77 percent say BOT hasn’t upheld its responsibility and 80 percent has ‘no confidence’ in university’s strategic plan by Chris Horne It’s been a rough summer for the community at the University of Akron. Deep budget cuts, positions “abolished” and 161 people laid off, programs dismantled, ideas for “grand” capital projects, significant outsourcing, controversial rebranding and marketing efforts, extravagant spending on the president’s residence, reinvestment in the debt-laden football program, upset alumni and donors, candidates for athletic director who dropped like flies, dubiously hired deans with questionable credentials, and academic support for 4200 students relegated to 15 “success coaches.” Monday morning, the University of Akron’s faculty union released the results of a recent survey that show the vast majority of them are unhappy because of “growing concerns about the recent actions and future plans of the administration at The University of Akron.” Nearly 80 percent of the faculty surveyed say the University of Akron is worse off than it was a year ago. Only 6.2 percent say they have confidence in the strategic plan for the university, which the Board of Trustees has supported throughout President Scott Scarborough’s tenure, and 72 percent say they are not confident the president is leading the university in a positive direction. The survey, conducted by the UA chapter of the American Association of University Professors, featured responses from 73 percent of the university’s full-time faculty, which participated from all the colleges across campus. CLICK TO SEE THE SURVEY RESULTS Asked for a response the reported lack of confidence in his strategic plan, President Scarborough released the following statement: “We worked closely with the faculty of the colleges as they developed their strategic plans and we charted the university’s strategic direction based on those plans. We recognize that change is always difficult for everyone involved, but making needed changes is what had to be done at The University of Akron to become a more distinctive university and to establish a sustainable economic model going forward. We will continue working with the college deans and the faculty to implement those plans to help achieve our shared goal of providing an even better and more valuable educational experience for our students.” However, the faculty appears to have a different impression of the working relationship with the administration. Only 5 percent said they think “shared governance” is working at UA. A 2009 column by Gary A. Olson for the Chronicle of Higher Education describes shared governance as “a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making processes, on the one hand, and administrative accountability on the other.” Olson also notes that all legal authority flows from the university’s governing board, which in the University of Akron’s case is the Board of Trustees. Only 4 percent of faculty responded that they believe the governor-appointed trustees were living up to their responsibility overseeing the university. At 93 percent, the highest percentage of respondents came from the newly renamed LeBron James Family Foundation College of Education. The lowest percentage came from the College of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering from which only 26 percent of faculty responded. Tell your friends:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading... Related 2 Responses Kathy Liszka September 28th, 2015 The president’s statement is pure fiction. “We worked closely with the faculty of the colleges as they developed their strategic plans and we charted the university’s strategic direction based on those plans. ” This is such a bold face lie, it’s difficult to fathom. We did NOT develop a strategic plan. I was at the College of Arts & Sciences meeting late last spring when we were presented with our “strategic plan” that was written by the president and looked at by a small subcommittee before the meeting and then presented it. We were told that if we did not accept the plan then a “potential” pool of money for “strategic initiatives” would NOT be available for our college. We were also told that the College of Engineering had already approved their almost identical strategic plan and we needed to wrap this up immediately. Someone stood up and said they had talked to several engineering faculty that morning and they said they had not even had their first meeting on the topic. There was a lot of discussion and in the end, it passed, although definitely not unanimous. There were some extra sentences added to the effect that this was for one year and more time would be needed to prepare for next year’s initiative. We made it clear that we weren’t happy. No one dreamed that this would be reworded to make it look like we created this document, had total buy in and then turn around use it against us. This administration continues to manipulate and lie. I hope other faculty at the university speak out on this topic. Reply Rick Zaidan September 29th, 2015 When Scarborough lies in a newspaper headline, he’s a bold face liar. When he speaks, he’s a bald-faced liar. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel ReplyYour email address will not be published.CommentName* Email* Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.