Revised Proposals of the Academic Restructuring Working Group

---

After the release of the Interim Report of the Academic Restructuring Working Group on September 21, an intensive period of consultation was launched, in which dozens of governance and committee meetings, roundtables, and town halls. More than 9,000 people attended these discussions; we heard questions and received valuable feedback from a wide diversity of faculty, staff, students, and alumni and shared our learnings with the other members of the ARWG and with the broader community through regular posts and reports on the UAT website. Throughout this phase of consultation, the ARWG reviewed extensive consultation input, including the additional scenarios proposed by the community. 

Throughout this phase of consultation, the ARWG has reviewed extensive consultation input, including the additional scenarios proposed by the community, and heard the key concerns and questions of the community. While differing opinions, perspectives, and analyses have been shared, there has been a constant: that is, a shared desire across the community to develop an academic organization supportive of academic excellence in the long term, particularly in the context of the current resource challenges. 

Taking into consideration feedback received, the ARWG released Revised Proposals for Academic Restructuring for the consideration of the community on November 13, 2020. The first proposal focused on the consolidation of faculties, the second on a divisional or college model, and the third on a hybrid model.

All three scenarios preserved the autonomy of community-focused CSJ, Augustana and Native Studies.

A Second Phase of Consultation

As we moved through the final stages of governance review, discussion and approval, consultation occurred through the following avenues:

• Comments were submitted online. Summary reports will be prepared for distribution to governance bodies on November 20 and December 1.
• A UAT Town Hall was held on November 19. Watch the recording »

The governance pathway to decision was as follows:

• November 16: APC—review and discussion of revised proposals
• November 23: GFC—review and discussion of revised proposals
• November 25: APC—motion for recommendation to GFC of final proposal
• December 7: GFC—motion for recommendation to BOG of final proposal
• December 11: Board of Governors—motion for approval of final proposal

Consolidation Model Proposal

• 16 current faculties (excluding FGSR and Extension) would be consolidated into four main faculties and three University Schools (autonomous academic units standing outside the main faculties) 
• Most existing faculties would become schools within a larger faculty - these schools would retain full academic autonomy over curriculum and programs, and administrative and budgetary autonomy subject to certain parameters around administrative services 
• The faculty-level unit would provide most administrative functions, set overall strategic direction, recruit and supervise school leaders, set budgets for schools, and represent the constituent units on Deans’ Council Executive.
• Several faculties that would be consolidated are considered professional programs and have external accreditation requirements (e.g., Nursing, Pharmacy). To ensure the quality and integrity of these programs, these would need to retain a high level of academic ownership and autonomy, with academic leadership from within the profession.

See Revised Proposals report for full details.

College Model Proposal

• 13 current faculties are organized into three colleges along on Tri-Agency lines, with three stand-alone faculties outside of the collegiate structure. 
• Within each college, existing faculties would remain intact and would continue to be called faculties but most administrative functions would be transferred to the college level. 
• Faculties would retain full academic autonomy over curriculum and programs. They would also retain budgetary autonomy, subject to certain parameters around administrative services. 
• The college provides high level strategic direction and administrative services, the faculty focuses on academic programming and research with minimal administration, and departments support the faculty in delivering the academic functions where disciplinary specialization makes sense. 

See Revised Proposals report for full details.

Hybrid Model Proposal

• 10 current faculties consolidated into two colleges, with Arts and Science consolidated into a single major faculty and CSJ, Native Studies and Augustana remaining as stand-alone faculties. 
• Within each college, existing faculties would remain intact and would continue to be called faculties but most administrative functions would be transferred to the college level. 
• Faculties would retain full academic autonomy over curriculum and programs, and administrative and budgetary autonomy within certain parameters around providing administrative services better delivered by the college. 
• The general philosophy in this scenario is that within Arts and Science, opportunities for academic excellence and administrative efficiency are best achieved within a single integrated faculty, while in other disciplinary areas - particularly those with professional accreditation requirements - it is important for existing faculties to retain their current identities, autonomy, and distinction. The college model provides opportunities for those faculties to benefit from academic and administrative synergies.

See Revised Proposals report for full details.

---

Organizational Comparison

A comparison of the three revised proposals

	Consolidation Model	College Model	Hybrid Model
Leadership	Four large faculties led by a dean Schools within the faculties led by a head of school University Schools led by a dean 18 dean-like leaders	Three colleges led by an executive dean Faculties within colleges led by academic dean, reporting to exec. dean Stand-alone faculties led by a dean 19 dean-like leaders	Two colleges led by an executive dean Faculty of Arts & Science led by a dean Stand-alone faculties led by a dean 17 dean-like leaders
Governance	Four large faculties each have a Faculty Council Schools could establish a Council Heads of school likely on GFC	Faculties retain existing Faculty Councils No college-level Council established For executive deans to be members of GFC, composition rules would have to be changed	Each existing faculty retains its Faculty Council Arts & Science establishes a single Faculty Council No college-level Council established For executive deans to be members of GFC, composition rules would have to be changed
Leadership Council	Executive Committee of Deans’ Council - four faculty deans plus one University School dean Deans’ Council - all deans and heads of schools	Executive Deans’ Council - three executive deans and one stand-alone faculty dean Deans’ Council - all deans (academic and executive)	Executive Deans’ Council - two executive deans plus dean of consolidated faculty and one dean of a stand-alone faculty Deans’ Council - all deans (academic and executive)
Faculty Evaluation	FEC run at the faculty level, per the collective agreement. Consolidated faculties each run one FEC Change to collective agreement to add heads of schools	FEC run at the faculty level, no change from current organization	FEC run at the faculty level, no change from current organization except for Arts & Science, which would run one FEC
Budget Management	Budget model revenue allocations would be aggregated at the consolidated faculty level into a budget under control of each dean	Budget model revenue allocations assigned to faculties. Faculties within colleges “taxed” to fund college services and initiatives. Remaining budget controlled by academic deans.	For colleges:  Budget model revenue allocations assigned to faculties. Faculties within colleges “taxed” to fund college services and initiatives. Remaining budget controlled by academic deans.  For stand-alone: Budget model revenue allocations would be aggregated at the faculty level into a budget under control of each dean
Faculty Administration	Faculty manager oversees admin functions (faculty-specific as well as service partners); reports to dean	College manager oversees college-level functions; reports to executive dean. Faculty manager oversees functions within the faculty; reports to academic dean.	For colleges: College manager oversees college-level functions; reports to executive dean. Faculty manager oversees functions within the faculty; reports to academic dean. For stand-alone: Faculty manager oversees admin functions (faculty-specific as well as service partners); reports to dean
Academic Leader Roles	Consolidation of existing associate dean/chair, director roles within a faculty can be considered	Consolidation of existing associate dean/chair, director roles within a college can be considered	Consolidation of existing associate dean/chair, director roles within a faculty or college can be considered
Projected admin cost savings	$26.5 million	$31.8 million	@$32.1 million
Projected leadership savings (indirect)	-$0.6 million to +$8.7 million	-$0.9 million to +$8.9 million	@-$0.3 million to +$8.5 million