Sun editorial:

Meeting tension head on

UNLV president met with Faculty Senate to answer questions on spending issue

Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

The potential for tension between members of the UNLV faculty and the university’s president arose last week when a professor, reviewing campuswide proposals for cutting costs, noticed that new hiring and raises were slated for the student affairs unit.

It was natural for chemistry professor Bryan Spangelo to wonder how $500,000 worth of new employees and raises could be approved for one department while other departments are having to trim costs because of state budget cuts.

Proposed cost-cutting measures, well known to Spangelo because he is a member of a team evaluating them, include unpaid furloughs for faculty and layoffs of support staff.

Spangelo’s reaction mirrored the tension being felt at state campuses across the country. State budgets are dwindling as the recession’s effects linger, and most state universities are absorbing significant cuts. It would rile any professor to see one department expanding — with no explanation — while others are being slashed.

In response to rising tension over the issue — “(this) has caused some angst in a lot of people,” Spangelo told Las Vegas Sun reporter Emily Richmond — UNLV President Neal Smatresk decided on the direct approach. When the Faculty Senate asked to meet with him, he agreed, even though he does not need its approval for realigning departments.

At the meeting, Smatresk explained the new positions and raises at length. He explained the benefits of the reorganization, including how it cut the processing of student admissions from three months to 10 days.

Smatresk did more than explain the expenditure. He also agreed that not enough information had been shared with the faculty, and promised that his office would start issuing reports detailing such decisions and putting them in context.

After the meeting, another professor wrote that the meeting “represented a clear step forward for shared governance at UNLV.” The moral of this story is that it is important for a leader to be open with those who are affected by his decisions. Smatresk set an example that we hope catches on.