UMS: Better Strategy

The University of Maine System recently posted on its Web site more than 150 comments and criticisms of its strategic plan that should strengthen the final version, due at the end of this month. Some of the comments are praise; a few tell the chancellor to forget the entire project. But mostly, the comments, assuming the site represents an accurate version of what was received, point usefully to specific areas of the plan that need clarification or revision.

The comments are especially welcome after the lack of input from the university community and the public at the beginning of this process. Trustees seem to have understood that complaint and are making an effort to address the earlier mistake. That should reassure legislators, who would have heard plenty about the lack of participation but have wisely resisted trying to micromanage the situation; a position they should maintain.

Based on the posted comments, the strategic plan at a minimum should include the following changes:

. Overall, the plan should provide a clearer, more specific vision of how the university system will raise quality, be financially stable and serve its students and Maine.

. It should give details of how it will address the governor’s call for a greater number and percentage of Maine residents with at least a four-year degree, describing the role that each university will play in achieving this goal.

. For the universities themselves, the idea to force Fort Kent, Presque Isle and Machias into a single university isn’t broadly supported, though moving some common back-office operations to a single place likely could be. The chancellor should describe how this could work and what role the system office would have in consolidated services.

. University College at Bangor de-serves a more specific future; Southern Maine’s continued growth is going to demand more attention and resources than it currently receives.

. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how two-year programs would be transferred to the community colleges and whether those colleges have been given sufficient resources for the programs. A redrafted plan would be strengthened by a description, including from the perspective of the community college system, of how the transfer would occur.

. If distance education is de-centralized, campuses will have a harder time making available courses and programs statewide. Coordination through the system office may be necessary.

. Though the plan calls for faculty compensation to increase to 90 percent of the national average by 2008, the plan doesn’t adequately explain the impact of attrition, centralization and early retirements on employee workload.

. A major reason for the plan is to spend money more efficiently, and while the $15.5 million in anticipated savings has been explained on the system’s Web site, doubters persist. More explanation is required.

All of these points can be answered by the system, and they would make for a stronger plan and a more positive one. Maine should have high expectations for the final version of it when it is completed later this month.