Recent amendment to HB 423 still not enough to appease critics

Above photo: Ray Arsenault, a history professor and avid opposer to House Bill 423, said that the Bill will still “turn the university upside down” despite recent amendment. Courtesy of USF St. Petersburg

By Jeffrey Waitkevich

When news broke in January that the Legislature was poised to abolish USF St. Petersburg’s independent accreditation, many on campus reacted with surprise and anger.

But no one roared louder than the two lions of the faculty – Ray Arsenault and Jay Sokolovsky.

The proposal was a sneak attack on a campus that was thriving under the accreditation it earned in 2006, the two veteran professors said. A decade of growth and prestige was suddenly in jeopardy. The prospect of being under Tampa’s thumb again was an insult.

Last week a state House committee approved an 11-page amendment designed to meet some of the concerns of the St. Petersburg campus and its allies in Pinellas County government and business circles.

The amended proposal now appears likely to win approval of the full House and then the Senate as the Legislature heads toward adjournment on Friday.

But Arsenault and Sokolovsky, who acknowledge that the amendment makes the proposal more palatable, remain fiercely opposed.

“It’s still going to turn the university upside down,” said Arsenault, a professor of Southern history since 1980. “We’ll survive. We’ve always found ways around these restrictions, but we should not have to. That’s not what we’re being paid to do.”

“While this is certainly an improvement,” said Sokolovsky, a professor of anthropology since 1996, “it was certainly made clear to our (St. Petersburg) administration by (USF system President Judy) Genshaft that she didn’t want any amendments.”

Sokolovsky said he is “still strongly against it.”

The sponsors of the proposal contend it will benefit the St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee campuses eventually by giving them some of the extra state funds the Tampa campus will begin receiving from the Legislature this year as a “pre-eminent state university.”

But critics fear that St. Petersburg will give up its independence and get little in return.

At the heart of the objections is St. Petersburg’s history with the Tampa campus, which ruled things with a heavy hand for decades, and with Genshaft, who in 18 years has changed the leadership in St. Petersburg six times.

Genshaft, who first said she was neutral on the proposed consolidation of the three USF campuses, has become an advocate. And she belatedly acknowledged that she learned legislators were considering the move back in October, three months before the St. Petersburg campus found out.

In an editorial, the Tampa Bay Times criticized Genshaft for her “initial lack of candor.”

Under the 11-page amendment that was adopted last week, the separate accreditation of the St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee campuses would end on June 30, 2020, with control passing to Tampa.

But USF St. Petersburg would retain its name and regional chancellor, and its campus board – which would be expanded from five to seven members (all residents of Pinellas County) – would submit an annual budget and operating plan to Tampa.

In turn, the Board of Trustees for the USF system would be required to report each year on the distribution of funds to all three campuses and to report every other year on “increased investments” in programs in St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee.

Also under the amendment, the College of Marine Science, which is based in St. Petersburg but reports to Tampa, would become part of USF St. Petersburg.

Much of the planning for the new consolidated campus system would fall to a 13-member task force. But only two of the 13 members appear guaranteed to represent St. Petersburg – the regional chancellor and chair of the Campus Board.

The task force would recommend how to maintain the “unique identity” of each campus and identify “specific degrees in programs of strategic significance,” including health care and STEM programs in St. Petersburg.

Arsenault, who serves on the Faculty Senate, said lawmakers should hold off for a year while the proposal to consolidate the three campuses is studied. He said the process feels rushed for political reasons and that the St. Petersburg campus is “a political football.”

“At some level, I appreciate their willingness to listen to us (and adopt the amendment),” he said, “but the horse is already out of the barn door.”

“For these legislators, this is just another bill, but for the faculty and the students it is really our whole lives,” he said.

Arsenault also called for more details. He wants to know what exactly the newfound powers entail and what powers the task force will be given.

Among the proposal’s fiercest critics are members of the campus’ Retired Faculty and Staff Association.

Most of its members remember what it was like before St. Petersburg gained separate accreditation in 2006.

One of them is G. Michael Killenberg, professor emeritus and founding director of the journalism department.

In an email to The Crow’s Nest, he said the amendment “does nothing to ensure the survival of USF St. Petersburg as we now know it.”

The proposal and amendment “promise to share pre-eminence funds, expand programs and develop doctoral studies at USFSP. It is a bill of goods USFSP hasn’t asked for, desires and needs,” Killenberg said.

“USFSP has already achieved its own level of pre-eminence without Tampa’s help – or maybe because Tampa hasn’t been able to interfere.”

Throughout the debate in Tallahassee and St. Petersburg, interim Regional Chancellor Martin Tadlock has been forced to perform a delicate dance, stressing the campus’ strengths and priorities while trying to remain neutral.

In an email to The Crow’s Nest, he complimented lawmakers, saying they “have heard the concerns of the community and the faculty and staff and students at USF St. Petersburg. The amended language is evidence of that.”

“We will comply with whatever the end result of the legislation is,” he said, “and we will continue to do everything we can to make this an incredible place for students to learn and for faculty and staff to work.”

Highlights of the legislative proposal

The separate accreditation of St. Petersburg and USF Sarasota-Manatee would end by June 30, 2020, and all three campuses would report to Tampa.
The prestigious College of Marine Science, which is based in St. Petersburg but reports to Tampa, would become part of USF St. Petersburg.
USF St. Petersburg would retain its name and regional chancellor.
The Campus Board that oversees USF St. Petersburg would be expanded from five members (all residents of Pinellas County) to seven. The chair of the Faculty Senate and president of the student body would serve as ex-officio members.
The Campus Board would submit “an annual operating plan, budget and legislative budget request” to the Board of Trustees for the USF system.
The Board of Trustees would issue a yearly report on the distribution of funds to each of the three campuses in the USF system (Tampa, St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee).
Every two years, the Board of Trustees would publish a “regional impact report” that details the “increased investments” in specific programs in St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee.
A 13-member task force would be created to develop a plan to “improve service to students” while phasing out the separate accreditation of St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee. Only two of the 13 members appear guaranteed to represent USF St. Petersburg (the regional chancellor and chair of the Campus Board).
The task force would be charged with identifying “specific degrees in programs of strategic significance,” including health care and STEM programs in St. Petersburg.
The task force would recommend maintaining the “unique identity” of each campus and establishing “pathways to admission for all students who require bridge programming and financial aid.”