The following is something put together from several sources. I have not done the chief wiritng, but have agreed to edit and post it for comment, clarification, and amendment -- and perhaps to encourage additional information about the reogranization.
"The Myth of Reorganization"
For two years we have heard of the great savings that have come from merging nine colleges into five. Over and over we have seen the phrase "nine into five" and the mention of two million dollars which are spent again every few months.
In reality, the merger was seven into five. Two of the so-called colleges were very recent and not colleges in the common sense of the word. Marine Science was essentially a large department with a few degree programs and lots of research. Its dean (Grimes) had just become a provost with a substantial salary boost. No savings there.
Similarly, International and Continuing Education was a two department operation with a handful of faculty. It only became two when one department was split. Its dean (Hudson) also had just become a provost at an increased salary. The two people in charge of those small "colleges" (called deans then) remained on the senior faculty and both of those programs required a new director. This change essentially meant a reversion to the structure that had existed previously and very little in the way of savings. This realignment was not innovative, nor did it free up much money.
What really happened was seven colleges became five when two small colleges were merged into two larger colleges, and a few individual departments were moved to new colleges, sometimes with disastrous results (e.g., Criminal Justice). The College of Nursing was put into The College of Health, and the College of the Arts was put into the then College of Liberal Arts which was subsequently renamed.
The College of Nursing had previously been moved into the College of Health during a previous reorganization. Nothing new there, but it had been moved out into independent status in the mid Nineties to facilitate the recruitment of nursing faculty and administrators. As we now know, the decision to take away independent college status from nursing has turned out to be a blunder of monumental proportions. The dismissal of a highly qualified dean and loss of college status has led to the departure of much of the senior faculty, massive turnover, and three directors in three years. The net effect is the lowest NCLEX pass rate in the state and the lowest rate at USM in at least a decade. Had the nursing faculty been consulted, much of this could have been avoided.
The College of the Arts enjoyed great prestige and visibility as an independent college. Its dean was able to focus on a relatively small number of departments and faculty to maintain excellence and to maximize the visibility of the arts in the region. This approach had been highly successful for many years at a minimum cost. Any small savings from the merger have to be put against less effective recruiting of students and faculty and more difficult fund raising. As was the case with nursing, this was probably a bad idea given the high profile and quality of the arts at USM.
Because all the deans and assistant/associate deans were removed from their positions but kept on board, they continued on the payroll at reduced but relatively high salaries. What small savings this might have created were more than eliminated by the need to hire five new deans from off campus and numerous assistants who would receive substantial raises. This means that the first year of reorganization probably resulted in substantially higher expenditures than the previous year, to say nothing about the confusion and loss of quality in some areas. There were also many expensive campus construction and renovation projects involved in housing the new offices and arrangements necessitated by the reorganization.
The bottom line is that the reorganization was not innovative, saved very little money if any (as shown by the Faculty Senate study), and caused serious disruption and decline in some academic areas. That's the real story, a story that has never seen the light of day.
Thanks very much for this, Stephen and friends. It should be a link on the "read these postings first" thread. The media keeps publishing the "2 million in savings" myth without getting the facts. It is high time they did.
Good post Stephen and other contributors. Didn't the Gunther Report begin to address these issues also? Conspicuously absent is the economic development department fiasco beginning with its inception, move, second move and subsequent split. That can't have been without cost.
Another excellent post Stephen. This should be sent to the Clarion Ledger, not for publication (I doubt they would print it), but just to inform the editor that it isn't good journalism practice to print information from one source only. The H.A. doesn't do it as much any more. I thank Lisa Mader for that lesson.
quote: Originally posted by: foot soldier "Thanks very much for this, Stephen and friends. It should be a link on the "read these postings first" thread. The media keeps publishing the "2 million in savings" myth without getting the facts. It is high time they did."
This is an important thread, and Dr. Judd and collaborators are to be congratulated for beginning it. An interesting aspect of the merging of Liberal and Fine arts is that that is a standard organizational pattern in community colleges, but doesn't exist in most--I don't say all--of the more prestigious universities, which tend to have separate colleges of Fine Arts. One of the few major universities that does have Arts & Letters is Michigan State--the only 4-year institution A. Dvorak ever worked at. All this makes one wonder whether the conflation of fine and liberal arts doesn't represent the application of her particular expertise to the task of reorganization.
Another feature of the reorganization to remember is the abolition of the Graduate School--and the concomitant firing of its dean, Dr. James Hollandsworth. That was a blunder of such devastating impact that it had to be reversed almost immediately, though not by the open admission of a mistake, but by silently re-establishing the office of the graduate dean in essence and assigning all its functions to the former associate dean, who by that time bore a new title and had assumed control of institutional number crunching (and manipulation). This graduate school thing, as much as any other aspect of the reorganization, suggests that -- as has been suggested on another thread--blind vindictiveness against individuals (Hollandsworth) was a--perhaps the-- paramount motive in the reorganization.
quote: Originally posted by: Get all the details " blind vindictiveness against individuals (Hollandsworth) was a--perhaps the-- paramount motive in the reorganization."
What did Hollandsworth do to make Shelboo so angry?
I'm not sure whether there was a specifi thing, other than--as footsoldier says--be competent and embody some of the institutional memory. Hollandsworth has the distinction of being the only administrator fired/demoted twice. He was an associate provost when Shelboo came in, before being shoved down to the graduate deanship so C. Moore could be made asso. provost. Whatever the cause, Shelboo's rancor was virulent enough that when the graduate deanship was shut down, the central gang abrogated an agreement that Hollandsworth had worked out to be moved into history, rather than ed. psych, and threw JH out of the office he'd already been assigned in history and forced him to return to Owens-McQuaage. They also--and I think Dvorak was central in this--alleged that he didn't have the credentials to be teaching the history course he'd been giving for several semesters--one related to the two or three scholarly history books he'd published with LSU press.