Wisconsin-Superior Leaders Mulled Their Ability to Skirt Shared Governance in Cutting Programs

U. of Wisconsin at Superior

Before administrators at the University of Wisconsin at Superior shocked faculty members by cutting more than two dozen academic programs, the campus’s top leaders discussed how much action they could take without soliciting faculty input.

When the cuts were announced, in October 2017, several faculty members told The Chronicle that they felt blindsided by the news and argued that they should have been consulted. According to emails obtained through an open-records request by AFT-Wisconsin, the union representing the state’s public-school teachers and faculty members, the administrators had weighed whether they should discuss the cuts with professors before making the announcement.

Administrators said at the time that the cuts were aimed at improving student success, not trimming a $2.5-million budget deficit. They explained that first-generation students get overwhelmed by too many academic options. In an email to The Chronicle on Tuesday, a Superior spokeswoman said faculty members had long been involved in discussions about organizational changes on the campus.

“It was a difficult decision to suspend programs due to low enrollments and poor completion rates, and we value the input we received from faculty and staff over the past five years regarding our program array,” wrote Jordan Milan, the university’s director of strategic communications and special assistant to the chancellor. “The students currently enrolled in the suspended programs will be able to finish their degrees, and we wholeheartedly support them in that effort. Looking to the future, we will focus on the programs that have thriving enrollment, offer students the courses they want to take to meet the demands of our region, and serve our community.”

In an email dated the day before the announcement was made, Jacalyn Weissenburger, interim provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs, asked James P. Henderson, the university system’s vice president for academic and student affairs, and Tomas L. Stafford, the university system’s general counsel, whether the chancellor could cut 25 programs without the approval of campus governance bodies.

“It was my impression that our chancellor could make that call without governance approval IF we were not intending to issue layoffs or terminate faculty or instructional academic staff,” Weissenburger wrote. No faculty members were laid off as a result of the program cuts, according to a university statement.

In the same email, Weissenburger referenced a policy stating that the administrators needed to send “confirmation of the approval of the appropriate institutional governance body or bodies” to Henderson and Stafford.

“What happens if our governance bodies do not approve of these decisions??? Doesn’t our chancellor have the final say?” Weissenburger continued in the email. “Also, we are under the impression that we can suspend minors (submajors) without getting approval from our governance bodies or by UW System. Am I correct here?”

Stafford responded in an email, citing language from university policy, that faculty members have “primary responsibility for advising the chancellor regarding academic and educational activities.” He also cited a policy stating that chancellors, “in consultation with their faculties, shall be responsible for designing curricula and setting degree requirements; determining academic standards and establishing grading systems.” Stafford wrote that “the statutory scheme seems to envisage that chancellors play a primary role with respect to the curricula, in consultation with faculty, and that would seem to include program array, program suspensions, etc.”

Ultimately, the chancellor does have the final say in program cuts, Stafford wrote in the email. Nonetheless, he asked whether faculty members had been brought into the discussion: “Have you consulted with faculty shared governance regarding the program suspensions? Both statutory sections noted above contemplate that the faculty be given an opportunity to be consulted and to advise the chancellor.”

Weissenburger forwarded that email to the chancellor, Renee Wachter. The next morning, Weissenburger and Brenda Harms, interim vice chancellor for enrollment management, announced the cuts at a meeting with department chairs, and the university quickly posted the news online.

Shortly after that, Weissenburger told The Chronicle that the university had hesitated to repeat a series of program cuts it made in 2012, in which faculty members were deeply involved and bad blood developed. “I heard horror story after horror story about infighting and people pitting one program against another,” she said last fall. She added that some faculty members had thanked her for sparing them from a more involved process.

Correction (2/28/2018, 12:51 p.m.): This article originally misstated which officials announced the program cuts at a meeting with department chairs. It was Jacalyn Weissenburger and Brenda Harms, not Renee Wachter. The article has been updated accordingly.

Fernanda Zamudio-Suaréz is a breaking-news reporter. Follow her on Twitter @FernandaZamudio, or email her at fzamudiosuarez@chronicle.com.