement benefits for the faculty and the university and reducing state appropriations  for students and their parents.

ISU faculty are already the lowest paid among our peer institutions.  We received a 0% pay increase this year.  Some of our faculty are earning less than janitors and secretaries while teaching six to eight courses per year.  One of the few attractive features of working for ISU was a decent retirement plan.  This is now being threatened.  Any reduction in contributions to the retirement plan will make it harder to attract and hire outstanding faculty.  For recently hired faculty, cuts in contribution to the retirement plan — a proposed cut of20% is being contemplated — will greatly reduce the amount of money that the will have when they retire.  Cutting retirement contributions will significantly increases the risk that the next generation of faculty will not have enough money when they retire.  In the future, many more faculty may have to work more years before they have accumulated enough money to retire.   In the end, the cost of paying older faculty salaries for a longer period will more than offset any savings accrued by cutting retirement benefits.

The reduction in state support for universities effectively transfers the burden of paying for higher education from the state to the students and their families.  Tuition in Iowa, however, historically has been low when compared to tuition in public universities  in most neighboring states.  The only way to offset lost state revenues is by increasing tuition.   This shift of support from the State to students and their parents is deplored by the faculty — most of whom are also parents, but it is something over which we have no control.  In both the short- and long-term, increasing tuition will be the required if we are to preserve the quality of our academic programs.

Uncategorized No Comments October 23rd, 2009

The governor has announced that all state agencies will have a 10% cut in their FY2010 appropriations because of a 7% shortfall in state revenues.  The Iowa Board of Regents (BOR) released a statement on October 8^th in response to this budget cut.  It outlines three steps that they are taking to comply:  (1) an immediate freeze in hiring using state appropriations and a moratorium on most new building projects; (2) an emergency meeting of the Board on October 14^th; and (3) a directive that institution heads prepare specific “action plans” for dealing with this budget cut to be presented at the next regular meeting of the Board on October 29^th.

The Board of Regents on October 14, 2009 had an emergency meeting to discuss this latest  budget cut.  They proposed 8 possible ways that expenditures could be cut.  These included cutting faculty and staff salaries and benefits, “refocusing” the university’s mission (i.e., cutting underperforming academic and non-academic programs), and permanent faculty and staff cuts.

Of greatest concern to the faculty should be the proposed cuts in benefits and faculty salaries.   We are among the lowest paid faculty in our peer group.  Proposed benefits cuts are particularly worrisome because they evidently could be permanent.  Why permanent cuts in benefits are being considered to solve a short-term budget crisis is very perplexing and disturbing.   The proposed cuts, not just to retirement contributions but potentially to other benefits, also undermines any early retirement plan proposed that promises to continue to pay medical benefits.  Why would anyone consider an early retirement plan that pays medical benefits if there is no guarantee that these benefits will not be significantly reduced in the future?  Faculty will be willing to make sacrifices so that the university can weather this latest budget crisis, but they need to be confidant that the sacrifices that they will make will result in optimizing our remaining resources in support of our two major missions, teaching and research.

Because of the severity of this budget cut and the short time that is available to deal with it, the Faculty Senate seeks immediate faculty  input into its ongoing discussion on how best to deal with this latest budget cut.  To facilitate faculty input, the October 20^th Faculty Senate meeting will largely be devoted to ways to deal with this budget cut.

A resolution “Guiding Principles for Budget Evaluation”  was passed by the Faculty Senate in March 2009.   It collects together 10  resolutions and principles dealing with university budget evaluation that had previously been approved by the Senate.   According to this resolution, these guiding principles should be applied to the evaluation of all budget proposals independent of  level of funding.   In other words, they are as applicable to judging the merit of a proposed budget cut as they are for guiding the allocation of budget increases.  These 10 guiding principles are

“1) Increase the number of tenured and tenure-eligible faculty.

2) Enhance priority degree programs, excellence in academic performance and critical thinking, and supporting academic programs.

3)  Sustain degree program quality, improve on-time graduation rates, and sustain and enhance the university’s ability to recruit and retain students.

4) Support library acquisitions at the level of the Library Acquisitions Price Index (LAPI) in accordance with the Senate resolution S06-13.

5) Improve support for research grant development and related research resources, and faculty development.

6) Enhance diversity among faculty and students, and promote global awareness and outreach – through funding for academic programs, hiring and retention practices, and related support services.

7) Assure that administrative functions are managed efficiently and effectively..

8)  Assure that centers and institutes are managed efficiently and effectively.

9) Use RMF and IEF funding strategically to address funding inequities while enhancing quality in priority programs and new initiatives.

10) Assure that Administrative Service Centers and ancillary services are managed efficiently and effectively to improve support for the preceding academic objectives.”

Various proposals have been suggested for re-allocating funds or for reducing expenditures in order to comply with the latest budget reversion.  These include, but are not limited to:

a. Using available university and college “carry over” as well as institutional excellence (IEF) funds to meet this reversion.

b. Closing the university for some period of time, either over holidays or during the semester.

c. Using faculty furloughs or deferred compensation — under what circumstances should they be considered, if any?

d. Proposing more attractive early retirement incentives – do they do more harm than good?

e. Differentially cutting the budgets of colleges and other units – what criteria should be used to make differential cuts?

f. Cutting benefits – do the short-term savings outweigh potential long-term negative impacts

g.  Altering or eliminating support programs for students such as undergraduate advising

h. Reducing administrative costs at all levels.

i.  Outsourcing most FPM services

j.  Ensuring that budget cuts to essential to the university’s missions (teaching and research) are temporary not permanent.

If you would like to comment on any of these suggested ways to cope with the latest budget cut or if you would like to suggest other ways to reduce or re-allocate revenues to the same end, please click on the  comment tab at the end of this post.  All legitimate  comments will be approved and posted and also forwarded to the Faculty Senate leadership.

budget cuts, budget reversion, faculty senate 6 Comments October 12th, 2009