Lesson Report:
Title
Separation vs. Fusion of Powers + Budget-Crisis Simulation
Synopsis: The class reviewed separation of powers and its trade-off with gridlock, contrasted with fusion of powers in parliamentary systems that align incentives to reduce stalemate. Students then launched a structured budget-cut simulation for “AUCA-as-a-state,� applying constitutional roles (executive vs. legislative) and explicit policy constraints to close a $4M shortfall while preserving the university’s core mission, student well-being, and long-term viability.
Attendance
– Absent: 2 students (names as heard: Dastan; Tursunay/Tursedai)
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Opening setup and Do Now: Distinguishing government power structures
– Room roles: Students seated by committee—Executive near the door; Legislative near the window. Names listed on the board.
– Do Now (2–3 minutes): In notebooks, define and contrast separation of powers vs. fusion of powers. Aim: Activate prior knowledge from Tuesday and set the conceptual frame for today’s simulation.
2) Attendance and transition
– Roll called; two students noted absent.
– One more minute provided to conclude Do Now responses.
3) Mini-lecture recap: Separation of powers—purpose and pitfalls
– Definition and rationale:
– Government power divided among (at least) three branches—legislative (makes laws), executive (implements/enforces), judicial (interprets). Note: For the simulation, judicial is omitted due to time.
– Purpose: Prevent concentration of power; create mutual checks; keep officials’ self-interest in check by pitting ambitions against each other.
– Risk of separation: Gridlock
– Defined as policy standstill when branches cannot reconcile competing priorities; “traffic jamâ€� analogy used by students.
– Consequence: Slow, inefficient governance when inter-branch competition overwhelms cooperation.
4) Mini-lecture: Fusion of powers—how incentives change
– Contrast with presidential separation:
– Executive drawn from the legislature; shared electoral/party incentives encourage cooperation and reduce gridlock.
– Because the legislative majority selects the head of government, leadership is pre-vetted for coalition compatibility.
5) Simulation briefing: AUCA statecraft under fiscal shock
– Scenario context:
– “Outsastanâ€� (AUCA-as-a-state). The Andirac Foundation (largest donor; primary funder of international scholarships) ceases operations.
– Result: Immediate $4M revenue loss and projected 15% drop in first-year enrollment; AUCA cannot meet minimum operating costs without cuts.
– Budget baseline (annual; minimum $20M to remain open):
– Revenue sources (typical): Tuition (70% = $14M), endowments/donations (20% = $4M)—now gone; auxiliary services and grants/other revenues (remainder).
– Spending categories:
– Faculty/staff salaries & benefits: $10M (50%)
– Financial aid & scholarships: $4M (20%)
– Operations & maintenance (utilities, repairs, cleaning, security): $2M (10%)
– Academic & library resources: $2M (10%)
– Athletics & student life (clubs, facilities, O-Week, co-curriculars): $1M (5%)
– Administration & IT (admissions, registrar, eCourse/IT): $1M (5%)
– Constraints (non-negotiable):
– No across-the-board proportional cuts; choices must be prioritized and strategic.
– No tuition increases; no auxiliary price increases; no reliance on new donors.
– All solutions must be internal reallocations to close the full $4M.
– Decision principles for every proposed cut:
– Protect core mission (teaching, learning, research).
– Ensure student well-being, success, and support.
– Long-term feasibility (avoid short-term fixes that create larger future problems).
6) Roles, structure, and process
– Institutional roles:
– Executive Committee: Develops concrete budget-cut plan(s) to propose.
– Legislative Assembly: Exercises oversight—reviews, challenges, and refines executive proposals (checks-and-balances function).
– Working groups:
– Executive subgroups:
– Group A: Dahlia, Yvette, Almina
– Group B: Aliyah, Aijan, Elaman
– Group C: Clara, Ustam, Ali
– Legislative subgroups:
– Group A: Katerina, Alimbek, Lola
– Group B: Aydana, Medina, Dastan (absent)
– Group C: Aydarbek, Karahan (Tursunay/Tursedai absent)
– Task instructions:
– Within subgroups (≈10 minutes): Find the full $4M in cuts; justify each cut using the three principles.
– Rejoin by committee: Consolidate to one plan per committee.
– Executive presents; Legislative compares against its own plan and evaluates per principles; propose modifications as needed.
7) Executive Committee draft proposal (as recorded on board)
– Total cuts: $4M
– Salaries & benefits: -$1.0M (strategy: reduce salaries via reduced hours; avoid layoffs)
– Financial aid & scholarships: -$1.0M
– Academic & library resources: -$1.0M
– Athletics & student life: -$0.5M
– Operations & maintenance: -$0.5M
– Instructor notes: Emphasized the need to defend each line against the three principles (mission alignment, student impact, sustainability).
8) Legislative review and comparative priorities (time-limited)
– General stance:
– Sought a different distribution of cuts relative to the executive’s plan.
– Stressed minimizing damage to student access and success.
– Specific points voiced:
– Financial aid: Strong caution against deep cuts; argued higher aid cuts could trigger enrollment loss and a revenue spiral (tuition-dependent budget), undermining both mission and long-term feasibility. Suggested much smaller reduction (a student cited “$100,000â€� as illustrative).
– Salaries: Discussed a somewhat larger or differently structured adjustment than executive’s initial figure (numbers were discussed quickly; emphasis on aligning workload and avoiding quality erosion).
– Library/academic resources: Considered larger reductions than other areas but acknowledged risk to “free resourcesâ€� essential to learning; would require careful mitigation to protect the core mission.
– Process lesson tied to theory:
– Even at committee level, meaningful disagreement emerged over priorities and trade-offs—concrete experience of separation-of-powers gridlock pressures.
9) Debrief and forward link
– Reflection:
– Small-group disagreements foreshadow broader stalemates in real separated systems; highlights why fusion structures may reduce impasses.
– Continuation:
– Instructor indicated intent to return to the simulation for deeper debate and refinement (time did not permit full inter-committee negotiation today).
10) Closing admin: Midterm briefing and logistics
– Next class after fall break: Midterm.
– Scope: Anything covered in class is fair game (e.g., eight key terms from the earlier Google Form; frameworks for left–right, state definition, regime identification).
– Format guidance:
– Expect an essay requiring synthesis of frameworks to answer a specific question.
– Open notes limited to handwritten notebooks; no printouts; no electronics.
– Communication: Detailed midterm instructions to be emailed.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before midterm)
– Send midterm details by email:
– Clarify format, weighting, timing, permitted materials (handwritten notes only), and essay expectations (synthesis of frameworks).
– Provide a study checklist: eight Google Form terms; left–right framework; state vs. regime identification tasks; examples practiced in class.
– Post a concise midterm rubric/criteria on eCourse for transparency.
High priority (after midterm; to resume simulation)
– Clarify and codify the simulation process:
– Share a one-page template for proposals requiring line-item cut, amount, and justification against the three principles.
– Set a timeline for executive proposal submission and legislative response; allocate in-class debate time.
– Provide data aids:
– Repost the budget table with all categories and amounts; add brief impact notes per category to support evidence-based arguments.
– Decide on scope:
– Confirm whether to keep the judicial branch excluded or add a small “judicial reviewâ€� role next time for appeals/constitutionality checks.
– Require written rationales:
– Have each subgroup submit a 1-page rationale linking cuts to mission protection, student well-being, and long-term feasibility.
Follow-ups and housekeeping
– Attendance/roster:
– Record absences (2); verify correct spelling for Tursunay/Tursedai; follow up with absent students with dossier and instructions.
– eCourse materials:
– Ensure the simulation dossier link is live and easy to find; add today’s board summary of the executive plan and the decision principles.
– Clarify the salary-cut framing:
– Confirm that any salary reductions are matched with proportional workload/hour adjustments; note any HR/policy constraints to keep proposals realistic.
– “Speaker timeâ€� scheduling:
– Create and circulate a poll to identify feasible times; clarify what the requirement entails and confirm the November 16 deadline.
– Room/logistics for next simulation session:
– Prepare seating by committee and group lists on the board again; include time checkpoints to ensure both proposal and oversight phases occur.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The class time was devoted to an in-class simulation, and the instructor stated “we will come back to this simulation� and that “our next class … will be the midterm assignment� with details to be emailed, without assigning any out-of-class work.