Pedro Verdugo
“In fact the ball is in Ana Mari’s court. She might be constrained by a powerful Board of Regents, and by a heavy UW bureaucracy. Nevertheless, many of us in the faculty are betting that she might be the President that once and for all resolves these shameful shortcomings of corporate governing largely enacted by imported itinerant administrators.”
There are several UW chronic problems which have become more obvious with increasing corporatization of our institution. Most pressing are three issues that need serious attention:
- The lack of control of the UW administration;
- The lack of an effective body to settle individual faculty/administration conflicts; and
- The absence of a body that can negotiate salary issues, including inflated the CEO-style wages assigned to some administrators, and low salaries of some of our faculty colleagues.
1.- Lack of control of the administration,
This relates to abuses like those we have seen committed by Provost Wise who declared herself immune to rules of the Faculty Code, or those produced by actions that can strongly affect the budget of our institution, like Emmert half billion mortgage to build a new football stadium. Both of these actions are flagrant examples of administrative abuse with no penalty for the responsible parties. It’s not clear if the Board of Regents can prevent and repair these manipulations.
Judging from the lack of effective action it seems that Reagents don’t have the power or just don’t care. In a public institution like the UW, reprehensible administrative misconduct with no consequences projects the notion that tax dollars are poorly managed. In Olympia, these actions certainly contribute to funding restriction. However, administrative misconduct is not an issue that can be effectively sanctioned by a Union. The obvious instance to prevent and sanction these serious problems is the Faculty Senate.
The Senate should be empowered to effectively participate in governing of the University.
2. An additional problem that requires attention is the unrestrained growth of the administration.
At the time I arrived to the UW the office of Prof. Beckman, the Provost, was a 12×12 foot room with two smaller rooms for his secretary and a budget officer. Today, the provost occupies a large suit, with several secretaries, and an additional twelve, yes twelve Vice Provosts! each with its own court of assistants and ad hoc bureaucrats. A somehow similar scenario operates with respect to the many Vice Presidents, Assistant Vice Presidents, associate Deans, and Vice Chairs etc.
Aggravating this scenario is that when faculty are appointed to any of these “Vice, associate, or assistant” bureaucratic position their salary increases substantially. The economic burden of a gigantic administration that nowadays fills the 30-plus story building of the UW administration is significant, and unless there is a body to control the growth and spread of this bureaucratic cancer, the University will end up using an even larger fraction of its budget to keep doubtfully useful administrators.
The entropy of the system must be evaluated and would help to know how many administration dollars are expended for every dollar paid to the faculty. Again, the Senate, not a Union, is the instance that should be given the power to effectively monitor, evaluate and participate in the control of bureaucratic growth, to sanction administrator’s misconduct, and assign reasonable administrators salaries.
3. – Colleagues that have not personally suffered administrative abuses most likely don’t realize the magnitude of the problem.
Many faculty had suddenly awaken to realize that unless they expend sizable amount of money to pay attorney’s fees their career can be seriously endangered, while the abuser is provided with free legal defense, often paid by overhead dollars that the faculty brings in! At present, most faculty/administration conflicts are seldom equitably settled.
This is an issue that perhaps a Union might be able to tackle. However, again, if the Senate had real power to mediate, evaluate, and take corrective action, it is likely that conflicts would decrease or disappear; and that the cost for the faculty and the institution would be minimized. As is now, it my own experience that, regardless of their color or rank, the faculty can be openly discriminated with virtually no consequences for the administration.
3. – The absence of a body that can negotiate faculty salary issues is the territory where Unions are at their best.
Before we give away faculty representation to negotiate, we should certainly explore the alternatives that either AAUP or the Faculty Senate be given the job, the legal power, and support to represent and effectively negotiate faculty salaries.
As pointed earlier, this power should extend to have jurisdiction on out-of-control administrators salaries.
Only after efforts to amend the legal constrains that prevent the Senate to have a real share in the governing of our institution, the faculty may seriously consider giving away our representation to an external Union.
In fact the ball is in Ana Mari’s court. She might be constrained by a powerful Board of Regents, and by a heavy UW bureaucracy. Nevertheless, many of us in the faculty are betting that she might be the President that once and for all resolves these shameful shortcomings of corporate governing largely enacted by imported itinerant administrators.
Pedro