Blog

The April 28 Board of Governors special meeting took place via Zoom and streamed via YouTube. Below are Edinboro University faculty member Dr. Sam Claster’s comments as prepared. 

Chairwoman Shapira, Chancellor Greenstein, governors, presidents and guests,

It is my absolute honor to represent APSCUF and about 5,000 of my faculty and coach colleagues across our 14 publicly funded state-owned universities.

I grew up on Fairview Street in Lock Haven, and my family owned a few small businesses which only thrived because of the university in our town. As an Edinboro alum, I’m proud to also be a current faculty member and department chairperson there. Over the past few months, I’ve led the curricular synthesis of my discipline for the Western integration and have served on two working groups. Through these roles, I’ve developed an intricate knowledge of the consolidation plan, and I am here today to share some concerns that my colleagues and I have regarding its potential implementation.

APSCUF’s first concern about the plan to consolidate six of our institutions down to two, is that while there is some brief information about community impact in the report, it is not as in-depth as we would hope for a project of this magnitude, such as the economic-impact report the State System issued in 2015. The plan briefly mentions the general economic impact of our singular institutions, but lacks any depth regarding impacts of the proposed consolidated entities.

To this end, the PERI report released this week (PERI is the Political Economy Research Institute at UMass Amherst) demonstrates that consolidation and the corresponding planned reductions, as reflected in campus financial sustainability plans, would have a devastating impact on our communities. The planned cuts at the Eastern Consolidated University totals 20% of its workforce, and the Western Consolidated University totals 26% of its workforce by 2023. Beyond the unacceptable consequences for individuals who will lose their jobs, the spillover effects will cascade through the regional economy, resulting in spikes in poverty rates. These local economies cannot sustain this level of damage. I urge board members to review this report, and very seriously consider its implications.

When Chancellor Greenstein visited Edinboro last month, I voiced a concern regarding Bloomsburg and California being designated “main” campuses, and the other four locations being designated as “branch campuses” or “other teaching locations,” as the plan describes, because of the Middle States accreditation rules regarding multi-campus designations. APSCUF understands the reasons stated for why Bloom and Cal were designated “main campuses.” They’ve gone through accreditation more recently, but that is not our concern. We need a definitive answer from Middle States about the structural and legal consequences of this designation. In other words, can these “branch campuses” be divested of and simply closed in time?

I genuinely believe the chancellor when he says that the financial and human costs of closing one of these campuses would be insufferable for our communities. If this concern is genuine, then getting this information should be a priority. I would hate for a board approval of these consolidations to have the devastating unintended consequence of closing a university and decimating a small town. This would put the board in a very bad position. Moreover, our current chancellor may not intend to close campuses, but who is to say that a future chancellor will not.

In a similar vein, the plan states that athletic programs and events will remain available at all integrating campuses. Which is then contradicted in the section titled “risk to athletics,” where the report is clear that the NCAA has not yet ruled on the proposed structure. Our athletes come to the Commonwealth from all over the country and even the world, and they often choose employment in Pennsylvania after graduation. They have the highest retention rates of all our student groups. It would be irresponsible for the board to approve this consolidation before the NCAA gives its determination as to whether individual campuses are able to retain their own athletics programs.

In fact, I would ask the board members to ask yourselves what your recommendation regarding consolidation will be if the NCAA does not permit independent athletic teams. What will you say to alumni? To donors? How will we recruit for our institutions?

To be honest, every day that passes with uncertainty surrounding consolidation increases the risk of potential damage to our individual brands and, consequently, to our enrollments. Some of our consolidating institutions are seeing a significant increase in unregistered students compared to this time last year. These are students who should be continuing their education with us next fall, and their potential departure signals an issue well beyond the impacts of COVID.

The rapid pace of the consolidation process has no doubt manifested a declining confidence in our six institutions. An unnecessary and unfounded decline in confidence as faculty like myself, who work day in and day out with our students know the truth. Many of our institutions have financial challenges, yet they continue to do what they do best: provide pathways to upward mobility for working class Pennsylvanians, even as state investment remains some of the lowest levels in the nation.

With regard to the proposed costs and projected savings of the consolidations — $29.6 million is the estimated investment cost, while the projected savings is just 18.4 million over five years, all stemming from the contraction of the upper managerial organizational structure. An organizational structure which may or may not be adequate to serve three separate communities.

The chancellor has said the consolidations are about opportunities, not savings, but if finances are a reason for increasing student/faculty ratios, (decreasing faculty), how will this increase opportunities for students? APSCUF members already saved the State System $25 million dollars in 2020–21 due to the early retirement incentive. That number would actually mean something if it weren’t for the auxiliary debt that has been the real financial burden to many of our institutions for some time. And yet the consolidation plan offers no solution for removing this albatross from our necks. Instead, the plan is quit clear that the Western integration will not result in financial savings precisely due to the auxiliary debt.

In closing, I would like to thank the board, the Office of the Chancellor, and all our colleagues across the System working on these consolidations. Not because I have confidence in the current plan, but because I know we all share a commitment to our students.

Regardless of the outcome of a vote to consolidate, I believe there will be good things that come out of this process. Even if it means that we need to change course, and rethink System redesign. Admittedly, I have been inspired by our collective desire to create a healthier PASSHE system, but a lot of questions about this current plan remain unanswered. There are simply too many to address in this venue.

I hope the right path is chosen for our students and for the future of our State System, once we’ve considered all of the data, as well as better understand the potential consequences for our communities.

Thank you.

The State System has posted the agenda and consolidation plans for Wednesday’s Board of Governors meeting, at which the consolidation plans are scheduled to be presented.

APSCUF is reading the plans carefully — through a lens that keeps student concerns at the forefront — and making sure the plans comply with Act 50.

We are planning advocacy events, including a virtual rally and press conference Wednesday afternoon. We’ll discuss how you can share your thoughts about the plan and how you can advocate for what is best for students and Pennsylvania. This event is open to the media and will include a press-conference portion. We encourage faculty, students and alumni to wear campus gear and to bring a small, handmade rally sign to display during the rally portion. Click here to register for the afternoon event and to view other advocacy activities scheduled for this week.

Members, click here (login required) to register for an APSCUF-members-only morning event.

Now is the time to make your voice heard.

The April 15 Board of Governors meeting took place via Zoom and streamed via YouTube. Below are APSCUF President Dr. Jamie Martin’s comments as prepared. 

Chairwoman Shapira, Chancellor Greenstein, governors, presidents and guests,

I appear before you today representing nearly 5,000 faculty and coaches at our 14 publicly funded, state-owned universities. I want to highlight and discuss concerns that the faculty and coaches have regarding the consolidation processes at six of our universities. As we know, the Office of the Chancellor, in conjunction with the Board of Governors, has undertaken the work to combine six of our universities into two distinct ones. We have learned that many individuals have been involved in the planning process, but it has been clear from the beginning that the result is known: that both of the two new universities will have one accreditation, one leadership team, one faculty, one program array, one enrollment strategy and one budget — but six campuses. From the start, my colleagues at the six slated for consolidation, and those from other campuses, have expressed concerns and have asked many questions about the consolidation. I wish to provide you with some of the questions they have.

First, they wonder about the rationale for the consolidation. Initially, it seemed that it was being undertaken to save the System money, but then we heard that any anticipated cost savings are minimal, and I suspect that there will be more costs incurred than saved. We have heard about students paying less at the “New U,” but then learned that the cost savings would be the result of student behaviors such as starting at a community college, living at home and commuting to campus, taking AP courses or being a dual-enrolled student and taking online courses. To be clear, students can do all of these things right now; these options will not result from the consolidation. It has been said that the real goal is to expand opportunities for students, but we have not heard exactly how this will occur. It is not clear, for example, that an accredited program at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania will extend to students at Lock Haven and Mansfield; in fact, it is not certain that the accreditation will continue if Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania is no longer an accredited individual institution. Faculty are especially concerned about our students: Will they be able to pursue the major that they want, on the campus that they choose, and to take online courses only if they wish to, or will these options be removed from them? Some faculty have voiced concerns about the “brands” of the individual universities and the ways in which the loss of identity could impact current students, alumni and potential donors. Finally, we have heard that athletic teams will remain on all six campuses, but the NCAA has not ruled on that yet. We have not heard of any updates since the NCAA first met to consider this over two months ago.

Chancellor Greenstein has stated that faculty are supportive of and have favorable views of the consolidation, and this is assumed to be true because of their participation in working groups. However, due to unanswered questions and the level of uncertainty, we were hearing a completely different story from our faculty. Thus, we decided to determine which of these competing narratives was true.

APSCUF administered a faculty survey over a two-day period at the end of March to 1,469 faculty members at the six universities, and 991 members responded. I will share more detailed findings of that survey with anyone interested in seeing them but will only highlight a few today: less than 8% of the faculty support the consolidation, only 7% believe that the process has been transparent, 63% of the faculty do not believe the curriculum array will reflect their work, and only 2% believe that that their students are excited about the consolidation, and the same percentage of respondents report that they are excited. Please bear in mind that this survey did not assess the eventual plan that will be released; it focused on the process.

The other major concern voiced by my colleagues is the process by which the leadership teams are being assembled. Since July 1, 2020, five university presidents have retired, resigned to take new positions, or were reassigned to the Office of the Chancellor. The list includes: President Marcia Welsh (East Stroudsburg), President Geraldine Jones (California), President Laurie Carter, (Shippensburg), President Guiyou Huang (Edinboro) and President Robert Pignatello (Lock Haven).

As these changes have occurred, the chancellor announced at two different Board of Governors meetings that President Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson (Clarion) would serve as the interim president of Edinboro and that President Bashar Hanna (Bloomsburg) would be the interim president at Lock Haven. We believe that we will learn today that President Patterson (Mansfield) will be named the interim president at Shippensburg. If this does occur, it begs the question as to who the next president of Mansfield will be. With the board policy that will be considered today, the individuals serving in an interim position can now be considered as a permanent president of the institution; this was not possible before.

Further, I think it is important to question the rationale of having President Pehrsson and President Hanna lead two institutions. An Inside Higher Ed article titled “Can colleges share a president?” questions the logic of and discusses the difficulties one faces in serving as the president of two universities. As Dennis Jones, president emeritus of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems points out, universities have long shared services such as library consortiums and online learning technologies. However, sharing a president is a challenge. He stated, “If a president tries to serve two institutions, they’re suspect in both communities because the community doesn’t know who they represent anymore.”

Another element of the dramatic turnover in university presidents relates to diversity. Since July 2020, the State System has lost three women presidents and three presidents from historically marginalized groups. Among our 14 universities, only one woman president remains, and she has been tasked with leading two universities. The presidents — or interim presidents — at the remaining 12 universities are all men. Among those, only four are from historically marginalized groups.

We all know why diversity is so important: It is critical to helping us explore new ideas and exposing us to different perspectives and experiences. Diversity promotes critical thinking and broadens and enhances our understanding of the world. The fact that the leaders of our universities have become less diverse is troubling, and I think it is important to question why this has occurred.

We all recognize that Act 50 of 2020 granted the authority to the chancellor and the Board of Governors to undertake a process to consolidate universities. APSCUF did not oppose this legislation as it was moving through the legislative process, but we did have a different understanding of the nature of what a consolidation would look like, and of the role we would play in the process. We further recognize the authority of the chancellor to make presidential appointments, but the manner in which the recent ones have occurred seem to be out of step with the concepts of transparency and shared governance.

It has become clear that there is a disconnect between the narrative about faculty support and excitement about the consolidation and the actual views of the faculty. The questions raised by our members are legitimate, and the concerns that they have are real and are shared by members at all six campuses. I do hope that you will listen to and take to heart those concerns — because the support, involvement and investment of faculty in a consolidation is integral.

Thank you to the nearly 1,000 faculty APSCUF members who completed our survey about views and perceptions of faculty members at Bloomsburg, Lock Haven and Mansfield universities (northern) and of California, Clarion and Edinboro universities (western) — the six campuses slated for consolidation.

The results of the survey, conducted in late March, are in. Click here to read APSCUF President Dr. Jamie Martin’s executive summary, and click here to read our release.

Click here to visit APSCUF’s public resource page about consolidation. Members may log into this page to view APSCUF’s members-only consolidation information.

Coaches at the six universities were surveyed separately, and we will release those results later.

After its executive council met yesterday, APSCUF has posted another statement about Chancellor Daniel Greenstein’s testimony last week. Click here to read the full release.