Key to university moving forward: Decentralize



I am taking the liberty to inform you about the difficult situation with University of Alaska Anchorage. Nobody has prompted me to contact you. 

As leaders of our community who have an interest in the success of UAA, you ought to be aware of the following perspective.

Since the price of oil crashed in 2014, many of us on the UAA Faculty Senate pushed for reform of the UA system. In our view, the system was overly-centralized and inefficient.

These problems, which were recognized by outside reviewers of our system, were disguised in the past by plentiful funds made available by oil revenues.

The UA system is more reliant on state aid than almost every other public system of higher education in the US, and we did not believe that this was sustainable. We called for bold plans to reform.

Instead, senior leadership of UA chose to try to centralize the system further, and to continue to rely on lobbying for state aid. We objected to this course, and at bottom, this objection was the cause of our votes of no-confidence in senior leadership of UA that were delivered by faculty senates of both UAA and UAF in January, 2017. After those votes, nothing changed.

The crisis of higher education in Alaska right now was foreseeable and foreseen. At the beginning of this year, other members of the faculty and I formed a committee appointed by the UAA Faculty Senate to study reform of UA.

It is the largest and most active university committee on which I have ever served, which demonstrates how deeply devoted many faculty here are to our institution. Our report was adopted by the senate this May and called for the decentralization of UA, which you may see at

The structure of UA governance and administration was established in the state constitution when the University of Alaska was one campus with less than 1,000 students. But the university has grown into a university system with tens of thousands of students and its institutions are spread out across a landmass equal in size to Mexico.

Yet we have one governing board that, however well-intentioned and individually skilled, cannot know all of its parts well enough to know its charge and provide effective governance. Our statewide administration is beyond bloated and makes heavy-handed decisions that interfere with university leadership. For example, UAA is fortunate to have an outstanding chancellor and she has the full confidence of faculty. But our statewide administration wastes her talent by their heavy hand.

Overall, the system cannot perform well due to this structure regardless of the capabilities of those who serve in the system offices and on the Board of Regents.

Here is some proof: Despite our oil boom and the rise of the stock market since the 1970s, the UA endowment is a mere $200 million. In comparison, the endowment of the University of Texas system is $26 billion. We were both oil-rich states. Our $200 million endowment is less than one quarter of UA’s annual budget in 2018-2019, and is less than one fifth the size of bill for deferred maintenance, which tops $1 billion. We can do better.

Our committee believes that by giving each of the three universities independent responsibility and authority, they will be more sensitive to market pressures, will make better decisions, bend down their cost curves and wean themselves off state aid.

Independent boards of trustees for each university, rather than one statewide board, are in a better position to know their institutions intimately and provide better governance in consequence. They can be more effective at helping institutions raise their own endowments, develop strong relations with their own alumni and forge significant partnerships with the private sector. We believe that the quality of education and research will improve under these changed conditions.

Unfortunately, our efforts were too late, when on June 28th, the governor confirmed his cuts to the UA budget. Since then, we have been working feverishly and hoping for a compromise between the governor’s forces and his opponents, by which the cuts would be moderated in exchange for a commitment to reform. Moderated cuts, we hoped, would give reform a chance to work. The parties did not come together and our clock has run out.

My understanding is that although it will be difficult, UAA can handle a 41 percent cut to our state aid without financial exigency, and Board policy allows financial exigency to be localized. We also understand that the only way the president can pick apart UAA or close our university is by putting us under a system-wide financial exigency. The response of my committee is also available on

The centralized structure of our system is what made us vulnerable to the governor’s cuts and created our present financial crisis. If UAA can come through this intact, I hope that you will support us in reforming our system and freeing UAA. I believe that we have many pieces that can become the basis of a great public university, but we cannot work towards this end unless we are more independent of centralized control. 

Some of you have worked with me in a business or civic capacity and from my personal experience I know that if UAA leadership were free to work with you in building a new, independent university, we could achieve wonders. I hope that in the future we will not be talking about UAA’s survival but rather how we can build an outstanding, new board of trustees, dedicated to UAA. 

I hope that you will share this with other business and civic leaders who care about UAA. Your support is greatly appreciated.

Forrest Nabors chairs the Committee on Governance and Funding Reform, is a University of Alaska Anchorage Faculty Senate Associate Professor, and is chair of the Department of Political Science at UAA


  1. It’s not all about the Decentralization of UA Governance. It’s more about the charge backs of centralized services. They can save money if you kill the charging your Colleges huge amounts to deliver the services.

    • Makes sense to at least explore privatization. We have failed miserably under the current ownership and governance structure. Why not put out an request for indication of interest? Worst-case we’d have a data point.

  2. Listening to Jim Johnsen on talk of Alaska the other day, I figured here’s a guy that just don’t get it. To appease senator Lyman Hoffman he says something to the effect of, rural Alaska has be part of the university system.

    He’s either a hugely overpriced kiss– or so naive he doesn’t deserve the job he has.

    Kuskokwim campus graduated three degrees this spring. Thats better than average. I figure each degree every year is in excess of a million dollars spent by the State.

  3. The key to spending less state money on the over funded and under performing universities is to cut spending. The time to stop throwing good money after bad was decades ago, but now will suffice. Clean up your house UA.

  4. Oil is always the culprit….the university is under bad management and the whole system needs to be broken up. It has a history of poor managers which have created a fertile ground situation to what it is today. Get rid of Johnson and break up the whole system.

  5. Wrong key, my friend!
    Your organization needs to “decentralize” like a tumor needs to metastasize.
    Blaming troubles on “senior leadership”, while taking money to help “tens of thousands of students” toward their eight-percent graduation rate are we?
    What’s this about votes of no-confidence delivered by faculty senates of both UAA and UAF in January, 2017, after which, incredibly, nothing happened?
    Such legends in your own minds were you that the distinct possibility of being received like dogsbodies, in other words, like standard-issue Alaskans, never occurred to any of you? What does that preordained exercise in futility say about your lot’s abilities, competence, drive?
    Call it your practicum in Humility 101 and get over it.
    Forget “decentralization”. What your outfit requires to grow into world-class status from little more than expensive day care for big children is total change in leadership, management, total change in organizational culture, and dedicated employees like you to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse, through qui-tam law if necessary.
    Now that’s a term project!
    P.S. Your $200M endowment?
    “The Foundation manages the Consolidated Endowment Fund totaling $337.5 million,…
    During the 2018 fiscal year, the Foundation received $2.6 million in new endowment gifts and manages a total of 847 individual endowments. The Foundation also manages 859 non-endowed funds that are restricted by donors to specific purposes. The Foundation has a fund to support almost any area of interest at the University.”
    And we’ve not even touched on University’s financial involvement in the Denali Commission. Call it homework, have a look, then cry me a river about money.

  6. I don’t think the discussion ought to be about centralization or decentralization, though my expectation on decentralization would be that each campus will want one of everything – a HR office, a finance office, a contracting office, an IT office, etc. These are all functions that can and should be centralized or better yet, privatized completely.

    To survive, UA needs to aggressively enter the online education world. Done right, they can comfortably handle a 50% budget cut, perhaps even larger.

    Final thought is that UA is a land grant college with currently 145,000 acres under its control. I would give the congressional delegation something to do this session and convey perhaps a million acres of federal lands in Alaska to the UA system, after which they can be weaned off the public teat completely Cheers –

Comments are closed.