Report of the Three-Year Review Committee on Reorganization of Health and Human Sciences
April 2011
Committee Members:
Sharon Brush, Liberal Arts
Scott Clark, Biology
Kerry Lewis, Speech Pathology and Audiology
Ronald Phaneuf, Physics (chair)
Stephen Rock, Educational Specialties
Kerry Seymour, Cooperative Extension
James Sundali, Managerial Sciences
Purpose:
To provide faculty input on issues related to the 2008 decision to reorganize the Health and Human
Sciences at the University of Nevada.
Charges to the Committee:
1. Meet with current and former faculty and administrators in the affected units, and if possible
identify potential problems with the reorganization.
2. Consider how the decision was made, and make recommendations for whether this could have
been done in a timely manner while still getting appropriate faculty input and review.
3. Determine the goals of the reorganization and indicate progress toward accomplishing them.
Background:
Presumably in response to the first round of budget cuts to the University, a health sciences
reorganization plan containing very little detail was presented to the Board of Regents for approval
in January 2008 and approved. In May 2008, an announcement was made by President Glick of a
significant reorganization to take effect July 1, 2008 that would result in the dissolution of the
College of Health and Human Sciences and formation of a new Division of Health Sciences. Dr.
John McDonald, formerly Dean of the Nevada School of Medicine, was chosen to serve in the
newly created position of Vice-President for Health Sciences and Dr. Ole Thienhaus was appointed
interim dean of the School of Medicine. According to an announcement in Nevada News in May
2008 quoting President Glick, the reorganization was
“. . . driven by the recognition that optimal health care is provided by multidisciplinary teams — nurses,
public health professionals, social workers, pharmacists, therapists, physicians and others — who train
and work together focusing on meeting the healthcare needs of the state. This integrative approach will
best serve University students seeking health-related careers by leveraging the talents and expertise
found in these health science disciplines.”
The Faculty Senate was neither informed in advance nor consulted about the decision to reorganize
the health and human sciences, and no rationale or justification for this administrative decision was
given. For such a major organizational change, this was unprecedented in modern history and raised
legitimate concerns by senators about the future role of faculty governance at UNR. As a response,
following normal protocol, the Faculty Senate formed an ad hoc committee in 2008 to review the
reorganization. Despite several requests, that committee was not provided and was unable to locate
2
any proposal or similar document associated with the reorganization to guide such a review. Vice
Provost Dr. Jannet Vreeland indicated that Dr. Charles Bullock had been asked to develop such a
proposal after the fact, a somewhat unusual request since he was acting dean of the College of
Health and Human Sciences in 2008 and the reorganization eliminated his position. According to
Dr. Vreeland, no such report was ever submitted by Dr. Bullock, who subsequently left the
University. The review committee concluded that insufficient information was available to produce
a meaningful report and recommended reconvening such a review committee in three years.
Structure of the Division of Health Sciences:
The New Division of Health Sciences encompasses all of the academic units of the former
College of Human and Health Sciences, except the Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, which joined the College of Education, and the Department of Criminal Justice,
which joined the College of Liberal Arts. Figure 1 presents the organizational chart of the
Division of Health Sciences that was issued at the time of the reorganization.
Figure 1. Organizational Chart of the Division of Health Sciences (2008).
Included among smaller units are the Nevada School of Medicine and the Orvis School of Nursing.
One significant management change is that the Dean of the School of Medicine now reports to the
Vice-President for Health Sciences, rather than to the President of the University. When Dr.
Thienhaus retired in June, 2010, Dr. Cheryl Hug-English was appointed Interim Dean of the School
of Medicine. Following the retirement of Dr. McDonald in September, 2010, Dr. Denise Montcalm
was appointed Interim Dean of Health Sciences. The title of the interim position was changed from
vice president to dean, with both Dr. Hug-English and Dr. Montclam reporting directly to the
Provost.
3
An apparent re-evaluation of the initial management structure for the Division has resulted in a
search for an individual who would serve as both Vice-President for Health Sciences and Dean of
the School of Medicine. An announcement was made in February 2011 that the search was
successful and that Dr. Thomas L. Schwenk will join the University in July 2011. There is no
evidence to indicate that such a structural change was planned at the time of the reorganization, but
the current period of fiscal uncertainty and shrinking budgets provides motivation and justification
for consolidating the two management positions. Another factor may have been a perceived
likelihood that stronger candidates would be attracted by the combined leadership position and that
fundraising opportunities might be enhanced.
According to the website, the Division of Health Sciences is at present composed of four schools:

School of Community Health Sciences

School of Medicine

Orvis School of Nursing

School of Social Work
and three centers:

Sanford Center for Aging

Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies

Campus Wellness and Recreation.
Bylaws were developed for the Division and approved by the faculty on March 11, 2011. The
Division of Health Sciences offers the following degrees: Bachelor of Science, Master of Science
and Doctoral degrees in Speech Pathology and Audiology; Bachelor of Science with majors in
Community Health Sciences; Bachelor of Science in Nursing; Bachelor of Social Work; Master of
Public Health (M.P.H.); Master of Social Work; Master of Science in Nursing (M.S.N.), dual
M.S.N./M.P.H.. The division also participates in the interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Social
Psychology; and the School of Medicine confers the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), the Ph.D. in
Pharmacology and Physiology, Biochemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology, as well as the
combined M.D/Ph.D. and M.D./P.P.H.. Undergraduate Minors in Addiction Treatment Services;
Health Care Ethics; Community Health Science; Gerontology; and Substance Abuse Prevention
Services. The division also offers Graduate Certificate Programs in Bioethics, Clinical Nurse
Specialist, and Family Nurse.
In the absence of a proposal, the goals for the reorganization listed below were identified by this
committee from three principal sources: Nevada News articles from May 8, 2008 and May 30, 2008,
the Opportunity and Challenge Profile for the Search for the Vice President of the Division of
Health Sciences and Dean of the University of Nevada School of Medicine, and the website of the
Division of Health Sciences.
Goals of the Reorganization:

Grow and better align the University’s health science programs by creating a stand-alone
academic division.

Develop a vision for the State’s comprehensive health care campus and allopathic medical
school.
4

Develop coordinated approaches to improve medical education, research, and the quality and
accessibility of health care in Nevada.

Promote expansion of Nevada’s health-science training and research capacity to address
Nevada’s acute shortage of health care professionals.

Work with clinical partners to provide excellent care to Nevadans in both urban and rural areas.

Develop a new education facility in Reno that will serve as a hub for the health-sciences
programs.

Expand the class size at the School of Medicine from 62 to 100 students.

Expand the class size of the Orvis School of Nursing to 200 students.

Establish a Center for Molecular Medicine in Reno that will house portions of the microbiology,
pharmacology and physiology departments and serve as the headquarters for the Whittemore
Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease.

Create a synergistic environment for scientists to work together at the Center for Molecular
Medicine to conduct cutting-edge research that leads to better treatments for patients, increase
research productivity, funding and graduate student programs.

Expand and consolidate SOM facilities in Las Vegas to create a focal point for health science
and care activity to serve the city and region.

Develop an integrated academic health center, aligning the energies and accomplishments of
schools and centers in ways that enable each to contribute as highly effective, integrated
elements of the Division of Health Sciences.

Create a hub for globally significant health-science research, an engine for economic growth,
and a source of world-class medical practitioners to serve the state’s growing health-care needs.

Drive and expand research excellence and productivity across the division and develop critical
relationships among key partners.

Recruit, hire, develop, and retain the next generation of world-class health-science faculty.

Promote development of multidisciplinary teams — nurses, public health professionals, social
workers, pharmacists, therapists, physicians, and others — that train and work together.

Provide a clear, compelling framework to inspire the various units to strive for individual
excellence while approaching their work in a collaborative, holistic manner, oriented toward a
shared goal of tackling the significant health-related challenges facing the State.

Provide support to all the Division’s programs to improve their teaching, research, outreach and
clinical services, and how they can leverage their existing strengths to shape a new model for
community-oriented health-science education.

Promote closer programmatic integration between the Las Vegas clinical and educational
programs and the activities in Reno.

Develop effective platforms for communication and foster a culture in which members are
encouraged to share stories from patients or celebrate research successes.
Review Protocol:
There was considerable discussion by this committee of the relative merits of different operational
approaches to the conduct of this review in the absence of a proposal for the reorganization, and of
5
their likelihood to provide accurate or useful information. To obtain a faculty perspective on the
reorganization process and impacts, the committee elected to conduct an online survey of those
academic, administrative and clinical faculty who were directly affected. The survey was drafted by
the review committee and reviewed by the Faculty Senate Executive Board. The faculty members
surveyed included those in the two departments of the former College of Health and Human
Sciences that joined other colleges as a result of the reorganization. The online survey was
distributed via e-mail by the Faculty Senate office to 377 academic, administrative and clinical
faculty members on February 15, 2011 with the following accompanying message.
Faculty Survey: Review of the Reorganization of Health and Human Sciences
Dear Faculty Member,
In November 2010, the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate charged an Ad-Hoc Committee to review the 2008
reorganization of the Health and Human Sciences. You are being asked to participate in a brief survey regarding
the effects of the reorganization, which will benefit the committee in completing their charge, and in reporting
their findings to the Faculty Senate by May, 2011. The input of faculty members is particularly valued by the
committee. Your survey responses will be kept confidential, according to the University of Nevada, Reno's privacy
guidelines found at this link: https://www.cisweb1.unr.edu/survey/. Should you wish to meet with a member or
members of this review committee, please contact Linda Kuchenbecker in the Faculty Senate Office by calling
(775) 784-4025 or via email lindak@unr.edu. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Eric Herzik
Chair, Faculty Senate
A reminder message was sent by e-mail on February 23, 2011, just before the survey was closed. In
addition to or in lieu of responding to the survey, faculty members were provided an option to
contact the Faculty Senate office by e-mail or telephone to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the
committee or a member. No such requests were received and no face-to-face meetings with faculty
or administrators were conducted by the committee.
Survey Results:
The survey questions and a quantitative analysis of the responses are presented in Figure 2. The
survey was divided into two sections. The first group of questions (1 – 6) dealt with the
reorganization process itself and the second group (7 – 17) addressed the impacts of reorganization.
The review committee was gratified to receive 138 responses, of which 124 addressed the second
group of questions. This may have been due to survey fatigue, or those respondents may not have
noticed the second group of questions prior to exiting the survey.
A 35% response rate is considered exceptionally high for a survey of this nature, and is attributed in
part to faculty interest in the subject of the review and in part to an assurance of anonymity because
of its distribution by the Faculty Senate. In addition to the responses to specific questions, numerous
supplemental comments were received in response to questions numbered 6 and 17. Academic
faculty comprised 62% of the respondents who identified themselves by category of appointment,
31% were administrative faculty and 7% were clinical faculty. No sorting of the responses by
category of appointment was made.
6
Figure 2. Faculty Survey and Numerical Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The reasons for the reorganization were fully explained.
The rationale for the reorganization was readily understandable.
I had an opportunity to give input concerning the reorganization.
My input to the reorganization was reasonably considered.
The reorganization process was handled professionally.
Please provide any comments about the reorganization process.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on the functioning of my unit.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on the organizational strategy of my unit.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on the organizational structure and reporting relationships
within my unit.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on individual and group incentives.
My perception is that the reorganization has had a positive effect on students.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on interdisciplinary engagement and research.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on my ability to secure external funding.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on funding for research conducted in my unit.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on the services provided by my unit.
The reorganization has had a positive effect on community outreach and program visibility.
Please provide any comments about the impacts of the reorganization.
7
Questions 1 - 4 concerning communication of the rationale and goals for the reorganization by the
administration and the opportunity for faculty input drew significant fractions of negative compared
to positive responses. Question 10 on individual and group incentives also indicated that
significantly fewer faculty members perceived a positive impact due to reorganization. Questions 13
and 14 concerning the impact on research and funding also drew more negative than positive
responses, as did question 15 concerning services provided by a unit. Only question 5 addressing
whether the reorganization was handled professionally and question 12 addressing interdisciplinary
engagement and research drew more positive than negative responses. Opinions on the remaining
questions were distributed more uniformly across the spectrum, indicating less significant
polarization of faculty viewpoints on those issues.
Faculty Comments:
Responses to questions eliciting comments from the faculty are listed below in the order that they
were received.
The Reorganization Process:
Please provide any comments about the reorganization process below:

It was presented as a "done deal." No reasons were really offered, other than "we're going to have Dr.
McDonald earn that VP salary/title."

The reorganization was announced over the holiday break where little input would be available. No faculty
input was requested...very heavy-handed and sad. Morale was affected in a very negative way. Also
decisions were made that faculty could migrate to new units without an assessment of what that would do to
existing programs.

It seemed to be about saving money but could not explain where, or maybe some hidden agenda related to
specific personnel.

I didn't know about reorganization.

I had a strong feeling that there was a predetermined plan, which was not shared, and that what my
colleagues and I wanted did not matter in the least. We were going to have to do what someone else had
decided, although we were told that the final "decision" about our department's future was up to us. That
was a lie!

Although I support and see positive aspects of the reorganization, the president and provost announced the
reorganization without consideration of the units.

I remember that the process was initiated, but do not remember discussion related to the reason why or the
necessity of combining the departments.

The overall rationale was not well clarified, but faculty input appeared to be considered and incorporated.

There was no opportunity for input from anyone; it was simply announced that this would be done.

The reorganization was not data driven, or not explained to faculty on the basis of best-practices or efficiency.
This gives the impression that reorganization was initiated by an individual for subjective reasons.

From the point of view of a "non-medicine" health sciences School, the reorganization to combine Medicine,
Social Work, Nursing and the various Centers was long overdue. We finally had higher administration making
a decision for the good of many, rather than cow-towing to the "Hell no, we won't go" attitude that existed in
the former College of Human and Community Sciences and then the College of Health and Human Sciences.
The power struggle that went on prior to the decision to reorganize was detrimental and any growth of the
School of Nursing in particular. Higher administration (NOT those involved in the College administration)
listened to our needs and sought our input, and that was greatly appreciated!

Although the rationale was explained, it was clear that this created an additional level of bureaucracy that
was not in the best interest of the medical school nor financially sound. It appeared to be a "golden
8
parachute". There was also confusion as to the administrative nature of the "Dean" of this unit, being
responsible to himself as the Dean of the medical school and the Dean of the Health Sciences Division.

What reorganization?

The reason that we were told that a VP for Health Sciences was needed was for recruiting purposes - we
would have a chance of getting a better candidate if that was a part of the duties - mainly because they would
be able to sit in on the VP meetings that the President holds.

There was no preamble to the email for this survey so it is impossible to know what you are requesting unless
I spend some time to search for it, which I don't have.

I have no idea what these questions refer to.

This survey is difficult to respond to because it is not at all clear what organization you are referring to. Also,
the choices in the first question ask my status: I am both academic and clinical so it is unclear how to even
answer this question.

Sorry but I am not aware of this reorganization. It's possible that I did not pay attention to emails or other
announcements regarding it. I would not pay much attention because I do not know the significance of it and
no-one in my dept alerted me to it.

It is unclear if this survey relates to DHS since I do not recognize "health and human science" as part the
university.

It felt as though the reorganization process was predetermined!

I started after the reorganization occurred, so many of my answers are based on information I received after
my hiring.

I just joined UNR.

I realize this is to be anonymous, but I think the reason for my responses above is that I am based on the Las
Vegas campus for the School of Medicine. I'm not sure how much of this was communicated on a statewide
basis. Many in the Division of Health Sciences aren't aware that the Medical School has a campus in Las Vegas
at all, so it just may be a case of information not making its way to this part of the Medical School.

Communication could have been much better. Also, it felt like the decision to reorganize was made before
asking what we thought about it. It didn't feel like our opinions about it had any impact. That was frustrating.

It should not be done only by few at the top level and it is unjustified at all.

My complaints stem from the process and HOW the reorganization was done (top down decision making).
Impacts of the Reorganization:
Please provide any comments about the impacts of the reorganization below:

I don't notice anything different from before the reorganization, except for a website.

I still do not understand why medical school dean job was dropped.

It sounds like a lot of effort went into this, but, as usual, it was just cosmetic, because UNR has no or limited
financial resources to do anything really substantial.

It seemed to me to be MORE administration at MORE cost.

Confusing at best. Overall idea was intriguing but outcome seems counter productive.

Despite how the organizational change was rolled out, the impact on faculty, staff and students has been
remarkably positive. We're beginning to see the benefits/synergies possible. With a new VP/Dean on the
horizon, our outlook is quite positive.

If there have been benefits, they should be explained to the faculty. There may be improved relationships
with the Medical School and the old CHHS units.
9

As far as I can see, the impact was nil and the cost was high, over $0.5M per year.

Promote interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient care.

We were moved into a unit that was less strong than ours had been. We have had to work harder to maintain
our productivity.

The reorganization seems to be in name only so that someone can have a big title. The School of Medicine
does not seem to be fully integrated into this new division in spirit or in actions.

The "reorganization" allowed for more interdisciplinary interaction, but took a toll on our dept. - left us
reduced in numbers, impacting workload and the ability to address student issues appropriately (e.g. teaching
larger classes, teaching more classes).

Dr. McDonald's leadership was phenomenal in assisting our organization through this reorganization.

I don't think there was any harm in the reorganization. I think though there were more
opportunities/mechanisms in the college of HHS that brought us together for collaboration. Building a Health
NV was a logical and helpful initiative to bring folks together. We had meetings that weren't tied to funding
and those were helpful for networking. Now even the Division Newsletter is helpful to get ideas of what
other units are doing. Richelle ODriscoll does a great job. I think she had more opportunities with the college
framework to bring folks together. We need to get rid of silos and work more together--like one of the
provosts says.

The leadership that took place for Health Science after the reorganization was a breath of fresh air. We were
encouraged to grow and be successful. This was a welcome change from the former philosophy of "Nursing
can't be successful because if Social Work and Community Health Sciences aren't as successful, they will feel
bad and we will alienate them." Every unit in DHS should be rewarded for their success, not retaliated
against. Success of any unit in Health Sciences should only serve as incentive and role modeling for others'
success!

Cutting an entire college and shuffling its units has not had any positive effect except possible monetary
savings for the administration. It has negatively impacted morale and has made our jobs more challenging.

Stop having so many surveys and meetings and just get it done.

As far as I can tell this unit has not accomplished its primary task of developing significant "funded"
interdisciplinary research and education. The only observable success is the newsletter.

There was little difference in operation of the Las Vegas departments as a result of the reorganization.

The Division meets monthly but without leadership we are going nowhere, It is difficult to give time to
something that is currently not recognized by central administration ( there is none).

Leadership (and absent leadership) has not created incentives or opportunities--everything is still rewarded
by individual accomplishments.

Has led to a number of inter-professional educational and research opportunities. Much closer relationships
especially with the medical school.

During very difficult economic times the decision to create a Vice President of the division separate from the
UNSOM Dean position without any clear way of funding such a position was a poor decision. This created
two large salaried positions that resulted in increased overhead for clinical faculty when we were already
struggling.

We have been directly affected. Due to the reorganization and length of time needed to secure someone
foolish enough to do both VP and Dean of Medicine, our own search has been put on hold, so we're on hold.
Not good!

One of the reasons given for the reorganization was that it would be more cost efficient (i.e., save money) ...
not sure this has been the case.

Overall the impacts of the reorganization are not readily apparent; however, hope springs eternal and I hope
that an outcome of the reorganization include the development of interdisciplinary/cross-discipline research
teams.
10

Little can happen that is positive until the new VP is in place.

Positive effect on fund raising.

Paperwork takes much too long now that things have to go through so many channels. Having to have our
fiscal stuff approved up at the med school takes much too long. Even internally in the VP office the
turnaround time for paperwork is much too slow. It seems like we are having to conform more to med school
methods.

This seems to apply to Reno more than Las Vegas. Only medical school faculty are here. There is no research
infrastructure, no one to collaborate with, no connection to the other disciplines in Health Science and more
work for the Medical School dean.
Recommendations for Future Reorganizations:
Please provide any recommendations concerning how to most effectively conduct future
reorganizations:

Engage the political and business community so they can help direct and align educational and faculty efforts
to better serve their workforce needs and maybe they will feel more inclined to support us during the
biennial farce of putting together a State budget.

Involve the parties impacted/involved from the beginning.

We should look at what might actually save money---like having nursing students sit for lectures with medical
students as is commonly done at other institutions.

Need faculty input with a rationale as to why reorganizations are needed and what the potential positive
outcomes could be. As budget cuts loom yet again, I'm hoping central administration can learn from their
mistakes and seek more faculty and stakeholder input in developing plans; fiats from central administration
are counter-productive and deflating for morale.

Perhaps doing cost-benefit analyses, in terms of teaching (Is there any REAL impact on student academic
life?), faculty or other human time [who benefits and who loses (to me it was a slight loss -- more
unnecessary emails, more events to skip)], and dollars (who benefits and who loses).

Honesty up front! We spent a lot of time trying to make decisions that would be in our best interest. But in
the end, we ended up being put into a unit that was not our choice. If other units are to be reorganized, the
ground rules should be transparent at the outset.

Ask those affected to be part of a solution or have opportunity to voice concerns before it is determined.

Perhaps consider (and listen to) the students and their issues more.

Continually reorganizing does not benefit anyone. Once a reorganization is complete, it needs to be given
time to truly assess the impact. It takes several years for units to make necessary adjustments.

There wasn't much transparency behind why McDonald was let go. Would be helpful to have transparency. I
don't think it is realistic for the new VP to be both the chair of med school and the VP for the division. We
were told during the first reorganization that wouldn't happen--then it suddenly changed. Heard that the
newly hired person negotiated a different structure--that indicates he is realistic and probably a good hire
and assertive leader. One recommendation for future reorganizations is that all the units will be seen as
equals and that no one unit will trump the others. It seems that we are equals now and I hope that
continues.

I believe faculty input is very important, but administration should be able to make administrative decisions
for the good of the University. This reorganization took way too long beginning with a totally ineffective
Health Sciences task force in 2004/05.

Do something with the creative faculty ideas that are brought forth. Solicit faculty input at the outset. Be
open with the reasoning and rationale behind any decisions that are made. Tell it like it is rather than
operating under guises. And please actively avoid being condescending. We can understand decisions that
11
need to be made for fiscal reasons. We'd like to be part of the discussion rather than the recipients of a
decision from above- but if the latter is necessary, at least let us know in an honest and non-disparaging way.

Don't take so long.

The concept is a good one. How it was carried out is the issue. A Department of Health Sciences would best
be served by having a skilled "administrative" individual as the chair of this unit and work on developing
collaborative relationships with the deans or chairs of health sciences programs meet on a regular basis to
discuss potential projects. The individual units/programs should remain independent of each other and not
be responsible to the "Dean of Health Sciences".

The VP should have a visionary, obtainable goal for the division. One of these should be to network with like
institutions. We need to accomplish something.

Rewards = action - there needs to be an infrastructure of incentives and rewards to get people to work
together this way...space/distance of all HS areas is still a problem...I understand the why Sanford has to
move to Pennington but it was not the best collaborative solution to encourage interdisciplinary...and what's
happening with Savitt and the space vacated by the folks who went to CMM? UNSOM still holding onto space
when it could be used for more HS to move up to the "HS Campus."

It is not at all clear if this survey should have been sent to medical faculty in the south. The questionnaire
does not appear to have been applicable.

Reorganization should occur at the college and department level. They know best how to handle cuts.

More written communication to faculty.

More thought, discussion and research before deciding to combine such important functions. I understand
fiscal issues, but in the long run, this is not good for the division and, I don't think, will save any money.

Remember Las Vegas.

Remain open to faulty and student input.

Reward system for faculty needs to be in line with overall vision and mission of department. There needs to
be a way to motivate those involved to get fired up and support reorganizations - leadership needs to be fired
up about reorganizing too!

Don't fire the VP because Glick doesn't like the treatment of a donor as ordered by Harvey Whittemore.

Do not put a person in charge who has "ties" to a previous person in charge.

I know the medical school is a challenging component of any university and of the Division of Health Sciences
but I think efforts to help the LV Campus feel a part of the larger UNR and Division would be helpful.

Tell the staff first before the news media.
Summary and Recommendations:
There was no proposal for the Faculty Senate to review prior to the announcement of a major
reorganization that involved dissolution of an existing college. This is unprecedented at the
University of Nevada and a legitimate cause for concern about the future role of faculty governance.
The motivation of the central administration to move decisively on such critical decisions is
understandable and reasonable, especially during a period when budgetary constraints are imminent.
The Faculty Senate recognizes and accepts a responsibility to respond expeditiously in such
situations, if given the opportunity.
Some benefits and some specific concerns were expressed by the affected faculty about both the
reorganization process that was followed and the outcomes of that reorganization, and some
thoughtful suggestions were offered. The range of viewpoints is consistent with what would be
expected from a group of academic, administrative and clinical faculty with a diverse range of
activities and responsibilities. A recurring theme in the responses to the survey questions and
12
specific comments is that the goals and objectives of this reorganization could have been better
communicated to the affected faculty, and more faculty input to the process could have been
solicited. There appears to be significant variation in opinions among different subunits, which may
be as much a reflection on the leadership of and communication within those subunits as on the
approach taken by the upper administration to implement the reorganization. One must recognize
that human nature tends to foster apprehension and inertia with regard to change, which is often
unsettling and perceived as threatening to some, especially during a budgetary crisis when many
faculty positions are being eliminated and a declaration of financial exigency is being considered.
Overall, the reorganization appears to have been well-intentioned and based on sound and
reasonable objectives for consolidation of the health and human sciences within the university.
There is a perception among those involved that the process was conducted in a professional
manner. Prior to the reorganization, Vice Provost, Dr. Jannet Vreeland met separately with faculty
groups from each of the affected departments or units to explain the rationale and objectives, and to
receive faculty perspectives. Except for the Schools of Medicine and Nursing, units were given an
option of joining the new Division of Health Sciences or of relocating to another College.
Whether any financial savings have been realized as a result of the restructuring or any new sources
identified for private funding are unclear at what must be considered a very early stage in the
evolution of the Division of Health Sciences. The imminent consolidation of the positions of Vice
President for Health Sciences and Dean of the School of Medicine should in principle provide some
reduction in administrative costs in the longer term, although filling the position will result in a
major increase in current expenditures.
A perception exists among some members of the faculty that enhanced communication among
academics and health professionals and some new opportunities for inter-disciplinary and intradisciplinary collaborations in research and services have been facilitated by the restructuring. These
connections may have facilitated or are expected to lead to some new funding opportunities.
The arrival of Dr. Thomas Schwenk in July 2011 to serve as Vice President for Health Sciences and
Dean of the Nevada School of Medicine will mark a significant milestone for the health and human
sciences at the University of Nevada, and should serve as a starting point for a formal and
comprehensive review of the Division of Health Sciences in five years. Similar to the regular
process for periodic evaluation of academic units and programs, such a review should be conducted
by an external committee of nationally recognized experts based on a self-assessment report
prepared by the Division and made available to the committee prior to the review.
Acknowledgment:
The committee is grateful to Michelle Hritz and Linda Kuchenbecher of the Faculty Senate staff for
implementing the faculty survey, and to Eric Herzik for reviewing and endorsing it as Faculty
Senate chair.