Editorial: Pattenaude’s plan will not ensure success

Posted on Thursday, September 17th, 2009, 1:50 am

E-mail

Tell us what you think!
Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.

System Chancellor Richard Pattenaude presented his plan to restructure the system to the board of trustees Monday. Although there are parts we applaud, such as a move to make the transfer of hours between system schools seamless, on the whole the report will most likely weaken the system.

Nobody thinks the system’s current structure is optimal or sustainable. The board’s chair, Joe Wishcamper, said the system’s current structure could result in budget gaps of more than $40 million per year. Nevertheless, the chancellor and the board are sadly misinformed when it comes to the best way to structure the system.

If the system’s budget is any indication, administrative salaries are by far the biggest problem facing the system. As reported last year, the system spends more than half its budget on salaries.

Obviously the system office’s primary goal is to administrate, not teach, but it seems like administration could be streamlined across the board. To his credit, Pattenaude said increased use of MaineStreet will lead to the streamlining of administrative positions, but we doubt he’s talking about the drastic cuts necessary to fix our budget shortfall without negatively impacting the product the system offers — our education.

The system should focus its efforts on funding faculty and endowing scholarships, which will, in the long run, build the school’s reputation and desirability and enhance what should be any state school’s mission of providing the best education possible. Instead, the system seems inclined to limit expenditures on faculty and cut low-enrollment courses, moves that will drive away both faculty and students. The restructuring process should refocus the system’s mission on — and it’s unfortunate we even have to say this — making education as affordable as possible. Instead, it seems as if the system is suggesting an increased — not decreased — administrative presence.

The most disappointing aspect of the process has been the response from the board of trustees. There has been little or no resistance from board members to the proposed changes — a shocking lack of due diligence.