Critiques of administrative expansion and contested program cuts converged this month when University of Nebraska–Lincoln Chancellor Rodney D. Bennett abruptly announced his resignation following a faculty no‑confidence vote tied to budget-driven program eliminations. The exit underscores tensions between boards seeking rapid fiscal fixes and faculty demanding transparent academic governance. Commentators note a wider phenomenon—some campuses have seen titles and layers of vice‑presidential roles expand, shifting decision‑making away from faculty and toward institution‑facing administrators. Critics argue that inflation of senior administrative ranks can erode faculty voice on curricular and academic priorities. At Nebraska, trustees tasked leadership with closing budget gaps; faculty said the process was rushed and lacked meaningful shared governance, producing the first faculty no‑confidence vote in campus history and culminating in Bennett’s departure. The episode adds urgency to debates over governance design: boards face pressure to balance administrative capacity for financial management with processes that preserve faculty participation in academic decisions.