USF system President Steve Currall was quick to agree that the St. Petersburg campus “is a gem and jewel” at an Aug. 30 faculty meeting. He emphasized that “one university means one accreditation, not homogeneity across the campuses.”
Jonah Hinebaugh | The Crow’s Nest
By Nancy McCann
As the USF system hurtles toward consolidation, a growing number of St. Petersburg faculty members want clear-cut answers about the future of their campus.
Some of St. Petersburg’s longest serving professors say consolidation planners seem to be ignoring state law and the programs and culture that make the St. Petersburg campus special.
In a statement sent to President Steve Currall on Aug. 29 and a meeting with him the next day, faculty members gave the new president a blunt assessment. (See statement below.)
“USF St. Pete comes after everything else at the university (system) is taken care of,” Dr. James McHale, the founding chair of the campus’ Psychology Department and director of its Family Study Center, told Currall.
“If we are going to be one (university) and there are eight things sitting on the desk, USF St. Pete can’t continue to be (number) eight,” McHale said. “I think that’s always been the case, and it’s the case right now and it’s affecting our students and our research this semester, today, right now.”
One after another, McHale’s St. Petersburg colleagues ticked off concerns.
Tampa faculty get more resources and research support.
Salaries aren’t equitable.
Unique and innovative programs on the St. Petersburg campus seem to be in jeopardy, and so does the campus’ bond with downtown businesses and the community.
“I’ve been here since 2001, and in my opinion we have lacked research administrators on this campus,” said Deby Cassill, an associate professor and associate chairperson of biological sciences. “Because of that, we haven’t really gotten research support that has been given to the Tampa campus.
“We are hungry for it. We’ve got anthropology bringing in grants, psychology bringing in grants, biology bringing in grants — despite the lack of support.”
Currall told Cassill her assessment is an “important message.” St. Petersburg “has to be an integral part of the trajectory” toward the “world class intellectual and academic footprint that we aspire (the consolidated) USF to have,” he said.
By law, the campuses must consolidate by July 1.
The USF Board of Trustees must submit a “substantive change” request to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) by March 15.
The request must fully describe the programs and their locations that will be offered by the newly formed university.
‘A gem and jewel’
The Aug. 30 meeting, which was attended by about 65 faculty and administrators, was cordial and interactive.
Currall was quick to agree that the St. Petersburg campus “is a gem and jewel.” He emphasized that “one university means one accreditation, not homogeneity across the campuses.”
But when asked what it means for a branch campus to have its own budgetary and hiring authority, as required by state law enacted this year, Currall said he doesn’t have the answers to that.
He called USF St. Petersburg an “intellectual puzzle” with the challenge of increasing the campus’ “research footprint” while maintaining “this more intimate community feeling” for students.
“We are in the process of making some decisions,” Currall said. “By the end of September, there will be some more information coming out.”
USF system Provost Ralph Wilcox has been involved with consolidation planning from the beginning. His contract was renewed by Currall for five years with an annual salary of $471,203. Wilcox attended the Aug. 30 meeting but did not speak.
Since 2006, the St. Petersburg campus has enjoyed independent accreditation — a stretch that has seen “an amazing surge of energy here,” history professor Ray Arsenault told Currall at the Aug. 30 meeting.
But the Legislature decided in 2018 to consolidate the St. Petersburg (4,455 students) and Sarasota-Manatee (2,223) campuses with the huge Tampa campus (44,249).
Last spring the Legislature amended state law to ensure that St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee would become full branch campuses under the definition of the regional accrediting agency. That means they should have the authority to shape their budgets, hire faculty and tailor programs for their students.
But planning documents that Tampa-based administrators have shared so far are too Tampa-centric and seem to ignore the mandate for full branch campuses, Currall was told by senior USF St. Petersburg faculty.
Scant information
Seventeen full professors and Patricia Pettijohn, associate librarian at the Nelson Poynter Memorial Library and member of the USF System Faculty Council, signed the statement that went to Currall on Aug. 29.
There are 39 full professors at the St. Petersburg campus, according to 2018 data from the USF InfoCenter. No one from the College of Business signed the statement.
The group of 18 said documents they reviewed on the proposed academic structure for consolidation of the three campuses do not match the requirements for a branch campus as outlined by the Legislature and SACSCOC.
They also said the proposed academic structure gives scant information on how the university will be organized under consolidation, and it should not be assumed that central administration will be on the Tampa campus.
One of the consolidation documents that concerns some faculty members shows that several of St. Petersburg’s unique programs appear to be feeding up to schools and departments that are known (but not obviously identified) to be located at the Tampa campus.
Currall told a Crow’s Nest reporter after the Aug. 30 meeting that “program alignment does not mean that all the control is in Tampa.” There are still decisions to be made about organizational structures and their schools or departments, he said.
USF St. Petersburg Regional Chancellor Martin Tadlock told the audience at the meeting that Currall is sincere when it comes to his determination to come to St. Petersburg and learn about the campus.
“He’s very receptive to everything we have to say . . . Say whatever you want, ask whatever questions you want because he accommodates that and he’s very good at doing that,” said Tadlock. “That’s who he is.”
Senior faculty statement on consolidation
This is the statement on the proposed academic structure of the USF system that was sent to President Steve Currall on Aug. 29. The statement was signed by 17 full professors and Patricia Pettijohn, associate librarian at the Nelson Poynter Memorial Library and member of the USF System Faculty Council.
USFSP SENIOR FACULTY STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED ACADEMIC
STRUCTURE AND UNIVERSITY CONSOLIDATION
August 29, 2019
As senior faculty at USFSP, we wish to express first our appreciation and support for the intensive work that our USF faculty colleagues, staff, and administrators have completed toward the legislative-mandated consolidation of the three USF campuses.
However, after reviewing the documents distributed through the University Faculty System Council on August 14, 2019 we have serious concerns. While we agree that organizational decisions need to be made with the priorities of student success and financial efficiency, it is also imperative to meet the requirements for branch campus status for USFSP and USFSM. Branch campus status for these two campuses was mandated by the Florida legislature, approved by the Governor and took effect July 1, 2019.
The Proposed Academic Structure dated July 8, 2019 does not provide the requirements for branch campus as defined by SACSCOC.
In addition, the Proposed Academic Structure ignores relationships that specific campuses have developed within their communities and fails to address how those relationships should be maintained as they strongly contribute to student success. The organization seems Tampa-centric in ignoring not only the importance of local campus leadership, but the potential for locating central administration functions on campuses other than USF-Tampa. We will address each of these concerns in turn.
Branch campus status, as defined by SACSCOC, requires administrative authority on the local campuses, including budgetary, hiring and supervisory authority. There is no explanation in the Proposed Academic Structure for how administrative authority will be preserved on the USFSP and USFSM campuses.
The proposed organization makes no mention of the role of local leadership, including currently existing positions: Regional Chancellor, Regional Vice Chancellors, Deans, and Department Chairs. To maintain branch campus status, USF must provide a plan for local accountability for degree programs that are present on the USFSP and USFSM campuses, even with the understanding that local leadership is ultimately accountable to central administration. For example, as designated faculty effort can best be understood within the specific needs of majors and degrees, hiring decisions, at least at the advisory level, should come from faculty and leadership in the degree programs. This is especially true of academic programs that are currently unique to USFSP (where they were created) and not offered on other campuses, programs such as Computational and Applied Mathematics, Sustainability, Conservation Biology, Digital Journalism and Design, Florida Studies, and Graphic Arts. We do not feel that it would be in the best interests of students or faculty to fold these programs into existing departments on the Tampa campus, which appears to be the plan under the Proposed Academic Structure.
In addition, program-specific accreditation is often dependent on local authority. For example, the professional accreditation of USFSP’s Department of Journalism and Digital Communication–the only journalism program in Florida with an accredited master’s program and one of only six journalism programs nationally with an accredited online master’s degree–could forfeit its accreditation if its departmental status and local governance are lost, according to guidance from the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (ACEJMC). The Proposed Academic Structure makes no mention of protecting the accreditation of such programs.
The Proposed Academic Structure is silent on the important role that external partners play in developing and delivering student success. Students cannot and should not have identical experiences on our three campuses. Curricular outcomes may be standardized with a great deal of diversity in how education is delivered, based in part on the external campus-specific partnerships. Recognizing and developing the unique aspects of the campuses strengthens USF as a geographically distributed university.
We also have grave concerns about the current proposal’s inattention to questions of equity and resource allocation. In a consolidated university where the standards for tenure and promotion are uniform, salary levels, teaching loads, and availability of research funds should be equitable across the three campuses. We feel that true consolidation requires a timely and comprehensive effort to achieve this equity.
The proposal is also silent on how the university will be geographically distributed from an administrative perspective. The state-mandated branch campus status requires local leadership not described in the Proposed Academic Structure. But, where central administration is located should not be assumed to be on the Tampa campus. As USFSP is centrally located between USFSM and USF-Tampa, perhaps it is fitting that University offices be located in St. Petersburg. We stand ready to assist in determining how clear branch campus status, recognition of the unique strengths offered through each community, and leadership distributed geographically can add to student and faculty success, administrative and financial efficiency, and academic excellence post-consolidation.
The following individuals, all full professors (with the exception of Associate Librarian and USFSP Faculty Senate Vice President Patricia Pettijohn) at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, have endorsed the statement above:
Dr. Julie Buckner Armstrong, Department of Verbal and Visual Arts
Dr. Raymond Arsenault, Department of History and Politics
Dr. Kathryn Weedman Arthur, Department of Society, Culture and Language
Dr. Frank Biafora, Department of Society, Culture and Language; former CAS dean
Dr. Alejandro E. Brice, College of Education
Dr. Lyman Dukes, College of Education
Dr. V. Mark Durand, Department of Psychology; former CAS dean and RVCAA
Dr. Deni Elliott, Department of Journalism and Digital Communication
Dr. J. Michael Francis, Department of History and Politics
Dr. Thomas Hallock, Department of Verbal and Visual Arts
Dr. Gary R. Mormino, Department of History and Politics, professor emeritus
Dr. Norine Noonan, Department of Biological Sciences; professor emerita, former RVCAA
Ms. Patricia Pettijohn, Associate Librarian, Nelson Poynter Memorial Library
Dr. Melanie Riedinger-Whitmore, Department of Biological Sciences
Dr. Thomas W. Smith, Department of History and Politics; Honors Program director
Dr. Jay Sokolovsky, Department of Society, Culture and Language
Dr. Lisa S. Starks, Department of Verbal and Visual Studies
Dr. Mark Walters, Department of Journalism and Digital Communication
