Faculty Comments in Response to the

Survey on Academic Reorganization

The numbers which precede each set of comments indicate the order in which the author ranked the five model options.

The five options appeared on the survey as follows:

Option Ranking

No Change Option _____

Model 1: Minor Repair Model _____

Model 2: College of Arts and Sciences Model _____

Model 3: Schools Model _____

Model 4: Single College Model _____

Three prompts were presented for people to respond to. The prompts appeared on the survey as follows:

2.1. Please discuss the aspects of your 1^st choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

2.2. Please discuss the aspects of your 5^th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

2.3. Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

Written comments appear in their entirety, with surveys separated by a dashed line.

Comments from Staff surveys have also been consolidated. They appear in a separate document.

Analyses of the ranking data appear in a separate report. Additionally, summaries of written comments related to each model will be made.

ABCABC

2.1. Please discuss the aspects of your 1st choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

My first choice is the "No Change Option".

• It is clear that the two biggest problems facing Truman are falling enrollment and decreased revenue. Some of the revenue loss is due to falling enrollment, but it is also the result of decreases in state funding. Neither of these problems is due to our administrative structure, nor can they be addressed by restructuring. Resources that are directed towards restructuring are resources that could be better utilized trying to solve our enrollment and revenue problems. (Billboards with Ashley Rufus’ picture on them are not going to solve our enrollment problems.) I do applaud the president for initiating the capital campaign and wish she would show leadership by getting more of the campus directly involved in both the capital campaign and student recruitment. Most of us (younger faculty) are eager to help in these two areas as part of our service to the institution.

• Any of the four models proposed would add to administrative costs. Truman has a reputation for having a lean administrative structure that works. Any of these four models would move us away from that.

• The current structure has proven itself to be robust. There have been several changes in Truman’s mission and relation to the statewide system of higher education carried out under the current structure and we are now a premier public liberal arts university: that did not happen by accident. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone would use the fact that this structure has been in place since the early 1900’s as sufficient reason for changing it. One might as well argue that the United States trash its constitution simply because it is a 219 year old document written when we were a small collection of agrarian states predating the industrial revolution.

• There is nothing in the current structure that prevents us from addressing the administrative problems of the deans. I’ve seen institutions where all course scheduling, enrollment, and budgetary details are handled by an administrative assistant who has held that position long enough to learn the job and do it well. We can do the same thing here. It is to our advantage that faculty are mostly free from the administrative burdens of a department head. Our strength and reputation follow in large part from our dedication to teaching and scholarship.

2.2. Please discuss the aspects of your 5th choice that led you to rank it last among the five options.

My fifth choice is Model 4: Single College Model.

• Contrary to assertions made by the AHCAR members at the public forum I attended, this model will not break down disciplinary barriers. People will tend to identify with their department and act in its interests rather than the larger interests of the institution because that is the administrative unit they will have to answer to directly.

• I hesitate to call JINS courses true interdisciplinary courses, but even allowing for that

broad definition of interdisciplinarity, the problem with offering enough JINS courses is a

problem of FTE’s and not structure. This will be exacerbated in the smaller administrative units of Model 4.

• In this model we are likely to see junior faculty adjudicating on the promotion of senior faculty, a situation that will be poisonous with regard to faculty morale and collegiality.

• This will be an administrative nightmare. Imagine having 30+ department heads scheduling classes, competing for classrooms and timeslots. Imagine 30+ policies for class limit overrides, incompletes, use of technology, and then changing that every few years when a new department head is appointed.

• This will fragment the faculty and give the president too much power in faculty venues such as governance and curriculum.

• This will be incompatible with a number of possible outcomes of curricular restructuring.

If the commission were to recommend something similar to a Great Books program, it could be spread across several departments. How will that administered and how will the affected departments be compensated?

• With all respect to my colleagues, most of us would make lousy department heads. How does the president intend to fill these positions? What is to prevent her from politicizing the appointment process?

2.3. Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

• When I came on board, it was drilled into me that assessment is one of Truman’s core institutional values. It was pointed out that AHCAR chose not to collect any assessment data to support its recommendations. How am I as a faculty member to interpret that? That assessment applies only to faculty, but not to the administration?

• Why couldn’t we have an anonymous Blackboard site for discussing restructuring? Many of us are afraid to speak out on this issue because of the potential impact on our careers. The entire process - from the manner in which the committee was appointed to the lack of an anonymous discussion board - seems designed to limit or distort faculty input.

------------------------------

2.1 Aspects of Model 2: College of Arts and Sciences model.

This model has the following benefits.

- Faculty empowerment.

- Most closely aligned with the university mission.

- A dean charged with fostering and facilitating interdisciplinarity.

- Improved interdisciplinary communication.

I am most pleased by the creation of department chairs, which I believe will result in improved discipline functioning. My current discipline is broken and this reorganization will provide an opportunity to fix it. Having departmental chairs with the proposed responsibilities, while also remaining active members of the faculty, is a very good model.

2.2 Aspects of the No Change Option.

Mostly, this model is the mirror image of the benefits listed above. Truman is not the same institution that it was 40 or even ten years ago. The current autonomous divisional structure creates huge barriers to the interdisciplinarity that is essential to a liberal arts university. We need a reorganized, flattened structure with better communication, and we need leadership in each discipline that is stronger and more structured than the loose decision-by-committee that exists now.

2.3 Additional aspects.

A structural change presents challenges and opportunities. It is a chance to engage in a vigorous renewal, an energizing revitalization. We had such a revitalization under Dr. McClain when we adopted the liberal arts mission, but the energy has long since drained away as we became good but then sat on our laurels. We need a new challenge. Let’s go for it!

------------------------

2.1 No one can dispute that the present structure has served this institution remarkably well. It provided the perfect combination of stability and responsiveness during the McClain era, when the institution famously redefined itself overnight. After McClain’s resignation, the strong, steadying influence of the Division Heads/Deans unquestionably ensured twenty years of continued progress, even during the tumultuous years of the Warren administration, when institutional resources were being squandered on internal strife, much as they are now. These are strengths of the present structure. Are there weaknesses? Put differently, why are we considering reorganization at all? What faults in the present structure have been identified and acknowledged by a majority that would motivate such a costly, stressful, and disruptive endeavor? The answers given by the restructuring committee have been embarrassing in their irrelevance and disingenuousness: (1) We need to bring uniformity to processes such as yellow card requests and class overrides; (2) The present structure has been in place since the Normal School days; (3) It is just too hard to do interdisciplinary work; (4) My personal favorite, the claim that we need to "empower" the faculty. How, precisely, is one to make the logical leap across the chasm that separates optimizing yellow card requests from a need to restructure the entire university? We have no data to support the need for change. Given no legitimate reasons to challenge the present structure, a demonstrably functional system that has proven its worth through the tests of many years of institutional growth and change, I prefer to stay with what is clearly working quite well. The colloquial expression, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" sounds glib and yet appropriate in this context. Another appropriate phrase here may be, "Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater" because any necessary changes to improve the administration, such as hiring an assistant in the bigger divisions, could be accomplished quite easily within the current structure without inflicting discipline chairs on all of us.

2.2 I understand the relational scale being used, but even so, I must admit feeling constrained by it since my desire was to produce rankings 1, 4, 5, 5, 5. My comments are just as relevant for Models 2 and 3 as they are for Model 4, my last choice. We have been asked to pass judgment on four far-reaching new proposals for an administrative structure, an entity that is too complex for any dozen administrators to comprehend fully and one that is also strongly determinative of the quality of our day-to-day professional lives. We have been asked to make this judgment independent of fiscal considerations, ignoring nearly all crucial details of implementation, staffing, secretarial support, etc. We are also given no assessment data of any form that would indicate how these models will improve the institution in any way, or, for that matter, why they will not introduce new problems far more pernicious than any that currently exist. You ask me what aspects led to ranking Model 4 last. My incredulous response would be to ask you, in return, how anyone could offer rational reasons to support any of these models for change under these absurd conditions. One specific aspect shared by all of the proposed models for change is the introduction of discipline chairs. While the need for a convener is quite clear in some disciplines, it is quite unnecessary in others and would simply add another layer of bureaucracy.

2.3 I have many things that I would like to say here, but I understand that the committee may have several hundred surveys to read, so I will offer only a few points.

We must first ask: What is the most basic functional purpose of academic administration? Is it to provide the faculty with the optimal conditions for the achievement of the educational mission, or is it primarily to advance the agenda of the president? Presidents come and presidents go while the institution endures. I flatly reject the premise that this or any other president can foist a new structure on the faculty simply to further his or her own short-term agenda. The traditional exception to this statement occurs when an institution is in crisis and a Board brings in an ambitious outsider to effect immediate and drastic change. This situation was not the case with President Dixon’s hiring. Sadly, many of us will have to live with the unintended consequences of this ill-conceived restructuring long after this president has retired.

Of those who contend that one purpose of restructuring is to "empower" the faculty, we must ask a self-referential question: Does the sphere of that empowerment extend far enough to include meaningful participation in the selection of an academic structure? If so, then what if the faculty simply does not want a new structure?

In the forum, co-chair Tigner stated that time constraints prevented the committee from performing a search for objective evidence, both in support of the proposed models and in support of claims that there are problems with the present structure. The idea that we should make a recommendation without gathering and evaluating appropriate data is offensive. By this decision, those of us not on the committee are essentially reduced to listening to opinions and arguments that are unsupported by data. And the forum I attended showed that there is no consensus of opinion, even within the committee. In this circumstance, whose opinions are we to value? At the risk of being inflammatory, I must observe that the majority of the arguments for strong structural change are coming from colleagues whose opinions I value the least. Arguments for caution and a more assessment-driven approach to restructuring are coming primarily from those colleagues whom I have come to recognize over the years as instrumental in bringing this institution to national prominence. If I must limit myself to evaluating opinions, then I prefer to hear from colleagues of proven worth and commitment to the university.

-----------------------

2.1 We don’t need to change the administrative structure. We need to change a couple of incompetent Deans.

----------------------

2.1 The President has not persuaded me of the need for change and I wonder, lacking other compelling explanations, if she has self-serving motives. The process has felt seriously manipulated form the outset, when Dixon pushed restructuring at forums, repeatedly cutting discussions short that didn’t serve her purposes.

-------------------------

2.1 This model (Single College Model) places both responsibility and authority more in the hands of faculty (a good thing). The Dean’s job shifts to functional authority/ responsibility for cross disciplinary needs (a good thing). The locus of authority and responsibility is more clear. Clarity may allow us to be more effective.

2.2 The No Change Model does not provide a clear understanding of either authority or responsibility (no accountability).

-------------------------

2.1 Appropriate levels of administration.

Compensation of "department chairs" commensurate with responsibilities.

Frees up deans from day to day decisions and moves these to discipline level.

"Mandates" Deans to move to loftier goals such as money/funding issues.

2.2 Too chaotic.

Not enough organization with a big deficit in administration

Deans have too much varied responsibilities with no chance of performing any of

them well.

Too much expected of chairs without compensation.

2.3 Change is good but chaos isn’t! We need upper level administration to set the tone and direction as a buffer to turf building. Too much to too few, responsibility wise, will only lead to turf wars!

---------------------------

We have arrived at excellence using this model – we claim to embrace diversity, we are different from the crowd.

I think it leads to the most turf war.

Faculty evaluation appears to be one of the driving forces for some kind of change. Faculty development can occur through total quality management strategies by convening random groups of 4-8 in small groups across divisions. Another force seems to be problem solving—once again assigned individuals can go forth, collect complaints, direct discussions, disseminate possible solutions – We don’t need more administration to do either.

---------------------------

I have not been convinced that our system is not working. Perhaps I have not asked the right questions or attended the right meetings but Truman seems to be o.k. compared to other schools. Nevertheless, I understand that change is necessary to adapt to a changing environment. The level of detail in the proposals have made it difficult for me to assess what impact, if any, these will have on the quality of education we give.

The change seems too radical. If decentralized form of administration is needed then I think we can better assess this while trying out on intermediate form of decentralized structure.

As always, the detail is the element that is most difficult to understand and carry out. For example, what will be the status of staff at larger divisions? Will a more decentralized form of governance lead to territorial disputes over shared equipment, resources and funds. One large inefficient country is not always worse than many quibbling ones.

-----------------------------

Appears to give depts.. more authority.

Appears more chaotic; ex. 1 idea has to go through 3 deans.

Need to address accountability, workload equity, and morale issues.

-------------------------------

2.1

1) Lean administratively – more direct access to top.

2) Course reduction time for administrative duties within program.

2.2

1) Discrepancies between divisions.

2) Unequal representation at administrative level.

I have a concern that small programs will be expected to measure up to larger

programs when it comes to FTE.

I am also concerned that program directors will not actualize release time in small programs due to lack of faculty to cover responsibilities.

I am also concerned that program chairs will not be available in smaller programs because no one wants the extra responsibilities.

----------------------------------

2.1

-eliminates some administration

-is similar to what HPP is doing successfully now

2.2 Uneven

2.3 FTE as it relates to small programs if there isn’t a division FTE as an added measure.

--------------------------------

2.1 This scenario is the least disruptive to the organization we currently have. Rather than focus on a complete overhaul, we should consider minor repairs that can remedy some of the problems.

2.2 This model seems to recreate the wheel. It is very confusing and seems to be the

most radical. I’m not sure that it would solve any problems that have been identified.

2.3 The financial costs of the models have not been considered. This would affect the

decision of which model to select.

---------------------------------

In the wisdom of 24 years of service under the current structure, I remain baffled at why some of my younger colleagues (including some who were in 2^nd grade when I began teaching at NMSU) are so confident that our historic, 140-year-old college is tetering on the brink of collapse if we do not re-organize into one of the proposed draconian flow charts. There is always an opportunity to improvement…one "Minor Repair" at a time.

It is both incomprehensible and seemingly un-American. The schematic outline looks like the step lessons for the "Marcarena" or the "Texas Two-Step." Where is the professor? Where is the student? It emerges as a gluttony of administrators!

-----------------------------------

It strikes me as the right balance of full-time administrators to faculty.

It looks like chaos waiting to happen – a wide open competition for resources and influence.

It don’t see value in additional layers of administration.

----------------------------------

2.1 Truman has outstanding administrative organization. It only needs additional staffing to support over extended academic deans.

2.2 I doubt the effective implementation of the Single College Model. Furthermore, the communication between disciplines and administration would be cumbersome. Finally, I do not believe the proposed organizational structure would "encourage and simply cross-discipline work" as described in the Index under "Goals for New Structure."

--------------------------------

2.1 I don’t believe there is anything so terribly wrong with Truman that it needs to be "fixed." We have a quality institution and a great reputation. There is no need for change.

2.2 Such a drastic chance will invariably cause upheaval and chaos, neither of which is conducive to our primary goal as an institution.

---------------------------------

2.1 The deans clearly need help, but much of our structure functions well. I don’t want the chairs to have to take on significant responsibility and need released time.

2.2 We need some change, but not radical change. We can’t afford to pay and teach for dozens of chairs.

2.3 The President should make those changes that harmonize with the new demands of her position and shift some of the burden to deans and VP’s.

---------------------------------

2.1 This model gives coherent units with common interests and facilitates interactions among the departments within each school. I do think the schools of liberal arts and science will require assistant deans though. The design is simple and clear and preserves some of what we like about our divisions.

2.2 I don’t think a single college model will work at a college this size. I also don’t think the proposal is articulated well enough for us to imagine what such a system would be like—since the groupings within the single college could be disciplines we have now or other types of units.

---------------------------------

2.1 We absolutely do not need a more bureaucratic hierarchical system. The current, "flat" system has worked very well, although it’s clear that minor adjustments are necessary. Major change is risky, and should be effected slowly.

2.2 Clearly, duties of conveners and vice-deans (if they exist) are haphazard and unsystematic across disciplines. In the interest of fairness, workloads need to be equalized.

----------------------------------

2.1 Eliminates middle layer. More direct contact between departments and administration. Compensates the program director.

2.2 To equal division loads. Currently too uneven.

2.3 None at this time.

---------------------------------

2.1 We will have a structure that has served us well, and I cannot see that any of the others will enhance interdisciplinarity – in fact, I think they will impede it.

2.2 The division between traditional liberal arts and the pre-professional programs compromises our students’ education now. This makes a ditch into a moat.

2.3 The committee has done its work credibly. But the initiative itself has been destructive of morale.

--------------------------------

2.1 Would seem to promote closer interaction within what are now quite separate units (divisions). The move to align structure with the Liberal Arts mission makes a lot of sense (at least in theory).

2.2 Reinforces qualitative distinction between Arts and Sciences. Initiatives looks like an ad hoc miscellany.

2.3 I’m not against the Single College Model in principle, but its diagram unfortunately interferes with its message. It need more reflection before I could be comfortable with it.

---------------------------------

2.1 I chose the "Minor Repair Model" because I believe that the structure of our university is part of our ethos, which is part of our success. There are indeed problems with some divisions, and these need to be addressed. They could be addressed with modifications that may go beyond what is proposed in the Model.

2.2 Several years ago, we had Harvard professor of education, Thomas Angelo, as a guest speaker. He stated in no uncertain terms that we are a model for other liberal arts institutions. If that is the case, why on earth do we want to restructure to look like other liberal arts institutions?

2.3 The problems we are facing have to do with funding. When we were well funded, we acted like we were a top-ranked liberal arts institution (which we are). Now that funding has been drastically cut, we act like we somehow lost our status. There are many reasons why we became a top-ranked university, and our structure plays a part.

-------------------------------------

2.1 Promise of efficiency and budgeting considerations.

2.2 Does not offer any improvement.

-------------------------------------

1 (as modified on Blackboard)

2.1 I like Mary’s idea.

2.3 Please see the excellent suggestion made by Mary Shapiro on "The Schools Model" on Blackboard – even Rob agrees it would make a workable hybrid.

-------------------------------------

2.1 The most important consideration I have for choosing this model is the fact that Department Chairs will have real power (budgetary, curriculum, etc.) which is something I think Truman sorely needs. Also, its structure is immediately comprehensible and clear to both the Truman community and to outsiders.

2.2 I am in strong favor of making organizational changes to move our university forward. The "no change" and "minor change" models do nothing to address the problems holding Truman back, which the committee clearly identified.

2.3 I am intrigued by the "single college" model (my choice #2) and I would not be opposed to implementing this model. It would certainly require the most effort on the part of faculty and administrators, and for everyone to approach it with open minds, something that I suspect would not happen.

---------------------------------------

2.3 I believe there are many more important issues concerning the university than this. I also believe in the days of severe budget issues one can’t help but look at financial concerns as a major deciding factor. Spending more $ on upper mgmt when retiring professors aren’t replaced is not in the best interest of the university/students. What is our charge as instructors/professors/teachers?? Getting the students the best education… Do we always keep this in mind or are our own interests/agendas rule our decision making.

-----------------------------------------

2.1 Feel a change is in order however not certain that a complete "overhaul" is necessary.

2.2 As stated in 2.1.

--------------------------------------

2.2 Too divisive. Drain on resources.

2.3 Why fix what is not broken? We are turning out students who are in high demand in the market place, and who do well in graduate and professional schools!

--------------------------------------

2.1 More streamlined administration than Model 2, while still having more structure than Model 4. Might allow for more cross-disciplinarity within Liberal Arts. Devolves more authority to departments.

2.2 "No Change" doesn’t address any of the issues!

2.3 Thanks for all the hard work.

-----------------------------------------

2.1 I’m not quite happy with the divisions proposed (I’d suggest a "Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences" next to the Dena of Professional Program), but this model provides for more power and responsibility at the faculty level without putting everybody (including the professional programs, with their very distinct purposes) under one umbrella.

2.2 I don’t see the point in this plan. Most or all of the suggested activities could surely be handled by an upgrading of the secretarial staff (combination of more and more qualified secretaries). I wouldn’t call getting more secretaries a reorganization; getting an overpaid "Assistant Dean" to take care of secretarial duties would be poor use of university’s funds.

2.3 I think it’s important to devolve many curricular decisions to the discipline level (all too often, division meetings simply rubber-stamp decisions made at the discipline level previously – what’s the point?), then to be submitted to UGC or Faculty Senate. I also consider it appropriate to have tenure and promotion decisions to be handled at discipline level, as at most universities (as suggested for all the models if I understand the "departmental chairs minimal standards" correctly).

-----------------------------------------

2.1 Works well – less bureaucratic, efficient.

2.2 Don’t think this model can work well; if it’s this one. Why not just keep the original structure.

-------------------------------------------

2.1 Model 1 improves leadership without significant financial cost of less of course coverage.

2.2

1) Loss of course coverage – our discipline cannot hire qualified part-time faculty.

2) Loss of research supervision – part-time faculty are unlikely to mentor research teams.

3) Excessive cost for hypothetical gains.

4) Major faculty morale cost – if imposed against faculty survey results, this could lead to a no confidence vote against the president.

2.2 The reorganization process has been flawed from its inception by circumventing the Deans and VPAA in the creation of the initial vague models. President Dixon has demonstrated through this process that she has a poor grasp of leadership. She has diverted campus resources from our #1 problem which is enrollment/retention and lost credibility by initially claiming cost savings. Then claiming that reorganization would be revenue-neutral, and then retreating to a claim that even if it costs over $100,000, reorganization would be worth it. While I believe she is well-intended, I do not trust her grasp or ability to plan.

--------------------------------------

2.1 It is has not obviously malfunctioned, don’t initiate complex maintenance.

2.2 Looks disorganized – the current resembles a wiring diagram from an Edsel.

2.3 What are the financial costs? Have they been considered?

----------------------------------------

2.2 It is not well enough defined.

-------------------------------------

2.1 Every problem that I heard mentioned by the committee at the public discussions, was a problem of personnel; NOT a problem of structure. Fill the present structure with the right people and it will work. But it takes strength to replace people.

2.2 For the present funding, I really don’t think we can afford this model – with great addition of "administrators and necessary support."

2.3 Convey that if the President wants to return to the 16:1 ratio for faculty, it would help if the administration would return to a closer percentage that it was when we were previously at the 16:1 ratio.

---------------------------------------------

This is like asking which candy you like without telling if you can afford it.

2.1 We know the cost here.

2.2 Cannot be decided without knowing cost associated with each choice, and where the additional money and resources will come from, especially when revenue is fixed.

2.3 Study that first.

-------------------------------------------

2.1 Arts and Humanities are not organized in a school separate from math and sciences. The plan provides for chairs with budget and review authority. Each "area" has a division-head-like person, which provides some continuity with the current structure.

2.2 Lacks a hierarchy that I think this school needs right now. Too many chairs will be involved in decision making for the university.

2.3 I’m glad we’re doing this (what ever results). I thank the committee for their work. I thank the President for doing this quickly. Too many people on this campus are viciously fighting to defend a status quo that benefited them and is holding the majority of the campus back. Many of these people have done great things for the University, and they invested much of themselves in this institution, and for that I thank them. But I ask them to please let the University adapt, evolve.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 There is no evidence that a change is necessary and definitely none that any of the other options are any better than what we have. No cost analysis has been done on any of the other choices. I am not opposed to change, but I need concrete justification for what those changes will do, both in cost, faculty numbers, course-load, etc. That is not just "implementation", that is part of change.

2.2 That sounded like absolute chaos to me. Basically, no structure.

2.3 Make proposals based on fact. How do these models work other places? What will it cost to change? What will that change do to _____?

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 Associate Deans do some of the work that would otherwise have to be done by Department Chairs. Associate Deans lead groups that are of a reasonable size.

2.2 We need more balance among the workload expected of conveners. Opportunity for department level leadership is important.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 This model seems most reasonable.

2.2 It is clear to me that the current system has a lot of problems. I hope and believe a change and the effort of change will at least will improve the situation.

2.3 I don’t know why some of the people are afraid of the change. Some strong opinionated colleagues tend to misrepresent the whole faculty and sometimes being manipulative. As a "young" faculty, I often feel some older faculty don’t have a respect to the other opinion (often from younger faculty).

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 I think it makes structures at a good size. The LAS college would’ve been too big. However, any change is good.

2.2 The current system is not working.

2.3 It’s too bad that a few loud people dominated the open forums. Seems that most young faculty didn’t bother to attend, and I can see why.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 I like this model because it helps the larger divisions. I doubt that it is affordable.

2.2 I felt that the description of the schools model was too vague for the model to merit any serious consideration.

2.3 I like the idea, suggested on Blackboard, of a schools model with Associate Deans. However, research expectations in experimental sciences are different from those in theoretical mathematics (and should be so). While I would like to see more cooperation and collaboration between the current MTCS and Science divisions, I feel it is important that any model that unites these divisions also continues to respect their differences.

------------------------------------------------

2.1 I feel that the current structure works pretty well in my division. However, I recognize that faculty in other divisions do not necessarily feel the same way. My hope is that we can restructure in such a way as to address some of the problems that exist in other divisions without sacrificing what does work in my own. I think it makes sense to require all disciplines to have some sort of convener/leader/chair. However, I have great concern about what might happen if we put too much responsibility on such a person without granting sufficient time and secretarial support. I prefer to stick with the minimal standards and allow disciplines that need to expand the role for accreditation, etc. to do so while providing proper support for those chairs.

2.2 I believe the Single College Model is too radical of a change from our current structure. There are too many questions about how things would work in this model. The time spent sorting these out would distract us from dealing with pressing issues such as curricular reform and transitioning to the new target faculty-to-student ratios.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 The model 2 choice offers the best solution for adjustment to a LA approach. My problems with the other choices is that the convener position requires "too much" for "not enough." The present system uses provosts as deans.

2.2 The present system has too much variation between divisions. The deans are not traditional deans but multi-department heads. The present system promotes "cronyism" exponentially.

2.3 Combine some aspects of these models ex. Dean of faulty with the Arts and Sciences model.

---------------------------------------------

2.1 I’m concerned that we maintain a way for the particular needs of specific departments to be met without being combined into such a large school of college. The needs of the music department, for instance, are specific to music and we need to keep our ability to communicate with a Dean that is knowledgeable and understanding of the music department’s needs and goals.

2.2 Please keep in mind how the restructuring might have an effect on the music department’s accreditation by the National Association of Schools of Music.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Adequate representation is important and none of the changes in the other models do this as successfully.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 It’s flexible; it’s modern. It can only be implemented by a new cadre of modern-minded administrators. It would be the best guarantor of curriculum reform and flexibility.

2.2 I have been very disappointed with the administrative structure since I arrived in Kirksville 16 years ago. The inequalities and corruption seemed evident then; they have only gotten worse under the current structure and Magruder appointed administrators. Only older faculty (and perhaps a fewer newer ones in selected divisions), who have enjoyed privileges under the corrupt regime, can support our creaking divisional system. Sweep it away!

2.3 The president needs to move quickly! She is already 2-3 years late doing this, in my opinion. She needs to make sure that the current VPAA will be removed and will have no influence on filling any of the new administrative positions; or lese the new scheme will be doomed as well.

----------------------------------------

My actual preference is for no change unless thorough analysis suggests otherwise. I believe there needs to be a complete cost benefits analysis done before any restructuring model is adopted. Further, the question of how students and faculty would benefit from any restructuring should be thoroughly analyzed before a presently effective organization is disrupted by structural change.

------------------------------------------

2.1 Aligns well with the mission of the university, brings the arts and sciences under common leadership to truly promote interdisciplinary studies while allowing through the Associate Dean positions for the traditional "divisions" to remain their identity. Dean of Arts and Science would be available for external focus so important to the promotion of the University with generating funds and student recruitment, retention and placement.

2.2 In my opinion, this is a recipe for disaster. This model is chaotic and does not promote the welfare of students. Is it more effective and efficient to work in a small group or a large group to achieve a goal? I think most of us feel most effective and efficient in a small group setting, getting input as needed from a larger community. Rather than having our primary focus on students, I think this model would put the primary focus of too many of us on governance and negotiation between the "we the people".

-----------------------------------------

2.1 Either the No Change Model or the Minor Repair Model is acceptable. In either, something should be done to assist the largest divisions with their administrative functions.

• The current structure has served the university well through a number of periods of change, including two changes of mission. It has been stable yet flexible enough to meet changing conditions—indeed divisions have been discontinued, merged, or dramatically changed as circumstances demanded.

• It has allowed for divisions to have assistant or associate deans when there was a need for them.

• The current structure has allowed curriculum revision.

• The current structure has supported interdisciplinary study in numerous ways.

• There is no evident systemic problem with the current structure that demands it be demolished nor is there any that appears to be solved by the proposed models that involve major restructuring.

2.1 The Single College Model presents the most radical change to the academic administrative structure.

• The Single College Model appears likely to increase rather than diminish the tendency to develop disciplinary "silos".

• Without substantial additional expenditures, the Single College Model will not "fit" the physical plant as we have been renovating it for the last dozen years.

• The Single College Model will totally disrupt the faculty governance system.

• There are no convincing arguments that the Single College Model will promote interdisciplinary course offerings or cooperation among faculty, only assertions and hopes that it will do so.

• Since no cost figures have been made available for any model, it is not evident that the Single College Model will reduce administrative costs as its proponents claim.

• The Single College Model does not define the lines of responsibility. To whom would "department chairs" report? The diagram suggests it ‘would be the triumvirate of "functional deans". Woe to the department chair who must answer to three deans.

2.2 Additional Comments

• According to a recent Index article, President Dixon affirms that the proposed changes will have little if any effect on the daily lives of students. That is a very strong argument against spending the time, energy, and (potentially) money to put in place an entirely new structure to address problems that could be solved with far lesser investments of these resources.

• All the attention to this issue is diverting our attention from our primary mission and from what appears to be a developing crisis in student recruitment. We may well find that we’ve been "fiddling while Rome bums."

• We should not change our administrative structure in order to "look like other universities."

---------------------------------------------

2.1 I chose the No Change Option because I have not yet heard any good reason for reorganizing. If some divisions are too large for a dean to manage, we can appoint associate deans in those divisions without reorganizing the entire university. We have had associate deans before, so appointing two or three would not necessitate a change from our past structure. Our divisional structure fosters close relationships between disciplines.

2.2 I assigned Model 4 my lowest ranking. It seems to isolate departments more than any of the other models. I do not believe that it would result in a "significant budgetary savings" unless we vastly underpay the department chairs.

2.3 I would like to discuss two quotes from President Dixon’s address to the faculty on August 26, 2006:

1. "We need to shed the vestiges of our past as a teachers’ college."

I assume that President Dixon considers our divisional structure as a "vestige of our past as a teachers’ college." I do not believe that that characterization is shared by the faculty of Truman as a whole. It appears that the current push to restructure lacks a rational motivation. There are some who do not appreciate our current structure, but it is equally certain that no structure will please everyone. Restructuring may solve some problems, but it will also introduce new problems. The divisional structure has served us very well, even since the mission change, and without a clear rationale for changing, why should we?

2. "We need to be distinct."

It’s ironic that we are told we should be distinct, but that our divisional structure is bad because it’s not like the structure of other colleges or universities.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1. I believe that there is a need to look at an explore additional factors that might impact such a decision first. Please see comments on 2.3. below.

2.2. It appears to address the restructuring goals the least out of all of the models in terms of communication. . .this model adds so many other elements to the "middle" that could simply occur with our current structure, or a combination of it with one of the other models. It certainly addresses interdisciplinary work; however, does not adequate address other concerns individuals might have with "simplifying things."

2.3. I am not personally opposed to change, as it can certainly be significant to growth. Change can be an extremely positive thing in making things better, more solid and of advanced quality. There are also some very important goals that come along with the possible need for restructuring that make a lot of sense. i.e. Enhancing communication, clarifying roles, and compensating individuals appropriately for their administrative duties. All of these things certainly apply to my current responsibilities at the institution. However, it appears that we may be putting the horse before the cart in some aspects. I would like to encourage a look at other University components such as curriculum, student needs, financial impact, etc. How will these things be affected? What order should change occur? Who should be involved in the final decision making?

In addition, I feel that student input is extremely valuable. This is after all their institution. Granted, this information needs to be handled with care, as it is true that any given class of freshman students would only be impacted by the change for 4-6 years. This is something that as a faculty, may continue to impact for many years after. However, it is important to at least consider their feedback and input in appropriately determining student needs. As well, we need to look at their current struggles and stressors that impact them. Teaching, role modeling, mentoring is about more than simply academics.

Finally, I think that in moving forward it is critical to remember where we came from, the sacrifices made to get where we currently are, as well as respecting the values and principles for which the University was initially founded. Ultimately, we should first be reflecting on where we want to be. What is it that we seek to accomplish through all of this? The goal is a better quality University that aligns with our mission statement and goals of the institution. For students this means an open, inviting, comfortable, safe atmosphere/environment conducive to learning and growth-critical thinking, problem solving, proactive leaders of the future, opportunities for research and civic engagement, etc. For faculty it invites individuals to teach using the best practice approaches available for their discipline, work together to offer our students cross-curricular opportunities to see how content areas connect, and engage in meaningful experiences with research, students, professional development, and civic responsibilities. These are things that we as quality educators look at in training future educators and leaders. As such this should certainly be at the core of higher education as well.

------------------------------------------

2.1 Even though the description of the "Schools" model waffles on the groupings of the academic departments, I like the groupings. As a scientist, I would look forward to closer ties with Mathematics, Computer Science and Health Science than I currently have. I believe that dividing us up into four major groupings, rather than the eight we currently have will be unifying and will simplify the organization of the VPAA/Provost’s job. I like the "Initiatives" group in that it recognizes important aspects of our mission and culture that are not naturally connected to any one academic division or department. Finally, I am in favor of shifting power down to the departments to foster ownership and creativity in the functioning of the departments. The "Schools" model seems elegant in its simplicity, when compared with our current structure.

2.2 I just think that the current structure isolates us too much from each other and fosters claims of inequity and unfairness that seriously hurt faculty morale. In my view the current deans are set up as antagonists, competing for resources and favors for their divisions. They are an administrative level that isolates the faculty from the VPAA creating mistrust. The current structure has proven anathema to things like cross divisional team teaching in interdisciplinary classes, and it seems like every division argues that they are asked to do more than the rest. There are just too many problems that ought to be easy to fix, which end up unfixable because of the current structure.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Please discuss the aspects of your first choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

The Single College Model is the only choice that puts real accountability it the hands of the faculty, and in my mind is the only model that we should consider further. Whether the faculty in a department succeed, or fail, will be solely their responsibility. The current paternalistic structure denigrates creativity and excellence in favor of passivity and mediocrity. It is well- known in the field of leadership-studies that the most productive organizations (in terms of both employee morale, and the creation of new and vibrant products) are the ones in which the employees are given the power to innovate and to take responsibility for their jobs. None of the other proposed structures have this strength. In fact, they all suffer from the same rigid hierarchical structure, which in my opinion is an anathema to what a liberal arts institution should be.

When coupled with a reorganization of the current discipline structure, only the Single College Model has any chance of being budget neutral, or even saving us money in the long run. It is hard to see how any of the other models, with all the added administrators, can ever save us money. The Single College Model can save money, if by no other mechanism, than by removing middle managers. In this day of e-mail, instant messaging and teleconferencing, why do we need so many middle managers? The business world has, by and large, reduced the size of middle management by using technology. Why must we in academia be so stuck in the past that we can’t see the future? I guess the liberal arts aren’t as liberating as we thought? If we minimize the size of the departments (20 —30 people, maximum), then we won’t need to pay the salaries of 20 plus department chairs, which I find hard to believe won’t lead to savings versus 7+ deans.

If we do undertake a restructuring that includes discipline reorganization into 20 — 30 person departments, we may also be able to retain the interdisciplinary nature of some of our current, unmanageably large divisions, but in a more manageable size. For example, if Science were broken into the Department of Physical Sciences (encompassing the Chemistry and Physics programs) and into the Department of Life Sciences (encompassing Agricultural Science and Biology), we would retain some of the interdisciplinary nature of the Science Division (which, by the way, is sorely lacking). And we would replace one Dean with two Department Chairs, who should, together, be less costly than the one Dean. I suspect that similar arrangements could be made throughout the campus. I think we should shoot for no more than 10— 12 departments.

Currently our deans are little more than glorified department chairs, some of whom are totally overwhelmed by the day-to-day responsibility of running the division and can’t focus on any long-term planning. The Single College Model corrects this by effectively making the deans what they truly are, department chairs, and breaking up the unmanageably-large divisions into smaller departments.

I like the structure of the VPAA/Provost’ s office where the Deans of the University are in charge of functions, not people. We just need to be sure that these Deans have enough power to force departments to follow agreed upon policies, when, and if, necessary. I particularly like the fact that the entire curriculum will be the purview of an individual with the ability to see the big picture and the power to guide change. For too long has our curriculum drifted rudderless; it is time for a change. We need to promote strong interdisciplinarity but at the same time promote strong departments. It is simply impossible, by the very definition of the word, to be interdisciplinary when one does not have a discipline from which to work. This is the only model that forces the departments and disciplines to be strong and that places someone directly in charge of ensuring that interdisciplinarity is on equal footing with the majors.

I have heard some say that this model is a recipe for chaos. But is not the marketplace chaotic? Is not democracy chaotic? Are not all living organisms and living systems chaotic? It is from this chaos that they derive their vibrancy, resilience and strength. What things have the silo/pyramid structures that have lasted as long as life itself? Nothing, not even the thousands of year old pyramids of Central America can compare with the billions of years that life has existed. Why are we choosing a dead-end path when a better option is available? For a group of people that are supposed to be creative and who seek liberate ourselves and our students from the zeitgeist’s constraints, we seem to be ultra-conservative almost to the point of fanaticism. The only thing that seems to separate us from the ultra-conservative fanatics is the thin veneer of "collegiality," and sometimes I don’t think even that is enough. I doubt that the faculty at this university, as a whole, has the creativity and mental faculties to grasp the potential of this model. For this reason, I don’t think it will be highly rated and I am sure that it will be eliminated from contention early. That would be a shame because, in the end, it is the only model that holds out the possibility of this university attaining what we have sought; to be a true liberal arts university.

2.2 Please discuss the aspects of your fifth choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options.

What is there to say? At one of the forums someone asked whether there was any assessment data that proved that we should restructure. I would like to ask this person to show me the assessment data that says that the current structure is working. I don’t think he has any and his question is simply a straw dog.

Why do we have Deans getting paper for copiers when they don’t have time for strategic planning? How has the current structure been able to address the complete break down of the tenure and promotion system? How has the current structure been able to address declining enrollment? (I know that not all disciplines and divisions have shown this decline, but why haven’t the others been able to match their success? Perhaps it is because the structure does not allow it??) How has the current structure addressed the culture of mindless busyness and mediocrity that pervades this university? Why has the current structure, if it is so perfect, allowed this culture to perpetuate when it is clearly detrimental to the university’s ideals? How is it that interdisciplinarity is seemingly easy for some and impossible for others? And how does the current structure not allow for recognition of the inequities that exist and correct them? Why do our potential students think that Truman faculty are not as well-qualified as the faculty at our competitors? And why hasn’t the current model not been able to overcome that perception? (Perhaps because it is true, and the broken tenure and promotion system has exacerbated the problem?) Where is the support for scholarship in the current model? Where are all the scholarly works that our supposedly wonderful faculty are turning out? How has the current model facilitated scholarship, if it has provided no monetary support? How has the current model promoted outreach to local schools? We seem to have forgotten our roots as Northeast Missouri State; how has the current system promoted faculty involvement in the local schools and the local community?

The simple answer to all of these questions is that the current model has done nothing to address the fundamental problems that this university faces; the current model is a total and abject failure. Morale is low (AAUP survey), productivity is non-existent (as noted by the HLC) and the university has very clearly relinquished the top ranking as a public liberal arts school to the College of New Jersey. We need to face the fact that we are out of gas as university and are running on fumes. It is only a matter of time before this rotted structure collapses from its own weight and we will go back to being a third-rate state school. The only things that keep us from realizing McClain’s vision are structural inertia, lack of creativity, just plain laziness, and most of all, fear. The fear comes from a realization that if we actually had to do what we say we do, then most of us would be found to be severely lacking. We have the chance to manage the inevitable changes that will occur in this university over the coming years, but the current structure will simply not allow us to that, and so it must be discarded.

2.3 Please discuss any additional aspects of academic reorganization that you would like the committee to consider.

Adding additional layers of bureaucracy by adding deans and associate deans (models 1 and 2) or by maintaining a layer of deans with direct oversight over people (no change and model 3) will only muddle communication and be too expensive to maintain. We need to simplify the structure, not complicate it. Only model 4 realizes the goals of clearing lines of communication, and promoting interdisciplinarity by making strong departments (all the other models maintain a silo structure with weak to moderately-weak departments).

Model 4 is the only one that has a clear, unambiguous assignment of departmental chair responsibilities. The minimal standards are too wishy-washy and will lead to no improvement in the problem of conveners and program directors having disparate job descriptions. I recommend that the minimal standards be replaced by the stronger standards of model 4.

If we do nothing than I think that we will have a hard time hiring new deans as the old ones retire. The job, as it currently exists, is little more than that of a department chair and really does not match what most people in academia think of when they hear the word "dean." Nobody is going to want the job at the salary that we are willing to pay given the job description. If anybody does take it, they are either incompetent or they will try to change the position into that of a real dean by putting more responsibility on the conveners. So, instead of having a uniform job description for the deans and the conveners, we will have a jumbled mess based on whatever people could cobble together. The no-change model will then drift slowly into the minor-change model, but in such a way that we will be worse off than we are now. I believe that the new dean of business is currently restructuring business in just this sort of way and the implications are profound, if not addressed.

The term limits suggested in some models are a good idea and should be incorporated into any final model. Too often administrators, who have spend too long in administration, forget what it is like to teach a class and deal with the day-to-day realities the faculty. Term limits would go a long way to fixing this problem by forcing the administrators to return to whence they came for a refresher course in reality. It also gives other people a chance at leadership and shaping the university’s course if we regularly change administrators (diapers and administrations should be changed frequently and for the same reasons).

Could we outsource some of our academic programs, such as Nursing and CMDS, to ATSU? Our students could still take these majors through dual-enrollment (taking their liberal arts and required support classes through Truman and their major courses through ATSU, for example). These two disciplines are more in tune with the mission of ATSU than with our liberal arts mission and ATSU has the resources to fund these disciplines at a level that would ensure their continued success. I also feel that Business has no place in a liberal arts college, except as part of Economics. However, I don’t feel that we can make these changes given the current circumstances (Business is strong and they have a new dean).

Final word: the power of the government derives from the consent of the governed. Our country was founded on democratic principles; please let us have some semblance of democracy in our workplace.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 Best choice – just make sure HPP gets a Dean.

2.2 Letting the foxes run the hen house – worst option. No collaboration – leads to turf wars.

2.3 Just needs a little "tweaking" – just make sure there is accountability at all levels and oversight at all levels.

Make sure HPP gets a Dean.

Keep in mind all of the accredited programs – protect them.

------------------------------------------

2.1 Lumping accredited programs together makes a lot of sense. I also appreciate the presence of a Dean of Initiatives. This appears to give interdisciplinarity and other institutional values the attention they deserve.

2.2 This places too much pressure on VPAA. Lead to greater turf battles or at least the potential for them. I don’t see how communication and resource sharing could be improved.

2.3 I just don’t see this as big priority as say student enrollment. Something this dramatic should have the campus community energized and dedicated to change. I don’t see or sense that. Do we need to reorganize, probably. But maybe not until curriculum and enrollment issues are resolved.

---------------------------------------------

2.1 Our program is fine as it is structured.

2.2 I don’t think it has any structure at all – no one would know who to take concerns to.

-----------------------------------------------

2 (but I know won’t fly with all those new Dean =$)

2.1 I voted for this because I don’t think I have enough information to fully appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of all 4 models. (See note below).

2.2 I agree with some – too radical a change for us. (I also see some positive strengths, however).

2.3 I can’t see how we can make ANY decision when none of these models have been fully considered with respect to BUDGET. It makes me so mad that we are "forced" to choose without all info. There are so many questions.

Philosophically – I like separating out the "pre-professional" programs – (I include Health & Exercise Science in this category) and keeping the rest under a LAS title of some sort. That’s about all I know for sure at this point.

------------------------------------------

2.1 Most sensible change.

2.2 No change means status quo. No gain.

------------------------------------------

2.1 No convincing evidence was given.

2.2 The main goal of any reorganization effort should be consistent with our mission "to offer an exemplary undergraduate education…grounded in the liberal arts and sciences…" The last few years have witnessed a movement away from this mission. Reorganization efforts constitute just one additional counter-production set of activities, costing time and money that could have been used to more efficaciously carry out our mission.

-----------------------------------------------

1 (if HES in Prof Progs—otherwise last choice)

2.1 Seems philosophically approved and less lop-sided than College of Art and Science Model.

2.2 Currently there are too many inequities between divisions and in efficiency administratively.

-----------------------------------------

2.1 The 1^st choice is my only choice. We have other, more serious problems that this will not even begin to address. You need to start hiring new Faculty and Staff, and work on staff pay some more. For (b) above: Why can’t you deal with missing data?

2.2 All 4 change options were not a choice for me.

2.3 Please move on to other more pressing issues. Hire some Faculty!

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 I believe that this model represents a sensible attempt at need based change. It tries to fix things where we presently come up short without proposing to fix things that are not broken. I believe that the creation of the Dean of Arts and Sciences position has the best chance of any of the structural suggestions across the models of helping Truman attain its goal of becoming a premiere liberal arts university.

I support the very minor increases (if any) in convener responsibilities. I strongly

disapprove of the models that call for overly strong discipline leaders. Such people

would need to spend too much time dealing with personality conflicts rather than

advancing our mission.

2.2 Having nobody with line authority between the discipline leaders and the Provost would be an absolute disaster in too many departments on campus. Conflicts between cliques in individual disciplines would grow out of control unless the Provost was going to devote inordinate amounts of time to refereeing these disputes or have an associate do so. If the Provost had to allocate their time in that manner, it would significantly reduce the benefits of having such a position.

2.3 As much as I dislike the Single College Model because I believe it carries departmentalization too far, I very much like its suggestion for a Provost and some high level deans with functional responsibility. Couldn’t we piggy-back that idea onto the College of Arts and Sciences model, the Minor Repair Model, or the No Change Model? I think that the Schools Model and the Single College Model require that too many critically important personnel decisions be made in too short a period of time in order for the objectives of their authors to be achieved. I have no confidence that we would get all of those decisions right and far that those two models have the greatest potential for making things worse than they currently are.

-----------------------------------------

Thanks to the committee for hard work and good ideas!

The single college model or not at all!

2.1 It accomplishes the restructuring goals better than any of the other models. It gives power and authority to the disciplines and creates deans with functional significance for the university mission.

2.2 This model creates an additional layer of administration support that would make the needs and wants of the disciplines more difficult to achieve.

2.3 We need budget information, or at least some sense of whether what we are voting for can be a reality. If not, this process is meaningless.

-----------------------------------------

2.1 -Avoids creation of new layer of management, "department chair".

-Current departmental contact people, if they exist, can still count as faculty…so they can serve on university committees…if these people become administrators, they won’t be allowed to represent "faculty" on committees, so stretches your talent pool.

-Avoids complicating student lines – no new layer for grade appeals, etc.

-Avoids complicating staff lines – 10 deans (now) vs. 20+ dept. chairs?

-Keeps faculty close to administration (less layers so less "us" vs "them" than would be case under some of the proposed models).

2.2

–Fosters silos – with exception of department chair, little communication among departments (at least under current model, interact with those within the division).

-Too much risk-picking wrong department chair could seriously impair functioning within a dept.

-Encourages animosity between departments as compete for resources

-Not clear what the Provost does – why needed?

-Tremendous number of presumably new dept. chairs to be trained by one person – Dean of Faculty.

-Person doing performance evaluation has limited exposure to teaching portfolios, course eval, etc. – only knows own discipline.

2.3

Better approach would have been to seek input first on goals.

Big concern – many of the goals identified on p. 1 are not structural issues.

I strongly disagree that each of these models can accomplish these goals.

Very uncomfortable with ranking these models when so much information, including budgetary impact, is unknown.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 It comes closest to the ideal of faculty governance over areas they know best, although a blend of #2 and #1 may be the best model (see 2.3 below). See also 2.2 below for future clarification.

2.2 The present system is disastrous and unworkable. It not only does not promote but actually prevents a well-functioning university. It is unclear to students who is in charge and where to get information. The "convener" role is ambiguous and unfair. True collegiality – professionals working together, being familiar with each others teaching and scholarship – is impossible without departments. With real departments, real inter-disciplinary becomes possible because there is space between disciplines to bridge. I could go on and on.

2.3 Model #2 without so many deals might be the simplest and most sensible (and possibly most cost-efficient) solution: A Single College of Liberal Arts with one Provost and department chairs with two professional schools (Business, Health and Education). Model #4 is intriguing and has a lot going for it.

Thanks to the committee for helping to bring us into the 20^th, and, hopefully, the 21^st century.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Model 4 is the only option that has a chance to break the dictatorial power of division heads and to empower faculty to fulfill their professional responsibilities.

2.2 The present structure is a disaster – not changing it would merely perpetuate the disaster.

2.3 Weak departments would be the worst outcome – inertia would produce/reproduce the same old powerful deans and powerless faculty. Create strong department/units with strong chairs/heads, or don’t bother.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 I recognize the need for some minor changes but am generally happy with the

present structure. The lean bureaucratic structure seems overall a plus for the institution. With small departments, it is generally a positive to have a Divisional structure for questions of hiring and promotion and secretarial help. It also gives a larger body to screen proposals of departments before they go to the University bodies. I think the Divisional structure encourages inter departmental collegiality and cooperation and discourages turf wars.

2.2 The proposals toward the bottom (especially the Single College Model) strike me as encouraging turf protection of departments and strengthen the hand of upper administration relative to the faculty. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare with too many administrators relative to faculty, and I think (at least relative to situations I’m familiar with) it would weaken the voice of the faculty enough to create morale problems. It’s also a vague (Proposal #4 model #4) proposal that implies a rather radical change

Which also could lower faculty morale if not implemented very carefully.

2.2 I want to remain open-minded about restructuring and realize that other parts of the

University disagree with me. It’s my feeling that some of the unhappiness of some of my colleagues may relate to the belt tightening that’s become necessary in a more hostile economic climate for higher education in the state of Missouri. A major restructuring of the University can do little to change the climate and in some cases may actually make the situation worse for Truman.

I’m generally not opposed to reform. I wish I could be convinced that a major restructuring would be good for the University, but, so far, I’m not convinced.

P.S. I appreciate the work of the committee. You’ve put a lot of hard work into this.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Things seem to be working well. Departments take responsibility, but there needs to be one dean for each area that can "see the whole picture" as currently exists. Additionally, too many people become chairs that are not trained to be chairs. Longevity and scholarly activities don’t make leaders!

2.2 I can see the possibility of a great deal of confusion happening. The deans need to be closer to the departments. Again, too many become chairs that are not trained or have the real ability to be leaders. Too often people are appointed to chair positions for the wrong reasons – seniority, scholarly activity, so someone else can’t, etc.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 This model has served this university well and Truman has much better ways of spending time, energy and money on something that has a higher probability of making things worse rather than better for Truman students, faculty, staff and reputation.

2.2 Choice 5 is so far beyond choice 4 that rankings can not do justice. If these were on a RATING SCALE (Interval) rather than Ranking Scale (Cordinal) then things would look like this:

Ranking

Worst Best

0 5 4 3 2 1 1000

2.3 If you must keep considering reorganization you need to see what the costs are in:

Time

Effort

Money

Morale

Implementation problems

Loss of opportunity to do other things

Evidence of passive consequence

If all these things have LESS costs maybe reorganization is worth further consideration, BUT it seems that the costs in all these areas will be High; and if so then just drop it.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 Least cost. Also, there doesn’t appear to be a real need for reorganization.

2.2 This seems to be rather confusing. Where lies the real responsibility? I think it would establish quasi-administrative positions with no real pay. It will e more work for everyone.

2.3 Show why it is needed. Be convincing. Otherwise don’t do it.

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 I understand that some divisions may not be operating as well as "they" would like. However, our division is serving our students and faculty well, is efficient, operates well as a unit and integral part of the university as a whole – and I wonder if a change is needed to accommodate a few divisions as opposed to changing the entire structure.

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 If things are working well, why pursue such a change. Instead work to restructure and implement a dept. head for each discipline under the Deans.

2.2 I think students will get lose in this model.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 More decision making and control of resources at the disciplinary level, along with

more responsibility.

Allows for differential load categorization (lab science does things differently from professional programs from lecture courses).

The IDS and CIEA are not attached to particular schools.

2.2 If we are going to change, let’s change! This seems like a waste of effort.

2.3 I think the size of disciplines should be between 15-30 people so that there is

compensation and release time relatively equitable across the board. Don’t know how I’d do that, but I would work on it.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 I like limiting the deans and strongly support adding chairs. It doesn’t seem like a radical change – more of a simplification. I would recommend that advising be added to the list of initiatives.

2.2 I strongly believe that this system does not work as it is. The lack of a department chair encourages infighting within the discipline. Large divisions/disciplines have strength and power that they don’t want to give up.

2.3 Some sense of implementation as soon as possible would placate those that feel there is not enough information.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 It sounds from certain quarters of the university, that some assistance is needed in certain academic divisions to carry our faculty review and other Division Head duties effectively. I’m all for providing that assistance by establishing Assoc. Deans but really don’t see the need for further restructuring.

2.2 This option seems the most chaotic and uncertain of all the options provided. I like having the access to my dean that I currently enjoy. This model just seems like a free-for-all.

2.3 I know that the committee wasn’t charged with considering costs associated with implementing any of the models, but how can we not make the cost part of the discussion?! Given the current financial situation, it seems rather disingenuous for the administration to require the reduction of faculty positions to achieve a 16:1 ratio on the one hand, and then make the cost of implementing a restructuring of the university not of any consequence!!!

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Seems the right balance discipline leadership and administrative oversight. Our current convener has no power, no release time, no pay; so he delegates takes to us, which none of us have time for. We need relief.

2.2 It assumes faculty willingness and simple ability to deal with tasks and issues that the deans now see to. I don’t have time. I cannot work any harder or longer than I already do. I need relief (release), not more responsibility.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 It facilitates the autonomy required for accreditation of some disciplines. It puts the discipline in charge of substitutions rather than a division head who had no role in making major requirements. The department chair would assume personnel (responsibilities for 5-30 faculty members, a task which is manageable. I do not believe than a dean of division head can make meaningful evaluations of 60-100 faculty members.

2.2 The Schools model tries to marry disparate cultures in each school. In the business world corporate mergers are successful only if the cultures of the merging organizations can be integrated. The basic science school would attempt to merge the existing cultures of Science, Math/CS, and Health/Exercise Science. The professional school lumps together six groups which at least in the past were in six different divisions. Furthermore, this organization confuses our liberal arts mission. Since Health/Exercise Science is placed with the liberal arts disciplines of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Math.

2.3 Model 2 appears to simply add an extra administrative level for most professors. In model 4 we may need to set a minimum size for a department.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Model 3: I like the idea of breaking into different areas of liberal studies & professional schools. I think the responsibility given to the chairs is the strongest here.

(My issues with this model are the names of the Liberal Arts and Basic Science schools – makes the science school sound like a technical program and ignores its contribution to LAS. I also question the placement of health sciences within a "basic science" division.

2.2 No Change. I think we definitely need some change to make the system move consistent across campus and to give departments a little more authority.

2.3 Thanks for all the work!!

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 While I appreciate that some divisions have issues that need to be resolved, it would perhaps be better to "fix what’s broken" and not destroy that which operates well.

2.2 It seems to be a radical change, which might be quite confusing for many. The graphic was very confusing, as a matter of fact.

2.3 How do the students feel about being left out of the process?

-----------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The School model empowers the faculty at the department level to make the day to day decision regarding curriculum, majors, hiring, promotion & tenure etc. It also provides a level of administration for resolving issues that cross departmental boundaries. This important initiatives are coordinated by directors who interact with the Deans and the Provost and have authority to insure that the initiatives whether interdisciplinary, scholarship or study abroad etc continue to reach their goals.

2.2 In my opinion, the Single College Model appears to be "chaos". Although having deans with specific function have merit, too much responsibilities lay with the department chair. I do not believe sufficient release time is available to for the department chair to successfully complete what their responsibilities are unless they are have full release time. The department chair will become overworked and burnt out.

Many of the day to day issues that need to be resolved will fall through the cracks.

2.3 With limited resources and many initiatives, just to name a few, including increasing faculty salaries, providing more opportunity for undergraduate research, and increasing the number of sabbaticals, implementing a reorganization plan should at least be minimal in cost. Care needs to be given in addressing the support needs of any reorganization. Sufficient secretaries and other support personnel need to be included in any plan. The transition to a new administrative structure needs to be smooth since curriculum, recruitment and retention of students, and increasing scholarship are as important. Taking time to address issues arising from implementation could distract from the other issues.

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 The current structure allows for a Dean who sees the "big picture" and has vision to lead us forward.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Some change. But I think we could by breaking up larger divisions or giving them some more administrative hope.

2.2 Very difficult to understand. Probably the costliest.

2.4 I think we need to look at the financial consequences before a choice is made.

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 Model 1 addresses the span of control problem in the larger divisions. Divisions retain their broad identities, but increased disciplinary oversight will be possible. The divisional structure enhances flexibility in staffing courses because fewer lines of authority and communication are needed than in Model 4 in particular.

2.2 Lateral/horizontal communications between and across disciplines are very complex. Information is quite likely to be lost or misunderstood. May actually encourage silos rather than interdisciplinary cooperation. Rotating disciplinary/departmental leaders will likely lead to increase political wrangling. In addition, the learning curve can be very steep. There are likely resource issues – how/can all course offerings be staffed with the mandated release time. In some cases, no enough release time has been anticipated.

2.3 Any structure must provide for clear lines of communication. Collegiality should also be considered.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 One of the problems with current structure is that some divisions are so big that their Deans can’t effectively communicate with an evaluate all faculty. This seems like a solution to that problem and it is easy to see the consequences and how it will work (and evaluate costs).

2.2 Too hard to see how it will work at this point – too many unknowns

costs

what happens to staff

how money will be appropriated among all these new pieces

2.3 Costs, and what happens to support staff.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Because I see no advantage in changing. In the case of a division needing an Assistant Dean in order for a larger division to operate efficiently, that can be fixable in our present structure.

2.2 I could not see that type of structure ever working as efficiently as we do presently. We do not need such an upheaval when we should be committing energy and cooperation to our present concerns of enrollment and budget.

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1 I believe the current system with minor changes will be the best way to address concerns.

2.2 Too loosely organized, in particular budget issues could be a night mare.

2.3 The main repair should be giving the largest divisions administrative help. Social Science, Language and Literature and possibly Science should either be broken down more, or an additional administrator should be assigned.

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The University should have spent times and energy in solving recruitment, retention and curriculum issues. Restructuring has nothing to do with our current problems. We have wasted too much resources for something unimportant.

2.2 It’s a chaotic option. It will bring chaos to campus.

2.4 Consider no more!

Do not waste your time!

Focus on University problems!

--------------------------------------------------

2.1 Deans are expected to be real deans (fund raise, etc.) and associate deans run the day-to-day operations.

2.2 No change suggests everything is going well – it is not and the current structure does not allow for needed change. Current Deans are still just division heads continuing their same old decisions, but with a different title. "Organizations are perfectly aligned to get the results they are getting." I don’t think we are getting the results we desire.

2.3 What is best for students should drive our decisions – not what is best or most convenient for faculty.

---------------------------------------------------------

2 – Note. If this model provides for interdisciplinary growth, it is my first choice, and Model 3 is my second choice.

2.1 It seems to provide enough room for interdisciplinary studies to develop, and leaves chairs with am amount of responsibility that doesn’t prevent them from being primarily teachers.

2.2 It seemed to promise a democracy which it won’t be able to deliver. I think it is easier for faculty to affect policy if they fill their silos with corn, then share it as needed. An administration which thinks of a silo first and foremost as a hiding place for weapons, and the clustering of small groups of related faculty as a danger, frankly frightens me.

2.3 I’d have ranked Minor Repair first if there were assurances that interdisciplinary studies had room to flourish.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Incurs no additional cost to university. Allows for greater interdiscplinarity; faculty can teach across disciplines in accordance with their expertise.

2.2 I have seen no convincing evidence or argument that restructuring (any of the 4 proposed models) can positively address the real issues facing the university currently (recruitment/retention of high quality students and faculty, budget crisis etc.) I also have seen no evidence that any of the new proposed models will create equity in hiring, tenuring, promotion criteria, or deal with inequities in work loads/class size, advising responsibilities faced by faculty.

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 No satisfactory reason for the necessity of change had ever been given. The inequities that do exist under the current system – at least the ones that matter on a day to day basis – are not addressed by any of the alternate models. "If it ain’t broke…" The university can ill afford to spend money on more administration.

2.2 It was too much of a blank check.

2.3 I distrust the railroading of anything for which the need has not been demonstrated. Put the money and time into recruitment. No cost-benefit analysis provided for any of the models.

----------------------------------------------------

2.1 It retains the current flexibility and ease of interdisciplinarity while providing additional aid (Associate Deans) where needed. It does not impose personnel responsibility on faculty members in faculty positions. It retains the best aspects of the current structure.

2.2 It does not provide enough support for department chairs (especially for smaller or larger programs) and does not provide reasonably sized organizational structures for decision making. Imagine a meeting with all department chairs present!

2.3 Financial compensation instead of time release for directors/chairs or small programs is not a long term solution. Increasing responsibilities only increases the problem. Some of the current problems are not problems with the structure itself, but with the implementation of it.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Critical information relating to budgets was not provided, even though it was requested several months ago. The information is not sufficient to make any real choice.

2.2 All choices are in a sense "acceptable", none seems particularly attractive, and in the absence of information about the financial impact of the changes proposed, it remains impossible to make any real decisions.

----------------------------------------------

2.1 It is difficult for me to see how the other models will function more efficiently. The 2 divisions I work with are effective as is. While I would appreciate more leadership at the discipline level, I do not want to lose the flexibility of cross-discipline level, I do not want to lose the flexibility of cross-discipline teaching that the divisional structure provides. Furthermore, I don’t see leadership – as in effecting change – coming from department heads. Real leadership requires reputation and stature and vision and I don’t see department heads selected from among colleagues to have these requisite qualities.

2.2 I didn’t understand this model. Am I missing something.

2.3 Is the current structure sufficiently dysfunctional to need radical repair? Why the rush? Why not work on LSP revision and focus our energies on curriculum and on liberal arts issues?

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 I don’t believe that we are in need of radical change. The structure that we have works well for the values that are important to us: support for teaching, accessibility to students, interdisciplinarity, and minimal bureaucracy. The deans should have help where they need it. Truman is unique in many good ways. I don’t understand this push to reorganize to a configuration that, in so many other schools, has proven to be a misery.

2.2 I would complicate and increase bureaucracy to the detriment of students and faculty. No one seems to have a clear idea of how governance would operate or how staff will be allocated. No one knows what it will cost!!! Why should we spend our scarce resources doing something that we do not need to do? It makes no sense.

2.3 I object to this whole process. The decision seems rushed – insufficient information is available, including cost data. The procedure gives the impression that faculty input is ceremonial at best. Truman is unique; let’s not try to imitate others.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 I like Truman’s structure, but I think that some deans need any help.

----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Small discipline will be equal to large in all aspects.

2.2 Additional expenses for new deans.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 I do not feel that restructuring has been justified. In all of the examples, it seems that restructuring will either not fix all of the issues or will create new ones of equal detriment. This seems to be as much an exercise in change as something that is really needed.

2.2 This model puts too much power at the discipline level. New hires will be needed for department chairs because currently the conveners are not prepared in many cases to become a chair. In addition, it is very important to have a dean who understands my discipline and can represent it to the VPAA in a way that a department chair may have trouble relating to a Dean over all of curriculum or faculty.

2.3 This could be decided on in a much more informed manner if we actually knew the budget constraints of each model. Most major decisions I make weigh how much this will cost. I may have ranked these models differently if I had the financial aspect of these in front of me. Adding extra levels of administrators seems like it will only mean that current faculty and staff will have that much less of a change at earning a decent salary.

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1 We need departments with autonomy and chairs with authority if we are ever to go from pretty good to great. Departments must have full authority over hiring/firing/tenure/promotion and budgets.

2.2 The current system is broken. Disciplines are constantly overruled by Divisions. Division are overruled by VPAA. I have no confidence in the current structure.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Being from a small discipline, I have concerns about our discipline being able to maintain an identity and want to balance that concern with the need for change – I feel the Model 2 approach balances these two issues best. I do not want too much power/control placed at the chair-convener position and feel Model 2 would be best for our discipline. Model 2 perhaps best fosters interdisciplinarity which I think is an important goal.

2.2 While chaos theory might be a good research topic I have concerns about modeling university governance after it. I think especially for small disciplines Model 4 would have unintended consequences and that the large disciplines would be the winners.

-------------------------------------------------------

2.1 I’ve never felt there was much need for reorganization and I’ve never sense much dysfunction in our channels of communication, though I do agree that our poor division head was/is overworked.

2.2 One of the nicest things about NMSU/Truman in my mind, has always been the short ascent to the top – the ease of going up the ladder from faculty to division head to VPAA. I’ve always treasured the easy access to div head and even VPAA and I’m afraid more layers would ruin this.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 The schools model allows departments to function with a good bit of authority and autonomy, but also provides some administrative support for new dep’t chairs who

have not been trained* to do this work – that is, admin. Support in the form of the dean of the school. (The Single College model is attractive – perhaps we will go there some time – but I think implementation would be chaotic.)

*I realize that some kind of training would be provided. Still, we are inexperienced – something that will take a while to remedy.

2.2 My division – LL – is too big. Our Div Head (dean) does a great job, but cannot be expected to do it forever. Even with an assistant dean , LL would remain unwielding. Furthermore, discipline faculty meetings too often seem like trivial exercises since the real decision-making always appears to go on elsewhere. If we are supposed to meet, why not try to do something real?

2.3 Anxiety levels are high. It will be important to offer faculty adequate training and support in taking on new roles – and the details must be carefully worked out. People worry about such things as which secretary goes with which group. Or, in my case, being the computer illiterate I am, I’ll want to know who will answer my stupid computer questions should Ben Ogden be assigned away from my group. Yes, I’m being trivial on purpose: Some of our fears are that petty but real all the same.

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 Gives department chair actual release time to "make it work."

2.2 It think most of us are worried that support staff for faculty will only worsen under any new model and that dept. chairs can be found who can actually lead or really want the job.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 I like that most of the authority/responsibility for department oversight falls at the department level. Chairs need some teeth!

2.3 We must have some change! The current structure does not seem to serve anyone well.

2.4 Regardless of the structure, we need accountability and defined expectations of all levels.

----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Place high importance/weight on all aspects of Liberal Arts curriculum (e.g., Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences). Do this with minimal disruption of current structure. Chairs assume real responsibility.

2.2 I’m not terribly unhappy with current structure, but I accept hat there is a need to change. Therefore, one of the models – or a modification – presents an opportunity to improve what we have.

2.3 I feel strongly that we must find a meaningful way to incorporate programs such as Interdisciplinary Studies, Grad Studies, etc. into the new model – though I don’t like the School Model.

------------------------------------------------

2.1 We need serious and major changes in academics at Truman. The sooner the better!

2.3 In the last decade Truman has been a rudderless ship…no direction, no tangible goals to improve, and by-and-large no administrative leadership. We need a structure that promotes quality teaching/scholarship and accountability.

2.4 No change will equal loss of TSU’s stature and academic reputation. The longer the change waits, the more likely this will occur!

----------------------------------------------

2.1 The model has a balance of discipline units, except for the Dean of Liberal Arts. The LA unit should be split into two units, such as Arts and Humanities, or Liberal Arts and Social Science.

2.2 I would like to see a change. There should be more admin responsibility and pay for Department Chairs, less teaching.

2.3 How will the reorganization affect faculty salaries?

-------------------------------------------------

2.1 I do not think we are ready for choosing a change! Too many variables are unknown about these options! No information about costs have been released! The roles of discipline leaders are still much too vague in each model to know really what level of administration the faculty evaluation --, budgetary and scheduling decision will be made. The Bottom Line – we are not ready for change yet and when we evolve we should do so rather slowly, incrementally, or risk major breakdown in ability to serve the students!

2.2 The culture of our university of not having much self-determination would make changing to this model a disaster for us. Many disciplines are not used to making budgetary or personnel decisions or even scheduling decisions. To throw all that one them out of the blue would create major chaos and stress for faculty, staff AND students!

2.3 Each of the models has advantages and disadvantages. The minor repair model could potentially take away some of the control we presently have in our discipline (bad. The College of Arts and Sciences Model keeps our present (good) divisional structure, but more people are doing administrative tasks – this one might cost a lot (bad)! The Schools Model places more responsibility at department level (good), but as I said above in 2.2, I am worried about some disciplines being ready for that if they have not have experience with that work! Finally I think our physical facilities – the buildings – are not well set up for most of these models. Where would each discipline’s records be housed? What about staff support for all these people!

It is my position that all administrators – including the President, should offer a course regularly. Even a seminar course every other year would keep these people more closely attuned to the student and faculty issues!

---------------------------------------------------

2.1 The university should have had put more efforts on retention and recruitment. With No Change option , at least there is no increase in cost.

2.2 It may cause poor communication among administrations. It may result in much higher cost to institution. It will cause problems about merging small disciplines.

2.3 The committee’s time and efforts to the job is deeply appreciated. However, it is hard to imagine why there is no business faculty in the committee? Business faculty could provide more practical budget equation in the meeting. The committee should co-currently work with budget committee.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 The "No Change Option" ranks for higher than any of the others, it my estimation. The other four options would add costly administrative positions to our current system. No one has yet provided convincing reasons for why our current system needs to be changed. I feel that it works very well.

2.2 This option allowed too much power for the chairs.

-----------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Had to pick one.

2.2 Arbitrary.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 This is the system that most of the school have.

2.2 Like to have Dean for science who oversees problems and organize departments accordingly.

-----------------------------------------------------

2.1 Authority for convener ("Chair") and faculty to more easily manage respective disciplines.

2.2 Too loosely arranged, with too much flexibility and no clear direction or organization. I fear with no clear cut structure, we would "go" nowhere.

--------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Agree with desire to increase responsibility of conveners/department chairs with corresponding compensation. Maintains Deans for broader prospective and to keep departments working together. However, "Liberal Arts" is too large – should be split in half. Like the idea of "equal ranked to the Deans" Director of Initiatives. Not sure what Provost & VPAA are: one or two people, responsibilities?

2.2 3 large divisions (LL, SS, SC) now are tough tot manager. Conveners/department chairs/directors need more authority and compensation.

2.3 I remain worried that Model 4 will lead to considerable "unfriendly competition" among departments. There needs to be an administrator (without ties to a discipline) closer to the "trenches." Even model #1 provides such a person with an Associate Dean.

------------------------------------------------------

2.1 Allows disciplines to have more input into decision-making.

2.2 Groupings proposed meant that prof. programs, which are diverse, would be grouped together, rather than being groups with arts/science programs that were actually more similar to the professional program.

--------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 There has been no evidence presented that the present organization is broken or does not work well. We (the institution) have repeatedly been complemented on our present organization!

2.2 From prior experience (yes here) it did not work all that well and was discontinued as a Dean gained more absolute control.

2.3 There seems to e a mentality that we need to change for the sake of change. This is not a good reason. Again, no real evidence for need has been presented.

2.1 It is time for a change. However we need to maintain identity of certain broad areas – like social science.

2.2 Change is needed now.

-----------------------------------------------

2.1 The system is not in need of radical change! At most, minor adjustments are required.

2.2 Too vague, and just silly.

2.3 This process is a total charade. The committee has wasted time.

----------------------------------------

2.3 Vague and ridiculous. Would require the most change for the least reward.

2.4 Reorganization is what students might call "busy work", a useless expenditure of valuable needed faculty and university resources in order to "look better." It is not what we need to be focusing on now which is: enrollment and endowment, new hiring for long unfilled necessary positions. This offers minimal returns for major expenditure of time and treasure.

------------------------------------

2.1 I am happy with the current system.

2.2 It looks like chaos and is so vague I really have no feel if I would like it or not.

2.3 I think you should do a better job of differentiating the responsibilities of the various positions across all plans.

a convener has no budgetary responsibilities

a department chair has budgetary responsibilities

As a faculty member the specific items that concern me are:

who is doing my annual evaluation

who has budgetary control for me (supplies, research $, graders, travel $, etc)

who is doing my scheduling

Some of these plans were vague ("details to be worked out") and it is hard to rank a

system without these details.

--------------------------------------------

2.1 Always room for improvement, but current structures seems good in most ways.

2.2 Looks like complete chaos, and also furthest from the current structure.

2.3 Are we considering how new systems will work with our facilities? Will departments be moved?

--------------------------------------------

2.1 Please discuss the aspects of your 1 choice that led you to rank it highest among the five options. My first choice is the no change option. Here are some reasons for my preference:

— Flexibility. As the mission change under McClain clearly shows, the current structure is already extraordinarily flexible. I am aware of no other university in the country has effected a similar transition—and certainly not as effectively. I hope that the President and Board of Governors will consult people such as Charles McClain and Darrell Krueger who have a deep understanding of this institution before proceeding with a reorganization that may make it harder for us to progress with our mission into the future. Reorganization is too important an issue to rush. Our current structure is flexible enough to acknowledge the very real differences in our various disciplines. Artificially trying to make all disciplines work in the same way is only going to create additional sources of inefficiency. Please do not try to institute petty consistencies on what is an entirely appropriately flexible system. Our academic structure works extremely well; it is appropriate for us to be leaders, not followers, here. Let other try to be more like us, not us like them.

— Cost. Truman’s mission as a public liberal arts institution has always required us to be sensitive to affordability. Statewide budgetary issues make affordability concerns even more important today. Our lean administrative structure has allowed us to use our resources for things like faculty positions so that we can focus on student learning. Please do not introduce still more administrators; we have been getting administratively puffy enough recently as it is. Administration is a case of where less is usually more. To be honest, my own experience seems to show that a proliferation of administrators, who so often become engrossed in the latest fads in higher education, often ends up taking faculty time from student learning.

— Time. Faculty who think that they can do up to a third of the job of a dean on a one course course release and are willing to do so for a few thousand dollars extra per year are either saints or need to have their heads examined (and I’d be more likely to bet money on the latter). With this split attention, their activities connected with student learning can hardly fail to suffer. Furthermore, the administration is only fooling itself if it believes that we can hire adjunct faculty to teach these classes well for a few thousand dollars. Truman is not a community college, and the area we live in is not teeming with Ph.D.s looking for part-time work. Has anybody stopped to think that it may in part be because Truman does not have department chairs that we have been able to do so well with the resources we have?

— Interdisciplinarity. I feel that interdisciplinary efforts will only suffer if faculty need to take proposals through additional layers of bureaucracy, where the current structure makes it necessary only to work with the heads of the respective Divisions. In addition, in our current structure, faculty in allied disciplines benefit from the close contact they have with each other. For example, course proposals are approved on a divisional level, and I believe that the time we in my discipline spend giving colleagues in nearby disciplines feedback about suc

Download as a Word Document

Faculty Comments in Response to the

Survey on Academic Reorganization