Hay’s and Shelton’s Breach of Trust

This came in as a comment. It presented such compelling insight into the way decisions are made in the "tower" that it deserved "post" status. The UA Defender again calls for world-class leadership for our world-class institution. The situation described below illustrates that we are not getting such leadership from Shelton/Hay. This posting has been modified to reflect Garcia's correction that the $436,000 was taken from the Diverse Faculty Initiative in spring 2008 to fund gen. ed. courses scheduled for fall 2008, not spring 2008.

This past weekend the U of A celebrated Hispanic Heritage day. To do so the administration paraded out folkloric Mexican dancers and mariachis onto the football field to symbolize their commitment to diversity and the Hispanic community. The president’s office also continues to spew out data that shows increases in “minority” enrollment, which is meant to convince us that they are committed to progress in this arena. But numbers without substance are meaningless. That is indeed the case when it comes to this administration’s record on diversity.

Let me describe the most recent series of events that illustrates the lack of substance and commitment to diversity by the U of A central administration, despite their continued propaganda. In 2007-2008 the President initiated the Diverse Faculty Initiative as a way to increase the number of women in STEM fields and faculty from underrepresented groups. He allocated $1 million for the Initiative. In spring 2008, Meredith Hay used over $436,000 from the $1 million allocated for this Initiative to fund fall 2008 classes. At the time of this action, the central administration was holding on to $16 million in over realized tuition, which they could have used to fund additional seats in general education. Instead they took from the poor.

When Shelton funded this Initiative he assigned me to administer it, so you can imagine my surprise when Hay took $436 K from this fund without notifying me. In 2008-2009 the Initiative was again funded by Shelton. During the spring of 2009, he was asked by members of the Diversity Coalition and the community advisory groups on diversity what effect the budget cuts would have on the funding for the Diverse Faculty Initiative. He responded that it was in the most difficult of times when our values were truly tested, and that his commitment to the Initiative and diversity remained unchanged. In meetings held in the spring of 2009 with these groups he again touted the importance of this Initiative and said, in effect, that he wanted me, Juan Garcia, to come to him at the end of the year and inform him that he has “overspent” on the million dollars allocated for this program. After a meeting with the African American Advisory Committee he spoke to me outside the Ventana Room and asked me to “get on the backs of the deans” to identify and recruit more minority faculty. I informed him that I was doing that very thing and that we had some outstanding possibilities developing.

In response to my call for more colleges to take advantage of the Initiative, I received proposals from several units in SBS asking for funding to recruit faculty that they had identified. The units did due diligence and conducted their respective searches according to the guidelines and procedures established by their college and the university. The end result was that six faculty were identified, 5 of whom were from underrepresented groups (2 African Americans, 1 Hispanic, 2 Asians, and one STEM faculty. All six of these faculty are women. To hire these stellar women to the U of A meant that we would need an additional $350,700 per year of bridge funding using the Diverse Faculty Initiative. Under normal circumstance I would have written MOUs to each of the units approving the hires because the dean in SBS agreed to pick up their salaries using permanent funds once the temporary funding from the Initiative ended. However, when all of this was occurring I was in the midst of being non-renewed, so I wrote a memo to Shelton detailing the faculty recruited and the funding required. I wanted to make certain that these obligations to the SBS departments were not lost in the transition following my non-renewal by Shelton. Shelton did not deign to respond to my memo. Instead Meredith Hay inserted herself into this matter and summarily decreed that we had “no funds” to support these hires. She then added insult to injury by declaring that I had “overspent” the funds allocated, and that I had no standing to do so. To this I say “yes I did overspend the amount allocated” because that's what Shelton told the advisory groups he wanted me to do.

When the heads that had recruited these faculty learned that the funding for these hires was not forthcoming, they were, and remain, enraged and betrayed. In June, the SBS heads and director formulated a proposal that would not have involved any funding from the Strategic Initiative for AY 2009-10. The only financial commitment would have been $30K for spring 2010, to bring on the tenured associate professor, who was willing to come at a reduced FTE for the semester. The other five women were willing to wait until AY 2010-11 to start at the university if they had contracts. The heads met with Meredith to discuss the matter, and again Hay characteristically proved intractable.

The plan set forth by the heads had the support of Beth Mitchneck, Interim Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Joaquín Ruiz, Executive Dean of the Colleges of Letters, Arts and Science, of which SBS is a part. Beth and Joaquín said they would work with the heads and director to find the $30,000 for the associate professor’s spring 2010 salary.

This meant that no funding would be needed from the Strategic Initiative until AY 2010-11, when $104,000 was available. In addition, the SBS heads and director said they would ask for only two years of salary support (for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12) instead of the usual three years provided by the Strategic Initiative. At this point, the provost presented to Ruiz and Mitchneck another reason for not hiring the six candidates: she said the former SBS dean, Ed Donnerstein, had overcommitted the college's funds for faculty hires, and the college was in deficit. Therefore, the college could not afford to take over the salaries for the six diversity hires at the end of the three-year funding period. The provost refused to approve the hires.

Hay’s transparent lack of commitment to integrity and diversity was no surprise. But for Shelton to abdicate his responsibilities in this matter and allow Hay to completely derail all of the effort and good faith that had gone into recruiting these faculty is both unconscionable and irresponsible. In essence, the departments, SBS, and the faculty being recruited had met the standards and requirements of the Initiative guidelines. There is nothing in the guidelines that allows the Provost to deny Initiative funding after all of the requirements have been met by units under this Initiative.

Even if you do not agree with diversity initiatives, the fact is that this action by the Provost and President is unacceptable for the following reasons:

• It will damage the credibility of the U of A nationally in recruiting any faculty because the commitment to hire faculty will be questioned by applicants. It will make our university appear as a second-rate university that does not honor its commitments.

• The failure of the administration in fulfilling its commitments further erodes the trust of the academic community on campus.

• It again penalizes the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences by denying them even the most meager of resources to improve on the quality and number of their diverse faculty.

• It is unmitigated and demeaning micro-managing on the part of the Provost in the affairs of SBS and other colleges.

• It contradicts Shelton’s pledge to the community advisory committees on diversity. This has the potential to again alienate this important constituency and undo all of the work that has taken place to win their trust and support.

As for the advisory groups—they must not allow this breach of trust on the part of Shelton and Hay to go unchallenged. The pledge to hire more diverse faculty was made to them personally by Shelton. Demand that he live up to his promise. The argument that they do not have the funds to approve these hires is specious and untrue.

For example, in August 2009, the Provost announced that the university would allocate $12 million to promote the hiring of excellent faculty in environmental studies and translational medicine. She also announced an allocation of $300,000 to promote scholarship among faculty in Fine Arts, Humanities, and Social and Behavioral Sciences (three of the four units in the newly formed Colleges of Letters, Arts and Science). What this indicates – in light of the 7% budget cuts allocated to Fine Arts, Humanities, and SBS – is that there is a massive centralization of resources, with reallocation of funds to favored colleges and fields. In short, the cuts are financing a massive expansion of resources in the sciences and medicine. Meanwhile, despite the continual press releases and president’s statements about the UA’s commitment to diversity, the university has refused to fund six faculty candidates in SBS with excellent research agendas, all of whom are women and five of who are members of ethnic minorities.

Furthermore at a Team Provost meeting earlier last spring Gene Sander, Dean of Agriculture and VP for Outreach, was bemoaning the loss of faculty at the U of A. Meredith stated that this is the time we should be out recruiting the best faculty possible, to which Gene responded how could we when there was a hiring freeze and the budget situation was dire. Hay replied, just go out and find them and we will find the money to hire them. Well, a group of heads has done that—so where is the money, Provost Hay?

Finally, someone has just put together the statistics and data on the U of A's record in terms of hiring women and faculty from under-represented groups. They are abysmal. I will ascertain whether they can be placed on this site, so that you may come to your own conclusions. (They have been. Please see below.)

I challenge the community advisory groups to demand what was promised to them by Shelton with great fanfare. And do not forget what happened under this administration last spring when they (Vito and Hay especially) dismantled the cultural centers, despite your concerns and protests. Do not continue to be misled by data shoveled out by the central administration or by the hollow rhetoric and promises of Shelton.

So let’s go back to the symbolic meaning of Hispanic dancers and mariachis on the football field last Saturday evening. In light of this administration’s actions regarding the cultural centers, the Diverse Faculty Initiative, and the almost complete absence of members from underrepresented groups on Team Provost and the president’s cabinet, it is not surprising that they have compartmentalized their commitment to diversity in terms of celebrations--although I do not see much to celebrate about. As long as this administration continues to rely on numbers rather than substance, it may keep their shallow demonstrations of inclusion that are paraded out annually in colorful costumes to entertain and amuse them. It once again demonstrates to me the utter lack of understanding and appreciation of how groups from diverse and different backgrounds have come together to shape who and what we are. A world-class leadership would have tapped into that deep reserve of knowledge and talent. The current administration continues to demonstrate through their actions that they are second rate when it comes to leadership.

Juan R. García

Sources:
Click here for "Diversity Graphs for UA Faculty 2003-2008."
Click here for "Highlights of Diversity Graphs 2003-2008" (September 2009)

Evelyn Comments on the Daily Wildcat Podcast 9-11-09

Congratulations to Arizona Daily Wildcat Managing Editor, Shain Bergen, for his insightful analysis presented in the Daily Wildcat podcast of Friday, September 11 of the ever growing controversy surrounding President Shelton and Provost Hay. Bergen, during an interview with Wildcat Online Editor, Bryan Roy, concludes that there is less and less support for Shelton and Hay on the UA campus and that opposition to their continued leadership is gathering momentum. Bergen states during the interview that many faculty and staff are talking to him off the record about their displeasure with the Shelton/Hay administration, but fear that going on the record will result in retaliatory dismissal from their positions at the UA. Interestingly, Bergen also reports that their have been some calls that have been supportive of Shelton and Hay, but these people have also expressed fear when asked to publicly comment. One might speculate that there is such an overwhelming lack of confidence in Shelton and Hay that those who still support their policies are unwilling to step forward for fear of ridicule and condemnation. That is unfortunate, because we at the UADefender believe that the conversations we're currently having online and those we're beginning to have in departments around campus are valuable and will lead to careful and thoughtful decisions about next steps for the UA. We point out that if President Shelton and Provost Hay had allowed and sought the type of discussions we see on the Defender instead of making insulated decisions and rulings by decree, they might have made different and better decisions and they certainly would have made those most impacted by their decisions, the students, staff and faculty, feel heard and perhaps even valued and empowered. That moment has passed for President Shelton and Provost Hay and it is now time for them to move aside and allow us to find the "world-class" leadership this great university deserves.

On Faculty Governance and Shared Governance [revised 9/13]

[As the topic of faculty governance - more accurately, faculty participation in shared governance at the UA - is at present receiving the most comments - and the most constructive comments - we are re-posting at the top of the blog, with minor revisions, the original post dated 9/9/09.]

Reports that UA faculty governance is dead have been greatly exaggerated, and are premature - according to the Faculty Senate organizers of the "Faculty Governance Leadership Forum" held on September 9th.

Their message:

1) The President and Provost have failed to provide the “transparency” they promised in the most important aspects of implementing the Transformation process.

2) Faculty members present at the meeting were seriously upset about this.

3) Faculty Governance at the UA is not dead, nor even in hibernation; it just needs more support and participation among the faculty as a whole. Faculty must participate. If you don’t participate, don’t complain.

So, coming soon: a Faculty Senate poll of all the faculty, asking whether the faculty as a whole supports, or does not support, the way the President and the Provost have been conducting the Transformation Process.

Exact wording of the poll and the logistics of its implementation will be taken up by the Committee of Eleven in the Faculty Senate.

In the meantime, we will continue to consider comments from readers who write in response to the “core issues” that have defined this site since its inception (way back last month), provided the comments are written in accordance with our rules for civility and evidence.

"Death Panels"

Has push come to shove? Are the gloves coming off?
President Shelton, in his memo of Sept. 9: “Across the board cuts would be the quickest route to mediocrity.”
We agree.
But who are you going to let define “mediocrity”? Meredith Hay?
Has she now clawed her way up to mediocre? By what standards? By what evidence? World-class university provosts are distinguished by their qualities of leadership.
President Shelton in his memo of Sept. 9: “From the very beginning, our commitment as a campus has been to ensure that in these dire financial times we protect and strengthen the University of Arizona's world-class programs. That principle has provided the underpinning for all our budget decisions."
We agree. Who could disagree with protecting world-class programs and, we would add, world-class scholars, even if they’re housed, as is often the case, in programs that may, overall, fall short of world-class.
But who do we let decide what qualifies as world-class, mediocre, and everything in-between?
Shelton and Hay tell us “You decide.” Meaning us. The decisions should be made, we are told, at the level of each academic unit in consultation with its dean.
A Death Panel in every department.
A panel to review the files and say, “This one is terminally mediocre; he has to go.” Or “This one is borderline; we’ll give her a year to show signs of life or we’ll have to pull the plug.”

Horrible idea? Guess what, it’s already in effect. It’s called Annual Performance Review and Post-Tenure Review. The law is there, it just hasn’t been applied.
Don’t ask for peer-review, don’t ask for shared governance, if you’re afraid to use it. Meredith and Gail are not afraid to take over the power we’re afraid to exercise and defend.

Solid, objective assessment standards do exist. We have them in our university-wide guidelines for P&T and annual performance review. Those standards have been worked out with all the clarity, detail and faculty input you could ask for. We just don’t apply them.
Or sometimes we don’t. And sometimes we apply them badly. We find excuses to disqualify standard assessment criteria, or make exceptions, or substitute bogus criteria for real ones. Take the example of Suzie (not her real name).
“Suzie was elected President (by a small clique of mutually-supportive mediocrities) of a prestigious professional society (that no one ever heard of) on the basis of her outstanding research and publications (that no one has read, not even her mom, anymore), published in the most respected venues in her discipline (but which have had no impact on anything—except her career management).
Instead of pulling the plug on Suzie, she gets a promotion, a raise, and eventually maybe a high administrative post.

In contrast, the UA really does have plenty of genuine world-class programs and authentically world-class scholars, measured by authentic standards, the only ones that count – external standards which overlap with the internal ones (referred to above), national and international standards and even the global standards of the ARWU (Academic Ratings of World Universities).
So when they ask for volunteers to the Death Panel in your department, go for it. Just don’t call it a Death Panel – call it a Sustainability Panel, because that’s really what we’re talking about.
After review at the department or program level, files go to the next level up (dean’s-level committees in most cases) where peer-review can be more exacting and more objective.

But wait. What’s wrong with this picture?

Hold on. Before you sign up for service in Sustainability or waste management or whatever you want to call it, we need consistency and reciprocity if this exercise in shared governance is to have credibility and teeth. If Robert Shelton’s and Meredith Hay’s criterion for program “protection” at the UA is world-class quality, then before buying into their plan, we must insist that they, too, submit themselves to the same criteria and the same standards.
And that they provide world-class leadership.
Not the mediocrity of acquiescence papered over and whitewashed, but excellence.
Excellence measured by evidence, results, and positive outcomes.
Positive outcomes means gains, not losses – losses measured in how much you give up, how much you give back, how much you cut.
Cutting is the easy way out. Don’t quibble about differential cuts or cuts across the board; losing is losing.
World-class presidents and provosts are the ones who don’t lose – or who lose the least.

[The views expressed in this post are those of one member of Team Evelyn and do not necessarily represent those of the whole Team.]

PS. This post was written before we saw the opinion piece in the Arizona Star by Regents Professor Oscar Martínez entitled "Poor Leadership, funding is bringing down the UA."

• Click here for Prof. Martínez's statement.

• Click here for the Tucson Citizen blog (Renee Schaefer Horton) reporting on that story.

• Click here for the view of the UA Graduate Student organization "Gradstudents for Change in Arizona.

• Click here for the Arizona Daily Wildcat update (9/11). Brian Roy and Shain Bergan (Managing editor of the DW) have published a podcast on the "UA's budget crisis, unrest within the faculty, and a vote of 'no confidence' in Shelton and Hay that staff have said may come in the near future."

• And here for light on the story from the Arizona Desert Lamp, written by Evan Lisull, a UA undergraduate and former columnist for the Arizona Daily Wildcat.

Postscript 9/14. We have been informed that a Faculty Senate colleague, whose opinion we respect, considers the title of this post to be not in the best of taste. As we are not morbid by nature (and though one recent comment refers to "deadwood" and no one doubts that the business at hand is deadly serious), we have added hedge-quotes to our title, in deference to our readers' right to disagree.

Post-postscript 9/15. Evan Lisull has posted a rare photo of an actual UA Death Panel. Read his commentary here.

Back to School

Some of our more attentive readers have discerned in the persona of Evelyn B. Hall a multiplicity of voices. Evelyn is moderate or militant. Passionate, compassionate, progressive, aggressive, excessive. But also punctilious and detail-oriented, reserved and businesslike – almost, dare we say it -- “administrative” (with the voice, as one of you put it, of a “snarky administrator” (whatever that means).

Well, we’ve told you all along that Evelyn is a team. She contains multitudes, like Walt Whitman. Or like Santa and his helpers. But, we are all going in the same direction.

You too, dear reader, Evelyn is you. Or you wouldn’t be here.

Now that the Faculty Senate has valiantly taken up the cause of defending the faculty’s interests, resolving to poll perchance to shaft (no longer to sleep perchance to dream, as has been its wont), some of us on Team Evelyn will be hanging up our blogging shoes. And going back to D2L.

Those of you who know us, know that we’re all here if you need us. All of us. But the bell’s ringing, the book is past due, and the Evelyns remaining know exactly what to do.

If there are delays, please bear with us. Along with participating in shared governance, we have oversized classes to teach, and world-class research to perform.

Where We Stand

The purpose of this website was clearly defined at the outset. Its mission is focused on “concern about administrative abuse of power at the UA” and the need to provide a “safe place to discuss these issues without fear of retaliation.” We do not, and cannot, represent all points of view. People wishing to attack our point of view or who want to support the alleged abuses under discussion here, may do so elsewhere - the administration has plenty of resources for defending itself, including its own Media Relations Director for University Communications. All we have is this blog. Therefore, we will continue to focus on three main issues at the core of our mission:

1) The Right to Disagree, without punishment, reprisals, or threats;

2) Board of Regents review of the firings and threats reported here and in the media, and a moratorium on further negative personnel actions and program closures until completion of that review;

3) General Education: Control of Gen Ed being taken away from the faculty, and taken over by the Provost’s office, entails a fundamental redefinition of the core mission of the University of Arizona without adequate input.

However, in an effort to accommodate differing points of view, we may occasionally post “attack comments” from the other side of the table, on a temporary basis, before removing them to allow space for comments that represent our core mission, as summarized above and defined in more detail on the website. Space is short, time is limited, we cannot post anything and everything we receive. Selectivity is not censorship; our selection criteria are clearly stated below.

Arizona Daily Wildcat story, Friday Sept. 4

Whatever you know, or don’t know, about this story, everyone agrees in applauding the courage of Juan García in his frank remarks to the Wildcat editors, and whose efforts on behalf of undergraduate education at the UA cost him his job as Vice President for Instruction.
The circumstances of his dismissal, and the manner in which it was carried out (see below), were the straw that broke the camel's back -- an unforgivable affront to the students and to the faculty of the UA, and a signal, to the Arizona Board of Regents, of failed leadership at the University of Arizona.
The online version of the Wildcat article, entitled “No Confidence,” provides an informal quick-poll “yes/no” voting box where you can give your opinion on the question, “Have President Selton and provost Hay abused their power in the UA transformation?” Please feel free. Click here. But that poll is only an informal approximation.
More important, and more decisive, will be the next step, which is currently in the discussion and planning stage. The next step will be a closely targeted poll of all current and former Deans, Department Heads, and Program Directors at the UA, for their yes/no response to the same question. The results will go to the Regents.
Stay tuned for further details.

PS - Another blog covering these issues is written by Renee Schafer Horton, a former reporter with the Tucson Citizen. Renee documents the fact that the reports of intimidation and "flat-out denials" from Sheldon and Hay, have been going on since last year. Renee would welcome further information and comments.
Still another blog, closer to home, closer to the ground, and closest to UA Students, is Sally Gradstudent, Gradstudents for Change in Arizona. Excellent coverage by some of our finest graduate teaching assistants, ferociously dedicated, well-informed and certain that Change can come to Education in Arizona.
[EBH team]