Forum Post
Over decades, we have admired the dedication of hundreds of colleagues as they built a thriving WSU Vancouver Campus serving the people of Southwest Washington. Instructors have trained new generations of skilled professionals and informed citizens who have gone on to contribute to the local economy and community. Researchers have developed new knowledge with benefits for Southwest Washington, the wider state, and beyond. Staff have efficiently provided the outstanding and essential support on which the institution is founded.
In its short tenure, the new WSU central administration has substantially damaged Vancouver’s once-thriving campus. Morale has rapidly dropped to its lowest level in decades, perhaps its lowest level ever. Staff are awaiting news of mass layoffs with justified fear. Star faculty are seeking jobs elsewhere. The administration has acted with such speed that many across the WSU system may not yet have comprehended what is happening. We are sharing our concerns, partly to defend the campus where we have worked through decades, but also to warn of the dangers posed to the wider system.
The damage to Vancouver was chosen by the central administration, not forced by the State legislature. The State legislature imposed only a small cut (the various numbers given do not exceed 2% of the total systemwide core budget). We can absorb such cuts with limited damage by working together across the system – we have done so many times. But the central administration chose to concentrate the majority of the systemwide cut on the Vancouver campus. Given Vancouver’s small size, this choice is devastating. When compounded with last year’s cut, Vancouver’s core budget has been cut 23% in two years. If we add the current administration’s decision to tax positive balances, which in Vancouver were built through many years of conservative budgeting, total annual withdrawals approach 29%. Exacerbating the damage even further is the fact that Vancouver had already worked hard, prior to the cuts described above, to balance its budget after the enrollment declines associated with Covid (Vancouver and systemwide declines were similar). Coming on top of the already-constrained budgeting, the large and focused cuts suggest a fundamental shift from WSU’s long-standing “one-university, geographically dispersed” policy. Many in Vancouver are even voicing the fear of a death spiral.
So, the administration has chosen to concentrate large cuts on a small campus, rather than distribute small cuts across a much larger system. Logically, you might then expect this to be justified by comparing Vancouver metrics with systemwide metrics. This has not been attempted. Even a brief examination of systemwide enrollment and budget metrics suggest that such analysis, if conducted with transparency, would not support Vancouver cuts of this magnitude. Instead, the administration has cherry-picked comparisons with even smaller campuses such as Tri Cities. Now, Tri Cities provides the system with outstanding research opportunities, and appears to have achieved particularly efficient education. We could honor Tri Cities for this, and ask whether they deserve more support. Instead, the administration is using Tri Cities, which it has cut, to justify cuts to other campuses.
It may be valuable to draw on local knowledge before instituting such a shift in statewide policy. Instead, in less than 1.5 years, most Southwest Washington representation in top-level budget decisions has been removed. Vancouver Chancellor Mel Netzhammer has gone, and his position has been eliminated. Vancouver Vice-Chancellor for Finance Jennifer Chambers-Taube has gone, and her position has been eliminated. Vancouver Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Renny Christopher has been removed. The Vancouver Campus Advisory Board appears to have stopped meeting. Sandra Haynes, who has taken many of Netzhammer’s responsibilities, appears very capable. However, she must split her time across the state, and her recent arrival in Vancouver inevitably limits her knowledge. Similarly, Damien Sinnott, who has taken many of Chambers-Taube’s responsibilities, is another recent arrival who must split his efforts across the state.
Given the central administration’s minimal links to Southwest Washington, an ideal process would build support with a local coalition before redirecting taxpayer money away from Southwest Washington. Instead, the administration has relied on speed and surprise. It is true that long-standing Vancouver faculty and administrators did get an opportunity to provide input when, supposedly in anticipation of state funding cuts, central administration requested plans for 3, 5, or 10% cuts. State cuts then proved to be very small, so all in Vancouver were shocked to hear the latest 15% round of Vancouver cuts announced on 5/18. Even Sandra Haynes was surprised by the 15% cut. Although the decision-making process is opaque, it seems that none of the central administrators who developed the 15% plan represented Southwest Washington. The surprise announcement of the cuts came just days after most faculty went off 9-month contracts, and administration is rushing to implement the cuts before the next contracts begin. Sandra Haynes went “back to the drawing board” and a new plan for the 15% cut was approved within about a month. By 6/24 administration had begun telling employees they were to be laid off. Administration has not provided even rough estimates of the total number of layoffs, but apparently most of the planned layoffs have not yet been announced.
Since the cut imposed by the state legislature is so much smaller than the cut the central administration has imposed on Southwest Washington, and since Southwest Washington’s population base provides significant representation in the State Legislature, it is not surprising that legislators responded. All twelve Representatives and Senators from the four districts around WSU Vancouver, Republican and Democrat, asked President Cantwell to pause the cuts and begin a more deliberative, representative, and transparent process. Among these were legislators who have spent many years nurturing the Vancouver Campus. Although it is unclear what private discussions might be underway, the President’s first public response, in a letter to the legislators, was uncompromising. The letter stated that the cuts were “strategic”, without explaining the strategy. The letter emphasized systemwide financial limitations, without acknowledging that the systemwide cuts have been much smaller than the cuts the administration has chosen for Vancouver, or that Vancouver has built a large positive balance through conservative budgeting. The letter noted enrollment declines, without acknowledging the similarity of Vancouver and systemwide trends. The letter noted Vancouver administrators’ diligent work to minimize impacts to employees, without noting that these administrators had just a month to plan their response to the surprise 15% cut. The letter entirely ignored the legislature’s request for a pause and a revised process. It was even stated that the process had been representative. We acknowledge that the President does have experience in debates with state legislatures. However, with state budgets stretched, WSU may need all the friends it can get in the legislature. We wonder whether it is in WSU’s interest to have its President engaging in such an argument with legislators, particularly to defend the distribution of a cut that, if spread across the system, is so small.
The process described above sets a very concerning precedent for the wider system. WSU’s culture will be degraded if we come to expect that representation will be eliminated before making aggressive cuts. Our culture will also be degraded if we accept that speed and surprise can substitute so completely for consultation and deliberation. If such an approach is taken when the state imposes just a 2% cut, what can the system expect if the state imposes significant cuts?
Through decades, we have benefited greatly from collaborations with wonderful and generous colleagues across this system. Certainly, working across campuses does take time and sometimes generates frustrations. However, as Vancouver faculty members, we truly appreciate the persistent, patient teamwork we have experienced among faculty, staff and administration on all campuses. Together, we have built an excellent system serving much of the state. A cynic might suggest that such a collaborative effort is not worth the effort, or even that profits from small campuses could support other parts of the system. However, for this specific round of cuts, much of the planned savings come from laying off Vancouver administrators, with the implication that work will be passed to administrators on other campuses. More fundamentally, campuses such as Vancouver and Tri Cities are currently so much smaller than the system that even the largest possible extracted profits can have little impact on the systemwide budget. This is illustrated by the contrast between the damage recent cuts are doing to Vancouver and the smallness of the systemwide savings.
With a return to WSU’s tradition of a more collaborative approach, Vancouver could make contributions that are far greater than the small profits that could be extracted. In the long term, the large Southwest Washington population base constitutes both a significant responsibility and a major growth opportunity for WSU. The recent divisive approach is not just damaging to Vancouver. It is also undermining WSU’s wider culture, while trading away significant systemwide strength and potential to achieve very small systemwide savings.
It may not be too late to change course. Before the administration takes irrevocable actions, we hope they will seriously consider the legislator’s request for a more representative and transparent process.
Response
The Faculty Senate Executive Officers have been notified of this forum post and will respond back once more information becomes available.
Comments