Disclaimer: Some sources in this report have asked to remain anonymous. The Linfield Review has been able to confirm the validity of the sources used. The details are subject to change as new REM proposals are made.

When the first proposal of the Reorganization, Elimination and Merger (REM) process was released to students, many appreciated the transparency that was coming from the administration about attempts to reduce a $1.7 million deficit. However, when the second proposal wasn’t released to students many were nervous about what could be inside the new proposal.

According to Beth Concepción, the provost and vice president of academic affairs, there wasn’t much to share with students. The second draft, which was sent to faculty on March 30, was different in structure from previous iterations.

“It did not feel responsible to move forward with a single draft proposal that would, by necessity, reflect only one set of priorities,” Concepción said. “Instead, we stepped back and brought forward three possible pathways to $950,000 in cuts, each with different pros/cons and significant consequences.”

The $950,000 in cuts is the number that university president Mark Blegen has said is the goal in faculty position cuts.

However, there was no communication directly from the university to students about this decision, leaving many in the dark as the date for the proposal release passed by.

A copy of the proposal was obtained by The Linfield Review. It outlines three pathways to reaching the needed cuts. The first is the proposal that was released on March 5. The second is concentrated cuts on low enrolled programs with low faculty to student ratios, which includes programs such as theatre and music..

The third proposal is reductions on professor course overload and reductions of stipends and course releases for professors. Many departments would be merged, similar to the superdepartments proposal from last year. In merged departments students would still be able to enroll in specific majors. In the department that combines psychology and economics, for example, students could enroll solely in economics. The document notes that $807,400 would still need to be cut under this model in other methods.

The second proposal was incredibly vague in what the three pathways would specifically entail. It does provide data that are guiding the cuts. It notes that much of the student population in CAS is based in behavioral science and health related majors. The first pathway, on the other hand, is identical to the initial REM proposal.

While all of these changes are being discussed, no final decision has been made at this time. Concepción and CAS dean Gennie Vanbeek are currently looking to get faculty sentiment about what priorities should be.

“[Our] survey asks faculty what they most want to preserve, what they believe is sustainable, and how they weigh these competing priorities,” Concepción said. “The deadline for those responses is April 13.”

This survey will allow Concepción and Vanbeek to create a more specific draft before the final CAS deliberation period for faculty. Concepción added that more clarity will be present after professors who were offered early retirement decide if they wish to take it.

This is all against the backdrop of students feeling like they are being excluded from the broader conversation in which they feel they are the primary stakeholders of.

“Give us access [to the second proposal] and explain it,” said senior business major Taylor Falconer. “I don’t care if it takes us all having to go to ICE auditorium.We deserve to have somebody answer our questions, not just beat around the bush.”

According to Central, the last REM proposal to be shared with faculty will be released on April 20. The final proposal will be presented at the Board of Trustees meeting on May 7. It is unclear if and when either proposal will be made available to students.