UTICA — The Faculty Senate of Utica University voted 108-15 in a special meeting Wednesday to publicly censure the university’s Board of Trustees and its Chair Bob Brvenik.

This vote comes in response to the Jan. 18 academic portfolio review recommendations made by Brvenik and university President Laura Casamento calling for the elimination of 15 majors and the revision of eight other majors and one program at the university.

The Faculty Senate censure states it is “a collective judgment of condemnation for the sidestepping of shared governance and proper curricular processes, as well as a formal public act of disapproval of the board’s unacceptable behavior. The Faculty Senate does hereby censure, disavow and formally express disapproval of the Utica University Board of Trustees’ leadership and conduct.”

The Faculty Senate requested that the Board of Trustees reject any recommendations brought to the board as a result of the academic program portfolio review process.

The recommendations were crafted to reflect the career needs of Utica University students, Casamento explained.

“As the higher education market shifts, we are looking thoughtfully and strategically at what our academic footprint should be as we plan for the future,” she said. “While much of the public discussion understandably centers around majors, the review heavily takes into account programs that are essential to supporting general education and critical thinking learning goals.”

But those recommendations quickly drew fire from AAUP Utica/AFT 6786 union President Leonore Fleming. She posted a video to union members, including faculty, librarians and Higher Educational Opportunity Program counselors at the university, to voice her disapproval of the review and the way it was formulated.

The university leadership is trying to radically re-shape the character of the institution without meaningful faculty input, said Fleming, an associate professor of philosophy at Utica University.

The faculty had been told for six months that they would be provided a detailed report along with these academic program review recommendations, including a financial overlay, Fleming said. But on Jan. 18 none of that information was provided to them. In addition, Fleming added, it was unclear why the process kept changing and the information was withheld. 

“Faculty have been asking for transparency for months,” Fleming said. “The Jan. 18 announcement only really provided us with the list of programs to be eliminated or modified, without any explanation of how they arrived at those decisions. Given the lack of transparency throughout the last six months and the lack of transparency with this latest announcement on Jan. 18, faculty are understandably upset.”

The lack of consultation, documentation and the general lack of transparency has caused students and faculty alike to question the process and the subsequent recommendations, she explained. While academic reviews are not uncommon, such reviews almost always include extensive consultation with faculty and other constituencies the necessary expertise to make these decisions, Fleming noted.

“Faculty are concerned about the negative ramifications that will result from these recommendations, especially the program eliminations, and how these eliminations will harm the students and the institution itself,” she said. “This vote of censure is the faculty’s attempt to get the Board to Trustees to realize that we are upset and that the lack of transparency throughout this entire process is unacceptable.”

The university Board of Trustees responded to the censure vote via a statement sent out by Kelly Adams, the university’s vice president for presidential affairs and chief marketing and communications officer.

“The board deeply respects the faculty’s right to have their individual and collective voices heard on a matter as important as the institution’s academic offerings,” the statement read. “We respect our faculty and their vital importance to this university.”

The board did acknowledge the importance of input from the faculty, however.

“The notification of the faculty’s censure includes allegations that the board does not respect faculty’s role in shared governance. On the contrary, the board acknowledges that faculty have primary responsibility for curriculum - which is different from degree credentials and educational offerings,” the board’s statement said.

The board has invited students, faculty and staff to submit their own comments online through Thursday, Feb. 2 to be forwarded in their entirety to the trustees along with the president’s recommendations. Participants need a university login to access the online commentary portal. Comments can also be emailed to comments@utica.edu, but only messages from utica.edu email addresses will be accepted.

The board will consider the recommendations during its Feb. 17 meeting, their statement said.

A public “Save Utica! Stop the Cuts!” petition started by AAUP is also available online at www.change.org/save-utica. All comments left on this petition by Jan. 31 will be submitted to the university’s “Public Commenting Form” anonymously, unless specifically requested to include a name and any other information, and presented to the trustees two weeks prior to their Feb.17 Board of Trustees meeting.

Fleming said she is proud of the faculty for standing up for shared governance and to demand transparency, not just for the faculty, but for the students and alumni as well.

“While the faculty are devastated from last week’s announcement, I’m proud that they are united and working together,” Fleming explained. “This vote isn’t just about the lack of consultation with faculty, but the lack of consultation with students and alumni as well. The lack of consultation, documentation and the general lack of transparency has caused students and faculty alike to question the process and the subsequent recommendations.”