Subject: Grievance Challenging the Declaration of Financial Exigencv by the 

Date: August 2, 2019 .
AUG 0 2 2019

To: James Johnsen, President, University of Alaska system; Cathy Sandeen,

Chancellor, University of Alaska OFFICEOFTEECHANCEUDR

We, the undersigned Faculty at the University of Alaska Anchorage, object to the declaration of financial
exigency by the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska on Juiy 22, 2019 and submit this grievance
in accordance with Board of Regents Policy P0409060. That policy requires that our grievance for an
erroneous declaration of financial exigency by the Board "be initiated at the Step 3 level as a grievance
against the president? within 15 days of such a declaration, and, according to Board Regulation
R04.08.070 (D) governing Step 3 grievances, ?be timely filed with the chancellor or president,
Given the choice to file with the chanceiior or president, we submit our grievance to
you, our chancelior, against UA President Jim Johnsen, so that the subject of our grievance is not aiso
the judge of our grievance.

Due to the errors committed by the Board of Regents explained below, We, the undersigned
Facuity do hereby pray for the following reiief:

1. That the Board convene a special meeting to consider this Grievance and at that meeting the
Board immediateiy rescind the declaration of exigency voted on the 22?? day ofJuiy, 2019, due
to error;

2. That the Board institute a new plan for consideration of financial exigency if any, and for the
development of such a plan, that a working committee is formed, including representatives of
the Faculty, of such number that is equal to the Regents or designees of the Regents;

3. That the Board consider such a plan and a future meeting after adequate and appropriate
Faculty participation regarding those issues outlined below;

4. That the Board wouid grant such other and further relief that the Faculty and staff of the
University are entitled, under their contracts entered into with the University, as well as such
other and further relief to which they are entitled at Law and an Equity under the statutes and
laws of the State of Alaska and the United States of America.

We maintain, per Board policy that, ?one or more of the four statements required to be
contained in the declaration of financial exigency is clearly erroneous and that the error materially
affects the deciaration," viz.,

1. The motion fails to ?specify which units ofthe university are affected and provide an
explanation of the appropriateness of the choice,? and was therefore, in error 

2. The motion fails to ?specify whether services, programs or positions, or a combination thereof,
are to be reduced or eliminated in. order to produce the necessary cost reductions,? and fails to
?describe the efforts taken in the current and prior fiscal years to reduce costs without the
reduction or elimination of filled positions,? and was therefore, in error 

Affected units are those units that the Board of Regents or the President, acting under the authority of

the Board, intend to reduce to achieve financial solvency, including at minimum those units for which a
declaration of financial exigency is needed in order to be reduced.

1/4

Our interpretation of the Word ?unit? follows the AAUP, which defines ?unit" as an entity that supports a
program, or ?a related cluster of credit?bearing courses that constitute a coherent body of study within
a discipiine or set of related disciplines.? And, the AAUP continues, ?programs should be recognized
academic units that existed prior to the deciaration of financial exigency.?

Hence, ?unit" in Board Policy should not be construed to mean merely the University of
Alaska Anchorage, the University of Aiaska Fairbanks, the University of Alaska Juneau or UA Statewide.
Board Policy was promulgated in 1997 when those universities were each an accredited
university. Therefore, when the policy requires that the Board "specify which units of the university are
affected,? we maintain that the Board must specify the coiieges, schools, or departments affected within
one or some of the accredited universities.

Rather than identifying specific units of the universities affected, the motion instead says, ?This
declaration affects ail administrative units of the University.? Neither the Board of Regents nor the
President acting under the authority of the Board, has publicly stated their intention to reduce every
department, school and college within every university within the university system.

Board Policy confirms the expectation of greater specificity than the Board's declaration
has provided. That section requires disclosure of specific programs targeted for reduction in a
declaration of financial exigency. But at the present time nobody knows what units or programs that the
Board and President intend to cut or what positions they intend to eiiminate. They have not
presented any plan naming specific reductions.

Even if we construe ?unit? as an accredited university or UA Statewide, in a way favorable to the
deciaration, we find the ?explanation of the appropriateness of the choice,? in subjecting all units to a
deciaration of financial exigency, in error. The University of Aiaska Anchorage has demonstrated that it
is an efficient university. Our administration and facuity leadership have demonstrated that we can
impiement cuts without requiring accelerated removal of faculty across our entire university.

At issue is the absence of a plan. The Board and the President have had ample time to develop a plan
with Faculty participation, that identifies specific reductions to meet the reduction in state aid. The
Governor of the State of Alaska announced his budget on February 13, 2019, that resulted in a net
reduction to state aid amounting to or ciose to 15% of the FY19 budget of the University of
Alaska system. Although the reduction is significant, cieariy the university system does not have to
extinguish itself as a result of this cut. Therefore, specificity in planned reductions was required in the
declaration, and those specific reductions ought to have been pianned with faculty participation, per
AAUP requirements, before the declaration was approved.

Furthermore, the Board and President have pubiicly stated their intention to preserve the status quo
and maintain the current schedule of offered courses throughout the university system, through the fail
semester, 2019. Since no facuity will be subject to accelerated removal before January 1St per these
public statements, no cuts until then will require a declaration of financial exigency, which affords 
more time for the Board and the President to develop and present a plan that identifies specific
reductions in units and programs, with participation by Facuity.

2/4

In summary, financial exigency as declared in the motion ofJuly 22 is excessively and unjustifiably broad
in its imposition on the entire system, and is improper and premature in having been declared before
any plan with faculty participation was developed.

in addition, the motion does not describe efforts taken or planned to be taken in the current year that
fall short of meeting the required reductions without eliminating filled positions, and in particular,
tenured or tenure~track faculty positions. The AAUP requires that exhaustive efforts are undertaken and
communicated to make reductions before tenured and tenure track faculty are removed. Board Policy
follows this requirement by the AAUP and manifests the intention.

The appropriateness of the exposure ofall faculty in all units to accelerated removal, which the
declaration on July 22 permits, is called into question by the relatively small expense that they incur.
Compensation for tenured faculty constitutes around 10% of the overall budget of the University of
Alaska system, and tenured and tenure-track faculty together, around 15% of the overall budget.

in summary, the motion to declare financial exigency should have demonstrated that the Board and
President have exhausted all remedies to meet the reduction in state aid, before exposing tenured and
tenure track faculty to accelerated removal.

The Board of Regents was advised to avoid these errors foreseen by the Faculty Senate of the University
of Alaska Anchorage. in its report dated July 20 that was sent to all Regents, the Faculty Senate
reminded the Board that according to the AAUP, faculty should participate in determining the planned
reductions that will require financial exigency, before a declaration of financial exigency.

The Faculty Senate notified the Board that ?we are unaware of any plan to make any specific cuts,
whether requiring financiai exigency or not,? and further, that, declaration of financiai exigency
before such a plan is presented is simply a general grant of carte blanche power, and not the grant of a
powerful tool for a specific purpose. A system?wide, year-long declaration essentially removes tenure
system-wide for at least one year.? As a result of this declaration, all faculty in all units are subject to
accelerated removal, tenure notwithstanding, which is unnecessary to achieve financial solvency.

The Faculty Senate quoted the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom
and Tenure (4. Termination of Appointments by the institution, Financial Exigency), which provides one
authoritative source on planning for financial exigency.

Precedent is another authoritative source on planning for financial exigency. For example, faced with a
32% cut in state aid, similar in magnitude to the cut to our state aid the Louisiana State University
System in 2015-2016 considered financial exigency, planned with faculty participation, and produced a
plan before preparing to vote on a declaration of financial exigency. The plan specified the affected units
within the system, the number of positions targeted for reduction, and projected cost savings.

Also similar to our case, the Louisiana State University System had already been subjected to cuts in
state aid prior to FY16 and that loss in state aid was attributed to the same cause as our own case, a
decline in state revenues from oil production. Their experience with impending financial exigency is well
documented in the public domain.

The AAUP as well as sources in the pubiic domain supply many examples of properly and improperiy
declared financial exigency, in support of our determination that the Board has erred.

3/4

Forrest Nabors

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
University of Alaska Anchorage

3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage, Alaska 99508

907?786-4857

?vkgf 0&me 

 

74V7/l/Lg'? 
,1 701? ,7

?b'J?Jr act?

4/4