About Critical Mass [dot] Writing [dot] Reviews [dot] Contact
« previous entry | return home | next entry »

August 31, 2009 [feather]
Cut the fat

Administrative bloat has a lot to do with skyrocketing tuition costs and budget deficits on campuses across the nation--and yet administrators are not leaping to shrink their own ranks to address the problem. Hiring freezes, faculty and staff pay cuts, layoffs and non-renewals for non-tenure track faculty, reduced financial aid, and still more tuition hikes are more the norm. The silence where strong leadership should be is deafening.

Except in North Carolina, where the Raleigh News & Observer has goaded system president Erskine Bowles into loud and decisive action:


UNC system President Erskine Bowles has rebuked the leaders of the 17 campuses for their top-heavy administrations and put them on notice: Make significant cuts. Now.

In an Aug. 17 e-mail to the chancellors of the UNC system's campuses, Bowles characterized a News & Observer report on the steady growth in administrative positions across the UNC system as "an absolute embarrassment."

Campuses are putting together plans to cut spending 10 percent, and administrative costs must be a prime target, Bowles warned in the e-mail. Four times, Bowles wrote words entirely in capital letters for emphasis.

"The coverage in today's News & Observer on administrative growth within the university is an absolute embarrassment -- and we brought it all on ourselves," Bowles wrote. "In the conversations that we will be having with you regarding your 10 percent budget reduction plans, we will be looking for absolute PROOF that you have focused FIRST on administrative reductions and solid evidence that you have taken steps to shore up our academic core."

Campus budget reduction plans will not be approved by Bowles' office or the UNC system's Board of Governors unless administrative costs are pared much as possible, the e-mail stressed.

The president's frustration was clear in the e-mail, but he declined to discuss it with a reporter. He will talk about the issue face-to-face with chancellors Monday in a regular meeting.

Bowles' e-mail was sent the same day the N&O reported that administrative ranks across the UNC system had swelled by 28 percent over five years, from 1,269 administrative jobs to 1,623 last year. That increase in administrators outpaced the growth of faculty and other teaching positions, which was 24 percent, as well as student enrollment, which climbed 14 percent.

And administrative growth came even as Bowles was warning against it. In his e-mail, Bowles notes that he has urged campuses for nearly four years to reduce administrative costs.

Bowles made efficiency and accountability mantras upon taking office in January 2006. But the university system he presides over is a far-flung and decentralized enterprise that has, in recent years, given campus leaders more decision-making power. Much campus hiring requires no UNC system approval.

Hannah Gage, chairwoman of the UNC system's Board of Governors, said the growth was likely the result of that flexibility given to campuses to manage their own affairs in an era of prosperity.

"As the system has grown and more autonomy has been given to the campuses, there has been an assumption that the judgment of the campuses will reflect the philosophy of the university system," she said. "The campus oversight was not strong enough."

Bowles and Gage have both spoken of the rising administrative costs and other issues eroding the trust of taxpayers and legislators.

It's on the radar

State Rep. Ray Rapp, an education budget writer, said the UNC system's management costs and spending on hundreds of academic centers and institutes have expanded too much. The UNC system took a $171 million cut to its budget in the current year, and next year will likely have to cut another $246 million, Rapp said.

"Some programs have grown like unchecked, without adequate supervision," said Rapp, a Democrat from Mars Hill. "It is on our radar, and I think it's fair to say it's on Erskine Bowles' radar as well."

James Woodward, N.C. State University's interim chancellor, said Friday administrative costs have risen steadily across higher education. He said he supports Bowles' desire to make dramatic changes.

"We have a tendency to over-fix a problem," said Woodward, who previously spent 16 years as chancellor at UNC-Charlotte before retiring from that job in 2005. "If we make a mistake someplace, we'll change a process and add an administrative task. And we do that without adequately judging the cost versus the benefit."


Usually the argument against ensuring accountability is that this is an extra cost and an extra layer of bureaucracy. But that's only if the thinking is unimaginative and if administrators are not required to pare down their own operating costs while increasing efficiency. Colleges and universities need to get leaner and meaner and more effective--which means setting priorities, recommitting to their core educational mission, and removing their own red tape.

posted on August 31, 2009 10:49 AM




Trackback Pings:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1711






Comments:

I have to wonder how much they can really cut. Universities are heavily regulated and have heavy compliance costs in reporting to governmental agencies and other outsiders. They also have expenses for support services.
They night be better off limiting expenses for state of the art recreational facilites, for football, or for the diversity bureaucracy, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Posted by: AYY at August 31, 2009 11:34 PM



AYY..generally, organizations don't cut these sorts of expenses until someone or something makes them do it. In business, "something" ususally takes the form of a ferocious competitor...not clear what, if anything, "something" will turn out to be in the case of higher education.

Dysfunctional bureaucracies cost more than money: they also very often interfere with the accomplishment of the organization's true mission.

I have some related thoughts as my post "fisking Fish's fishy financial findings"...I dare not post a link, because of the spam filter, and search at my blog doesn't work (something very strange seems to be going on at Blogger), but Google search finds it.

Posted by: david foster at September 1, 2009 7:15 AM



IMHO academics too often assume reflexively that it's all about bureaucratic red tape and featherbedding when the causes are more numerous and nuanced. It is absolutely the case that some administrative growth can be tracked back to these things, but not all by a long shot. The commenter above mentions higher levels of regulation, and that is but one aspect of universities having to live in a more complex world.

It is also the case that some administrative growth is tied to givin' the people what they want. I am all for a purer view of the academy, and would love it if students flocked mainly to the academic core instead of the food, activities and amenities. But they like these things, and if colleges did not staff up to supply them, they would be in danger. I hate that arms race myself, but faculty ought to acknowledge it exists, and that it helps pay their salaries.

Last there can be a vexing tendency on the part of *some* (not all) faculty to add to administration by virtue of a too-pure-by-half view of their obligations. In a prior position as a senior administrator, there was the senior faculty member and faculty union head who once told me "It's my job to teach and your job to give me every f*ckin' thing I need to do it." Extend that thought if you will to all manner of quasi-academic, quasi-administrative matters that demand some faculty involvement to do well--resource allocation, information technology, etc. The result of that attitude is 1) more administration 2) less efficient administration (in the absence of effective faculty input) and 3) rancor given the perception of less efficient administration.

Anyway, bring on those admin cuts. I can take it. Hell, Jack Welch is probably right that all organizations can cut maybe 10% without too much risk. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that that is true of the academic side as well, and it is the unconscious fear that this is true that animates a certain kind of faculty attitude toward administrative bloat.

Posted by: fenster moop at September 5, 2009 5:37 AM



It is October now, and sadly, we are seeing the effects of Erskine Bowles's method of reducing administrative positions. I agree with the sentiment of the article, the commenter's here and of Bowles's position, that too many administrative positions can actually make the quality of the system worse, because too many people making decisions leads to inefficiencies. However, instead of doing any sort of study, or asking for justifications from directors and department heads for the administrative jobs under them, Bowles seems to have just gone through the system, and eliminated jobs based solely on title. I work at the College Foundation of North Carolina, and he eliminated a position in my office (my immediate supervisor) without any research into how it will how it will affect our ability to do our job. The position he cut was not of someone who made a lot of money.

It is one thing to try and cut costs. it is another to go through and fire jobs without any idea of what that would actually do to the universities ability to perform their jobs. What it appears has Erskine Bowles done is reckless, and is a failure of leadership, not a sign of it.

Posted by: Robert at October 8, 2009 1:49 PM