1] Would the President stand by his statement of 22 May, namely "After reviewing everything, I am confident in the analysis and the work that Dr. Harris and his staff did in this area."

Father Wildes said that while he acknowledges that mistakes were made, he still stands by this statement. 

For reference, this statement comes from the Presidential email of May 22 announcing the approval of Pathways by the Board on May 19 and in response to the vote of no confidence by the A&S faculty of May 12, 2006.

2] Is it true that SCAP unanimously recommended twice keeping the College of Arts and Sciences as a single unit?

Yes.  See SCAP’s recommendations approved on April 18 (SCAP webpage) and the SCAP letter of May 10 (Senate webpage).  These documents are also posted under Faculty Response on www.loyno.info.

3] Why was SCAP's unanimous recommendation that no new college be established rejected?

Harris response was that the new college was established to respond to growth in the social sciences, to create new synergies and to address some of the problems facing the New Orleans area.

A follow-up question asked if we were so interested in helping the city of New Orlean why was education terminated. Harris answered that the number of students interested in education had decreased over the years. He also suggested that students completing a Loyola degree would have large loans to pay and that an education salary in the city of New Orleans would not be enough to pay the loans up, so the education graduates would be leaving the city anyway.

SCAP’s specific recommendations follow.
           
            April 18 document
“The committee recommends maintaining, for the time being, the College of Arts and Sciences as a single unit.
Rationale: The University needs to consolidate its resources over the short term to ensure the continuation of programs. We recommend the restructuring process take place in two stages with the proposed constitution and relocation of academic units being implemented first. As student enrollment stabilizes over the next 3-5 years, a second stage of restructuring would complete the vision of the Pathways plan. This two-stage restructuring would protect the University during the vulnerable first stage. The immediate creation of several new Schools focuses attention on areas of recognized strength. Finally, given the possibility of future revenue shortfalls, the exact composition of a new College can be determined, in part, upon the performance of the proposed units in the intervening period.”

May 10 letter
“SCAP again unanimously rejects the creation of any new college at this time.  We can save on administrative costs by not replacing City College by a new College.”

4] Do you agree that SCAP did not approve the termination of the Computer Science major and the sequences in Communications?

Provost Harris said this was true but said that the SCAP subcommittee making these recommendations had interests in the areas that were saved.  He told the group that Si Hendry had made this point at a UPT meeting. (Read Fr. Hendry's response to this.)

In fact, Fr. Hendry’s point at the UPT meeting was that he thought Education should have been represented at the SCAP subcommittee.

Unfortunately, no education faculty were members of SCAP.  It WOULD have been helpful to have an education representative as part of the SCAP subcommittee, because then the data errors discovered after April 18 about Education would have been found out in time.

It is also important to point out that SCAP unanimously approved the recommendations of the subcommittee on April 18.  SCAP has representation from across all the schools and colleges at Loyola.

5] Given the requirement that for every program reinstated, another program of equal value had to be cut, SCAP asked for both whole numbers and percentages of the $$$ savings on each program proposed to be cut. Why was this information not provided?

We were not given an answer as to why this information was not provided.

The original Pathways plan was made public on April 10, 2006.  At the April 11 SCAP meeting Provost Harris requested that a subcommittee study Pathways and bring recommendations back to the full committee in a week, by April 18.  He gave the charge that if a program was saved, that the SCAP subcommittee had to come up with offsetting dollars from another academic program. 

A subcommittee was formed including Tim Cahill, who asked that percentage savings on each program proposed to be cut be provided.  Maria Calzada was also part of the subcommittee and she asked that in addition to the percentages that raw numbers also be provided.  Neither of these was made available to the subcommittee who worked over Easter break (April 13, 14, and 15), to provide its recommendations.

On the request of the subcommittee, John Sears brought estimates of the cost of creating and running a new college.  The subcommittee decided to recommend against creating a new college at this moment, and using some of the saved monies in favor of not eliminating the computer science major.

6] Did the University declare financial exigency?
As per Chapter 9, regarding procedures for termination because of financial exigency, did the University Senate, in cooperation with your office, formulate criteria identifying a bona fide state of financial exigency?
Did you feel financial exigency was imminent?
If so, did you constitute an ad hoc Exigency Planning Committee (EPC) as required in the Faculty Handbook?

The university did not declare financial exigency.

7] Did you follow the Faculty Handbook, Chapter 9, section E.2, which states that “Before the administration issues notice to a faculty member of its intention to terminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position”?

Because of possible legal problems relating to appeals, this question was not answered. Question 15 is related to this topic.

8] What was the reaction of the Administration to the mistakes in statistics and violations in process delineated in the SCAP letter of May 10, by the members of Arts and Sciences on May 12, and by the Senate document “A Call for Conversations and a Critique of Pathways”? e.g., that the terminated departments were not the least profitable in the University?

Father Wildes said that the administration did a lot of work in a few months, that mistakes were made and that they tried to correct them.

The SCAP letter of May 10 and “A Call for Conversations and a Critique of Pathways” are posted on the Senate webpage and on www.loyno.info (under Faculty Response).  Notes on the May 12 Arts and Sciences faculty meeting are posted on www.loyno.info (also under Faculty Response).

9] Why was the vote of no confidence of the meeting of Arts and Sciences on 12 May 2006 (70-2-4) brushed aside by the Administration? And why was the University Senate's vote of no confidence ignored?

The president said these were not ignored, that he just did not know how to respond to them.

In fact, he has responded more than once as follows: 

• In his email of May 22, were he stated, “I know that a number of people have expressed concerns about the program review. After reviewing everything I am confident in the analysis and the work that Dr. Harris and his staff did in this area.  As the Board has expressed confidence in my administration, I want to express my clear confidence in Provost Harris and his staff for the work they have done.”
• In the Chronicle article by Piper Fogg dated 7/7/2006 (see www.loyno.info). Fogg writes “Father Wildes is not particularly bothered that the plan has upset so many professors. ‘They gave me few alternatives, he says. He also says that dozes of other professors have privately expressed their support for it.”

Provost Harris reaction to the vote of no confidence in his office has been reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education of July 7, 2006. The Piper Fogg article reports that, “He dismisses the vote of no confidence by the faculty of Arts and Sciences.” He is quoted as saying, “People got caught up in the heat of the moment."

10] How can the Administration possibly maintain that the Pathways plan was the result of intensive study by SCAP and the Senate? Why has most opposition to Pathways come from members of SCAP and the Senate and even from members of the President's ad hoc committee for Pathways?

For reference on this read the Senate document “A call for conversations and a critique of pathways,” posted on both the Senate webpage and in www.loyno.info (under Faculty Response).

11] Before Pathways was publicly introduced, how many faculty from the division of Natural Sciences were consulted concerning the impact that the suspension of the physics program would have on the rest of the division?
How many faculty from the humanities division were consulted about the impact of the suspension/termination of language and communication programs?

Harris did not answer the question. He said something about a great proposal that the physics department had given him to get out of suspension. At that moment a chemistry professor replied something like "but they were doing all those things before pathways."

We know of no faculty who were consulted on these issues before April 10, 2006.

12] Why was the Senate asked to elect persons to advise the President as faculty representatives of his committee when these persons were never consulted on substantive matters?

No answer was given here.  It is a fact that these persons were never consulted on substantive matters. Again see document “A call for conversations and a critique of pathways,” posted on both the Senate webpage and in www.loyno.info (under Faculty Response).

13] Did you refuse to speak with the AAUP special committee?
What will you do if the AAUP sanctions the University and censures the University administration?

Father Wildes said he has not completely closed the door on conversations with the AAUP. He did not answer the second question.

His letter of August 8, 2006 to the AAUP stated “I will not be able to meet the Special Committee when it visits New Orleans … If there is an agreeable time in the future when we can meet, and if we can define clearly and agree upon, in advance, the purpose of such a meeting, along with its scope and topics, I may meet with the Committee at some time in the future.” You can read the whole letter at www.loyno.info.

14] Given the mistrust and large numbers of very dissatisfied faculty, what concrete things do you plan to do that might help rebuild a working relationship?

He said he would ask the Senate to give him recommendations on how to review our governance structures.  He said he would have more meetings with us to improve communication.

Since April 10, 2006, Father Wildes and/or Dr. Harris have missed 4 out of 4 Senate meetings, 3 out of 3 SCAP meetings, and one UPT meeting.  Another UPT meeting was cancelled and convocation was cancelled.  They started meeting with the different colleges in the month of September, six months after the unveiling of Pathways.

15] Why did two departments terminate tenured Ph.Ds qualified to teach needed courses and hire part-timers to teach those courses contrary to the Handbook (Section 9.E.2)?

No answer was given, because of appeals.

These departments are Mathematics and Computer Science and Communications.

16] The President has repeatedly said that he wants to move forward and look towards the future and not dwell on the past. Does the President believe that how he has led this university in the past will serve as a good example of how he will lead this university in the future?

Father Wildes smiled, then he said that he believed he could lead this university.

17] Taking into consideration current enrollments, the loss of students due to program cuts and suspensions, and implementation costs, how much money does Pathways save the University this year and will the President provide
supporting documentation?

At the Senate meeting of September 21, 2006, Father Wildes said he would provide this information.

18] What is the President's vision of the University?

He directed the audience to read his email of August 22.