The ambitious proposal to restructure the University of Maine System drew varying reactions from across the state Thursday.

While grappling to understand the ramifications of the plan they had not had time to fully digest, some reacted with praise, others with disdain.

“It’s more than dead on arrival. It’s buried,” observed Sen. John Martin D-Eagle Lake, a former faculty head at the University of Maine at Fort Kent.

Martin said he had grave concerns with the planning process behind the proposal and expressed doubts that the institutions involved would rally to the restructuring. Martin said the fact that those affected by the proposal were not invited to take part in the planning process did not bode well for its winning acceptance.

“If you are going to develop a public document and you want people to accept that document, you don’t want to do it in secret. The faculty were in the dark, the unions were in the dark, and the presidents of the institutions were in the dark,” said Martin. “Whatever goal that could have come out of the process, they have instead actually done harm to the system. The danger is that it sets people back.”

Ron Mosley, a professor at the University of Maine at Machias and head of the 1,300-member Association of Faculty of the University of Maine, or AFUM, said it would take some time to absorb the proposal. Mosley said it was premature to take a position on the plan at this time. He also argued that the faculty should have been given a role in the process.

“It’s not quite as shocking as I thought it would be. My first reaction was ‘why was it so secret?’ The faculty wanted to participate, we wanted to sit at the table and have a voice in this,” Mosley said after learning the details of the plan. “There’s a lot of work to do on this and it will take a while to absorb it and determine the impact. …We’ll be trying to figure out the impact on the faculty and will be looking to see what parts of the plan will need to be looked at further.”

Rep. Glenn Cummings, D- Portland, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Education and Cultural Affairs Committee, described the plan as “bold and forward looking and … also necessary.”

Cummings said he believed the plan “positions us well for our future” in that it takes specific aim at improving the system for each of the state’s geographic areas. Cummings said he was “impressed” that UMS was attempting to get its fiscal house in order.

“Rather than waiting for the gap to hit them, they are anticipating that gap,” said Cummings.

As to whether political muscle can be applied to the process, Cummings said that while the UMS trustees and their chancellor had the authority to make changes to the internal workings of the institution, the opportunity for the Legislature to play a part existed.

“This is not a bill before the Legislature. They don’t have to get our approval to rename universities or refocus resources,” said Cummings. “The only area we could influence would be on budget issues. It is a political process and these are publicly held universities. There are ways in which the Legislature can influence the process.”

The draft strategic plan was unveiled to UMS faculty, staff and members of the Legislature during a series of briefings on Thursday. It was made public this morning on the UMS Web site.

The strategic plan calls for compressing the university system’s organizational structure by reorganizing the state’s seven public universities into four institutions. Each of those institutions would have a specific role within the system and a clearly defined set of educational programs.

The plan aims to strengthen the system’s management and fiscal structure while improving accountability and increasing academic quality.

“You can’t sustain it [the current system] over time,” said UMS Vice Chancellor Elsa Nunez. “How can you sustain quality if the system is so large and so divided?”

The proposal calls for an increased emphasis on strengthening the state’s land grant campus at Orono, a recommendation that pleased Sen. Mary Cathcart, D-Orono. While Cathcart described the plan as “forward looking,” she also acknowledged that it would engender some controversy. She said the need to find a balance between revenues and resources was long overdue.

“This is a small, poor state,” said Cathcart. “It’s a very complicated plan and there are many wrinkles that will need to be ironed out. … Some of it will be controversial and it could be difficult politically in some areas.”

Rep. Jeremy Fischer, D-Presque Isle, said he was “very impressed” by the proposal. He said the Legislature had asked the system to become more efficient and that the strategic plan represented a move in that direction. He acknowledged that employees would be concerned about potential job losses but said those issues would be addressed in the coming months.

“It’s hard to argue politically or otherwise against using state resources more efficiently,” said Fischer. “It’s bold, it’s exciting and it’s revolutionary. I’m looking forward to the discussion around it and there’s nothing wrong with that debate.”

UMS board of trustees member James Mullen of Bangor headed the task force that worked with Nunez to develop the plan. Mullen said the proposed changes were driven by the need to improve quality at the universities during a period of shrinking economic resources. He said the system was faced with the reality of making hard choices during hard times and the strategic plan was the end result.

“It is an enormous undertaking in that this is a very big and a very complex institution,” Mullen said Thursday. “The practical side says we have to make some alternate plans based on today’s economic realities. … Things are a lot tougher now than they were in the past. If we’re going to move forward, we’ve got to realize that things are different.”