The recent proposal to restructure the University of Massachusetts system, otherwise known as the One University Plan, has created a stir among the Faculty Senate and other faculty members at the Amherst campus.
The proposal, which aims to centralize the five UMass campuses, has already been approved by University President Jack Wilson and the Board of Trustees. One model in particular draws most of the opposition: a proposal to combine the President and the Chancellor into one office.
“My opinion is that the One University Plan as a complete plan is essentially ‘dead on arrival,'” said Faculty Senate Secretary Ernest May, “but the Board of Trustees and President’s office continue to attempt to implement pieces of it through management by ‘fait accompli.'”
The One University Plan was proposed at the end of the spring 2007 semester, when Wilson addressed a letter to the UMass community outlining the strengths and benefits of the idea. Wilson also noted changes at the UMass campuses, including the ascension of Michael F. Collins, M.D., as the University-wide senior vice president for health services, J. Keith Motley, Ph.D., as the chancellor of UMass Boston, and UMass Amherst Chancellor John Lombardi’s decision to retire after the 2007-2008 school year.
Meanwhile, at the same time of Wilson’s letter, Chancellor Lombardi sent a brief update to faculty about his plan to extend his term for one more year to help the president facilitate the transition to the new management.
“As part of the transformation of the UMass system into a strong University with a flagship campus in Amherst, the University will need to restructure its management of the Amherst campus to ensure that the president is directly involved and engaged in the activities of the flagship campus,” Lombardi wrote in the letter.
Shortly after Wilson’s and Lombardi’s address to their colleagues, the Faculty Senate met to discuss the University’s future. Wilson began the meeting, urging Senate members to go by the information in the letters, rather than what was being written in newspapers at the time, such as headlines in the Daily Hampshire Gazette reading “Lombardi in, Wilson out.”
Wilson also urged members of the Senate to “give it a shot over the next year,” and to “try to work out a plan.” He then took questions from members who clearly had strong opposition to the model. Finally, a vote for the proposal resulted in a “no-confidence” vote from the Faculty Senate and the trustees.
“The Faculty Senate’s position is that, whether particular centralization initiatives may eventually be deemed desirable or undesirable, the central administration is required by the Wellman document, as an aspect of shared governance, to discuss such proposals with the Faculty Senate and other constituencies prior to attempted implementation,” said Secretary May. “That is one of the primary reasons that the general Faculty voted ‘no-confidence’ last spring.”
All of the members of the Faculty Senate were asked about their opinion on this matter; however, many felt it too sensitive a subject to discuss at this time. The next Senate meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 21.
