Charge to the Task Force on Restructuring (TFR)

MEMORANDUM

Date: October 6, 2003
To: Task Force on Restructuring Members
From: Michael Spitzer, Provost
Subject: Charge to the Task Force on Restructuring (TFR)

Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Task Force on Restructuring (TFR). The work of this task force can have a major impact on how the university functions for many years to come. I recognize that the process of considering changes to our academic structure can be unsettling to some people. The easy course of action is to leave things as they are. However, the university faces a new reality, with reduced funding from the state and increasing competition for qualified students from other institutions. It is, therefore, imperative that we improve how we serve our students, whether we make significant organizational changes or decide to leave things pretty much the way they are today. I trust that you, the members of the TFR, will look beyond your own vested interests and focus on what is best for the university now and in the future.

Context

The last major reorganization of academic units at SCSU occurred in 1984 in response to a process initiated by then-President McDonald. At the time, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences was divided into the College of Science and Technology (later renamed the College of Science and Engineering) and the College of Social Sciences, the humanities were joined with fine arts, forming the College of Fine Arts and Humanities, and the College of Industry was subsumed into the College of Science and Technology. (A review of university archives reveals that most of the responses to the proposal were negative.)

During Spring semester of 2003, the resignation of two deans presented an opportunity for SCSU to again consider whether reorganizing academic units might lead to improvements and greater efficiencies in the operation of the university. On April 6-8, 2003, two consultants visited the campus and met with various constituencies. In a report they submitted the next week, they outlined several options for the university to consider. Their report was published on the web for everyone at the university to read and discuss.

As the consultants, Ken Mortimer and Kalyan Ghosh, wrote:

The organization of Academic Affairs should reflect the basic themes and values of the academic and student support plan in achieving the students’ intellectual and personal development. The principal theme of a quality academic experience, optimum student process and fair and equitable campus processes are key factors here.

Two other consultants, Geoffrey Maruyama and Margaret Healy reviewed academic and student support services provided by the university and submitted recommendations for strengthening the services we offer. In addition, the pending renovation of Centennial Hall provides an opportunity for us to think about how we might best configure the offices that provide student and academic support to take advantage of co-locating these functions.

In considering the options presented by all these consultants (and the numerous possible variations on these options), please keep in mind that the goal of this task is to improve efficiency and effectiveness in providing educational programs and support services. Eliminating academic departments and/or faculty positions is beyond the purview of the TFR. Please focus on organizational matters and not the individuals occupying particular positions. And please do not submit recommendations that increase the cost of administering the university.

My office has prepared materials to assist you in your deliberations: the consultants’ reports, some data on enrollment and retention, a description of the staffing in the current college offices and the departments housed in each college, a description of the MnSCU transfer curriculum and SCSU General Education requirements, responses by students to various survey instruments, and a brief report by Assistant Vice President Opatz. Should the task force desire additional information, my office will try to provide it. Rex Veeder will serve as the contact person.

Committee Charge

In responding to the consultants’ reports and in considering the most appropriate structure for SCSU, please address the following concerns as you evaluate various configurations:

1. How will this organizational structure enable SCSU to best accommodate the needs of all students?
2. How will this organizational structure support the revision of our general education program so that it is coherent and effective?
3. How will this organizational structure support a more effective advising system, especially for undecided students?
4. How will this organizational structure support the development of an effective and comprehensive first-year experience?
5. How will this organizational structure yield fair and consistent expectations and procedures for evaluation, promotion, and tenure decisions?
6. How will this organizational structure permit the greatest integration between academic programs and the academic and student services that support academic programs?
7. How will the configuration of deans and associate deans of this organizational structure support the university’s academic mission?

I would prefer that you identify options and the pros and cons of each option. The options should address three elements: the organization of the colleges, the organizational structure of academic and student support services, and the structure of the Office of Academic Affairs.

I ask that you complete your work by mid-November. This will permit the university to decide upon a course of action with sufficient time to advertise and recruit personnel for the 2004-2005 academic year-whether that recruitment entails finding candidates for new positions or filling positions now held by interim appointees.

The task before you is an important one, as it will impact the way the university operates for many years. Thank you for your willingness to undertake this task.

cc: President Saigo