As faculty members with UMUCs Asia Division, we want to express our serious concern

regarding the restructuring plan currently being implemented by the office of the vice president
for overseas operations. It seems quite clear that this plan has a high risk of detrimentally
impacting the ability of our university to efficiently complete its mission while causing
unnecessary hardship to UMUCs valued, long-term faculty members. We feel this plan needs to
be carefully and critically evaluated by decision makers outside of the vice presidents office
before it gets any further along, as it already is showing obvious, costly flaws.

It is worthwhile to preface this message with a relevant anecdote. Late last year, the overseas
divisions of UMUC posted faculty position advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education
for the first round of Collegiate Traveling Faculty (CTFs). In the advertisement it stated
interviews conducted through March 2014 at U.S. international airports in San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Kansas City, Chicago, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Washington
D.C., and Boston and overseas in Frankfurt, London, Seoul and Tokyo. Even though this
method of holding interviews at 14 different airports would be highly complex to arrange and
very expensive to implement, UMUCs vice president of overseas operations Dr. Allan Berg
clearly thought this was a reasonable and worthwhile plan and was preparing to carry it out. As
the time for interviewing approached it became overwhelmingly obvious that airport interviews
were not feasible and all interviews were instead carried out using Skype or by phone.

The airport interview plan was obviously flawed and unrealistic, but this wasnt obvious to Dr.
Berg, and no one who did notice its flaws had the power to influence his decision to proceed.
The plan had to fail on its own before he decided to abandon it. While the negative consequences
of this event were small (confusion amongst applicants and embarrassment for UMUC for
changing our interview methods), this event well exemplifies a pattern of poor judgment
favoring old and expensive methodologies over use of technology on the part of the vice
president. Dr. Bergs current plan is for faculty replacement is as obviously flawed as his airport
interview plan, yet it is being carried out anyway, and in the end could prove to be extremely
costly and do irreparable harm to the overseas program and its current employees.
In brief, Dr. Bergs current plan for the future of UMUCs overseas program is to replace all
residential full-time faculty members with CTFs, and then likely restrict their years of service to
no more than four. His plan includes moving all of the CTFs at least 2 or 3 times per year to
different locations within the European or Asian divisions, and perhaps even between divisions.
The reasoning hes provided is that this will make the university more flexible in regards to class
scheduling, and that this is the model that UMUC was using 40 years ago, so we are just going
back to that. As with the airport interview plan, this regularly replaced CTFs only plan is not
a sensible strategy, but Dr. Berg is steadfastly committed to it anyway.

One of the overriding flaws of Dr. Bergs leadership is his whats good for one is good for all
mentality. Thus while it seems that the CTF plan was designed to address course scheduling
deficiencies and low course load issues for faculty present in the European division, he is
applying this plan in its same form in Asia where conditions are very different. As the impact of
this plan is going to be particularly costly on Asia Division operations, the remainder of this
message will focus on Asia, with the understanding that the concerns raised also apply to the
European division to varying degrees.
Dr. Berg began implementing his faculty overhaul plan last fall when he delivered a message to
all overseas faculty members stating that no sub-24 credit contracts would be renewed and that
all remaining residential faculty members would lose their jobs after the subsequent academic
year (2014-15) but could compete with external candidates for CTF positions. Alternatively they
could elect to quit UMUC and accept a lump sum payment (LSP) scaled to their years of service.
The LSP was a one-time only offer; take it and quit or risk losing your job next year with no
severance pay. The deadline to decide was initially December 31. This initial action in his
overall plan was itself poorly conceived and flawed. After receiving many messages of concern,
Dr. Berg wound up extending the deadline for the LSP decision three separate times, and
changing the conditions of acceptance repeatedly. What wasnt changed was the fundamental
flaw that it wasnt necessary to offer the LSP to all faculty members. Providing a LSP to
departing faculty is a respectful and helpful thing to do, but the take it or lose it strategy
applied to all faculty members sent the disrespectful message that none of the current faculty
members was necessary, we were all on the chopping block, and Dr. Berg was encouraging us to
leave by offering one time only payouts.

He didnt have to do it this way. Much more sensible and respectful would have been to state
that necessary faculty downsizing due to reductions in enrollments would be accomplished by
strategic and selective non-renewal of annual contracts, and those faculty members who were not
renewed would receive a LSP in recognition of their valued service to UMUC and to assist with
their transition. This LSP provision could also have been continued into future years to assist
faculty members whose contracts need to be terminated later if enrollment declines continue.
This would be respectful of all faculty members, avoid unnecessary payouts, and avoid the loss
of valuable professors whose services were still needed. Instead, Dr. Bergs one time only, open
to all strategy had an obviously undesirable result. Large sums of money were paid to some of
UMUCs most valuable faculty members so they would leave! They could have stayed on and
provided valuable service towards the universitys mission, but instead they were paid to leave.
In Asia, about 30 faculty members chose to take the LSP, and about 15 new faculty members
were hired to replace them for this coming academic year. All of the LSP money, new hire
administrative time and expense, costs of relocating new faculty and time and expense to train
them could have been saved by retaining existing faculty members who only left because of the
LSP payment and its accompanying threats. What benefits were derived from these costly
actions? Replacement of seasoned instructors of known quality with new instructors of uncertain
abilities (no net benefit likely). They will be CTFs, and if all goes as planned they will be moved
2 or 3 times this academic year. But this also comes with a high cost which is unlikely to be
matched by Dr. Bergs imagined scheduling and enrollment enhancements derived from these
mobile faculty members.

Dr. Bergs plan to do airport interviews illustrated his general eagerness to spend big on a plan
with only imagined benefits deriving from those expenditures. It also shows that he prefers old-
fashioned methods (face to face interviews) over use of technology (internet conference
calls). Hes showing the same decision making tendencies with the replacement of residential
faculty with CTFs in Asia. He has repeatedly stated that the CTF model is one that was in place
in Asia 40 years ago, and somehow that means its a good idea for today. What he doesnt
mention is that model was phased out because it was found to be less efficient in carrying out our
mission than having regionally located residential faculty. The all-CTF experiment has already
been conducted and it failed. It does not have to be tested again to know that it will fail again, but
this is clearly Dr. Bergs plan. Indeed it is more likely to fail this time than previously, as
conditions formerly supportive of a CTF model have changed. The military used to allow on-
base accommodations for UMUC faculty, but these are no longer available so instructors must
all find suitable housing off-base, which is challenging and more expensive. UMUC used to have
overseas academic directors and an abundance of support staff to assist faculty needs, but these
positions have been drastically reduced in recent years. Indeed, the support staff has been cut so
much in Asia that this years newly hired CTFs have no designated staff to help them find
housing or get oriented. Instead they have to rely on assigned volunteer faculty sponsors for all
such assistance. Since furnished, short-term lease, small deposit apartments tend to come with
higher rent, the monthly housing allowance for CTFs has been tripled compared to that for
residential faculty. This represents an additional operating expense of $24,000 per year per CTF
just to assist them with housing. Regional movement of CTFs will also add substantial costs for
airfares and relocation costs as all movements can only be done by plane in Asia.

There are other serious issues that will complicate the functioning of an all CTF model. Repeated
buying and selling of cars will be needed in Okinawa and Guam. Sufficient numbers of
furnished, short lease apartments could be difficult to find in Korea where such residents are
uncommon. Being stationed in Guam for even one term will compromise the tax-exempt status
of CTFs. Delays in processing of TDY orders could prevent faculty movement in time to meet
their first class sessions in their next teaching destination. The CTF model invites a large number
of potentially serious problems that are avoided by a system that includes residential faculty.

The current system of regional location of residential faculty in Asia makes sense and is working
well. Each region (Korea, mainland Japan, Guam and Okinawa) have multiple bases that
residential faculty serve by personal or public transportation, so in effect they are already
travelling faculty. While all residential faculty in Asia were told that if they didnt meet their
annual contract of 24 or 27 credits of f2f classes last year their contracts would not be renewed,
none of them failed to reach their contracts. There is no evidence of urgency or even need to
radically alter the residential faculty model in Asia.

In his communications, Dr. Berg consistently exaggerates the benefits to be derived from CTFs
while dismissing or ignoring the many benefits derived from residential faculty. Residential
faculty members are very knowledgeable of the bases, local customs and resources available in
their primary teaching location, and regularly draw upon these resources to enhance their classes
with local examples and field trips. Residential faculty members establish reputations for good
teaching that promote enrollments through word of mouth. Residential faculty members serve as
mentors to assist adjunct and newly hired full-time instructors in having a smooth transition to
the local teaching environment. In general, residential faculty members function efficiently and
effectively without putting a burden on support staff.

Dr. Berg has stated that scheduling presently is done to accommodate faculty rather than
students, but in most parts of the Asia Division this is not the case. There is consistent student
demand for basic GER courses in English, math, science, communication and social sciences,
and in each of the four main regions in Asia there have been residential faculty members present
to teach these courses. Movement of one of these faculty members to a different location would
require a different CTF with the same course approvals to be brought in to cover these vacated
teaching needs. This pointless and costly swapping of faculty members to teach courses in the
same discipline is a likely outcome of an all CTF model.

There are some locations in Asia that are remote, and tend to have less than optimal course
scheduling diversity due to the continued presence of residential faculty with limited course
approvals. This situation could be improved by temporary relocation of residential faculty
(already stipulated as a possibility in their contracts), or by improved implementation of remote
teaching technology. By more aggressive investment in remote teaching technologies, UMUC
Asia could overcome the current deficiencies in course scheduling diversity and improve the
ability to offer courses at small bases with perennially low enrollments without having to take on
the expense and complications that come with large numbers of CTFs. The CTF model doesnt
even address the problem of the regular cancellation of courses at the smaller bases due to low
enrollments. However, remote course instruction technology has the potential to bring our f2f
courses to more students with fewer faculty members while minimizing the need for costly
faculty relocation. UMUC President Miyares, the Ideation Group, and numerous other advisers
are unified in saying that our focus needs to be on utilizing technology to maximize our
efficiency and competitiveness. Dr. Bergs idea is to revive a plan from 40 years ago that utilizes
airplanes. This may have represented using technology back then, but much better and more
efficient options are available today.

The Ideation Group and other advisers point out that the success of an organization is enhanced
when the organization provides an environment where the best employees feel valued and
encouraged to stay, as their loss would be detrimental to the organizations operations. Dr.
Bergs plan is in complete contradiction to this fundamental business model. He has already paid
many valuable faculty members to leave, and told the remaining professors that this academic
year could well be their last. He has informed us all that his intension is to hire new faculty
members with graduate degrees in more than one discipline so as to increase their value as
traveling instructors. However, this plan has already been shown to be unrealistic as the majority
of the newly hired CTFs have graduate education in only one discipline. They are no more
versatile than the faculty members that Dr. Berg paid to leave.

Next spring will bring about the most sweeping changes in the faculty composition according to
Dr. Bergs plan when all remaining residential faculty will be let go, with the opportunity to
compete with new applicants for CTF positions. An administrator with insight into this process
candidly referred to this as next years bloodbath as dozens of UMUCs best and most
committed long-term faculty members will lose their jobs without any severance pay. All of that
talent will be kicked out the door so that Dr. Berg can achieve his all CTF master plan. It is a
socially irresponsible plan which will bring heavy added expense with no added benefit that
could not more efficiently and effectively be achieved with strategic investment and use of
technology. Dr. Bergs vision for our future needs be carefully examined, as it already is
showing signs of being backward-facing, driven by a nostalgic affection for UMUCs past, and
eager to implement high disruptive and costly changes that are unlikely to achieve imagined
benefits.

We submit this letter with our utmost concern for the future of UMUCs overseas program, and with the
hope that a more sensible strategy will be implemented than that which is presently in the pipeline.




1:29 PM (0
minutes ago)