The AFUM Delegate Assembly will meet on Saturday, April 10, 2010, at Jeff's Catering in Brewer. See http://jeffscatering.com for directions.

Coffee and continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 am, and the meeting begins at 10 am. Lunch will be provided. We usually adjourn soon after lunch.

For the first time in decades, we will meet in conjunction with ACSUM and UMPSA. All three groups will share a joint luncheon, with Maine Senate President Elizabeth "Libby" Mitchell as the keynote speaker. The meal is sponsored by Horace Mann Insurance.

The Delegate Assembly, consisting of representatives from each university and the Cooperative Extension, is AFUM's highest governing body. It elects officers, establishes the budget, and determines AFUM policies.

Please join us. To participate, contact your chapter president. See you there!

October 30, 2009

To Chancellor Pattenaude and the Board of Trustees:

The AFUM Executive Board requested that I write this letter conveying comments by AFUM leadership on “The Final Report and Implementation Plan of the New Challenges, New Directions Initiative.” These comments also apply to the processes used in this initiative and the three Arena reports that are included by reference in the above report. The AFUM Executive Board has met several times to discuss these matters, and these comments represent the thoughts of faculty representatives of each of the universities.

The NCND initiative is being pursued in a generally more inclusive and open manner than previous UMS strategic planning work. We appreciate and applaud your efforts in establishing this more positive environment. The meetings and deliberations of the Arena Three Task Force were especially transparent. However, the levels of engagement and participation of stakeholders in Arenas One and Two were very limited, while implementation of their recommendations would have significant and far-reaching strategic and academic consequences. We recommend the use of a more transparent process in all aspects of NCND as the initiative goes forward.

We believe that the implementation plan overemphasizes cost-cutting while giving insufficient attention to other strategic goals such as the public agenda and the quality of UMS education. Taken as a whole, the plan combines severe expense and personnel reductions with increased enrollments. We seriously question the System’s ability to cut its way to growth.

Principles of accountability and the need for assessment will require the use of metrics, but the standards must be appropriate and rationally related to the intended results. An example of a needed adjustment may be found in the Arena One report’s discussion of financial aid (Appendix H, page 11), in which one measure discourages recruitment of “profitable” students. Also, staffing metrics should measure administrative staffing in addition to student-faculty ratios. Our core mission is instruction, not administration, and reductions affecting academics must include administration.

In addition to numeric measures, a successful plan will consider numerous qualitative factors. For example, the Public Agenda and the missions of the UMS and its institutions will indicate the need for some relatively more costly academic programs that metrics alone would discourage. The more costly, but necessary, programs extend beyond the STEM disciplines that are already identified for special emphasis. Also, as the “12/5 rule” focuses attention on low-enrolled courses and programs, it must be balanced with other factors such as those mentioned above for overall success of the plan.

Where metrics are used, the associated numeric data must be accurate. We have pointed out some discrepancies in the arena reports, and we are concerned regarding the ongoing potential for substantive decisions based on inaccurate data.

A Strategic Investment Fund would help the UMS and the universities to realize strategic goals and further the Public Agenda. However, we discourage the implementation of this fund in the current critical fiscal environment. Most of our university budgets currently are severely strained, and all face further revenue reductions. Even though strategic investments would flow to the universities, the funds would come out of budgets that are already at the tipping point. We recommend delaying this feature of the plan until new funds are available. The universities already engage in similar efforts when they reallocate resources to realign course and program offerings.

One of the most important components of the Public Agenda must be to raise the level of post-secondary educational attainment in Maine. The UMS plan should emphasize this measure and begin the discussion of specific targets. Properly presented, such discussion would be perceived as a demonstration of leadership rather than an attempt to steer the agenda. We hope that the final agenda includes the level of State support for the System.

Finally, we recommend that further NCND efforts fully utilize the shared governance process. Faculty governance units must be involved in all aspects of the NCND initiative as it moves forward. We face fundamental and crucial strategic and academic policy issues. Most details of the plan remain to be determined. Successful implementation requires that the faculty participate in the setting of priorities and directions. The faculty should share in the ownership of the plan and its implementation.

We offer the foregoing comments in hopes of cooperating with the administration on a positive basis in future development of the NCND plan and its implementation. We stand ready to assist in these ongoing efforts.

Very truly yours,

Ron Mosley

Ronald A. Mosley
President, AFUM