Faculty at the University of Wyoming issued a no confidence vote in the university’s president on April 7. It comes on the heels of an abrupt firing of a popular dean, which drew backlash from donors and some lawmakers. Wyoming Public Radio’s part-time reporter, Jeff Victor, has been investigating deteriorating relationships within the university over the past few months for his online news outlet, the Laramie Reporter. He shares the findings from his public records requests with us now.
Editor's Note: This story has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
KK: So Jeff, through your online news outlet, the Laramie Reporter, you uncovered internal memos showing the ousted dean had criticized a planned transfer of half a million dollars. But before we get to that, let’s start with the latest: UW Pres. Ed Seidel will keep his job, but without the support of the Faculty Senate.
JV: That’s right. During a special meeting, the Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly, 43 to 11, to say they had lost confidence in Seidel’s presidency.
KK: How did we get here?
JV: Earlier this month, UW announced it was demoting Cameron Wright, who has been the dean of the College of Engineering for six years. By most accounts, he was a popular dean. His department heads liked working with him, and so did the faculty. But he had grown unpopular with some university leaders.
KK: Why was that?
JV: Allow me some backstory: Starting in about 2012, Wyoming launched something called the Tier 1 Engineering Initiative. Basically, it’s this big push to make UW one of the very best engineering schools in the country. There was a task force that set out goals and the state gave UW a lot of money to make this happen.
KK: And Dean Wright was in charge of overseeing this initiative?
JV: That’s right. Late last month, he was called before the university’s Board of Trustees to explain his progress.
KK: How did that go?
JV: Not well. Wright gave a lengthy presentation, really a speech, about his college’s efforts to meet the 16 goals of the Tier 1 Initiative. He said it’s been bumpy.
Archival audio of Cameron Wright testifying before the Board of Trustees: Since the Tier 1 Engineering Initiative started, we've been through five deans, six provosts and six presidents, and that does make things a little challenging, you might say, but we have persevered.
JV: Wright also provided a report that was several hundred pages long outlining his progress in even greater detail. But the trustees were not impressed. Trustee Carol Linton said the report failed to give her a picture of where the Tier 1 Engineering Initiative actually stands.
Archival audio of Trustee Carol Linton the same March board meeting: I expected to get a clear update. Instead, we got 356 pages of a document dump.
JV: The board told Wright to return in May with better measures for his progress. But a few days later, the trustees met again, this time in private, and decided to remove Wright as leader of the engineering college. They didn’t give much of an explanation, but they did say it was related to Tier 1 progress.
The demotion was pretty shocking to a lot of people on campus. Though I was not surprised that he was on the hotseat.
KK: And why’s that?
JV: Because I was reading his emails.
KK: Hmm. Tell me why?
JV: To be clear, the emails I was reading came from a bunch of public records requests I submitted to the university a few months ago, when UW leaders ousted a different administrator, the former provost, Kevin Carman.
Carman, just like Wright, was abruptly removed mid-semester, with little in the way of a public explanation. And I wanted to find out why. I still can’t say for sure why he was removed. Neither Carman nor the university has publicly stated why. But I did start to uncover an interesting exchange between Carman, Wright and state lawmakers.
KK: What did you find out?
JV: So in addition to the Tier 1 Initiative, UW has also been expanding its computing capabilities. In an age of supercomputers and AI and interdisciplinary research requiring sophisticated computing abilities, UW is in the process of launching a School of Computing. Right now, that school is nested within the College of Engineering, but UW plans to separate them. The goal is for the School of Computing to be its own independent unit.
But funding has been a problem. UW requested $5 million for the school back in 2023. The governor and the state Legislature rejected that request, even as they boosted funding for Tier 1 Engineering. So UW started taking some of that Tier 1 funding and giving it to the School of Computing.
KK: And is that allowed?
JV: Well, UW says it’s using that money to support things like faculty positions that involve both computing and engineering work, so it’s advancing the Tier 1 goals while also helping the School of Computing get on its feet. And as long as the School of Computing is housed in the College of Engineering, this transfer is staying within the college and no one’s upset about it.
The problem arises as UW plans to move the School of Computing out of the college. If this half-a-million dollars is going to keep supporting the School of Computing, it’s now going to have to leave the College of Engineering.
KK: And former Dean Cameron Wright didn’t like that?
JV: He did not. In the emails I saw, he fights the transfer, saying that, as dean, he has to look out for the best interests of his college and follow the law. UW administrators even ask him to sign a memorandum approving the transfer and he refuses. At this point, lawmakers are starting to look into the matter. Laramie’s Rep. Karlee Provenza and Sen. Chris Rothfuss [both Democrats] even sent a letter to the governor and the UW Board of Trustees objecting to the transfer. That letter also calls Wright’s leadership “principled” and it warns UW not to retaliate against him.
KK: So the lawmakers were concerned that Wright could be fired over this?
JV: They were definitely concerned. And I should say, UW is no longer going to make this transfer. The School of Computing will have to get that half-million somewhere else. But the nature of this dispute between Wright and other UW leaders? A lot of folks on campus wonder whether it played into the decision to remove the dean.
KK: Have you found anything definitive about that claim?
JV: We can’t really say. And that is really the core of the problem, as donors and faculty see it. Donors say they’re losing confidence in the university because of a “lack of transparency” about decisions like these. And faculty say these decisions are being made under a “shroud of secrecy.” Everyone is circling this idea of transparency and “shared governance,” or the idea that UW leaders should consider input from all corners of campus – faculty, staff, students, and others. And they’re saying UW Pres. Ed Seidel, and maybe even the whole board, are failing to live up to those principles.
KK: How deep do these concerns go? Are donors pulling funding?
JV: Pretty deep. On the day UW announced Wright’s removal, one major fundraiser said it was pausing its support. And in another email that’s been shared with me, the executive director for the School of Energy Resources estimated that UW had lost $5 million in current and potential donations in just three days.
KK: Wow. And then the no confidence vote in Pres. Seidel. How has he reacted?
JV: Seidel hosted a public town hall just hours before the faculty vote. He stressed that Wright’s removal was not retaliation for the transfer, but he declined to explain further, saying it was a personnel issue discussed in private. He also promised to do better.
Ed Seidel: I am committed to doing everything possible to help steward this institution forward. I get it, there's a crisis. And I want to take every step possible to help make sure we end up in the best possible place.
KK: How did the trustees respond to all this?
JV: The morning after the town hall and faculty vote, the trustees announced they would start a new committee. This committee doesn’t have members yet, but the idea is that it will create better communication channels and help UW get back to shared governance.
KK: So they’re making a committee. What do faculty think of that?
JV: Faculty are cautiously optimistic. Their resolution expressed anger over Seidel’s leadership, but really it was calling for a return to shared governance. Political Science Professor Gregg Cawley said the vote was about forcing a conversation. If the new committee does that, he’s all in.
Gregg Cawley: I think it's a very good first step, and we'll still have to see how that plays out.
JV: I should note that Seidel’s contract expires next summer, and the board will have to approve a new contract with Seidel to keep him.
