On Wednesday, I had to leave town right as the President was convening his first of two forums with faculty and staff. (I am sitting in Pittsburgh as I write this sentence. Since November, I have been planning to attend the College English Association meeting.)
I'm sorry to have missed the forums, especially since some of the President's comments have apparently touched a raw nerve or two. (See responses to my previous posting, which were created right at the time of the President's forums.)
I am very interested in hearing other responses to the forums, so please let me know what you think by commenting on this posting.
On the issue of decreased benefits, I am very concerned that we might continue to lose benefits in the wake of the budget crisis. I pledge to keep you informed of any information I might learn, and I promise to pass along to the President and others any concerns that you bring to me. (I have, for example, communicated my concern about the closing of the MSU Child Care Center.)
More when I return to Morehead . . . .
Ron
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Catching Up . . .
Sorry to be slow responding to some of the postings on the blog, but I've been trying to take care of business for you, and I've had that nasty bug that's going around.
At any rate, I'm feeling better and ready to respond to at least a couple of questions (more later this week).
First, I take no responsibility for the poetry on this blog--even though I have enjoyed reading it. What a civilized response to the tense time as we waited for the audit results! Keep it up, and maybe we'll have enough material to publish a chapbook.
On a more serious note, I have been asked by an anonymous reader if the BOR should vote on something more than an "executive summary" of the audit. The reader's specific question is this:
"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?
This question deserves a detailed answer.
Article II, A.11 certainly applies here, but so do other bylaws. The BOR will eventually be presented with program deletions and additions, as well as other items that need BOR approval.
But right now, what we have is a recommendation from Academic Affairs to take certain actions on various programs, including some fairly extensive reorganizations. While it is safe to assume that the President and his Cabinet would like to approve all or most of these recommendations, fiscal constraints and other practicalities may indeed cause the plan to be revised in some ways. If you have looked at the recommendations, you realize that there are still lots of details to be ironed out, and indeed implementing these recommendations may prove difficult. Thus, while eventually the BOR will approve many specific elements of the plan (including, presumably, the number of "divisions, departments, etc.), we are not quite at that point yet.
To address the other part of the reader's question, I don't want to speak for my fellow BOR members, but they are very much aware of how important this academic audit is for the health of the University. At the BOR meeting on 12 March, they will hear a detailed presentation on the audit and will have a chance to ask questions and make comments. BOR members will have also access to the same materials that you have, including the full audit recommendations.
In the last couple of days, a reader asked about my reaction to the audit recommendations. I have given this same answer a couple of times recently, but it's what I really believe. My personal reaction is far less important than YOUR responses. If you have issues you want to get out there, please respond to this blog or send me an e-mail. I want to know what you're thinking so that I can communicate your thoughts to Board.
Stay strong.
Ron
At any rate, I'm feeling better and ready to respond to at least a couple of questions (more later this week).
First, I take no responsibility for the poetry on this blog--even though I have enjoyed reading it. What a civilized response to the tense time as we waited for the audit results! Keep it up, and maybe we'll have enough material to publish a chapbook.
On a more serious note, I have been asked by an anonymous reader if the BOR should vote on something more than an "executive summary" of the audit. The reader's specific question is this:
"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?
This question deserves a detailed answer.
Article II, A.11 certainly applies here, but so do other bylaws. The BOR will eventually be presented with program deletions and additions, as well as other items that need BOR approval.
But right now, what we have is a recommendation from Academic Affairs to take certain actions on various programs, including some fairly extensive reorganizations. While it is safe to assume that the President and his Cabinet would like to approve all or most of these recommendations, fiscal constraints and other practicalities may indeed cause the plan to be revised in some ways. If you have looked at the recommendations, you realize that there are still lots of details to be ironed out, and indeed implementing these recommendations may prove difficult. Thus, while eventually the BOR will approve many specific elements of the plan (including, presumably, the number of "divisions, departments, etc.), we are not quite at that point yet.
To address the other part of the reader's question, I don't want to speak for my fellow BOR members, but they are very much aware of how important this academic audit is for the health of the University. At the BOR meeting on 12 March, they will hear a detailed presentation on the audit and will have a chance to ask questions and make comments. BOR members will have also access to the same materials that you have, including the full audit recommendations.
In the last couple of days, a reader asked about my reaction to the audit recommendations. I have given this same answer a couple of times recently, but it's what I really believe. My personal reaction is far less important than YOUR responses. If you have issues you want to get out there, please respond to this blog or send me an e-mail. I want to know what you're thinking so that I can communicate your thoughts to Board.
Stay strong.
Ron
Saturday, January 24, 2009
A Case of Alleged "Veep Creep"
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
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
Answering a Question Regarding the Space Science Center
Sorry to be slow answering this question. I'm sort of new to this blog format, and I didn't notice the question until recently.
An anonymous readers asks:
"I have heard from a few very reliable sources that the administration tried to move the Program of Distinction designation from IRAPP to Space Sciences but that they were blocked by CPE. Is this true?"
The CPE is not currently funding new programs of distinction. It is possible that the administration inquired about the Space Science Center becoming a program of distinction or perhaps about the future of state funding for such programs. But I don't think it is accurate to say that a request to make the Space Science Center a program of distinction was "blocked by CPE."
I hope this helps.
An anonymous readers asks:
"I have heard from a few very reliable sources that the administration tried to move the Program of Distinction designation from IRAPP to Space Sciences but that they were blocked by CPE. Is this true?"
The CPE is not currently funding new programs of distinction. It is possible that the administration inquired about the Space Science Center becoming a program of distinction or perhaps about the future of state funding for such programs. But I don't think it is accurate to say that a request to make the Space Science Center a program of distinction was "blocked by CPE."
I hope this helps.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Board of Regents Work Session
Before I was elected to the Board of Regents, I was a little puzzled about the "work sessions" that are scheduled roughly a month before the quarterly meetings. Work sessions are used to accomplish a variety of things. The Board is required by state law to provide a fairly extensive orientation for new members, for example. And quite typically, major items for discussion and approval are reviewed prior to the quarterly meeting. Although Regents do not typically have much involvement in the day-to-day operations of the University, work sessions do allow them to ask questions and make suggestions on policies and other important initiatives.
Keep in mind that work sessions are public meetings. You are indeed welcome to attend any work session. Indeed I wish that at least a few faculty would attend every work session if at all possible. The President typically brings many of his cabinet members, and they are often asked questions and contribute to the discussion in various ways. I see no reason why faculty cannot contribute in the same sorts of ways. Senate Chair Cathy Thomas has been a regular attendee at work sessions and quarterly meetings, but I would love to see more of you attend, and indeed I think it would be very good for the Board to have more contact with faculty.
The next work session is Thursday, 19 February at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room. Typically the work session lasts for several hours (but you should feel free to come and go as your schedule permits). I do not have an agenda at the present time for the upcoming meeting, but I am going to ask the President to comment on the Academic Program Audit process, since that important item will be on the agenda at the quarterly meeting in March.
Please note that the Regents will not be voting on the Academic Program Audit (more on that issue after I talk with the President). They will simply be briefed on the issue and will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Once the results of the audit (and restructuring) are released, I am hopeful that there will be some opportunities to ask questions and to make comments directly to the administration. But, as always, feel free to contact me through the various channels, including this blog.
I hope your semester is off to a great start. The month of January seems particularly busy this year. Hang in there, and I'll try to do the same.
Ron
Keep in mind that work sessions are public meetings. You are indeed welcome to attend any work session. Indeed I wish that at least a few faculty would attend every work session if at all possible. The President typically brings many of his cabinet members, and they are often asked questions and contribute to the discussion in various ways. I see no reason why faculty cannot contribute in the same sorts of ways. Senate Chair Cathy Thomas has been a regular attendee at work sessions and quarterly meetings, but I would love to see more of you attend, and indeed I think it would be very good for the Board to have more contact with faculty.
The next work session is Thursday, 19 February at 9:00 a.m. in the Riggle Room. Typically the work session lasts for several hours (but you should feel free to come and go as your schedule permits). I do not have an agenda at the present time for the upcoming meeting, but I am going to ask the President to comment on the Academic Program Audit process, since that important item will be on the agenda at the quarterly meeting in March.
Please note that the Regents will not be voting on the Academic Program Audit (more on that issue after I talk with the President). They will simply be briefed on the issue and will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Once the results of the audit (and restructuring) are released, I am hopeful that there will be some opportunities to ask questions and to make comments directly to the administration. But, as always, feel free to contact me through the various channels, including this blog.
I hope your semester is off to a great start. The month of January seems particularly busy this year. Hang in there, and I'll try to do the same.
Ron
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Answers from the President
Right after the new year, President Andrews sent an e-mail response to the two questions posed by readers of this blog (details below). I was very pleased that he also addressed these two concerns at Convocation on Wednesday, 7 January.
The two questions and answers are as follows:
1. Is literally "everything" on the table as we discuss budget cuts. His one-word answer is "yes."
2. What constitutes a "Program of Distinction" and how is this designation approved? Here, I'll cut and paste his e-mail response:
"We have one official program of distinction on our campus. It is IRAPP. That program resulted from the Higher Education Reform Act of 1997. In this legislation, each comprehensive institution was asked to develop and submit a proposal to create a program that had the potential to achieve national distinction. The past president and provost worked with the campus community to solicit proposals. My understanding is that IRAPP was selected from three or four proposals submitted. The proposal was reviewed on campus and by the BOR and submitted to the CPE and was approved. Annual reports of progress are submitted to the CPE via Academic Affairs. An institution may have additional programs of distinction. However, the CPE is not approving new programs with funding."
At Convocation, Dr. Andrews noted that the Space Science Center is not a "Program of Distinction," although he reiterated that the program is a valuable part of MSU's future.
I hope these answers help. Please continue to let me know what is on your mind. If you haven't read my posting on Presidential Evaluation and Compensation, please see the archives.
Ron
The two questions and answers are as follows:
1. Is literally "everything" on the table as we discuss budget cuts. His one-word answer is "yes."
2. What constitutes a "Program of Distinction" and how is this designation approved? Here, I'll cut and paste his e-mail response:
"We have one official program of distinction on our campus. It is IRAPP. That program resulted from the Higher Education Reform Act of 1997. In this legislation, each comprehensive institution was asked to develop and submit a proposal to create a program that had the potential to achieve national distinction. The past president and provost worked with the campus community to solicit proposals. My understanding is that IRAPP was selected from three or four proposals submitted. The proposal was reviewed on campus and by the BOR and submitted to the CPE and was approved. Annual reports of progress are submitted to the CPE via Academic Affairs. An institution may have additional programs of distinction. However, the CPE is not approving new programs with funding."
At Convocation, Dr. Andrews noted that the Space Science Center is not a "Program of Distinction," although he reiterated that the program is a valuable part of MSU's future.
I hope these answers help. Please continue to let me know what is on your mind. If you haven't read my posting on Presidential Evaluation and Compensation, please see the archives.
Ron
Monday, December 15, 2008
Presidential Evaluation and Compensation
As promised, here are some thoughts on the President's evaluation and compensation.
First of all, there are two related but distinct issues here: evaluation and compensation. As is true with faculty members, it is possible that the President might receive a very positive annual evaluation but no salary increase because of the current fiscal situation.
Evaluation is handled each year by the Board of Regents. As I reported at Faculty Senate, the President set out goals for the year at the September meeting. (In fact, your senators should have a copy of the President's goals.) In addition to looking at his success in meeting those goals, the Board of Regents will this year hire an outside consulting firm to conduct an independent review of the President's performance. We will be holding a retreat in late February to prepare for this review. As I learn more, I will share information with you. I am determined that that faculty will have a significant and meaningful role in this process.
I personally would like to see a more meaningful instrument than the current Senior Administration Evaluation Survey. I realize that this instrument was chosen by the Faculty Senate Evaluation Committee a couple of years ago, but many of the questions on that instrument seem less than helpful. (For example, we have no idea what is meant by "barriers to success.") And the instrument asks us to evaluate senior administrators as a group rather than as individuals. Surely we can get better information from a different instrument. Of course, faculty evaluations of the President would only be one key part of his total evaluation (just as student evaluations are only one key part in faculty annual evaluations).
I would also like to see more transparency in the evaluation of the President. While the evaluation process is a personnel matter (and thus the actual discussions are carried out in closed session), the results are public. As many of you know, other university boards in the state provide specific evaluation criteria as well as numerical ratings of the job performance of their presidents. While I cannot promise that I can persuade the Board to adopt such a model, I am hopeful that the Board will provide more specific information about the evaluation process and the results than it has done in the past.
Now, the President's compensation is probably the most controversial issue here. Do remember that parts of the President's compensation package were negotiated as part of his contract. Thus, increases to his deferred compensation account are not really up for discussion or debate. Also, I hope you will remember that the Board voted two years ago to provide the possibility of performance bonuses for the President. Most faculty I have talked to don't like the idea of a bonus for the President, but that policy was adopted by the Board and will not likely be revised or rescinded during the next few years.
As many of you are aware, at the Presidential forums Dr. Andrews stated that it was unlikely that employees at MSU will receive raises for 2009-10. Given that fact--as well as the continuing gloomy economic forecasts--I would find it very difficult to vote for a presidential raise or bonus of any sort. And I hope that the other members of the Board would feel the same way.
Please note that this statement is not a reflection on the President's job performance one way or the other. It is simply a realistic acknowledgment that we live in difficult economic times and that we all have to make sacrifices as a result. It is also an acknowledgment that we are dealing with public money--state appropriations, federal grant money, and tuition dollars--and that we have to be wise stewards of these resources.
Since this topic is especially tricky, I want to talk with the President early in the spring about this very issue. Please continue to let me know what you're thinking about all these issues,as well as anything else on your mind, so that I can best represent you.
Look for another post in the next week.
First of all, there are two related but distinct issues here: evaluation and compensation. As is true with faculty members, it is possible that the President might receive a very positive annual evaluation but no salary increase because of the current fiscal situation.
Evaluation is handled each year by the Board of Regents. As I reported at Faculty Senate, the President set out goals for the year at the September meeting. (In fact, your senators should have a copy of the President's goals.) In addition to looking at his success in meeting those goals, the Board of Regents will this year hire an outside consulting firm to conduct an independent review of the President's performance. We will be holding a retreat in late February to prepare for this review. As I learn more, I will share information with you. I am determined that that faculty will have a significant and meaningful role in this process.
I personally would like to see a more meaningful instrument than the current Senior Administration Evaluation Survey. I realize that this instrument was chosen by the Faculty Senate Evaluation Committee a couple of years ago, but many of the questions on that instrument seem less than helpful. (For example, we have no idea what is meant by "barriers to success.") And the instrument asks us to evaluate senior administrators as a group rather than as individuals. Surely we can get better information from a different instrument. Of course, faculty evaluations of the President would only be one key part of his total evaluation (just as student evaluations are only one key part in faculty annual evaluations).
I would also like to see more transparency in the evaluation of the President. While the evaluation process is a personnel matter (and thus the actual discussions are carried out in closed session), the results are public. As many of you know, other university boards in the state provide specific evaluation criteria as well as numerical ratings of the job performance of their presidents. While I cannot promise that I can persuade the Board to adopt such a model, I am hopeful that the Board will provide more specific information about the evaluation process and the results than it has done in the past.
Now, the President's compensation is probably the most controversial issue here. Do remember that parts of the President's compensation package were negotiated as part of his contract. Thus, increases to his deferred compensation account are not really up for discussion or debate. Also, I hope you will remember that the Board voted two years ago to provide the possibility of performance bonuses for the President. Most faculty I have talked to don't like the idea of a bonus for the President, but that policy was adopted by the Board and will not likely be revised or rescinded during the next few years.
As many of you are aware, at the Presidential forums Dr. Andrews stated that it was unlikely that employees at MSU will receive raises for 2009-10. Given that fact--as well as the continuing gloomy economic forecasts--I would find it very difficult to vote for a presidential raise or bonus of any sort. And I hope that the other members of the Board would feel the same way.
Please note that this statement is not a reflection on the President's job performance one way or the other. It is simply a realistic acknowledgment that we live in difficult economic times and that we all have to make sacrifices as a result. It is also an acknowledgment that we are dealing with public money--state appropriations, federal grant money, and tuition dollars--and that we have to be wise stewards of these resources.
Since this topic is especially tricky, I want to talk with the President early in the spring about this very issue. Please continue to let me know what you're thinking about all these issues,as well as anything else on your mind, so that I can best represent you.
Look for another post in the next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
