ORONO – The University of Maine System board of trustees, receiving criticism up until the last minute Monday, unanimously approved a controversial reorganization plan that aims to set a new vision for public higher education in the state.

“The strategic plan recognizes that change is necessary and that maintaining the status quo is not the answer,” said Charles L. Johnson III, chairman of the board, which Monday ended its two-day meeting at the University of Maine.

“Today’s vote on the plan will re-engineer our university system to ensure its value and vitality for the years ahead,” he said.

Despite concerns voiced by 20 faculty, staff and students who asked the board to delay the vote, trustees agreed that the plan was needed to enhance academic quality and reduce administrative costs in light of a projected $102 million financial gap facing the

university system in five years.

“For the board not to act,” said Chancellor Joseph Westphal, “it would be a statement that we don’t have the faith and support of our people to carry the day forward.”

Designed to save the system more than $12 million a year, the plan has been a lightning rod for controversy since it was announced last March. It calls for, among other things, merging the University of Southern Maine and the University of Maine at Augusta, creating a “consortium” among the universities at Fort Kent, Presque Isle and Machias to encourage more collaboration and efficiency, and shifting all two-year programs to the community college system.

Also the plan states that only the flagship University of Maine campus would keep its current name. The remaining universities and the system itself will go through a market research process to find new names.

The next step is to begin the implementation planning process. Each university president will meet with faculty, staff and students during the next few months to determine the steps to be proposed to achieve the plan’s goals.

Early in 2005 the chancellor will discuss the plan with the Legislature. A more detailed discussion of some elements of the implementation process is anticipated for the trustees’ meeting in March.

“The strategic planning will be a standing issue on the board’s agenda for years to come,” said UMS spokesman John Diamond.

Acknowledging that the plan “won’t solve all the problems,” Trustee James Mullen, chairman of the board’s strategic planning committee, took issue with some of the complaints voiced at Monday’s meeting, including that faculty weren’t involved enough and that the real place to save money was at the chancellor’s office.

Mullen pointed out that faculty had endorsed the majority of goals in the plan and that many of their suggestions had been included in the revised version. He said that the system office provides only services best done on a centralized basis and that if the campuses assumed responsibilities for such things as legal services, human resources, collective bargaining and facilities management, the cost would be $7 million more than currently.

Trustee Lyndel Wishcamper said that while he believes change is necessary and that the plan has more good points than bad, “in retrospect our process has had some significant shortcomings.”

But he added, “Opponents either have a vested interest or don’t understand the financial exigencies we face.”

Wishcamper urged the chancellor to “design [an implementation] process that will provide meaningful participation for faculty.” He urged faculty to “take no action to polarize people of good will,” referring to two professors who said their campuses would consider issuing votes of no confidence against the chancellor.

State Department of Education Commissioner Susan Gendron, an ex officio member of the board, emphasized the need “to be forward-thinking” because the state is facing an $800 million structural gap as well as a projected decline in the number of students.

Earlier in the day, a recommendation from faculty representatives that the board of trustees begin the implementation process with a feasibility study went nowhere.

But trustees emphasized that strong faculty input is vital for the plan to work.

“Now faculty are looking forward to follow through on that commitment,” Dana Humphrey, faculty representative from the University of Maine, said after the meeting.

He said he was heartened by Chancellor Westphal’s request the previous day that faculty representatives look into developing a committee to examine how professors could become more involved in decision making at the system level.

Campus presidents told trustees Monday that they were already working on the implementation process.

Richard Cost, president of the University of Maine at Fort Kent, said faculty from his campus as well as from the University of Maine at Machias and the University of Maine at Presque Isle are discussing how to ensure that their general education requirements are uniform. Administrators from the three campuses are examining ways to consolidate purchases.

Robert Kennedy, interim president at the University of Maine, said he is having talks with UMA President Charlie Lyons and Eastern Maine Community College President Joyce Hedlund about how sharing associate degrees with the University College of Bangor campus might work.

Theodora Kalikow, president of the University of Maine at Farmington, said faculty are revamping curriculum to “emulate the best private liberal arts colleges.”

USM President Richard Pattenaude and UMA President Charles Lyons said their first order of business is to link their respective strategic plans.