UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 115 chancellor made the decision immediately and unilaterally. The faculty divided into two camps. Some opposed to the merger and the opaque process used to get there; they were angry to the point of working with regional newspapers and the AAUP to try and prevent the merger. The other group—even- sized to the first—believed the merger was a good idea. They envisioned a larger campus with more clout in a competitive state system, increased resources, an appearance more like aspirational universities, a wider range of academic programs to which students would have access, and increased research opportunities through new faculty colleagues. This division set the stage for a civil war that utterly divided faculty over the most critical decision of their respective institutions’ futures. Yet, the campuses found pragmatic ways forward to develop trust and appreciation for belonging to a merged institution. Importantly, the system chancellor did not set a deadline for the merger; rather, he allowed the campuses themselves set an appropriate timeline. The faculty senate of each campus was asked to make proposals of how the colleges on each campus could be merged to form new colleges [Structural & Political]. These were proposed as administrative mergers as the faculty were not expected to move between campuses; their college and department administration might be on their campus or the other, however. There were four colleges on one campus and seven on the other; the faculty focused discussion on disciplinary alignment and equity in majors. Once the campus senate proposals had been received, multiple open fora were held along with meetings to conduct SWOT analyses (Strengths, Weaknesses Opportuni- ties, and Threats) of the models, faculty were polled, and ultimately the faculty were allowed to vote to select the final composition of colleges. Pre-merger, there were two colleges on each campus housing Arts and Sciences programs. The model voted for by the faculty still had two A&S colleges, one STEM and one humanities and social sciences although each had programs added or subtracted from their former composition. Initial savings realized across the institutions (several VP offices were combined and administrators and other staff let go) were used to pay faculty for their involve- ment in any summer work related to the merger process and for all other costs asso- ciated with consolidation. Additional funds supported and celebrated new academic and research opportunities between campuses [Symbolic], which capitalized on the benefits of the merger. This immediate re-investment was appreciated by faculty. Deans were appointed as permanent (with support by acclimation) or as interim through internal searches followed by open searches for permanent deans. A few sitting deans left the institution, while others found internal positions as depart- ment chairs. The system chancellor did not set a deadline for the merger; rather, he allowed the campuses themselves set an appropriate timeline.