Sonoma State University

FAQ: Academic Affairs Reorganization

  1. What specific problems is the reorganization helping us to solve?

We are doing reorganization in response to the Chancellor’s August 1 memo to President Mike Lee requiring that the campus work intensively to increase enrollment and solve our budget deficit by June 2024. We will be updating the Chancellor’s Office in a required communication about enrollment and budget on November 15 that addresses our efforts at reorganization. The reorganization helps us address both of those issues, but it also gives us an opportunity to remake our academic structures to serve our new needs. Reorganization addresses the following issues:

  • Enrollment: We must create the structures that will support the growth of enrollment through the appropriate mix of academic programs. That is where reorganization and the AMP come together. The structures have to promote the change and growth of academic programs that will lead to enrollment growth. That means that academic reorganization must result in collaborations and partnerships between departments that lead to course sharing, shared services, interdisciplinary curriculum, and curriculum planning. 
  • Student, faculty, and staff success: We must continue to improve coordination of student services, tracking of retention and graduation of students, focus on equity gaps, retention, tenure, and prom otion of faculty through appropriate mentoring. Shared services will help us to better manage the workload of our staff and create nodes of service for the academic core. Reorganization helps us focus our attention and allows us to better manage workload.
  • Budget: Academic Affairs has been asked to continue contributing to the reduction of the campus’ base budget deficit. Our campus and instructional budget are not aligned with our lower enrollment, which makes it imperative that we move forward to save any money we can from reorganization.

2. *UPDATED* Why did we originally plan to reorganize into four colleges, instead of two or three, and then converge on a three-college model?

Reorganization is always a balance between present circumstances and future planning. In discussing the number of colleges we should have, the Provost has listened carefully to faculty and administrators, who have expressed concern about retaining the identity of programs and departments, about effectively marketing what we have, and what we will build. Early in the AR process, feedback from faculty and staff emphasized the importance of retaining departmental structures, in contrast to some reorganization models at other universities in which departments are “merged” to create new structures to house academic programs (see FAQ 28 which provides some examples of AR at other campuses). It is also important that we not make the number of colleges so few that identity is lost and students have trouble finding their intellectual home. At the same time, we also need to reduce the number of colleges to allow our structures to reflect our new enrollment realities. Additional considerations in determining the appropriate number of colleges was creating a structure that:

  • Facilitates collaborative efforts
  • Coordinates processes and staff/administrative support
  • Brings better balance to the size of the colleges
  • Strives to address faculty needs, wants, and concerns
  • Supports budgetary savings

A four-college model with the Library as a separate organizational unit was initially considered the best way to highlight the distinctiveness of our academic programs through some centerpieces of academic excellence while encouraging fruitful and collaborative problem solving, shared services, and fiscal efficiencies. Considering the factors as well as department and school groupings, feedback provided during public updates, Chairs’ workshops, Deans’ meetings, and individual or group communications, a three-college model with the Library as a separate organizational emerged. It offers maximum collaboration and budget savings opportunities. 

  1. With the integration of departments, we are losing chairs. How will I not be continuing to do the same work but for free now?

In most cases, a single chair will be responsible for multiple departments. This person will take over the normal responsibilities of the chair, drafting the class schedule, evaluating lecturers, etc. In cases where particularly large departments are concerned, there may be program coordinators or vice-chairs or the equivalent that may take over some of the duties assigned to the chair. In these cases, the vice-chair or coordinator would still be assigned a reasonable workload per the contract. These coordinators or vice-chairs will not have the same responsibilities as Chairs. 

  1. The CBA stipulates that there are Department Chairs, not school Chairs. Does the new organizational structure violate the CBA?

We will have Chairs that will be responsible for multiple departments and will fulfill the contractual roles that chairs perform. Faculty who no longer have chair responsibilities will not be expected to continue Chair work. Chairs will have to consult with faculty in the departments they serve, but the Chair needs to do the work. 

  1. How strict are the guidelines related to the number of majors and the size of schools?

In the July 21, 2023 memo on reorganization, the Provost provided the following guidelines on number of majors and the way departments should join into schools:

Every department that supports fewer than 500 majors will need to form a school with at least one other department. If a school formed from two departments supports fewer than 200 majors, it should consider combining with another one or two departments. Optimally, no school should contain more than four departments or support more than 700 majors, with the exception of majors that already house that number of students.

These sentences constitute guidance rather than hard and fast rules. If a department houses somewhat fewer than 500 majors and wants to make a case to be a free-standing department, the faculty may submit that as a request. If two departments house somewhat fewer than 200 majors and believe that their curricular and administrative interests will be served by forming a school with only two departments, they may submit that as a request. Please note, however, that the Provost will be evaluating the number of schools in each of the colleges and the potential for collaborations, shared curriculum, and innovation and will follow up with additional discussions after October 6 to ensure a reasonable distribution of departments among schools and colleges that gains some efficiency.

  1. Should faculty and deans be more concerned about hitting FTES/major targets or about finding the right disciplinary fit?

Faculty should be more concerned about finding the right disciplinary fit than about hitting FTES/major targets. The right disciplinary fit is one that encourages enrollment growth, creative curriculum planning, student, faculty, and staff success, fiscal efficiencies, and strategic course scheduling.

  1. Are the budget savings worth the effort to reorganize? When will we see the numbers for how much money will be saved from this process?

Reorganization is not only about budget savings, so there is no monetary amount that makes the reorganization “worth it” or not “worth it.” We must reorganize because we must find ways to develop programs that will enhance our enrollment. See question 1 above. 

Having said that, there are opportunities for both revenue enhancement and budget savings. By increasing enrollment through new and revised curricular offerings, the university can offset some of the need to reduce budget with new enrollment. Increased enrollment will be a revenue enhancement opportunity to help stabilize our university moving forward. Decreasing administrative barriers that currently hamper the ability of faculty to collaborate across departments will also help us capitalize on our faculty’s strengths, offer opportunities to team teach and team plan courses, and better serve our students.

We expect some financial savings from reorganization, beginning with the loss of one dean position as we move from five schools to four colleges. This will reduce the management structure to align with our enrollment. Any reassigned time saved will depend on the new administrative structure and on the determination of appropriate workloads for new Chairs. As the process moves forward we will continue to refine and share updated savings estimates and budget structures for our new organization.

On December 1, 2023 the Provost’s Office will begin reviewing budget projections and savings for the reorganization along with scheduling and assignment of work processes for fall 2024. Once fully drafted, this information will be provided for comment to faculty governance and the current schools at the beginning of the spring semester 2024.

  1. How will we schedule for Fall 2024 when we don’t know the final organizational structure?

Faculty Affairs and Success will hold Professional Development for Chairs in late fall 2023 and early spring 2024 that is focused on issues directly related to the upcoming reorganization and scheduling processes for fall 2024. At the beginning of spring 2024, they will also provide written guidance for these processes including assignment of work. Chairs will be elected in late spring 2024, so it is expected that instructor replacements may need to be found in some cases. Although at SSU we have always preferred to know projected release time in advance of work assignments, this is a normal process across the CSU. We have to maintain our flexibility.

  1. What literature resources are available to learn more about academic restructuring?

Prior to the start of our academic reorganization process, the Provost reviewed various books and reports to make connections between their circumstances and ours. Some useful readings include the following: 

Some of the above readings are available in the library, while others require access. If you need access, please leave a note in this Google Form. The Provost also consulted with other CSU administrators including Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester, Executive Vice Chancellor Sylvia Alva, and John Welty, former President of Fresno State University and current Senior Consultant for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and with administrators from other COPLAC institutions. She also looked at Academic Master Plans from inside and outside the CSU. It was particularly important to consider how academic restructuring occurs in the context of the CSU and for represented employees and how it connects to our identity as a public liberal arts institution.

  1. How do I get information and updates about the reorganization process and implementation?

We have a communication plan to send out updates as we move through the reorganization processes. We are also working on a website where we will archive the communications that go out and post additional information. You can also submit questions, concerns, or comments through this Google Form.

 

11. What will happen to staff, Admin Analysts, coordinators, techs, and managers? How will merging departments affect our employment? 

The reorganization plan will impact the structure of Academic Affairs but should not impact the number of staff needed to support students and faculty. As the reorganization plan is reviewed, the Provost’s Office will work with the Dean and Director of Operations/Administrative Managers for each college to ensure appropriate staffing for each school and department. The new school and college structures and centralizing some services in the Provost Office should allow us to find ways to address and redistribute workload in the colleges. All CBA requirements will be followed. Staff Council is included in the communication plan for updates and input. Staff can also provide feedback via the Reorganization Comment and Question Google Form.

12. How will communications with students be handled? What are ways to communicate this to students without students potentially coming to negative conclusions (for example, could students possibly view reorganization as limiting their options, foreshadowing a reduction in the number of faculty in certain fields, or indicating that SSU is "in crisis" or "in decline"?) 

We are in communication with the AS Leadership and have included updates at the AS meeting as part of our communication plan. They will be getting monthly updates through their participation on the Academic Senate (last meeting of each month). 

Faculty have a major role to play in student perceptions. It will be critical for faculty to reassure students that:

  • Change is a part of university life, and our first goal is always student success
  • SSU will provide the courses students need to graduate in a timely fashion
  • Reorganization is less about courses and programs than it is about the administrative structures we use to make sure courses and programs are supported
  • SSU wants to grow enrollment and may be developing new majors and making changes to the curriculum of current majors; faculty and staff will always try to make sure those changes are not disruptive to students
  • We welcome thoughts and input from students 

Departments may group into schools and new colleges, but students will be able to complete their degrees in the program in which they are currently enrolled.

As described above, one of the main goals of this process is student success. This includes developing a new structure that allows us to break up our own internal barriers to creating new programs, new enrollment, and opportunities for student learning. The goal is that the new structure will also help streamline student way-finding and question-asking, but not be so narrow that individual program distinctiveness gets lost. See question #1 for more details.

13. How do we make sure the process of re-org does not reduce our ability to grow enrollment in the short term?

Strategic Enrollment, Student Affairs, and Academic Affairs are collaborating on outreach efforts to increase enrollment through student retention and yield. As discussed in Question #11, reorganization does not affect current programs. Although collaborations within new schools are expected to provide opportunities for departments to explore curricular offerings, Current and New Programs are currently being discussed separately as part of the Academic Master Planning process.

14. Will the unit of "Department" continue to exist? In other words, if we went to a website, would we see "School of XXX" and then the list of various degrees and programs. OR, would we see "School of XXX" and then "XXXX Department" and then list of degrees/programs with the department. Another way to think about it, are degrees/programs being overseen by the "Department" or the "School."

Departments will still exist. In most cases, multiple departments will be chaired by a single person and they will be clustered in a school. Programs and courses will still be connected to the department itself. Programs would continue to be nurtured by the appropriate faculty with expertise as they have always been. Administrative duties related to programs would continue to be led by the chair of the departments within the school or a designee as determined with considerations of appropriate workload. We are working with Strategic Communications regarding questions and guidelines for website structure after the reorganization and any necessary redirects to assure visitors arrive at the correct landing page. This may be an opportunity to be creative in the way we present ourselves on our website.

15. Questions/comments from the Provost’s update to the Academic Senate Sept. 28, 2023. (Link to Slide Deck.)


a. Discussions have been driven by emotion rather than facts. Data about programs would help departments have reorganization conversations better with each other if they have data on market outlook and the economy. Then they can have discussions based on facts rather than fears.

i.Gray Associates will be providing access to market outlook for Chairs. They are still prepping the economic data. The Current and New Programs group of the Academic Master Planning process is also examining this data.

b. Restructuring may impact collaborations between departments. There is a fear that faculty are viewed as interchangeable and disciplinary expertise may suffer as a result.


i. Restructuring is intended to foster collaborations between departments and faculty and to increase opportunities for team-teaching.


c. Faculty are concerned that class sizes will increase for departments that get merged.


i. Course size is not related to the structural reorganization of our departments and schools. Follow-up on this question so that we can better understand the root of the concern might be helpful and can be submitted to the Reorganization Comment and Question Google Form.


d. Are the numbers provided in late July about when departments should merge (if they have less than 500 majors) and how many schools/majors there should be per College still valid?


i. These numbers are still valid as a guideline.


e. The reality is that the wishlist of a department may not be the end result. Taking this account might help departments branch out in decision making.


i. The final decisions for the reorganization rest with the Provost in consultation with the President. It is important for departments to provide input into this process and to be open to multiple possibilities. Department groupings that strengthen department collaborations, support the development of innovative and new courses/programs, and streamline our work make the most sense.


f. Faculty are concerned that faculty will have less power because the number of Chairs will be decreasing especially since Chairs don’t serve at the pleasure of the President like other leaders in the schools do.


i. Although still faculty, Chairs, still serve at the pleasure of the President. Faculty governance will be evaluating the structure and composition of the Academic Senate and related committees to ensure appropriate faculty representation. When electing Chairs, departments in a school should consider faculty leaders who are open and enthusiastic about fair representation and support for all departments.

16. How do I get information and updates about the reorganization process and implementation?

We have a communication plan to send out updates as we move through the reorganization processes. We are also working on a website where we will archive the communications that go out and post additional information. You can also submit questions, concerns, or comments through this Google Form.

17. What if the department votes on a school and/or college grouping but a faculty member submits a proposal that is not in line with the department’s vote? Will the voice of the majority of faculty in a department be considered?

Submission of proposals by faculty, Chairs and Deans through November 3, 2023 is meant to be a collaborative and transparent process. It is expected that when Chairs or Deans submit proposals they would likely include comments about department discussions, votes, etc that led to the proposal submitted. The Provost will be following up with departments and schools to discuss any inconsistencies as necessary.

18. What is the link to submit a proposal before November 3, 2023?

Proposals for department partnerships, schools, and colleges should be submitted through this Google Form by November 3, 2023.

19. Some departments have programs that have good fits with different departments. Could departments get split against their will based on best program matches? Can departments within one school still be in different Colleges?

No on both. Schools that exist across Colleges would cause additional levels of complexity in administrative functions such as budget distribution and reporting. It would also likely lead to difficulties in way-finding for students. However, we learned during the last Chairs’ workshop on reorganization that there will still be many possibilities for collaborations between departments that are not in the same school and/or college. We will continue to work on strategies that support these efforts. There is no identified reason why a department’s faculty would be unwillingly split apart. However, existing departments may choose to break up into one or more departments and move into separate schools and even separate colleges. Programs and classes can be offered across multiple departments, schools, or colleges, 

20. When departments group, the new Chair will have control over all departments in the school. This includes control over budget, hiring, scheduling, etc. If two departments merge then the Chair will from the department with more faculty. This minimizes the voice of the smaller department.

Faculty from departments make recommendations to the President or the President’s designee for who they would like to be appointed as Chair. Academic Affairs will provide a guideline document to support departments in developing fair processes for departments to select a Chair that will provide equal representation at the College level. Deans can also provide support int this area and they also serve as the Provost and President’s designees and appropriate administrators to approve budget, hiring, and scheduling decisions. Deans serve all members of their College and will remain available to faculty at the department level.

21. Chairs will be have to learn the curriculum, faculty, and students of all the departments in their school in order to serve everyone. How is this possible?

Departments within a school should recommend a Chair who is interested in learning about the departments within the school and in supporting them equally. One might consider that as Chairs (and departments) develop a stronger understanding of each other’s curriculum/faculty/students/needs, we might find new ways to collaborate and support each others growth. Faculty not interested in this role should not be recommended as the Chair.

22. Will departments have to relocate after the reorganization? We are concerned about specialty spaces that are discipline specific.

There is a Learning Spaces and Technology working group that is part of the parallel Academic Master Planning work as well as a Shared Services working group. It might make sense for some faculty/staff/departments to move spaces after the reorganization in order to facilitate collaborative efforts. However, it is also recognized that there are many learning spaces that are discipline specific and should not or cannot be moved. Discussions regarding any potential physical moves will take place after finalization of the new academic structure.

23. How do we move forward with staff hires that may be located in a different academic unit after the reorganization?

It’s important to be honest with potential applicants that their reporting structure or physical space may change after reorganization.

24. Will staff positions be eliminated as a result of reorganization?

There is no plan to eliminate any staff positions as part of the reorganization. Staff reporting structure and/or academic unit locations may change.

25. When and how will staff participate in the process?

Faculty and Deans have been the initial participants in the reorganization process as they explored disciplinary matches that would facilitate formation of schools and colleges. Staff remain invited to submit current questions and comments, including departmental groupings, through the Reorganization Question and Comment Form. As APARC reviews the omnibus proposal that will be delivered early in December, there may be opportunities for further feedback. As the implementation continues to move forward, staff will also be included in discussions to provide feedback on ways we can effectively manage staff workload in the new structure. These discussions will take place in February through March.

26. As Chairs assume responsibility for multiple departments, will support staff be expected to take on additional Chair duties?

No. Only Chairs should do Chair work.

27. My school does year-long scheduling. How do we do that for 2024-2025 since we don’t know the new academic structure?

The omnibus proposal with the new proposed academic structure will be released in early December and scheduling for Fall 2024 will begin in January 2024. Selection of new Chairs will take place in late Spring 2024 after the new academic structure is finalized. The Strategic Scheduling Working Group, affiliated with the Academic Master Planning process, has also submitted its recommendations report. Any year-long scheduling processes that take place should be done keeping in mind these processes and recommendations and remembering that changes may be necessary. However, the majority of courses are scheduled by departments and departmental courses will not change with reorganization.

28. We have heard a lot about academic reorganization at other campuses. Can you give us some examples from the CSU and other institutions?

Yes, there are a number of other models, some done purely for budget reasons and others to support curricular change, enrollment growth, and other sustainable outcomes.This FAQ responds to a query from CFA in a Senate meeting. 


Examples in the CSU:


CSU East Bay
The reorganization at CSUEB is the creation of a new College of Health. The reorganization has not been completed yet and the new college likely will not be launched until AY24-25. In AY21-22, the Provost led a committee to consider the creation of a new college of health. The committee was made up of faculty from the 10-11 programs that would be "moved" from their current colleges to become this new college. In the subsequent academic year, based on the report from their  initial work, another committee began working to develop an implementation plan for this reorganization of programs. The current provost indicates, "I don't think we are at a place where we could be defined as being unsuccessful in the reorganization. However, as you can imagine, there are a range of perspectives about whether this is a good idea. It was my observation that there are more people/programs in favor of the reorganization than those that oppose it."


A primary purpose of this reorganization is to have all health/wellness (holistic approach) related programs within one college for the purposes of development of new degrees, marketing to students as well as connecting with industry leaders and philanthropic alumni and donors. At least in the initial planning phase, budget reduction was not a primary goal. They are not talking about moving programs physically and the initial new cost would be a new dean and dean's office. While budget reduction was not a huge driver of this reorganization, budget realities may have delayed the launch of the new college by a year (that is my guess). Personnel issues were not a factor in the reorganization.


San Francisco State University
There have been several reorganizations at SFSU. During the 1993-94 academic year, the university underwent a reorganization to restructure its schools as colleges. The most significant change was the creation of the College of Health and Human Services [CHHS]. Several disciplines were removed from the Colleges of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and relocated within the new college. In addition, the former School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation-Leisure Studies was dissolved and all of its departments became part of CHHS. This reorganization recognized the importance the university was placing on its role in the human and social services arena and gave programs in these areas an opportunity for greater coherence, visibility, and interaction with each other. In the same year, the increasing need for educators in the state and Bay Area clearly put a newly-streamlined College of Education into a position of leadership and allowed it to establish a clearer mission for the future. The college began to devote all of its energy to the preparation of elementary, secondary, and special education teachers and school administrators. In a final organizational change, the Division of Extended Education was given college status and renamed the College of Extended Learning.


Further reorganization happened in 2012 and was updated in 2022. That reorganization was driven in part by personnel considerations and involved the creation of a College of Liberal & Creative Arts, involving Humanities, Comparative & World Literature, and Liberal Studies. The reorganization did not save money and is generally also not thought of as a failure. There was little turmoil involved. 


Cal Poly Humboldt (formerly Humboldt State University)
There have also been a couple of major reorganizations at what is now Cal Poly Humboldt. In the early 1990s, the academic colleges were restructured from five colleges into three colleges, largely for budget reasons.
 
From 2019 to 2021, the campus engaged in academic and administrative and staffing reorganization to address enrollment shortfalls and the resulting budget deficit. At the administrative and staff level, all three Colleges were affected. The College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences also merged all of their departments into clusters using the chair/coordinator model.  
 
In 2022, Humboldt gained the Cal Poly designation, which included the addition of over a dozen new programs and substantial funding to support the transition.  Following that, many of the departments that merged went back to being stand-alone departments. There was another department merger in another College that was not controversial and remains in place. 


Examples in COPLAC:


St. Mary's College of Maryland
This academic reorganization was done by the President, Tuajuanda Jordan. The current provost notes that the campus is only in year one of implementation. Academics were divided into 3 Divisions that were deliberately not organized by discipline; divisions were largely determined by the proximity of departments to one another in buildings on campus. The intent of the reorganization was to intensify and strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration and to improve equity in the distribution of resources to divisions and departments. MPP associate deans were placed in each division to be responsible for "administrative work." Chairs are supposed to be responsible for "disciplinary work." Chair assigned time was reduced and based on FTES and FTEF, facilities, and number of majors. Originally scheduling was considered administrative work, but faculty really wanted to do that. Concerns of faculty included workload for chairs and learning multiple disciplines. Incentives for reorganization included service sabbaticals for faculty leaving department chair duties after a full 4-year stint; faculty chairs rotating off their 4-year stint also receive one year off their sabbatical clock.


University of Illinois at Springfield
Several individual departments merged into single departments over the years: Sociology and Anthropology merged into one department with a single chair; Art, Music and Theatre Departments merged into one department with a single chair and program directors; English and Modern Languages merged into a single department with a single chair. All were successful from an administrative and faculty perspective, although Modern Languages has since been discontinued.


Beginning in 2019, UIS engaged in wholesale academic reorganization. This reorganization was not tied directly to current or imminent enrollment declines or budget deficit, although the provost indicated that the campus needed to examine its mix of academic programs and be good stewards of its resources. The reorganization resulted in more, rather than fewer, colleges and was seen as largely top down by faculty. 


The new structure was intended to bring the programs currently housed in 32 academic departments under larger schools housed within colleges. Many departments were intended to "be eliminated" and their constituent programs brought together under the new schools. The school structure was intended to "streamline our ability to develop strong unit administrative leaders, support school flexibility and responsiveness, and build synergy that will reinvigorate our academic programs and generate administrative savings." Administrative savings did not occur. 


UIS opted to develop a complex system of chairs, heads, and directors for academic unit administration that is governed by their Faculty Personnel Policy. That policy documents the rationale for determining the appropriate amount of support that "unit executive officers" receive. That compensation is reviewed every 3-5 years by the dean and the college executive committee. The Provost (Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) ensures equity between the Colleges. Chairs, Heads, and Directors receive a combination of non-instructional units and stipends. For more information, see Section 6 of their Policy. While this is not necessarily a model we could or would implement, the criteria are useful, and it is helpful to see the assigned time offered at different staffing levels.