BANGOR – The University of Maine System’s proposed strategic plan is “seriously flawed” because it lacks details, was drafted without “broad input,” and failed to assess the economic repercussions, according to a statement issued Friday by union leaders representing each of the state’s 14 universities and community colleges.

The draft plan calls for, among other things, reorganizing the seven universities into four and shifting all two-year programs to the community college system.

The UMS board of trustees and Chancellor Joseph Westphal’s rush to obtain approval of the plan “is irresponsible and premature and … puts Maine’s institutions of higher education at risk,” the statement said.

Union leaders met at the University College of Bangor on Friday afternoon specifically to discuss the proposed plan.

After the meeting the representatives of the faculty and employee bargaining units from both UMS and the Maine Community College System documented their criticisms. Their statement said the plan:

. Limits access to higher education in Maine.

. Was drafted with minimal public, academic or employee comment.

. Lacks substantive detail.

. Will have a negative effect on student services and the quality of education.

. Failed to assess the impact of job losses, which will pose serious economic dislocations to fragile local economies.

. Left undefined the role of the UMS office.

. Failed to specify how cost savings are to be achieved.

The plan’s aim to eliminate two-year programs is ill-conceived because the community college system “lacks the infrastructure” to absorb them, said union leaders.

More than 3,000 students “won’t have a place to go,” said Don Anspach, co-president of University of Southern Maine’s faculty union.

Union leaders also objected to the trustees’ plans to consider a final proposal in September. They called for more time for debate because most people aren’t around in the summer.

“We feel there should be a longer time for substantive discussion with everyone involved,” said Ronald Mosley, president of the statewide University of Maine System faculty union.

“The lack of detail makes it hard to make informed decisions and informed responses to what they put out there,” he said.

Contacted Friday evening, John Diamond, UMS spokesman, said trustees felt three months would be an ample amount of time to gather public feedback through the mail, the system’s Web site, and the forums scheduled at each campus.

Union representatives criticized the plan for not addressing the future of the University College of Bangor and for centralizing services which ultimately will “take people off the local campuses.”

Students will suffer because employees and faculty will be stretched to the max trying to assume the duties of those whose positions will be eliminated through attrition or early retirement, representatives said.

Potential economic repercussions of the job losses are “impossible to gauge, but will be very large,” said Tim Wooten, a Maine Education Association staff member.

The plan doesn’t mention “how the central office can contribute to cost savings,” said Bill Steele, co-president of the faculty union chapter at the University of Southern Maine.

Diamond said the draft is simply a proposed framework for restructuring the system. “The effort is driven by current and future financial realities” as well as new opportunities to improve quality, accessibility and cost-effectiveness, he said.

Once the plan is revised, reposted, and eventually adopted, the faculty, staff and students of each university will be asked to play a major role in developing and implementing the specific details, Diamond said.

Some of the union leaders expect to further discuss the draft plan and their statement during regularly scheduled meetings with their members today.