Recently some faculty have been asking me privately about a case of "veep creep," by which they mean the establishment of more administrators at the vice presidential level. The reason? After the first of the year they learned that the University has a new CIO (Chief Information Officer)--and indeed it was rumored that this position was at the VP level. I recently corresponded with Beth Patrick about the matter, and a few days later the Senate Executive Council was also able to ask the President about the hiring. I want to clue you in to some important facts here.
1. The position is an Assistant Vice President for Technology. The difference may be subtle, but it is not a full VP position. As the President notes, we are actually down one VP with the retirement of Keith Kappes.
2. This position is actually an existing position. The position was formerly held by Gary Van Meter. When Gary Van Meter retired, the position was not filled, and in fact Beth Patrick performed all of the functions of this position for several years.
3. The approval for the position was granted about a year ago (before the most recent fiscal crisis came to a head), and the new Assistant VP (Gary Holeman) was hired about six months ago. Because of some compelling personal reasons, Mr. Holeman asked to have his start date delayed to 1 January. Thus, although some faculty were surprised to learn we have a new administrator when they returned from break, the hiring had actually been in the works for quite some time.
I put all this information out there so that you know all the facts and can judge for yourself what to conclude about this hiring. I am personally satisfied with the answers I have received, but I would welcome comments from anyone who wants to weigh in.
I do think the faculty has a right and an obligation to keep an eye on such matters, and I pledge to help you to answer any questions you might have. Many of us have heard the President talk of "right-sizing" the University, and it seems crucial that we not only "right-size" the student body and the faculty but the administration as well. And, as I have noted before, I definitely want the faculty to have some significant input into the question of what "right-sizing" actually means.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and questions.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Audit Report is on my mind
All I do is work and wait
Months go by and we are told
Please don't worry about your fate
Gen-Ed reform is also here
One more thing upon our plate
As I complete the WEAVE report
The chair reminds me that I'm late
We make a schedule for the year
Then SACs arrives with more debate
Andrew's says it's all on track
The Provost sets another date
Budget woes loom large and wide
One more thing that I just hate
Meetings, grades, and work to do
We just can't win at any rate
Talking heads are out of touch
I think it's more than I can take
So I sit and grade exams
Will pondering upon a different state
Morale can only be so low
Before the masses crash the gate
Class is out we close the door
Again we're told to work and wait
We'll be the best in Dixieland
The story reads as they eat cake
Administration thinks it's great
What has happened to my fate
I can only take so much
Before my stomach starts to ache
It is my understanding that the BOR will vote on an executive summary of the Academic Audit. Is the BOR not charged with the task of: "The determination of the number of divisions, departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies needed for the successful conduct of the University" (BOR Bylaws, Article II, A.11). Is it appropriate for the BOR to make that determination based on an executive summary?
Double the Numbers?
Just this past week various faculty members brought to my attention the statement that President Andrews made about student numbers declining while faculty numbers increasing. I do remember President Andrews mentioning this at convocation. Apparently Andrews has been bringing this up in other venues also. I would like to ask him who is considered faculty and why is the number of people in administration also increasing?
Without clarification these remarks are more incendiary then helpful. It is like waving a pointed stick around. What is he really saying? Is the president looking at "right-sizing" the university and that once the Audit Reforms and Gen-Ed Reforms are in place he wants to trim the faculty lines down to where he feels they are the "right" size. What is the real issue here? If we hire more part-time faculty to teach are they included in the body count in this "increasing" number of faculty? If a dean, chair, or office assistant teaches a course are they included then in this body count as faculty? How does he count faculty?
Is the only way to grow the university to decrease the number of faculty and yet increase student enrollment at the same time? How does that get us to this "Greatest University" status? What about real faculty-student ratios in the classroom? How have they changed?
The veep creep syndrome remains with the fact that the University may have transferred funding once used to pay a VP/administrator for other new personnel, which seems reasonable, but then the same VP/people are brought back on board part time and incurring an additional cost to the University. In the end number of people in the administration increases -- at least by the same method of body counting.
The "Double the Numbers" campaign is starting to look more like a policy applied to the administration rather than to student numbers.
Just what is President Andrews communicating here? Can he explain to us and show us the names and numbers of just who is considered faculty and who is considered administration at MSU.
The tale is told that soon we will hear
News of the Audit the grief and the fear
This waiting is long with gossip and talk
It's all over town that some one will walk
Believe who you may but only trust you
Deals were cut in a room with a view
Lights burn long while deals are made
Who will go where in this wonderful trade
Transparent as glass that is dark as the night
We ponder our fate as we wait for the light
The Audit is only the first of a phase
To fit with a budget that's seen in a haze
We wait and we wait for some kind of news
That the Audit is out and that no one will lose
Will our trust be all gone or will it be lost
When the Audit is out and we know the cost
No courage no mercy no news of it late
When will we know of our faculty's fate
… didn't know your blog would get reduced to a poetry contest. Could this be a result of exhaustion over the curriculum audit, gen-ed, or the budget cuts?
Does your blog offer any literary awards?
Here are some additional blog ideas:
1. Hold a blogger's "Top 10" contest for best curriculum audit predictions.
2. Offer the "Biggest MSU Mystery" contest to see what readers are most confused about.
3. All blog entrees could be peer reviewed to offer faculty another publication listing for their next big Merit Pay submission, tenure portfolio, or promotion file.
Any comment about the Audit Report now that it is out?
Post a Comment