[B]URLINGTON — The Arts and Sciences faculty at the University of Vermont has passed a resolution of no confidence in the UVM provost’s “decisions and vision” in implementing a controversial budgeting system.
The complex system, called the Incentive Based Budgeting model, in effect links the allocation of funds for academic programs to the amount of revenue they generate. It was installed in 2015 by Provost David Rosowsky.
In a statement accompanying the resolution adopted at a meeting last week, the faculty called on the administration to “adequately fund the college, which is at risk … with monies funneled to other priorities.”
The faculty argued that under a five-year budget plan that is about to take effect, the college would lose 50 tenure-track positions, 20 full-time lecturers and “40 percent of part-time sections.” The tenured positions would largely be lost through attrition by not replacing retiring or departing faculty.
Faculty members say the budget model has subjected the university’s largest college, with about 4,000 students, to a financial “crisis.”
The model has drawn sharp criticism since November for its stringent algorithms based on nationwide statistics, which college faculty members say is antithetical to the basic mission of higher education.
“The draconian cuts [being proposed] would decimate the faculty and devastate the college,” said Daniel Krymkowski, professor of sociology and former associate dean of the college.
The College of Arts and Sciences has been hit hard by the new model, in part because of enrollment trends over the last 10 years. There has been a movement away from liberal arts majors and towards those concentrating on business and science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
According to Rosowsky, there were many times under the previous budgeting model when certain colleges within the university with high rates of enrollment would “subsidize” other colleges that had lower enrollment. Under the new model, this would no longer occur.
Last November, the college announced a budget deficit of $4 million and eliminated 12 courses the day before registration, which prompted the resignation of a department chair.
Krymkowski said the provost provided Arts and Sciences with $2 million in discretionary funds to partially cover the college’s deficit. However, he said there was a condition attached: The provost would be able to select the college’s budget from four proposed plans for the next five years.
Krymkowski, the college’s former associate dean, called the choice made by Rosowsky the “most extreme and harsh.”
Two months later, Arts and Science Dean William Falls told the faculty that 25 percent of part-time non-tenured faculty positions and 40 percent of full-time non-tenured faculty positions would be trimmed over the next five years.
Among their concerns, faculty members said in the resolution — approved at a meeting with more than 100 in attendance — that the reductions “will cause significant harm to our academic mission, undermining the vision of the university.”
Krymkowski said there is a fine line between “right-sizing” faculty and “simply decimating” faculty.
“We’re all sensitive to enrollment trends, but you cannot run a university on enrollment alone,” he said. “At some point you start to lose certain important intellectual capital here.”
Dean Falls, who presided over the meeting at which the vote occurred, takes a somewhat different view of the cuts and said the central administration has been continuously supportive of the college.
Falls chose not to vote on the resolution and said he is “agnostic” towards it and supportive of the Incentive Based Budgeting model.
He said that although the college is going through a difficult time, he has faith they it come out of the process with a “right-sized” faculty — one that imitates the enrollment trend and enables sustainability in the future.
Falls said with the cuts, the Arts and Sciences budget would be balanced by 2022.
The university did not comment on the resolution but forwarded several memos that Rosowsky had written to faculty explaining his position.
Rosowsky said he has had multiple conversations with some of the college’s department heads since February to discuss their concerns about the budget.
“I recognize the hard work you invested in responding to the college’s budget challenges,” he said in a March 28 letter to department chairs and program directors. “I understand that the challenges are significant and require entirely new thinking and that sometimes can create uncertainty and anxiety.”
Rosowsky said the student/faculty ratio has dropped over the past 10 years from 17:1 to 14:1, a scale that is not sustainable. He said “right-sizing” faculty levels would ensure a viable financial future for the college.
The provost also said he has formed a 20-person steering committee that will make recommendations to establish a newer version of the budgeting model, IBB 2.0, by December 2018. That updated model would go into effect in July 2019.
One member of the steering committee, English Professor Andrew Barnaby, said the panel has focused on some of the more controversial elements of the budget model. One of them is the so-called “multiplier” that is used in allocating funds to each college based on a weighting system derived from the average cost of teaching a class.
The College of Arts and Sciences currently has a multiplier of 1, which is nearly 40 percent lower than some other colleges. Faculty members say such an approach is based on aggregate nationwide data that does not reflect costs at UVM and systematically defunds the college.
Sociology Professor Tom Streeter said last January that use of such a system is like “telling someone to make you lunch, giving them $5 and then being disappointed when all they can serve is peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.”
A sizeable majority of the more than 100 who were in attendance at last week’s meeting backed the resolution, although several faculty spoke against the vote of no confidence.
Krymkowski said the overwhelming level of support reflected the faculty’s view that the future of Vermont’s flagship public university is in jeopardy.
“I think there is a real threat that the University of Vermont can be unalterably changed from a comprehensive small research university to something else,” the former associate dean said. “That kind of change should not be decided by a few insiders alone.”
