UNM central administration and faculty routinely quarrel, and a survey released Wednesday proves there is discontent over budget and communication issues between the two parties.
A six-month survey conducted by Research and Polling Inc. concluded more than two-thirds of faculty is dissatisfied with their role in the University’s shared governance system, and 42 percent of faculty said in the survey that they are “very dissatisfied.”
“The survey represents the feelings of the faculty over the last few years,” Faculty Senate President Richard Wood said. “It shows how strongly the faculty and staff have felt about the University’s need to get back on track to our academic mission.”
The survey, completed online by 719 faculty and 1,627 staff members, found that 79 percent of faculty disagrees that academic interest guides financial decisions at UNM; 81 percent feel they have no influence over budget development and only 5 percent believe an atmosphere of trust exists between the faculty and administration.
“I think there is nothing surprising. The results are somber,” Provost Suzanne Ortega said. “The good news is that we didn’t wait until the results came in to address the issues in the survey.”
Recommendations from the survey include a clearer definition of shared governance, further transparency from the central administration, an assessment of communication mechanisms between staff, faculty and the administration, and overall cooperation between the three groups.
Ninety-one percent of faculty said participation in shared governance is a worthwhile responsibility for faculty, prompting a positive direction for both groups to cooperate change.
One example is the formation of a strategic advisory committee, which met in June to begin deliberating budget proposals for next spring.
“We’ve been very involved in recent months to create a strategic budgeting process that involves the faculty leadership, executive vice president of administration, the deans and the provost, all under the final budgetary authority of the president and the regents,” Wood said.
President David Schmidly said in a statement that the University is doing its part to include all parties in discussions.
“We continue our commitment to maximum participation,” he said. “However, the final responsibility of the budget, as stipulated in regents’ policy, lies with the Office of the President.”
Having a seat at the table during budget talks is one way faculty can leverage the the survey results, Ortega said, and it will be important in figuring out what shared governance actually means.
“We are working to develop a strategic role for clarifying roles of responsibilities that further define shared governance,” she said. “How do we make sure faculty and staff are part of budget considerations?”
The faculty is content to be included during the longer budget timeline period. In previous years, the regents showed a completed budget and the faculty had little or no time to propose changes, Wood said.
“We are meeting regularly with Andrew Cullen of the Office of the VP for Administration to look at how the next budget is put together,” he said. “We haven’t been brought in this early before. We have asked to be part of the budget process from the beginning, and so far that is happening.”
Wood said budget priorities for the faculty are clear: protect students and the University’s research mission.
“The regents are asking the right questions,” he said. “In recent regents’ meetings, they have asked about tenure-track faculty hiring, the strategic budget process, the criteria for evaluating the administration next year, and the academic prioritization of every program at the university.”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Because the budget process takes place at an earlier date, it will be important for the regents and provost to implement a better line of communication with the faculty and staff, Ortega said.
“I think communication is a process you work on and continue to move forward,” she said.
In response to the backlash, Ortega said she has implemented open office hours for faculty and staff, monthly lunch meetings with staff, semi-annual faculty meetings and monthly communication strategy planning with department chairs and faculty leadership, and quarterly newsletters.
In an effort to aid transparency, anyone can leave comments and input on major documents online at the provost website.
But with a bitter history between faculty, staff and administration, Roli Varma, professor of public
administration, said old wounds won’t heal easily.
“The survey is embarrassing for the central administration,” she said. “I’ve been depressed with UNM for so long.”
Varma completed the survey and was randomly selected to take part in focus group sessions after the data was compiled.
“Of course, it’s a good sign that the faculty is included in the budget talks, but I want to wait and see,” she said. “Right now, I don’t have much faith.”
Wood said he is optimistic.
“The most important thing is this; What are the decisions coming out of this process? We won’t know until next spring,” he said. “Until then, we are working to inform the process that leads up to those budget decisions.”
Faculty survey, by the numbers
$65,000 – Budgeted cost of survey
1,902 – Faculty invited to take the survey
38% – Faculty response rate to the survey
3,320 – Staff invited to take the survey
49% – Staff response rate to the survey
91% – Feel faculty role in shared governance is worthwhile.
42% – Faculty very dissatisfied with their role in shared governance.
53% – Tenured faculty very dissatisfied with their role in shared governance
13% – Very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their role in shared governance.
80% – Disagree a collaborative decision-making environment exists between the faculty and central administration.
49% – Disagree the role of the provost is clearly defined.
79% – Disagree that academic interests guide financial decisions.
58% – Athletics department staff satisfied with communication with the central administration.
