Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2003/05/12/youre_fired_now_sign_this_form.php
Monday, May 12, 2003
Since the budget crisis began at Dartmouth, impending layoffs have loomed large for employees. Although Parkhurst consistently stated that the College relies on the dedication of its personnel, until recently it also maintained that the deteriorating fiscal situation could make it necessary to eliminate some positions. There is stark contrast, however, between what the administration has said and what it is actually doing.
In August 2002, the Office of Public Affairs released a statement explaining the impending budget crisis, and outlined possible solutions for fixing problems—without cutting integral College programs. The document blamed 'market downturns' for Dartmouth's 5.7 percent deficit. Over $1.5 million were cut from the 2003 operating budget, and an additional $5.7 million would be slashed in 2004. Parkhurst was explicitly asked if these reductions would result in the elimination of positions. 'Dartmouth depends on the quality, the commitment, and the dedication of the people who work here and would not be able to accomplish what it does without them,' was the response.
Despite this sentiment, in late October the College released a revised outline of its 2004 budget and announced that it would by laying off up to thirty employees in an effort to reduce the deficit. Because staff salaries currently make up fifty-five percent of the total operating budget, it was designated for possible cuts. President James Wright declared that the Budget Committee would review all non-faculty positions, and none would be axed without the consent of both the Provost and the President. The outline of the proposed budget stated that eighty positions would be cut, but that approximately fifty of those employees would continue to be employed in other areas. The proposal once again mentioned that because Dartmouth is a 'people intensive' place, 'we need to proceed very cautiously' in the area of layoffs.- Despite the budgetary woes, the report indicated that considerable money—the exact numbers were unspecified—would be spent on projects like the Student Life Initiative and the Phi Tau house move.
The public outcry was swift and enormous. Most could not comprehend why an institution with a $2.2 billion endowment would need to fire employees. Many members of the Dartmouth community proposed salary reductions as an alternative to layoffs. Betsy Alexander, an Art History department employee, submitted a formal proposal that called for the Dartmouth faculty to 'voluntarily rebate one percent of their gross salary' to avoid layoffs. Many supported the measure. One individual urged employees to 'see what a one percent reduction would make on your budget. Then think what a one-hundred percent reduction would do to someone else's.' The program was dismissed by Provost Barry Scherr as 'unrealistic.'
In early November, Provost Scherr released an update on the budget situation that addressed individual's specific questions. The update declared that 'President Wright has emphasized that layoffs must be used as a last resort and that Dartmouth is committed to helping to find other positions... for those who may work in an area that may have a reduction in positions.' It reiterated the college's hope to retain employees through attrition instead firings. The document concluded with a promise that 'as we finalize how we will reduce the FY '03 and FY '04 budgets, we will provide the community with more information.'
The official College budget for fiscal year 2004 was released in January. To the surprise of the community, the statement did not reference dismissals. Instead, Parkhurst declared that 'the College has already been able to eliminate fifty jobs, through attrition or reorganization, without laying anyone off.' Provost Scherr emphasized that 'barring some kind of disaster' there would be no more cuts and that positions would be reorganized and not eliminated. At the time, the College seemed to have resolved the budget crisis without having to resort to layoffs.
It has now been over three months since the 2004 budget was released, and the administration has remained largely silent on the issue. Layoffs are rarely mentioned, and most seem to believe that the crisis has been resolved.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Many individuals were laid off, including both managers of Sanborn Library and librarians employed by both Sherman and Cook. Positions have also been scratched from the Outdoor Programs Office and the Facilities Planning Department. These employees were offered temporary positions until the end of spring term—but in fields completely unrelated to their previous position. Moreover, they will still be permanently seperated after three months.
According to one separated employee who wished to remain anonymous, all employees terminated were offered severance packages on the condition that they sign confidentiality agreements stating that they would do or say nothing to discredit the College. There has been no mention of any of this by Parkhurst.
The problem with the College's conduct in this matter is not the fact that some positions were eliminated. But what is inexcusable is that an administration praising student contributions decided to keep such vital information from everyone, forced confidentiality agreements, and then lied.
In January, when it appeared that the worst of the budget crisis was over, the Administration promised that, in the future, Dartmouth students would have a greater role in determining how the College spends its money. A Student Budget Advisory Committee was convened to 'ease tensions between administrators and the student body and encourage Dartmouth students to take an active role in how their school is run.' When students are kept from certain 'privileged' information, and even deceived, this effort seems fruitless. The administration selectively decides what it wants students and the public to hear, even if this means avoiding discussion of the nastier side of the budget cuts: firing longtime employees.
In a speech given on January 31, 2003, after the release of next year's budget, President Wright stated, 'We need to be careful about surprising people. We need to have a more open process.' He reaffirmed his faith in 'two way discourse' as a solution to the problem, instead of angry demonstrations. Two-way discourse requires that students be provided with facts, and so far the administration has failed to do this.