By Dr. James “Jim” Kadlecek
“In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” – Laurence Peter
“We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.” – Pogo
I have been watching, with admiration for the persistence of the reporter, this blog’s inquiries into university-foundation spending at New Mexico State University. Heath has raised some excellent questions about the interrelationship and appropriateness of foundation spending, as well as the question of donor identification. As he has correctly researched, these are issues at many schools around the country.
On another matter relating to NMSU, Southern New Mexico Common Cause, for a couple years now, has been observing NMSU Board of Regents meetings. The volunteer organization has had several cordial exchanges with the regents regarding their propensity to hold lengthy, closed-door sessions prior to regular meetings; inadequate explanations about the reasons for such secret sessions and what was done behind closed doors; and the relative lack of opportunity for public input at their regular meetings. The regents and their attorney have been polite in their responses to Common Cause but have done nearly nothing to improve openness in their conduct of business.
It seems that university leaders just do not get it. As Heath has reminded numerous times, NMSU is a public university, and its actions are fully subject to public scrutiny. Ideally, the university would be forthcoming and open about the manner in which it conducts business, and provide, to anyone interested, whatever information is sought about policies, financial decisions and related matters.
In withholding information, holding lengthy secret sessions and not providing ample opportunity for public input, NMSU is sending a negative message to the public. I suspect that the regents and administration may well believe they are acting in the best interest of the public in their decisions, but we cannot be certain of that so long as they continue these sorts of practices.
Perhaps the most important asset of any university is its reputation, earned by its academic and research achievements, its treatment of and success with students, the currency and energy of its faculty, its community involvement and even its athletic programs. When the regents and administration act in a manner that arouses suspicion, it only damages that reputation.
It would be a shame if the university leadership continues to behave in the manner described above. Doing so is a disservice to those directly connected (students, faculty, alumni) as well as the
Higher education reform is needed
Having said all that, I admit to not being surprised. I have 22 years of formal education, three college degrees and have been employed by three universities. Also, as a former legislator, I had contact with and examined the annual budgets of more than 25 institutions of higher education for six years. I’m no stranger to experiencing the dynamics and the political culture of the institutions we call “universities.”
I suspect that, in most respects, NMSU is similar to most schools. Some have more open policies of decision making, but the much bigger, overriding issue is that higher education in the
For a number of years, our societal focus has understandably been on our public schools. So, for the most part, higher education has gotten a free ride and escaped vigorous public scrutiny. In addition, the “alumni psychology” is at work – the perception graduates seem to have that their school can do no wrong. After all, they graduated, so it must be a great school!
The truth is that universities, as operating organizations, are disasters. They are structured in a hopelessly hierarchical manner, with seemingly endless layers of bureaucratic administration. Functions and programs are divided, pursuing their own department goals with little coordination. Personnel and faculty, though usually very capable people, are often not utilized effectively and are frequently frustrated by the hierarchically cumbersome system in which they must work.
The dysfunctional and uncoordinated internal operation of most institutions of higher education eats up funding like a glutton and always demands more. Internal decision making is consumed by a series of endless meetings at which little or nothing gets decided.
The interests and treatment of the students, who are the real customers of universities, are often last to be considered in nearly every respect: costs of tuition, books and fees; scheduling; facilities; technology; even such mundane matters as parking. Can you think of any other enterprise that forces its customers to use the worst parking (and require them to pay for it), while the employees get front-door spaces?
Ironically, when you take the pieces of any university apart, you find areas of true excellence. There are some really outstanding and inspiring teachers, and there are faculty whose research has genuinely contributed to the betterment of society and the human condition. But there must be a better way of structuring the overall system of governance of higher education (really a non-system).
Colleges and universities, I am convinced, could be significantly better with structural change. There are plenty of “best-practice” organizational models to imitate, particularly in the private sector. It’s interesting to note that colleges offer courses in organizational behavior and effective management and structural models but do not apply those teachings to their own systems.
For now, small victories may have to suffice
Am I optimistic that significant reform will occur? Not very. Alumni will continue to blindly promote their schools. Legislators, who could actively pursue genuine reform, won’t do so because they are lobbied hard to give schools more money and don’t see political support for reform. Students will continue to attend, to seek the piece of paper they need to get decent jobs. Citizens will continue to think of their schools mostly in terms of the win-loss records of the football and basketball teams.
Those of us who genuinely care about improving university operations and the quality of higher education will continue to speak out in hopes of seeing incremental change. We will have to be satisfied with small victories here and there.
Heath’s journalistic excursion into the appropriateness of foundation-university spending could well be one of those victories. It is a situation where the university has an opportunity to make positive improvements, if it can overcome its own inertia to resist changing the way it does business. Perhaps it is a small example of Pogo’s “insurmountable opportunities.”
Kadlecek has lived in