(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Outlook / the University of Maryland, College Park (1991)"

Special Issue 



uPoS xy. ooz 



OUTLOOK 



A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER FOR FACULTY AND STAFF AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK 



DECEMBER 12, 1991 
VOLUME 6. NUMBER 15 



An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 

The Impact of Budget Cuts on Our 
Priority Objectives 



By J. Robert Dorfman 

In a letter to the campus pub- 
lished last month in the Diamond- 
back, President Kirwan called on 
each of us to "hold fast to our 
vision of what College Park can yet 
be." I share the President's view 
that the vision of national eminence 
we had only recently dared to 
dream for our university can still 
be realized— if wc can come 
through our present period of 
troubles with our values and essen- 
tial units still intact. 

As we all know, however, in the 
face of massive cutbacks in state 
appropriations (totalling $40 mil- 
lion or roughly 18 percent of our 
total appropriation from the state), 
wc have had to focus our attention 
more on damage control than on 
implementing visions. As the presi- 
dent indicated in his letter, he has 
asked that I report to the campus 
on the effectiveness of various ef- 
forts to shelter our highest priority 
objectives from serious damage. 
This is my report. It is an "interim" 
one for some obvious reasons: (a) It 
is not at all clear that we have 
heard the final word about our 
financial situation for FY 92, not to 
mention FY 93, and (b) The aca- 
demic reorganization process dis- 
cussed below is not yet complete, 
and until it is, the financial conse- 
quences cannot be discussed with 
any finality. 

Nevertheless, I will describe 
here the steps that wc have taken 
to protect the basic academic prior- 
ities of the campus, despite the 
sizeable cuts to our budget. It is 



important to remember that every 
unit on the campus has had its 
budget sharply reduced, in some 
cases to what can only be called a 
bare subsistence budget. Let us 
then be crystal clear about the 
limits to which any "protecting" or 
"sheltering" of our priorities might 
have succeeded: we have identified 
our priorities, we have made hard 
fiscal choices in light of them, but 
what this has meant is that some 
programs, units, or activities have 
been harmed relatively less seriously 
than others. Once this larger point is 
understood, we can profitably dis- 
cuss the many heroic efforts people 
have made to keep our units going, 
but we should not lose sight of the 
overall dimensions of the unfortu- 
nate situation in which the campus 
now finds itself. 

Our Initial Guidelines 

When the crisis began a year 
and a half ago, the president and 
vice presidents did what they often 
do — we asked a lot of people for 
help. My office saw a steady 
stream of deans, department chairs, 
representatives from the Campus 
Senate, and more than a few indi- 
vidual faculty members. These pre- 
liminary conversations generated a 
set of guidelines to follow as we 
began to respond to the crisis: 

■ We should attempt to make 
reversion and reallocation deci- 
sions, at both the college and cam- 
pus levels, in a manner consistent 
with the concept of shared faculty 




governance, working wherever 
possible with established commit- 
tees and within existing review 
procedures; 

■ We should try to minimize the 
extent of overall damage to the 
quality of our programs by making 
selective rather than across-the- 
board cuts. To that end we would 
need to set in motion a process for 
identifying both our lower and 
higher priority academic units to 
shelter — insofar as this might be 
possible — the latter from irrepar- 
able harm; 

continued on page 2 



APAC Identifies Program Changes 
as Strategic Planning Proceeds 



Since July 1, 1988 when College 
Park was officially designated the 
flagship institution of the state of 
Maryland, the university has been 
on a bewildering financial roller 
coaster. As the key academic plan- 
ning body for the campus, College 
Park's Academic Planning Advis- 
ory Committee (APAC), a predom- 
inantly faculty group that advises 
the provost, has been a vital part of 
the university's response to the 
rapidly changing fiscal climate. 

At first glance, the university's 
fiscal prospects appeared rosy, and 
the university moved ahead swiftly 
to produce the July 1989 Enhance- 
ment Plan that relied on a major 
infusion of state funds to help the 
university in its quest to join the 
ranks of the top public universities 
in the nation. 



But scarcely a year later, by 
August 1989, an unexpected precip- 
itous decline in the state's economy 
had begun to cause the state's fiscal 
environment to sour, and the uni- 
versity's dream of enhancement 
began to dim. 

That fall of 1989, the Enhance- 
ment Plan was put on hold, and 
the university began to struggle to 
find ways to accommodate to what 
so far has amounted to a disastrous 
$40 million, 20% reduction in its 
state supported operating budget, a 
cut that occurred in five hits over 
the last 14 months. 

Strategic Planning Begins 

As part of this process, College 
Park undertook a strategic plan- 
ning process designed to maintain 



the quality of the institution 
through the careful reallocation of 
resources. With consensus among 
campus faculty and administrative 

leaders that major cuts should not 
be made "across the board," it was 
decided that selective cuts in pro- 
grams must be made to enable 
resources to be placed into sup- 
porting the university's highest pri- 
ority programs, programs central to 
the university's goals. 

The first step in this strategic 
planning process began in fall 1990 
as Provost Dorfman asked each 
dean to develop with "broad and 
representative faculty input" a plan 
to accommodate permanent budget 
reductions within his or her college 
or school. Armed with a set of 

continued on page 7 



UNIVERSITY 



O F 



MARYLAND 



A T 



COLLEGE 



PARK 



An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 



Continued from page I 



• Wherever possible, reversion 
and reallocation decisions ought to 
reflect priorities identified though 
previous planning efforts; 

■ In hopes of avoiding signifi- 
cant disruption in our students' 
academic plans and graduation 
schedules, we would try to mini- 
mize the impact of these cuts on 
the availability of undergraduate 
courses; and finally, 

• We would remain committed 
to the institution of faculty tenure. 

It was not obvious at the outset, 
nor is it completely certain today, 
that the campus could succeed in 
following every one of these guide- 
lines, although we certainly have 
adhered to the first and last. Now, 
more than a year into this difficult 
business, these uncertainties 
remain. What I can report is essen- 
tially where we stand at the 
present moment. 

The Decision Process 

Let me say something about the 
matter of process, because it is of 
such great importance for the fabric 
of our community. So far, the cam- 
pus has managed to respond to its 
fiscal problems in largely a collective 
manner; it has fashioned its 
response to the crisis within a set- 
ting of open debate and shared 
decision -ma king. This has been 
true of the work of the Academic 
Planning Advisory Committee 
(APAC), first through the efforts of 
the college-level committees which 
identified areas in their units for 
possible reduction, and later for the 
many committees — involving over 
100 faculty members — called into 
being to design a process for im- 
plementing APAC's recommenda- 
tions. At present, a number of open 
hearings are being held to provide 
an opportunity for all points of 
view to be heard. As the delibera- 
tions move to the Senate Programs, 
Curricula and Courses (PCC) 
Committee and the floor of the 
Campus Senate, there will be addi- 
tional opportunities for debate and 
collective decision-making. 

Previously Identified Priorities 

Although the 1989 Enhancement 
Plan did not mark the hoped-for 
onset of the golden age for the Col- 
lege Park campus, it did achieve a 
broad consensus on the campus' 
highest priority objectives, one 
which turned out to be of value to 
the campus in a vastly different set 
of circumstances than we originally 
had in mind. 

The Enhancement Plan has an at- 
tached price tag of over $1 00 mil- 
lion in additional state funding 
over a five-year period. None of 
the goals of this plan has yet been 
fully realized, nor can they be, un- 
til the required funds are made 
available. As Figure 1 makes all too 
clear, the ini rial promise of enhan- 
cement has not been matched by 
fiscal realities. 



Figure 1 


State Appropriations & Enhancement Goals 








300- 






o 250- 
.2 200- 




□ Enhancement Goal9 
I Slate Approps 


150- 


^^^k 




1986 1967 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 
Fiscal Year 



But, as I have explained in an 
earlier report, Preserving Enhance- 
ment: A Plan for Strategic Academic 
Reallocation, during APAC's delib- 
erations, "...programmatic priorities 
were determined consistent with 
the 1989 Enhancement Plan, which 
sets forth goals of excellence and 
earmarks certain disciplinary 
emphases for special attention: sup- 
port of the traditional liberal arts 
and sciences; public policy and in- 
ternational affairs; technologies for 
the twenty -first century; biological 
and environmental sciences, and 
the arts (p.l)." 

The committee's thinking was 
also guided by a set of criteria 
(program centrality, quality, com- 
plementarity to essential functions, 
uniqueness, student demand, and 
cost) previously identified and ap- 
proved by the Campus Senate and 
the president. Three objectives have 
been identified in virtually every 
recent campus long-range planning 
exercise: recruiting outstanding un- 
dergraduate and graduate students; 
maintaining a core set of high-qual- 
ity academic programs; and creat- 
ing a highly diverse academic com- 
munity. We should not assume that 



these priorities reflect a unanimous 
sentiment on the campus, or even 
that those who support them now 
would do so for all times and in all 
circumstances, but they are goals 
that have received broad and con- 
sistent support over the last several 
years. Any serious commitment to 
the notion of shared governance 
requires a good faith effort to im- 
plement, and when necessary to try 
to protect, these three priority ob- 
jectives. 

The Initial Impact of Budget Cuts 
on Academic Units 

Since APAC's specific program- 
matic recommendations were fully 
described in Preserving Enhance- 
ment, they need not be repeated 
here. It is appropriate, however, for 
us to consider how the budget de- 
cisions made over the last two 
years have been consonant with 
campus commitments to creating 
and preserving a core set of quality 
academic programs. The data are 
given in Table I. 

continued on page J 





Table 1 
Reductions in Academic Unit Budgets* 








College 


FY 91 Cuts- 
Thousands 

* * 


FY 92 Cuts- 
Thousands 

* * * 


Total Cut- 
Two Years 


Total 
Perce 


Cut- 
ntage 




AGRI 


316.3 


182.4 


496.7 


11.69 


ARCH 


32.0 


81.1 


113.1 


7.02 


ARHU 


1.066.1 


1,095.8 


2,161.9 


8.02 


BSOS 


773.6 


818.3 


1.591.9 


3.18 


BMGT 


324.1 


325.4 


649.5 


8.43 


CMPS 


1.673.4 


1.252.7 


2,926.1 


9.79 


CSC 


881.1 


825.8 


1,706.9 


14,86 


EDUC 


786.5 


474.9 


1,261.4 


11.58 


ENGR 


1,100.6 


908.8 


2,009.4 


9.24 


HLHP 


356.4 


239.9 


596,3 


12.68 


HUEC 


160.0 


148.9 


308.9 


9.31 


JOUR 


55.6 


98.0 


153.6 


7.59 


Libraries 


729.9 


856.6 


1.586.5 


10.37 


CLIS 


112.8 


88.5 


201.3 


13.55 


LFSC 


804.5 


508.4 


1,312.9 


10 47 


PUAF 


27.8 


100.9 


128.7 


6.52 


Totals 


9,200.7 


8,006.4 


17.207.1 


- 




'Excludes reductions for the redeployment of Institutional Advancement Staff. 
**FY 91 figures represent permanent reductions lo unit base budgets made in 
working budget for FV 92. 

***FY 92 figures represent one-time cuts; additional adjustments to the these 
may be made during the present fiscal year. 


the 

figures 





DECEMBER 12, 1991 



An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 



continued from page , 



Two observations immediately 
emerge from these figures: (1) a 
total of no less than $17,207,100 has 
now been removed from our cam- 
pus' academic units, a reduction of 
truly gigantic proportions — com- 
parable, in fact, with the elimina- 
tion of the entire budget of a mid- 
sized liberal arts college; and (2) an 
even larger sum, roughly 
$23,000,000, has been removed 
from the non-academic portions of 
the campus' budget. In the face of 
cuts of such enormity, it has 
proven impossible to hold any unit 
completely free from harm. All we 
can measure relative to APAC's 
decisions is, therefore, relative de- 
grees of damage inflicted on each 
unit or college. 

One can say, on the basis of per- 
centages (in the last column of 
Table 1), that the cuts appear gener- 
ally consonant with APAC's assign- 
ment of priority status to the arts 
and sciences colleges and to several 
units with a strong claim to nation- 
al eminence. But percentages by 
themselves can be misleading, as is 
clear from the actual dollar 
amounts extracted: the colleges that 
have paid the most are, in general, 
just the ones that had the most 
available to pay — questions of 
quality, centra lity, cost, and pop- 
ularity notwithstanding. The reason 
is easy to state but hard to live 
with: when faced with the necessity 
of making cuts of an enormous 
magnitude on very short notice, it 
was impossible to obtain such 
sums without removing substantial 
amounts from each and every one 
of our larger units. A smaller 
academic unit has only so much 
available to revert, independent of 
its standing on any number of pri- 
ority scales. 

It is therefore extremely impor- 
tant that we recognize that "shel- 
tering", if it is to be achieved, must 
take place over the long haul, as 
economies gained from program 
restructuring are given sufficient 
time to be realized. We remain 
committed to this goal — to assem- 
bling the resources freed up by 
program restructuring for the pur- 
pose of reallocation to our strong- 
est and most central academic pro- 
grams. But in the short run, all of 
our programs, including our most 
outstanding ones, have experienced 
drastic reductions and incurred 
significant damage. In order to 
achieve a selective rather than an 
across- uhe-board approach, there- 
fore, it is also essential that recom- 
mended programmatic reductions 
be fully implemented in due 
course. A failure to carry through 
would destroy the possibility for 
future economies and sink the in- 
stitution into just the broad and 
indiscriminate decline that we have 
been seeking from the very outset 
to avoid. 







Table II 








Graduate and Undergraduate Awards 


^ 




1989-90 




1990-91 


1991-92 


Grad Teaching 
Assistants hips 


1753 




1876 


1846 


Regular Graduate 
Fellowships 


228 




254* 


235* 


Banneker Scholar* 


44 




43 


37 


F.S Key Scholar" 


44 




50 


29 


'Funds allocated In both years sufficient to make 230 awards; larger number of awards due to higher 



than anticipated acceptance rate. 
"Includes both 'lull ride' and partial awards. 



Recruiting Talented Students 

The campus does appear to have 
largely succeeded in sheltering 
from serious harm its primary 
scholarship and fellowship award 
programs, as Table II shows. 

Graduate assistantships play an 
essential role in the health of our 
graduate programs, but they play 
no less vital a role in support of 
undergraduate instruction. It was 
precisely that dual character that 
led so many colleges to make large 
increases in their assistantship bud- 
gets during "the growth years" of 
1989 and 1990. It is then quite re- 
markable (I would say bordering 
on the miraculous) that the number 
of graduate teaching assistantships 
has remained virtually unchanged 
over the most recent three-year 
period. Key and Banneker scholar- 
ship programs have been con- 
tinued, although fewer initial 
awards were made in the spring of 
1991. In order to continue the Key 
and Banneker programs at all for 
91-92, $300,000 had to be allocated, 
while at the same time we had to 
revert $40 million to the state. The 
number of graduate fellowships 
awarded for 1991-92 dropped 
slightly, but remains well above the 
level of recent years {e.g. as com- 
pared to only 178 fellowships 
awarded in 1989). 

Commitments made prior to the 
budget crisis have led to scheduled 
renovations in Anne Arundel Hall 
for the remodeled University 




Honors Program, and we have just 
opened the new International 
House to i ts first-year group of oc- 
cupants. The rich and varied pro- 
grams of the Language House (St. 
Mary's) have been an extraordinary 
success, both in our intended objec- 
tive of providing a foreign-lan- 
guage immersion experience, and 
in aiding in recruiting outstanding 
students to the campus. 

The Campus' Commitment to Di- 
versity 

The figures presented in Table 
III indicate that efforts to increase 

continued on page 4 



Table III 
Minority and Women Faculty at College Park* 

1991-92 



TENURED 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian 

Native American 

UNTENURED 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian 

Native American 

TENURED 

Women 

UNTENURED 

Women 

TENURED" 

Total Faculty 

UNTENUHED'" 
Total Faculty 



1989-90 

26 

11 
55 
3 

21 
7 
20 



169 

101 
1146 

372 



1990-91 



33 (+27%) 


31 (-6%) 


11 (--) 


12 (+9%) 


55 {--) 


57 (+3.6%) 


J ;*33%; 


«H 


22 (+4.8%) 


19 (-13.6%) 


7(~> 


8 (+14.3%) 


33 (+65%) 


31 (-6%) 








175 (+3.5%) 


183 (+4.6%) 


103 (+2.0%) 


105 (+2.0%) 


11 55 (+.8%) 


11 18 (-3.2%) 



372 {-) 



371 (-.3%) 



'Dala reported (or all tenure-track U.S. citizens or permanent residents; source: OIS Report, full-Time 
and Part-Time Employees by Race, Sea, and EEQ Category : percentages represent increased ecre a se 
relative to preceding year. 
"Associate and Full Professors 
■"Assistant Professors 



DECEMBER 12, 1991 



K 



An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 




continued firm />t<gc 



the representation of women and 
minorities on the faculty have also 
led to generally positive results. 

A decline in the total number of 
black faculty at College Park, in 
both the tenured and untenured 
categories, is a cause for real con- 
cern. Clearly, we face a major chal- 
lenge. 

In the last academic year, we 
were able to use our six minority/ 
senior women faculty positions, as 
well as other department and col- 
lege resources, to bring a total of 
five African -American faculty and 
10 women faculty to our campus. 

We will endeavor to do the same 
or better this year. The decline in 
the number of tenured faculty from 
1155 to 1118 over the last year re- 
flects the hiring freeze (many ten- 
ured faculty who resigned were 
not replaced) as well as the in- 
creased number of faculty who 
have elected to retire- 
But there has been significant 
progress in two related areas. 
There are now ten recipients of the 
new Postdoctoral Fellowships for 
Black American Scholars in resi- 
dence on the College Park campus. 
The numbers of minority and 
women graduate students have al- 
so increased significantly over the 
last three-year period, as shown in 
Table IV. 



These trends can be correlated 
in part with increases in the fellow- 
ship support available at College 
Park for minority students (e.g. an 
increase in the number of Black 
Graduate Student Fellowships from 
the 74 awarded in 1989-90 to the 
129 awarded in 1991-92; and an in- 
crease in the Other Minorities Fel- 
lowship Program from none in 
1989-90 to 19 in 1991-92). The in- 
creased numbers of minority and 
women graduate students also re- 
flect concerted recruitment efforts 
carried out in several departments. 

Of at least equal importance to 
the institution arc the efforts aimed 
at formally integrating diverse cul- 
tural and gender perspectives into 
our curricula. The week-long ex- 
plorations of Diversity Week, the 
recently revived Africa and the 
Americas program, and the Curric- 
ulum Transformation initiative are 
three examples of this ongoing ef- 
fort. What is at stake in these activ- 
ities is both the enrichment of our 
community life as well as an en- 
hancement of the education we 
provide to our students. These in- 
itiatives continue, budget cuts not- 
withstanding. 



The Other Side of the Story 

I have so far tried to describe 
the results of a series of concerted 
efforts to protect some of the key 
programs on the campus. In all 
fairness, and to avoid creating an 
unfortunate misimpression, we all 
need to know what we have not 
managed to protect. The faculty 

continued an pttge 5 




Table IV 
Women and Minority Graduate Students at College Park 




1989-90 




1990-91 


1991-92 


Black 


498 




552 (+10.8%)" 


617 (+11.8%) 


Hispanic 


158 




143 (-9.5%) 


168 (+17.5%) 


Asian 


315 




342 (+8.6%) 


349 (+2.0%) 


Native American 


14 




12 (-14%) 


16 (+33.3%) 


Women 


4,333 




4,459 (+2.9%) 


4.473 (+.3%) 


'Source: Ollice of Graduate Studies and Research. 

"Percentages represent increase/decrease relative to preceding year. 





OUT 



O 



DECEMBER 12, 1991 



An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 



continued from fuif>e -t 



hardly need me to tctl them what it 
has meant to them to have to try to 
operate without access to funds for 
much-needed research support, 
without xeroxing and long-distance 
telephoning, with larger classes, 
and with increasing teaching loads. 
Classified and Associate staff also 
do not need me to tell them what it 
has meant for them to have to 
work longer hours for the same 
pay, and to feel that the state has 
sought to solve its financial prob- 
lems by taking money out of their 
pockets, and laying off significant 
numbers of them. 





But a few examples may give 
some sense of the magnitude of 
our difficulties. The campus library 
system has now lost so many of 
their staff members due to resigna- 
tions and a freeze on hiring re- 
placements that their total work 
force has dropped to a level last 
seen during the 1960s — before there 
were even branch libraries to staff. 



The four arts and science colleges 
themselves have collectively lost a 
total of $7 million altogether. The 
College of Engineering, the College 
of Computer, Math and Physical 
Sciences, and the College of Arts 
and Humanities have each lost 
more than $2 million during the 
same period. The magnitude of the 
impact of these cuts, when con- 
sidered in terms of the amount of 
needed equipment not purchased, 
the number of routine operations 
curtailed, and the impact on our 
teaching and research programs, 
and our service is simply immense. 

It is difficult to underestimate 
the effects of these cuts on our re- 
search endeavors. Much needed 
equipment — vital for research in 
the sciences and engineering — has 
not been purchased; junior faculty 
— the source of many new and cre- 
ative ideas — have not been hired in 
anything like the usual numbers; 
and our support for graduate stu- 
dents has been placed in jeopardy. 
If it were not for the DRIF alloca- 
tions to the colleges and depart- 
ments, our research programs 
would be in even worse shape than 
they are now. Special efforts must 
continue to be made to protect our 
research and scholarly enterprise. It 
is, after all, the fuel that powers the 
dynamic intellectual and creative 
growth of the university. 

in spite of concerted efforts in 
all the colleges also to protect in- 
structional budgets, there has also 
been a significant general decline 
over the last three years in the 
overall number of undergraduate 
sections offered (an average decline 
of -5.86% over each of the last three 
semesters). 



term commitments are made. 

While there are grounds for con- 
cern about the quantity of available 
undergraduate courses, it is worth 
noting that a number of efforts to 
preserve and improve the quality 
of undergraduate education remain 
under way: I first mention the 
heroic work of the ACCESS com- 
mittee which maintains the day-to- 
day supervision of our under- 
graduate USP and CORE course 
resources. This committee assesses 
the need for seats in various areas 
and recommends resource shifts in 
order to meet emergency needs. 
ACCESS has prevented disasters on 
a number of occasions, but most 
particularly, for spring '92. In addi- 
tion, it is advisory to other innova- 
tions designed to improve under- 
graduate education, such as the im- 
plementation of the new University 
Honors Program, the Curriculum 
Transformation Project, the pro- 
grams of the newly created Center 
for Teaching Excellence, and the 
Distinguished Scholar-Teacher pro- 
gram. We have, in short, managed 
to continue some of our enhance- 
ment efforts while simultaneously 
reverting $40,000,000 from other 
sources. 

The Foreseeable Future 

As of today, December 2, 1991, 
we expect that the state will assess 
additional cuts to public higher 
education as it tries to deal with a 
current FY92 deficit of close to $200 
million. While contingency plans 

tiiii! iiiiu'il mi page d 



Table V 
Number of Sections of Undergraduate Courses Offered* 



Fall 
Spring 



1989-90 

4,468 
4,195 



1990-91 

4,51 1 (+.9%)*' 
4,054 (-3.3%) 



1991-92 
4,142 (-8.2%) 
3.807 (-6.1%) 



"Excludes tabs, discussion sections, and independent studies sections. 
"Percentages represent increase/decrease relative to preceding year. 



I believe that the decline in these 
numbers can be attributed almost 
entirely to reductions in the num- 
bers of our part-time instructors 
and lecturers. Since persons in 
these ranks have for some time ac- 
counted for a significant portion of 
our undergraduate instructional 
capacity, any mandate to come up 
with large amounts of money on 
very short notice will inevitably 
have the most serious effect in that 
region of the budget where short- 




DECEMBER 12, 1991 



O 




An Interim Report from Provost J. Robert Dorfman 




t'fint/trnett fn>w pnyv 



have been developed for such a 
possibility, additional cuts to the 
UMCP budget will continue to 
have a drastic impact. Academic 
support units and colleges have 
been asked to "set aside" two per- 
cent of their state supported FY92 
budgets in order to provide funds 
for the anticipated assessment from 
the state (through the System). 
While the "set aside" has been as- 
sessed in a uniform, across-the- 
board way, the actual amount of 
funds taken from each unit will be 
more in accord with the APAC pri- 
orities. 




The situation with respect to 
FY93 looks, at the moment, even 
more problematic than FY92 has 
been so far. The state is projecting 
an additional budget deficit of ap- 
proximately $700 million. The con- 
sequences of such a deficit, if not 
significantly reduced by a tax in- 
crease, are almost unthinkable for 
the state, as well as for our univer- 
sity. We will have some clear idea 



about the situation in early spring 
92, when the legislature has had a 
chance to deal with budget and 
taxation issues. As part of our FY 
93 planning process, we have been 
planning for a reversion of some 60 
additional lines from Academic Af- 
fairs alone to the state as of July 1, 
1992. Academic units have already 
been informed of their line assess- 
ment and are making arrangements 
to identify the lines. However, 
within the past few weeks, College 
Park has been given some flexi- 
bility to rearrange our FY93 bud- 
get, and there is now a good pos- 
sibility that not all 60 lines will 
need to be reverted. 

The most vital questions at the 
moment are: (1) How will we be 
able to protect campus programs of 
the highest priority during the 
coming year or two? (2) How will 
we keep our most productive facul- 
ty, staff and students? and (3) What 
can we do to protect our student 
body from further erosion in the 
academic programs? 

The Strategic Planning Com- 
mittee is grappling with these cen- 
tral problems. We must find 
solutions! We must erect a protec- 
tive "fence" around our units— both 
academic and non-academic. We 
must find a way to address the sal- 
ary issues that make it difficult to 
attract and /or retain our best facul- 
ty, graduate students and staff. 
And we must find a way to keep 
our class sections from increasing 
in size, and from demanding less 
personal involvement of students 
through writing assignments and 
oral presentations. The next few 
months are going to be largely 
spent in addressing these issues. 

Conclusion 

This report has tried to describe 
what we have been able to accomp- 
lish in the way of protecting our 
highest priority objectives so far, 
and to outline the problems of the 



near future. 1 dare say no one will 
be happy with the results. I certain- 
ly am not. There can be no gainsay- 
ing that the impact of the cuts on 
campus programs has been broad, 
deep, and devastating. Even the 
modest success we have had in 
limiting damage in a few key areas 
has required Herculean labors on 
the part of many individuals — by 
the faculty who first helped to 
identify areas of relatively lower 
priority; by deans who were made 
to serve both as recipients and dis- 
pensers of bad news; and by de- 
partment chairs who were asked to 
shelter a few special items at the 
price of doing terrible things to 
other budgets they spent years 
patiently nurturing into good 
health. 

In the weeks and months ahead 
we will need to carry through the 
difficult tasks of programmatic re- 
structuring, of recruiting and re- 
taining our best students, staff and 
faculty, and of achieving the diver- 
sity goals we have set ourselves. 
Priority setting has gone on, and is 
continuing to go on, within the di- 
visions of Administrative and Stu- 
dent Affairs just as within Aca- 
demic Affairs. In addition to the 
priority setting function mentioned 
above, the Strategic Planning Com- 
mittee is also presently working to 
identify possible campus— wide 
economies. Several of the commit- 
tees now at work on the Middle 
States Periodic Review Report will 
also be making recommendations 
on how best to operate during this 
difficult period. 

As circumstances warrant I will 
report back to the campus at a fu- 
ture date. In the meantime I hope 
you will join me and many of your 
colleagues in our efforts to con- 
vince our state officials and fellow 
citizens that these cuts have put the 
well-being of the College Park cam- 
pus — and therefore the long-term 
interests of the state of Maryland 
— directly at risk. In the long run, 
the only way to protect our highest 
priority objectives in any realistic 
sense is to restore the funds whose 
removal has placed them in such 
serious jeopardy. ■ 



DECEMBER 12, 1991 




APAC Considers Program Closings 



continued from page I 



principles, criteria and priorities 
developed by the Senate Executive 
Committee as well as a preferred 
strategy to identify reductions and 
redirect resources from less critical 
to more critical program needs, 
each dean developed a set of 
recommendations. Then APAC 
conducted a series of meetings 
with individual deans to discuss 
these plans and develop recom- 
mendations for consideration by 
Dorfman. 

Report Identifies 11 Units 

Once completed, this process 
resulted in a report delivered to the 
president by the provost on March 
1, 1991. Preserving Enhancement: A 
Plan for Strategic Academic Realloca- 
tion was based on APAC's meet- 
ings with the deans, and its recom- 
mendations relied on considera- 
tions of both qualitative and quan- 
titative measures including excel- 
lence, centrality, quality of gradu- 
ate students, research and service 
to the state. In addition, the Advis- 
ory Committee on Course Enroll- 
ment Statistics and Strategies 
(ACCESS) had looked at each 
dean's plan for its possible effect 
on the availability of courses for 
undergraduates and provided 
APAC with impact statements and 
information used to help formulate 
the report recommendations. 

The report identified nine pro- 
grams and two colleges for review 
of a variety of actions, including 
possible realignment, merger, fur- 
ther reduction, or elimination. 
These recommendations, according 
to the report, would "in the long 
term, ...allow the institution to 
move towards the realization of its 
strategic goals by using its 
resources more effectively." 

The programs recommended for 
review were Agricultural and 
Extension Education; Hearing and 
Speech Sciences; Housing and 
Design; Industrial, Technological 
and Occupational Education; 
Microbiology; Nuclear Engineering; 
Radio-Television-Film; Recreation; 
and Urban Studies. Colleges recom- 
mended for review and possible 
change were Human Ecology and 
Library and Information Services. 

Other Areas to be Reviewed 

In addition, the report also 
recommended that several other 
areas scattered among various aca- 
demic units should be reviewed for 
possible change. 

It recommended that committpp*; 
review the following: 

■ realignment, coordination, or 
consolidation of programs concern- 
ing environmental science and pol- 
icy; 

■ realignment, coordination, or 
consolidation of programs concern- 
ing the general area of food science 
and nutrition studies; 



■ coordination of programs con- 
cerning decision and information 
sciences; 

In addition, as part of the long- 
range strategic planning process, 
some further areas were suggested 
for examination, including: 

■ a "Holmes" committee to look 
at the education programs; 

■ a review of the advertising 
sequence in Journalism; 

■ the nuclear reactor, for possi- 
ble shut down; 

■ a proposal to consider teach- 
ing undergraduate core courses in 
the School of Public Affairs. 

Committee Puts in Long Hours 

Eighteen faculty-student com- 
mittees began the process of look- 
ing at possible elimination, reduc- 
tion, reorganization, or merger of 
programs. They met regularly 
throughout the summer, with 
many members attending meetings 
while on sabbatical or not working 
on campus during the summer. 
The process continued throughout 
this fall and, for most recommen- 
dations will end in late December 
1991 when a few more open hear- 
ings have been concluded. 

The initial reports of the com- 
mittees were delivered to deans 
who responded immediately, and 
open hearings to receive commun- 
ity input were held over the past 
two months so that APAC could 
listen to the views of those affected 
by the possible changes. 

It is important to note that, from 
the outset, this rigorous process has 
been in accordance with the Univer- 
sity of Maryland at College Park Pro- 
cedures for Reduction, Consolidation, 
Transfer or Discontinuance of Pro- 
grams. 

Time Line Developed 

The table on page eight shows 
the time line for these steps, with 
each program's time line moving 
from the due date of the first 
report and when it was actually 
received, to the dean's response to 
that report, to the first APAC com- 
mittee meeting that considered the 
recommendations, to an open hear- 
ing date, to a second APAC meet- 
ing held to review the results of the 
dean's comments and the open 
hearing statements, reassess its ini- 
tial recommendations and vote on 
its recommendations for inclusion 
in a report to be handed on from 
APAC to Provost Dorfman in 
January 1992. Before completing its 
work, APAC will assess the overall 
impact of the entire set of recom- 
mendations. 

The composite report will be 
considered by the provost and for- 
warded by Dorfman through the 
president to the Campus Senate 
before the end of January, accord- 
ing to current estimates. At that 
time the Senate Executive Commit- 



tee will forward the report to the 
Campus Senate PCC. Any recom- 
mendations that will not require 
senate action will not be included 
in this batch of recommendations, 
indicates Dorfman. 

Decisions Expected Next Spring 

The PCC committee has said it 
will try to respond to the recom- 
mendations within six weeks. 
Assuming the plan stays on sched- 
ule, according to senate chair Jerry 
Miller, the senate plans to hold 
meetings to discuss the final 
recommendations for possible pro- 
gram reduction, elimination, 
reorganization, or merger in April 
and May 1992 in order to complete 
the process by the end of the 
spring semester. 

From the outset of this time-con- 
suming process, decisions were 
reached only after careful delibera- 
tion of each step and concern for 
the programs involved, say APAC 
members. 

APAC based its recommenda- 
tions on a number of factors, 
including reliance on recommenda- 
tions of the deans and their facul- 
ties to the extent possible, deviating 
primarily when a dean proposed 
across-the-board cuts, proposed 
reductions in a large number of 
graduate assistantships, or recom- 
mended a program closing action 
that APAC felt could not be justi- 
fied from the campuswide perspec- 
tive. 

University Policies Followed 

Crucial to these decisions was 
APAC's determination to minimize 
the number of tenured faculty dis- 
rupted as well as to cause the least 
disruption possible to faculty and 
students. As part of this plan, 
APAC stated its intention to honor 
and go beyond the commitments 
stated in the procedures of the Uni- 
versity of Maryland at College Park 
Procedures for Reduction, Consolida- 
tion, Transfer or Discontinuance of 
Programs, approved by the senate 
and president. 

This policy calls for the follow- 
ing: "a) Students whose access to 
required course offerings is affected 
by academic reorganization should 
be afforded reasonable opportuni- 
ties to complete their required 
coursework either at this institution 
or through cooperative arrange- 
ments and transfer of credit from 
other colleges and universities both 
within and outside the University 
of Maryland System; and b) Ten- 
ured faculty on lines that are termi- 
nated or transferred should be 
reassigned to teaching and /or 
research in related programs or 
units or to administrative duties 
when qualified for the position and 
where the need exists. Thereafter, 

Continued on peine & 



DECEMBER 12, 1991 



O 



APAC Considers Program Closings 



continued from page 





APAC Committee Status 






Committee 


Due Date 


Received 


Dean Resp 


APAC1 


Hearing 


APAC 2 


AEED 


06/28/91 


09/11/91 


09/11/91 


09/19/91 


10/08/91 


10/10/91 


CLIS Relocation 


10/15/91 


10/16/91 


10/16/91 


10/24/91 


11/12/91 


11/14/91 


CLIS Grad Programs 


09/09/91 


09/12/91 


09/18/91 


09/26/91 


11/12/91 


11/14/91 


EDIT 


09/09/91 


09/17/91 


10/29/91 


11/21/91 


11/22/91 


12/05/91 


ENNU 


09/09/91 


09/09/91 


09/09/91 


09/19/91 






Environment Science 


01/31/92 












HESP 


10/15/91 


10/19/91 


10/30/91 


11/21/91 


12/02/91 


12/05/91 


HLHP Structure 


01/31/92 












HSAD 


09/09/91 


09/09/91 


10/01/91 


10/10/91 


10/21/91 


10/24/91 


HUEC 


10/09/91 


12/06/91 


12/06/91 


12/12/91 


12/17/91 


12/19/91 


HOLMES 


01/31/92 












Info Science 


01/31/92 












JOUR 


10/15/91 


11/14/91 


11/14/91 








MICB 


06/28/91 


07/13/91 


07/13/91 


09/19/91 




11/14/91 


Nuclear Reactor 


01/31/92 












PUAF 


01/31/92 












RECR 


09/09/91 


09/18/91 


09/18/91 


09/26/91 


11/06/91 


11/14/91 


RTVF 


10/15/91 


10/22/91 


10/22/91 


11/07/91 


11/13/91 


12/05/91 


IfflBS 


09/09/91 


09/09/91 


10/05/91 


10/17/91 


10/30/91 


11/07/91 



similar consideration should be 
accorded instructors and lecturers 
who have achieved more than 
seven years continuous full-time 
service, as per Section I.C.I 3. of the 

To observe the intent of these 
policies, the provost indicated he 
intends to find a position for every 
tenured faculty member currently 
in any of the affected units and 
also will ensure that students in 
these units are afforded reasonable 
opportunities to complete their 
degrees on this campus. 

Library College Spared 

As to what final recommenda- 
tions APAC will make, these must 
await the end of this month for 
APAC to complete its hearings and 
discussions, and to formulate and 
review an integrated package of 
recommendations. It is known, 
however, that a few of the original 
recommendations contained in Pre- 
serving Enhancement have been 



reversed. As a result of compelling 
evidence produced in the commit- 
tee reports and the open hearing, 
APAC will recommend that the 
College of Library and Information 
Services be left intact. Additionally, 
Nuclear Engineering (and the 
nuclear reactor) will remain 
untouched, due to negotiations 
resulting in financial support from 
University College. 

But whatever the final outcome, 
APAC members have tried to make 
it clear that they have taken their 
responsibilities very seriously and 
have studied every possible 
approach before deciding the fate 
of a unit. With two-hour weekly 
meetings, open hearings, and the 
need to study large amounts of 
documentation and program sub- 
missions, APAC members have car- 
ried a load close to an additional 
course in their efforts to give care- 
ful consideration to each recom- 
mendation. 



As Dorfman puts it, "This strate- 
gic planning process was begun 
with the hope that the budgetary 
situation of the university would 
improve in the near term. That 
hope has proven to be unrealistic. 
Any plan designed to eliminate 
programs is very painful for an 
academic community, and APAC 
has taken on this unenviable job 
with great reluctance and has made 
decisions only after careful consi- 
deration of many alternatives. It is 
only through this kind of setting of 
critical priorities and redistribution 
of resources that the university can 
hope to remain on the course it has 
set for itself." ■ 

Roz Hiebert 



o 



DECEMBER 12, 199]