MORGANTOWN — WVU faculty sent an open letter to several media outlets — including The Dominion Post — as well as a separate letter to the WVU Board of Governors opposing and describing their concerns about potential damage the university’s reduction in force process could cause.
On June 15-16, we reported extensively on those letters, which focused specifically on proposed amendments to Rule 4.7, describing the RIF process.
In short, the letters said, “We understand the Reduction in Force (RIF) is being activated in response to the budget crisis, but we ask you to address the financial situation in ways that strengthen rather than decimate our capacity to fulfill our land grant mission. We believe the RIF will damage the university’s ability to deliver quality education and threaten its status as a research institution.”
At the time, we printed a brief statement from WVU administration, anticipating a fuller response, which we received the middle of last week. WVU addresses concerns about the proposed amendments to Rule 4.7 and a proposed faculty severance package schedule.
Timeline and process
WVU says it hasn’t proposed changes to the rule or the severance package schedule in an expedited fashion; it is following the normal process and timeline.
“Consistent with past practices, we first reviewed these items with Faculty Senate leadership and took their feedback into consideration, making some edits in response.” WVU presented information to Faculty Senate to preview and process the proposed changes before they were presented to the Board of Governors. The BOG issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which started the 30-day public comment period
Before the BOG votes on finalized rules and schedules, any comments submitted, along with a university determination in response, will be publicly posted July 21. WVU will also post proposed finalized versions of the documents with any additional amendments made in response to the comments. The BOG will vote on the final versions at its July 31 meeting.
Promotion and tenure
“Rule 4.7 does not eliminate the promotion and tenure system or undermine academic freedom.” It provides the university with the ability to eliminate certain faculty positions in limited circumstances, such as financial exigency, a program reduction or a program discontinuation. “Simply because a RIF can occur in these limited circumstances does not undermine promotion and tenure rules or the principles of academic freedom, both of which remain active and unchanged.”
Program reductions and discontinuations
The RIF process is part of the Academic Program Reductions and Discontinuations process, which is part of the overall transformation initiative. An academic program can only be reduced or discontinued following the detailed process outlined in BOG Academics Rule 2.2, which provides for several opportunities for faculty input before a program is reduced or discontinued.
Faculty involvement
“We believe it is critical that faculty be involved in the program review process on the front end. That is where the decisions that will lead to a RIF will be made and will help shape the strategic future of the university.”
The WVU Transformation timeline describes three opportunities to provide input: in July when a program is identified as a program of concern; in August, during the appeal process for a Provost’s Office Preliminary Reduction for Reduction or Discontinuation of a program; and in September, by providing a written comment or signing up to speak before the BOG.
“Once the decisions on program reduction or discontinuation are made, the implementation of a RIF is more tactical. We don’t think it’s fair to ask faculty to pick which of their colleagues should remain at the university or be subject to a RIF.”
And the decisions on who may be selected for a RIF may be challenged through the grievance process or litigation. “Those involved in making those decisions would be subject to interviews, hearings and depositions to defend their decisions. That is a burden for management.”
RIF factors
“In contrast to some communications circulating, the proposed amendments to Rule 4.7 provides: ‘In situations where a RIF results in the elimination of some, but not all of the faculty positions within the unit, the provost and dean shall evaluate the skills and qualifications of the individual faculty members potentially subject to the faculty RIF … as part of a holistic assessment.”
The specific three factors are: performance; knowledge and qualifications; and seniority. “As dictated by the Rule, the provost and dean cannot, in fact, ignore performance, achievements and years of service. Those individuals with strong performance records, as documented in their yearly promotion and tenure ratings, are less likely to be selected for a reduction in force.”
A year of salary
“The proposed amendments to Rule 4.7 do not eliminate a requirement that faculty receive a severance package that equates to a year of salary.”
The rule currently says, “The university may offer a severance package to a faculty member who is impacted by a RIF, if financially feasible.” This means that the university is not required to offer any severance packages.
The rule says that generally, the value of the severance package should be equivalent to one year of the faculty member’s annual base pay. This is permission and does not require the payment of a year’s severance. It also does not require any faculty feedback in setting the schedule.
“Under the current language, university management could set a severance package schedule with no input from faculty. We do not think that is appropriate.”
But under the new language, the faculty would have the opportunity through the public comment period to review and provide feedback to the severance package plan before it is approved by the BOG.
“It adds a level of transparency to the process. Moreover, the university simply does not have the financial resources to pay everyone an additional year of salary after their employment ends. As a result, we designed this process to ensure that faculty would have significant notification that their position was being eliminated.”
WVU aligned the notification to correspond to when many other universities have their hiring processes for the following academic year. Faculty members would have about eight months of notice before their employment would end, which would maximize the amount of time a faculty member would have to find the next opportunity. And the severance payments (two-12 weeks) would provide a bridge over the summer months before that next opportunity may begin.
Tenure vs teaching
“From a legal rights perspective, there is a difference between tenured and tenure-track faculty and teaching and service track faculty.”
Tenured and tenure-track faculty members have a property right in their continued employment that can only be ended in limited circumstances, such as a RIF. But most teaching and service track faculty are year-to-year contract employees. Their employment can be ended for any non-discriminatory reason at the end of their contract with no continuing obligation.
“Choosing not to renew a contract does not require severance and in past cases when we have ended these contracts, we have not paid out any severance.”
While those differences exist, “we wanted to offer some severance to teaching and service track faculty. But because their legal rights are more limited, we structured a package to recognize that legal difference in response to a request from faculty leadership.”
In addition to this response, WVU noted that information including the WVU Transformation timeline, past presentations to Faculty Senate, past Campus Conversations videos, Frequently Asked Questions and more are also available at the WVU Transformation website: WVU Transformation at West Virginia University.
TWEET David Beard @dbeardtdp
EMAIL dbeard@dominionpost.com
