Legislature(2019 - 2020)UAA FINE ARTS BLDG
09/20/2019 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentations: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Proposal to Consolidate the University of Alaska System | |
| Restructuring the University of Alaska System | |
| Municipality of Anchorage Perspective | |
| Perspective of Student and Faculty Leadership | |
| Management Risks | |
| Accreditation and Student Success | |
| Equity | |
| Spending Priorities | |
| Alternative Models | |
| Perspective of Alumni | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FINE ARTS BUILDING
September 20, 2019
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Shower, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold
Senator Peter Micciche via teleconference
Senator Scott Kawasaki via teleconference
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATIONS: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROPOSAL TO
CONSOLIDATE THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. FORREST NABORS, Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science and Chair
Committee on Governance and Funding Reform
UAA Faculty Senate
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed restructuring the University of
Alaska System.
ETHAN BERKOWITZ, Mayor
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the perspective of the Municipality
of Anchorage and how the relationship with the University of
Alaska impacts the community.
FELIX RIVERA, Chair
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the perspective of the Anchorage
Assembly on the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation.
MEG ZALETEL, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the perspective of the Anchorage
Assembly on the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation.
DR. MARA KIMMEL, First Lady
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the relevance the University of
Alaska Anchorage to the Municipality of Anchorage.
SCOTT DOWNING, Associate Professor of English
UAA (Kenai Peninsula College); President,
UAA Faculty Senate
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the perspective of faculty
leadership on the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation."
ALEX JORGENSEN, Speaker of the Assembly
Union of Students (USUAA)
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a student perspective of the
proposal to consolidate the three UA universities into a single
accreditation."
DR. FRANK JEFFRIES, Professor Emeritus of Management
College of Business and Public Policy
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a management risk perspective of the
proposal to consolidate the three UA universities into a single
accreditation."
LUANN PICCARD, Associate Professor and Chair
Project Management Department
College of Engineering
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a management risk perspective of the
proposal to consolidate the University of Alaska System.
DAVID FITZGERALD, Professor
Information Systems and Decision Sciences
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a management risk perspective on the
consolidation of the University of Alaska System.
DR. MARIA WILLIAMS, Professor
Alaska Native Studies and Music;
President of the UAA Senate; and Chair of Faculty Alliance
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her perspective on accreditation and
student success as it relates to the proposal to consolidate the
three UA universities into a single accreditation."
DR. JENNIFER MCFERRAN BROCK, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
UAA College of Engineering
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her perspective on accreditation and
student success as it relates to the proposal to consolidate the
three UA universities into a single accreditation."
DR CHAD FARRELL, Professor of Sociology
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed equity related to the proposal to
consolidate the three UA universities into a single
accreditation."
RICHARD CLAYTON TROTTER, Professor of Law, Accounting and
Finance
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective on equity as it
relates to the proposal to centralize the University of Alaska
System.
DR. IAN HARTMAN, Associate Professor
UAA Department of History
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective of spending
priorities related to the proposal to consolidate the University
of Alaska System.
DR. JOEL POTTER, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective of spending
priorities related to the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation.
DR. MAX KULBERG, Assistant Professor
Pharmaceutical Sciences and the WWAMI School of Medical
Education
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered testimony on alternative models.
DR. PAUL DUNSCOMB, Professor and Chair
Department of History
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered testimony on alternative models.
LEA BOUTON, M.A.T., President
UAA Alumni Association Board of Directors
University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a UAA alumnus, offered her perspective of
the proposal to consolidate the three UA universities into a
single accreditation."
MICHAEL LOWE, UAA Alumnus
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective of the proposal to
consolidate the three UA universities into a single
accreditation."
STACEY LUCASON, UAA Alumnus
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her perspective of the proposal to
consolidate the three UA universities into a single
accreditation
JONATHAN TAYLOR, UAA Alumnus
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered his perspective of the proposal to
consolidate the three UA universities into one accreditation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:05:43 AM
CHAIR MIKE SHOWER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Reinbold, Coghill, and Chair Shower.
^Presentations: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Proposal to
Consolidate the University of Alaska System
PRESENTATIONS: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROPOSAL TO
CONSOLIDATE THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM
9:07:09 AM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the business before the committee was to
hear presentations from nine perspectives on the proposal to
consolidate the University of Alaska System. He advised that
this is intended to be the first of several meetings to start a
robust discussion of alternative paths going forward.
^Restructuring the University of Alaska System
CHAIR SHOWER invited Dr. Forrest Nabors to deliver the first
presentation.
9:09:35 AM
DR. FORREST NABORS, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of
Political Science, and Chair, Committee on Governance and
Funding Reform, UAA Faculty Senate, University of Alaska
Anchorage, discussed restructuring the University of Alaska
System. He delivered the following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Forrest Nabors and I am
associate professor and chair of the Department of
Political Science. I also serve as chair of the
Committee on Governance and Funding Reform of the UAA
Faculty Senate, a committee dedicated to studying
reform of our university system.
I am here today to request the intervention of the
legislature in restructuring the University of Alaska
system. The structure of our system has been obsolete
for a long time, is not performing well, and cannot
fix itself.
But the system is funded by the public treasury and
belongs to the people of Alaska. You are their duly
elected senators, and the Alaska legislature has the
constitutional authority to change our system. Our
system needs to be decentralized, or in other words,
our three universities ought to have more autonomy
for the improvement of higher education in Alaska and
for the improvement of the financial performance of
our higher education establishments.
The Alaska constitution in Article VII, Sections 2
and 3 assigns governance responsibilities to the
Board of Regents and executive responsibilities to
the President. The constitution was ratified when the
University of Alaska was a university by the accepted
definition and had fewer than 1,000 students on one
main campus in Fairbanks. Governance by one board and
administration by one president are perfectly
reasonable for an institution of that size. But the
university grew into a university system with three
separately accredited universities, more than a dozen
locations, and over 25,000 students, covering a
landmass approximating the size of Mexico. Our
universities now serve distinct communities and
constituencies.
The structure of governance and administration has
not kept up with the facts on the ground. Other
systems in other states with similar histories of
growth have decentralized governance and
administration, giving more autonomy or outright
independence to their constituent institutions, even
those states with similar provisions like ours in
their constitutions. Those states recognized, as we
encourage you to recognize, that no matter how well-
meaning or talented our Regents and President may be,
the university system has grown beyond their ability
to govern and administer the whole of it directly.
Now our Regents and President are considering the
consolidation of the whole system into the so-called
"New UA," to re-create the University of Alaska as a
single, accredited university and to end the
existence of UAF, UAA, and UAS as separately
accredited universities. The control of the Regents
and the President over the constituent parts of the
university system would be increased.
This is moving in the opposite direction that reform
should go. The administrative bureaucracy should
adapt to the growth and maturity of our constituent
institutions; growth should not be undone to adapt to
an obsolete administrative bureaucracy.
It is said that we, the faculty, are afraid of
change. But it is the bureaucracy that is afraid of
change, not us. They are trying to take us back to
the 1970s before the universities were separately
accredited. We want change; we want our system of
governance and administration to adapt to reality -
that we are three comprehensive, accredited
universities that have matured and grown, and that
deserve more autonomy.
9:13:15 AM
It is also said that the university system will be
more financially efficient as a result of
consolidating the whole system. But the financial
performance of the university system under this
structure of governance and administration has
produced poor results.
Despite years of oil wealth and a rising stock
market, our endowment is around $200M, less than one
fourth of the system's annual budget, and one fifth
of our $1B deferred maintenance bill for buildings in
need of repair. In other words, posterity was left
with a small endowment and a massive bill.
Also, the university system depends to a higher
degree on state appropriations than almost every
public system of higher education in America. We have
compared the costs of our statewide office to others
and have not found a single central office in America
that employs and spends more on a per student basis
than ours.
Given this performance, I ask you: Is it believable
that the "New UA" under the unchanged structure of
governance and administration will deliver the
promised financial efficiencies?
The disagreement between advocates of consolidation
and decentralization turns on one fundamental
question: Who can make more informed decisions about
programs, services, costs and new revenue
opportunities? Bureaucrats removed from the delivery
of higher education? Or the leaders of our three
universities who know their communities and
constituencies best?
The premise of our American system of government in
this country is that whenever possible, decisions
should be driven down as far as possible to the local
level, where decisions are better informed. We reject
central planning in principle for this reason. If you
move responsibility and authority from the center to
the universities, you will see improved management
and you will see costs and revenues come into
balance.
Education and research will improve.
The high dependency of the university system on state
appropriations currently is the price that the public
treasury is paying for the inefficiencies of central
planning. The proposed "New UA" follows the
fallacious logic of central planning.
One argument advanced by the statewide office is that
the "New UA" will eliminate duplicate programs, as if
the state only needs one program of each type. On the
contrary, if external funding for research and
tuition dollars can profitably support many programs
of one type, and none of another type, the three
universities should each offer the one and none of
the other. The three universities should offer what
their respective communities demand.
9:16:12 AM
By allowing the universities to decide how to serve
the needs of their respective communities, our system
will serve the state of Alaska best. That is
strategic. Central planners are not omniscient. Their
perception of what the state needs from all the parts
of the university system is more fallible than the
collective perceptions of those who directly
administer each university.
Another argument for the "New UA" is that it will end
unhealthy competition among the universities. This is
a classic case of bureaucrats promising to fix what
they have broken. The centrally planned system is the
cause of unhealthy competition that has existed for
years. They and not the senior administrators of our
universities have the power to decide which programs
shall live or die on our campuses. When the president
publicly and repeatedly announces that he intends to
eliminate duplicate programs on our universities,
faculty and staff associated with those programs in
each university of course wonder which of them will
be left and which will be cut.
If the universities have more freedom to administer
their own affairs, they will shape themselves in
response to the unique demands of their communities.
Their differences will complement each other.
Competition will become healthy. On their own, they
will each double down on their unique strengths to
secure new revenues, and abandon programs that do not
play to their strengths.
By decentralizing the system, the expensive statewide
office may be cut. But the cost of that office to the
whole system is more than what we can measure by
their annual, direct expenditures, which have
amounted to more than $50M per year.
My colleagues and I who have been studying reform of
the UA system have spoken at length to current and
former administrators of UAA. We have learned from
them that the statewide office adds little value and
in fact, their unnecessary and frequent interventions
in the administration of UAA costs an inordinate
amount of their valuable management time and
interferes with good decision-making. The heavy hand
of statewide constrains and therefore wastes the
talents of the administrators of our universities. In
addition, the statewide office charges the
universities tens of millions of dollars for services
that they impose on the universities. In sum, if the
statewide office and its budget were eliminated
completely, the universities and the system overall
would gain.
There is a reason why you and the public have not
heard this perspective directly from the chancellors
or administrators of our three universities.
Statewide officials order them to keep their candid
views to themselves. We have seen orders of this kind
in writing, and we have also seen reminders,
accompanying those orders, that they may be fired at-
will if they do not keep silent.
9:19:11 AM
That is why faculty, students, staff and alumni have
been anxious to be heard, and why we appreciate this
hearing now. We know that the senior administrators
of UAA, whom we support, cannot speak freely, so we
must speak for them.
Hence, our state government and our Board of Regents
have not been fully informed. To partly rectify this,
I encourage legislative committees that address
higher education to compel formal testimony of the
senior administrators from our three universities,
which will protect them from employment risk. Then I
suggest that you ask them pointed questions about the
performance of the current structure of UA governance
and administration. Don't take our word for it; ask
them in a formal hearing like this.
It has been said that the views of the UAA faculty
represent only one viewpoint among many. That is not
true. At UAA an overwhelming majority of surveyed
faculty and staff oppose the "New UA" and favor
greater autonomy. Increasingly and publicly,
students, alumni and our community are adopting our
position. Many of us favor independence from UA. We
fully support our university's administration.
Recently, the UAA Faculty Senate passed a resolution
affirming our confidence in Chancellor Cathy Sandeen.
We are united.
9:20:46 AM
Decentralization is not a new concept. The idea was
invoked by Clark Kerr, the famous president of the
University of California system, who led the reform
that I am proposing today. Their state constitution,
like ours, assigned the same authority to a Board of
Regents and President in 1879, when the University of
California, like the University of Alaska in 1956,
was one campus with a few students. By the 1950s and
1960s the system had grown, and the constituent
universities clamored for greater autonomy. Their
Board of Regents, at Clark Kerr's urging, gave it to
them.
9:21:18 AM
Their Board enacted policies that divided and
decentralized authority between themselves and the
universities. Today the chancellors of their
universities have final authority on most crucial
matters. Their Board retains control over general
policy and government compliance. Their universities
have their own endowments, managed by their own
foundations with their own boards of trustees. Those
boards also were permitted governance
responsibilities over their respective universities.
As a result, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC San
Diego and others thrived.
Unfortunately, the Board of Regents of the University
of Alaska is not inclined to do what the California
Regents did. Therefore, we look to your
constitutional authority to decentralize our system.
Many of us believe that the best path forward would
be to break UAF, UAA and UAS out of the UA system for
the good of all three. Sentiment for the independence
of UAA as Alaska State University is strong and
growing.
The main obstacle to accomplishing this is the
question whether the constitution permits a public
institution of higher education to exist independent
of UA. Exhibit A, which is appended to my written
statement, shows that the delegates to the
constitutional convention divided on this question,
and the courts never ruled on it.
9:22:47 AM
While I am in favor of testing the question whether
the system can be broken up, I recognize a more
prudent, intermediary step.
There is solid constitutional ground, affirmed by the
Supreme Court of Alaska, for you to redefine the
responsibilities of the Board of Regents by statute.
Article VII, sections 2 & 3 qualify the fiduciary and
governance responsibilities of the Board of Regents
by the phrases "according to law" and "in accordance
with law." You are the authors of the law. You, by
statute, can regulate those responsibilities. You can
give us our own board of trustees, final authority
over programs and services, our own endowment managed
by our own foundation, and limit the responsibilities
of the Board of Regents to compliance and general
policy. You can make the chancellors of our
universities accountable to their boards of trustees
only.
Mr. Chairman, let this be done and you will not only
save but will also revivify higher education in
Alaska for generations to come. This path leads to
improved governance, administration, improved
financial performance and to better education and
research. This will best serve the state of Alaska.
Nabors, Exhibit A
The Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VII
- Health, Education and Welfare
Sec. 1. Public Education
The legislature shall by general law establish and
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State and may provide for other
public educational institutions.(1) Schools and
institutions so established shall be free from
sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public
funds for the direct benefit of any religious of
other private educational institution.
Sec. 2. State University
The University of Alaska is hereby established as the
state university and constituted a body corporate. It
shall have title to all real and personal property
now or hereafter set aside for or conveyed to it. Its
property shall be administered and disposed of
according to law.(2)
Sec. 3. Board of Regents
The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board
of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the
governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of
the members of the legislature in joint session. The
board shall, in accordance with law,(3) formulate
policy and appoint the president of the university.
He shall be the executive officer of the board.
Notes:
1. Delegates to the state constitutional convention
in 1955-6 disagree as to whether the legislature can
create a new state university, separate from the
University of Alaska. Delegate Dorothy Awes whose
committee wrote section 1 explains, "For instance, a
state university..." (1531-2), when giving an example
of what is meant by "other public educational
institutions." But Delegate Victor Rivers, whose
committee wrote sections 2 and 3 explains,
"...constitutionally the University of Alaska shall
be the only state university in Alaska" (p. 2792).
The courts have not ruled on the question whether the
legislature can create a state university separate
from the University of Alaska, although once, they
came close in McAlpine v. University of Alaska
(1988).
2. Hence, the legislature may regulate the
administration and disposition of property titled to
the University of Alaska. In McAlpine v. University
of Alaska the Supreme Court of Alaska supported this
interpretation in a ruling against a transfer of
property from UA, not because it is unconstitutional,
but because transfers of property have to take the
legislative form of an appropriation. Especially, see
p. 90-1.
3. Hence, the authority of the Board of Regents can be
adjusted by the legislature.
9:24:18 AM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if he and the other presenters had
specific recommendations or were more generally asking for
authority to make each of the three universities autonomous.
9:24:50 AM
DR. NABORS said the Faculty Senate has been under pressure to
respond to the proposal to create the "new UA" and the threat of
consolidation, so their efforts have been focused on
counterposing that proposal. He stated that there are many
models, but his preference is Alaska State University. He opined
that the steps to a clear constitutional authority would be to
divide the Board of Regents' responsibilities, essentially
delegate them by statute. He said there has been no vote on the
preferred model because the focus has been to stop the "new UA"
which he believes would be a disaster for UAF, UAA, and UAS.
9:25:00 AM
SENATOR KAWASAKI joined the meeting via teleconference.
9:26:08 AM
SENATOR COGHILL said by default the question is more for the
Board of Regents, but his voice will be very important in this
discussion. He noted that Dr. Nabors outlined very clearly that
he is not interested in consolidation. He said he would meet
with the Board of Regents to discuss the plan to consolidate. He
stated that the legislature must figure out what that would look
like statutorily and as more testimony is heard today, he will
watch for that process.
9:27:06 AM
DR. NABORS suggested that it might be helpful to separate the
question into two parts. He asked what is expedient, what is
good policy, what is constitutional, and what is best for higher
education. He encouraged everyone to separate those questions
and to ask, "what ought we do" and "what can we do" with
constitutional authority. He encouraged the legislature to take
note of Article VII, Sections 2 and 3, where it says, "according
to law" and "in accordance with law" because the legislature has
a constitutional authority and duty to qualify the
responsibilities of the Board of Regents. He opined that the
duty does fall on the legislature.
9:28:21 AM
SENATOR COGHILL said the question on how to deal with
constitutional authority as it pertains to the university system
has been a long-standing question. He said Alaska has a small
population and that even though the university system is spread
out, it is still a relatively small enterprise. He said he still
needs to be convinced that autonomy would work but he is open to
more discussion. He acknowledged that his main prejudice is that
Alaska is still a small state.
DR. NABORS challenged the statement that a state or individual
university must be large to have its own board. He pointed out
that every public university system in the United States began
small with a handful of students, a board, and president. He
highlighted that many small public colleges have their own
board. He emphasized that responsibilities need to be divided
saying that he would appeal to the theory behind the American
principle of federalism. "We believe that people can govern
themselves." He offered his belief that UAA is certainly large
enough to have its own board of trustees. He said that if they
were to draw upon people from the communities of UAA and UAF,
there would be a group of people who could provide outstanding
governance, could make deals that would bolster the
universities' finances, and work with the chancellors to make
sound cost cutting measures. That isn't possible without
individual boards
9:31:42 AM
SENATOR COGHILL said he appreciates the dialogue but worries
that it would create bigger problems if the university system
operated with individual boards and each came to the legislature
separately for a variety of support.
9:32:33 AM
DR. NABORS admitted that he did not know what burdens this would
place on the legislature but said he believes it is a problem
worthy of consideration. He said it might be hard for the
legislature to imagine what a drag the current system is on the
universities, but the faculty clearly sees how it impacts the
performance of the overall system. He stated that if the
universities are unshackled and have their own governance and
administration, there may be a tradeoff and the individual
universities may inherit some new responsibilities, but the
gains will be considerable and worth the trouble.
DR. NABORS emphasized that his comments were not intended to be
disrespectful. He was here today because he loves UAA and
believes it could grow into a great public university if given
the chance. He suggested that the legislature might better
understand the respective universities if it had a more direct
connection with each one.
9:34:42 AM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she appreciates the perspective because
she has been intrigued by the idea of consolidation. She asked
what three things drive up costs in the university system, and
what three changes could help reduce costs.
DR. NABORS replied that he was not an accountant, but he was
proposing a different model which would change economic
behavior. He stated that to forecast the finances for
decentralization, one would have to consider the change in
economic behavior. He added that people act differently when
they have responsibility and can make their own decisions
concerning their finances. He highlighted that the way to put
together a forecasted model for what a decentralized university
would cost, you must take into account that the entire model is
different.
DR. NABORS offered his belief that UA statewide is the biggest
drag on the system. It is not just that it spends its share of
the UGF appropriation, but that it also takes $38 million from
the universities' budgets collectively. He pointed out that the
higher education budget subcommittees have never been asked how
much money is taken out of the universities' budgets or how many
of its expenses are moved into the universities' budgets in
order to claim a cut. He said statewide ought to be asked a lot
of questions about how it handles finances. For example, it is
frustrating to know that UA statewide doesn't teach any
students, but it receives four times what the UAA College of
Arts and Science receives to educate the largest share of
students in the state of Alaska.
9:39:31 AM
DR. NABORS said decentralization of the university would change
the economic behavior and bring it in line with the marketplace.
He opined that if the universities are more exposed to market
pressures, the less efficient programs would be cut. This will
also allow the universities to pursue new revenue opportunities.
He suggested, for example, working with Providence Health Center
not only to build the number of health professionals in Alaska
but also to generate more revenue to create a better health
program. However, administrators do not have the latitude to
make those kinds of decisions under the current structure. He
apologized for not having a ready list of what drives costs and
what would reduce costs for the university system.
9:42:05 AM
CHAIR SHOWER asked how the local university administrators could
be given more latitude while staying within the existing
statutory and constitutional framework.
DR. NABORS responded that the Alaska Supreme Court decided two
important cases that control the question. The first one was the
University of Alaska v. National Aircraft Leasing in 1975.
Justice Dimond wrote the majority opinion and said, "the board
of regents is expressly subject" (Alaska Constitution, Article
VII, Section 2&3) to the legislative authority. Judge Dimond
gave examples of how the Board of Regents is controlled by the
legislature.
The second case was McAlpine v. University of Alaska in 1988.
That case favored the constitutionality of having separate
institutions of higher education coexisting with UA. Justice
Moore reviewed the proposed ballot initiative to separate
community colleges from the University of Alaska system,
transfer the properties to the new proposed community college,
and specify the amount of property transferred. Justice Moore
removed the third sentence of the ballot initiative because the
part that would determine the amount of property transferred did
not follow the proper legislative form according to the
constitution. The constitution clearly states that
appropriations must be made by the legislature, not by ballot
initiative.
DR. NABORS highlighted that this means the legislature has very
broad constitutional authority to both regulate the fiduciary
and governance responsibilities of the board and to create a
separate institution of higher education that is outside the UA
system. He pointed out that Delegate Victor Rivers authored
Sections 2 and 3 of Article VII which states that there may be
new extensions of the University of Alaska, but only if they
fall under the UA system. However, according to Dorothy Awes
(the author of Section 1 that refers to other public educational
institutions) the legislature has the authority to separate the
three universities and create them as entirely separate
entities.
9:48:42 AM
DR. NABORS acknowledged that Rivers and Awes disagree with each
other but pointed out that the 1988 case came down in favor of
the constitutionality of a separate system of higher education
coexisting with the University of Alaska. He said he does not
understand why many legislators believe that the authority of
the Board of Regents is absolute when the text of the
constitution and the decision of the Alaska Supreme Court states
otherwise. He opined that the university system must be brought
back to account to the public, the stakeholders and the owners
of the UA system. Currently it is insulated from accountability
to the people of Alaska through the legislature.
9:49:57 AM
CHAIR SHOWER noted that Senator Reinbold had a few more
questions.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted to return to the topic of WWAMI
and why a proposal to Providence has not been made.
DR. NABORS stated that he did not refer to WWAMI but his
colleague Max Kullberg, a professor in the program, could speak
later to that.
He said his background in business tells him that there is
opportunity if the university collaborates with Providence, but
he understands those deals cannot be made under the current
structure. He opined that if the local administration had the
latitude to make those deals, it could stabilize UAA finances.
SENATOR REINBOLD suggested that his idea could be expanded to
include the Alaska Regional and the Alaska Native Medical
Center.
She reflected that in some of the hearings she has been part of
she heard people say their buildings are underutilized. One
exception to that is Chugiak High School in Eagle River...(Audio
unclear). She said it seems like the second thing to reduce
costs would be to decrease administration by eliminating the
statewide system. The third thing that drives costs up are the
union contracts. She asked him to comment on those points.
DR. NABORS said he favors fiscal responsibility and dislikes
waste. He opined that something should be done about
underutilized space, but that was not his day-to-day concern. He
said he cannot speak to union contracts as he is not involved.
9:54:08 AM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if he supported the model of auditing and
prioritizing programs and if any of that was currently
happening.
DR. NABORS said he supports fiscal responsibility and believes
all good administrators should pay attention to costs as well as
what should be eliminated. He stated that the real question to
ask is who should do the auditing. He said he strongly favors
the local universities overseeing the auditing process and
making decisions about programs, not from the top. He said he
doesn't understand why the president of the university said
there is no need for three departments of political science and
three universities. He described that as a myopic approach of
reviewing programs to decide what to keep and what to cut. He
said his request is to decentralize the universities, so they
are subject to market forces and more likely to induce cuts.
Reviewing costs and programs should be an ongoing process as
well as investing in programs that will generate more tuition
dollars and research funds.
9:57:21 AM
CHAIR SHOWER thanked Dr. Nabors and welcomed Mayor Berkowitz.
He recognized that Representative Geran Tarr was in attendance.
^Municipality of Anchorage Perspective
9:59:56 AM
ETHAN BERKOWITZ, Mayor, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage,
Alaska, asked the committee to consider three points since the
legislature has fiscal oversight over the university. First,
look at the economic impacts the university has on the community
at large. He noted how the number of students and faculty
influences things like the housing market and local businesses.
Second, look at the role the university has in recruiting and
the inducements it offers to retain people in the community. He
opined that if a budget was structured solely on current
conditions without regard to what would happen in the future, it
would inhibit the ability to have a better future. Third,
consider the role the university has with the city's identity.
He cited the Sea Wolves and how the relationship with the green
and gold is an important part. The community is proud of what
the university does. He asked the committee to contemplate
those three criteria as it moves forward.
MAYOR BERKOWITZ said there are things a municipality can do in
conjunction with the university to manage the fiscal situation
in ways that are prudent for both entities. He noted that this
extends beyond the municipality to the state as well. He said
the municipality and legislature work together to provide
services and infrastructure to the same constituencies. He asked
the legislature give thought to how the municipality can be of
assistance in terms of services that are required for the
university to deliver its profit.
10:04:25 AM
FELIX RIVERA, Chair, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, said the assembly is keenly aware
of how important the university is to the community. UAA staff,
students, and alumni serve voluntarily on the dozens of
municipal boards and commissions. He added that UAA also played
a key role in making the Welcoming Anchorage movement possible
by gathering and analyzing data which showed Anchorage has some
of the most diverse schools in the country. UAA students and
faculty assisted in the creation of the Anchorage Climate Action
Plan which was a guide to mitigate the effects of climate
change. He said UAA students have served as interns for assembly
members, providing research that has led to positive policy
change. UAA also has an important role on the economy, not only
by educating future business leaders but students add a
significant stimulus to Anchorage's economy. He stated that the
university is an invaluable institution that enriches the
municipality.
He said this knowledge and foresight inspired him and his
colleague, Meg Zaletel, to lead the charge for the assembly to
engage in this issue. That took place in three ways:
o The assembly encouraged the Board of Regents to engage
in a thorough vetting process of the options and to
engage in a dialogue with the governing structures of
the three universities.
o A town hall meeting was hosted to address the
community's concerns and to further educate the
community at large.
o The assembly crafted a formal resolution to offer
guidance to the Board of Regents. The resolution
provided two suggestions to the regents: to vet all
options presented to them and to ensure a proper
engagement of all community stakeholders.
10:07:46 AM
MR. RIVERA highlighted that funding and guidance from the
legislature plays a key role in this discussion and he commends
the members engaging in today's discussion.
10:08:04 AM
MEG ZALETEL, member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that UAA is a unique
institution within the University of Alaska system. The core
theme of UAA is commitment to instruction at a number of
academic levels, successful students regardless of their higher
education goals, and service to the diverse people and
communities of the state. She noted that UAA provides
educational opportunity to students who may not have access to
higher education. Some 30-35 percent of UAA students are the
first in their family to attend college. She noted that the
average age of UAA students is 28 years old and that most
students take nine credits or less. She opined that the assembly
must advocate to keep this unique and valuable institution for
the community, city, and state. She said the economic effects of
consolidating the university system to a single accredited
university would be significant to Anchorage. There would be
ripple effects within the economy from decreased student
enrollment and job losses. She added that beyond economics, the
first generation, non-traditional and part-time students would
not have the opportunities they have now. The uncertainty of
UA's status has taken its toll and enrollment is down almost
1900 students.
She said the other option proposed by the UA chancellors, many
faculty, alumni, and students is a consortium model. This model
would allow UAA to maintain local control over its mission and
how it operates as a university while still collaborating with
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UFF) and the University of
Alaska Southeast (UAS).
MS. ZALETEL stated that it is the assembly's hope that the Board
of Regents receives lots of input from all stakeholders and that
the communities of Alaska reach out to one another concerning
the options and potential impacts this could have locally. She
opined that the concerns of UAA and UAF are similar and that it
would be beneficial to convene and discuss the concerns
collaboratively.
She said the impact of restructuring the university system will
be felt widely so now is the time to speak up to ensure there is
a robust university system moving forward.
10:11:07 AM
DR. MARA KIMMEL, First Lady, Municipality of Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska said that as a former faculty member, not a
day goes by that she doesn't run into one of her students. These
alumni students are impacting the longevity and sustainability
of the community.
DR. KIMMEL said she has worked with multiple initiatives
including the Welcoming Anchorage Initiative and the Alaska
Resilience Initiative (ARI) to promote workforce development and
economic opportunities for all community residents. She pointed
out that neither of the initiatives could not have been
accomplished without the help of UAA faculty and students. She
emphasized that the city could only address these major concerns
because of the volunteer labor through the faculty research and
student work. The cost efficiencies that it enables the city to
exercise by not expending scarce resources on human capital is
vital.
10:14:07 AM
DR. KIMMEL highlighted that the university has been critical to
the residents of the municipality. Her children have been to the
university as middle school and high school students to take
advantage of the many opportunities the university provides such
as summer camp, singing lessons, or using the library. "This
university is such a critical part of our city's infrastructure
and it is such a critical institution in creating partnerships
that really make Anchorage a vibrant and vital city and a place
that people want to come." She said Alaska does not have a lot
of institutions due to its small population, but what it is
lacking in numbers, it is made up for through the strong
partnerships of those various institutions. The institutions all
rely on one another. She said to cripple one of the partners
would impact the city and its ability to address major
challenges.
DR. KIMMEL urged the committee members to contemplate the role
all the institutions play in their respective communities. She
said it is important for the three universities to maintain
autonomy and accreditation. The universities work closely
together, and they all need to be vibrant to respond to the
residents they serve.
10:17:06 AM
CHAIR SHOWER assured the presenters that the legislature was not
interested in doing away with the university, but that this was
an effort to make the system more efficient.
10:18:08 AM
MAYOR BERKOWITZ summarized several points. He opined that the
restructuring effort should be a collaborative process. He
advised the members to move slowly in decision making. Lastly,
he said he would like a clear idea or vision for the university
before any restructuring takes place. He emphasized he is not in
favor of consolidation.
SENATOR SHOWER said the intent is to have that discussion before
making any decisions. He would like all voices to be heard and
to be a part of the greater debate.
10:19:38 AM
At ease
10:44:47 AM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and welcomed the next
presenter.
^Perspective of Student and Faculty Leadership
10:44:55 AM
SCOTT DOWNING, Associate Professor of English, UAA Kenai
Peninsula College; President, UAA Faculty Senate, delivered the
following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Scott Downing. I am an
Associate Professor of English at UAA's Kenai
Peninsula College campus and I currently serve as
president of the UAA Faculty Senate.
I'm here today to emphasize the importance of faculty,
faculty perspectives, and faculty governance in the
life and success of UAA as we consider structural
changes in the UA system.
Faculty embody the mission and values of an
institution through their responsibility for programs,
curriculum, teaching, research, and academic policy.
The Faculty Senate serves as the collective voice for
that work. Universities are incredibly complex
institutions that must serve the needs of the students
and communities with which they are connected.
They must remain true to their mission as evaluated by
accrediting bodies. Those accrediting bodies' (ours is
the NWCCU) ensures the degrees students are receiving
have value to the employers and the public. The
existence of an institution depends on its
accreditation.
Faculty MUST BE deeply involved in the accreditation
process to ensure that the requirements for
accreditation are being met. Administrators, while
often well- meaning, cannot know all the consequences
of their decisions, and that is why accrediting bodies
REQUIRE the input of faculty in the process.
There continues to be an absence of meaningful faculty
involvement in far reaching decisions, including the
discussion of single accreditation and other
structural options. There has also been a widespread
failure to use cost benefit analysis before
recommending major structural change and a lack of
transparency surrounding those decisions.
In the last four years, there have been no less than
15 resolutions and memos from Faculty Alliance and UAA
Faculty Senate asking President Johnsen and Statewide
Administration to include more meaningful faculty
involvement in decision making and to provide detailed
cost benefit analyses on these decisions.
These resolutions have questioned a variety of
strategic initiatives that have been pushed forward
without cost benefit analysis and without meaningful
faculty involvement.
The University of Alaska College of Education
situation is one example. In Dec. 2016, the president
recommended the Board of Regents approve consolidation
of the UAF, UAA, and UAS Colleges of Education under a
single accredited college.
10:47:20 AM
This decision was pushed forward without the support
of the faculty and ignored their concerns about its
effect on accreditation.
Nine months later, in a report on the progress of that
effort, President Johnsen stated that "we have learned
that there are significant uncertainties that could
possibly impact UAS' institutional accreditation."
In the report, the president also noted that NWCCU
President Susan Ellman had concerns about the request
saying it would be "challenging because it is
unprecedented in her long experience at NWCCU". She
went on to characterize the request as "much more
complex than the NWCCU is accustomed to reviewing due
to the number of institutions involved and the major
scale and implications of the change." Those same
concerns had been raised by the faculty. This is but
one example of the importance of in-depth meaningful
faculty involvement in discussing structural change
BEFORE it moves forward.
Recent efforts to conduct academic review across the
Statewide system moves important decisions away from
those program faculty who are best able to assess and
evaluate those decisions. In a larger sense, the
current Statewide structure undermines the effective
involvement of faculty at the three universities in
important decisions.
Faculty governance through the Faculty Senate serves
as the means to share faculty perspectives. It is not
the opinion of an individual administrator or faculty
member. It encompasses the wisdom of the faculty as a
whole. It helps protect accreditation through a
continuous process of the assessment of learning. It
helps ensure our students and communities are
effectively served. Faculty governance is the
collective voice of the values of UAA, and, now, more
than ever, it is imperative that it be heard.
10:49:29 AM
CHAIR SHOWER said he imagines that if there were three separate
universities with their own accreditation and programs, that
would allow the universities to make autonomous decisions.
MR. DOWNING replied yes; if one program was lost then there
would potentially be a similar program at one of the other
universities.
CHAIR SHOWER asked about weaknesses with separate accreditation.
MR. DOWNING replied that he does not see weaknesses with
decentralization but rather strengths. The universities could
tailor programs to best serve their community and students which
would be difficult if there was a single accreditation system.
10:50:44 AM
ALEX JORGENSEN, Speaker of the Assembly, Union of Students
(USUAA) University of Alaska Anchorage paraphrased the following
prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Alex Jorgensen, and I am a
senior at UAA, with a major in political science. I
have been part of student government since coming to
UAA and currently serve as Speaker of the student
Assembly.
When providing formal testimony, I always try and
stick to the facts. I firmly believe that combined
with logic, the facts always lead to rational
decision-making. However, in the situation we find
ourselves in, I see no more pertinent information
than the current feelings of the student body.
Over the past four years, I have grown to love every
single aspect of UAA. From its diverse community to
its open-access mission, UAA has become a second
home. During my tenure here at UAA, we have
experienced some significant setbacks, from declining
state support, to the loss of programmatic
accreditation for our initial licensure programs.
Despite these challenges, our current situation is
something different. I am fearful for the future of
my institution.
Ever since February 12th, 2019, students in the
University of Alaska system have been sent a crystal
clear message; that we are not important. When
governor Dunleavy announced a $135 million reduction
to the university, we were told our future was not
important. When we lost scholarships that we earned
through hard work and a rigorous curriculum, we were
told that the work we do for our communities is not
important.
When the legislature failed to override the vetoes,
we were told that we were simply not valuable or
worthy of Alaska's investment. These were hard
messages that we received.
The pending decision by the Board to consolidate UAA
into "One UA" amplifies that pain. Students feel that
this "one university" is being shoved down our
throats. At the same time that the statewide
administration was forcing us to accept the one
university model as reality, statewide was telling
the world that the student body was being actively
engaged in the process. We were not.
Working groups were established the week before
classes to begin the process of consolidating the
eight academic colleges. Were student governance
groups consulted on including students in the
process? No. We were barely even on campus.
10:54:24 AM
We were sent a weekly email, and the administration
did have one or two conversations with a few members
from student governance groups. On this basis can it
be said that the administration is actively engaging
the more than 25,000 students across the system? The
answer is an unequivocal NO!
The conduct of the administration on this matter
sends us a clear message yet again, that we, the
primary stakeholders of this university, are not
important. This has been the entire tune of this top-
down centralization approach from President Johnsen.
Because students aren't involved, because we are not
a part of the process, it is leading to devastating
consequences one of those being the loss of open-
access admissions policies. As many of you may know,
UAA is the only fully open-access university in the
state. The majority of our bachelor programs do not
require selective admissions. Now, why do we have
that? Why is open access necessary? Because EVERYONE
deserves an opportunity at higher education. That
student who barely made it through high school with a
1.5 GPA because they had a rough home life. Yes, he
or she deserves a chance at higher education.
MR. JORGENSEN added that a 2014 report looked at what would
happen if UAA changed its admission policy to match that of UAF.
The report analyzed the previous six years at UAA and how the
number of graduates would change in that period if the admission
policy changed. He highlighted that the study showed 525
students would not have had the opportunity to graduate under
new admission policies. He emphasized that UAA's admission
policy is not better, it is simply different and meant to serve
the community of Southcentral Alaska. He said 80 percent of UAA
students work full time and half of them care for a dependent,
making UAA uniquely different than UAF and UAS. He asked why
risk losing the only open access university in Alaska by
consolidation.
MR. JORGENSEN continued to paraphrase his prepared statement:
UAA has developed systems and support networks to
give students like this a chance. They may take, 6,
7, or even 8 years to graduate, but they get the job
done. UAA graduates students who would not be
successful in any other traditional academic
institution.
10:57:15 AM
A few weeks ago when I was in a meeting with
President Johnsen, I explained to him the importance
of open enrollment to our students and the Anchorage
community to which he replied: "we will have to
balance the enrolment policies if we choose to
consolidate." I'm sorry, this just doesn't cut it.
You are either open enrolment, or you are not. You
either provide access to higher education for ALL, or
you don't. There is no in-between. This top-down
centralization approach is putting pathways to
education for generations of students in jeopardy.
MR. JORGENSEN said that faculty, students, stakeholders,
legislators, and President Johnsen all want the same thing; a
university system that fulfills the needs of higher education in
Alaska. However, he opined that if the process does not involve
the primary stakeholders, the students, they will never reach
the best outcome. When students feel ownership of their own
institution, they will be more successful.
MR. JORGENSEN said his intention today was to share how students
have felt throughout this process although it really hasn't been
a process. It's more an unequivocal statement about the
direction the university is taking.
10:59:31 AM
CHAIR SHOWER emphasized that the university is there for the
students, and hearing his perspective is important to this
process. He said he hopes this provides that voice on how to
structure the system moving forward.
11:00:13 AM
SENATOR REINBOLD talked about the importance of the student's
perspective and about student scholarships and university
funding.
MR. JORGENSEN said what most students see is that they aren't
valued, even though they are. That unintentional message is
impacting enrollment which is down 12.4 percent this year. He
pointed out that UAA positively impacts the Alaskan economy.
CHAIR SHOWER said one of the goals is to find ways to reduce
costs. He added that it would be a good thing to have the
university system less reliant on state funding.
CHAIR SHOWER welcomed Dr. Frank Jeffries.
^Management Risks
11:04:32 AM
DR. FRANK JEFFRIES, Professor Emeritus of Management, College of
Business and Public Policy, University of Alaska Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska, delivered the following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Frank Jeffries, retired
Emeritus Professor of Management for the College of
Business and Public Policy (CBPP). I served as
Associate Dean for Academics and Department Chair of
Management in the CBPP as well. I spent 20 years in
private industry, the last 9 as a senior product
marketing manager in high tech. I have also served on
boards of directors and have consulted for many major
companies in Alaska.
I want to make three points today. First leadership
of the University of Alaska System is earning failing
grades on two critical management performance
indicators severely limiting their ability to lead
change; second, there is solid objective evidence
that consolidation of colleges will not achieve
savings; and third, decentralization or independence
for UAA, UAF, and UAS will support both
intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship that is
currently stifled by the central administration.
The President of Statewide has had three years to
perform and build support for his leadership and
goals. A primary indicator of support for a leader is
the morale of the group they lead. In 2016 83% of the
faculty and 75% staff who responded to the respective
surveys at UAA said their morale had declined
(sources of all data used are noted in the attached
appendix). Results reported this year show that the
numbers have improved but are still terrible. In the
current surveys 67% of the faculty and 49% of the
staff say that morale has declined in the last year.
Going from bad to worse is not an improvement.
A known effect of low morale is increased intention
to leave one's current employment and it is
prevalent. Currently 27% of the staff have indicated
they actively seeking a job outside the university
and in 2016 41% of the faculty were looking, up from
25% in 2013. Given these numbers, if the turnover of
faculty is less than 10% it would be shocking. The
normal turnover for a well-run university is about
4.7% according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The numbers of faculty and staff who report actively
looking for work would be a red flag to any well-run
organization. By any objective measure these numbers
on morale, and so many employees looking for work
outside the university, indicate a lack of support
for the UA administration leadership and this
hamstrings their ability to effectively lead change.
11:06:44 AM
It is not surprising that morale is low because the
management style of the central administration is
command and control, contrary to recommendations by
outside consultants. We are reminded on a regular
basis that the Constitution of the State of Alaska
gives the president the power to fire administrators
at will and that he has authority to structure the
system any way he chooses. This is contrary to the
management style that is most effective in knowledge-
based operations. Participative management is what
works. Ironically, that is what shared governance
promotes.
Morale would improve if there were true participative
management because of what creates a motivational
climate in organizations populated with educated
career professionals. What these employees thrive on
is a workplace that provides three things; mastery,
autonomy, and purpose. Mastery is present since the
professionals at the university are very good at
their jobs and are always improving. Autonomy is low
because of the management style preferred by the top
administration, the resulting lack of freedom, and
the climate of fear it creates. Purpose, in the local
sense, is strong because the three universities have
missions appropriate to their location and
stakeholders. Purpose, in the global sense, is not
strong because it is not clear at all what the vision
is for the system overall. Morale will not improve
unless autonomy improves.
There was a push to consolidate operations of the
three main campuses under a centralized model.
Thankfully, the Board of Regents has recently
indicated willingness to at least consider other
approaches. This is good because consolidation is not
likely at all to yield the savings expected.
11:08:39 AM
For example, in 2016 at the request of the Board of
Regents, Daniel M. White, then UA Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Research, produced report dated
October 31, 2016 titled: "Cost/Benefit Analysis of
Eliminating the UAF School of Management (SOM) Dean"
analyzed the effect of consolidating the SOM and
CBPP. It stated that going to a consolidated business
college combining the SOM and CBPP would increase
costs and reduce effectiveness while creating
significant risks to local support and put the recent
gains achieved by the SOM at risk. The Dean of the
SOM is credited with making huge gains in enrollment
and revenue and Vice President White said: "All of
this would not be possible without an autonomous dean
and dedicated leadership team and staff who are
located at UAF" (p.12 of the report). The report
concludes that both the SOM and CBPP have unique
strengths and that they are beneficial to the state
as independent entities.
As noted in the report mentioned above, independent
colleges linked to their community can do things that
benefit stakeholders. For example: while I was
Associate Dean for Academics for CBPP we investigated
the potential for developing local management and
executive training delivered by faculty from CBPP and
visiting instructors. After extensive research of the
competing offerings from other universities in the
market a business plan was created. There is a market
for this type of training locally and the only
options available to businesses, both then and now,
are to use the limited services available locally,
provide training internally, or send their employees
outside with the attendant costs of travel and
lodging in addition to the cost of the seminars.
11:10:15 AM
As a businessman the benefits of local training
seminars are glaringly obvious. The cost is lower and
teams of employees can receive the same training.
This creates a shared experience making it easier to
have a positive impact on performance of the
participants and for it to spread to others at work
as they share their new knowledge. In other words,
local training will give them a lot more bang for the
buck.
We got support from the leadership locally at UAA to
set up a non-profit corporation. This was necessary
since the university is not structured to market and
operate this type of business. We established the
corporation, the Business Enterprise Institute (BEI),
however, it never got off the ground. The central UA
administration imposed a 30% overhead tax, required
approval control of virtually every decision, and
refused to let the institute operate independently.
Ultimately the BEI was taken from CBPP and is now
part of UA Corporate Programs.
A recent example of lost opportunity is a contract
that could have been handled by an independent BEI. A
potential client had a need for extensive negotiation
training and coaching and the BEI was contacted about
it. While they could have helped facilitate securing
the deal, they were not able to compensate the
consultants employed above about $80 an hour because
of UA policy. This is about 25% of the usual
compensation for this work. The net result is no deal
and no revenue.
This is a prime example of how the UA stifles
innovation and entrepreneurship at UAA. While there
is a market for this kind of training in Alaska, and
Anchorage specifically, we were not allowed to
develop it. This is the way it is now and has been
for the entire time I have been affiliated with UAA.
My job as a Product Marketing Manager was to identify
needs and develop products to fill those needs at a
profit. What I learned from this experience is that
the tools I had from private industry were not going
to be effectively applied to benefit UAA as long as
the central administration had approval authority of
this sort of entrepreneurial initiative.
If UAA was independent this and other opportunities
to serve the community and diversify its revenue
stream would be possible to develop. As it stands now
UA is a stumbling block preventing entrepreneurship
and innovation. Decentralizing or becoming
independent would allow UAA, UAF, and UAS to take
advantage of opportunities and become even greater
universities that they have the potential to become.
Appendix
UAA Staff Survey results for FY 19, slide 15
(Includes FY 17 and 18):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_kfzxlMcO5ZaVplQlBB
dXYzaGlSM2hqTlVBVWVQS31FZ3Q4/view
Faculty Morale 2018 survey results on pp. 31-38:
https:www.uaa.alaska.edu/about/governance/faculty-
senate/_documents/1FS_Agend_September2018.pdf
One School One Dean Memo
https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/about/governance/faculty-
sentate/_documents/JJ-
ManagementOneDeanOneSchoolMemo_10-31-16.pdf
All other resources are electronic or hard copy and
will be made available on request:
Faculty_Morale_Survey_Final_Report2016.pdf p.1
UAA Restructure Survey Questions and Results2019.doc,
Question 5, p. 4
UAA Staff Council Report2019.pdf, p.1
11:12:47 AM
CHAIR SHOWER welcomed LuAnn Piccard.
11:12:55 AM
LUANN PICCARD, Associate Professor and Chair, Project Management
Department, College of Engineering, University of Alaska
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, delivered the following prepared
statement:
To the Chair, we welcome you and your Senate
colleagues to UAA. We are grateful for your service
to our state. It is fitting that today's meeting is
in a place where beautiful music is made. Each of us
is capable of producing a wonderful solo performance.
However, when we come together combining our diverse
strengths, we are a unified orchestra that makes
great accomplishments possible.
Many see the current university situation as a
"problem to be solved". I see it as a tremendous
opportunity to leverage great ideas to create a
positive legacy for future generations. Change does
not scare me. It inspires and drives me. I believe in
possibilities and that change empowers people to make
ideas a reality.
11:12:56 AM
My name is LuAnn Piccard. I am an associate professor
and chair for the Project Management Department in
the College of Engineering at UAA. We have been
continuously accredited by PMI-GAC since 2007, and
were one of the first 13 universities in the world to
earn this status. For the past 13 years, I have
served project management students, companies, and
communities across Alaska and around the world.
Students are at the heart of everything we do. We
have pioneered the use of real-time distance delivery
to serve working professional students no matter
where they live and work inside or outside of Alaska.
Graduates of our Project Management program are CEOs,
COOs, Portfolio Managers, and Project Managers
representing every business sector in Alaska.
Size matters, but scale and leverage matter more.
Since 2004, we have graduated 100s of students whose
work positively impacts 100,000s of people across
Alaska and our nation on a daily basis. This program
is just one of many that drive value and innovation
by working directly with our stakeholders to advance
and transform our state. We are proud to be Rooted in
Alaska and Relevant to the World.
11:14:52 AM
I also serve on the 12-member Project Management
Institute Board of Directors. PMI is one of the
world's largest professional associations, serving
over 1.8M members and credential holders in over 190
countries around the world. That someone from Alaska
was elected to serve on PMIs board recognizes the
quality and importance of Alaska's project management
to the global profession.
Prior to joining UAA's faculty, I had a proud 22-year
career with Hewlett Packard. I graduated from East
High here in Anchorage then earned engineering
degrees from Stanford University. My first job at HP
was designing fiber optic transmitters and receivers.
My last assignment was Vice President and General
Manager for a $500M business unit responsible for a
broad portfolio of telecommunication products and
solutions developed for and delivered to customers
globally. In 2005, my husband and I left our
executive positions and returned to my home state of
Alaska to raise our daughter closer to family. We
both joined the UAA College of Engineering faculty to
help grow engineers and future leaders here in
Alaska.
11:16:10 AM
During my career, I led several major
transformational efforts and was responsible for over
10 mergers and acquisitions. The sad fact is that
most of these transformations and mergers looked
great on paper, but none produced the value or
realized the synergies for which they were
undertaken. In almost every case, value was destroyed
rather than gained because we did not invest time to
assess the integration process robustlyin
particular, we did not fully analyze management and
organizational capacity for change, cultural
challenges, how the work would be done at all levels
of the organization, an honest accounting of costs,
and active risk management.
11:17:07 AM
Three areas should be carefully considered:
1. 70-85% of Transformations and Mergers Fail
a. Transformations and mergers happen through people,
not mandates. According to McKinsey and Co., 70% of
organizational transformations fail to achieve their
objectives. The three primary reasons representing
72% of causes are: employee resistance to change,
management behavior does not support change, and
inadequate resources or budget. Without engagement
with and buy in from the people most impacted,
failure is almost guaranteed.
b. Cost cutting is not a strategy. Transformations
require investments in people and resources.
Transformations rarely produce returns within 3
years, if ever. Attempting to transform or merge an
organization while making significant cuts to the
people and resources necessary to implement the
change is unlikely to produce lasting, beneficial
outcomes.
• At HP, we spent over $150M on a new Enterprise
Resource Planning system intended to integrate siloed
systems and transform business processes across the
organization. Although senior executives and outside
consultants sold a good story, we failed to produce a
realistic estimate of the time required by people in
the organization to develop and implement detailed
plans and the investments for continuous
communication, engagement and training of impacted
personnel.
c. Wishful thinking is not a strategy. PowerPoint
slides and spreadsheets do not constitute a plan.
According to KPMG and other experts, 70-85% of
mergers fail due to culture and lack of sufficient
planning for and investment in integration.
• Although we are all part of the University of
Alaska, each of our campuses has unique and vibrant
cultures that have evolved in concert with the
communities and people served. Under which existing
culture would all three universities be expected to
merge? What would a One UA culture feel like? How
would a common UA culture add value to our
stakeholders?
• Substantial evidence shows that people
conducting the initial "due diligence" for
transformations and mergers are overly optimistic. In
their zeal to push through the transformation or
merger, they gloss over risks and concerns. Realistic
plans and risk management approaches should be
developed in partnership with people closest to the
work. For example, there is no evidence of a detailed
transformation and risk management plan for the
merger of the three Colleges of Education. Had that
been in place, accreditation loss may have been
avoided. If we were unsuccessful managing that
merger, I am skeptical that we can successfully
merge.
2. Centralization rarely reduces costs and can
negatively impact customer- centricity
a. Centralization rarely reduces costs. Unless the
work is fundamentally re- engineered or automated
(meaning major resource and time investments), the
work still needs to get done and the associated costs
don't go away. Most of the time, costs are moved
around in an on-going shell game or existing
resources are expected to shoulder the burden on top
of their existing workloads. For example, UA
Statewide IT recently reported significant cost
savings. However, reports analyzed show that the work
did not actually go away, the costs were just shifted
to UAF. If academic programs (e.g. Business,
Education and Engineering) have centralized
leadership in one location but are delivered on
multiple campuses, local leadership and student
support service positions are still required.
Centralization may yield small savings in some
functional areas, but responsiveness generally
suffers since there are limited local support
resources. In a centralized model some of those
administrative costs could actually increase due to
added bureaucracy.
b. Successful organizations seek a balance between
centralization and decentralization. At HP we
benefitted from preserving that dynamic tension
because it fostered evidence-based collaboration and
generated well-aligned, incremental changes
reflecting the current reality. We consolidated some
generic and "back office" processes that benefited
from scale. However, we decentralized processes and
people retained and adopted some common processes. We
decentralized activities customer engagement and
rather than customer focused some shared services and
adopted common processes but most were. We retained a
minimal level of overhead so more resources could be
invested locally on behalf of customers.
c. Successful organizations understand where value
is created and delivered and how to drive
organizational effectiveness. HP was a highly
respected innovation leader because we used
decentralization to drive invention and customer
loyalty. Where innovation, resources and best
practices could be leveraged, we had mechanisms to
share with other organizations. Bill Hewlett and Dave
Packard's "management by wandering around" became a
respected and widely adopted leadership model. They
sought out innovation where it was happening rather
than controlling it from above. They encouraged a
customer centric culture and supported local
decision-making autonomy. Within the university,
primary value is delivered through faculty, research,
student centric programs. In order for programs to
innovate and meet local needs, they must retain the
ability to engage with stakeholders directly.
11:20:31 AM
I heard a great example of customer centric innovation
at UAS. Instructors preload assignments on tablets for
students going out on ship-based s for extended work
assignments or field activities. This approach was
developed based on a deep understanding of unique
student needs in that region. It is doubtful that a
centralized organization outside of Juneau would have
this level of insight.
MRS. PICCARD added that colleagues at UAF deliver world renowned
Arctic research and community service. She said UAA is Alaska's
urban campus and it benefits from close relationships with large
local and global businesses, organizations, healthcare
institutions, and investors. These relationships drive creation
of intellectual property, generate growing applied research to
address social, technical and business challenges, and provide
professional development at scale. She noted that investment in
these areas has the potential to reduce the amount of general
funds from the state and increase self-sufficiency.
MRS. PICCARD continued her prepared remarks.
3. is our duty of care as leaders to demand and support
objective and comprehensive analysis. The Hippocratic
Oath says, "First do no harm." It is our duty of care
to accurately diagnose and evaluate options before
major surgery is done.
The best structural option for the university system
has yet to be discovered. I believe a great solution
would emerge if our UAA, UAF and UAS chancellors and
other key leaders were invited to participate. They
have a wealth of experience and tremendous hands-on
experience meeting student and community needs. I
urge you to insist on a comprehensive and objective
evaluation of all relevant options using transparent
criteria and including the active engagement of
experts and impacted stakeholder communities. We are
not a "One size fits all" state, and we are not best
served by a "One size fits all" university.
11:22:42 AM
CHAIR SHOWER welcomed Professor David Fitzgerald.
11:23:00 AM
DAVID FITZGERALD, Professor, Information Systems and Decision
Sciences, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska,
delivered the following prepared statement:
To the Chair, I am Dave Fitzgerald, Professor of
Information Systems and Decision Sciences in the
College of Business and Public Policy, where we
educate students in data analysis and evidence-based
decision-making for businesses.
Prior to joining UAA in 2002, I spent twenty years in
private businesses in Anchorage working in the field
of Information Technology. As a faculty member I have
held many faculty governance positions. I served as
President of the Faculty Senate during the 2016
2017 academic year.
When it comes to making informed decisions, shared
governance lies at the heart of both a well-run
business and a successful university. As a project
manager and a department director in the private
sector, I valued and included the perspectives of
employees for designing and maintaining any system,
as they are the ones who know first-hand how a system
is supposed to function and the probable consequences
of policy changes.
University Board of Regents policy likewise values
both input and participation of faculty, staff, and
students because their involvement leads to better
decisions. Regents policy (P03.01.010. Faculty,
Staff, and Student Governance) specifies in part
that:
The opportunity for faculty, staff, and
students to participate in the governance of
the university is important to its effective
operation. The board intends that
participation of those groups in university
governance be an integral part of the
university community's culture; and that
they are to provide an effective opportunity
to play a meaningful role in matters
affecting their welfare; and to represent
their viewpoints on regents' policy,
university regulation, and other matters
affecting the interests of the university;
11:24:56 AM
Regrettably, President Johnsen's interpretation of
that policy differs significantly from shared
governance bodies. His style of command and control
management is counter- productive in a knowledge-
driven organization. This top-down approach to
decision making stifles innovation and creativity as
it ignores input from those who work across the
system and share a commitment to institutional
effectiveness and efficiency.
The fiscal challenges we face today are not new. In
2016, President Johnsen created a plan called
Strategic Pathways, intended to address fiscal
challenges while maintaining quality programs.
However, from the perspective of the students, staff,
and faculty, Strategic Pathways did not achieve its
goal because the effort did not follow basic
principles of sound decision-making which would have
invited shared governance throughout the process.
None of the areas of inquiry included a business plan
to reduce costs while sustaining quality. Not one
credible report documenting cost reduction can be
directly attributable to Strategic Pathways nor any
credible increase in quality of outcomes.
11:26:10 AM
With the exception of one faculty member per team
selected by faculty, the president handpicked the
members of all Strategic Pathways committees; those
who either shared his views or would not question
them.
He discouraged recommendations from the pathways
committees by limiting feedback to pros and cons on
options of his choosing. Consequently, his pre-
selected options carried the most weight and limited
the exchange of divergent ideas.
When it became apparent to the faculty that their
voice was being ignored, all three universities sent
resolutions condemning the Strategic Pathways
process. When these were ignored, in February 2017,
UAA sent to the Board of Regents, a Vote of No
Confidence in the leadership of President Johnsen.
This was followed the next month by a Vote of No
Confidence by the UAF faculty. Both were disregarded
by the Board of Regents.
Today, we find ourselves in a similar situation.
President Johnsen is advancing his proposal for one
statewide university with no business plan, and with
no meaningful input from faculty, staff, and
students. To date, he has prohibited the chancellors
from advancing any alternatives to his vision, and
has required that they support his. This summer, the
chancellors were able to present one alternative, the
Consortium Model, to the Board of Regents, only
because the Board of Regents specifically asked to
hear from them directly, which they have rarely done
in the past.
Businesses and universities are complex systems, and
I thank the committee for inviting input from those
who share a commitment to reducing costs and
providing quality education to the state of Alaska.
11:28:08 AM
SENATOR REINBOLD said this has been very enlightening. She
thanked the professors individually for their input and
transparency on this issue.
There needs to be a way forward to solve this fiscal problem by
using the resources at hand, she said. She expressed
appreciation that the presenters were fighting for what they
believe in and for offering sustainable goals.
MRS. PICCARD said give us a chance to help.
CHAIR SHOWER said it's interesting that all the speakers have
business experience which breaks the paradigm.
He welcomed the next presenter.
^Accreditation and Student Success
11:32:23 AM
DR. MARIA WILLIAMS, Professor, Alaska Native Studies and Music;
President of the UAA Senate; and Chair of Faculty Alliance,
University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, delivered
the following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Maria Williams. I am a
professor in Alaska Native Studies and Music. I am
past President of the UAA Senate and current Chair of
Faculty Alliance, which consists of the faculty
senate leaders of UAA, UAF and UAS. I have been
teaching at UAA since 2011.
Senator Shower, welcome and thank you for having your
legislative hearing on the UAA Campus! ARTS 150 is
the Music Department's main performance hall. Having
you all here on our campus opens doors, and I am a
supporter of 'opening doors.'
Last year, I served as President of the UAA Faculty
Senate. I know that a great many of our faculty,
students, staff and administration are grateful for
your presence here today on our campus. For years our
faculty have felt frustrated and ignored. Thank you
for coming and listening to our testimony.
11:33:17 AM
I will be addressing the topic of accreditation and
how it relates to the Universities' mission, and how
a consolidated University re-structure will impact
and affect the mission and thus, accreditation.
First, just a few basic facts. Accreditation is
absolutely essential to any university without
accreditation our degrees would be worthless,
students could not obtain financial aid, grants and
research funds would be forfeited we would be
nothing.
UAA, UAS and UAF are separately accredited by the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
This is a good thing. The NWCCU has a rigorous
process and all three of our universities have earned
this status. The accreditation cycle is seven years
so every seven years each of our respective
universities goes through an intense reaffirmation
process which is the combined efforts of faculty
and administrative staff. UAA received its
reaffirmation of accreditation last year, UAS just
received theirs, and UAF, which was planning on their
NWCCU site visit this fall, deferred one year due to
the possibility of restructuring to a single
accredited university. My colleague, Dr. Brock, was
one of the faculty involved in the recent UAA
reaffirmation of accreditation, which took over 18
months to collect data, file reports, and ensure that
UAA was achieving goals established in our mission
statement.
UAA's mission includes being an OPEN ACCESS
university so we admit all students who meet the
minimum requirement of a high school diploma or GED.
For a 4 year degree program the minimum GPA is 2.5;
for an AA or certificate, there is no minimum GPA.
UAF and UAS have different mission statements and
different application requirements.
For example UAF has a research-focused mission, and
with more rigorous application requirements, do not
have open access (i.e. minimum SAT Test scores of 970
and minimum HS GPA of 3.0, etc.). UAS requires a
minimum HS GPA of 3.0 and an ACT or SAT score; for
their AA degree it is open access with a minimum GPA
of 2.0.
11:35:36 AM
If UAA is merged or consolidated, our mission would
change to reflect UAF and UAS admission requirements,
and we might lose our open access mission, thus not
serving a significant population of students.
ACCESS and an open door mission to this population
are very important to me and are personal. My father
is a UAA Alum. My father is a poster child for 'open
door access'. He was born in a rural interior part of
southeastern Alaska where his first language was
Tlingit. He was forced to go to a boarding school for
4 years, punished and starved for speaking his
language, a legacy of the 'kill the Indian to save
the child' policies common during this time period.
He somehow survived the boarding school, made it to
the 6th grade, and then volunteered to serve in the
Army in WWIIand was a machine gun instructor; he
always told me that is where he learned to speak
English. He met and married my mother and both worked
at the old ANMC on 3rd and Gambell, where he was a
cook. My mother believed in education and made my Dad
get his GED. He then received an AA degree from UAA,
in culinary arts. My father was the first member of
my very large, extended family to get a college
degree. An example of 'Door opening'.
If UAA, UAS and UAF are moved to a single accredited
university the open access aspect of UAA's mission
might disappear.
I believe that Alaska should be celebrating that we
have THREE accredited universities, that each have
unique profiles and community campuses that reflect
the needs of local communities. If we have one
accredited university, then UAS and UAA forfeit their
hard-won reaffirmation of accreditation status to a
single accredited university - which would leave us
vulnerable. Imagine if the one university lost its
accreditation.
My vision for the future is a sustainable Alaska
with locally educated teachers, veterinarians,
artists, businesspeople, mechanics, cooks(!), nurses,
pharmacists, and entrepreneurs. Education is a door
opener please do not allow that door to be shut for
many.
11:37:54 AM
DR. JENNIFER MCFERRAN BROCK, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
UAA College of Engineering, University of Alaska Anchorage,
Anchorage, Alaska, delivered the following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Dr. Jennifer McFerran Brock.
I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering in UAA's
College of Engineering. For years, I have been
heavily involved in accreditation as an outside
examiner for ABET, the accrediting body for
engineering and technology programs, as an
engineering faculty member and department chair
undergoing ABET review, and as one of three co-chairs
of UAA's Self-Study Committee, which prepared us for
reaffirmation of accreditation with the Northwest
Commission on Colleges and Universities (the NWCCU)
in 2018.
Due to accreditations' importance to our system, the
proposal to consolidate our three UA universities
into one, singly-accredited university is a high risk
venture. Separate accreditations and greater
decentralization are more appropriate for UAA, UAF,
and UAS, given that they are truly regional
institutions who draw most of their students from
their own communities.
11:38:59 AM
The two types of accreditation essential to our
system are regional and specialized. Regional
accreditation refers to the recognition granted to
U.S. institutions by one of seven regional
accreditation bodies (the NWCCU is ours). Regional
accreditors are nongovernmental bodies recognized by
the U.S. Department of Education. Within accredited
universities, individual programs may also achieve
specialized accreditation for degrees offered in
certain areas or professions. Specialized
accreditation is essential for licensure in many
professions. There are approximately 48 programs at
UAA which carry specialized accreditation, and they
include programs from art and automotive & diesel
technology to social work and surgical technology.
ABET accredits six baccalaureate engineering programs
at UAA.
In fact, we have already had a taste of what greater
centralization under Statewide control would bring.
In recent years, Statewide administration attempted
to reorganize UAA's, UAF's, and UAS's Colleges and
Schools of Education into the Alaska College of
Education. A planning document from 2017 prepared by
President Johnsen for the Board of Regents(1) reveals
a long list of concerns raised by the NWCCU,
including questions about faculty governance input,
on whether the change was financially sustainable and
cost effective, and others. The NWCCU's president
characterized the plan as unusually complex,
expecting the review process to take "significant
time (multiple years) and effort."
11:39:51 AM
Pres. Johnsen concluded that "a difficult, time
consuming, and uncertain accreditation process
creates major challenges to our ability to
successfully recruit students, engage our faculty,
build on our strengths, and deliver programs while we
go through the process." He ended up proposing that
the affected programs remain affiliated with their
home campuses but be administered by a single
Executive Dean at UAS, in part to "avoid
accreditation concerns altogether."
The centralized Statewide structure and its removal
from the day-to-day operation of our programs makes
it structurally incapable of managing the level of
detail required to make these types of mergers
successful, even as it resists delegating that
control to those who are well-positioned to manage
those details. Following the loss of specialized
accreditation by UAA's initial licensure programs by
the Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP) the Regents voted to abruptly
discontinue the initial licensure programs at UAA in
2018 after an expedited program review similar to
what it just ordered at its September 12th meeting.
The wishes of UAA School of Education's local
constituencies were ignored(2) and principled dissent
from the Chancellors was actively suppressed(3). An
internal planning document(4)reveals that of UAA's
474 education majors, 27% graduated last year, 17%
transferred to other majors within UAA, 13%
transferred to UAF, 11% transferred to UAS, and 32%
"did not complete, [were not] retained." So 150
students dropped out of school. As a result of this
rushed and ill-considered consolidation, students
were harmed. This is indicative of a fundamental
problem with our over-centralized model, and will not
be solved by greater consolidation under single
accreditation.
The concerns raised by President Johnsen in the 2017
document about delivering programs while undergoing a
major accreditation process remain valid. In fact,
the system has considered this possibility before.
The 2016 Dana Thomas report commissioned by President
Johnsen on the prospects for single accreditation(5),
concluded that single accreditation was not
recommended. According to the NWCCU's Substantive
Change Manual(6), the proposed changes will have to be
considered by the full Commission, which meets only
twice a year in January and June, with proposals
requested at least six months in advance of planned
implementation. This explains President Johnsen's
aggressive proposed timeline(7), but it is highly
unlikely that a proposal detailed enough to satisfy
the NWCCU can be completed on this timeline, given
that preparation for UAA's recent successful review
occurred over 18 months.
11:42:14 AM
By contrast, separate accreditations allow us to
evolve according to the needs of our communities
without precluding our ability to agree to work
together when it makes sense to do so. Accreditation
is built on mission. Separate accreditation allows
UAA, UAF, and UAS to emphasize their distinct
missions, which have grown up in response to the
differing needs of their communities, and which are
appended as Exhibit A. The heart and soul of
accreditation is assessment, which is the act of
regularly reviewing data and student assignments for
evidence of performance and continuously making plans
for improvement. This is why accreditation and
assessment work best at the ground level, where the
results of assessment can be plugged directly into a
continuous improvement process that is personalized
to the needs of the local student body.
UAA, UAF, and UAS have different demographics and
have developed their curricula, majors, and missions
in response to their unique needs. For example, 96%
of students at UAA are commuters, 48% are of
nontraditional age, and our students are more likely
than college students in general to be working while
going to school or to be caregivers for dependents.
In order to be successful, any initiatives aimed at
increasing retention and graduation rates for this
student body will have to take all this into account.
UAA had long known that its 6-year graduation rate,
which hovered around an average of 26% for most of
the last seven-year review cycle, was a problem. Two
years ago, thanks to a series of local initiatives
that UAA has been implementing to address this
problem, our 6-year graduation rate increased 6
percentage points(8), and last year it increased
another. It is a local, community-oriented connection
between students, mission and improvement that
produced this result.
In closing, the decentralization that we are
advocating is certainly not the status quo, and in
fact it offers truly exciting opportunities for our
public university system to grow into what our
state's diverse communities need in the years to
come. If we can accomplish a 7% increase in
graduation rates in 2 years, despite the limitations
of central control, think about what we might do with
a university with its own Board of Trustees,
responsive to the market forces of the communities we
serve and empowered to pursue opportunities that make
the most sense for our communities, and our state.
Let us show you what we can become.
EXHIBIT A: The distinct institutional mission
statements of UAA, UAF, and UAS
UAA: The mission of the University of Alaska
Anchorage is to discover and disseminate knowledge
through teaching, research, engagement and creative
expression. Located in Anchorage and on community
campuses in Southcentral Alaska, UAA is committed to
serving the higher education needs of the state, its
communities and its diverse peoples. UAA is an open-
access university with academic programs leading to
occupational endorsements; undergraduate and graduate
certificates; and associate, baccalaureate and
graduate degrees in a rich, diverse and inclusive
environment.
UAF: The University of Alaska Fairbanks is a Land,
Sea, and Space Grant university and an international
center for research, education, and the arts,
emphasizing the circumpolar North and its diverse
peoples. UAF integrates teaching, research, and
public service as it educates students for active
citizenship and prepares them for lifelong learning
and careers.
UAS: The mission of the University of Alaska
Southeast is student learning enhanced by faculty
scholarship, undergraduate research and creative
activities, community engagement, and the cultures
and environment of Southeast Alaska.
11:44:10 AM
CHAIR SHOWER noted that during the break there was some
discussion about military strategy and the move toward
decentralizing command and control. He said the principle is to
let the trained experts do the mission.
He welcomed Dr. Chad Farrell.
^Equity
11:46:07 AM
DR CHAD FARRELL, Professor of Sociology, UAA, discussed equity
related to the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation. He delivered the
following prepared statement:
To the chair, thank you for this opportunity. My name
is Chad Farrell and I have been a professor of
sociology here at UAA since 2005.
In its first population enumeration after statehood,
the U.S. Census Bureau counted roughly 226,000
Alaskans. Anchorage was already our largest city at
the time, but most Alaskans lived elsewhere. In fact,
more than half of the state's population lived
outside the Southcentral region, which I'll define
here as Anchorage, Mat-Su, Kenai, Kodiak, and Valdez.
By 1975the same year that UAA was first accredited
Southcentral was home to nearly a quarter-million
people, larger than the entire state had been less
than a generation prior. This population shift toward
Southcentral continued to build.
Anchorage has more than tripled in size since
statehood, and Kenai has more that sextupled. In the
past decade, Mat-Su ranks among the fastest growing
jurisdictions in the entire United States. Today,
nearly two out of every three Alaskans call
Southcentral home.
11:47:31 AM
As our population has grown its composition has
changed. Much of my research focuses on the changing
racial and ethnic contours of the United States, and
I am fortunate to work in a city which is at the
forefront of one of the nation's most consequential
demographic trends. Anchorage is located on
indigenous ancestral homelands and it is also a
crossroads for newcomers; this reality is etched into
its ethnic architecture. To put this in some context,
the indigenous population of Anchorage, taken alone,
would constitute the state's second largest city. The
Filipino population of Anchorage, taken alone, would
constitute the state's fourth largest city.
Nationally, Anchorage ranks among the top-25 cities
in the number of residents claiming Hmong, Native
Hawaiian, Norwegian, Sudanese, Thai, Samoan, and
Finnish ancestries.
It is perhaps not surprising then, that the three
most ethnically diverse public high schools in the
United States are found here in Anchorage (please see
the attached exhibits). So are five of the nation's
most diverse middle schools, and 23 of the nation's
25 most diverse elementary schools. Some of the
students currently enrolled in those schools will
eventually find their way into my classroom, where
they will sit side-by-side with an array of other
students. Together, they will come from every
imaginable background: rural villages, affluent
Hillside neighborhoods, refugee camps on the other
side of the world, the splendor of Kenai, the mosaic
of Mountain View, the proud austerity of Kodiak, the
kinetic energy of Mat-Su, and, in some cases, fresh
from military service in a war zone.
Who is best situated to oversee the higher education
of these incoming cohorts of dynamic and diverse
students? Who has the best vantage point from which
to recruit talented and diverse faculty to teach and
mentor them? Who has the community visibility to
cultivate partnerships with local government,
business, and the nonprofit sector? Who is most
likely to have the necessary on-the-ground
perspective to make tough budget decisions while
minimizing harm to students? Is it a centralized
absentee statewide administration? Or is it a
chancellor who lives here in Southcentral and has the
pulse of the place?
These questions also pertain to UAS and UAF. My
colleagues on those campuses share the same
commitment to students that we do. What we do not
share is a centralized cookie-cutter approach to
serving our largely place-bound student populations.
Instead, we accomplish the mission by adapting to our
respective local constraints and opportunities, and
we reach out when we need a hand.
11:50:32 AM
UA Statewide seeks to "right-size" the university
system through centralized planning and control.
However, geography and demography have already
spoken. Statewide is not the center of gravity in
this state and Alaska's rich regional distinctions
are not going to be erased by anyone. Southcentral's
dynamism and distinctive character require an
unfettered university that is free to respond to the
region's changing social and economic landscape. That
requires local control, not remote control.
[Exhibits for Dr. Farrell's presentation may be found
on BASIS under the documents tab for this meeting.]
11:51:15 AM
RICHARD CLAYTON TROTTER, Professor of Law, Accounting, And
Finance, UAA, offered his perspective on equity as it relates
to the proposal to centralize the University of Alaska System.
He reported that he graduated from the University of Texas
School of Law and College of Business. He worked for a U.S.
District Judge in the Western District of Texas for two years.
Thereafter he spent two years studying international law,
comparative law, and international business at Oxford
University. He then was a corporate council for General Mills
and worked with mergers and acquisitions throughout the U.S.
and Latin America. After his legal career, he has had a 30-year
teaching career at Texas Tech, Trinity, and UAA. He spoke to
the following prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Richard Clayton Trotter,
Professor of Business Law, Accounting and Finance at
UAA.
We are here today to ask that the Alaska legislature
act for the benefit of the University of Alaska and
the State of Alaska. We ask that you use your
constitutionally authorized power to give the
universities greater authority to govern themselves.
Self-government is equitable. To be governed by a
distant power is imperial, is not equitable, and is
not consistent with the spirit of our state or
federal constitution. But that is how our
universities are governed today.
The people of Alaska and the Alaskan government have
complained for many years about imperial government
from Washington, D.C. Your universities deserve no
less from you than what we all deserve from our
nation's capital.
11:53:35 AM
In prior legislative hearings and in meetings of the
Board of Regents, the statewide administration of the
University of Alaska system has sometimes flashed a
power point slide at you quoting Article VII,
sections 2 and 3 of the Alaska Constitution. Those
sections establish the University of Alaska as the
state university, assign governance and fiduciary
powers to the Board of Regents and executive power to
the President.
When we have seen those quotes, we instantly
understand the point of quoting those sections. You
and we are being told that the power of the Regents
and the President was intended to be, and is
absolute.
That is not true. The sections limit the powers of
the Board of Regents with the phrases "according to
law," and "in accordance with law." These important
phrases gave to future legislatures the power to
modify the responsibilities of the Board.
It should not be surprising that the framers of our
state constitution included these phrases in sections
2 and 3. The author of those two sections was
delegate Victor Rivers. In another place in the
proceedings of the convention, he says this:
"Now in the past, as a Territorial government, we
have had no manner of expressing self-government
except through boards. We have had no manner of
having citizen participation in government except
through boards. Consequently, we have had lots of
boards established to much of the disgust of a good
many of our members of the legislature and citizens."
(page 2030)
The experience with territorial government taught
them an appreciation for establishing and preserving
self-government and eliminating government by boards
and bureaucrats. You will find earnest debates on the
subject of self-government in the proceedings of the
convention.
Due to their concern for preserving self-government
in Alaska, they created Article X of the
constitution. They knew that some of our communities
would mature and would outgrow imperial government
from a central point, and they knew that the people
deserved to govern themselves by their ancient rights
as Americans. Article X was their remedy. That
article provides a pathway for communities to become
independent, self- governing communities.
The Boundary Commission was one of the institutions
created by Article X to attend to future questions
that might arise from the growth of communities. The
Commission reviews all proposals for new boundaries
among municipalities and cities in Alaska. (i.e.
state governing bodies) The process is long and
involved, requiring a vote of all those affected by
the boundary change. The basic requirement of the law
is that the change must be demonstrably in the best
interest of the state and the newly created entity. A
detailed analysis of the proposal to create or change
a boundary must be prepared, often costing thousands
of dollars, followed by a vote of the people
involved.
The Board of Regents is now considering a total
consolidation of our system that will take away the
little self-government that our universities have.
The consolidation will affect tens of thousands of
Alaskan citizens as well as young people from other
states. This will have a profound and permanent
change in their lives. But there will be no vote, not
even a non-binding referendum, unlike the requirement
when a change in the boundaries of a city or borough
is proposed.
The Board of Regents is un-elected and it is
essentially a non-democratic institution, but its
purview has grown to the point that demands
accountability to the people. The Regents must handle
their affairs according to law, and you make the law.
Should not the consolidation of the universities as
the Regents and President propose, or the
decentralization of our universities as we propose
demand as much serious and detailed consideration as
would the disposition of a municipality before a
massive change? Why should such a massive change to
our public system of higher education escape a vote
by the people or by the representatives of the
people?
11:55:18 AM
MR. Chairman, it is not only right and constitutional
for the legislature to act. It is also good risk
management.
We need not remind you of the jurisdiction of the
Federal Courts over the actions of the Board, given
the recent litigation regarding a UAA anthropology
professor. The Supreme Court has ruled that
individual members of a state agency may be named as
defendants in litigation in Federal Court alleging
violations of federal Constitutional rights. The
Constitution of Alaska established The University.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme
law of the land and rules over state Law. The
University is a state actor for jurisdiction purposes
regarding federal constitutional and civil rights
matters.
Because of the detrimental reliance of faculty, staff
and students involved, promises made in a time of
plenty, while perhaps understandably difficult to
perform in a time of lack, are still promises. Many
faculty members, like us, moved here relying on those
promises, representations and the structure of the
existing university system. Any "sea change" shift in
the system, could give rise to a plethora of lawsuits
and costly litigation.
At a minimum, many faculty and students would "vote
with their fee and leave the system. Many in the
university community have approached me, asking, "can
we sue" or declaring they "want to sue," Nonetheless,
the unwise decision to declare financial exigency,
against our advice, has cost the board enormously in
good will in the community, especially among students
and faculty.
After 1974, The University of Alaska established
three accredited universities and transferred and
granted, "All the curriculum matters", including
teaching and research to those institutions,
supposedly keeping only "administrative duties." This
grant of authority, in my opinion, created the
potential for a "detrimental reliance" interest among
students, faculty and perhaps staff. Arguably, staff
are simply at will employees and have no expectation
of future employment if a university dissolves.
However, to some degree they too have relied on the
representations of the University of Alaska's
constituent universities.
Faculty are another matter. Tenured and tenure-track
faculty are hired for the "long haul." The
universities made at the time, explicit and implicit
representations that the university would "continue
to exist." A university will not work, if professors
have no reasonable expectation of employment or the
existence of the institution in the future. Tenure
track faculty serve 5 to 8 years in anticipation of
promotion and tenure. If that expectation ceases,
faculty would leave. Many already have.
All faculty, particularly faculty that just recently
arrived at the university, have relied to their
detriment on those representations. If the
representations had been intentionally false, they
would be fraudulent. Damages would be enormous. Even
if the representations were negligently or mistakenly
false, those injured thereby have a cause of action
against the university and the state of Alaska. One
does not change horses (or universities) in the
middle of the proverbial stream.
Literally, thousands of students are operating under
the same burdens. Most are taking a wait-and-see
attitude. They have clearly been detrimentally
affected by just these proposals. Some may leave, but
many in the most vulnerable populations cannot
relocate - they will just leave college permanently.
To their great loss and great loss to Alaska.
Nonetheless, if the universities dissolve, it could
create a class action of stunning proportions. These
concerns may not materialize, but they do surface due
to the facts.
Thank you.
11:57:17 AM
MR. TROTTER added that he moved here eight years ago when oil
prices were $110 per barrel. Since then, prices dropped to $23
and then rose to $62 per barrel. He opined that this problem is
not the legislature's, the university's, or the governor's; it
is a market problem. As the market price of oil increases, there
will be more money, but we must be smart as we move forward, he
said.
11:59:41 AM
CHAIR SHOWER announced a break until 1:00 pm.
1:03:32 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and welcomed the next
presenters.
^Spending Priorities
1:03:48 PM
DR. IAN HARTMAN, Associate Professor, UAA Department of
History, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska,
delivered the following prepared statement:
To the Chair, my name is Ian Hartman, and I'm a
professor of American history at UAA. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
I wish to share with you some figures about this
university system. As you'll recall the governor's
proposal to fund the UA system at roughly $193M would
have provided state support at the level of $11K per
full time enrolled student. 17,000 students enroll in
the UA system on a full-time basis. Nearly 11,000 of
them are right here in Southcentral Alaska, attending
UAA. That's 65 percent of the students enrolled in
higher education in Alaska.
1:04:56 PM
After the budget compact, the University of Alaska
Anchorage will receive about $107M in unrestricted
general funds this fiscal year. This works out to
$9,700 per full time student at UAA. This is $2K
under what the governor first proposed. In other
words, UAA is already under the target for the
reductions originally proposed by the governor. But
if we look at the funding picture even more closely,
one may be surprised at the level of disparities.
UAA's College of Arts and Sciences is the largest
single college within the entire university system.
Last year CAS generated more student credit hours,
and had more students enrolled, than all of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF received $148m in
undesignated general funds. Meanwhile the College of
Arts and Sciences received under $4 million in UGF.
Please consider what I am about to say: the single
largest college in the entire university system, with
over 6,000 students enrolled at any given time,
received about ONE PENNY of every dollar that the
legislature appropriated for the University of Alaska
system.
Please don't misunderstand: I appreciate the
different mission and focus of UAF. I understand that
the value of research is not reflected well by a
cost-per-student model. I'm not objecting to adequate
funding for research or the support for graduate
programs that make much of that research possible.
But the structure of the University of Alaska and the
centralization of decision-making at the Statewide
level makes the natural disparities between teaching
and research far worse.
Statewide administration made the decision to direct
shockingly low levels of funding towards students,
staff and faculty in the university's largest single
college. Statewide's decision reflects a belief that
the largest college in the system and the largest
university in the system exists first and foremost to
subsidize the costly overhead associated with a
burdensome administrative body remotely controlling
teaching, learning, and research in the state's
population center. Recall that Statewide's budget is
in excess of $50 million dollars, over 10 times what
UAA's College of Arts and Sciences was allocated in
UGF.
Why does this matter? To the extent that there is
one, the "typical" student who is enrolled in the
University of Alaska system is enrolled in a program
in the College of Arts and Sciences here at UAA.
Perhaps she is a biology major who has her sights set
on medical school, or maybe he is a history major who
wants to teach high school kids about the
significance of our nation's founding ideals. But in
any case, this student is appallingly underserved
given the current funding structure and priorities of
the university, and we fear that under greater
centralization, this will only get worse.
1:07:26 PM
This arrangement benefits not a single student at UAA
- all of whom chafe under a funding system that
reflects political considerations rather than student
demand or the economic interests of the Alaska's most
populated region. Simply put, students at UAA pay for
a system that has for too long chronically
underserved them. You in the legislature are uniquely
situated to help us solve this problem. Thank you.
Citations:
https://alaska.edu/files/pres/FY20-Prosposed-
Operating-Budget-Distribution-Plan.pdf
1:07:58 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if any of the cost disparity between UAA and
UAF had to do with UAF's focus on research and development and
the fact that they receive grants from outside sources, or if
it was an inequitable disbursement of undesignated general
funds.
DR. HARTMAN said he suspects it is a combination. He said it is
true that UAF has a stronger research profile and that it also
has a smaller student base. It is unprecedented in higher
education for the main campus to receive so much funding yet
have less students while the larger campus gets the leftovers.
He suggested having discussions to figure out how to realign
and preserve the strength of UAF's research programs while
reconciling that the larger student body is at UAA and is not
adequately served by the current structure.
1:09:54 PM
DR. JOEL POTTER, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University
of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, delivered the following
prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Joel Potter. I am an
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University
of Alaska Anchorage. I serve on the Faculty Senate
Committee on Governance and Funding Reform and also
live on campus with my family and work in the
residential community as UAA's first Faculty-in-
Residence.
Today I intend to explain why legislative action is
needed in order to significantly reduce
administrative costs for the University of Alaska
system. I shall begin with a brief summary of
administrative costs at the UA Statewide Office.
Then, I shall identify a recent attempt to improve
cost efficiency and service delivery at Statewide,
and then I shall propose why a legislative fix,
enabling greater decentralization, is the best way to
reduce overall administrative costs.
Administrative costs are high in the University of
Alaska system. In FY18, the UA system spent 130M on
Institutional Support (the NCHEMS category for
administrative costs). This amount represents 15.9%
of total expenditures in the UA System and is nearly
twice as high as the national average for public 4-
year institutions. Despite these facts, between FY14
and FY18, there was only a 5.5% reduction in
expenditures ($7.6M) on Institutional Support or
administration, whereas Instruction, which is in line
with national averages, was reduced by 11.5% (FY19 UA
in Review Report, Table 4.08). [The Appendix may be
found on BASIS under the documents tab for this
meeting.]
The Statewide Office has not led the way in reducing
administrative costs. In FY18 Statewide was the
source of 37.5% of administrative expenditures or
$48.8M. Despite a $60M reduction in annual
unrestricted general funds to the UA system between
FY14 to FY18, expenditures on administration were
reduced at Statewide by less than half a million
($487,400 dollars) (FY2015 Yellowbook, "University of
Alaska Approved Operating and Capital Budgets,"
December 2014 and FY2019 Yellowbook, "University of
Alaska Approved Operating and Capital Budgets,"
December 2018). While UAF, UAA, and UAS together
reduced their administrative costs over the same time
period by 8%, the Statewide Office reduced its
administrative costs by only 1%.
This may come as a surprise, since the Statewide
Office has reduced its use of unrestricted general
funds more than the universities have; the amount of
UGF budgeted for Statewide in FY18 was 39.3% or
$11.6M less than it was in FY14. However, a reduction
in one type of funding does not entail reductions in
expenditures. To make up a short fall in UGF, the
Statewide Office can effectively raise taxes on the
universities by the increased use of student tuition
and fees, charges for services, and indirect cost
recovery on research dollars. The Statewide Office
also draws revenue from interest income and land
sales.
In addition, this cost picture may also be surprising
because total actual expenditures for Statewide
between FY14 and FY18 reflect a $11.3M reduction.
These reductions have almost exclusively consisted of
a transfer of costs from Statewide to one of the
universities. In FY16 and 17, the programs associated
with Systemwide Education and Outreach were
transferred from Statewide to UAF. In FY14,
Systemwide Education and Outreach cost 10.2M at the
Statewide Office. Unless the receiving university has
managed to reduce the costs associated with these
programs, then what on paper counts as reductions in
expenditures at Statewide may not have contributed to
actual reductions in expenditures in the UA system.
1:13:50 PM
More recent budgetary cuts also do not reflect real
savings. In FY19, a separate line item in the
operating budget, called UA Enterprise Entities, was
created for the UA Foundation and the Education Trust
of Alaska. This transferred associated costs from
Statewide into a new and separate unit. According to
the Statewide System Office webpage, these services
are still administered by offices within Statewide,
so this change reflects no actual reduction in
expenditures. In fact, the combined line items for
Statewide and Enterprise Entities reflect an increase
in the SW budget from the year before and, if spent,
would exceed FY14 expenditures in Institutional
Support.
Fiscal challenges and bloated Statewide
administration are not new with the recent state
budget. In March 2015, outgoing UA System President
Patrick Gamble established the Statewide
Transformation Team in the wake of "the state's
deepening fiscal crisis" (Patrick Gamble, "SW
Transformation Team Formed," March 23, 2015) and
asked the team to "review SW office programs and
services and make recommendations to ensure SW work
is tied to its essential purpose, efficient in its
use of resources, and effective in delivering
results" ("Transforming the University of Alaska's
Statewide Office" September 15). In their report, the
Statewide Transformation Team noted a command and
control style and a lack of clarity about the unit's
purpose among its functional leaders. The team
recommended that many functions at Statewide should
be moved to the universities in order to promote
efficiency and to better serve students.
In a November addendum to the report, the team
concluded that the Statewide Office "has grown into
an expansive entity lacking both a clear mission and
a unified connection to its purpose, limiting its
effectiveness." They noted that "Comparison with peer
state university systems across the country reveals
that UA Statewide is an outlier in terms of
structure, function and staffing levels"
("Transforming the University of Alaska's (UA)
Statewide Office Addendum to Report" November 2015).
While some Transformation Team recommendations were
implemented - including the transfer of teaching and
public service at Statewide to one of the
universities - most of the recommendations to
distribute of share operational functions with the
universities were not implemented.
The way to bring about effective long term change in
administrative cost is to open up the services
currently provided by the UA Statewide Office to
competition. In order to be able to do this, the
university chancellors must have the authority to
contract cost effective and efficient services.
Given authority to make decisions about service
providers, each chancellor could, then, determine
whether to
(1) utilize a service from a statewide office
under the terms of a negotiated shared service
contract,
(2) utilize services provided by private industry
or local municipalities,
(3) run the service from within the university,
(4) receive the service from one of the other
universities under a negotiated shared service
agreement,
(5) or share the service between universities
using a consortium approach.
The chancellors are best positioned to decide because
they are in closer contact with the students they
serve as well as with community partners, donors, and
faculty and staff. Legislative action to distribute
authority from the president and regents to the
chancellors and newly created boards of trustees
would force whatever statewide office continues to
exist to take on a true service orientation. Without
a market incentive, we can expect the sorts of
inefficiencies identified by the Transformation Team
to remain or worsen.
Appendix
1. Cost of Instruction vs Cost of Institutional Support
in University of Alaska System
Although the Direct Student-Regular Faculty Ratio for
UA as a whole may be low (it is 11.4) compared to
other state systems, the actual cost of instructional
faculty at UA is not high compared to other public
institutions.
In FY18, UA spent $11,290 per full-time equivalent
student (SFTE) on Instruction. This is less than the
average 4-year public institution, which in FY17
spent $12,676 per SFTE. And it is only slightly more
than the average for both public 2-year and 4-year
institutions ($10,832).
Besides including some other instructional costs,
Instruction, as a NCHEMS category of expenditures,
includes the benefits and full salary of
instructional faculty, covering their research,
service, and teaching.
The proportion of FY18 spending on Instruction in the
UA system is only 24.15% of UA's total expenditures.
This is a smaller proportion than what was spent at
public 4-year institutions in FY17 (28.19%),
according to the National Center for Education
Statistics.
By contrast, Institutional Support (which is the
NCHEMS category for administrative costs) was 21.5%
(130M) of the total unrestricted expenditures at UA
and 15.9% of total expenditures at UA in FY18. In
FY17, the average public 4-year institution spent
8.4% of its total budget on Institutional Support.
serve as well as with community partners, donors, and
faculty and staff. Legislative action to distribute
authority from the president and regents to the
chancellors and newly created boards of trustees
would force whatever statewide office continues to
exist to take on a true service orientation. Without
a market incentive, we can expect the sorts of
inefficiencies identified by the Transformation Team
to remain or worsen.
Sources:
[The exhibits for this prepared statement may be found on BASIS
under the documents tab for this committee meeting.
1:17:55 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if he knew the private donor volume for
the various campuses.
DR. HARTMAN said heard anecdotally that one donor who gave
$200,000 to UAA said they would not give anymore because their
previous donations may not be used for the programs they
originally intended.
SENATOR COGHILL said he heard that too and he believes it would
be wise to honor the reasons the donations were made in the
first place.
^Alternative Models
1:19:25 PM
DR. MAX KULBERG, Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences,
and the WWAMI School of Medical Education, University of Alaska
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, paraphrased the following
prepared statement:
To the chair, my name is Max Kullberg. I am an
Assistant Professor with the WWAMI School of Medical
Education.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would like to talk
to you about decentralizing the University of Alaska
system, which has been proposed by the Chancellors.
Decentralized models for universities exist around
the country including the Claremont colleges in
California and the recently decentralized Oregon
university system.
Decentralizing is a strategy for reducing
administrative costs and increasing local governance.
As has been mentioned, decentralization could be
accomplished by legislatively moving powers to a
board of trustees for each university, or by creating
a separate Alaska State University. The advantages of
a decentralized model compared to a centralized
merger model, are as follows:
First, a decentralized model would largely save costs
by reducing administration. We have heard from
legislators and stake holders that they would like to
see the university's money go to instruction and for
cost savings to come from reducing administration.
This makes sense, since the University of Alaska
system spends nearly double the national average on
administration. Over 40% of that cost is from UA
statewide, which has a budget of $52M per year. If we
are going to reduce administrative costs, we must
talk about creating a more efficient statewide unit.
The Oregon legislature recently took this step. They
gave autonomy to the chancellors, created boards of
trustees for each public university and downsized
their central administrative office. We should and
can do the same. The legislature of Alaska has the
authority to shift responsibilities, now possessed
solely by the Board of Regents, to boards of trustees
for UAF, UAS and UAA.
A more decentralized leadership structure would
reduce the unchecked administrative spending at
statewide and allow the Chancellors to make precision
reductions to local administration. The Chancellors
have already made such cuts, largely absorbing this
year's $25M cut. If cuts do extend to academic
programs, adjustments are best managed locally by
those who know their program's mission, curriculum,
students and community connections. Such local
control has already led to natural collaborations
between UAA, UAF and UAS in chemistry, philosophy and
engineering as the programs rely on each other to
accomplish their goals. Much more disruptive to
students would be the top down approach of merging
the three universities, which would largely eliminate
face to face contact at two of the campuses and rely
on distance learning to the third, lead campus.
The School of Education is an example of this
approach. Not only did it precipitate the loss of
accreditation at UAA, it has also resulted in a 38%
decrease in student enrollment in education this year
across the whole university system. That is 38% fewer
teachers that will be available for our k-12 school
districts in just a few years. My daughter's second
grade class already has 29 students. What is it going
to look like in a few years? This will disrupt our
community. A system-wide merger and consolidation
will impose this disruption on a larger scale, on the
entire state.
1:22:40 PM
The most important aspect of decentralizing is that
it would allow for increased local governance. As
Mayor Berkowitz pointed out at the last Board of
Regents Meeting, he doesn't think consolidation is
the answer and said that the system works best when
there is a local authority at the University that can
work directly with the community.
This is contrary to the President's proposed
leadership structure, which would eliminate the
Chancellors and Provosts and transfer authority to
himself. Only with local autonomy can a university
truly serve and align with its community.
UAA, UAF and UAS serve very different cities with
different workforce needs and different students. Our
students at UAA have made their voice heard. They
don't want an online education. They want to be face-
to-face with their teachers. They want to sit next to
their peers. Moreover, research has shown
overwhelmingly that underrepresented students like
those at UAA, do not do well with online education.
With online educations they are more likely to fail
their courses, are less likely to graduate and will
have more difficulty finding a job after graduating.
We have data from UAA that confirms these
conclusions. In organic chemistry, 30% of students
fail when it's delivered in a fact to face format.
When the exact same content is delivered, by the
exact same teacher, just moved to an online format,
70% of students fail. That is over double the failure
rate from moving a course to online, and this is the
model that the President wants for our entire
university system.
UAA has evolved to fit the students of UAA and has
aligned with the community so that students can most
effectively transition into our workforce. If the
universities are required to merge and UAA is
governed from a plane ride away, this community will
lose this university and once it's gone it's not
coming back. In summary a decentralized model would
decrease unchecked administrative costs at UA
statewide and would increase local governance so that
UAA, UAF and UAS truly serve the students and their
regions.
1:24:12 PM
DR. PAUL DUNSCOMB, Professor and Chair, Department of History,
University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, delivered
testimony on alternative models. He paraphrased the following
prepared statement:
To the chair, I'm Prof. Paul Dunscomb, chair of the
department of history at UAA.
When we to talk about the restructuring of higher
education in Alaska, it is critical to note this is
not a discussion about declining budgets and cost
savings. It's not about how diminished state support
gets distributed. Questions regarding the structure
of higher education in Alaska are much more
fundamental. They are about mission, and purpose. Who
shall have access to higher education, and who shall
not? What value can the state of Alaska expect to
realize from its system of higher education.
Higher education in Alaska has evolved since the days
of statehood and it must evolve again. It is also
clear that no matter what model we ultimately end up
adopting for the system (how our product is
delivered), the basic governance structures for
higher education in Alaska require reform. The Alaska
Legislature has a critical role to play in this.
1:25:33 PM
In 1974 the Board of Regents and the UA President
Robert Hiatt approved a measure to grant the branches
of the University of Alaska in Anchorage and Juneau
permission to seek their own accreditation. In 1975
the University of Alaska deeded its own accreditation
to the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. When it did
so the University of Alaska as such, an accredited,
degree granting institution whose faculty teaches
students and conducts research, ceased to exist.
During those forty-five years the vast bulk of higher
education in the state of Alaska has been delivered
by three separately accredited universities, known
since 1987 as UAF, UAA, and UAS. While there remains
an entity known as the University of Alaska it is a
purely administrative one, costing $52 million a
year.
The basic shape of higher education in Alaska has
been at variance with the constitution for forty-five
years. Up until last week, the only proposal for
restructuring that had received serious attention was
for consolidation of the three UA universities into a
"new UA." One justification for it was the language
of the constitution (Article VII, Sections 2, 3),
which describes a University of Alaska under a Board
of Regents. However, trying to stuff forty-five years
of institutional evolution and growth into that form
is rather like the tailor cutting the customer to fit
the suit. Far better would be a new legal framework
building on what presently exists and providing for
greater autonomy and improved local governance.
1:27:06 PM
There are three particular ways the legislature could
do this.
The constitution could be amended to conform with the
current reality. This would likely prove a heavy
lift, however. There are measures short of
constitutional reform that the legislature might
entertain.
Article VII, Section 3 notes the Board of Regents
shall operate "in accordance with the law. As
authors of the law you have the power to redefine and
separate the duties of the board to allow for more
effective governance by giving each of the three
universities local boards of trustees and requiring
the chancellors to answer to them.
Finally, Article VII Section 1 does permit the state
to provide for other public educational institutions.
This could take the form of a separate and
independent Alaska State University to which you can
convey the assets of the University of Alaska
Anchorage (land, buildings, curriculum, and
accreditation). Prof. Nabors referenced the 1988
Alaska Supreme Court Decision McAlpine v. University
of Alaska that implied the legislature has the right
to do this. In that vein it should be noted that in
1976 the legislature moved and considered a bill that
would have broken out all of Alaska's community
colleges into a separate system independent of UA.(1)
They ultimately stopped short of doing so, but they
did give the matter serious consideration.
Higher Education in Alaska has evolved beyond the
ability of a single Board of Regents perched at the
very top of the system, to exercise effective
governance over the three universities in their
charge, especially not peering down through the
overcast of Statewide Administration. A decentralized
model providing local control and greater autonomy,
which you have the authority to provide, is a far
more effective answer to the challenges we face than
merely insisting on reverting to the form described
in the constitution regardless of how ill-fitting to
the needs of Alaskans that form is.
Thank you.
1. W. A. Jacobs. Becoming UAA, 1954-2014: The Origins
and Development of the University of Alaska
Anchorage. University of Alaska Anchorage, 2014. 64-
66.
1:29:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said that was a final emphasis to what the
committee has heard throughout the testimonies. He said he's
started outlining a series of principles of things to consider
moving forward. This debate requires the legislators to look at
what they want as outcomes for the university system as well as
for each campus. He said the legislature will go to the Board
of Regents who have also faced adversities, but this
perspective today has brought some things to light that need to
be addressed with the board. He highlighted the three main
suggestions given today was to amend the constitution, give
trustee authorship, or create a university that is unique and
distinct.
1:31:01 PM
DR. DUNSCOMB said the Board of Regents listens to the
legislature's opinions and often quotes them in board meetings.
He said he appreciates the legislature making its voice heard
to the regents.
1:31:20 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he is cautious about having three separate
university systems coming to the legislature asking for
different things, however, that could be prevented with the
appropriate structure. He emphasized that competition is
healthy in the appropriate structure, and when it is handled
the right way is a good thing.
DR. DUNSCOMB commented that Oregon goes through a central board
for its budgetary information, so there is a possibility to
streamline that approach within the decentralized model.
^Perspective of Alumni
1:33:15 PM
LEA BOUTON, M.A.T., President, UAA Alumni Association Board of
Directors, Anchorage, Alaska, as a UAA alumnus, offered her
perspective of the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation. She said she holds a
Master of Arts in Teaching from UAA and teaches chemistry and
engineering at Dimond High School. She said her testimony would
be a little different and that was her primary point. She
offered her belief that the alumni of an institution offer
something unique. She cited a report to the UAA Alumni
Relations in which the consultant said that when used
correctly, alumni comprise the fourth endowment piece of a
university. Alumni used as an endowment is a resource organized
to support the university in a variety of ways to ensure the
university's success in ongoing development. She highlighted
that in 2012 the Alumni Association was reestablished because
previous alumni structures did not work for the community. She
noted that the university struggled to effectively use UAA
alumni as an endowment and many alumni felt they were only to
give financially, while being disregarded for their experience,
energy and opinions.
She said that the alumni endowment represents more than annual
giving. The alumni provide a glimpse of where the institution
is headed because they act as the data points connecting the
current students, the curriculum they experience, and the
future results. She pointed out the Alumni Association has
experienced increased engagement after its open access model
was reestablished.
1:35:53 PM
MS BOUTON said UAA alumni are active, engaged, and generous,
but they do it differently. A model that may work for other
student bodies doesn't work as well here. She said she was a
nontraditional student, like so many others. She walked away
after graduation, expecting to not return, until former
students became star athletes. She said the presence of the Sea
Wolves athletics in her small town, captures the hearts of her
family. This engagement strategy enticed her and transformed
her into an active and present alum. She wondered if the level
of active engagement would change with a consolidation model
and she has two main responses. First, history has shown that a
structure that works at UAS or UAF does not necessarily work at
UAA. She does not have any confidence that the value of the UAA
alumni endowment is understood by statewide. She noted that the
alumni have presented their concerns about consolidation to the
Board of Regents.
1:37:38 PM
Secondly, due to the current fiscal situation, there could be
unintended consequences to consolidation. She opined that there
may be a loss in financial support if alumni were to lose their
tie to their alma mater. "We are Sea Wolves. Our colors, our
name, our mascot, and our culture; are all integrals of our
identity and we give as an expression of that."
MS BOUTON stated that the alumni are here today largely to
support the current students of the institution. She noted that
the current students have chosen UAA for its community-based
institution and the ability to personally work with their
professors face-to-face. She said that the current students
have voiced that a consolidated structure is not what they came
to UAA for and a "new UA" is not what they desire. She is also
here to support the 12 percent of students who decided to not
return to UAA after the tremulous summer. She said those
students are lost assets. She emphasized that we owe it to our
state to give students an institution of higher education that
supports their needs and works for them.
She said the UAA mission is distinct and important and tied to
the community of Anchorage. She urged the legislature to help
UAA find a future with its own accreditation and supported by
four strong endowments: financial, physical, intellectual,
indiscernible.
1:39:49 PM
MICHAEL LOWE, UAA Alumnus, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that he
graduated from UAA in December 2018. He opined that the plan to
consolidate the university system is shortsighted. He noted
that centralization would impact UAA's Reserve Officers
Training Corps (ROTC) Program. This program is one of many that
are at risk under consolidation. He said as a member of the
Alaska National Guard, it is a concern that students may not
have the opportunity to enhance their careers by pursuing a
local ROTC program. The possibility of discontinuing a program
like ROTC is one of the many unforeseen consequences of
consolidation.
CHAIR SHOWER thanked him for his service.
1:41:49 PM
STACEY LUCASON, UAA Alumnus Anchorage, Alaska offered her
perspective of the proposal to consolidate the three UA
universities into a single accreditation. She reported that she
had been student body president, had served on the Coalition of
Student Leaders to advocate for the students on all campuses
before the legislature, and had served as a student regent for
two years.
She opined that statewide is not very productive but heavily
relied on because they have taken on that role. She highlighted
that sometimes small problems get amplified by someone who is
not completely aware of the data and unfortunately statewide is
a part of the amplification of those problems. The
administrator's offices are in Fairbanks, so they do not have a
relationship with the students in Anchorage, Kenai, Homer, or
Southeastern Alaska. She said she has heard the remarks "we
want sameness for sameness sake," or "it will be easier if it
is the same" for a while now. She opined that having local
control and local processes will help navigate problems. If the
office in Fairbanks must be contacted for every problem, it
creates a much more difficult process.
1:45:04 PM
MS. LUCASON highlighted that amid budget cuts, the current
chancellor at UAA invested in the academic and student affairs
so UAA would have more first year advisors. UAA has outreach on
the campus, to have more young students come in and check it
out. She pointed out that this year is one of the largest
freshman classes UAA has ever seen. The momentum of helping
students figure out the best academic path has been halted
since the administration said, "we are going to be one, that is
just happening." She emphasized that students need this system,
with outreach and academic advisors, so they understand the
opportunities that exist at UAA like undergraduate research.
She urged the legislature to see the value in a decentralized
structure and find ways to bring up enrollment and have tuition
match what the community can support and the school's value
which will lead to more revenue instead of worrying so much
about cuts.
1:47:12 PM
CHAIR SHOWER commented that the people in the classroom and
those who have gone through the system offer a uniquely
different perspective. The most shocking takeaway is the
regional impacts and the relationships that are established and
to remember how unique each area is. He said it has been
impactful to not only see the impacts from a budget standpoint
but also how this will impact the students themselves.
1:48:20 PM
JONATHAN TAYLOR, UAA Alumnus, Anchorage, Alaska, said he serves
on the Alumni Board and has stayed involved in the university
because he values the institution. He wants others to have the
same opportunities that he had. He talked about the impacts of
having three different institutions.
First, he said, these institutions offer students unique
opportunities. The uncertainty of the future of UAA and
students receiving their scholarships led to a decline in
enrollment, students stopped showing up. He said this is
problematic because these students are less likely to return to
the institution. He said this restructuring not only impacts
current students but future students. The impact of that
uncertainty has trickled down to people who are potentially
considering the university. He understands there are budgetary
concerns, but he urges the legislature to proceed in a careful
manner so that the institution can manage those productions in
a way that does not negatively impact students.
Second, having three separate institutions reflects the
diversity of Alaska. He said that where a student graduates
from college, is where they will most likely put down roots. He
emphasized that each individual community has its own identity,
mission, and purpose. Students are diverse so having an array
of missions through three separate universities is crucial. He
noted that education is an investment in the future because
students will be educated to meet Alaska's diverse set of
needs. He said he would hate to see people leave because they
didn't have access to higher education.
1:53:31 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said the future perspective is appropriate. He
suggested that going forward it would be important to listen
long and speak short because the Board of Regents is also
considering things. The point of consolidation has been made
clear throughout today's discussion. He stated it's also
important the community has had an opportunity to speak. Alaska
is a unique community with a small population and large
geography. He said he would ponder how to restructure the
system so the community can thrive.
He thanked the presenters and said he would take everything
that was said to heart. He was listening.
1:55:30 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said this is step one in the process to find the
best university system. He said he would like to also hear the
other side of the argument. He advised that he has plans for a
roundtable discussion so all the ideas can be argued and
vetted. He understands that it is critical to have a robust
university system for the future of Alaska, it is all about
finding the best way forward with the current budget
constraints. He said he looked forward to seeing everyone for
further discussions and he appreciates everyone coming to speak
today.
1:57:04 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Shower adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 1:57:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| List of Witnesses.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
univeristy of alaska presentation by the univeristy faculty senate - list of witnesses |
| Restructuring the University of Alaska System - Dr. Forrest Nabors.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
restructuring the university of alaska system |
| Perspective of Student and Faculty Leadership - Scott Downing & Alex Jorgensen.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
perspective of student and faculty leadership |
| Management Risks - Dr. Frank Jeffries, LuAnn Piccard, and David Fitzgerald.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
management risks |
| Accreditation and Student Success - Dr. Jennifer Brock and Dr. Maria Williams.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
accreditation and student success |
| Equity - Dr. Chad Farrell and Clayton Trotter.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
equity |
| Spending Priorities - Dr. Ian Hartman and Dr. Joel Potter.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
spending priorities |
| Alternative Models - Dr. Max Kullberg and Dr. Paul Dunscomb.pdf |
SSTA 9/20/2019 9:00:00 AM |
alternative models |