 
|
UUP's response to BU Revised Draft Strategic Plan
February 11, 2005
Provost Swain,
UUP Binghamton is pleased to respond to the latest version of Binghamton University’s draft Strategic Plan, “Excellence in a Climate of Change” and “Implementing Our Strategies: A Roadmap to the Future.” Some of our comments are the same as those stated in our letter to you of September 29, 2004, in response to the original draft, “Sustaining Excellence in a Climate of Change: Our Roadmap for the Future,” because the revised draft does not appear to address some of our original concerns.
- We still do not have a clear idea of what the administration’s plan is for total student enrollment five years from now. Some estimate can be obtained from the specifics in the new draft plan (600 faculty, 20:1 student (undergraduate? undergraduate + graduate?):faculty (full time?) ratio; 3:1 undergraduate:graduate student ratio could give a student body of about 16,000 (?)). The administration must have some idea of the size it wants Binghamton University to be in five years, and this information should be stated explicitly in the Strategic Plan. Our members have expressed a clear preference (80%) that the total student body be in the range 12,500-17,500 students, and a undergraduate:graduate student ratio in the range of 4:1 to 3:1.
- The specific statement of increasing the number of faculty by 20% is welcome, but needs clarification. Is this increase for full-time faculty, or total faculty (full-time + part-time)? If it is full-time + part-time, what is the expected breakdown of the new hires in terms of full-time and part-time? Our members expressed a clear preference that the number of full-time faculty be increased.
- The specific statement of achieving a student:faculty ratio of 20:1 needs clarification. The university reports that the overall student:faculty ratio is about 20.2:1 (Fall 2003 data), so it appears that the goal of 20:1 has already been attained. Does the Strategic Planning Council mean full-time faculty in the student:faculty ratio of 20:1? Or is it suggesting this is the maximum in any one department or school? Our members have stated that this ratio should be in the range of 15:1 to 16:1.
- Identification of resources and their allocation is still vague in the revised Strategic Plan. The plan includes calls for an ambitious five-year program of increasing faculty by 20%, with its attendant start-up packages, support staff, and physical space; an increase in the number of graduate students and in their stipends; and development of additional research space. These initiatives will require additional resources. A strategic plan should address where these resources will come from, where they will be allocated, and whether there will be any reallocation of existing resources. The credibility of the Strategic Plan would be greatly enhanced if these resource issues are addressed explicitly.
- In our UUP Vision Survey, in focus groups, and in meetings with faculty and staff, our members have consistently expressed the need for a shoring up of the basic teaching infrastructure at Binghamton University; for example, our members need more and better suited classroom space, restoration of S&E funds, and equipment for classrooms. The Strategic Plan does not address these core infrastructure needs.
- Our members have unambiguously told us that Binghamton University should be known for its teaching. The emphasis of the original Strategic Plan was in new initiatives, infrastructure, and rewards for research. The revised Strategic Plan does not change the emphasis from research to teaching.
- We applaud the university’s goal of increasing partnerships with business, educational, governmental and not-for-profit organizations but don’t understand how these will be measured or the context of those partnerships. It would seem logical to include internship programs in such partnerships but would you also include groups that come to campus for tours or public events like athletic events or Theatre Dept. performances? These should be clarified in this plan.
- You note in several places the university’s plan to create an environment where individuals are “appreciated,” professional development is a “priority,” “sensitivity to diversity” is encouraged, supervisors and managers have “formal preparation” in those roles and “promotional opportunities” and recognition should be developed. We applaud these efforts and will work with the university in any way we can to implement these goals.
- We are still concerned with the suggestions related to moving away from the traditional departmental and school structure, e.g., allowing faculty to “self-organize.” We are not opposed, a priori, to these efforts but caution the university of their impact on such activities as re-appointment, Continuing Appointment and promotion decisions as well as budget allocations and teaching loads.
- Again, our members clearly noted in their Vision Survey responses that increased interaction with students is something they see as essential in their role here.
- Those same responses emphasized the university’s role in the local community.
- How will the plan to expand educational opportunities, i.e., new programs in education, law, public affairs, etc., be funded? Are there additional funds that the university could tap without harm to current programs? Where would these programs be housed with the current space crunch? What teaching spaces would be available? These questions must be answered now since the draft talks about “when” not “whether.”
- The draft talks about “reward[ing] faculty and staff resourcefulness and creativity.” No mention is made either of what these rewards might be nor of their source funding. Will this be a re-direction of the negotiated Discretionary Salary Increases or are there other sources the university could go to?
- It is suggested faculty with common interests could purchase and maintain equipment and facilities. The document goes on to indicate those groups would be responsible for operational and maintenance costs of these facilities. This would create a mirror bureaucratic structure to carry out these activities. In addition, inefficient use of these facilities could result if faculty who would need these facilities only occasionally are excluded from access because funding is not available to them.
- The proposal to “recognize interdisciplinary research efforts” appears to be another denigration of teaching. Our members, 57%, indicated that Binghamton should be known for its teaching.
- We continue to strongly support the university’s plans to not only establish plans in each division to carry out the university’s mission and disseminate them but also to evaluate them annually.
In conclusion, while this revised document responded to some of the issues we originally raised, it does not address a number of very large issues. The major one is how many of these initiatives will be funded. Research directed funding will not solve our problems. Neither will a strong comprehensive gifts campaign. If we cannot convince the state government to properly fund our needs, the only other option appears to be cannibalization.
How will we reach these lofty goals?
Go back to Main page
|
|
