To all members of the SFAI community:

 

In light of a recent letter sent by President Chris Bratton to all SFAI students and alumni (available online here: http://www.sfai.edu/Publication/Dialogue.aspx), we feel compelled to write to you with a different view of recent events at the Art Institute, and to express our grave concern for the future of the school.

In his letter, President Bratton explained that SFAI has recently taken action "rapidly and purposefully to align our income and expenses" in order to maintain the financial well-being of the school during a time of economic crisis.  While it is certainly true that the broader economic crisis has adversely impacted SFAI, we are deeply troubled by the choices this administration has made in response to financial difficulties, and believe that these choices represent a serious failure of leadership.

 

The following information was omitted from President Bratton's letter to alumni but was included in an announcement to the students:

 

On February 6, the Board of Trustees, in consultation with the school's administration, declared SFAI to be in a state of "financial exigency".  Financial exigency is defined by SFAI as, "the critical and urgent need for the Institute to reorder it expenditures in such a way as to retain solvency," and indicates that SFAI is in extreme financial distress. 

On February 17, SFAI's administration used the power contractually granted to them through this declaration to lay off the following nine tenured faculty members:

Charles Boone (13 years of service to SFAI)

Stephanie Ellis (11 years of service)

Stacy Garfinkel (10 years of service)

Robert Johnson (29 years of service)

Pat Klein (25 years of service)

Jon Lang (16 years of service)

Janis Crystal Lipzin (31 years of service)

Suzanne Olmsted (17 years of service)

John Rapko (12 years of service) 

 

We have the following concerns about how and why the declaration of exigency was made:

 

- The decision to declare exigency was made in private by a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees.  We believe that a decision of this magnitude should not be made without consulting those it impacts as such a declaration has real and serious consequences for the school, both in terms of its public reputation and prospects for continued accreditation. 

 

-The declaration was made without sufficient financial documentation to support it.  In fact, the administration has thus far refused to provide the very financial documents that could give an accurate picture of whether or not SFAI's finances warrant such a declaration.  Furthermore, based on the limited financial information that was made available by the administration, an expert in institutional budget analysis came to the conclusion that SFAI's finances are stable, and demonstrate at the most a 2% budget deficit.  Even Bratton's letter acknowledges that "We met our goal for the current semester, and for fall 2009, we have already tripled our usual number of applications, due in part to innovative marketing and online-application processing. All indications point to a very strong fall.  Also, our corporate and philanthropic giving has continued to expand." All of this raises very serious concerns about the administration's motivations in making such a declaration.  The possibility that exigency was declared not out of necessity but for the power it grants to lay off tenured faculty at will is extremely troubling.

 

We have the following concerns about how and why the layoffs were carried out:

 

-  The manner in which the layoffs were carried out is in clear violation of the faculty's contract.   Although a declaration of financial exigency does make possible the layoff of tenured faculty, certain steps are written into the faculty contract that dictate how such layoffs should be handled (see pg. 40 of the contract at: http://www.aaup-ca.org/SFAI_contract.html).  In the current situation, these provisions were ignored.  The contract requires that a freeze on the hiring of new faculty be put in place; no such freeze was ever announced.  It requires that voluntary programs be implemented such as reduced salary/workloads, phased retirement, or the placement of affected faculty into suitable non-teaching positions; no such measures have been implemented.  The contract requires that visiting faculty be laid off before tenured faculty, and that more recently hired faculty be laid off before more senior faculty unless doing so would cause "a serious and unresolvable distortion of the academic curriculum"; the faculty laid off were some of the longest-serving at SFAI. 

- The layoffs were made without input from, or even advanced notice to, the heads of affected departments.   

 

- The layoffs appear to have targeted vocal critics of the current administration. Three of the nine faculty being laid off are current or former representatives of the faculty union and as such have been at the front lines of conflict between the faculty and administration.  One of these was suspended from teaching last year after a public conflict with the administration.  To lay all three of these individuals off sends the troubling message that to express opposition at SFAI is to put your job on the line. 

 

- Despite the administration's claim that they were made necessary by urgent financial distress, because the affect faculty have been given six months' notice, these layoffs do nothing to save money in the short term.  Consequently, if the school is in as dire a financial situation as the administration claims, even more cuts to staff, faculty, and/or student services will have to be made by the end of the summer to address the school's short-term cash shortage. 

 

- No plan has been presented to address the question of how and by whom courses formerly taught by the laid off faculty will be taught.  We are concerned that either: 1) the courses will be eliminated and students will not be able to enroll in the courses they need to fulfill their degree requirements; 2) the courses will be eliminated and remaining courses will be expanded, resulting in excessive student-faculty ratios, reduced opportunities for student participation in courses, and diminished access to faculty outside of class for personalized instruction and advisement; or 3) the courses will be taught by other faculty, thus eliminating nearly all of the salary savings from the layoffs.

 

In his letter to alumni, President Bratton makes the claim that "much has been accomplished" during his time at SFAI.  And yet over the past four years SFAI's enrollment numbers, academic standing, and financial stability have all slid alarmingly. We have grave concerns about the decisions that have brought us here, as well as the ones that are being made during this crisis: both as to their effectiveness at addressing the financial crisis and their repercussions for quality education at SFAI. 

 

 The tenure of President Bratton (2004-present) has been characterised by:

 

- A history of decisions made unilaterally, without transparency, and without regard for contractual obligations. This administration has a long history of making important decisions behind closed doors, without explanation or accountability.  This concern was noted in the 2007 report of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation team: "SFAI's board and management have sought to address financial concerns to a large degree by cutting costs, including the elimination of personnel.  The team found that the process of making these decisions has not been transparent and that the decisions have not been communicated in ways that made them available and understandable to faculty and students" (Report of the WASC Visiting Team, pg. 18). 

 

- A drastic decrease in the size of the board of trustees. A large, active Board of Trustees is a sign of a healthy institution.  Over the course of President Bratton's tenure, the number of public members on SFAI's board has decreased from 25 to 14.  This represents a 44% decrease in the number of active board members.  Only one individual who was on the board in 2004-2005, Bratton's first year at SFAI, remains on the board today.

 

- An extremely high rate of staff turnover.  From 2004 to the present, over 100 members of SFAI's staff have either quit, been laid off, or were fired.  As SFAI currently has a staff of approximately 74 people, this represents a turnover rate of over 135% in four years.  Turnover in critical high level positions has also been extremely high: The current Vice President for enrollment is the 5th in four years.  The current CFO/COO is the 4th in four years.  The recently laid-off Vice President for Advancement was the 4th in four years. 

 

- Increases in top administrators' salaries while faculty and staff salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living.  Although all administrators took pay cuts in light of SFAI's recent financial troubles, these paycuts were based on salaries that were high to begin with, and much increased from the levels at which they started at SFAI (this information is from IRS 990 forms supplied to the US Government and is publicly available at www.guidestar.org):

 

Pres. Bratton:   $333,308 : 28% increase over prior year  (+$77,475) 

Dean Enwezor: $219,000: 15% increase over prior year  (+$28,750) (114%  more than previous Dean earned) 

VP/Finance:  $204,352: 7.4% increase over prior year (+$14,163)

Graduate Dean Green: $149,786: 25% increase over prior year  (+$28,994)

By comparison, 77% of SFAI’s tenured faculty salaries are so low that they qualify for housing subsidies from the City of San Francisco.

 

- A drop in SFAI's MFA program's ranking in US News and World Report from #13 in 2004 to its current ranking at #30.  According to US News and World Report's website, rankings are based on a survey of "art school deans and other top art school academics," and thus reflect the reputation of SFAI within theart school community. 

 

- A lack of sustainable vision for the future. When the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation team visited SFAI in 2007, they expressed concern in relation to the recently launched BA and MA programs "as to whether SFAI has the capacity and facilities to support these programs" (Report of the WASC Visiting Team, pg. 11).  Now, when asked for long-term remedies to current financial instability, the administration points to a plan to start a School of Design, including Media Studies, to be introduced in Fall 2010 as well as the possible introduction of a distance learning program.  The assertion that new programs can not only be successfully built on such financially shaky ground but that these programs can lead SFAI to financial stability is extremely troubling, as there is little evidence to support the claim that the new programs already introduced have done this.  In fact, despite the introduction of three new degree programs, total Fall enrollment at SFAI in 2008 was 603, a drop of 39 from 2004's Fall enrollment of 642. 

 

    Now more than ever the San Francisco Art Institute needs the kind of strong, open, honest leadership that can lead it through a time of financial hardship, a kind of leadership that we have not seen from the current administration.  When, in his recent letter to alumni, Chris Bratton asks us to "embrace a different sort of institution," the implication is that what SFAI is, and what it has been, is not already worth embracing.  We believe that it is impossible to successfully lead SFAI into the future without an understanding of what is and has always been the real value of an Art Institute education.  That value is not generated by high profile faculty or administrators, nor is it attached to any particular ideology or world view.  It is about more than new technologies and new programs:  It is about relationships and community.  It is about the great things that happen when people who care about making art come together and support each other.  We feel that now is the time to come together as a community in order to address this deeply troubling situation and support the San Francisco Art Institute that we have come to know and love.

We urge you to inform yourselves, get involved, and take action with us to promote positive changes that will ensure that the Art Institute remains the place for artists to come together, work, and learn that it has been since 1871.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Concerned Students and Alumni of SFAI

 

 

<Copied from original document, drafted and approved by an independent committee of concerned students and alumni.  All facts herein are based on actual documentation of numbers and events, gathered from multiple sources such as Faculty Union documents, Staff Union documents, WASC reports, US News and World Reports, SFAI staff and Board of Trustees lists from the past four years, SFAI IRS financial statements from the past four years, and official announcements and letters from the administration to the SFAI community.  Please feel free to contact the administrator of this page with any questions or concerns about the sources or content of this letter.>