UW-Green Bay, Chancellor, Educating


Educating the Chancellor
Getting there: The means
Click here for printer friendly version
Engagement \| Growing the University \| Retention \| Partnerships \| Marketing \| Institutional Grants \| Advancement \| Governance \| Budgeting and Planning

	Institutional Grants UWGB faculty and staff have great ideas. That I clearly learned over the past few months. I also learned that we have not developed an institutional grant capability. We have faculty who compete very successfully for funding for research and scholarly activity. And, when it comes to institutional grants, we have selected individuals who do a great job in their areas (e.g., with TRIO grants) or when a motivated group of individuals see an opportunity to obtain FIPSE funding. But, there are lots of ideas — the Learning Experience is an example — ready made for extramural support. We provide some support for extramurally funded research through the Research Office. But, we do not have a person with the expertise and time dedicated to helping secure support for institution-level initiatives. We need to consider developing that capability as one part of our strategies to achieve our aspirations. TOP OF PAGE Advancement As state support declines, universities around the country increasingly rely upon philanthropy to provide the “margin of excellence” in programs and facilities. We have done so at UWGB through the generosity of a number of friends of the University. We must do even more in the future. Our current endowment is not embarrassingly small for an institution of our size. It is also not all that large. The endowment provides important resources for promoting excellence through such means as named professorships and scholarships that allow academic programs to attract strong students. Increasing our endowment must be a priority. We also have facilities issues, described earlier, that will require private support if the issues are to be successfully addressed. We face a variety of challenges. While we have had a number of generous benefactors, our traditional supporters are aging. We need to develop a commitment to UWGB among the next generation. Perhaps our biggest liability is the fact that we are a public institution. People do not understand that we are only “publicly assisted” with less than half our resources coming from GPR. We have important assets. Being located in a region of 500,000 with its own regional sense of identity could be very helpful, particularly as we pursue the theme of engagement. Our alumni are a resource we have only begun to meaningfully engage in the life of the University. Our Division I athletic program is an important connection to segments of the Green Bay community. Wherever I have looked on campus, I have found colleagues willing and able to work effectively with potential donors interested in their programs. We are really just learning how to do advancement on the scale of many other institutions. I have been very impressed by the shared interest I found in making this effort successful. We do need to understand that we must spend money to “make money” here. And, we need to understand that our success depends, ultimately, on each of our contributions to continuing to build a University that people find irresistibly worthy of their support. TOP OF PAGE Governance Perhaps our ability to work together is the most important means we have available to achieve our shared objectives. Overall, governance appears healthy, or is headed in healthy directions. We can never achieve our shared aspirations without meaningful and effective governance. Governance bodies must be engaged, effective, and accountable. It really is, in my view, “all or nothing”: governance that is not engaged and effective is, understandably, not accountable and so veers off into irresponsibility; governance that knows its efforts will have effect will carefully seek the most responsible positions. Students generally expressed positive experiences concerning the effectiveness of their governance structures and their relationship with “the administration.” There were specific issues involving inclusion of student perspectives in Union governance and in formulation of several specific policies — e.g., on “posting” and “chalking.” Overall, though, students seemed to feel that the University was listening. When I arrived, I heard concerns from faculty and academic staff about “the administration” working outside of accepted governance structures. I also heard of concerns about situations where involvement was not considered to be meaningful: decisions seemed already to have been made and acquiescence was simply being sought. And, there is evidence to suggest the accuracy of both these perceptions.	When I arrived, I suspected that there might be structural reasons — whatever the other reasons might be — for “the administration” to work outside of the governance structure. We have distinct governance structures for the faculty, staff, and students. When important matters cut across those areas — the Learning Experience comes to mind — there is no standing governance body capable of fully embracing the subject, and tendencies to appoint special task forces become irresistible. This problem surfaced early in my discussions, and it is my understanding that faculty and academic staff governance bodies have been working to develop stronger formal communication and coordination mechanisms. There also appeared to be merit in the view that governance bodies were, at times, presented with a fiat accompli. This, anyway, was the characterization I heard of the meetings of CPARC — The Chancellor’s Planning and Resource Committee. And, given the stage at which CPARC became involved in budgeting, it is hard for me to imagine that any meaningful role was possible. More on this subject in the immediately following section. Part of the “education of the chancellor” has included attendance at governance sessions of the faculty, academic staff, administrative support, and students. While I have used this section to note areas where we might direct our efforts at improvement, I have formed the impression that our governance structures are strong. While there might have been past experiences that led to frustrations, frustration has not become disgruntlement, and governance bodies continue to attract responsible and respected colleagues dedicated to the continuing strength of the University. TOP OF PAGE Budgeting and Planning If we are going to be successful, we must institutionalize “bottom-up” procedures that meaningfully integrate budgeting and planning. Today, we have careful and responsible budgeting procedures; we keep track of the dollars. We need procedures that more clearly employ budgeting as not just a control responsibility but also means for planning, collectively leading, and enabling. What we need are means that engage all of us in setting priorities, and not just for dollars but also for what is our greater resource: time and expertise. And, we need to build in means to systematically and routinely understand the effectiveness of our efforts. As I met with groups around campus, I saw many examples of creative program-level planning. Our approach must not supplant or attempt to “control” such efforts. We do need to make sure that university-level aims, though, are developed “bottom up” and are broadly understood. We do a lot of project-level planning. It is not as clear to me that we systematically engage in integrated strategic planning or assessment of results. The result can appear to be somewhat of a “crisis management” approach. I see this as an opportunity. Believe me, I hate sitting in rooms for days on end at “planning retreats” where we arrange yellow stickies on walls. I really hate planning that produces glossy reports that are promptly forgotten. Planning is a process and not a product. I believe it was Eisenhower who said, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.” We can create, as a part of our routine governance processes, means of involving us all in budgeting and planning, thereby assuring a stronger institution, one in which we each feel a sense of responsibility for our shared situation. And, we need not begin from scratch. Working with appropriate governance bodies, we need to systematically evaluate approaches at other universities, selecting elements we believe best suited to our situation. And, we need to keep one principle well in mind: Budgeting and planning is a learning process. Each year, if we are attending to feedback, we will be learning, doing a more satisfactory job year after year. I see attention to our budgeting and planning processes as one of the most important means we must develop in order to effectively pursue our shared ends.
		Back to start GETTING THERE Continue to CONCLUSIONS
	TOP OF NEXT COLUMN	TOP OF PAGE


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \| INTRODUCTION \| THEMES \| WHERE WE HAVE BEEN \| FOUNDATIONS
WHERE WE ARE GOING: Engagement \| Excellence Across the Board \| Education for the 21st Century
GETTING THERE \| CONCLUSIONS \| CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION \| SUMMARY \| APPENDIX

Office of the Chancellor, David A Cofrin Library, Suite 810, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311-7001
Phone: 920-465-2207 E-mail: shepardb@uwgb.edu
Comments to: Chancellor's Web Manager
Revised: 7/31/06

UW-Green Bay Home | " Educating" Home