Lesson Report:
Title
Separation vs. Fusion of Powers and a Budget-Crisis Simulation: From Theory to Institutional Design
This session transitioned from reviewing core constitutional models (separation vs. fusion of powers) and the problem of gridlock to a hands-on simulation of a presidential-style system managing a sudden budget crisis. Students took roles in an “Executive Committee� and a “Legislative Assembly� to design targeted, internally funded cuts to close a $4M shortfall while safeguarding AUCA’s academic mission, student well-being, and long-term sustainability.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 1 (Haibike)
Topics Covered (chronological, with activity labels)
1) Setup and Role Assignment
– Seating by role: Executive Committee (by the door) and Legislative Assembly (by the window); student names listed on the board; subgroups A/B/C created within each chamber.
– Purpose: To simulate a separation-of-powers system with inter-branch competition and oversight.
2) Individual Warm-Up (2 minutes): Separation vs. Fusion of Powers
– Prompt in notebooks: Define each model and articulate the key difference.
3) Mini-Lecture and Guided Discussion: Separation of Powers
– Definition and structure: Government powers divided—typically Executive, Legislative, Judicial.
– Rationale: Prevent concentration of power among actors motivated by power-seeking; the constitution codifies and limits each branch.
– Mechanism: Competition/struggle among branches (each resists losing power) checks overreach and constrains unilateral action.
4) Diagnosing a Design Problem: Gridlock
– Definition: Excessive inter-branch conflict stalls decision-making—few/no new laws or policy moves; decisions become slow and incremental.
– Implication: While guarding against tyranny, separation of powers can hinder timely, coherent governance.
5) Comparative Model: Fusion of Powers (Parliamentary Logic)
– How it works: Citizens elect the legislature; the legislature selects the head of government (e.g., Prime Minister). Executive survival depends on legislative confidence.
– Incentive alignment: Executive and legislative majorities are more likely to cooperate, reducing gridlock risk.
– Contrast with presidential systems: Separate elections for president and legislature can reduce incentives to cooperate, increasing conflict.
6) Simulation Briefing: AUCA-as-State Budget Crisis (“AUSASAN�)
– Scenario: AUCA’s largest donor (the fictional Anderac Foundation) halts funding, creating an immediate $4M deficit.
– Minimum operating budget: $20M required to open next year.
– Normal revenues (approximate):
– Tuition: $14M (70%)
– Donations/endowment (includes Anderac): $4M (now lost)
– Auxiliary services (dorms, kitchenette, facility rentals): $1M
– Grants/research: $1M
– Current expenditures (total $20M):
– Faculty and staff salaries: $10M
– Financial aid and scholarships (AUCA-funded): $4M
– Campus operations/maintenance/utilities/security/cleaning: $2M
– Library (collections, databases, staffing, technology): $2M
– Athletics and student life (clubs, O-Week, co-curriculars): $1M
– Administration and IT (admissions, registrar, IT support): $1M
– Task: Close the $4M gap exclusively via spending policy changes (internal cuts).
– Constraints (non-negotiable):
– No across-the-board/percentage-everywhere cuts; must be targeted and uneven.
– No tuition or auxiliary price increases (would depress enrollment/usage).
– No reliance on new donors or speculative business opportunities; plan must work with current, guaranteed resources.
– Evaluation principles (each cut must be justified against all three):
1) Protect the core academic mission (teaching/learning/research quality).
2) Maintain student support and well-being (experience, access, affordability).
3) Safeguard long-term institutional health (no short-term choices that harm future viability).
7) Workflow and Deliverables
– Subgroup phase (10 minutes): Each subgroup drafts an independent $4M internal-cut plan with specific dollar amounts per budget line.
– Chamber consolidation (10 minutes): Executive Committee and Legislative Assembly each merge subgroup proposals into a single plan.
– Presentation and oversight: Executive presents its plan; Legislative reviews it for compliance with constraints and the three principles, providing reasoned approvals/challenges.
8) Executive Committee Plan (as presented on the board; targeted cuts)
– Faculty and staff salaries: -$1.5M
– Financial aid and scholarships: -$0.5M
– Campus operations/maintenance: -$0.5M
– Academic library resources: -$0.6M
– Athletics and student life: -$0.35M
– Administration and IT: -$0.35M
– Notes:
– The team referenced possible “energy-saving systemsâ€� under operations; the installation cost and first-year net savings were not specified. Instructor flagged the need to quantify realistic, in-year savings and avoid assuming speculative offsets.
– There was brief uncertainty about whether the total precisely equaled $4M; intention was to reach $4M through targeted line items.
9) Legislative Assembly Oversight (initial, time-limited review)
– Framing requirement: Assess each proposed cut using the 3 presidential principles (core mission, student well-being, long-term health).
– Verdict delivered on one item (due to time):
– Faculty/staff salary reductions: Likely to harm the core academic mission (teaching and research quality), degrade student well-being (quality/continuity of instruction; potential faculty departures that drive away students), and risk long-term institutional health (talent retention, reputation).
– Remaining items to be evaluated next session (library, operations, aid, student life, admin/IT) using the same principles and within constraints.
10) Closing Announcements: Midterm and Co-Curricular Requirement
– Midterm next class meeting (Tuesday after break):
– Format: One essay question; 4–5 paragraphs; in-class writing.
– Materials allowed: Paper notes from students’ own notebooks only; no printouts, no electronics.
– Further instructions to be sent by email.
– Public lecture (Chingiz Aitmatov) noted as occurring today; attendance optional for this event specifically, but:
– Requirement: Attend at least one public lecture or ambassador talk before submitting the related paper; consult eCourse for options (date reference mentioned around the 16th).
Actionable Items
Urgent (before the midterm)
– Review and organize notebook notes for the essay exam; bring your notebook (paper notes only).
– Study focus: Separation vs. fusion of powers, causes/consequences of gridlock, incentive structures in presidential vs. parliamentary systems.
– Check email for the final midterm brief and any clarifications.
High priority (first class after the midterm; simulation continuation)
– Reconcile the Executive plan totals to exactly $4M and ensure each line item is targeted (not across-the-board).
– Justify each cut explicitly against:
– Core academic mission
– Student support and well-being
– Long-term institutional health
– Rework salary strategy: Explore alternatives that minimize damage to teaching/research and retention (e.g., hiring freeze, delayed hires, reduced overtime, non-essential travel cuts, administrative streamlining) before deep across-salary cuts.
– Quantify operations efficiencies credibly:
– Identify low/no-cost measures with same-year savings (thermostat set-points, building hours consolidation, contract renegotiations, procurement audits, utility monitoring).
– If proposing capital improvements (e.g., energy-saving systems), specify installation costs, payback period, and whether first-year net savings are realistic and within constraints.
– Calibrate student-impact lines:
– If reducing aid, protect need-based awards to preserve access/affordability; indicate offsets (e.g., merit aid rebalancing, temporary pauses in non-essential co-curricular subsidies).
– If trimming student life, preserve high-impact, low-cost programming.
Reminders and logistics
– Maintain the chamber/subgroup structure; assign clear roles (analyst, scribe, presenter, principles-checker) to speed next deliberation.
– Use the simulation resource posted on eCourse (simulation.ca link) for reference during planning.
– Track attendance: 1 student (Haibike) noted absent this session.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Because the class was devoted to an in-class simulation and the instructor only issued reminders about the upcoming midterm (“the next time we see each other, we will be meeting for the midterms… I’ll send the instructions via email�) and referenced an existing paper/lecture requirement (“You need to go to at least one of the public lectures… before you submit your paper… Check the syllabus�), no new take-home work was assigned.