Lesson Report:
Title: Separation vs. Fusion of Powers and a Budget-Crisis Simulation of Executive–Legislative Bargaining
Synopsis: The class reviewed separation vs. fusion of powers, with emphasis on checks and balances, gridlock, and the modern oversight role of legislatures. Students then ran a separation-of-powers simulation for “AUSA-STAN/AUCA,� confronting a sudden $4M budget deficit and negotiating targeted cuts under three guiding principles: protect core academic mission, ensure student well-being/support, and maintain long-term institutional health. The session culminated in an executive proposal, a legislative response framed by oversight, and a debrief on using analytical frameworks rather than opinion alone.
Attendance
– Absent students mentioned: 0 (no explicit absences recorded in the transcript)
Topics Covered (chronological, with activity/topic names)
1) Opening and Objectives: Framing the Simulation
– Instructor set expectations: revisit separation vs. fusion of powers and run a simulation highlighting how branches interact to address a crisis.
– Classroom logistics: students seated by role (Executive Cabinet by the door; Legislative Assembly by the window), and by subgroups A/B/C within each branch.
2) Warm-Up Review: Separation of Powers vs. Fusion of Powers
– Separation of powers:
– Defined as independent executive, legislative, and judicial branches with checks and balances to prevent concentration of power.
– Rationale: competition between branches deters any single branch (or person/group) from becoming too powerful.
– Fusion of powers:
– Defined as interconnected executive and legislative branches with blended relationships, typically speeding decision-making.
– Rationale: designed to mitigate “gridlockâ€� (inability to agree on timely policy due to deep inter-branch competition).
– Why it matters for today: the simulation intentionally uses separation of powers to see how hard it is to reach agreement on consequential decisions.
3) Simulation Dossier: Financial Crisis Scenario and Budget Context
– Crisis: Andirac Foundation (fictional), AUCA’s largest donor and a primary funder of international scholarships, ceases giving immediately.
– Consequences: projected 15% drop in next year’s first-year enrollment; overall $4M budget deficit next fiscal year.
– Budget size and revenue sources (approximate):
– Annual operating budget: $20M.
– Revenue: ~70% tuition/fees, ~20% endowment/donations (most affected in this crisis), auxiliary services (dorms, cafeteria, rentals), and grants/other.
– Major expense categories (approximate and/or stated):
– Salaries (faculty + staff): ~50% (~$10M).
– Scholarships/financial aid: “significantâ€� (implied large category).
– Campus operations/facilities/maintenance/technology: ~10%.
– Academic and library resources: ~$2M (~10%).
– Athletics and student life (clubs, sports, orientation): ~$1M (~5%).
– Administration and IT (including e-course support): ~$1M (~5%).
4) Constraints and Principles for Decision-Making
– Task: Close at least $4M via spending cuts (may cut more, but minimum $4M).
– Restrictions:
– Cuts-only exercise: no new revenue streams (e.g., tuition hikes) and no salary increases.
– No across-the-board percentage cuts; must make strategic, uneven choices.
– Required justification framework (all cuts must be defended against):
– Principle 1: Protect the core academic mission (teaching, learning, research support).
– Principle 2: Ensure student well-being and support (access, affordability, co-curricular life).
– Principle 3: Maintain long-term institutional health (avoid short-term band-aid fixes with damaging downstream costs).
5) Process and Roles: Branch Workflows and Oversight
– Structure:
– Executive Cabinet and Legislative Assembly each split into subgroups (A/B/C).
– Round 1: Subgroups draft cut proposals with rationales tied to the three principles.
– Round 2: Subgroups reconvene by branch to synthesize one branch proposal.
– Plenary: Executive presents; Legislature evaluates for alignment with the principles, exercises oversight, and either concurs or counters; aim for compromise.
– Oversight emphasis: Legislature’s modern role includes monitoring and constraining executive action, not just lawmaking.
6) Executive Cabinet Proposal: Targeted Cuts and Rationales
– Campus operations/facilities: -$1.0M
– Rationale: initial investment in energy-efficient equipment to reduce recurring costs; prioritize urgent repairs and essential cleaning only.
– Academic and library resources: -$1.0M
– Rationale: accelerate digitization; reduce physical holdings/equipment; expand access through e-course/website; rationalize subscriptions.
– Athletics and student life: discussed at -$0.5M, with a contingency up to -$1.0M
– Rationale: streamline orientation; convert some clubs to zero-budget “freeâ€� models (e.g., “free chai clubâ€�).
– Administration and IT: -$0.5M
– Rationale: eliminate least-used licensed services based on a student usage survey; minimize redundancies.
– Financial aid/scholarships: -$0.5M
– Rationale: tighten awards; target the highest-need/highest-merit students.
– Additional idea (not tallied in instructor’s final sum): consider -$0.5M in salaries via consolidating very small programs (anthropology cited as example), aligning fewer students with fewer faculty.
– Instructor’s on-board tally to reach $4.0M: Campus ops (-1.0), Academic/library (-1.0), Student life (-1.0), Admin/IT (-0.5), Financial aid (-0.5). Note: the student presenter originally floated -$0.5M for student life; the $1.0M line closed the $4M gap as summarized.
7) Legislative Assembly Response: Oversight and Principle-Based Critique
– Counter-emphasis:
– Deeper cuts to financial aid; limit aid to highest-performing students.
– Eliminate or heavily reduce “student stuffâ€� (student life/athletics) on the premise of fewer students.
– Possibly reduce cuts to campus operations (acknowledging their importance).
– (Rejected by instructor) Joking proposal to boost salaries via “savedâ€� funds; reminder that only cuts are allowed and corruption would be sanctioned.
– Principle-based analysis (articulated in discussion):
– Student well-being and support (Principle 2):
– Opposed eliminating student life and athletics entirely; clubs and sports have distinct budgets and both support student health, engagement, and campus community.
– Cutting both to zero undermines co-curricular life and the stated principle.
– Core academic mission (Principle 1):
– Warned against heavy cuts to campus operations: geothermal heating maintenance, security, and cleanliness directly affect teaching and learning quality.
– Lower morale/motivation for students and faculty anticipated in degraded facilities.
– Long-term institutional health (Principle 3):
– Deferred maintenance risks larger future costs and operational failure (e.g., heating system breakdown leading to winter closure and attrition).
– Emphasized avoiding short-term fixes that incur severe long-term penalties.
– Outcome: No final compromise reached due to time; strong oversight arguments established on operations and student life.
8) Debrief and Next Steps
– Instructor’s meta-point: In exams and analytical work, support positions using course frameworks (here, the three principles and institutional roles), not opinion alone.
– Midterm reminder: next meeting after fall break is the midterm exam.
– Study guidance: know key terms (from the earlier Google Form), keep organized notebooks/handwritten notes, and master the frameworks covered (e.g., left vs. right, separation vs. fusion, checks and balances, legislative oversight).
Actionable Items
Urgent (before the midterm)
– Distribute midterm details: date, format, permitted materials, and grading criteria.
– Share a concise study guide: the term list from the Google Form, plus frameworks to master (separation vs. fusion; checks and balances; gridlock; legislative oversight; ideological left–right; state policy frameworks).
– Post the Simulation Dossier in LMS for reference.
Next session (post-break)
– Plan a brief debrief to close the simulation: invite each branch to submit a short memo justifying their cuts via the three principles; highlight strongest/weakest rationales.
– Provide exemplar answers showing how to apply the principles to each major budget line.
For future iterations of the simulation (course design)
– Time allocation: extend to 90–120 minutes or spread over two meetings to allow real negotiation and compromise.
– Budget transparency: provide a one-page sheet with exact percentages/amounts for each expenditure line (including scholarships) to reduce ambiguity.
– Category clarity: explicitly distinguish Student Life vs. Athletics; list typical line items in each.
– Critical infrastructure note: flag non-discretionary operations (e.g., geothermal heating) under Campus Operations to make long-term risk salient.
– Assessment: use a simple rubric tied to the three principles and long-term vs. short-term tradeoffs; optionally permit a limited revenue scenario in a follow-up exercise to compare mixes of cuts and revenue.
Administrative
– Reiterate make-up policy for missed in-class items and relative grading weight (noted in class: no make-up for past items; limited impact if ongoing attendance is strong).
– Ensure group rosters and seating charts are archived for participation/attendance records.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The class was devoted to an in-class simulation, and at the end you only reminded students about the upcoming midterm—“The next time we see each other … will be after fall break … for the midterm exam… I’ll send you guys some more details on it… Make sure that you know the definitions… Make sure that your notebooks are good to go�—with no specific take-home task, deliverable, or due date assigned.