College of St Rosen y

7/26/2019 College of St Rosen y

1/17


2/17

2

Academic Freedom and Tenure: The College of Saint Rose (New York)

II. Events of Concern

In the second week of December 2015, the affected

faculty members received notice of termination, eitherby hand delivery or by mail, in a letter dated Decem-ber 11 and cosigned by the associate vice president forhuman resources and each faculty members dean. Theletter began as follows:

As you know, as a necessary response toextraordinary financial challenges due insignificant part to declining or continuedlow enrollment in certain programs, TheCollege of Saint Rose (the College) hasundergone an academic prioritization process.The College has followed The College of

Saint Rose Faculty Manual (June 2012) (theManual) in identifying academic programreductions and eliminations and necessaryfaculty layoffs. After considering a range ofalternatives, the Board of Trustees has voted toeliminate and to reduce a number of programsat the College and to eliminate 23 tenured andtenure-track faculty positions at the College.This academic prioritization process affectsprograms and faculty in your department. TheManual prescribes an order of priority thatmust be followed, absent special needs and

circumstances, when faculty in affected programsmust be laid off: preference will be given toretaining faculty according first to tenure, thento seniority at the College, and then to rank.Applying those criteria, we regret to inform youthat you have been selected for layoff.

The letter went on to specify that [a]ll faculty sub-ject to layoff will receive twelve (12) months advancenotice, making December 29, 2016, the effective dateof termination.

The chain of events that led to this action can betraced back to October 2014. Only four months after

assuming the presidency, at the first of four financeconvocations, Dr. Stefanco informed attendees thatthe college was not on sound financial footing. InDecember the president announced the immediateretirement of the vice president of finance and asearch for his successor. On February 17, 2015,at the second finance convocation, the presidentreferred to significant financial challenges resultingfrom the previous administrations having failed tofollow generally accepted accounting practices,having improperly reported depreciation, and havingimproperly drawn on accounts. On April 30 and

on May 18, the president held additional financeconvocations at which she announced steps to be

taken to address a stated $18 million structuraldeficit, long-term debt of $56 million (with 70percent of college property mortgaged), and 9percent and 27 percent declines in undergraduateand graduate enrollment, respectively. These stepsincluded eliminating forty staff positions (seventeenof which were vacant), reducing the collegescontribution to health-care coverage, reducing thetuition-remission benefit from 100 percent to 80percent, eliminating phased-retirement opportunities,and indefinitely suspending the colleges contributionto employees TIAA-CREF accounts. According tofaculty sources, these decisions were reached withoutinvolving the faculty in any meaningful way andwithout providing the faculty with access to relevantfinancial data.

During summer 2015, the governing board andadministration took two additional actions that somefaculty members viewed as violating principles ofacademic governance. First, on June 19 the boardof trustees, without previously consulting with thefaculty, unanimously adopted a resolution directingthe administration to implement by July 15 a newtransfer credit policy raising from sixty-two toninety the number of credits accepted in transfer

from four-year institutions. The stated basis for theaction was to address the competitive disadvantagecreated for the college by its current more stringentpolicy. At a June 29 special meeting called by ProvostSalavitabar, the facultys Undergraduate AcademicCommittee (UAC) voted to accept a maximum ofseventy transfer credits, instead of ninety. At a July3 special meeting of its own, the full faculty votedto endorse the UACs proposal. In a July 20 e-mailmessage, the provost informed the faculty that theboard of trustees, after much consideration and inview of the urgent nature of financial conditions

at the College, had affirmed its original decision,effective immediately.3

Second, on July 1 the board of trusteesimposed a campus e-mail policy governing masscommunications, reportedly proposed by thepresidents chief of staff and developed without

3. Months later, at its October 28 meeting, the faculty followed up

by adopting a resolution to reject the Board of Trustees change in

academic policy that allows for the acceptance by the College of up to

ninety transfer credits for students transferring to the College from four-

year institutions.


3/17

3


faculty participation.4At the July 3 special meeting,the faculty adopted a motion requesting that the

administration abolish its new e-mail policy, asit prohibits effective and timely communicationamong the Faculty, Staff, and Administration. Therationale for the motion stated, The new SaintRose e-mail policy, as it affects the Faculty, wasestablished without proper Faculty input, vote, orconsensus. In a separate motion, the faculty calledupon the administration to submit future e-mailpolicy changes to the full-time Faculty body fordeliberation, recommendations, and endorsement.

On August 26, with the new academic yearabout to begin, Provost Salavitabar visited each ofthe colleges four schools to inform their facultiesthat retrenchment would occur in the fall semester,with terminal contracts issued by December 15.In an e-mail message sent that afternoon to allfaculty members, he reiterated his message: Asthe President shared last semester at the financeconvocations, the Colleges enrollment has declineddue to market forces and demographic shifts overthe last eight years. These enrollment shifts haveled to the Colleges current structural deficit of $9.3million and significant disparity in course loadsamong departments and programs. In his meetingsthat day, he wrote, he had informed faculty members

that the college was beginning the necessaryprocess of academic program prioritization andreductions in order to achieve long-term financialsustainability. As you know, we have already hadto reduce our administration and staff and haveavoided any faculty reductions up to now. We willseek to minimize those reductions, but they are

unavoidable.5Regarding the procedures to befollowed, he stated, The President, Deans, and I

will follow the process for consulting with facultythis semester as outlined in the Faculty Manualand complete that input process by November 2,2015. Your input into this process will be critical.He noted that President Stefanco had initiated theretrenchment procedure earlier that same day bysending an e-mail message to the RepresentativeCommittee of the Faculty (Rep Com).

In that brief communication, the presidenthad cited section E, Contingency Planning andRetrenchment, of the faculty manual as requiringher formally to notify Rep Com that the administra-tion had initiated the layoff process and had giventhe same date, November 2, as had the provost for itscompletion. On September 2 the president followedup with a message to the entire faculty about theacademic prioritization process, which, she stated, theboard of trustees had mandated to relieve some ofthe financial burden from the costs of under-enrolledprograms. The goals of academic prioritization, sheadded, were three: (1) to identify those academicareas where student demand has increased and whereinvestment in faculty and programs is necessary tomeet demand and ensure quality; (2) to identifyprograms that the College does not presently have,

but where there is high market demand and where theCollege has the potential to invest in new programs tobring in new cohorts of students; and (3) to iden-tify those academic areas where student demand hasdiminished and there is no near-term prospect that thedemand will increase. In closing, she wrote, The

4. The new policy created separate mass e-mail groups for faculty,

staff, administrators, and students; only authorized senders could

send messages to each group; and the reply all function was dis-

abled. While numerous administrative officers could send messagesto all employees, to all faculty, to various categories of staff, or to

students, the only two groups to which a faculty member could send

a message were the adjunct union and the full-time faculty. The only

authorized senders to the former group were the cochairs of the union,

and the only authorized senders to the latter group were the cochairs of

the Representative Committee of the Faculty. Messages to more than

fifty individuals outside of an officially created group were prohibited,

and new groups could be created only with the permission of the

executive director of information technology services and the vice presi-

dent for public relations and strategic communications. Violations of the

policy could lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination

of employment.

5. Readers familiar with the AAUPs recent reports of investigations

at Felician College (2015), the University of Southern Maine (2015),

and National Louis University (2013) may find the phrase academic

program prioritization familiar, as the program cuts and mass layoffs at

those institutions were the outcome of such a process, the brainchild ofDr. Robert Dickeson, author of Prioritizing Academic Programs and Ser-

vices: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance. The AAUP

has had a long history with Dr. Dickeson, dating back to 1984, when

the AAUP censured the administration of the University of Northern

Colorado, where he was president, for terminating the appointments

of forty-seven tenured and tenure-track faculty members in violation of

AAUP-recommended standards. As footnote 2 of the Felician College

report (Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors,

JulyAugust 2015, 4861) points out, Dickesons prioritization process

tends to entail discontinuing courses and reducing tenured positions

in ways that disregard Association-supported standards of academic

freedom, due process, and governance.


4/17

4


administration invites you as tenure-track and tenuredfaculty, through Rep Com, to engage in dialogue with

us on this very important process. We aim to minimizethe impact on faculty by following the process for pro-gram reductions (including reassignment, appeal, andrehiring) that is outlined in the Faculty Manual, and towork toward a stronger and more fiscally sound SaintRose. I welcome the opportunity to engage in dialoguewith you over the next two months on this topic.

Rep Coms first meeting with the administra-tion did not take place, however, until September21, leaving only six weeks for the development of aplan through what was now being called StrategicAcademic Program Prioritization (creating the unfor-tunate acronym SAPP).6According to a member ofRep Com, at that initial meeting the president statedthat because no plan as yet existed, the committeewould have to decide by November 2 what programswere to be discontinued and what faculty positionswere to be terminated. In the meantime, the presidentreportedly stated, she would be working with her cabi-net to come up with her own plan in case Rep Comfailed to create one. According to a Rep Com member,the committee indicated that it would need data toinform its work, data that the president did not supplyuntil September 29, on the eve of the next meeting.

Two more SAPP meetings between Rep Com and

the administration took place, on September 30 (fromwhich the president was absent because of illness) andon October 8. A faculty member who was present atboth meetings provided an account of them. At thefirst meeting, the committee shared its view that itsseven members could not meaningfully sort throughthe data and make rational decisions in the spanof six weeks and asked to be able to consult withthe department chairs and deans. At the second, thepresident chastised the committee for shirking itsduties by having failed to provide a plan that rec-ommended specific cuts and told the committee that

there was no need to speak to deans and departmentchairs. When committee members asked the president

if she were forbidding them to consult with these twogroups, she indicated, in the faculty members words,

that it was OK if [the committee] spoke to them, butshe would be getting their views separately, and sheinsisted that Rep Com create its own retrenchmentplan while the administration did the same.

Matters came to a head on October 9 at anotherspecial meeting of the faculty, called by Rep Com inorder to ascertain the will of the faculty in this matter.According to minutes of that meeting, the commit-tee had intended to propose the following motion foradoption: The full-time faculty direct the members ofRep Com to consult with the deans and departmentchairs to gather information about Strategic ProgramPrioritization, with the rationale that deans anddepartment chairs know best what the requirementsand roles of each program, major, and faculty mem-ber are, and the members of Rep Com require thisinformation to make rational recommendations aboutSAPP. The minutes record that, after much discussionof the constraints under which the Rep Com was oper-ating and of the potential outcome of the process, onefaculty member said, We need to say that we rejectthe terms of this whole thing. Weve been pushed intoa corner. Were damned if we do, damned if we dont.We should spell out why we are not going to partici-pate and leave it at that.

The following motion then came from the floor asa resolution of the full-time faculty:

Whereas: Having approached the StrategicAcademic Program Prioritization process in goodfaith, the faculty have found that the terms ofthe task set forth by the President of the Collegeof Saint Rose put us in an untenable position,putting the institution at risk of destabilization bysanctioning cuts without regard for accreditationstandards, degree requirements, or the mission ofthe college.

Be it resolved that the faculty direct Rep Comto not participate in the rushed and superficialStrategic Academic Program Prioritization processbegun only on September 21, 2015, to be com-pleted by November 2, 2015.

In response, the president the next day sent thefaculty a detailed e-mail message stating that theadministration had thus far made no plans for pro-gram cuts and remained hopeful that the facultysrepresentatives on Rep Com would continue toprovide . . . input and recommendations based on the

6. By this time the faculty had learned of the provosts resignation,

news of which came on September 8 in the following e-mail message

from President Stefanco: I am writing to inform you that Provost and

Vice President for Academic Affairs Hadi Salavitabar has resigned,

and he will not return to the office. I am thankful for Hadis service to

the College over the past two years and during these extraordinarily

difficult times, and I wish him well. With the support of the Board of

Trustees, I will immediately begin the process of selecting an experi-

enced Interim Provost.


5/17

5


faculty perspective. She also urged the committee toconsult with other faculty leaders, as well as faculty

members generally, and with the Deans in developingrecommendations and assured the faculty that theadministration would take both accreditation stan-dards and the colleges mission into account in theprocess going forward.

On October 13 Rep Coms chair e-mailed PresidentStefanco with the results of the online vote on the res-olution: it had been approved by 61 percent of the 120faculty who voted. As a result of the vote, the chairstated, Rep Com requests that your office cancel anyfuture meetings we had jointly scheduled for StrategicAcademic Program Prioritization. Rep Com is awarethis is not the result you hoped for, but we must abideby the will of the faculty.

On October 30 the president provided an e-mailupdate to the campus community, beginning with thegood news of one of the largest first-year classesin the colleges history and a resulting $1 millionincrease in net tuition revenue; an anonymousdonors gift of $1 million, the largest unrestrictedgift the college had ever received; the appointmentof several new staff members; ongoing searches foran interim provost, a vice president for finance andadministration, and a vice president for marketing andcommunications; and continuing searches for faculty

in high-need areas such as communication sciencesand disorders, computer science, and accounting.With respect to plans for program discontinuance, shewrote that the deans had been evaluating each of theColleges academic departments to determine whichprograms are growing and might warrant additionalinvestment, which programs are steady or shrinkingin enrollment, and how best to address the shiftinginterests of our students. Not only the deans, sheadded, but [m]any . . . faculty members and membersof the Saint Rose community have been consulted andhave provided input. Ultimately, she wrote, the

Deans will finalize their recommendations to the senioradministration, and the senior administration willmake its recommendations to the Board of Trustees forfinal approval. She concluded by inviting her read-ers to continue to share [their] thoughts with her.Many, she wrote, have sought me out for privateconversation, and I encourage you to continue to doso. I will continue to hold office hours and to meetwith committees and departments to solicit their inputand to describe my vision for the future of Saint Rose.

That same day, Professor David Linton, presidentof the New York State AAUP conference, which had

been assisting the local AAUP chapter, sent an OpenLetter to the College of Saint Rose Community

expressing concern over recent developments atthe College regarding threats to the Facultys right-ful participation in the governance of the institutionand what appears to be an attack on due process andacademic freedom. The letter warned that if craft-ing and implementing the academic prioritizationproposals were not carried out with scrupulousadherence to the highest standards of faculty con-sultation with the appropriate faculty bodies, thelegitimacy of the outcome would be highly ques-tionable. Transparency and participation, headded, are essential in order to avoid the risk of yearsof costly and demoralizing legal action and even thepossibility of censure by the AAUP. The letter urgedthe board and administration to cease its efforts toterminate faculty and to seek all other possible alter-natives to any fiscal concerns or problems first. Theacademic prioritization process, he wrote, should beled by faculty in standing committees charged withoverseeing the curriculum. It should be thoughtful,deliberative, and done with full and genuine facultyconsultation. Such a process cannot be accomplishedin the very short time offered to the faculty.

Responding with an open letter of her own datedNovember 3, President Stefanco stated that the

AAUP has had no contact with the College aboutthese matters, and, as a result, the AAUPs lettercontain[s] misstatements based on misinforma-tion. With respect to the claim that transparencyand consultation were lacking, she wrote, Not so.Starting last October and continuing through May, Iheld four separate, well-attended finance convocationsto describe our financial situation, including the sizeand source of our structural deficit. She enumeratedthe steps the administration had taken to address thesituation prior to initiating the academic prioritizationprocess: expanding the colleges student recruitment

area beyond the Northeast, resulting in one ofthe largest first-year classes in the Colleges history;recruiting more international students; establish-ing an Office of First-Year Experience . . . to improveretention; reenergizing the colleges fund-raisinginitiatives, resulting in $2 million in unrestricteddonations, including the largest single unrestrictedgift in the history of the College; and addressing thedeficit by refinancing the colleges long-term debt,removing all contingency funds, eliminating forty . . .administrative and staff positions, and reducing otherexpenses. Despite these efforts, she wrote, the college


6/17

6


still projects an approximate $9 million structuraldeficit for 201516. This shortfall must be reduced

if the College is to comply with our obligations toour lenders, which is essential. The root cause ofthe deficit, she went on to state, was significantand sustained enrollment declines in certain pro-grams, without concomitant change in the numberof faculty, necessitating a process for discontinu-ing programs and terminating appointments. Theshort timeline of the academic program prioritiza-tion process, she wrote, was driven by the Collegesenrollment-related financial circumstances.

Regarding the faculty resolution directing RepCom to withdraw from the process, the presidentwrote, The administration and many faculty weresurprised and distressed at Rep Coms withdrawalfrom this deliberative process. Nevertheless, theadministration has continued to seek faculty input:informally through my office hours and in countlessconversations with individual faculty, and formallythrough meetings with the Strategic Planning andPriorities Committee, the Undergraduate AcademicCommittee, the Graduate Academic Committee, anddepartment chairs.

Official announcement of the program closuresand appointment terminations came December 11, thesame day the administration sent termination notices

to the twenty-three affected faculty members. Amongthe discontinued programs were undergraduate degreeand certificate programs in American studies, arteducation, economics, geology, philosophy, religiousstudies, sociology, Spanish, and womens and genderstudies, and graduate degree and advanced certificateprograms in art education, communications, educa-tional psychology, English, history/political science,music education, and studio art.

III. The Associations Involvement

Faculty leaders at the College of Saint Rose initially

contacted the AAUPs Department of Academic Free-dom, Tenure, and Governance by e-mail on July 1,2015, seeking guidance and help in dealing with anadministration that no longer participates in sharedgovernance. Detailing some of the events describedin the previous section of this report, they asserted, Itis clear that we have entered a pattern where viola-tions of shared governance . . . are becoming routine.Among other suggestions offered in its response ofJuly 28, the staff referred these concerned facultymembers to the leadership of the Associations NewYork conference, which provided significant assistance

to the colleges AAUP chapter (organized on Septem-ber 2), including a financial donation and the October

30 Open Letter. In late October the president of thenew chapter contacted the AAUPs national office withurgent news of the pending cuts and layoffs.

The Associations staff first conveyed the nationalAAUPs concerns regarding the program discontinuanceand resulting appointment terminations to PresidentStefanco by letter of December 23. After summariz-ing AAUP-recommended procedural standards setforth in Regulations 4c (Financial Exigency) and4d (Discontinuance of Program or Departmentfor Educational Reasons) of the RecommendedInstitutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and

Tenure, the staffs letter stated, According to facultysources, the procedures employed to reach the decisionto terminate twenty-seven programs and, with them,the appointments of twenty-three tenured and tenure-track faculty members bore very little resemblance tothese AAUP-supported standards.

Referring to the presidents December 11 letterto the college community, in which she wrote thatthe deans, the presidents cabinet, and the board oftrustees have worked diligently to develop a bal-anced and thoughtful plan, the staff noted that theabsence of any mention of the facultys role wassignificant. Referring to the presidents November

3 letter responding to the New York AAUP confer-ences Open Letter to the College of Saint RoseCommunity, the staff pointed out that, whilePresident Stefanco had stated that the administrationand many faculty were surprised and distressed at RepComs withdrawal from the SAPP process, she didnot mention the facultys stated reasons for directingthe committee to withdraw nor did she explain whythe administration declined to present its layoff planto the faculty for review and vote before presenting itto the board of trustees for final adoption.

In closing, the staff informed the president that, in

order to provide the administration with ample oppor-tunity to respond to the concerns conveyed in its letter,Dr. Julie Schmid, the Associations executive direc-tor, had approved sending to the college two AAUPleaders versed in the applicable AAUP-supported stan-dards to conduct an inquiry. These consultants,the staff wrote, would interview the president, othermembers of her administration designated by her,members of the governing board, faculty leaders, andAAUP chapter officers. Their charge, the staff con-tinued, was to prepare a report for Dr. Schmid andother responsible AAUP staff members that would be


7/17

7


shared with President Stefanco and others interviewedwith an invitation for comments and corrections prior

to wider distribution. The staff further informedthe president that the undersigned had agreed to serveas the AAUPs committee of inquiry and proposeddates for their visit to campus.

Responding by letter of January 5, PresidentStefanco stated that the AAUPs letter was sig-nificant for not alleging any violation of a facultymembers academic freedom. With respect toRegulations 4c and 4d outlined in the letter, thepresident wrote, Saint Rose has not adopted theRIRs [Recommended Institutional Regulations]. . . .Accordingly, the RIRs have no relevance to academicprogram prioritization at Saint Rose or the layoff deci-sions at issue. Regarding the committee of inquiry,the president wrote, Saint Rose respectfully declinesto participate in an AAUP investigation into whetherSaint Rose has complied with AAUP RIRs that theCollege has not adopted and that have no relevance tothe decisions it has made. As to the AAUPs ability toconduct an impartial and objective inquiry, PresidentStefanco, apparently referring to the New York confer-ence presidents Open Letter, stated, AAUP longago prejudged this process. It criticized Saint Rose anddisseminated inaccurate information in its first letteron this matter, which it chose to circulate as an open

letter to the faculty without seeking information fromthe Administration.

Addressing the issue of faculty participation inthe academic prioritization process, the presidentmade two points: one, that the administration noti-fied the faculty as soon as feasible of the necessityof both academic program prioritization and likelyfaculty layoffs and, two, that the faculty as a bodyformally voted to refuse to participate in sharedgovernance, adding that though free to do so andon notice of the Colleges financial challenges since atleast the fall of 2014, the faculty has never proposed

any substantive recommendations to address theColleges fiscal challenges.

Replying on January 8, the staff conveyed itsdisappointment that President Stefanco had declinedto meet with the AAUPs committee of inquiry andurged her to reconsider: You write that the AAUPhas reached conclusions without seeking informationfrom the administration.. . . [A] primary reason forsending two consultants to Albany [is] to provide theadministration and the board with full opportunity tocommunicate their version of what has transpired. Inresponse to the presidents statement that the AAUP

did not allege any violations of academic freedom,the staff stated that it seemed improbable that, among

such a large group of affected faculty members, notone of them, if afforded an appropriate hearing, wouldclaim that his or her academic freedom had beenviolated. In addition, the staffs letter continued,putting aside possible direct violations of individualsacademic freedom, the AAUPs official recommendedinstitutional regulations on academic freedom and ten-ureemphasized in the bulk of our December 23 letterare designed to protect tenure per se, without whichfaculty members will think twice before exercisingthe academic freedom that is crucial to higher educa-tion. Regarding the presidents charge that the facultyhad failed to fulfill its obligations, under principles ofshared governance, to help develop a plan for discon-tinuing programs, the staff stated, Our Associationis not only troubled by the allegation that the facultyshirked its responsibility, but also keenly interestedin the notion that actions so deeply injurious to thefaculty were nevertheless effected without the facultysplaying the primary governance role.

In a January 19 response, the president reiteratedher earlier assertions regarding the absence of anyviolations of academic freedom, the inapplicabilityof AAUP-recommended procedural standards to theCollege of Saint Rose, and what she described as the

AAUPs one-sided and inaccurate approach to theColleges academic prioritization process. She alsoinformed the AAUPs staff that the administration hadfound a reassignment opportunity for one of theaffected faculty members.7She closed with a request:

7. The investigating committee finds this assertion disingenuous. The

chair of the department of the faculty member in question tendered her

resignation in a December 20 letter to Interim Provost Schirmer. In a

letter to the interim provost dated two days later, the faculty mem-

ber requested that her termination be reversed in light of her chairs

resignation. The interim provost and the dean of the School of Arts and

Humanities responded in writing exactly one week later. Their letterread in part: We believe that you are qualified to fill this now vacant

faculty position and are pleased to offer you that position. This action

can hardly be characterized as the administrations finding a reassign-

ment opportunity; one simply fell into its lap.

The committee offers three additional observations. First, the provost

and the dean alone rather than a faculty committee judged the faculty

member qualified for the new position they offered her. Second, the

faculty members status is unclear. She would appear to occupy two

positions simultaneously: the one from which she will be terminated

effective December 29, 2016, and the one that she was offered (and

subsequently accepted), which retains her as a tenured member of the

faculty. Finally, we find it illustrative of the rushed nature of decision


8/17

8


Finally, please do not instruct your consultants tocontact me about re-considering the Colleges posi-

tion. Additionally, please instruct your consultants notto contact our administrators and staff in connectionwith your inquiry. We have made a decision not toengage in a process that we believe is one-sided, unfair,and has a pre-determined result.

On January 29 and 30, the undersigned commit-tee visited Albany and interviewed more than thirtyfaculty members and a dozen students. Subsequent tothe visit, two former administration officers sent uswritten responses to questions submitted in writing.Although the administration and the governing boarddid not cooperate, we believe that the informationobtained in our interviews as well as the voluminousdocumentation we reviewed has provided an amplebasis for the conclusions stated in this report.

The AAUPs staff wrote President Stefanco onMarch 7 to inform her that Executive DirectorSchmid had that day authorized the submission of thisreport to the Associations standing Committee A onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, thereby converting theinquiry into a formal investigation.

IV. The Issues of Concern

Five issues of central interest to the AAUP are pre-sented and analyzed below.

A. AAUP Regulations on Financial Exigency andProgram DiscontinuanceAside from adequate cause, the AAUPs RecommendedInstitutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and

Tenurerecognize only two extraordinary circum-stances in which tenured appointments, or probation-ary appointments prior to their expiration, may beterminated: bona fide financial exigency (Regulation4c) and bona fide discontinuance of a program ordepartment based essentially upon educational reasons(Regulation 4d).

Employing language such as serious fiscalchallenges and the pressing fiscal reality, theadministration repeatedly attributed its need to make

cuts to financial difficulties stemming from decliningenrollment. The investigating committee understands

that the college faced financial troubles, perhaps mostclearly indicated by the December 2014 downgrade ofits credit rating by Moodys Investors Service. At nopoint leading up to the announcement of the cuts andappointment terminations, however, did the admin-istration state that the college was in a condition offinancial exigency, which Regulation 4c defines as asevere financial crisis that fundamentally compromisesthe academic integrity of the institution as a wholeand that cannot be alleviated by less drastic meansthan terminating appointments. In the absence ofany evidence that the administrations decision toterminate full-time faculty appointments was basedon a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency, weconclude that Regulation 4c of the RecommendedInstitutional Regulationsis not applicable.

Nor were the terminations the result of a bona fideprogram discontinuance. Under Regulation 4d, thetermination of appointments may occur as a resultof bona fide formal discontinuance of a program ordepartment of instruction. Applying Regulation 4dto the facts as presented in this report immediatelypresents two problems. First, in the case of nearlyhalf of the faculty members whose appointmentswere terminated, neither their programs nor their

departments were discontinued. These included atleast six faculty members across several departmentsin the School of Education, two tenured professorsin the interdisciplinary history and political scienceprogram, and two tenure-track faculty members inEnglish. These cases represent a flagrant violationof Regulation 4d, which permits terminatingfaculty appointments only as a result of programdiscontinuance, not program reduction.

The second problem is that the administra-tion failed to demonstrate that the programdiscontinuations were bona fide. The extent of the

administrations efforts in this regard was repeatedlyto claim that the programs to be cut were underen-rolled: specifically, that together they enrolled only4 percent of the colleges students, that twelve of thetargeted programs enrolled no students, and that75 percent of students were enrolled in 25 percent ofthe colleges academic programs. Chair Calogero, forexample, was quoted as saying that the college hadsuffered a 16 percent decline in enrollment since2008, mainly concentrated in the programs to be dis-continued and the departments to be reduced. At thesame time, large numbers of students have flocked to

making at the college that the administration could unceremoniously

terminate the appointment of a tenured faculty member, consider her

request to have that decision reversed, and offer her a new tenured

positionall in the span of less than three weeks during the holiday

season.

By early April, word came that four additional laid off faculty mem-

bers had received similar offers of reinstatement because of retire-

ments or resignations in their departments.


9/17

9


academic programs such as computer science, psychol-ogy, criminal justice, and music industry. The Trustees

have a duty to shift financial support to the programsthat are in highest demand among our students. Theadministration, however, did not present detailedevidence to the faculty supporting any of these claimsand did not mention specific programs until the cutswere announced. The administration and boardssimple repetition of undocumented claims regardingshifts in student demand did not serve to demonstratethat the program discontinuations were bona fide.

Many of the affected faculty members presentedevidence to this committee that their programs werehealthy in terms of enrollment. One faculty member,armed with longitudinal data from the last ten years,demonstrated that, while the number of majors in hisprogram had not increased, it had also not decreased.What changed, he asked, from ten years ago thatlands us on the chopping block now? A numberof other affected faculty members told us that theirclasses were full and that their departments had notseen any decline in majors.

Faculty members in the Lally School of Educationasserted that the colleges accounting practices haddeflated their enrollment numbers. Because certifica-tions to teach general education or special educationare tied to a students major, students working toward

their teaching certificationsand therefore takingcoursework in the School of Educationwere coded(or counted) by the college under their major programsrather than under education. As a result, in the wordsof one faculty member, the data used by the adminis-tration dont reflect the reality of the school.

Finally, several faculty members pointed out thatthe program eliminations were inexplicably based onthe previous years enrollment numbers rather than ondata from fall 2015, which saw the largest incomingclass in the colleges history. It was not an unexpectedclass size. In a May 18 e-mail message containing an

overview of the same days finance convocation, forexample, President Stefanco stated that enrollmentnumbers for the Fall look strong. In a July 10 e-mailupdate to the campus community, she provided thedetails: We received more than 6,000 applicationsfor the first-year class, the most the college has everreceived. The size of our first-year class is the highestit has ever been with 673 first-year student deposits.Surely, the faculty members with whom we spoke sug-gested, if the decisions had been based on the currentyears historically high enrollment figure, far fewerprograms would have been cut.

If the program discontinuations had been demon-strably bona fideand, again, evidence indicates

the oppositethe process by which any resultingappointment terminations were carried out shouldhave been governed by Regulation 4d. In the view ofthis committee, the process that was actually followeddeparted significantly from the provisions of that regu-lation. Regulation 4d(1) provides that [t]he decisionto discontinue formally a program or department ofinstruction will be based essentially upon educationalconsiderations, as determined primarily by the facultyas a whole or an appropriate committee thereof, not-ing that [e]ducational considerations do not includecyclical or temporary variations in enrollment. Theymust reflect long-range judgments that the educationalmission of the institution as a whole will be enhancedby the discontinuance.

According to the administration, enrollment trends,not educational considerations, drove the academicprogram eliminations. President Stefancos August26 e-mail message to Rep Com stated that becauseof continuing enrollment declinessince 2008, theCollege is beginning the process of academic programprioritization and consequent reductions in faculty(emphasis added). An e-mail message of the same dayfrom Provost Salavitabar to the faculty stated thatthe Colleges enrollment has declined. . . [and] the

College is beginning the necessary process of academicprogram prioritization and reductions (emphasisadded). The December 11 announcement of the cutspublished on the college website read: In identifyingprograms for reduction or elimination and identify-ing reduction of faculty, the Board of Trustees tookinto account enrollment levels and trends (emphasisadded). Such communications make clear that theadministrations decisions did not reflect long-rangejudgments that the educational mission of the institu-tion as a whole [would] be enhanced by the programclosures, as stipulated by Regulation 4d(1).

The administration initiated the SAPP process itselfin direct response to enrollment variations. PresidentStefancos September 2 e-mail message to the faculty(quoted earlier) outlined SAPPs three goals: to identifyexisting academic areas where new investment wasneeded to meet increased student demand, to identifyareas of high market demand for investment innew programs, and to identify existing areas withdiminished student demand. Each of these goals and,therefore, the entire process were predicated ontemporaryshifts in student demandan approachthat is not permissible under 4d(1).


10/17

10


A final point must be made about the applicabilityof Regulation 4d(1). At no time did the faculty as a

whole or an appropriate committee thereof deter-mine the educational considerations upon whichthe decision to discontinue the programs wasbased. Addendum II to the faculty manual, SharedGovernance Document: Principles and Processes,approved by the board of trustees in 2009, makesclear that the colleges process for terminating majorsand programs should involve two faculty commit-tees: the Undergraduate Academic Committee andGraduate Academic Committee (GAC). Accordingto minutes of the October 22 GAC meeting, how-ever, President Stefanco advised that the deans andprovost began meeting about academic programprioritization over the summer. (She conveyed thesame message at the UAC meeting the next day.)The president added, Deans and a subgroup ofCabinet are working on recommendations; the deanspresented recommendations on October 16, 2015.Members of the UAC and the GAC who met withthe investigating committee confirmed that neither oftheir committees was ever consulted; instead, as onemember put it, the committees were informed ofthe program cuts.

The faculty members with whom we spoke con-firmed that each of the four academic deans had been

asked by the president to compile a list of programsto be cut. The extent to which the president and hercabinet ultimately took into account the deans listswas unknown to the faculty. What is known is thatthe deans did not consult with department chairs,program directors, and the rank-and-file faculty indevising their respective lists. And, as this reportdiscusses in greater detail in the next section, the UACand the GAC were bypassed in the process, accord-ing to members of both committees.

Regulation 4d(2) provides that [f]aculty membersin a program being considered for discontinuance for

educational considerations will promptly be informedof this activity in writing and provided at least thirtydays in which to respond to it. Tenured, tenure-track, and contingent faculty members will be invitedto participate in these deliberations. Intervieweesrepeatedly told us that no faculty membersinclud-ing department chairs and program directorsknewwhich programs were being eliminated until they readPresident Stefancos December 11 e-mail announce-ment or the Albany Times Unionarticle that appearedlater the same day. Affected faculty members weretherefore never informed that their programs were

being considered for discontinuance, much less pro-vided an opportunity to respond. The tenured and

tenure-track (but not the part-time) faculty was invitedto participate in the deliberations but voted againstdoing so, a decision to be discussed in detail further onin this report.

Finally, Regulation 4d(3) provides that, [b]eforethe administration issues notice to a faculty memberof its intention to terminate an appointment becauseof formal discontinuance of a program or depart-ment of instruction, the institution will make everyeffort to place the faculty member in another suitableposition. The administration made no such effort inbehalf of any of the affected faculty members inter-viewed by this committee.

In sum, the administration did not declare that thecollege was in a state of financial exigency, nor didit demonstrate that any of the program discontinua-tions was bona fide. Even if it had so demonstrated, itnevertheless failed to follow the procedures outlinedin Regulations 4d(1) through 4d(3) for discontinu-ing programs and terminating faculty appointments.Because the administrations decisions were based onneither of the two extraordinary conditions set forthin Regulations 4c and 4d allowing appointments to beterminated for reasons other than cause, we concludethat the administration terminated the appointments

of twenty-three tenured and tenure-track faculty mem-bers in direct contravention of AAUP-recommendedprinciples and procedural standards.

B. Shared GovernanceThe 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges andUniversities, jointly formulated by the AAUP, theAmerican Council on Education, and the Associationof Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, setsforth principles and standards for faculty participa-tion in academic governance. These are reflected inthose portions of Regulations 4c and 4d that stipulate

the facultys role in decisions leading to terminationsof appointment for financial exigency and programdiscontinuance.

Section 5 of the Statement on Government, forexample, assigns to the faculty primary responsibil-ity for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subjectmatter and methods of instruction, research, facultystatus, and those aspects of student life which relateto the educational process. In these areas where thefaculty exercises primary responsibility, the presi-dent and governing board should adversely exercisetheir power of review or final decision . . . only in


11/17

11


exceptional circumstances and for reasons communi-cated to the faculty. The faculty manuals Shared

Governance Document: Principles and Processesprovides a flowchart for decisions related to the termi-nation of majors and programs that is consistent withthe Statement on Government: the faculty and twoelected faculty committees have primary responsibil-ity for such decisions, subject to the approval of thepresident and the vice president for academic affairs(VPAA). The process is as follows:

1. Input: Discipline faculty and Deans routinelymonitor the overall viability of majors and pro-grams relative to such key factors as enrollmenttrends and the support capacity

2. Recommender: Discipline faculty propose thetermination of majors or programs and, in somecases, seek approval at the School level, beforemaking a recommendation to UAC or GACas appropriate8

3. Decision Maker: In the case of Undergraduatemajors and programs, faculty act in therole of decision makers based upon UACrecommendations, and subject to final approvalby the President/VPAA. GAC acts in the role ofdecision maker in the case of graduate majorsand programs subject to final approval by the

President/VPAA4. Final Approval: VPAA & President

This is clearly a faculty-driven process. Disciplinefaculty propose program and major termination;their recommendations go to either the UAC or theGAC. The decision makers are the faculty as awhole, for undergraduate majors and programs, andthe GAC, for graduate majors and programs. Neitherthe president nor the vice president for academicaffairs has any role in academic program discontinu-ance other than final approval of the decisions madeby either the faculty as a whole or the GAC.

The administration did not follow this processin the least. None of the program eliminations wasproposed by the faculty. The faculty did not make

recommendations to the UAC or the GAC. Finally, thefaculty did not act as decision maker based upon UAC

recommendations in the cases of undergraduate pro-grams slated for elimination, and the GAC did not actas decision maker in any of the cases of graduate pro-grams. Instead, as we were repeatedly told, PresidentStefanco, in consultation to an unknown extentwith some members of her cabinet and the academicdeans, drove the program discontinuance processand, ultimately, determined which undergraduate andgraduate programs would be closed. The board oftrustees had reportedly given her the order to do so. Ina February 19, 2016, e-mail message, Chair Calogeroinformed Saint Rose alumni that last December, ourBoard of Trustees, after long deliberation, directed thePresident to make changes in our academic programsto meet the changing needs of our students (emphasisadded).9Ms. Calogeros e-mail message went on toexpress the boards full and unwavering support ofDr. Stefanco, who is after all, implementing the verychanges the Trustees directed (emphasis added).

Even with the presidents serving as chair of boththe UAC and the GAC for nearly the entire fall 2015semester in the absence of a vice president for aca-demic affairs, the members of both committees toldus that they had played no role in the decisions aboutprogram elimination. We were simply informed of

the cuts, several committee members remarked. Wedid no deliberating whatsoever, stated another. Theminutes of the fall semesters UAC and GAC meet-ings confirm that view. Neither committee discussedproposals or recommendations from discipline faculty,the UAC made no recommendations to the faculty asa whole, and the GAC made no decisions of its ownregarding program eliminations. The process thatwas followed was, in both committees judgment, inclear violation of the process set out in the facultymanuals Shared Governance Document: Principlesand Processes. It was also, according to a member

of GAC, a complete departure from past practice atthe college. Whenever graduate programs had beeneliminated in the past, this member explained, theschool always brought [proposals] forward for a GACvote. We asked the members of the UAC and theGAC directly: How would the process have playedout if the UAC and the GAC did not exist? The

8. The membership of the UAC includes the vice president for

academic affairs (as chair), fifteen elected full-time faculty members,

and two undergraduate students selected by the student association.

Similarly, the GACs membership includes the vice president for aca-

demic affairs (as chair), a full-time graduate faculty member from each

of thirteen graduate departments, and two graduate students appointed

by the president of the student association in consultation with the chair

of the GAC.

9. It is difficult to understand, however, how the board could have

directed President Stefanco to change the colleges academic programs

in December when the president had informed Rep Com of the aca-

demic program prioritization process four months earlier, in August.


12/17

12


answer was that there would have been no difference;the UAC and the GAC might as well not have existed.

It is particularly dismaying to see that the clear processarticulated in the faculty manual was ignored. Asmany of those interviewed informed us, the sharedgovernance document had been a source of pride forthe faculty and administration ever since its adoptionby the board of trustees in 2009.

TheStatement on Governmentasserts that [t]heframing and execution of long-range plans, one ofthe most important aspects of institutional respon-sibility, should be a central and continuing concernin the academic community, that effective plan-ning demands . . . the broadest possible exchange ofinformation and opinion among the components ofa college or university, and that channels of com-munication should be established and maintained byjoint endeavor. In her October 30 e-mail update to thecampus community (quoted earlier), President Stefancowrote, Many . . . faculty members and members ofthe Saint Rose community have been consulted andhave provided input. . . . Many have sought me out forprivate conversation, and I encourage you to continueto do so. I will continue to hold office hours and tomeet with committees and departments to solicit theirinput and to describe my vision for the future of SaintRose. Similarly, in her November 3 response to the

New York conferences open letter (also quoted earlier),she wrote, The administration has continued to seekfaculty input: informally through my office hours andin countless conversations with individual faculty, andformally through meetings with the Strategic Planningand Priorities Committee, the Undergraduate AcademicCommittee, the Graduate Academic Committee, anddepartment chairs.

The faculty members with whom we spokedisagreed vehemently with the presidents repeatedclaims of consultation and inclusion and with herstatement that, though free to do so and on notice of

the Colleges financial challenges since at least the fallof 2014, the faculty has never proposed any substan-tive recommendations to address the Colleges fiscalchallenges. One faculty member called this assertionan outright lie. As this report indicates, the UACand GAC meetings chaired by President Stefanco wereinformative rather than deliberative, and the com-mittees played no meaningful role in the process ofterminating programs and majors. It seems evidentthat the institutionalized channels of communicationbetween the faculty and the administration were notutilized, leaving open no formal avenue of dialogue.

Private conversations between the president andcertain individual faculty members do not qualify as

such, especially since, as this committee was told, thepresidents office hours were actually ten-minuteslots for which one needed to request an appointment.

Regulation 4d(2) of the RecommendedInstitutional Regulationsstates that [t]enured,tenure-track, and contingent faculty members will beinvited to participate in . . . deliberations regard-ing programs being considered for discontinuancebased on educational considerations. As noted earlierin this report, the tenured and tenure-track facultywas invited to participate in the administrationsdeliberations regarding program discontinuance. Theinvitation, arriving on September 2 in the form of ane-mail message from the president, gave the facultyexactly two months to engage in dialogue with us onthis very important process. As we have also seen,the faculty subsequently proposed and voted in favorof directing Rep Com to withdraw from the SAPPprocess, which led to the presidents assertion in herJanuary 5 letter to the AAUPs staff that the facultyas a body formally voted to refuse to participate inshared governance.

This case serves to highlight a dilemma that canconfront the faculty when institutions face decisionsof this magnitude: whether to participate in a severely

flawed process in the hope of making a positiveimpact or to decline to participate in order to avoidlending legitimacy to an anticipated bad outcome.A problem with the first option is that the faculty orits representatives, after having had little to do withproducing a deplorable final product, might end upbeing held accountable for it anyway. A problem withthe second is what has occurred in this casetheadministrations being in a position to claim that thefaculty shirked its responsibility.

A key question, therefore, is the following: Wasthe faculty justified in directing Rep Com to with-

draw from participation in the layoff process? Webelieve that it was. Based solely on the boards and theadministrations unilateral and contentious summerdecisions to implement a new credit-transfer policyand to establish a much more restrictive mass e-mailpolicyand their unwillingness to compromise oneither decision after the faculty sharply objectedonemight argue that the faculty would have been justifiedin refusing from the outset to participate in the SAPPprocess. After all, recent events had given members ofthe faculty no reason to think that faculty input wouldeven be considered.


13/17

13


Nonetheless, the minutes of the October 9 specialfaculty meeting and the comments offered during our

interviews indicated that the faculty conscientiouslyand thoroughly deliberated over the matter beforedirecting Rep Com to withdraw from the process.The faculty debated two motions at length at theOctober 9 meetingone directing Rep Com to consultwith deans and department chairs to gather informa-tion about the SAPP process and a second urging allmembers of the community to take cuts in compensa-tionbefore moving that Rep Com withdraw fromthe SAPP process. Ultimately, the faculty assertedthat it had no choice given the constraintsof time,information, authority, and purviewunder whichthe administration was requiring Rep Com to oper-ate. The evidence compels the investigating committeeto reach the same conclusion. The faculty was, as theresolution put it, in an untenable position.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that thefaculty did fail to fulfill its governance role. Wouldsuch a failing justify the boards and administrationsgoing forward anyway with cuts and terminations sodeeply injurious to the faculty, as the staffs January8 letter to President Stefanco put it? We think not. Ifthe president truly viewed the faculty resolution asirresponsible, she could have offered to negotiate overconditions that would have allowed the faculty to

participate. Instead, she accused the faculty of shirkingits responsibility, and the administration forged aheadwith its drastic plan.

Section 5 of the Statement on Government stipu-lates that decisions affecting faculty status (whichcertainly includes termination of appointments)should first be by faculty action through establishedprocedures, reviewed by the chief academic officer,with the concurrence of the board. The governingboard and president should, on questions of facultystatus . . . concur with the faculty judgment exceptin rare instances and for compelling reasons which

should be stated in detail. We established earlierin this report that the decisions to terminate facultyappointments were made not by faculty action but byadministrative fiat.

In light of the foregoing analysis, the committeefinds that the actions of the board and administrationrecounted in this report, despite the presidents occa-sional invocation of shared governance, disregarded thenormative principles and standards of academic gov-ernance articulated in the Statement on Government.This committee also judges the current state of sharedgovernance at the college to be wholly at odds with

these principles and standards. Indeed, we concur inthe opinion unanimously expressed by faculty members

responding to our direct question regarding the condi-tions of shared governance at the college. Over andover again we were told, It doesnt exist.

C. Academic Due ProcessAlong with the need for meaningful faculty involve-ment in the decision-making process that leads totermination of appointments, the other critical com-ponent of Regulation 4d is the provision of academicdue process through faculty hearing procedures.Regulation 4d(4) requires affordance of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing before an elected facultybody similar in essential respects to what the AAUPrecommends for dismissal (as set forth in Regulation5 of the Recommended Institutional Regulations).In such a hearing, the burden of proof rests with theadministration on all issueswith the sole exceptionof a decision to discontinue a program or departmentthat was made by the faculty, an exception obviouslyinapplicable in this case. The hearing affords affectedfaculty members the opportunity to challenge theadverse action before an elected body of faculty peers,responsible for rendering judgment on allegations thatthe decision to terminate their programs and positionswas reached improperly or was based on impermissi-

ble considerations, such as those implicating principlesof academic freedom.

Under section E, Contingency Planning andRetrenchment, of the faculty manual, the FacultyReview Committee (FRC) is charged with hear-ing appeals of layoff. In its December 23 letter toPresident Stefanco, the staff urged the FRC toemploy procedures set forth in Regulations 4c(3) or4d(4) when handling any appeals. While this inves-tigating committee was unable to ascertain the extentto which the FRC will adhere to Regulation 4d(4), wedo note that the process, as outlined in article II of the

FRC constitution, includes a digitally recorded hearingwith the aggrieved faculty member and that the FRC isan elected faculty body.

The appeals process, however, seemed to havegotten off to a bumpy start. On January 9 InterimProvost Schirmer wrote the FRC to request thatfour of its five members recuse themselves, effec-tive immediately. Under the committees bylaws, theadministration or the faculty member is allowed tochallenge members of the committee for personalprejudice. The interim provost asserted that becausethree members of the committee had posted critical


14/17

14


comments about the cuts on nonpublic Facebookpages and signed petitions opposing them, they had

prejudged the layoff decisions and thus could notfairly judge an appeal involving any layoff stem-ming from academic program prioritization. Thefourth FRC member whose recusal the administra-tion had requested had already resigned from thecommittee because her appointment was amongthose terminated. The investigating committee wasinformed that the other three members of the FRCwhom the administration had challenged chose notto recuse themselves. To their surprise, the adminis-tration accepted their decision.

According to the members of the FRC, the roadahead looked to be at least as bumpy. The caseloadfacing the committee was, as one member put it,unprecedented. At the time of our interview withFRC members, seven programs and sixteen facultymembers had submitted requests for hearings, withmore than four weeks remaining until the March1 deadline to do so. It was not clear to these FRCmembers how they were going to manage their alreadyoverwhelming caseload.

Nor were the members of the FRC confident thatthe process would be followed after the committeesubmitted its recommendations to the president. Oneremarked, I suspect that regardless of what our

recommendations are, they will spin their responseand rationale to justify their cuts. While expressingfull confidence in their FRC colleagues, affectedfaculty members voiced the same prediction aboutthe administration.

D. Academic Freedom and TenureAs noted earlier in this report, President Stefanco,in her January 5, 2015, letter, stated that the staffsDecember 23 letter was significant for what itd[id] not allege. It d[id] not allege any violation of afaculty members academic freedomwhich tenure is

intended to protect. Nor could the AAUP legitimatelymake any such allegation. Saint Rose took difficult,but necessary action to confront serious fiscal chal-lenges and low enrollments in certain programs byengaging in academic program prioritization forthe future, and nothing more. In its response, thestaff, while noting her appreciation of the purpose oftenure, acknowledged the accuracy of her statement.But, as mentioned earlier in this report, the staffwent on to suggest that it was highly unlikely thatin such a large group of affected faculty members,not one of them, if afforded an appropriate hearing,

would allege that the decision to terminate his or herappointment did not entail impermissible consider-

ations. The staff also pointed out that, beyond thedistinct possibility that allegations of violations ofacademic freedom would arise in the appeal hearings,the AAUPs official recommended regulations onacademic freedom and tenureemphasized in the bulkof [its] December 23 letter are designed to protecttenure per se, without which faculty members willthink twice before exercising the academic freedomthat is crucial to higher education.

The investigating committee did, in fact, meet withaffected faculty members who alleged that they hadbeen singled out for appointment termination becauseof their (or their senior department colleagues) vocalcriticism of the administration. They planned toinclude evidence in support of those allegations in theirgrievance portfolios for the Faculty Review Committee.

Regardless of the outcome of the forthcominghearings, we conclude that in unilaterally terminatingfourteen tenured appointments, the administrationsignaled its disregard for the institution of tenure, seta dangerous precedent, and dealt a withering blowto tenure and academic freedom. This investigat-ing committee asked faculty members what tenurenow means at the institution. Nothing was theunanimous reply. One faculty member added a telling

qualifier: Tenure only means something if youve hadit long enough to give you the seniority to survive thenext round of cuts. Another lamented that theresnothing stopping them from doing this again the nexttime enrollment drops. As a consequence, academicfreedom is in peril at the college. Indeed, the percep-tion that academic freedom no longer exists at theCollege of Saint Rose was widespread among the fac-ulty members whom we interviewed. They frequentlyspoke of being fearful and of the potential forretaliation by the administration. Comments offeredby one faculty member at the October 9 special faculty

meeting serve to summarize the overwhelming senti-ment. Referring to the unilateral process by which theterminations were about to be effected, she said, Ifthey can [so easily] eliminate tenured faculty, then ten-ure will mean nothing. And if there is no tenure, thereis no academic freedom.

E. The Colleges Recent LeadershipOn February 11, 2016, nearly 80 percent of thefaculty participated in a vote of no confidence inPresident Stefanco. The results were 125 in favor and35 against. When an institution witnesses declining


15/17

15


enrollments for nearly a decade, resulting in a $9 mil-lion deficit, a significant amount of debt, and down-

grades in credit ratings, one might reasonably questionthe adequacy of the governing board and administra-tions stewardship. When the results also include masslayoffs of tenured and tenure-track faculty members,the elimination of long-standing academic programs,and, ultimately, a majority expression by the faculty ofno confidence in the president, one mustquestion it.

President Stefanco declined to allow anyone inher administration to speak with this committee.Chair Calogero declined to answer four questions wesubmitted to her in writing, forwarding them insteadto the presidents chief of staff, who informed us thatno one on the board would answer any of our ques-tions.10However, two former administrative officersdid agree to provide answers in writing. We rely on

their responses, as well as on our interviews withfaculty members and students and on news stories, to

question the board and administrations effectivenessin carrying out their governance responsibilities.

Section E.1.1 of the faculty manual states that[o]rdinarily, decreases in enrollment and/or changesin academic requirements and offerings can be antici-pated [by the administration] in advance of the needto eliminate a particular program. By all accounts,the colleges enrollment began to decline with the2008 recession. The subsequent six years of continu-ing decline was somehow neither anticipated nor,more important, corrected before President Stefancosefforts to address it beginning in late 2014. We cannothelp but conclude that the boards inaction during thislengthy period represented a failure to maintain thegeneral oversight required under the Statementon Government.

According to a May 2015 Albany Times Unionstory, the institutions modest surplus had becomea structural deficit by 2010. Also in 2010, MoodysInvestors Service downgraded the colleges outlookfrom positive to stable. It was again downgraded in2012, to negative, where it remains. Yet the boardappears to have taken no corrective action before fall2015, when it directed President Stefanco to imple-ment an academic prioritization process.

The investigating committee concedes thatPresident Stefanco, for her part, was in an extremelydifficult position from the outset. In December2014, six months after taking office following atumultuous period of administrative turnover thatwitnessed three presidents in the previous two years,Moodys downgraded the colleges credit rating toBaa3.11In the May 2015 Times Union story, thenew president seemed to place at least some of theblame for the colleges financial difficulties on herpredecessors: Saint Rose has been in this situationsince the recession, she said, where we have not

made changes in our financial model, when otherinstitutions have been doing this routinely. Shecontinued, We just have not been attentive. The direconsequences of that inattentiveness have occasionedthis investigation and report.

10. The questions that Chair Calogero declined to answer were the

following:

1. According to a May 2015 Albany Times Unionstory, The College of

Saint Roses modest surplus had become a structural deficit

by 2010. President Carolyn Stefanco was quoted in that story as

follows: Saint Rose has been in this situation since the [2008] re-

cession, where we have not made changes in our financial model,

when other institutions have been doing this routinely. She

added: We just have not been attentive. We would benefit fromyour perspective, as a trustee since 2007, on President Stefancos

assessment. We would be particularly interested to learn of the

nature of the Colleges financial planning, at both the board and

administrative levels, during your tenure on the board.

2. On a similar note, President Stefancos May 18 e-mail overview

of her finance convocation of the same day reads in relevant part:

The College now employs accounting best practices and we

have fully addressed the previous practice, used for many years,

of putting expenses in unrelated budget lines. Briefly, we now

properly reflect department expenses in the appropriate lines in

our bookkeeping and include depreciation on our balance sheet.

Any clarifications or explanations you are able to offer regarding

the longstanding previous practice to which President Stefancorefers would be most helpful.

3. By all accounts, student enrollment at the college began declining

in 2008. During your tenure as a trustee, to what extent and in

what specific ways did the board address the downward enroll-

ment trend? To your knowledge, to what extent and in what

specific ways did administrations prior to President Stefancos

share the downward enrollment trend and any resultant financial

trends with the faculty?

4. We would welcome any additional comments that you believe

might help us situate the recently announced faculty terminations

and program closures in a historical and institutional context.

11. According to Moodys, obligations rated Baa are judged to be

medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may pos-

sess certain speculative characteristics. Baa is Moodys lowest rating

above noninvestment or speculative grade.


16/17

16


VI. Conclusions

1. In terminating the appointments of twenty-

three tenured and tenure-track faculty membersabsent a declaration of financial exigency or ademonstrably bona fide formal program dis-continuance for educational reasons, the boardof trustees and administration of the Collegeof Saint Rose violated basic tenets of the joint1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure and derivative proce-dural standards set forth in Regulation 4 of theRecommended Institutional Regulations on

Academic Freedom and Tenure.The academicprioritization process that led to the programcuts, moreover, was entirely inconsistent withrelevant AAUP-recommended standards forprogram discontinuance set forth in Regula-tions 4d(1) through 4d(3) of the RecommendedInstitutional Regulations.

2. In determining which academic programs wereto be reduced or eliminated, the administrationdisregarded the shared governance document inthe faculty manual. More significantly, in thisaction and in at least two other recent actionsthe unilateral implementation of a new transfercredit policy and the equally unilateral establish-ment of a restrictive e-mail policythe adminis-

tration and governing board acted in disregard ofnormative standards of academic governance, asset forth in the Statement on Government of Col-leges and Universities. In short, under the currentadministration and governing board, the facultyhas repeatedly been left out of deliberations orhad its reasoned objections ignored, creatingconditions for shared academic governance thatcan only be described as deplorable.

3. The administrationin allowing the facultyonly two months in which to make recommen-dations for eliminating programs and faculty

positions, restricting access to information,and otherwise constraining the facultys par-ticipationplaced the faculty in an untenableposition, justifying its withdrawal from theacademic prioritization process.

4. The administration and governing board,by terminating fourteen tenured facultyappointments through a program of academicprioritization that excluded the faculty, haverendered tenure virtually meaningless and thusseverely undermined academic freedom at theCollege of Saint Rose.

5. The program eliminations and faculty layoffswere ultimately the result of a lack of responsible

stewardship at the board and presidentiallevels, leading to the facultys recent vote of noconfidence.12

12. President Stefanco, having received a preliminary draft text of

this report with an invitation for corrections and comments, responded

by letter of April 11, here printed in full:

Thank you for forwarding the draft text of the report of the American

Association of University Professors (AAUP) investigating committee.

I understand that you forwarded the draft report so that I can provide

comments and corrections of fact.

The draft report has numerous inaccuracies and gross misrep-

resentationstoo many to correct without attempting to rewritethe entire document. As just one example, your statement that the

administration did not meet with RepCom until September 21, 2015

implies that the administration delayed the first meeting. In fact, we

sought to meet with RepCom immediately after notifying the com-

mittee of the initiation of the academic program prioritization process

on August 26th, but the committee was not available until Septem-

ber because of leadership changes. Under this new leadership, the

faculty elected as a body for RepCom to withdraw from participating

in the discussions about academic program prioritizationwhen

shared governance mattered most. The draft report also incorrectly

applies AAUP regulations to the College when those regulations have

not been adopted. The College fully complied with the applicable

process and standards outlined in its Faculty Manual.

This was a critical time for the College as it faced financial chal-

lenges that needed to be addressed without delay. Your investiga-

torsand unfortunately a subset of our facultyseem to have little

understanding of the perils that face the College as a tuition depen-

dent institution of higher education today. As was true at the College

this fall, sometimes action is required on a shorter timeline than we

all would like. We are saddened by each and every faculty member

who received a layoff notice. The College has already reinstated five

faculty without an adverse budget impact. Further, the information

provided in the draft report about the appeals process is premature.

The College provided numerous documents in response to the

Faculty Review Committees (FRC) requests and we have been fully

engaged and involved as contemplated by the Faculty Manual.

Finally, the draft report ignores the innumerable recommenda-tions and decisions that the faculty individually and/or through faculty

committees effectively make, regarding academic programs, the

curriculum, and individual graduate student admission decisions, to

name just a few. The draft also ignores that the leadership of the

AAUP chapter on campus has attempted to use the Colleges circum-

stances to pursue their own agenda and to try and persuade other

faculty members to join with them.

The College community must move forward in an effort to be

fiscally strong for our students for years to come. This requires

investment in new programs of interest and other ways to grow

enrollment. We continue to look to our faculty to be a part of this

process with the administration.


17/17


///// //////////////////// //////////////////// //////////////////// //////////////////// ///

MICHAEL DECESARE(Sociology)

Merrimack College, chair

IRENE T. MULVEY(Mathematics)

Fairfield University

Investigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has by

vote authorized publication of this report on the AAUP

website and in the Bulletin of the American Association of

University Professors.

Chair: HENRY REICHMAN(History), California State

University, East Bay

Members: MICHAEL BRUB (English), Pennsylvania

State University; DON M. ERON(Writing and Rhetoric),

University of Colorado; JEFFREY A. HALPERN

(Sociology), Rider University; MARJORIE HEINS (Law),

New York, NY; MICHAEL E. MANN(Meteorology),

Pennsylvania State University; WALTER BENN

MICHAELS(English), University of Illinois at Chicago;

DEBRA NAILS(Philosophy), Michigan State University;

JOAN WALLACH SCOTT(History), Institute for Advanced

Study; DONNA YOUNG(Law), Albany Law School;

RUDY H. FICHTENBAUM(Economics), Wright State

University, ex officio; RISA L. LIEBERWITZ (Law), Cornell

University, ex officio; JOAN E. BERTIN(Public Health),Columbia University, consultant; BARBARA M. JONES

(Legal History), American Library Association, consultant;

JAMES TURK (Sociology), Ryerson University, consultant;

IRENE T. MULVEY(Mathematics), Fairfield University,

liaison from the Assembly of State Conferences*

*Did not participate in the vote.

Documents

College of St Rosen y