Efforts by Saint Louis University administrators to reorganize academic bureaucracy have stalled after being brought before the faculty Senate. The moves to replace the provost position with two chief academic vice presidents and to restructure the graduate programs into their respective undergraduate colleges were not necessarily unpopular with faculty members.
However, the administration’s approach to enacting the changes was met with criticism and a pair of resolutions preceding their implementation during the Oct. 27 faculty Senate meeting. “There were [faculty] members that were apprehensive about the ideas, but the issue at hand was whether the proper process had been followed,” said Kathleen Farrell, chair of the Department of Communication in the School of Arts and Sciences. “The faculty did not believe the Administration had consulted with them as required in the faculty handbook.”
The handbook states that “Academic reorganization may be initiated by the academic unit(s) affected, or by the provost. Consultation with affected faculty will precede any reorganization, and will be appropriate to the reorganization proposed.”
The language used in SLU President Lawrence Biondi, S.J.’s monthly email, sent university-wide on Oct. 16, indicated that the changes to the provost position were already moving forward.
On Oct. 15, administrators sent a similar email, concerning the plan to reorganize the graduate programs into their respective colleges. Currently, most of the non-professional graduate programs are grouped together in a single graduate school. The transition was scheduled to occur during the 2010 financial year.
According to Student Government Association President Michael Harriss, specifics of the plan were confidential until the emails were sent. However, the division of provost duties began last January, when then-Dean Michael Alderson was appointed vice president for Health Sciences. Interim Provost and Dean of Parks College of Engineering, Aviation & Technology, Manoj Patankar was one of the administrators behind the reorganization. While he understands the faculty perspective, he said he is eager to move forward.
“I felt [that] they were consulted. A person could argue that it was not sufficient enough, but really, it’s not the issue anymore. They passed their resolution and Father Biondi accepted those by taking a moment to consider the issue. We are now consulting the faculty in general,” Patankar said.
Under the current plans for the provost position, Patankar would become the interim-chief academic vice president. While the faculty at large had not been contacted prior to last week, Patankar and other administrators had discussed the organizational outline for the chief academic vice president with the faculty Senate’s executive committee in an Oct. 8 meeting. According to Patankar, feedback from that meeting, and from an Oct. 23 meeting, was factored into the proposal brought to faculty Senate in its Oct. 27 meeting. In these earlier meetings, there seemed to be no objection to the plans.
“I got an email of concerns and questions, nothing major. Since we aren’t planning on cutting any positions or assistantships, there was no issue,” Patankar said.
Now, any move forward on these plans will be delayed until at least the Nov. 10 faculty Senate meeting, where the agenda will formulate a plan to assess the proposed changes. Faculty Senator Ian Redmount stressed the importance of this review.
“There are potential downsides to any action of this magnitude. Until you look closely, the faculty doesn’t know the upsides and downsides,” Redmount said.
Harriss attended a second faculty Senate meeting on Oct. 28, and was impressed by the faculty’s energy.
“[They were] very passionate. It’s definitely an emotionally charged issue… I wish I could see students react like that,” Harriss said.
In Harriss’ opinion, the proposed changes themselves are positive. “I think the change itself makes sense. The more I sit in on these meetings, the more I see what was on Weixlmann’s plate. I don’t think we are losing anything by having two people in that position,” Harriss said.
Patankar claimed that the graduate school changes would have a positive effect on SLU students looking to stay in their college for graduate school.
“It has only positive impacts on the graduate program, on students, on the faculty. We will see growth in B.S./M.S. programs, a growth in the program’s ability to transfer undergrads into graduate programs,” Patankar said. “It is possible that we might be able to work out a financial aid advantage if the B.S./M.S. program are combined.”