I have been hassling UNM presidents since Ferrel Heady in the early 1970s, and I must say that President David Schmidly appears to be setting new records for maladministration. I used to believe that Richard Peck was the worst CEO the University has had in the last 36 years, but after only a year, Schmidly looks to be leaving him in the dust. Certainly his compensation package puts those of previous incumbents to shame, and he may well have created more expensive administrators of dubious value than his last eight predecessors together.
And now there is the charge of nepotism in the case of his son being hired for yet another newly created administrative position, this one actually a bargain at $94,000. Schmidly has explained how this hire did not violate the University's nepotism policy, but the explanation is lame. The qualifications of the other candidates and the fact that this same administration has already been accused of cronyism and conducting a sham investigation into it makes it all look very suspicious. But let us give them the benefit of the doubt. As a university president and former academic, Schmidly must be telling the truth, right?
The son has resigned, but the position, "associate director of sustainability," remains, and doubtless some other worthy person will soon be collecting that $94,000, performing who knows what duties, since they are yet to be specified.
Actually, one duty is known: The director will chair the UNM Sustainability Task Force, which must be a serious operation, because it is not simply a committee, but a task force. Even more, an outside company has been engaged for a paltry $2 million to help them "set the framework for what we're trying to do here so that we're really all singing from the same sheet of music on sustainability." This is somewhat less than crystal clear, but apparently one of the new directors' jobs will be to figure out exactly what his job is. Sometimes one almost has to admire administrative cleverness.
All right, the job has to do with conserving energy. But it requires a highly paid director and a $2 million consulting firm? How tough can this be? Much of it is simply reminding people to turn off the lights or maintaining the proper temperature in campus buildings (something the University never got right in my 31 years). This is hardly high-energy physics, and I suspect there are many qualified to "set that framework" who would work for a lot less than $94,000. It is certainly possible to get a theoretical physicist for less than that.
I am always baffled when the University feels it must hire expensive "experts" whenever there is a project like this. This is, after all, a university. There are some 1,500 eggheads on the campus, and surely all of them can be solicited for suggestions and some of them for knowledge. In many ways, this is an insult, as when years ago the University paid a New York firm to design a new Lobo logo, strongly implying that the graphic arts faculty and students were not up to the task.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Also baffling: A "key component" of the position is, not surprisingly, marketing, which seems to have become the primary mission of UNM these days. Perhaps I am missing something here, but why does "sustainability" (sounds more serious than "conservation," doesn't it?) need to be marketed? Are we to believe there are otherwise normal people who have to be convinced that saving energy is a positive thing? Or is it actually the excessive cost of the director and the outside company that needs to be marketed?
Further, UNM has an immense, expensive and constantly growing public relations establishment; even subordinate entities, like Zimmerman Library, have public relations personnel. What exactly are all these people doing? Why can they not supply the necessary "marketing" for the conservation program?
Even I have trouble believing that all these people are incompetent, but one has to wonder. Was there no one to inform Schmidly that his plans for the North Golf Course were likely to run into serious community opposition or that the vast majority of students would probably oppose the plan to move Student Services? Was there no advice on how to handle more delicately the financial scandal in the research office?
Even some of UNM's achievements are being ignored. Why is the only real publicity concerning the library's new scanners and enhanced e-lending to be found in a Daily Lobo column by a retired professor? Could it be that we are not getting our money's worth from some extremely expensive administrators?
The faculty is expressing concerns about this administration. Well, we are well past that stage, and the faculty should be discussing serious job action and talking to the Teamsters.
