standing behind the President
After the meeting on Friday afternoon, I'm still feeling a bit uninformed about the point of view of the Arts and Sciences faculty. As I wrote on Thursday, I think more dialogue is needed, but it is certainly my impression that President Hundert and Provost Anderson want to facilitate that process.
The fact that Professor Krauss' initiative was inspired by Harvard concerns me -- it's not clear how our university will benefit from this apparent case of "me-too-ism". There are significant differences between Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences and our College of Arts and Sciences. Harvard has over 940 faculty in Arts and Sciences. In contrast, our College of Arts and Sciences numbers only about 220 professors. Their arts and sciences faculty have sustained the reputation of the entire university in past decades, while Case's reputation comes primarily from engineering and medicine.
I understand that faculty are disappointed that we have not achieved what we had hoped according to the plan launched three years ago. I know it has been and will be very difficult to continue to implement changes when we have not been able to afford as sizeable an investment as we had hoped to support the changes that are underway.
What I do not understand is why the Arts and Sciences faculty feel that the surprises we have experienced in NIH research funding and development are exclusively the president's fault. The course of action he is proposing now, to cease the planned draw on working capital a year early, seems the most responsible course of action. I don't believe that a change in leadership would result in any different decisionmaking. What has happened must be faced, and a change in leadership would only slow down the process of getting back on course.
P.S.: At least one student is standing with President Hundert as well... and don't miss the reasoned comments from Glenn Starkman on this entry. I hope that we can continue to have continued dialogue about these issues (though not necessarily via the blog).
Comments
What has happened must be faced, and a change in leadership would only slow down the process of getting back on course.
I feel the same way, especially after reading more on the reasons that some of the A&S faculty had for supporting the vote of no-confidence. I'm also afraid of the organizational culture that might be setting in if we turn over leadership now. Given the short period that Hundert's predecessor had, I fear Case might develop both a reputation for and a taste for getting rid of administrators as soon as things go wrong.
Nicole,
I agree. However, there is a difference between "wrong" and mis-managing millions of dollars. What is needed now is open channels of communication regarding the matter.
But Greg, what evidence have you seen of mismanagement? I've seen lots of insinuations, but no evidence.
I'm not convinced that Hundert and his administration are completely blameless for the deficit; however, I am convinced that they're also not entirely to blame. Some of the shortfalls, according to what I've read, are due to economic problems that are entirely beyond the university. The fact that NIH and other research funds have dropped significantly is something that universities and institutions around the nation are struggling to deal with.
Nicole,
I agree. It's not that $17 million "went missing" from the budget -- no one has presented me any convincing evidence of unethical or illegal acts regarding the management of the university's funds. The budget shortfall was identified early on in the current fiscal year, when routine financial monitoring revealed that we were not going to meet our revenue goals. Rather than stick with the planned spending and end up not meeting our budget, cuts were identified in planned spending (by postponing the filling of vacant positions, putting off maintenance and investments in new facilities, etc.) so that our costs would match our new, lower projections of revenues.
If you could point this out to your friend the anonymous commenter (whose remark I deleted, because I don't believe that anonymous insinuations about financial mismanagement are worth giving voice to), it would be reassuring to know that he understands this point.
There are some important things to understand:
1) A great deal of the financial problem can be ascribed to enormous shortfalls in fund raising, despite huge investments in the office responsible for raising money. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars of investments, yet many tens of millions of dollars of shortfalls. This is not at a time when other universities were particularly suffering either. Indeed last year was a banner year for fundraising by private research universities. At any private research university, raising funds is one of the primary functions of the president. This failure can only be laid at his door. (As I would add he seems to now acknowledge.)
2) It is not just that our NIH funding decline, it is that we have been projecting growth in NIH funding (at a rate that would have seen NIH's budget double in less than a decade) at a time when it was not expected that NIH's budget would grow significantly. Why? Because the planned doubling of NIH's budget had already happened!
Nobody was talking about another doubling, but we were acting as though that was going to happen.
Furthermore, last year was not a bad year in NIH funding for many of the institutions we like to think of as our peers.
3) Nobody is accusing anybody of doing anything illegal. What is being pointed to is consistently bad management -- lack of transparency, failure to plan realistically, alienation of major stakeholders (faculty, alumni, donors). Businesses don't fail only because of illegal behaviour by their leaders, sometimes they fail because their leaders have consistently made bad decisions. When a CEO does this (s)he is typically removed by the shareholders or the board of directors.
4) The problem is that some of these failures, esp. the fundraising failures, are closely tied to relationships that the President has with potential donors -- alumni, local business people, ... These relationships will not suddently improve just because the President announces he has changed his ways.
There is much more to say. What the Arts and Sciences faculty have to say doesn't do well as sound bites. It is always easier to talk glowingly about accomplishments and vision, than it is to discuss details of revenue streams, expenses, management style, ... That said, the faculty has mostly been busy explaining to each other why we believe that a change in university leadership is needed, now we must also begin to explain our reasoning to the rest of the university community.
Yes Dr. Starkman, because driving the name of this institution through the mud will bring donors back. Because donors, investors, and those wonderfull grant committees at the NIH and other funding sources will love to give money to a school with a dysfunctional relationship between its administration and profs/researchers. I think that a group of educated people can do much better than a publicity stunt that hurts more than helps their supposed cost. After all, did we not spend money to fund a positive publicity campaign a year or two ago? I am truly saddened that a group of physicists, historians, philosophers, etcetera, could not constructively make your grievances.
Hundert may have mismanaged the school's finances Dr. Starkman, but it is people like you and Dr. Krauss that are truly hurting this university.
What if the students could give a vote of no confidence to the professors that have 'retired on the job' and are intellectually dragging down the university? Could those professors get a job in a high school? Probably not.
Is tenure outdated? Maybe it could have saved Copernicus but that was probably the last of it. Some professors use it as an excuse for 'on the job retirement' because they 'can't get fired' for poor performance.
How does this fit with a world class learning environment?
Folks who understand economics and industry: who is the customer and are they being served?
Publicity seeking professors are an embarrasment to Case.
Professors who cannot get funding should look in the mirror or get some therapy - blaming the President is pretty lame.
Did our Pres operate in a vacuum? Vote of no confidence should also go to our 17+ finance staff - what do they do all day? How about the board and staff that approved the budget?