Overview-Appendices FA 4-12-11

8/7/2019 Overview-Appendices FA 4-12-11

1/35

To: Tim Donovan, Chancellor of the VSC

Gary Moore, Chair of BOT,

Heidi Pelletier, Chair, EPSL Committee, BOT

From: The Faculty Assembly of Lyndon State College

Date: April 12, 2011

For the good of our students and the entire college community now and in the future, we present the

following as documentation for and support of our concerns for the future of Lyndon State College. We

ask that all curricular, personnel, and major budget decisions be held for review by the Chancellor

before they are implemented, so as to avoid permanent and profound harm to Lyndon State Colleges

ability to attract, retain, and educate according to the Colleges and the VSCs missions.

We ask that you review this information and respond to our concerns within the next week so that the

faculty at Lyndon State College may know how to proceed for the future of the institution.

The following is an overview of four principle areas of concern, with documentation and explanation of

each of those concerns appended.

Areas of Mismanagement

Fiscal Management and Strategic Planning

Failure to recognize factors contributing to the budget crisis and to respond appropriately. Lack of effective contingency planning and risk analysis in the capital budgeting process. Lack of due diligence: without projecting effects on enrollment and retention, resources

have been significantly shifted from instructional to institutional costs.

Repeated (three in 12 years) fiscal crises resolved by personnel cuts. Current budget projections and the strategy for reducing costs contradict goals of the 2010-

2013 Strategic Plan.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the failure of a recruitment strategy that narrows LSCsmission and market.

Academic Mission

Fundamental devaluing of the academic programs as the core of the institution service to students:o curricular restructuring that undermines academic integrity and recruitment and retention;o undermining the role of the faculty in the design and delivery of academic programs;o reducing faculty while increasing enrollments

Administrative (top-down) efforts at curricular restructuring controvert VSC policies 101 and109

and harm recruitment and retention:

o the president shows a fundamental disregard of the purpose and the conclusions ofdepartmental Policy 101 reviews conducted by the VSC;

o misuse of data in administrative directives to reinvent LSC undermines the integrity ofthe academic programs;

o subverting LSC and VSC governance processes and curricular procedures underminesthe integrity of academic programs and devalues the catalog as a contract with

students


2/35

Page 2 of 35

Communication

Manipulation of the NEASC process and misrepresentation of the process and its results toimpose a contentious agenda

Questionable Strategic Planning Process: ignoring the need for real community involvementand failure to build the plan from the ground up; changes in plan after obtaining

endorsement from key constituencies, especially faculty

Misrepresentation of and contradiction between internal and external information Unidirectional (top-down) communication Fundamental disconnection between public statements for the purposes of recruitment

and practices that devalue and diminish the faculty

Personnel Management

Subverting LSC and VSC governance processes and labor relations Increasing administrative personnel and overhead, undermining efforts to achieve

economies of scale (see under Fiscal Management and Strategic Planning)

Current upheaval was both unnecessary and a complete failure of personnel management


3/35

LSC Faculty Assembly: Management Analysis Page 3 of 35

Appendix A: Fiscal Management

and Strategic Planning


Failure to identify factors contributing to the budget crisis and to respondappropriately

Dr. Moore has identified faculty and staff position reductions as the appropriate response to the current

budget crisis. Is there a crisis and is this the appropriate response?

Cuts in faculty and staff personnel will undoubtedly affect recruitment, enrollment, and retentionthe

Colleges primary source of revenue and an acknowledged factor of the crisis.

In the Vermont State Colleges Consolidated Financial Reports, for the period ended 30 September 2010,

Lyndon is the only one of the Vermont State Colleges projecting a deficit. In the Narrative (dated

11/5/2010 and signed by Sheilah Ladd, Controller; Wayne Hamilton, Dean of Administration; and Carol

A. Moore, President) to explain budget variances, the authors identify enrollments as being not asstrong and thus contributing to the variance in revenue. However, they also cite two benefit

categories [that] have a significant positive variance from budget. Health insurance was originally

budgeted assuming a higher increase over prior year. Additionally, the GASB45 (reported pension)

expense is lower than budgeted. This will subsidize the decrease in revenues for the fiscal year.

In other words, lower than expected personnel costs will make up for lower enrollments, begging the

question as to why further reductions in staff and faculty positions are required. Reductions in faculty

positions will only exacerbate decreased enrollments, and create no budgetary advantage.

The report concludes: Overall, we are projecting a minimal positive variance from budget for the

college in FY11.

Moore, Hamilton, and Ladds own conclusion hardly describes a crisis, and surely not a scenario

worthy of jeopardizing the academic services, mission, and vision of a successful and vital college,

delivering critical services to the people of Vermont.


4/35



Lack of effective contingency planning and risk analysis in the capital budgetingprocess.

President Moore has repeatedly stated her intention to achieve an enrollment of 1800 FTEs at Lyndon in

order to achieve the scale economies necessary to remain viable and competitive. Toward that end, sheand her administration have built ambitiously: The Rita Bole Center, the new ASAC building, and a major

renovation of Harvey Academic Center, not to mention two substantial renovations of the Admissions

wing of Vail Hall in the past ten years.

While the construction costs were paid for through bond appropriations, the enlarged facility expands

the operating expense and debt service of the College. The recent NEASC visiting team rightly praised

the facilities and the campus, but we do not actually have the enrollments to support the additional

costs. In fact, enrollment dropped, rather than increased. The consequence is that revenues have not

sufficiently increased to offset increased costs for debt and physical plant.

President Moore has repeatedly referred to demographic data that indicates a shrinking pool of college-

bound Vermonters in her State of the College addresses. However, the probability of decreased

enrollment was seemingly unanticipated in the capital budgeting process; without proper contingency

planning, the president has resorted to cutting costs in academic programs that directly serve students.

However, cutting academic programs that directly serve students makes it increasingly difficult to recruit

and retain students so as to reach the enrollment targets that might actually pay for these under-utilized

new buildings (65% classroom utilization before ASAC was built; 55% classroom utilization with its

addition.)

As the presidents budget figures show, the only portion of the budget that has increased beyond the

rate of increase in tuition, fees, and appropriations is the debt service and the rising costs of maintaining

buildings.

Revenues 2003-2014

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

TUTI ION AND FEES (NET OF NEBHE/GN WAIVERS) APPROPRIATON ALL OTHER REVENUE

Expenditures 2003-2011

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

PERSONNEL

GRANTS/SCHOLARSHIPS

SUPPLIES/SERVICES/UTILITIES

TRANSFERS (DEBT SERVICE/VSC SUPPORT/GRANT OVERHEAD)

We have a useful point of contrast with the planning of the previous administration: following successful

enrollment growth to nearly 1100 students, the previous administration increased full-time faculty to 64

and built the Library and Academic Center. Both investments met the increased demand for academic

services given increased numbers of students, and the existing enrollments paid for the investment:

effective planning within the existing budget parameters and resource limitations.


5/35


Furthering a strategic plan of building in anticipation of future enrollments, rather than on pace with

increasing enrollments, President Moore has resorted to shifting budget priorities to buildings and

facilities at the expense of students academic programs and experience. Her report to the Board of

Trustees for Finances and Budget from last June reads as follows:

Finances and Budget

Budget development: With the adoption of the tuition and fee rates for 2010-11 at theApril board of trustee meetings, we began the process of drafting a budget that was

presented in May. To balance Lyndons budget, approximately $700,000 needed to be

cut from expenses. Approximately $400,000 has been cut by eliminating course sections

for the 2010-11 academic year. Two faculty positions that were expected to be fil led

next year have been frozen resulting in another $120,000 in savings. The remaining

costs will be covered by reducing institutional student aid and by using college vans for

some athletic team travel, rather than renting buses.

LSC Presidents Report to the Board of Trustees, June 3, 2010(https://callisto.ccv.vsc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_236_1):

As the presidents report details, except for the amount saved in team travel, the entire reduction in the

budget came directly from student scholarships and the academic programs that serve those students.No other portion of the budget is mentioned as a source of savings.

The current budget crisis forecasts the same impact on students and their academic programs. The

president has cast the necessary budget solution in terms of structural reduction: we must change the

structure of the institution by reducing personnel to realize permanent cost savings. The discussion of

those personnel reductions, to which students have responded with increasing and public concern, has

made it clear that reductions in faculty will be forthcoming. The problem is that the president has

already realized a significant permanent structural cost savings noted in her report above, cutting more

than $520K out of the academic budget for this year with course reductions and faculty reductions.

Those reductions are permanent, given that the course schedule for the 2011-12 has been built on the

basis of percentage reductions from the already reduced budget of 2010-11. The president is nowlooking for up to an additional $700,000 in cost saving from the instructional budget, which has been

already over-cut. This is no longer a matter of achieving efficiencies; this is now undermining academic

integrity and interfering with students capacity to receive the degrees and the education for which they

have enrolled. Such cuts can only make it more unlikely that we can reach recruitment goals to pay for

the building program already accomplished.


6/35



Lack of due diligence: without projecting effects on enrollment and retention,resources have been significantly shifted from instructional to institutional costs

Expense categorie s for LSC, 2004-2008: total expenses and annual rate of i ncrease

Source: IPEDS

From information prepared by Russ Mills, April 15, 2010, for VSC/VSCFF contract negotiations

Budget 2004 % of total 2005 % of total 2006 % of total 2007 % of total 2008 % of total Annual rate of increase (compounded

Instructional 6304313 68.7% 6684205 57.5% 7039032 56.2% 7285799 59.4% 7649142 50.5% 5%

Institutional 2877878 31.3% 4945844 42.5% 5484458 43.8% 4985555 40.6% 7489849 49.5% 27%

Total 9182191 11630049 12523490 12271354 15138991 13%


7/35



8/35


Another useful analysis compares Lyndon use of instructional resources with Castletons and Johnsons.

Student-to-Faculty Ratios

Students

(FTE) FT Faculty PT Faculty

PT Faculty

Adjusted

Total FTE

Faculty

FTE Student per

FTE Faculty Ratio

LSC 1303 57 91 30.3 87.3 14.9

JSC 1543 51 145 48.3 99.3 15.5

CSC 2058 92 143 47.7 139.7 14.7

Note: Adjusted FTE based on requirements for reporting to US News & World Report

Full-Time Non-Teaching Employees per FTE Student

Students

(FTE)

Full-Time

Staff

Part-Time

Staff

PT Staff

Adjusted

based on a

divisor of 3

FTE Staff

per FTE

Student

FTE Student per

FTE Staff Ratio

FTE

Staff

per FTE

Faculty

LSC 1303 123 10 3.3 126.3 10.3 1.45

JSC 1543 119 8 2.7 121.7 12.7 1.22

CSC 2058 180 43 14.3 194.3 10.6 1.39

Taking a closer look at Instructional Costs:

Instructional Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Expenses

Students

(FTE)

2010

Instructional

Cost per FTE

Total

Instructional

Costs

Total

Operating

Expenses for

2010

Instructional

Costs as a

Percent of

Total

Operating

Expenses

LSC 1303 6429 $8,376,987 $28,184,397 30%

JSC 1543 5988 $9,239,484 $29,190,630 32%

CSC 2058 5672 $11,672,976 $41,256,811 28%

Instructional Costs: Instructional Costs include all college expenses that fall into the functional category, including salaries

and benefits for full and part-time faculty, first year program expenses, general education expenses, academic department

budgets, faculty travel, departmental support staff salaries and benefits and educational supplies.


9/35


A note on instructional cost. Why is the instructional cost at LSC 10 - 15% higher per FTE than at JSC or CSC?

The average FTFF salary at LSC is the lowest of the three and the average class size is significantly larger than

at JSC. Direct faculty costs are certainly not the cause. Look to the other components of "instructional costs"

to find the answer - such as first year program expenses, general education expenses, etc.

Students

(FTE)

Student

Credit

Hours

Credit Hours

per FTE

Student

2010

Instructional

Cost per FTE

Average

Salary for

Full-time

Faculty

with FTFF

Average

Class Size

(as reported

on the

college's

website)

LSC 1303 18841 14.5 6429 $56,417 17.6

JSC 1543 21100 13.7 5988 $61,890 14.5

CSC 2058 30781 15.0 5672 $57,581Instructional Costs: Instructional Costs include all college expenses that fall into the functional category, including

salaries and benefits for full and part-time faculty, first year program expenses, general education expenses,academic department budgets, faculty travel, departmental support staff salaries and benefits and educational

supplies.

NOTE: All data courtesy of the Vermont State College System with the exception of average class

size.

Instructional resources can also be diverted from instruction while remaining in the instructional budget.

For example, release time is non-teaching credit(s) added into the calculation of a facultys teaching

load. Some release time is contractual: department chairs, union officers, and chair of the faculty

assembly, as well as for sabbatical awards. However, faculty are also, at the Presidents discretion,

awarded non-contractual release time for non-faculty tasks, for example, IT services and planning,

Advising Center planning, etc.

Over the period 2006-2010, non-contractual release time represented the equivalent of an average of

1.95 FT faculty per year. Conservatively, assuming that the release time added to the facultys salary per

credit in those years, the costs of non-contractual faculty release time increased ca. 30%, from $103,176

to $133,990. That is, in 2010, $133,990 of instructional resource was diverted from instruction to

perform administrative tasks.

The cost figures are further aggravated by the fact that additional costs were then incurred to cover

instructional tasks for faculty diverted to institutional tasks. That is, either overload pay or adjunct

faculty pay was incurred to cover the faculty teaching loads displaced by non-contractual release time.Conservatively, assuming all teaching obligations were covered as overloads, that added $44,469to

instructional costs in 2006. By 2010, that added cost was $58,287, an increase of 31%.


10/35


Cost of Non-Contractual Release Time

(NCRT)

% change

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-2010

NCRT equivalent FTF 2.15 1.42 1.13 2.69 2.38

FTFF, average salary 48,082 52,130 55,631 57,593 56,417

Cost of NCRT 103,176 73,851 62,585 154,781 133,990 29.87%

Overload cost/credit

(average) 863.47 863.47 934.47 991.72 1022.58 18.43%

Cost of Overload for RT 44,469 29,358 25,231 63,966 58,287 31.07%

Total Cost Overload + RT 147,645 103,209 87,816 218,747 192,277 30.23%

Source: Wayne Hamilton, Dean of Administration, Lyndon State College

These are institutional costs hidden in the instructional budget, or instructional resources diverted

away from instructional tasks, inflating the instructional costs per FTE student and hiding true

administrative costs.

Accounting for the decrease in FTE faculty produced by the diversion for NCRT, FTE student to FTE

Faculty ratio increases to 15.25, while Instructional costs per FTE student drop to $6,281. This is just one

example.


11/35



Repeated (three in 12 years) fiscal crises resolved by personnel cutsLyndon State now faces its third budget crisis of this presidents tenure. While these budget crises

are presented as requiring radical change, as is currently the case in reinventing Lyndon as a

professional college, the crisis does not produce real change in fiscal management. As happenedtwice before, the president is suggesting that faculty and staff layoffs are now required; payroll

reduction is being used to solve the deficit.

However, previous personnel reductions have not prevented a subsequent crisis. While

immediately effective, perhaps, in decreasing payrolls, total personnel reductions have proven to be

temporary, as administrative positions are added. Since administrative positions are the more highly

paid and thus more costly to the college, this structural change results in a permanent increase in

payroll costs.

Rather than affecting any positive change to the payroll structure, and thus the fiscal structure, of

the college, previous personnel cuts have only burdened the payroll with more costly personnel.

They have weakened curricular offerings, and, in turn, this has weakened the colleges potential to

attract students and generate revenues.

The presidents repeated approach to managing a fiscal crisis has been to temporarily reduce

expenditures through personnel reductions, then to increase payroll expenditures by replacing

faculty and staff with administrative positions and, in the process, diminishing revenue potential.

The presidents strategy is not effective, as proven by our recurrent fiscal crises.


12/35



Current budget projections and the strategy for reducing costs contradict goals ofthe 2010-2013 Strategic Plan

The 2010-2013 Strategic Plan presents the following as its overarching strategy: To achieve a

level of fiscal strength for reinvestment in quality programs, services, facilities, and operationsthrough innovation and growth to 1,600 students.

However, the current budget projections (using the mid estimate for planning) are as follows:

Budget Scenarios

FY12 FY13 FY14

HIGH ESTIMATE:

TUITION INCREASE 4% 3% 3%

ENROLLMENT CHANGE 2% 2% 2%

APPROPRIATION -7% 0% 0%

DEFICIT $ (221,000) $ (398,000) $ (370,000)

LESS: CHANGE IN EARLY RETIREMENT $ 31,000 $ 187,000 $ 280,000

NET DEFICIT $ (190,000) $ (211,000) $ (90,000)

MID ESTIMATE:


ENROLLMENT CHANGE 1% 1% 1%

APPROPRIATION -7% 0% 0%

DEFICIT $ (383,000) $ (888,000) $ (1,217,000)

LESS: CHANGE I N EARLY RETIREM ENT $ 31,000 $ 187,000 $ 280,000

NET DEFICIT $ (352,000) $ (701,000) $ (937,000)

LOW ESTIMATE:


ENROLLMENT CHANGE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

APPROPRIATION -7.0% -2.5% 0.0%

DEFICIT $ (541,000) $ (1,326,000) $ (1,829,000)

LESS: CHANGE IN EARLY RETIREMENT $ 31,000 $ 187,000 $ 280,000

NET DEFICIT $ (510,000) $ (1,139,000) $ (1,549,000)

While enrollments have been growing at two percent or better per year for several years, our

strategic plan demands a significantly higher yearly increase precisely to provide the fiscal strength

to maintain the expanded operating expenses and debt service necessitated by the additional

facilities. At the same time, cutting academic programs and reducing faculty that serve existing and

future students cannot serve to increase enrollments to the level of fiscal sustainability. Students

come, not for the buildings, but for the academic programs, the low student-to-faculty ratio, and the

personal attention and commitment of the faculty delivering those programs. Cutting academic

programs and faculty would certainly reduce the rate of enrollment and retention increase, but we

cannot afford to do less than achieve the stated goals of the strategic plan.


13/35



Fundamental misunderstanding of the failure of a recruitment strategy thatnarrows LSCs mission and market

The 2010-2013 Strategic Plan also presents the following Lyndon State College Vision Statement:

Lyndon State College will be recognized as a premier public comprehensive college in theNortheast and will be known as the intellectual and cultural center of the Northeast Kingdom.

Lyndons reputation for developing student potential and fostering student success will be

regionally acknowledged. The hallmark of the Lyndon experience will be high-quality academic

programs that integrate theory and practice through experiential learning with a foundation in

the liberal arts. The College will aspire to be a model of innovation and creativity in responding

to the needs of the local community and the state of Vermont.

This Vision Statement clearly echoes the Colleges Mission to prepare every student for personal

and professional success through experience-based, high-quality programs in the liberal arts and

professional studies. However, the presidents current efforts at curricular restructuring and recent

public pronouncement, as for example her State of the College address, present a contrary picture:

There are a number of directions in which we could proceed at this moment in Lyndons history. Iwant to use this time to give an overview of where we are and where we need to head.

We are a professional college, We are an access college, and Experiential learning is the cornerstone of a Lyndon education.

We are, and have always been, an access college. Experiential learning has become a central facet of

our marketing efforts and our curriculum. But the shift to a professional college, as opposed to a

premier public comprehensive college, is contrary not only to Lyndons history for the past 50

years and more, but also to the Strategic Plan and the Mission of the college. Moreover, narrowing

the market and the mission of the college violates the principle of access to a comprehensive college

and pursues a recruitment strategy that can only be counterproductive.

By far, the vast majority of inquiries our admissions department receives annually come from

students who are undecided about their major and career trajectory. According to the latest

admissions figures, inquiries for undecided (or Explorations) students stand at nearly four times the

next highest number of inquiries (Education at 466). Our best opportunity to attract and retain

those students is not to limit the available options by reducing our offerings to only professional

programs, but to offer the broadest possible range of programs as a comprehensive college

following our mission to provide access to high-quality programs in the liberal arts and professional

studies. We cannot grow by reducing our market or by abandoning our past and present mission.


14/35


Appendix B: Academic Mission

Academic Mission

Fundamental devaluing of the academic programs as the core of the institution: curricular restructuring that undermines academic integrity and

recruitment and retention; undermining the role of the faculty in the design and delivery of academic

programs;

reducing faculty while increasing enrollmentsThe presidents significant shifting of budget resources from instructional to institutional costs

reflects a fundamental devaluing of the academic programs as the core of the institution. That

devaluation was particularly evident last spring in the presidents determination to cover a $700,000

shortfall almost exclusively through cutting academic programs, pruning from the core of the

institution rather than from the extremities. Cutting $400,000 by cancelling courses, many of them

with students enrolled, was undertaken without consultation with departments working to deliver

coherent programs to serve students.1 The lack of appropriate consultation with the faculty whoknow best how to deliver academic programs not only undermines the experience of students in the

classroom, but also calls into question the design and execution of the academic programs, which

are evaluated, assessed, and developed through well-established processes of curricular review,

including the VSCs Policy 101 reviews. Moreover, those cuts, made precipitately and without faculty

consideration, had distinct consequences for retention: according to the reports published by the

registrars office, the withdrawal rate at the start of classes in the fall of 2010 was 20% higher than

the previous year.

This particular example is symptomatic of a larger and more sustained devaluing of the

academic programs that serve students, and of the faculty that deliver those programs. Just as the

course schedule was reconfigured merely on the basis of a budget line, the current effort to

reinvent Lyndon by means of a curricular restructuring is founded on the notion that a collegecurriculum should be built according to a budget, rather than building a budget according to the

needs of delivering a curriculum. Certainly resources, especially in the VSC, are a significant limiting

parameter in how we offer academic programs. But resources can be reapportioned, and the

delivery of academic programs should be the highest priority in receipt of resources, not the first,

and never the only, area to be cut. Unfortunately, this president has always looked to academic

programs as the central target for budget reductions. Not only has the percentage of the budget

dedicated to instructional costs decreased, but the numbers of full-time faculty have decreased

considerably even while enrollments have increased significantly. The number of full-time faculty

has declined from a high of 64 with enrollments of slightly less than 1100 FTE (for a student-faculty

ratio of 17 to 1) to the current 57 with enrollments of over 1400. Moreover, the president recently

announced to the department chairs a target student-faculty ratio of 35 to 1, which would mean a

further reduction of full-time faculty to 46 for our target of 1600 students. Such a target hardlyreflects LSCs commitment to personal attention to students from an engaged, dedicated faculty,

and it would certainly have an impact on recruitment and retention, not to mention the education

1

In the face of a considerable expression of student concern at the cancelling of classes, the president

was quoted by the student newspaper saying that the faculty chairs were informed two weeks in advance of

the cuts. When that statement was questioned publicly, the president responded by saying that faculty knew

four or five days in advance. The fact is, however, that the first cuts were announced to students, chairs, and

affected faculty by email even before the chairs meeting at which the dean announced the cuts was over.


15/35


of our students. Currently, Johnson State has a student-faculty ratio of 31.5 to 1 with a graduation

rate of 31%; Lyndon is close to the national average of 26 to 1 with a graduation rate of 33%;

Castleton has a student-faculty ratio of 22 to 1, with a graduation rate of 47%. For the success of our

students, looking to Castleton as a model seems far more reasonable than exceeding Johnsons

ratio. However, as long as the president sees the faculty, not as intellectual capital, but as a liability,

the academic programs delivered to students will be devalued and under-funded.


16/35


Academic Mission

Administrative (top-down) efforts at curricular restructuring controvert VSCpolicies 101 and 109 and harm recruitment and retention;

the president shows a fundamental disregard of the purpose and theconclusions of departmental Policy 101 reviews conducted by the VSC;

misuse of data in administrative directives to reinvent LSC underminesthe integrity of the academic programs;

subverting LSC and VSC governance processes and curricular proceduresundermines the integrity of academic programs and devalues the catalog as

a contract with students

Following last springs hasty and unilateral course reductions for the fall 2010 schedule, President

Moore initiated in late summer a new program review process involving herself, the Academic Dean

(Donna Dalton), the Associate Academic Dean (John Kascenska), and the new Assistant Dean (Deb

Hale). This administrative team was to direct program revisions to be carried out for each

department. Over the summer and through the fall, the administration conducted their reviews of

each program and delivered their directives to be carried through by departments.

Unfortunately, these academic program reviews exist totally outside of the establishedparameters not only of LSC and VSC governance structures and processes, but also of the VSC

policies established for program review: Policies 101 and 109. In fact, while the VSC is undertaking a

system-wide process of evaluating Policy 101 for the purposes of increasing value and effectiveness

specifically by making the process work from the ground up, President Moore has simply instituted

her own top-down review process without consideration either of the direction of the VSC or of the

established processes and policies for academic program review.

Only a very limited number of programs at LSC fall under the purview of Policy 109, which

charges the colleges with and establishes guidelines for an Annual Enrollment Review: annual

college reviews of degree program enrollment, retention and graduation data to determine which, if

any, programs should be designated by the presidents as low-enrolled and thus slated for

additional review at the college and system levels. The policy stipulates specific quantitativeguidelines for review and notes that these reports are intentionally quantitative in nature and are

designed to complement some of the more qualitative aspects of VSC Policy 101: Academic Program

Review. These reports are not designed to judge program effectiveness but are intended to monitor

scarce resources and to eliminate programs which no longer meet student demand. President

Moore, however, has extended that type of review to all programs, without following through on

the recognition that the quantitative review is complementary to the more qualitative aspects of

the VSC Policy 101 review, as well as the necessary additional review at the college and system

levels. Resource management is undeniably important, as Policy 109 says. However, resource

management must also conform to guidelines and parameters established by VSC policy and by

governance processes. Those guidelines and parameters exist to ensure the academic integrity of

the programs; to ignore those guidelines and processes is to endanger and undermine that

academic integrity and hence the education we provide our students.Moreover, the presidents unilateral decisions and program review directives undermine the

efforts of successful programs and contradict the conclusions and recommendations of specific

Policy 101 Reviews of the VSC. For example, the Business Department, one of the largest of LSCs

professional programs, routinely posts course enrollments at or above the college-wide average,

routinely produces a high number of graduates and posts a graduation rate above the college

average, routinely draws a large number of non-traditional and transfer students who succeed at

higher than average rates, and routinely provides highly flexible alternatives for the success of their


17/35


majors. Nonetheless, the course cuts begun last spring and continued this fall for the 2010-11

academic year reduced Business offerings for those students (and others) by a full third. The

consequences have been that it is considerably more difficult for students to find and enroll in the

courses they need to graduate on their original timetables. In addition, the online Business program

that the department was pushed to develop as part of reinventing Lyndon has been insufficiently

supported and marketed, resulting in insufficient numbers of online courses for a student to meet

the 30-credit requirement for courses at LSC; the consequence is that our first on-line graduate

can receive a degree at LSC only as a result of a waiver of degree requirements, which calls into

question the integrity of the degree itself. Finally, the recent administrative directive to migrate a

stand-alone Computer Science program, which includes a Business Concentration, into a new

Business degree program has been undertaken without sufficient consideration of the impact both

on other programs that currently intersect with the existing computer science program and on the

current and future students interested in computer science itself. The sheer haste is counter-

productive, and the consequences undermine governance process and academic integrity.

Similarly, both administrative academic program reviews and current restructuring plans for

several departments contradict and subvert existing Policy 101 Reviews. Both Psychology and

English, for example, are facing program revisions and restructuring that are in direct conflict with

each departments Policy 101 findings and recommendations. For the Psychology and HumanServices Departments recent highly laudatory Policy 101 review, the VSC review committee noted

the strengths of their two programs:

LSC BA Psychology Policy 101 Review Committee

Strengths:

- Wide variety of available courses- Experienced and capable faculty who communicate and work well together

LSC BS Human Services Policy 101 Review Committee

Faculty & Instruction:

- The full-time faculty is committed to teaching and insuring the continuity of theprograms core requirements. Currently the department employs very few part-

time faculty members.- The variety of courses available.- Experienced, capable and collegial faculty

The review committees recommendation:

Recommendations:

- In reference to the specialized nature of our field work & internship placementprocesses and quality assurance procedures, reviewers recommended that our

department hire a full-time field coordinator in addition to existing faculty

members -- to manage our placement process.

Despite the recognition of these strengths and contrary to the specific recommendation, the

department is facing a reduction in personnel that will undermine the strengths and make it

impossible to meet the Policy 101 recommendation. The senior member of the department was

offered the recent retirement incentive by the administration; while being offered that incentive

to retire (which is untimely for the professor and the department), the professor was told distinctly

that, if he did not accept retirement, someone else in his department would have to go. As John

Curtis, director of research and public policy at the American Association of University Professors,

pointed out in a March 15 article in Inside Higher Edcovering the story, the approach was at best

unfortunate, at worst destructive. The damage is not only to personnel relations and to trust, but


18/35


also to the very strengths of faculty noted in the Policy 101 review and to the recommendations to

continue and enhance those faculty numbers for the good of a strong, healthy, well-enrolled

program.

Likewise, the Department of English, Philosophy, and Film Studies is facing revisions and

restructuring that controvert Policy 101 findings and recommendations. In the 2008 Policy 101

Review Report, the VSC committee noted the strengths of Lyndons program:

Lyndons English programs primary strength lies in the comprehensive breadth and

significant depth of the curriculum, the quantity and range of the courses offered,

and flexibility within defined parameters of the curriculum. The faculty presents an

exceptional commitment to the program and an extraordinary range of expertise.

The structure of core and specialized courses within each of the four tracks is not

only an exemplary model of integrating liberal arts with professional study, but also

embodies a way of understanding the nature and purpose of education for the

department. Departmental faculty is committed to student success, and work

closely with them knowing each student personally and academically.

Unfortunately, the administrative program review directives seek to dismantle the very program

design lauded as an exemplary model of integrating liberal arts with professional study. The

administrations directives ask the department to eliminate precisely the comprehensive breadthand significant depth of the curriculum, the quantity and range of the courses offered, and flexibility

within defined parameters of the curriculum.

While the department has worked well to meet the specific recommendations of the Policy 101

Review that are under the departments control, there were additional broader recommendations

presented for which the department has not received support. The Policy 101 Program Committee

Report recognized the excellence and value of the faculty and programs in English, but the report

also noted that the cohort of tenure-line faculty in English has been pared down over recent years,

with a concomitant increased reliance on adjunct faculty and resulting difficulties. The report

concluded that a commitment to fund this fundamental part of the curriculum more adequately

and a determination to market the state colleges more emphatically as remarkable liberal-arts

institutions are two strong recommendations that grow out of the committees deliberations. Twospecific recommendations of the review committee and the departments response in their 2009

Policy 101 Progress Report follow:

1. Evaluate the status and value of liberal arts education at the VSC and develop strategies toprotect this element of the curriculum.

The department is aware of no efforts, either system-wide or at LSC, to address thisrecommendation. We feel obligated to note, however, that we have had one senior full-

time faculty member retire this year, but we were not authorized to search for a

replacement for next year. We understand the difficulties of the current budget

situation, especially with this years rescissions. We are, though, concerned about the

impact that continuing full-time faculty reductions will have on our programs and on our

capacity to contribute full-time faculty to the first-year writing program and general

education, which in turn affects our opportunity to draw undecided or Explorations

students to the major programs. The number of department graduates has again

increased this year (2009), so we believe we are doing a good job of drawing and

retaining students. But we are concerned that a reduction in full-time faculty will not

only harm retention efforts but also limit our capacity to fully deliver the new programs

we have recently developed. We sincerely hope, then, that we will be authorized next

year to fill this important full-time faculty line as an investment in protecting and valuing

essential liberal arts programs.


19/35


2. Invest in system-wide marketing strategies, recruitment for, and sustainability strategiesthat support these programs and the value of liberal arts education in general.

The department is aware of no efforts, either system-wide or at LSC, to address thisrecommendation.

Clearly, the Presidents new academic program review process not only subverts the established

governance processes for curriculum design and delivery, but also undermines the procedures,

purpose, and value of the VSCs own Policy 101 Review process. The students, who are the ultimate

beneficiaries of the established policies and procedures of LSC and the VSC, are necessarily those

who will ultimately suffer.

The Presidents administrative review is presented as considering essential quantitative data:

costs, enrollment numbers, class-size averages, graduation figures, and the like. The purpose is

ostensibly to measure financial viability and sustainability, not academic coherence or value.

However, not only is the data questionable and misused, but the review itself seeks to subordinate

or even eliminate questions of academic value that Policy 109 distinctly notes and acknowledges as

a necessary part of any complete review. For example, the Mountain Recreation Management

department was presented with seven spreadsheets of data in July, along with program directives

based presumably on that data. However, when the department questioned the source and validityof the data, the president responded essentially by saying that the data presented was the only data

to be considered. The department followed up on the data, producing more substantive and

accurate data that should have produced a revaluation of the directives. However, that was not the

case; the presidents directives remain regardless of the departments position, and she has recently

submitted a proposal, despite the opposition of the department, for the elimination of a program

directly to the Faculty Assembly. For the English program, the data was simply ignored. When

presented with the data and the directives, the department pointed out that the datahealthy,

consistent enrollment and graduation numbers over many years, strong placement records and

graduate success, low-cost program well below the comparison data provided, course enrollments

generally above the college-wide average at all course levelssimply did not support the conclusion

and directives, the presidents response was simply, I havent heard anything that has changed mymind. Finally, the Math Department was told that eliminating the math program would save the

college $145,000 a year. When the department asked to see the numbers, the president said that

she would provide them. However, she proved unable to provide those numbers and eventually

acknowledged that the savings in closing the program would not be significant. Such a misuse of

data, especially in an academic review that privileges numbers over academic coherence and

value, first seriously calls into question the review itself and secondly undermines academic integrity

and ultimately the education of our students.

The fundamental problem with this top-down administrative curricular restructuring is that it

necessarily violates the long-established process by which LSC and the VSC have designed, delivered,

reviewed, and revised the academic programs that are at the heart of the institution and that

provide the educational benefit for our students and for Vermont. Subverting LSC and VSC

governance processes and curricular procedures undermines the integrity of academic programs,

devalues the catalog as a contract with students, and undermines the fundamental mission of

both LSC and the VSC.


20/35


Appendix C: Communication

Communication

Manipulation of the NEASC process and misrepresentation of the process and itsresults to impose a contentious agenda

President Moore has repeatedly justified the drive to reinvent Lyndon through major

curricular restructuring on the basis of the exit report of the visiting NEASC review team last

October. The drive to reinvent the curriculum from the top down, department by department,

the precipitate haste to do so, and the push to reshape Lyndon as a professional college, as Dr.

Moore redefined LSC in several of her recent public announcements such as the State of the

College Address, are all founded on a statement that Dr. Moore has attributed to Dr. Cynthia

Huggins as chair of the NEASC review team in her exit report in October.

Dr. Cynthia Huggins,NEASC review team chair,

said,Youve got two years.

However, according to an audio recording of the exit report of the NEASC visiting team, Dr.

Huggins framed her discussion of the challenges facing Lyndon with the phrase over the next

five years. Nowhere in the audio recording of the exit report does the phrase two years exist.

In fact, in her exit report, Dr. Huggins outlines three specific areas of challenge for Lyndon

over the next five years: (1) continue work on assessment to close the loop; (2) work on

enrollment management to align and balance enrollments with academic programs; (3)

continue work on academic reorganization. Academic reorganization is simply not the sole area

for consideration, nor is there any sense of emergency in the necessity of reorganization,

especially when it is coupled with developing enrollment management. Academic restructuringrequires careful and thoughtful deliberation to successfully serve both current and future

students. To misrepresent the exit report of the NEASC visiting team as calling for reinventing

Lyndon within two years in order to justify an administrative overhaul of academic programs in

all departments not only undermines those academic programs in their service to students, but

also subverts the governance processes and established procedures of academic program design

and delivery by which we guarantee our academic integrity and accredibility to NEASC itself.

Equally significant: while the president has repeatedly founded her actions in reinventing

Lyndon and shaping the entire future of LSC on a misrepresentation of an oral exit report from


21/35


last October, the actual written report of the visiting NEASC team has not been made public.

According to the audio recording of the exit report, Dr. Huggins established a timeline as

follows:

By December 1, the Dr. Moore would receive the draft report of the NEASC team, atwhich point she would have the opportunity to correct any factual errors;

no later than December 22, the college would receive the full final report of the visitingNEASC team;

The president would then send her official response to NEASC, while the visiting teamwould forward their recommendations on our reaccreditation and any stipulations to

NEASC as well;

Sometime in the spring, Dr. Huggins and Dr. Moore would meet with the commission toformally discuss the report; the commission would then review all the materials and

present their final action, according to Dr. Huggins, sometime in March.

According to the colleges own report to the Alumni Online Community, Lyndon will receive the

final, full, written report in late December, 2010, with final reaccreditation from NEASC in the

spring. The College will share the results with the campus and community at that time.

However, the final, full, written report has not been made public or available to the LSC

community, nor at this point has the final reaccreditation report from NEASC been made public.The faculty, both individually and as a whole, has repeatedly asked for the status on the final

report, only to be told that it has not yet been released.

The consequence of this misrepresentation of the exit report and the distortion of the

NEASC process has been that, rather than the entire LSC community deliberating carefully and

planning our academic future on the basis of the full, substantive, final NEASC report, the

administration is pushing a contentious academic restructuring that subverts the LSC and VSC

governance processes that ensure our academic integrity and the value of our curriculum, while

undermining the programs for which our students, current and future, come to Lyndon.


22/35


Communication

Questionable Strategic Planning Process:ignoring the need for real community involvement and failure to build the plan

from the ground up;

changes in plan after obtaining endorsement from key constituencies, especially

faculty

Having established Strategic Planning as a central feature of her administration, President Moore

has recently changed the process in what appears to be a questionable manner. As the president

notes in a memo of April 13, 2010, Unveiling the New Strategic Plan:

Approximately three years ago, the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, with input and

endorsement from all Lyndon community members, implemented our third Strategic Plan,

2008-2013. In reviewing what we have accomplished over the past three years and

recognizing that we are in an extraordinary turbulent time, many of our original

assumptions are no longer true. Hence, I asked the Strategic Planning Steering Committee

to reexamine our strategies.

The new plan (Strategic Plan, 2010-2013) was not, however, developed by the entire community,but instead by the committee to be unveiled, as the presidents memo said, to the community. The

committee would then seek feedback and endorsement from various constituencies. The plan was

not built from the ground up, but was instead provided to the community largely to implement.

However, the faculty assembly took its role seriously and, when called upon to endorse the plan,

did so conditionally, with the understanding that revisions that the Faculty Assembly provided for

the Plan would be included in the final plan. The community, including the faculty, subsequently

received an electronic copy of Strategic Plan 2010-2013 FINAL distributed to public 2-1-11.pdf

which included most though not all of the Assemblys adjustments. But the final printed copy of the

Strategic Plan 2010-2013 does not include several of the important adjustments that were in fact

included in the electronic copy presented to the faculty and the community as FINAL. Such

variations and reversals call into question both the process and the final articulation of the Strategic

Plan, 2010-2013.


23/35


Communication

Misrepresentation of and contradiction between internal and external information

Personnel cuts

State of the College, Feb. 8

Dr. Moore: "I am not using the word "reinvent" as a euphemism for lay-offs or a banner under which

to advance a pre-determined agenda.

At this same meeting, she said an unspecified number of positions would be eliminated.

Decision-making

Quoted in Critic article, March 18, 2011

Dr. Moore: My decisions are done with a clear head, with an open mind and with the data, said

Moore. Regardless of what goes on in my personal life or anybody elses, my job is to make clear

decisions based on data.

Conference call with Project Compass group, March 4, 2011

Dr. Moore: "Maybe I haven't thought it through, but I've made my decision and it's up to you all to

implement the program."

Dr. Moore was responding to members of the Project Compass group who urged her to drop a plan

to have some accepted students who need remedial help take a CCV course in the summer that

mirrored INT 1020. The students would still be required to take INT 1020 when they arrived at

Lyndon.

Financial crisis or not?

Chairs meeting, April 20, 2010

President and Dean announce a budget gap of approximately $750,000 given low enrollment

numbers and insufficient tuition increase granted by BOT; budget adjustment to be made largely by

cancelling existing courses for the fall. The administrations justification in the face of student

concern is to site a budget crisis.

State of the College address, Sept. 29, 2010

Dr. Moore chastised the Lyndon community for "the factually inaccurate categorization of Lyndon in

financial crisis."

Caledonian-Record, Nov. 6, 2010

Bob Whittaker, as quoted at a Northeast Kingdom Chamber of Commerce event: I wanted to begin

by assuring you that Lyndon is in a strong financial position, he said. With near-record enrollment,

record-high surpluses, new classrooms and new academic facilities we are in one of the strongest

financial positions we have been in during the past decade.


24/35


State of the College address, Feb. 8, 2011:

Dr Moore: I will note that the leading factors influencing my thinking are an imperative delivered by

the NEASC reaccreditation review team this past fall and the precarious financial realities that

presently define our existence.

Meeting with faculty representatives, March 18, 2011

Dr. Moore said she woke up to the financial situation in April of 2010 and began to react to it.

Student forum, March 30, 2011

Bob Whittaker, referring to his strong financial position statement in the Caledonian-Record: I

will stand by those words. That was in the context of a very public statement that we were in a

financial crisis. Right now we have a balanced budget because of the adjustments.

Dr. Moore interrupted him: Our budget will not be balanced until the end of the year. We went

into this year running a deficit. She said LSC had saved money in the year before the enrollment

decline, and she went to the Board of Trustees and asked permission to use that money to balance

the budget this year. But this years budget would not have balanced if we didnt have the foresight

to save some money earlier.

35:1 ratio of students to full-time faculty

The Strategic Plan, 2010-2013

The Strategic Goal of Human Resources presents as benchmark number 5: Strive to achieve a 17:1

student-to-faculty ratio.

Department chairs meeting, March 3, 2011

The student to faculty ration of 35 to 1 was No. 6 on a list of Target Guidelines for Enrollment

distributed to chairs.

Student forum, March 30, 2011

Beth Norris raised the issue of the 35:1 ratio, and Dr. Moore said the number was incorrect.


25/35


26/35


27/35


the general education program is the only exposure to the liberal arts that students in professional

programs have, we must be thoughtful about the content of the general education and we should

be looking at ways to enrich exposure to and participation in the arts and sciences outside the

classroom.

3. We should expand the liberal arts programs at the Lyndon.There were several sub-considerations under this general heading, such as:

Grow the liberal arts programs, because they are, relatively speaking, inexpensive to offer. We should increase the marketing of liberal arts programs to increase our overall

enrollment.

There is the need for free electives, such that students can explore other majors, giventhat many students change their major over the course of their four years.

General education and liberal arts electives are quite important for preparing students inprofessional programs who may likely change their career more than once over the course

of their lifetime.

We need to do a better job of selling the general education requirements to the studentsin professional programs internally.

If we only marketed our liberal arts majors more, students will come.o In response to the idea that expanding the liberal arts majors is a path to growing

our enrollment, one needs to consider the fact that students are not choosing

nationally (data to follow) to enroll in liberal arts majors, and the data is clear that

students are not now choosing Lyndon for liberal arts majors; to offer additional

liberal arts majors flies in the face of our historic data.

NOTE: See attachment for a brief overview of marketing strategies. Please attend

the December 7, 12:30-1:30 p.m. (Burke Mountain Room) session on

college/Lyndon marketing as a more in depth look at this topic will be presented;

you will have an opportunity to offer suggestions.

I would also note that trust and/or communication between the faculty and the administration wasraised. While I recognize the faculty want to further engage in that conversation, it is not timely at the

moment. Please note that as a result of our campuswide discussions during the past several months,

some changes have been made and we can continue the discussion as time and opportunity allow. But,

it cannot be our highest priority at the moment. Right now we must press forward aggressively with

reshaping our academic curriculum and our administrative processes. This is necessary now to ensure

that we balance our budget and strengthen our marketing position to potential new students over the

next 1-2 years, thereby positioning Lyndon for continued growth and change over the next several

years.

>

Darcie A. Miles

Executive Assistant to the President

Lyndon State College

PO Box 919, Lyndonville, VT 05851-0919

Tel.: 802.626.6404 / Fax: 802.626.4804

[email protected]

www.LyndonState.edu


28/35


B. Example: Academic Program ReviewThe president and members of the administration conducted academic program reviews over the

summer. The results of these reviews were then presented to departments as directives.

For example, in a meeting this past fall with members of the English Department, the Presidentrequested a plan from the department to move the journalism program to Electronic Journalism Arts

and reduce the remaining three majors to one by April 1. However, she requested this after a lengthy

explanation by one of the faculty members that currently the journalism program is an integral part of

the Journalism and Writing concentration and hence there is already only one majorin the department

a major that has two concentrations, each with two recommended tracks.

The department disputed the presidents conclusions and directives, which were based on a misreading

of the data she presented. The department pointed out that moving the journalism program really

meant eliminating a program that currently serves as a choice for students who do not choose Electronic

Journalism Arts, which in turn meant a loss of enrollments for the college. The department explained the

purpose and design of the liberal-arts based program, pointing out the highly positive Policy 101 reviews

of the program design and execution. The department also pointed out that the presidents data

actually showed healthy enrollments over many years; consistent numbers of graduates annually,

paralleling the graduates of the Atmospheric Sciences program; consistent enrollments in classes above

the average college-wide; a highly organized schedule allowing for delivering a curriculum matching any

in Vermont or the region with a small number of faculty already reduced by two full-time positions; and

highly successful graduates and an excellent placement record, including well-placed and successful

English Secondary Education graduates. Regardless of this information, President Moore's response at

the end of that meeting was: I havent heard anything that has changed my mind.

In another example,the President and Dean of Academic and Student Affairs met with members of the

Psychology & Human Services Department in November of 2010. During that meeting, there was no

indication that the administration felt that our full-time to part-time faculty ratio was unacceptable or

that we offered too many upper-level electives both items that have subsequently been presented as

fiscal obstacles. If those were issues, why wasnt the department informed of this a mere five months

ago?

The cuts proposed for both faculty and curricula offerings in this department contradict the

departments laudatory Policy 101 reviews (Section A) and undermine goals stated in the Lyndon

Strategic Plan 2010 2013 (Section B).

Section A

LSC BA Psychology Policy 101 Review Committee

Strengths:

- Wide variety of available courses- Experienced and capable faculty who communicate and work well together


29/35


LSC BS Human Services Policy 101 Review Committee

Faculty & Instruction:

o The full-time faculty is committed to teaching and insuring the continuity of theprograms core requirements. Currently the department employs very few part-

time faculty members.

o The variety of courses available.o Experienced, capable and collegial faculty

Recommendations:

o In reference to the specialized nature of our field work & internship placementprocesses and quality assurance procedures, reviewers recommended that our

department hire a full-time field coordinator in addition to existing faculty

members -- to manage our placement process.

Section B

Academic Program Learning and Quality - Goals:

o Promoting a vibrant intellectual climateo Attracting and nurturing a strong cadre of full-time and part-time faculty recognized

for excellence in teaching, professional activity and scholarship.

o Improving retention, graduation and career preparation and placement goals bydepartment

In regard to academic restructuring in the Math Department, during a meeting faculty members from

this department requested clarification of the Presidents claim that eliminating the math major would

save the college $145,000. After receiving none, they followed up in writing, after which they were

informed that the data was not available

C. Example: Course CancellationsCourse cuts were implemented by the administration in the spring of 2010 for the fall of 2010 without

input from faculty members. This lack of communication and informed decision-making resulted in an

atmosphere of chaos and extreme anxiety on the part of students (e.g., will the courses I need to

graduate be cancelled?). The President eventually admitted that this had been handled poorly and

apologized. The Faculty Federation then met with the administration to negotiate a change in the way

in which the President and Dean would communicate with the faculty in the future.

D. Example: Project CompassAt a recent meeting of Project Compass, the issue of using the CCV ICS course as a pilot bridge programwas raised. Most attendees at this meeting expected this to be a short conversation. At a previous

meeting, multiple objections to this idea were raised (e.g., not wanting to duplicate part of INT 1020; ICS

courses are designed for students in the 10th and 11th grade; success reported by CCV was based on a

very different target cohort than Lyndons proposed group). Due to these valid pedagogical concerns,

Project Compass members did not expect Lyndon to move ahead with the CCV ICS course. Apparently,

that was not to be the case. President Moore was called to join the meeting by speaker phone in order


30/35


to clarify these issues and ostensibly to give colleagues who should have been involved in the decision

making from the beginning an opportunity to weigh in.

Although President Moore stated she was prepared to listen, she proceeded to speak non-stop for

at least ten minutes, with the gist of her message being that the train had already left the station. As

is often the case, she stated that the decision needed to be made quickly. Additionally, she stated that

since it wasn't going to cost anything, and she couldn't see that it would cause any harm to anyone, she

had told CCV to proceed.

She then went on to explain how she came to this decision by stating that students didn't really

connect with anyone besides admissions in the first three or four months so that was why she had

focused previous conversations on the matter with Admissions. Such a position demonstrates both

ignorance of the supports and services new students receive at Lyndon and professional disrespect for

the staff and faculty members who devote significant time and resources to new students.

When a faculty member attempted to argue about the inappropriateness of the ICS course targeting

at-risk populations, citing many years of pedagogy to back up that position, President Moore

responded, Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to vehemently disagree.

President Moores determination to push this forward despite reasoned opposition is a very clear

example of unilateral decision making.

E. Example: Projected Growth in DepartmentsAt a recent Chairs meeting, academic departments were given new targets to increase enrollment for

2012-13. As an example, the Psychology & Human Services Department is being asked to increase

enrollment by 18 for the PSY major and by 8 for the HS major. Each department was given different

target numbers. There was no explanation for the target provided the English Department, which

actually asked for a decline in numbers. While there was some opportunity for Chairs to ask questions

about the target numbers, there was no invitation for collaboration on setting the targets. From where

did the target numbers arise? On what evidence/indicators are these numbers based? Who holds joint

responsibility for reaching these numbers?

F. Example: Early Retirement OptionsEarly retirement options presented to select senior faculty by the administration were both incomplete

and contradictory. The manner in which these offers were handled resulted in unnecessary anxiety and

anger campus-wide which has reverberated negatively in the public sphere (e.g., an article which

appeared in Inside Higher Ed:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/15/lyndon_state_college_faculty_feel_pressure_to_ret

ire_early)

Communicating with the faculty could have avoided these problems. Shortly after this option was

announced, it was clear to faculty members that the timing of the offers was il l-conceived and would

result in negative impacts on students. In conjunction with the union, retirement options that would

have originally taken effect this fall were pushed back one year to allow for the planned departure of

senior faculty and thus lessen the impact on students. Had all seven faculty members presented with

this retirement option taken it effective this fall, who would have taught their courses? What would

have become of the students in the education department as there would no longer be any faculty


31/35


members in the department? The administration did not think through the consequences of these

offers.

G. Example: How Genuine Communication Could Have Avoided the Costs of GrievancesPresident Moore reported that there were employer concerns about the Education Departments

graduates. These concerns were never substantiated. In response, the administration quickly formed acommittee of their colleagues and held a quasi-hearing over the holiday break in January 2010. The

Faculty Federation had to threaten legal action in order for the administration even to allow Education

Department faculty members to sit in and have an opportunity to respond at the very end. The

Federation filed a grievance over the arbitrary process that unfolded, and after months of negotiations

and hundreds of hour of work (and thousands of dollars of expense) for both sides the Faculty

Federation secured a very satisfactory common-sense settlement that delineates a much clearer and

fairer process by which the administration must address such allegations. The settlement came

approximately three days before the VSC administration and Faculty Federation were to argue the case

before the Vermont Labor Relations Board.


32/35


Communication

Fundamental disconnection between public statements for the purposes ofrecruitment and practices that devalue and diminish the faculty and the academic

programs

The Colleges web page About Lyndon includes a clear statement of two of the crucial featuresthat LSC markets to recruit students:

Great teacherswho actually teach. We can all recall the difference a great teacher has made in

our lives. Passionate, knowledgeable, and accessible: for Lyndons faculty, teaching is job one.

Lyndon students routinely form bonds with professors that last a lifetime.

The personal touch. Were generally on a first-name basis here at Lyndon. Our friendly, open

atmosphere is part of what makes this a great community to learn and grow in. One thing that

may surprise you when you land on campus is the large number of faculty and staff who

attended Lyndon. We love this school. Thats one reason why we care so much about the

College and the kind of experiences our students have.

Approaching faculty not as the intellectual capital of the institution, but as a cost, a liability, to be

reduced first under budget constraints belies the marketing message, not to mention the real value

of faculty and education. Moreover, reducing full-time faculty while increasing enrollments over a

number of years contradicts both the personal touch and the stated value of great teachers and

their impact. Finally, setting a goal of 35 to 1 for a student-to-faculty ratio is clearly opposed to the

recruitment message and to the coherence and value of the education we provide our students.

The same page also notes the value of liberal arts:

Liberal arts = flexibility. We value critical thinking, good communication skills, and a well-

rounded base of knowledge. All degree candidates choose from a core of courses in the arts,

humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Lyndon has degree programs in these

fields as well. Our innovative Explorations program is for students who want to explore their

options before choosing a major.

Such a statement conforms both to LSCs missionLyndon State College prepares every student for

personal and professional success through experience-based, high-quality programs in the liberalarts and professional studiesbut also the VSC mission to provide affordable, high quality, student-

centered and accessible education, fully integrating professional, liberal, and career study.

However:

The presidents program to reinvent Lyndon specifically as a professional college alone(rather than a premier comprehensive college as our Strategic Plan Vision Statement puts

it) belies our mission and the VSC mission

The presidents effort to restructure personnel and programs reduces the emphasis on andsupport both for Liberal Arts programs and for the valued Explorations program by

eliminating the comprehensive breadth of our range of courses and programs

Top-down course reductions and academic program reviews designed to reduce costs byreducing faculty and offerings belie the very flexibility marketed above and devalue the skillsassociated with that flexibility

Narrowing the mission and market of the college, despite what we say about ourselves,serves only to make it far more difficult to achieve the recruitment and retention clearly

necessary for the success of our Strategic Plan.


33/35


Appendix D: Personnel ManagementPersonnel Management

Subverting LSC and VSC governance processes and labor relationsRecords of the VSC Faculty Federation's Delegate Assembly indicate that for more than three years,

the Lyndon State College Chapter has filed more Requests for Special Conferences (pre grievancediscussions) and more Step One (campus-level) grievances than have our colleagues at Castleton

State College, Johnson State College and Vermont Technical College. These records also indicate and

John Howard, a field representative for the United Professions of Vermont, AFT Local 3180 confirms,

that LSC has filed more Step Two (Chancellor/Central Office-level) grievances and more grievances

with the Vermont Labor Relations Board than have the three other campuses combined. Generally

speaking, these grievances were filed to protect academic governance at both the department and

Faculty Assembly levels, the rights and responsibilities of department chairpersons, and fair and

equitable treatment of individual faculty under the terms and conditions of the VSC-VSC Faculty

Federation Agreement.

Although the Federation and LSC administration and VSC administration have negotiated

settlements to some very vexing issues, the fact remains that these settlements would not havecome about had the Federation not opposed Dr. Moore's arbitrary management practices. Some

examples follow:

1. President Moore reported that there were employer concerns about the EducationDepartment's graduates. These concerns were never substantiated. In response, the

administration quickly formed a committee of their colleagues and held a quasi-hearing over

the holiday break in January, 2010. The Faculty Federation had to threaten legal action in

order for the administration even to allow Education Department faculty members to sit in

and have an opportunity to respond at the very end. The Federation filed a grievance over

the arbitrary process that unfolded, and after months of negotiations and hundreds of hours

of work (and thousands of dollars of expenses for both sides) the Faculty Federation secured

a very satisfactory common-sense settlement that delineates a much clearer and fair

process by which the administration must address such allegations. The settlement cameapproximately three days before both sides were to argue the case before the Vermont

Labor Relations Board.

2. In April of 2010, President Moore and the LSC administration abruptly canceled manyclasses for the Fall 2010 semester. Faculty were taken unawares and generally believed that

they had not been included in any decision making either as individual instructors or as

members of their departments. Students were also surprised and felt threatened by the

breadth and depth of the cuts and speed at which changes were made. The LSC Chapter of

the VSC Faculty Federation filed a grievance on April 28, 2010, and approximately four

months later (August 15, 2010), once again secured a very satisfactory common-sense

settlement that delineates a much clearer and fair process by which the administration must

address course scheduling. One must note that the administration had to reinstate many ofit canceled courses and sections of course in response to student need.

3. President Moore and her administration have conducted department-by-departmentreviews of course offerings, programs and majors without going through the Faculty

Assembly. And in so doing, they have replicated the program review policies of the Vermont

State Colleges Board of Trustees (i.e. Policy 101 and Policy 109) thereby adding layers of

duplicative work and increasing stress.

4. The Faculty Federation has successfully negotiated satisfactory settlements to personnelmatters that it and the faculty member alleged were improperly handled.


34/35



Increasing administrative personnel and overhead, undermining efforts to achieveeconomies of scale

See under Fiscal Management and Strategic Planning, especially

Lack of due diligence: without projecting effects on enrollment and retention, resourceshave been significantly shifted from instructional to institutional costs Repeated (three in 12 years) fiscal crises resolved by personnel cuts Current budget projections and the strategy for reducing costs contradict goals of the 2010-

2013 Strategic Plan

Fundamental misunderstanding of the failure of a recruitment strategy that narrows LSCsmission and market


35/35


Current upheaval was both unnecessary and a complete failure of personnelmanagement

The current effort to achieve structural reductions in the budget to forestall a projected deficit two

years out has generated an unfortunate public debate, which the faculty has deliberately tried toavoid as much as possible. But serious student concern and a public protest were initiated by the

means by which the retirement incentive was offered to seven senior faculty. This upheaval could

certainly have been avoided. The incentive could have been offered without alienating faculty and

studentsand without the consequent difficulties for recruitment and retention. In covering the

story, Inside Higher Edpresented the following:

As John Curtis, director of research and public policy at the American Association of

University Professors, said retirement incentive offers should never be made to

individuals alone. Instead, he said the faculty union and the college administration

should work together to frame a plan that can be presented to qualified faculty

members jointly and without surprise.

Also, Curtis said the pitch should be made broadly as one strategy to address a

financial situation at a college and not the sole strategy for doing so.

It shouldnt be presented to individuals as a choice: either take this or someone

else gets laid off, Curtis said. Really, the phrase or else shouldnt come into the

situation. Its unfair to put an individual into that spot and link their own

employment with the financial situation of the college.

Unfortunately, the president did choose this approach. However, had she simply presented the

retirement incentive as one option, the community would not be presented with the or else.

President Moore could, in fact, have chosen to pursue administrative restructuring, which is

something she could accomplish quietly and efficiently, as she is not bound there by contractual

obligations that serve the interests of and are negotiated to and agreed upon by both the VSC and

faculty. Moreover, those structural reductions would have achieved the highest cost savings while

affecting the fewest number of people and having the least direct impact on students. Ultimately,such a path would have both served the college and its students best and presented the best public

image to serve the purposes of recruitment and retention.

Documents

Overview-Appendices FA 4-12-11