CCOET Primary Team Meeting Notes, Dec. 2, 2015

Chancellor’s Campus Organization & Effectiveness Team (CCOET)

Primary Team Meeting
December 2, 2015, 3-5 p.m.,
Regents Room

The co-chairs started the meeting by introducing the Draft Interim Report. They announced that this document’s purpose is to lay out some ideas and explore the pros and cons of each and decide which ones to give to the Chancellor to review. They also approved the minutes from the previous meeting and accepted the statement from the AAUP into the record as useful to inform the process.

They generally discussed the Draft Interim Report. (1) Position Control would be used to shape the campus. If we brought together all positions plus fringes for limited period for 2-3 years, the people who retire or leave positions would bring significant funds to the university. Its downside is not strategic and not fair. That is why the subgroups needs to take a look at it. These are all just our best guesses but from last year, the sum was $10 million but it’s still not strategic, how do we accept the implications of this but develop processes to use it strategically? (2) Administrative Organization and Balance requires serious attention. We can look at the Goldberg study to compare our peers. (3) Campus Reorganization is the most creative. There have been good discussions going on between units. It does not save a vast amount of money, but there are some configurations that could be very powerful for the campus. This could really strengthen our mission.

And then we have the parking lot of ideas that are really good suggestions coming from across campus. This is just the start of the list.

Again, this document was our best ideas that are worthy of discussion. They may not be what we give to the Chancellor, but it is our best shot to start.

The primary team split into groups for about 45 minutes each to discuss one of the 3 ideas. Their duties included discussing what are the consequences, time, resistance, etc. to the idea and then report back to the team to see what we need to know. They needed to come up with a list of questions to give the support team to figure out.

Before they started, they discussed something that wasn’t on the Draft Interim Report, Revenue Enhancement. (Recommendation 1) There are a lot of things that can generate funds here. There are a lot of organizations that hold conventions in Milwaukee that start Friday and go through Sunday. We have this tremendous facility that we could make available to them for a fee. It was requested that the support team look into where we could seek enhanced revenue. We have tremendous concert facilities that are not in use all the time, perhaps with a minimum investment we could book those for a fee to generate revenue. (Response 1) Those recommendations will be important too. We need to see how we can increase a student’s education with the enhanced revenue from renting out our space. We need to know how to go about these things, whether they are worth doing, what we need, etc. After this discussion, the group broke out into small groups to discuss.

The groups came back to present their findings:

(1) Position control

We first discussed what do we mean by this? It is not just hiring freeze, but the idea that when positions are vacated, they will roll up to some higher level for control/consideration and up to appropriate Vice Chancellor. We also talked about the idea of requiring justification when there is a need to recruit for a position. In our discussion, we came up with four things for the support team to address.

  • What is status on the motion we sent about position control from this group and how will it move forward?
    1. Will we lose transparency about the process to be followed in the interest of retention?
    2. Can we add to that motion something about making counter offers on the final decision?
  • How will positions that are critical hires over the next 2-3 years be dealt with?
  • Provide models of long term position control specifically looking at how position control can be used for cost containment and used to grow areas of excellence in teaching, research, admin, etc.
  • How do we integrate position control into resource allocation into this campus? Not living beyond your means and figuring out strategies for generating revenue if you are needing additional resources.

(2) Administrative Organization and Balance

It is clear from the outset that this is not a primarily budget driven exercise, but a mean by which we can position ourselves to be better and more consistent with our mission and in a position to help university to take off in 2020 and beyond. These are hard questions. Where do we want to be as a university and how can we build the administrative structure to support that? We need an administration that operates as efficiently as possible. The symbolism is that we need to send message internally/externally that Chapman Hall is very serious about taking the goals very seriously. We looked into the idea that our administrative structure be based by our mission. To begin, we need some version of (1) FAA to handle things, then 2) research: “put money where mouth is”, then (3) Academic Affairs where all of student success would be housed under one roof so everything is consistent and finally (4) Advancement and Community Engagement. This is a plan very similar to UW-Madison. The objectives as we move forward are to try to understand whether or not a reorganization of administration of this kind is desirable and what are the constraints under which we would operate.

The support team needs to look at what an org chart would look like for this mission driven administrative structure. Look at accountability measures. There are some budget savings here, but this is really looking longer term at what will support institution to become great as we move to 2020 and beyond. CCOET is going to discuss this idea with the shared services group as well to see where they are in their process.

(3) Campus Reorganization

There is a real need to reorganize in some fashion. This group discussed two different models.

  • Each current unit stays as is but gets put in several clusters. The unit still has a dean/director in charge of them they just share services between them.
  • Move departments around as they choose to. This would be best if the reorganization would be done at the grass roots level. People discussing what they would like better (who would work where). We could put out a couple of different models, this is what you could do, these are discussions that you could be having, if you are not involved in this already, maybe you should start talking about these suggestions.

The questions that were discussed for the support team were:

  • With the clusters approach, what is appropriate size of personnel in the different areas? Example, would the appropriate size be 4 schools in 1 cluster and 1 person from each school doing the purchasing? What would be the appropriate number of people doing that task, what is the appropriate level of advising in that type of situation, is it even possible for them to advise students not in their area of expertise, what about the size of the marketing team of each cluster, etc.?
  • Graduate school: What happens if it disappears? We wouldn’t be eliminating graduate programs just the school. What services would have to be picked up by the schools and colleges? What are the benefits of having a graduate school do we have, what savings would we have if we got rid of it?
  • If we restructure the schools and colleges, if two schools discussed and wanted to be merged, what are processes needed to be taken for this to be done? What are the policies on this campus?
  • Look at other universities where they combined units (preferably not Arizona State), what impact has this had on faculty departures and revenue enhancement, was it ultimately effective or was it a bad idea?
  • If we wanted to go with the more grassroots approach, come up with ideas on how this could be fostered and promoted and along those lines, conduct a survey of faculty and staff asking for ideas for program coordination, we might get more support then.
  • What is the size of a viable unit at the program level or college level or even school level in terms of number of students and number of faculty? If we have a program of two faculty members with three students, is that a viable program to be kept or should it be looked at to combine with something else?

We are seeing a lot of ideas for reorganization right now, if we could bring them all together on our website to see if it sparks any additional ideas from our colleagues that would be a good idea. (Question 2) Is it possible that Jerry’s budget team could get some idea of what the savings would be for the possible scenarios that will be suggested? There is a need for really detailed numbers for some of the proposed ideas otherwise we are talking totally in abstraction. Without dollars, discussion is too unguided. (Response 2) Right and maybe we can choose a couple of options and get a couple of numbers on those options. I don’t see this being something with major cost savings, but it is a wonderful opportunity to see how we can be better as a university after this crisis. We need to know is it worth it in terms of money? Yes we save money, but more importantly can this be something that is a creative idea and goes to better our mission?

There was no further discussion and the meeting ended.

Share