[CED/CD/EAT] FW: subject: HEADSUP | action: FALL FORUM FOLLOW-UP FROM FOLKS | time: 17 AUG | priority: NORMAL/NOT URGENT

Thu Aug 20 13:52:17 MST 2020

FYI…

Jeffrey C. Silvertooth, Ph.D.
Associate Dean
Director for Extension & Economic Development
Division of Agriculture, Life, & Veterinary Sciences, and Cooperative Extension
Forbes 301, Bldg. #36
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ       85721-0036
520-621-7205

From: prov_heads_2-request at list.arizona.edu <prov_heads_2-request at list.arizona.edu> On Behalf Of Miller, Robert J - (millerr)
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:59 AM
To: heads at list.arizona.edu
Cc: Folks, Liesl - (liesl) <liesl at arizona.edu>
Subject: [heads] subject: HEADSUP | action: FALL FORUM FOLLOW-UP FROM FOLKS | time: 17 AUG | priority: NORMAL/NOT URGENT

follow-up questions
2020 HeadsUP Fall Forum : TRUST + TRADITION
17 AUG | 9:00-12:00

after the Fall Forum, questions from participants were aggregated and posted to Provost Folks.
her answers follow.

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
There is frustration among some Heads that RCM and some other forums of input and communication do not necessarily descend below the deans.
Q: As RCM is reconfigured this year, would it be possible to extend it to departments, with a tax (variable by college but transparent to all) being returned to the deans (similar to the Provost Investment Fund)?
I agree that we need to find a way to ensure that departments participate in activity based revenue flows to fund their operations, and my preference is for that to be a goal as we think about revising our RCM model.  That said, I do not think that devolving the personnel budget to individual departments is a wise approach, since it would inevitably “cement” our current departmental structures, effectively preventing the evolution of dept structures and limiting the ability of Colleges to move to address new and evolving disciplines.  Personally, I am eager to explore ways to align RCM with our most pressing strategic needs also, i.e., student retention and degree completion measures, which is the essential activity that our departments “own.”

ASHFORD
What is the plan for running the Ashford degree programs, especially when there are AZOnline degrees, AZCAST degrees, and UAGlobal degrees that are similar? The overlap may be relatively small, but could be significant to the impacted departments. Is the plan to keep all of Ashford’s degrees when it becomes UA Global Campus and market them differently or to merge degree programs?
We are thinking ahead now to the formation of the Joint Academic Advisory Council (JAAC) which will have faculty from both universities on it, and which will be charged with both degree differentiation AND with the work to explore degree pathways and articulation plans that might be beneficial.  Though clearly important, this work will take a short while to get started, as we immediately need to focus on setting up the business structures for the new university.

CHANGE AND CONSULTATION
University change still feels very top-down, ideal driven, without iterative development and consultation. A good change model would be: propose change, ask for feedback, start change, check results against intent, revise plan, continue to change.
A prime example would be the equity study — for the Provost, it was successful; for me it was not. It created inequities because, even though the Provost consulted my dean, my dean was not aware of issues with some of the people who were given raises.
Q: When equity programs are conducted for the other faculty ranks, will you please extend the consultation down to the administrative layer with ground-level knowledge?
This question tackles a well-documented challenge for pay equity studies.  (I really can recommend the text “Paychecks” by AAUP – I am happy to lend out my copy – it is a good read, seriously!).
Dept leaders typically “own” salary decisions, and have not managed to eliminate pay inequities over the many decades in which we have known they exist in IHEs, although they have been greatly reduced.  (Why?  Because we recognize that implicit bias and explicit bias persist in IHE communities, as in the broader community.)  For that reason, the literature in this space explicitly counsels for taking a broader approach to assessing the problem, and for addressing any findings.   A way to think about this is that the dept leaders should “own” the merit-based component of pay (typically about 20% or so of total pay), but the campus at large should take responsibility for the equity-based component of pay (around 80%) using a data-driven approach that is rather distant from knowledge about individuals.
That said, I fully recognize that dept leaders absolutely know best what is happening “on the ground” with their faculty.  Where we must be unambiguously clear, going forward, is that poor performance issues are managed via documented personnel management processes, and NOT via inequitable pay structures.  (Note that I deliberately have left market-based considerations out of this first analysis, but that some institutions have incorporated that also in their analyses, and we could consider doing so also.).

As one further, operational, point:  The analysis relied on self-reported race and ethnicity data that we are legally obliged to keep in confidence, and thus the entire process was conducted under NDAs.  We felt it was inconsistent with our legal obligations to maintain confidentiality to broaden the number of people with full access to the data past the dean level.

I’d very much welcome further discussion on these topics – there is a great deal of context and smaller observations that I’d be pleased to review with the H/C/D group.

Q: Would you consider a more iterative system of engendering change when it impacts departments?
Absolutely.  I’d be pleased to figure out a more regular way to engage in discussions with the H/C/D group – it is always insightful, and always helpful.  In addition, we have to be very confident that we have robust communications within Colleges between the deans and their teams, and the Departments, since we do always want to respect the decision-making structures of the campus also.

SPEAKING AND BEING SILENCED
In the recent months, groups have emerged at the University with important and impassioned messages that need to be aired and considered.
At the same time, when individuals or grassroots movements are given a platform (rather than being redirected to established lines of input), they effectively subvert the governance systems that are in place to represent everyone.
Q: In the quest to better define shared governance within our institution, might we model the appropriate lines of input for all members of our community and for all types of issues, then, require everyone to use and abide by them?
This is a thorny issue, I believe, since we have no wish to silence any voice on campus, even as we want to empower, and engender respect for, the established structures for shared faculty governance and for consultative decision making with staff and students.  I do not favor “requiring”  the use of formal structures to express individual views, or to report concerns, since it may be intimidating to those individuals, and serve to limit the free-flow of ideas and concerns.  That said, these past few challenging months have exposed rifts in our collective understanding of the scope and reach of shared faculty governance, as well as weaknesses in the operational model we have in place.  It is, I might suggest, time for a review to ensure that our formal structures are nimble (as our times absolutely demand), efficient, and effective.

Robert Miller, AIA
Executive Director, HeadsUp
millerR at arizona.edu<mailto:millerR at u.arizona.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cals.arizona.edu/pipermail/ced/attachments/20200820/5de2b7fa/attachment.htm>