Dear Academic Affairs Faculty and Staff,
Thank you for comprehensively and thoughtfully considering the five models of college reorganization presented to you six weeks ago. The time you took to share your feedback (701 unique survey responses), and the tremendous consultation the Faculty Advisory Committees (FAC) and College Advisory Committees (CAC) did so thoroughly and carefully (more than 60 consultation documents), presented clear paths for opportunities to move forward. Thank you.
Although not all recommendations can be realized and reach our goal of costs reductions in administration, we have done our best to represent as many as possible in these next two new models that we present to you now. Some of the universally shared suggestions about the first five models included:
- Many of the ‘academies’ as presented are too large;
- Having fewer colleges is preferable to having large ‘academies;’
- General dislike of the term ‘academy’ but appreciative of having department/school names retained; and
- Strong appeals to ensure that all accreditation levels are maintained for all programs.
We recalibrated and tried to adhere to these suggestions and in the next two models, we have fewer colleges with smaller organizational units that do not include the term ‘academy.’ Instead of introducing that new term, we show how leadership of two or more departments or schools will be shared and retain each unit’s name. Moreover, in these new two models, all colleges and programs will have the ability to keep their accreditation levels.
In addition to overall feedback, each unit (department, school, college) also had specific feedback about how to organize their units in relation to other units and college structures. And, to the greatest extent possible, we have tried to adhere to the advice provided with the two new models.
In general, there was enthusiasm from some units about the opportunities to collaborate with disciplines that have been separated by the current organization and/or have been discouraged because of consequences pertaining to the RCM funding formula. In both survey responses from individuals, as well as feedback from the FACs and CACs, we saw many endorsements for coming together in ways that have not been realized to date. We tried to incorporate as many of these collaborative arrangements as possible in these two models.
Likewise, there was strong opposition to some of the presented shared leadership of different units in the first five models presented. That is, some departments and schools were not supportive of coming under one leadership organization in the ways illustrated in the models, stating that the units were too disciplinary different or too large to be managed together. Again, we tried to realize these suggestions while also focusing on our need to reduce administrative costs.
The two models show the overall reduction in administration by the fewer colleges and chairs/directors. Specifically, the models would reduce the number of deans from 10 (current number) to 6 or 7 (depending on the model), 28 assistant/associate deans to 15 to 18, and the number of school directors/department chairs from 40 to 24 to 29. Additionally, one to two independent school directors would be included. Further cost reductions will occur as we reorganize and reduce duplication of roles and services over the implementation period.
I know not everyone will be pleased with the next steps we have to make to consolidate in order to reduce our costs. But it is my hope that you prefer and appreciate the decision to reduce our organizational overhead by realigning our administrative structure as a meaningful step to meet our budgetary situation. Further, it is my hope that you recognize our collective need to work collaboratively to ensure greater efficiency and strategic prioritization as we move forward. I ask that we all pull together to make the necessary changes successful.
Please visit our to view the configurations and provide your feedback. Feedback from all of our staff and faculty is essential in guiding this process. You can provide your individual feedback through our . All feedback on these configurations, including feedback from our CACs and FACs are due December 16, 2024.
I understand the difficulty of the tasks I am asking you to engage in, and the myriad considerations and consequences we have to plan for in implementing change. Thank you for engaging in this important work—difficult work that will help ensure we can be strong for years to come.
Thank you for your commitment to Â鶹´«Ã½.
My Best,
Melody
Melody Tankersley, PhD
Executive Vice President and Provost
Division of Academic Affairs