Op-Ed:
“THE BLUEPRINT FOR DESTRUCTION” DOCUMENTWHAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH
1) Why did the President intentionally or unintentionally not speak the truth about the involvement of the various segments of the University in the Program Review Process?
This is who he said he would involve: his own words: “The Task Force is comprised of faculty, staff, and student representatives, deans and vice presidents and it is to advise me on the development of the Blueprint.”
2) In fact, the faculty who were elected by the Senate, at the request of the President, to the Blueprint Task Force: Dr. Steve Scariano, Dr. Mary Blue, and Dr. Laurie Joyner, were told nothing about the actual plan before the whole Loyola Community received it Monday (yesterday). It was announced that input would be asked for, but it was obviously neither actually sought for, or, no doubt, even wanted. So much for “transparency of process.”
3) In addition, to give the impressions of openness to feedback, the President said that the Blueprint would be sent to the following groups for feedback. Again what the President said and what the President did were markedly different.
He said: “Then in the month of April we will circulate the draft of the Blueprint for comments and input from different organizations. The draft will be sent to SCAP, the University Senate, the Staff Senate, and the SGA for comment. We will also schedule a Town Hall meeting in April. This time frame will allow me to revise the Blueprint, in light of feedback, and take it to the Board at the May meeting.”
4) What the President actually did is, instead of giving the Loyola Community all of April for feedback, he gives the groups and all of us from Monday, April 10, in Holy Week, to Wednesday April 19, immediately after Easter-only 1/3 of the time promised–and at an awkward time at that, when many would be out of town, and the various groups would have time to schedule at most one meeting, if any at all. That is: Fr. Wildes, despite his words, is giving the groups effectively no time to respond. He is too sharp not to be doing this intentionally.
5) In addition by scheduling the Town Hall meeting the day after the “Blueprint for Destruction” is announced as the first, and only, full meeting, and clearly before the other groups could possibly meet, he is attempting to make impossible any thought-thru and substantive response. He is also trying to stop any up or down vote on anything.
WE WILL SEE IF HE SUCCEEDS AT TODAY’S TOWN HALL MEETING.
The Administration is trying to be clever by half, if it thinks we are not aware that it is providing any more than the mere appearance of openness.
Whatever the President’s pious words, about the involvement of all, the reality is his, and those working closest to him’s, clear and blatant effective contempt, intentional or not, for students, faculty, and alumni, and, indeed for Loyola University itself and for those who are spending their lives making it significant.
FATHER WILDES “IN HIS MIND” THINKS HE KNOWS BEST. AND HE KNOWS NO SUCH THING.
6) FACULTY HANDBOOK, Chapter 9 (Contract with Faculty, specified on all faculty contracts). It was agreed to by The Faculty Handbook Committee: 6 Members: 3 major administrators; 3 elected faculty, over more than 30 years of work.) [This contract applies both to discontinuances of Programs and to general University financial exigency, i.e., to just such present emergencies; and the PRESENT Blueprint JUST “unveiled” VIOLATES IT WHEN IT states that the present TENURED faculty will only receive one year’s salary.
7) The presently unveiled Blueprint does not include precisely these necessary contractual provisions, which the faculty must insist on, even if legal assistance is need.
The Contact reads:”Before the administration issues notice to a faculty member of its intention toterminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or departmentof instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty memberconcerned in another suitable position.
If placement in another position would befacilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other support for such training will be proffered.
If no position is available within the University, with or without retraining, the faculty member’s appointment may then be terminated, but only with the provision for severance salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of past and potential service.”
7) The complete relevant provisions on this issue are below, and in The Faculty Handbook, Chapter 9. [Recall that this is a document agreed to over 30 years by both Administration and Faculty for just such situations that we are in.
E. Procedures for Termination Because of Discontinuances
1. A proposal to discontinue a program or department of instruction will beevaluated by the Standing Council for Academic Planning, which will apply the criteriaestablished by the University Senate. The Standing Council for Academic Planning willadvise, in writing, the Board of Trustees, the President, and the University Senateconcerning the proposed discontinuance. Final decision on program discontinuances ismade by the Board.
2. Before the administration issues notice to a faculty member of its intention toterminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or departmentof instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty memberconcerned in another suitable position. If placement in another position would befacilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other support for such trainingwill be proffered. If no position is available within the University, with or withoutretraining, the faculty member’s appointment may then be terminated, but only with theprovision for severance salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of pastand potential service.
3. A faculty member may appeal a proposed relocation or termination resultingfrom a discontinuance and has the right to a full hearing before the University Rank andTenure Committee in which the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing areobserved. The issues in this hearing will include the question of the University’s failureto satisfy any of the conditions of this section. In such a hearing the determination by the Standing Council for Academic Planning that a program or department is to be discontinued will be considered presumptively valid, but the burden of proof on other issues will rest on the administration.
Chapter 9; p.8
– Revised May 16, 1996
. Procedures for Termination Because of Financial Exigency
The University Senate, in cooperation with the University administration, shall formulate criteria for (a) identifying a bona fide state of financial exigency, and (b) determining proper institutional response to such a condition, which shall include guidelines for identifying faculty members to receive notice of termination, should this be necessary. The University Senate shall act expeditiously in formulating these criteria and guidelinesand shall review these criteria and guidelines on a continuing basis, but no less than once every three years subsequent to their adoption.
1. If the President determines that a condition of financial exigency may beimminent, an ad hoc Exigency Planning Committee (EPC) shall be constituted. ThisCommittee shall be composed of the full membership of the Standing Council forAcademic Planning, with the voting privileges as described in Chapter 16-4. If the voting membership of SCAP does not include at least two non-tenured members of the Ordinary Faculty, the University Senate shall elect additional non-tenured member(s) so that EPC includes two non-tenured members of the Ordinary Faculty as voting members. The EPC shall hear all evidence that a state of financial exigency exists or is imminent based upon established criteria, and shall issue a written report regarding the existence and extent of the condition to the President and to the University Senate. If the EPC determines that a bona fide state of financial exigency exists or is imminent, it shall investigate and make recommendations, based upon the established criteria, concerning alternative institutionalresponses to the condition. These recommendations of the EPC shall be known as the Financial Exigency Plan. The University Senate may request in writing that the EPCreevaluate its recommendations if it is determined that the criteria established by the University Senate were improperly applied in the formulation of the Financial Exigency Plan. If, after receipt of the Financial Exigency Plan, the President judges that the condition of financial exigency is serious enough to warrant termination of tenured faculty appointments or cancellation of non-tenured contracts during the contract period, he shall order implementation of the guidelines established for identifying faculty members to receive notice of termination. The President shall provide each faculty member affected with a written statement of the basis for the initial decision to terminate, which shall include a description of the manner in which the decision to terminate was reached, and of the faculty member’s right to a hearing before the University Rank and Tenure Committee.
2. If the President issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention toterminate the appointment because of financial exigency, the faculty member will have the right to a full hearing before the University Rank and Tenure Committee. In thishearing, the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing will be observed. Issues in this hearing may include, but will not be limited to, the following:
a. The existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency. If the University Senate has accepted the Financial Exigency Plan of the EPC as conforming to established criteria and guidelines, the recommendations embodied in the Financial Exigency Plan shall be considered presumptively valid, such that the burden of proof will rest on the President or the affected faculty member if either disagrees with the determination of the EPC in this situation.
Chapter 9 p. 9
– Revised May 16, 1996
b. The validity of the remedy implemented by the administration. The recommendations given by the EPC shall be given the greatest weight in reaching a conclusion on this matter.
c. The proper application of all criteria and guidelines established by theUniversity Senate in identifying faculty members to receive notice of termination.
3. If the University, because of financial exigency, terminates tenuredappointments or cancels non-tenured contracts before the end of the contract period, it will not at the same time make new appointments except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion in the academic program would otherwise result. A faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academicprogram would otherwise result.
4. Before terminating an appointment because of financial exigency, theUniversity, with faculty participation, will make every reasonable effort to place thefaculty member concerned in another suitable position within the University.
5. In all cases of termination n of appointment because of financial exigency, thefaculty member concerned will be given notice as in Chapter 6, Section C of thisHandbook.
6. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, theposition of the faculty member concerned will not be filled by a replacement within aperiod of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatementand a reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer.
7. Faculty members terminated because of financial exigency are entitled toseverance salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of past and potentialservice.
Faculty Handbook: Chapter 9; p. 10.
PS: As, I hope, a not insignificant footnote, since finances are an important issue at Loyola now, what progress has been made getting alumni names, addresses and phone numbers to faculty, who know the alumni personally, so that the faculty can contact them directly, to seek financial help for the University? Even though Loyola is not insolvent, this could help increase Loyola’s financial health in, I trust, a not insignificant way. You thought this important enough to do personally last semester. Faculty can help now. Also, what progress have you make with other colleges and universities to offer information on one semester or one year appointments, which may be open for Loyola faculty. Other colleges and universities helped out our students during Katrina? They may be willing to be of assistance to faculty now. As you recall, I hope, I suggested that we ask that such information be sent to Loyola during the next four years, till matters hopefully stabilize. This could save the University significant monies, and could aid faculty to explore other positions, and, also, bring back new ideas. Both ideas seemed to have your support, when I first brought them to your attention months ago. As to the idea presented to you in the Estes report, about creating a Director of Graduate Studies, that makes sense, but we already had one my first ten years here.
It would indeed be sadly ironic to discontinue some graduate programs now, as the A & S Dean has suggested, on the basis of little information, in order to create a new well-paid administrator, who would try to bring back graduate programs, now on a list to be terminated, which took years to build, only to take more years to bring them back. PPS: It is hard to believe that a President who spoke the following words about his experience of Katrina in the University Senate’s first meeting this year (even if the words were spoken in a cruel jest) and had them recorded in the Minutes, would impose on others a second Katrina of his own making. Fr. Wildes, “I will never live through this again. If it happens again, I will bring an end to my own life and take my chances with God.” Would that he really understood what he is now imposing on others?
PPPS: Finally what should we actually do about this completely inadequately vetted Blueprint? What I wrote before. The President should show real leadership; call a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board; say the truth: there was inadequate time to develop a complete plan now, till after the hurricane season is over, and we actually know freshman enrollment; and this Blueprint be one of the ideas to be considered by a year-long Program Review next year. Call what has been done a very bad “April Fool’s Joke,” and hope it will be soon forgotten before it gets more local and national airing. Every other local plan has been changed, upon reflection, why should this Plan be different?
If Fr. Wildes does not want to do that, either the Southern Province Jesuit Provincial, Fr. Fred Kammer, S.J. should ask Fr. Wildes’ own Provincial to call him back home [There is precedent for this.] Or the Jesuit Corporation at Loyola, which is above the Board of Trustees, should meet and ask for Fr. Wildes’ resignation.
I believe that the matter is that serious; and that no more serious and potentially devastating a matter than an attempt to implement this “BLUEPRINT FOR DESTRUCTION” has taken place in my thirty years at Loyola.
Sincerely, and with respect,
Vernon Gregson Ph.D., J.D.Professor, Religious Studies504-897-4004; 504-352-1354 (cell)[email protected]
