In close vote, UNCG faculty expresses “no confidence” in provost

The UNC-Greensboro General Faculty voted to express “no confidence” in Provost Debbie Storrs Wednesday afternoon, a rare move in the university’s history.

The vote stems from ongoing tensions over last month’s announcement of 20 program cuts in a hotly debate process that led to a January Faculty Senate vote to censure Storrs and Chancellor Frank Gilliam. Wednesday’s vote follows a similar “no confidence” vote from the university’s College of Arts and Sciences, which absorbed most of the cuts suggested by the provost to Gilliam.

There were 375 faculty members present and eligible to vote in Wednesday’s online meeting, some of whom experienced technical difficulties. Of the 339 who ultimately voted, 181 (53%) voted for the motion and 158 (47%) against.

“The past two years have been characterized by a devaluation of professional track faculty, a breakdown in shared governance, and low faculty and staff morale,” the faculty resolution read. “The [Academic Portfolio Review] process, as managed by the provost, has provided no clear plan for the university’s financial security or vision for the university’s future. While we applaud the goals of transparency and collaboration with faculty, the APRO process did not deliver on those promises.”

“The provost did not reveal her own justifications for cuts or allow to be made public and transparent her part in pushing for certain programs to be eliminated,” the resolution read. “Her lack of transparency can be seen in the concentration of cuts at [the College of Arts & Sciences], which was the result of the Provost targeting the college, a move that should concern all faculty as we now consider the future of  regular APRs.”

The resolution also highlighted what faculty said was a unilateral decision by the provost to move professional track faculty to one-year contracts, the provost demonstrating “a clear disregard for the faculty senate as a legitimate partner in shared governance” and disregarding how programs actually scored in an assessment process when coming to a final list of recommended cuts.

The censure and “no confidence” votes are largely symbolic. There is no existing mechanism for a faculty to vote oust an administrator or chancellor. But as expressions of faculty sentiment, such votes, once exceedingly rare, are becoming more common as faculty say shared governance is being eroded.

Only a campus-level board of trustees can initiate the actual removal of a chancellor; the UNC System’s Board of Governors ultimately decides on a dismissal. Both boards are composed of political appointees who have vocally supported the cuts at UNCG and urged other system campuses, particularly smaller regionals facing enrollment struggles, to follow Greensboro’s lead.

In remarks to faculty members during Wednesday’s meeting, Gilliam struck a more conciliatory tone than he did after January’s censure vote, but still strongly supported Storrs.

“My deepest concern is about the future of this university,” Gilliam said. “I am willing to work with those of you willing to work with me. I understand that the campus is experiencing uncertainty, and that we are deeply unsettled, perhaps in ways we never have been before,” Gilliam said. “And for some this has turned to anger.”

“There’s no question,” Gilliam added. “We’re in a period of substantial change for the university. I understand how difficult this is and how painful it can be.”

Falling enrollment has led to appropriations and revenue reductions of $29 million since the 2019 fiscal year, Gilliam told the faculty. For the 2024 fiscal year, he said, state appropriations are dropping more than $3 million over last year with further declines projected through 2027.

“Look, I’m not here to be combative or to relitigate decisions stemming from the Academic Portfolio Review,” Gilliam said, referencing the process by which programs were identified for cuts. “I know this is difficult to hear, but APR is tinkering around the edges.

“To be clear, it was an important tool we had available to us. We had to act proactively — given our budget imperatives and unsustainable size of our portfolio. As I’ve said, we can’t be ‘everything, everywhere, all at once.’”

One unexpected revelation from the APR process, Gilliam said, was just how difficult it is for graduate students to live on inadequate stipends while barred from taking other work — an issue on which Newsline has reported for years.

“I believe we must prioritize a living stipend and health care for them,” Gilliam said of UNCG’s graduate students. “I’m committed to collaborating with faculty on solutions. What that looks like will be an ongoing conversation between you and me.”

Gilliam did not completely shy away from the combative tone that has characterized recent interactions with faculty and students around the program cuts. He told the faculty that he, UNC System President Peter Hans, and the university’s trustees and deans all support Storrs and called the “no confidence” vote “excessive, pointless, counterproductive and downright cruel.”

Gilliam also addressed what he called a rumor that “in an effort to assault the reputation of our provost” some UNCG faculty went to the University of North Dakota, Storrs’ previous campus, to collect campus feedback from her candidacy for the provost position there.

“I wish I had seen that information,” Gilliam said. “It would have only solidified my choice of Debbie as provost. All I can say is wow! This is so unlike UNCG.”

In a written statement after the vote, Gilliam emphasized — as he did after the censure vote in the Faculty Senate — that he does not believe the vote represents the views of the majority of the faculty.

“There are over 800 eligible people to vote,” Gilliam wrote in the statement. “Today, out of 339 votes cast, 53% voted for the resolution of no confidence, and 47% voted against. Those who voted in favor represent less than a quarter of the eligible voters.”

“As I expressed in my remarks to the faculty today, the Provost understands that strategic change and reinvestment will power the University’s long-term ability to fulfill its mission,” Gilliam wrote. “The vote today will not only cost time – a precious commodity given the increasingly urgent headwinds facing higher education – it will also diminish the courage and invaluable contributions of the many people who are preparing for the University’s next chapter.”