Time for a Change at WSU

Forum Post

The following statement was drafted by a group of senior WSU faculty who are deeply concerned about the future of WSU and the University’s leadership. They wish to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Faculty may have already been forwarded an email with the statement along with an associated URL to an anonymous survey. The survey is measuring whether or not faculty agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed in the statement. Because the Faculty Forum may not be the best mechanism for collecting such survey data, the URL has been removed. However, the statement has already enlisted substantial support, and the group urges the Faculty Senate to take up this issue. Because system-wide communications flow through the Administration, the Faculty Senate is the only current outlet that WSU faculty have for efficiently communicating with each other and pressing for real and substantial shared governance. The statement reads as follows:

“WSU is a proud, historically accomplished Land-Grant University that has served the state and nation well since its inception in 1890. It is both a research-intensive university and an institution that provides stellar educational opportunities and a personalized university experience. However, as detailed below, by most critical measures WSU’s stature has declined precipitously under the current leadership. Immediate change in the form of fresh visionary leadership that invests in and empowers academic and research excellence is essential.

Declining Reputation and Ranking: Universities live and die by their reputations, and national rankings directly impact student enrollment. For example, in rankings published by US News & World Report, WSU’s national ranking has fallen by an alarming 38 positions from 2016 to 2024 (from #140 to #178). Ironically, this decline occurred during the WSU “Drive to 25” campaign launched by the current administration in 2016. The campaign was “sunsetted” in 2022 and the goal – seeing WSU ranked among the top 25 public universities by 2030 – clearly was not achieved. WSU’s national ranking declined from 71st in 2016 to 96th among public universities in 2024. In step with the decline in national reputation, enrollment on WSU’s main Pullman campus has fallen by nearly16% since 2016, and systemwide enrollment has reached the lowest level since 2010, falling by over 12% (based on the fall 2023 census).

Poor Strategic Vision: In the face of falling rankings and reputation, and lack of progress on the “Drive to 25” campaign, WSU leadership shifted its strategic goals to establishing a “OneWSU” system, with the goal of ensuring that “The quality of a Washington State University degree will be the same at all campuses throughout the statewide system. All graduates earn a WSU diploma with no campus designation.” WSU is a research-intensive university with affiliated regional campuses that currently have purposeful and proportionately different levels of teaching, research, and service responsibilities. Other universities having campuses with differential responsibilities distinguish between campuses, e.g., UW Seattle is ranked separately from UW Tacoma and UW Bothell. WSU’s current implementation of the “system” approach naturally leads to averaged or merged reputation and rankings. In implementing such a strategy, careful analysis needs to occur regarding how to address national trends affecting enrollment increases on main campuses and enrollment declines on regional campuses, and for a variety of complex reasons. WSU cannot remain dedicated to fortifying a one system model without a well-defined and clearly articulated plan for optimal distribution of resources across the differential teaching, research, and service responsibilities across campuses. Such a plan is critical for addressing national enrollment trends and market demand for educational experiences, as well as to address WSU’s depressed rankings and reputation.

Deficient Leadership of Athletics: The lack of attention, judgement and proactive leadership of the athletics program has inflicted deep financial and reputational harm. The WSU administration should have been more adept at anticipating the changing landscape of college athletics rather than being “shocked” to receive the news that Oregon and Washington were leaving the Pac-12, followed by the mass exodus of all but two remaining Pac-12 teams. The Provost and Pullman Chancellor, a person with scant experience in NCAA athletics, was inexplicably delegated responsibility for overseeing WSU athletics. Members of the WSU leadership with substantial knowledge of the workings of NCAA athletics whose experience could have mitigated the looming Pac-12 disaster were noticeably absent.

Deficient Procurement and Management of University Resources: WSU reportedly received record setting private giving in 2023, with donations totaling $167.9 million. By comparison with the 2016 total of $129.5 million, this seems like welcome success. However, price inflation rose by 27% during this period, decreasing the actual purchasing power of the funds such that the actual increase is only 2%. Coupled with the level of state funding that the administration was able to secure over this period, university resources have been notably insufficient to maintain operations. The deficiencies have been addressed by successive across-the-board (rather than strategic) budget cuts to academic departments; a 10% reduction in FY21, 7.5% in FY22, and cumulative permanent cuts of 2.5% in FY23 and an announced 6% cut for FY24. Moreover, college deans were recently instructed to prepare for yet an additional budget cut of 5% in the coming fiscal year FY25. Inflation has created problems nationwide, but funding problems at WSU have been worsened by the failure of the administration to secure sufficient funding, failure to make strategic reductions to address funding deficiencies, and the added expenses imposed by fortifying the “OneWSU” program, i.e., funds in support of administration, operations, programs, and other infrastructural needs on regional campuses.

Financial obligations created by senior administration provide a striking example of perplexing allocations of resources: The President’s Office in the main administration building on the Pullman campus was closed and moved to rented, renovated office space in downtown Pullman. Shortly thereafter, the President moved from Pullman to a residence at the regional Tri-Cities campus. In addition to costs associated with multiple residential transitions, the President’s House was vacated, its name changed to the Ida Lou Anderson House, and its century-long purpose abandoned; it is now the residence of the Pullman Chancellor. These actions raise concerns about the President’s visibility on and understanding of the WSU’s main Pullman campus and the Spokane Medical School/Health Sciences campus. The recent creation of the position of Chancellor of Pullman adds to this concern. The rationale for the position is unclear, but in essence, the Chancellor has assumed duties that were performed by the President of WSU for over 125 years. Further, in addition to assuming Presidential duties on the Pullman campus, the Chancellor retained the responsibilities of Provost. This has substantially diminished the critical position of WSU Provost, the Chief Academic Officer of the university, because the newly appointed Chancellor was required to retain the responsibilities of Provost. Given the large size and complexity of the Pullman campus, the new Chancellor’s responsibilities for the Pullman Campus fully eclipse any efficacious role as Provost and leave academic programs at WSU without effective leadership. The recent solution of hiring another new top-level administrator, necessitated by the previous Provost funding line being utilized to support the newly created Chancellor position, significantly adds to WSU’s financial burdens, which as of one year ago, was a position with a salary of $460,000.

Declining Faculty and Staff Morale: WSU’s senior administration has received strikingly poor evaluations from its faculty and staff in all three recent campus climate surveys (see the survey data addendum). The evaluations are deeply critical of the leadership, operations, and strategic direction of the university. Diminished support for academic programs already has resulted in some of WSU’s most accomplished faculty members deciding to leave for positions at other universities. Surprisingly, in the face of this repeated criticism, this week the administration announced yet another (the fourth) survey and encouraged faculty and staff to participate.

Administrative Oversight of the WSU Board of Regents: The Board of Regents (BOR) is appointed by the Governor as the “university’s governing body whose broad responsibilities are to supervise, coordinate, manage and regulate the WSU system, as provided by state statute.” To pursue its responsibilities effectively, the Regents should regularly seek and welcome opinions and perspectives from the university community. Feedback and information flow to the Regents, however, is carefully controlled and must first pass through the Office of the President. Faculty and staff are expressly forbidden to communicate directly to the BOR. The agenda for each BOR meeting is created by the President’s Office, agenda and discussion items can only be submitted by a University official, and data provided to the Regents regarding WSU’s performance is overseen by WSU leadership. This level of administrative control discourages negative but constructive feedback from faculty and staff about senior administration, concerns, or other matters from reaching the BOR. Additional details relating to restrictions on engaging with the Regents are provided in the Addendum.

As highly concerned members of the WSU faculty, we believe this is a critical juncture for WSU and change is vital. WSU needs new vision, inspired leadership, and a new administrative structure that:
• will implement effective strategies that bolster the academic and research excellence of WSU, along with its associated reputation and ranking
• understands the key factors that influence enrollment and invests sufficiently in recruitment efforts to increase it
• prioritizes investment in academic programs, increasing rather than incessantly decreasing the financial support provided
• implements meticulous stewardship of university resources to make optimal use of them

The need for change extends to the WSU Board of Regents charged with overseeing the operations of WSU and holding leadership accountable for their performance. A BOR that functions in a cloistered environment, opts for the status quo, and doesn’t engage with the broader WSU community cannot address the university’s myriad growing challenges in an informed and effective manner.

It is not too late to address the challenges. WSU can maintain its reputation as a prominent research-intensive university and offer students a stellar educational experience well into the 21st century.

But it is time for a change at WSU.

*******************************************************************************
Faculty Survey Data Addendum: Assessment of Senior Leadership

Data presented in this addendum refer to responses to questions relating to senior leadership at WSU obtained from three surveys of WSU faculty and staff that were taken in 2022 and 2023.

Internal WSU Human Resource Services (HRS) Employee Engagement Survey
• Only 18% of faculty felt they were at least often heard by system leadership.
• Only 18% of faculty felt that decision making by system leadership was at least often transparent.
• Only 33% of staff felt they were at least often heard by system leadership.
• Only 31% of staff felt that decision making by system leadership was at least often transparent.

External Survey by the Independent Market Analysis Firm BVK
• Only 4% of faculty and 2% of staff fully agree, and only 13% of faculty and 20% of staff somewhat agree that WSU is an efficiently run organization.
• Only 9% of faculty and 10% of staff fully agree that WSU portrays a reputation of academic excellence.
• Faculty and staff have a negative NPS (net promoter score) for WSU when, from a brand perspective, these individuals should be WSU’s brand ambassadors.
• Only 25% of faculty, and 32% of staff can be considered as “promoters” of WSU.
• Only 6% of faculty and 8% of staff believe the overall reputation of WSU is excellent.

Survey by the National Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACH)
• Mandated by the state to support a better understanding and initiate plans for improving the quality of work-life for faculty.
• Senior leadership (president, provost, chancellors) experienced a nearly 3% decline in satisfaction rating since the 2014 survey.
• Overall, 2022 rating was a striking 15% below universities in the COACHE cohort group.
• An alarmingly low 25% of faculty were satisfied or very satisfied with leadership.
• Scores for trust, pace of decision making, defining priorities, and communication of priorities were all low and very concerning.

WSU Board of Regents (BOR) and Restrictions on Engagement

• By state statute RCW 28B.30.150, the Regents on the BOR:

• Have full control of the university and its property of various kinds, except as otherwise provided by law.
• Employ the president of the university, his or her assistants, members of the faculty, and employees of the university, who, except as otherwise provided by law, shall hold their positions during the pleasure of said board of regents.
• Feedback and information flow to the BOR is strictly controlled.
• Guidelines expressly prohibit faculty and staff from communicating directly to the BOR, and instead communications must pass first through the Office of the President.
  • “No University officer, faculty, staff, or other employee or student of the University shall submit any matter to the Board for official consideration except as provided by the guidelines …”
  • “Agenda items may be submitted only by an appropriate University official…”
• The agenda before the BOR is devised by the President’s Office, and information about performance and progress towards goals is reported to the BOR by the WSU administration itself
• Any public comment at BOR meetings is tightly controlled and constrained.
  • “ … the public comment period will be for ten (10) minutes, with a two-minute (2-minute) limit per speaker, and will occur at the end of the Board meeting.”

~Anonymous Faculty

Response

Update 2/26/24: On behalf of the Council of Faculty Representatives on the Vancouver Campus, please see the letter received (PDF) by the faculty senate executive committee.

The Faculty Senate Executive Officers have received statements from both WSU President Kirk Schulz (PDF) and the WSU Board of Regents (PDF) Executive Committee in response to the forum post above.

Comment