SDSU Faculty Votes ‘No Confidence’ in Day : Education: The unprecedented action is taken in response to his cuts of staff and departments.

In an unprecedented move at San Diego State University, the faculty senate Monday voted “no confidence” in the leadership of President Thomas Day for his handling of tenured-professor layoffs and elimination of academic departments because of the state budget crisis.

The resolution, the first ever directed at an SDSU president, came on a 41-29 vote, three more than the 38 minimum required for passage in the 75-member senate. The motion for “no confidence” would have failed without the four affirmative votes of student representatives who sit in the body, which represents the 1,400 faculty and 30,000 students in academic matters.

The action followed more than an hour of harsh speechmaking directed at Day for sending layoff notices to 145 tenured and probationary-tenure professors and for plans to eliminate nine academic departments--all to cut $11.5 million--without sufficiently consulting those affected.

“This will either be a day when the faculty stands up for basic principles of academic governance and tenure or a day when the faculty surrenders its prerogatives to determine the academic future of this university,” English professor Fred Moramarco thundered to a packed audience of several hundred professors and students.

Despite the angry rhetoric and the actual vote, professors later expressed uncertainty over the practical effect of the action on Day or the university, having no precedent to fall back on.

“I guess what we have said in effect is that we don’t like what you did and we’re watching you,” biology professor Nancy Carmichael said.

A motion for “censure,” which most professors felt would have a more serious connotation, was not considered by the senate. There are no precise consequences for either action.

Day said he was more disappointed than angry after the action.

“I’m surprised in a way that the vote was not heavier” toward “no confidence because the budget is very threatening to people right now.

“I’m sympathetic to faculty fears,” he said.

Day said the short-term effect will be “to make me even more sensitive to discussing matters with the senate and its executive committee. I presume the action means that they don’t like the style, the rapidity, of how I have handled the budget cuts.

“I can’t quibble with that. . . . They just don’t understand the constraints under which I have acted, that I have acted on a (budget crisis) matter, that I’d never do this if it were merely an academic matter.”

Day tried to be conciliatory when he spoke to the senate before its debate, sketching previously unannounced plans to ameliorate his harsh medicine as much as possible.

He promised to postpone for up to a year as many as half the tenured layoffs if the state meets two criteria: It makes budget cuts no deeper than the 8% to 10% already targeted and offers a generous incentive for senior professors to retire early.

Day said both are possible, though no one is certain of the final shape the state budget will take given continued disagreement between Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and the Democrat-controlled Assembly and Senate.

Even without an early retirement bonus, Day promised to retain for a year between 26 and 30 professors with layoff notices in the nine terminated departments so they can offer to upcoming seniors the courses needed to complete their majors.

Day said he will cover those costs with money to be taken from equipment and library funds on the advice of senate members during recent weeks--despite his longstanding reluctance to sacrifice what he calls the university’s infrastructure for short-term solutions.

The departments to be eliminated are anthropology; religious studies; family studies and consumer sciences; industrial studies; health sciences; aerospace engineering; Russian and German; natural sciences, and recreation, parks and tourism.

Later, Day said in an interview that “I think we can handle almost anyone (for a year’s transition) who have layoff notices but can’t retire” if there is an enhanced retirement plan for those eligible. “We’re working right now to examine all individual cases.”

But he conceded that his mood of equanimity despite the vote came in part because he left the senate after his speech, choosing not to listen to the emotion being vented by frustrated professors.

“I’ve taught here 22 years, and I’m an expendable member of the faculty,” said Irving Gefter, professor of religious studies. He assailed Day as “the face of the Old Pharaoh” for ignoring due process in his “assault on tenure,” and asked why SDSU alone accounts for more than half of all tenured layoffs being made throughout the 20-campus California State University system.

“Of course there’s a budget crisis, but it can be and should be a time to work together, to make (the campus) a more human and humane place,” English professor Moramarco said. He called Day to task for using “the corporate language of downsizing and restructuring” when what is involved here are “broad and devastating effects” on people.

His colleague, English professor Gennaro Santangelo, criticized Day for refusing to make major cuts in the intercollegiate athletic program.

“You heard him here today,” Santangelo said. “He’s against the expressed wishes of the faculty, of the students and most of the community” regarding athletics.

“He has continually and arrogantly discounted” the views of the faculty, Santangelo said.

Speech professor Peter Andersen, although critical of Day for being “bad at consultation,” was the only member to publicly urge a no vote on the “no confidence” motion.

“This could leave the campus divided, leave Day more recalcitrant . . . leave a weakened university,” said Andersen, whose wife, Janis, also a speech professor, chairs the senate.

“If the purpose is to get Tom Day’s attention, we’ve already succeeded,” he said. “If the purpose is to get” some changes to the cuts, “perhaps we’ve already succeeded.”

Although promising to handle the cuts as humanely as possible, Day nevertheless stuck to his decision Monday to make the academic cuts “narrow and deep” in certain departments rather than making across-the-board cuts as he did last year when the budget was slashed 15%.

That decision is based on a faculty senate restructuring document, approved by the senate in January and sent to Day as an advisory document, which called for any future budget tightening to result in narrow but debilitating cuts in a few areas based on six broad criteria.

The criteria include protecting junior faculty members, as well as a department’s overall quality, its importance to the university’s central function, its size and cost and the need for its offerings.

Day said he wanted to go “narrow and deep” last year but deferred to the senate and went across-the-board instead so it could have time to discuss the philosophy of contrasting approaches.

“Now the senate wants to say stop again and have another year,” Day said. “I can’t do that.”

The senate Monday refused to rescind its approval of the restructuring document but instead passed a resolution critical of Day for “misinterpreting” its provisions. Professors said the document was passed on the assumption that cuts of no more than 1% to 2% would be required this year, not the 8% to 10% now likely.

Geography professor Ernst Griffin argued that the document’s policy outlines are correct but that Day did not correctly follow their intent because of the magnitude of cuts needed.

Philosophy professor Leon Rosenstein unsuccessfully called the Griffin position a “non sequitur--if this document allowed him to do things we didn’t want done, the only way to make sure (it won’t happen again) is not to have the document,” he said.