New Year's Experiment

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

These are difficult times for a lot of people, and Dartmouth is no exception. The painful effects of college budget reductions will soon be felt by many in Hanover. The political mythology of “administrative bloat” is about to be demolished by the harsh reality of cuts into muscle. No one can be happy about this.

Here is my experiment: For a New Year’s resolution, let’s try to put aside our differences and join together in supporting Dartmouth’s administration as it addresses the substantial economic challenges it must overcome in the coming months. Let’s offer moral support to those who will be affected by a symbolic show of alumni unity in appreciating their sacrifices.

I’ll start by offering a hand of friendship to Tim Dreisbach, whose tireless devotion to Dartmouth alumni affairs deserves respectful recognition. Tim, I rarely agree with your expressions of opinion, but I admire you and would greatly enjoy the privilege of counting you as a friend.

Happy New Year to all!

John Mathias

17 Comments:

John: Your New Year’s Experiment has been a catalyst for me to re-engage emotionally in my caring for Dartmouth. For that I thank you.

As to friendship, that is something to be earned over time. Let’s see.

I am not clear what a “symbolic show of unity” means, but hopefully your intent is more than artifice, but rather a symbol that shows some true underlying unity among alumni. Where might we find it?

Alumni were not unified regarding the lawsuit, being split 60/40. There seems to be a much more unified opinion that the parity balance of alumni-chosen trustees is important. If you are looking for a symbolic show of unity, how about an explicit statement by your re-election slate that you believe in parity and will work, on behalf of alumni and in the interests of the College, to restore it in a constructive way different from the legal path taken previously. Offer that, and your election rule amendment might have an easier time in passage.

You suggested we show “moral support for those who will be affected by the College’s economic challenges”? I am not sure what this means in substance either. Are you speaking for those who might be laid off?

I was newly arrived in Hanover when the College went through its last financial crisis, the bursting stock market bubble of 2001. If my memories serve, the College managed to reduce its workforce by a mere 1%, and this was accomplished mostly by attrition over a year-long period accompanied by much anxiety by all employees. Perhaps we can support the administration by strongly encouraging them to act more aggressively, which is ultimately a kinder way of treating both those who stay and those who go.

My experience in this comes from Silicon Valley, where companies in transition often make dramatic reductions in labor, even when in growth mode, in order to realign resources with priorities. I recognize the College is a different form of institution, and that it is embedded in the relatively-small community of the Upper Valley, where disruption is not easily absorbed. Still, there are lessons to be learned.

Why do you conclude that administrative bloat is a “political mythology”? It seems to me that it is inevitable in any large organization of an enduring nature that does not regularly and aggressively re-organize itself. While it may be no worse at Dartmouth than any other similar institution, that does not mean there is not great room for improvement. A quick review of overlapped programs and the College’s hodgepodge of organization charts, department mission statements, and questionable job descriptions makes this pretty obvious. It is telling that tough budget decisions are not made as a general practice, and that the search criteria for the president has only-recently been modified to find someone who can show leadership in this regard. Why was this not important before?

As to cutting into muscle, of course this is happening. That does not mean there is no fat. Rather, this is a consequence of the management approach being taken. A hiring freeze across all departments combined with staff reductions through natural attrition makes it inevitable. Rather than pursing such a course, the easy path that avoids pain and controversy, Dartmouth would be much better served by a more rigorous prioritization and the courageous decision to makes dramatic cuts in some areas, even while growing others at the same time. If the Administration would do this more aggressively, it would have support of alumni. The fiasco of angering alumni with the swim team was not due to its elimination, but to the incompetent way in which the decision was reached, implemented, and defended.

So yes… let’s support the Administration. As students have already done, how about we alumni begin to define priorities as we see them, and offer suggestions as to areas that can be scaled back. A pruned tree is a healthy tree, and bears more fruit.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/15/2009 10:28 AM
Tim, I'm curious about what you envision "parity" to be. The Board could preserve its current number of 21 elected trustees (or another odd number) as long as it wanted. How do you suggest alumni should request permission to nominate half of those 21? Should one seat alternate nominations, perhaps?

This seems like something alumni should work out before they ask for it.

By Scott, at 1/15/2009 3:58 PM
Unintentionally, I'm certain, Tim seems to concede that the previous Executive Committee of the Association chose a lawsuit instead of negotiation. That is incorrect. WE tried in every way possible to discuss our differences with the Board before filing suit. All overtures were rebuffed or ignored--including my invitation to Chairman Haldeman for an informal meeting. We also made two offers of mediation, without avail. Finally, our choice was between surrendering the rights established through the 1891 Agreement (honored both by the Association and the Board for 116 years) or protecting those contractual rights by filing suit.

Mr. Mathias and his slate took the position that they would concede to the Board and then, maybe, try to restore some of them. In fact, they went beyond that by asking the court to dismiss the suit with prejudice.

Scott's posting (I assume Scott Meachum)is the usual sophistry. "Parity," as employed by Tim and understood by all, refers to the equality between appointed and elected trustees, exclusive of the ex officio trustees.

Alumni who doubt our contention that Dartmouth suffers from administrative bloat may be interested in a report in a NY Times story published today, January 15, which states that the percentage of funds directed toward instruction has been declining through higher education and more steeply at private colleges and universities--and among those most steeply in institutions with substantial commitment to research.

By Tom Paine, at 1/15/2009 5:10 PM
This post has been removed by the author.

By test, at 1/15/2009 5:10 PM
Tom Paine/Frank: I made no such concession; other than that we agree.

Scott: Your concern over splitting an odd number is silly... simply increase the Board by one more to an even number. The Board wanted increases, remember. This and parity would restore the balance of alumni-chosen members, while keeping the precedent of having an effective odd number for tie-breaking purposes, presuming the President also votes but the Governor abstains.

EC Members: How about it? Unity in supporting alumni in their governance role? Unity in supporting the Administration in prioritizing key programs and eliminating less-central expenses?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/15/2009 6:15 PM
Let's leave the governance stuff to the side and discuss Tim's points about cost reduction. That's where alumni can add real value. "Cutting muscle" means to me that current customers will not get the same product as previous customers while paying the same or a higher price. And we all want the College to offer an even better product.

By DartBored, at 1/15/2009 7:06 PM
Tim, so you're asking the Board not only to (1) amend its bylaws to give three more nominations to alumni, but also to (2) add another trustee?

After reading the Board's governance report, I don't expect the Board to have a desire to do either of these things.

Frank, I am well aware of what you imagine "parity" (a concept invented recently, by the way, to explain the Board's two post-1960 decisions to add alumni trustees at the same rate as charter trustees) to mean. I ask you the same question Tim answered only weakly: how do you nominate half a trustee? The Board added five charter trustees recently, and no one who favors asking the Board for more nominations has yet explained how to handle an odd number. The mere existence of this problem is more evidence of the mythic nature of "parity."

Frank, another question: did you claim a tax deduction on the roughly $30,000 you paid the nonprofit Hanover Institute on behalf of the AoA? I believe it is important for the AoA to know if you did.

By Scott, at 1/16/2009 9:17 AM
Clarifications:

I did not ask anything of the Board in the comments above. I asked the new EC-nominated slate if they would make a symbolic show of alumni unity by taking an explicit position in support of the parity that, in my opinion, most alumni favor.

Further, I did not weakly answer the question as to how to nominate half a trustee. I clearly stated that this was a silly question; it is obvious to all (perhaps with one exception) that it is without answer. One wonders what was being served in asking it.

Let's follow DartBored's request and turn the discuss towards budget-related topics. In this time of financial "realism", where should Dartmouth focus its resources? I'd propose increased incentives for faculty to spend more time with students, in and outside the classroom; perhaps this could replace the need for non-faculty advisors, dorm residents, and the like, improve the student experience, and cut net costs at the same time.

A return to the days, pre helicopter parents, when the concept of in loco parentis was rejected, might provide an experience that better develops students as independently-thinking adults, and deliver it at lower cost. Out with the "programming" and social engineering that intrude upon fundamental education which should be the focus.

Students can open their eyes to inequity and injustice and "feel" about things without too much help; they need to be educated in how to "think" critically, biased only upon facts, and to communicate well. I.E. Reading (on history, economics, etc.), Riting, and Rithmetic (reasoning). The core of a liberal education.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/16/2009 11:13 AM
Tim, I agree that the question of how the Board could create "parity" among its 21 elected members is without an answer. That's why I oppose your request that the next EC ask the Board to give alumni "parity."

By Scott, at 1/16/2009 4:51 PM
Over on Dartlog, there is a new discussion related to the budget.

Apparently the Student Assembly, after surveying students, has recommended a hard look at OPAL, the Office of Pluralism and Leadership, as an area for savings. OPAL is one part of the Student Life Division. "Division"?

Truth Be Told questions the purposes of the many people reporting to the Vice President for Institutional Diversity and Equity

My own question regards the cost-benefit ratio for all the staff in Residential Life, especially those in the business of residential education.

Is there any single repository of administration organization and staffing levels, a starting point for any serious attempt at prioritizing reductions?

To my original point, are there any statistics about the amount of faculty time spent with students… not only the brilliant examples (there are some great ones), but the overall averages… and can anyone report what incentives encourage faculty to do more of this?

Or can someone make the argument that non-faculty "educators" make a bigger contribution to the student experience?

In making these inquiries, are alumni intruding onto the management turf of the Administration? Absolutely. John M. wants alumni to show support, and this includes asking the hard questions that the top administrators should be asking themselves but may be unable (or unwilling) to do because of the sensitivities.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/17/2009 9:35 AM
A followup to the post above, specific to John Mathias' belief that administrative bloat is a political mythology.

Conventional wisdom in management is that broader spans of control are more efficient and produce better communication than narrow hierarchies. Broader spans are possible (i.e. a manager can have more direct reports) when the overseen areas are identical. For example, nine Community Directors might be guided and coordinated by a single superior. One over one reporting should only be needed when a single functional area has so much work as to require two people to divide the load, with one of the two retaining ultimate accountability... for example when a company splits "presidential" duties between CEO and COO.

But the number of one over one reports in the College is staggering. Even if one can justify the need for nine adults to provide in-dorm parenting to students, do they really need to report to an Associate Director, who reports to a Senior Associate Director (having no other reports), who reports to a Director (with no other reports), who reports to a Residential Dean (having few other reports; administrative aides do not count as functional area reports!), who reports to the Dean of the College. The same stovepipe reporting exists in Student Life and other departments.

Too many chiefs within departments. Too many overlapped missions across departments. What happened to the McKinsey recommendations? As being asked in Washington, will "change" truly occur?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/17/2009 10:12 AM
Some sense from a current student:

”The important question is not whether OPAL is valuable, (though I think that question remains an open one) but whether OPAL is more valuable than all of the other programs it competes with for college funding….

“There are, however, several ways the College can make funding reach farther down on this list of priorities. There are some expenditures the College can easily cut right away, things that it clearly should not be spending its money on under these circumstances. These measures are the obvious ones pointed out by Student Assembly in its letter to the administration and in students’ responses to the Assembly survey: cut back on unnecessary luxuries provided by the College (like free food), reduce both administrative waste and inefficiencies, limit the number of advisors in the residential undergraduate advisor program [YES]and lower heating and energy costs.

“And, with so many groups fearing cuts, does it really make sense for the College to be spending its limited money on screenings of pornography, sex fairs, free condoms and the Vagina Monologues? The College could also consider taking down the superfluous televisions in Food Court and selling them on eBay. Hard times make decadence difficult to justify.

“Of course, the superficial cuts I just mentioned will not be enough. The College will have to make some tough decisions in the near future about which groups and programs will be reduced and restructured. [YES]”

The full column in the D.

DartBored?
John?

Whatever the cuts may be, most personnel actions need to be taken in the 30 days following the February Board meeting, and not dragged out over months of anguish. The devil is in the details, and one hopes the administration is working 24x7 right now on plans for a swift execution.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/21/2009 8:50 AM
PS Some might argue that major changes should be left to the new president. That will burn a major amount of political capital for a new-comer, no matter where cutbacks occur. The strategic decisions on where to focus reductions may be administration-recommended, but are ultimately for the Board. Make them now, begin the execution, and let the focus of the new president be on building rather than dismantling.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/21/2009 9:22 AM
Meanwhile on the other topic of this thread, Frank and Scott were engaged on a recap of the past regarding suing the Board. On the anniversary of MLK, I have been reading his Letters from the Birmingham Jail. Not trying to equate Dartmouth governance with the Civil Rights movement, his insights are nonetheless informative:

"You may well ask: "Why direct action?...Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. ... The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

I repeat my call to the newly-nominated slate of AoA officer candidates: Will you make a symbolic show of alumni unity (as first suggested by your leader), openly endorse the concept of parity, and entreat the Trustees into negotiation?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/21/2009 9:44 AM
A NEW New Year’s Experiment:

John Mathias wrote of an experiment to see if alumni can be unified to a common purpose, focused on rallying behind the Administration during this financial crisis. The experiment included a personal outreach to me.

It appears the experiment has failed, with John likely unhappy with my responses and I concluding the same from his subsequent silence. My guess is that my questions regarding perceived budgetary excesses cause discomfort, and the call for action regarding trustee parity is deemed partisan. (Talking with the Board about adding a few more alumni trustees, with preconditions of election rule changes, is not the same as negotiating a restoration of parity.)

Let’s see if we can find unity in another dimension. It is my belief that both the College and her alumni would be better served if there were an association of alumni that was truly independent of external powers. Alumni interests in College affairs should be represented free of outside editorial control by all other groups, including the Hanover Institute AND especially the Administration itself. My previous statements in this regard may be the reason John chose me in his outreach.

So a new experiment. I am reaching out to John and other members of the Executive Committee to work constructively together for the independence of the Association. It can and should remain in partnership with the Administration, but needs to be responsible for its own membership, communications and financing. My approach would not be dues, but to solicit donations and a very modest endowment to cover minimal operating costs; it would involve asking the Administration to support this initiative, and to provide some initial mail/email access in order to solicit direct alumni support.

Will the EC pledge to join me and others in such an endeavor, and make this independence a plank of your re-election platform? I have direct reason to believe that those of “oppositional persuasion” will support this initiative. Although I will be surprised if those of the establishment will also be supportive, as they benefit from the status quo, it would be a most pleasant and positive surprise if they did. Working on this together would demonstrate the bi-partisan unity being called for, and be a means to developing the mutual friendships that John suggested.

John and EC members: Will you join me?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/23/2009 8:28 PM
One presumes the deafening silence implies disagreement.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1/27/2009 8:01 AM
Hi,

The Marywood University Alumni Association is interested in connecting with you by exchanging links in hopes of reaching more alumni across a much broader network. Take a look at our blog and let us know if you're interested:

http://marywoodalumnionline.wordpress.com.

Best wishes!
Marywood Alumni Association

By marywoodalumnionline, at 1/29/2009 3:48 PM

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

New Year's Experiment

17 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives