Return to Faculty Senate Homepage

The U.M.K.C. Faculty Senate

Report

 

The Voice of the U.M.K.C. Faculty

 

 

Issues Discussed in this Report:

The Central Administration, its size and structure. A call for a major reorganization.

North Campus development: Entrepreneurial opportunity or disregard of faculty?

Extra Appropriation for the Medical School: A response to changes in health care economics.

Budget & Neighborhood Committee Resolutions pass, committees appointed.

Meeting of December 15, 1998

Secretary's note: Happily the Senate appointed a Budget Committee at this meeting. That allows your confused Secretary to promise you greater clarification about budget issues in the future. At this meeting the Chancellor, who had been asked to respond to questions about the growth of the central administration, came in with a great deal of information and charts -- more than Senators could begin to examine in the 30 minutes allotted to the issue. Senators dutifully poked at aspects of the presentation, but the documents need the type of careful analysis that the Budget Committee should be able to do. After the budget presentation we went to a discussion of the North Campus project (an experiment, apparently largely initiated by the Education School faculty) and a short discussion of the extra appropriation requested for the Medical School.

After the Chancellor left the Senate set up the Budget and Neighborhood Committees, and had an astonishing discussion about the organization of the upper administration. We tabled a resolution from the Administrative Affairs Committee so that it could be made more specific and far reaching. A revised resolution will be presented at the next meeting.

Growth of the Administration vs. Growth of Faculty

The Senate had asked the Chancellor to discuss the growth of the administrative budget, and many Senators thought that the central administration was growing while the faculty and academic budgets were shrinking. The Chancellor (and Tom Fichtner, who had drawn up the documents and did much of the analysis) argued that this was not true -- between 1992 and 1999 the percent of money in the administrative units had gone from 33.6% to 33.5% and the percent in academic units had gone from 66.4% to 66.5%. Not a big change. :-) On the rate budget the change had been equally small, with the percentages about 30% for the administration and 70% for the academic units. The actual number of faculty has increased by about 10%, while the number of staff has increased by 4%. (This is partly because full-time faculty has been replaced by part time instructors and GTAs.) Two charts summarize a lot of the information that was presented:

[[My original isn't absolutely clear either. Full size charts and tables are available -- call Tom Fichtner at 2757. He said that he would try to upload all the information to the UMKC web site.]

Some Senators were suspicious of the figures and wondered if administrative costs were being hidden. Also the transfers from academic units to pay for phones, repairs, etc. are not broken out. Hopefully the Budget Committee will be able to analyze this data and bring a report back to the Senate.

North Campus

Some faculty had wondered if we were being by-passed on the North campus issue. Apparently we aren't, though communication has been less than sterling. The genesis of the project apparently was a request from the North Kansas City, Park Hill, Liberty and Smithville school districts for graduate education courses to be taught north of the river. Education School faculty have been heavily involved and are teaching the courses in space borrowed from the Park Hill School District. Sensing opportunities to expand, a university committee was set up to explore possibilities. The committee has faculty, administration and local people on it. Their decisions will come back to the faculty, and it is expected that regular faculty will be teaching the courses and developing the programs.

The effort behind the program is entrepreneurial. There is a large market to be served. The river is a psychological barrier, and many people north of the river looked primarily to UMC and other schools. An Interim Vice Provost for Community Based Education - Northland has been picked (Steven Brainard) and he is currently being paid out of the Academic Affairs office. If the position becomes permanent a faculty search committee will be formed.

Some Senators questioned the lack of consultation with the Senate, and thought that development of programs needed more faculty involvement. Querry emphasized that the program at this point is exploratory. The Northland was growing and seemed to need an educational base. He didn't know if the growth in educational needs would continue, but thought that if UMKC did not respond other schools would.

Extra Funds for Medical School

This chart was distributed to the Senate. It shows that most of the money for the Medical School comes from the Hospital Hill Services Corporation. The money generated by this corporation is used to buy the time of the clinical physicians. As people have become eligible for HMO coverage, because of changes in the law, many have gone to St. Luke's rather than the Truman Medical Center. That has led to a loss in income. The $5.6 million requested was to cover the shortfall from the practice plan. It is separate from Mission Enhancement money, and isn't related to the BLS/Medical School changeover. It has to be appropriated by the state, and the figure requested by the UM system is $1.1 million.

Committees

The following resolution creating the Ad Hoc Committee on Neighborhood Issues was moved and unanimously approved:

The charge of The Ad Hoc Committee on Neighborhood Issues be defined as follows:

1. To utilize the expertise of the Committee in evaluating University expansion plans and University relations with surrounding neighborhoods. Such evaluation may involve the collection of information from a variety of sources, where such information-gathering will not interfere with official negotiations between the University and neighborhoods.

2. To provide independent advice to the Chancellor on the issue of University expansion, either at the request of the Chancellor or upon the initiative of the Committee,

3. To propose relevant motions to the Senate.

4. Membership on the committee is not limited to members of the Senate, but their inclusion on the committee must be approved by the Senate.

It was then moved that the following members be appointed to the Committee: Phil Olson (Sociology, Chair), Kris Kobach (Law), Robert Downs (Law) and Maurice Macey (Social Work). Other members might be added on the basis of their expertise. Members were approved 21 to 0, with 1 abstention.

The following resolution on the Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee was moved:

The charge of the Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee be defined as:

1-To meet regularly with the Chancellor and other members of the administration for the purpose of providing input into and participate actively in the budget decision making process,

2-To inform the Senate regularly on budget issues and to prioritize these issues for the Senate,

3-To bring to the Chancellor and other members of the administration the issues, concerns, and recommendations the Faculty Senate might have regarding the budget,

4-To propose relevant motions to the Senate.

5-Membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Budget Review should include members of the Senate and other members from the faculty at large.

There was some discussion about the words "actively participate." Some wanted to use the word "input" while others said that they were tired of input that meant nothing, and wanted to be a part of the budget process. There was also general dissatisfaction with provision 5. Finally, by a series of friendly amendments, the resolution was changed as follows and unanimously passed (changes underlined):

The charge of the Ad Hoc Budget Review Committee be defined as:

1-To meet regularly with the Chancellor and other members of the administration to actively participate at the policy level in the budget decision making process,

2-To inform the Senate regularly on budget issues and to suggest budgeting priorities to the Senate,

3-To bring to the Chancellor and other members of the issues, concerns, and recommendation the faculty Senate might have regarding the budget,

4-To propose relevant motions to the Senate.

5-Membership on the Committee is not limited to members of the Senate, but their inclusion on the Committee must be approved by the Senate.

 

There was some discussion about the words "actively participate". Some wanted to use the word "input" whiles others said that they were tired of input that meant nothing, and wanted to be part of the budget process. There was also general dissatisfaction with provision 5. Finally, by a series of friendly amendments, the resolution was changed as follows and unanimously passed (changes underlined):

1-To meet regularly with the Chancellor and other members of the administration to actively participate at the policy level in the budget decision making process.

2-To inform the Senate regularly on budge issues and to suggest budgeting priorities to the Senate.

3-To bring to the Chancellor and other members of the issues, concerns, and recommendation the faculty Senate might have regarding the budget.

4-To propose relevant motions to the Senate.

5-Membership on the Committee is not limited to members of the Senate, but their inclusion on the Committee must be approved by the Senate.

Prof. Brian Belt (B&PA) was appointed as Convener, and Tony Manzo (Education), Jack Ward (Economics) and Ralph Berets (English) were appointed as members. Chair Loncar indicated that she wished to sit be a member of the committee and Parliamentarian Robert Willson said that according to Robert's Rules the Chair is an ex officio member of all Senate committees.

Resolution on the Administrative Structure of the University

The Senate Committee on Administrative Issues met to consider the College Resolutions (printed in the previous Report). They decided that their charge was to decide whether the issues presented were relevant to the entire University, and thought that there were three central issues presented by the College resolutions:

* The creation of a chief academic officer,

* Questions about the size of the administration, and

* Questions about the role of the faculty in University decision making.

The committee thought that the first issue was ripe for Senate resolution and thought that the second and third required more discussion. The Committee will suggest a discussion item to the Senate, to decide whether the Senate wishes to explore these issues further and, if so, what processes should be undertaken to address them (Committee hearings, full-faculty town-hall meetings, etc.). On the first issue the Committee proposed the following:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City calls for creation of the position of Provost, who, together with the Chancellor and representatives of the faculty, would have primary responsibility for setting budget priorities at the University.

In the discussion on this item several arguments were made:

* The purpose was not to create a new administrative position but to change the administrative structure. Querry's position of Executive Vice Provost/Executive Dean would be abolished, though after a national search he could be promoted to the new position if it was deemed appropriate.

* Several Senators said that the idea was to deflate administrative titles. We didn't need lots of Vice Chancellors, Associate Vice Chancellors and Assistant Vice Chancellors -- we needed a Dean of Students, a Director of Buildings and Grounds, a Director of Advancement, etc. One Senator expressed the opinion that we have developed an administrator class that pays and equips itself well and has contempt for the faculty.

-A letter that had been distributed by one Senator to the entire Senate e-mail list (Senate@umkc.edu) was cited several times:

Chronicle of Higher Education,

From the issue dated December 4, 1998

 

'Soaring Salaries' for Administrators

To the Editor:

The soaring salaries of administrators at universities represents the invasion of the university by an alien metaphor ("What They Earned in 1996-97: a Survey of Private Colleges' Pay and Benefits," October 23). The metaphor is the corporation, one of the most uncollegial and undemocratic institutions ever devised, and wholly unsuited for the universitas magistrorum, as the University of Paris was styled in 1207. The term translates literally as the grouping of teachers. ... All other elements in the university -- gardeners, engineers, administrators -- are ancillary, in the service of the professors and students. Unlike the corporation, the structure of this body is not hierarchical. The professors are the enduring center, but their mission is service to the truth and to the students.

 

The corporation is pyramidal in its structure. ... Wealth flows to the top in corporations, and financial withering characterizes the bottom. Overpaid administrators in a university are aping this ignoble social invention as though the university were primarily a universitas administratorum -- a grouping of administrators, not of scholars and teachers.

 

I have been a full professor at Marquette University for almost 25 years, and my salary is $71,000 plus benefits. This is good and fair for this private institution, and for someone of my rank, tenure, and record. I am past president of the largest society in my field, and the author of some 150 articles and 10 books. I have no complaints. However, as the Fact File accompanying the article points out, some deans and administrators at my university make ... almost two and a half times what I make ("Pay and Benefits of Leaders at 475 Private College and Universities: a Survey"). More to the moral point, it would take some of our hard-working lecturers,who teach more than a hundred students a year, almost 20 years to make that much money.

 

Administering is not more important than teaching. Overpaid administrators take more than their share of a limited pie. This perverts the image of the university and offends justice.

 

Daniel C. Maguire

Professor of Theology

Marquette University

Milwaukee

 

Another noted that many universities are now changing their administrative structure to the Provost/Dean/Director model.

* The new Provost position would be the person to whom all other units of the university would report, and s/he would be the chief academic officer of the University. One Senator argued that Chancellor Schwartz does not give high weight to academic issues.

* The issue of titles was important, because it was often assumed that a Vice Chancellor would be the natural successor to a Chancellor.

No Senator expressed support for the existing administrative structure. The resolution was tabled, and a new resolution will be submitted at our next meeting.

The Report of Dec. 1 was unanimously approved. This Report has not been officially approved.

 

Absent: Khosrow Sohraby, Curt Davis, Craig Kluever, Ashok Gumbhir, Sri Melethil.

Excused: Randall Pembrook, Kemal Sagduvu, Tim Richards, William Fredrickson, Robert Groene.

Respectfully submitted,

Harris Mirkin,

Faculty Secretary

 

 


UMKC Faculty Senate