Present: Joy Asbury, Edie Blakley, Paul D'Orazio, Scott Elmshaeuser, Tammy Jennings, Rose Lacey, Jan Mosley, Jodi Nelson, and Donetta Sheffold.
The President called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. and introduced guest, Sabah Randhawa. Sabah handed out copies of the "IUM Summary Report" which is a working document of the OSU 2007 Institutional and Unit Management (IUM) Core Team. He discussed highlights of the report and answered questions from board members. Some of the things touched on and discussed were:
Six of the core teams are focused on business practices. Those teams are 1) Organizational Structure for Administrative Services, 2) Human Resources: Practices and Processes, 3) Information Services Alignment, 4) Business and Financial Processes, 5) Space Allocation and Management, and 6) Marketing, Communications, and Publications Alignment.
The IUM core teams recommendations for areas of proposed change are 1) leadership model, 2) administrative structure and business processes, 3) information technology and services, 4) employee development, 5) strategic communications, and 6) resources to grow the university.
1) Leadership Model: The leadership model has significant implications for institutional leadership. Areas of proposed change are: 1) systemic change in the university requires shared and sustained leadership, 2) leadership must link resources to goals and outcomes for institutional performance, 3) strategic and operational changes must be both bold and incremental, maximizing the ratio of learning to investment, 4) leadership needs to maintain a long-term perspective, and 5) there needs to be a clear link between authority, responsibility and accountability.
2) Administrative Structure and Processes: Authority, responsibility, and accountability are scattered among administrative levels. Restructuring of administrative services requires an evaluation of each administrative service based on its centrality to OSU mission, OSU's ability to effectively provide the service, and OSU's ability to provide the service efficiently at a reasonable cost or with a high return on investment. The key principle used in restructuring administrative structure is that at least 75% of the decisions associated with the administrative services need to be made at a single level. One of the recommendations of the IUM for organizational structure for administrative services is to establish business centers at the college level and that most of the operational and tactical decisions would be made at that level. Critical requisites for success are 1) having the right infrastructures in place, 2) having the right people in place, and 3) having the right communications system in place.
3) Information Technology and Services: Analyses of current systems indicate lack of uniform, accessible Information Technology infrastructure. Possibilities for improving quality fall into two areas: enabling full use of technology and constructing a more efficient system.
4) Employee Development: A university-wide standard is needed which holds institutional and unit leadership responsible for enabling employee development. IUM recommends that the institution develop a framework for employee performance and career development which includes a performance appraisal linked to individual development plans and unit and institutional goals. This effort will require training of administrators, faculty and staff in the relevant skill set.
5) Strategic Communications: Communication upward and downward, and internally and externally is needed to improve internal alignment with goals and strategies, and to continually enhance the institution's capacity to learn. The IUM recommends improvements in various processes used in delivering OSU's administrative and support services, and enrollment and extended campus issues.
6) New Resources: The university will need to develop a capital campaign (working with the OSU Foundation and OSU Alumni Association) to attract new gifts to support faculty, program, and student endowments and scholarships and to build the new facilities that will be needed to support the goals for access and excellence.
The IUM has proposed a decision making structure for administrative services and processes. The chart is shown on pages 9 and 10 of the summary report.
OSU currently has over 450,000 vendors in the system. Sabah was asked if it was a goal to reduce the number of vendors. He said that it is a goal to reduce the number of vendors and to encourage the use of direct pay vendors and payment by Visa. It was suggested that instead of looking at ways to reduce the number of vendors, we charge an annual fee to vendors who wish to remain active in the system.
A board member observed that there seems to a shift from management towards leadership. As managers turn over, we need to look for a different quality of people more geared to being leaders. Sabah agreed and said that we need strong leadership at the top.
Sabah did not know if a hiring freeze was expected in the future.
There was discussion as to whether the implementation of business service centers at the college level would mean realignment of jobs that currently cross several levels of hierarchy (department, college, and university). That would not necessarily be the case; some cross-function is good.
The board expressed its appreciation that the IUM Team has taken the human development aspect seriously and wondered who might facilitate the leadership aspect. Priority will be in training the deans and provosts first.
Questions were asked as to how standards would be enforced. Sabah remarked that a connection should occur between individual and collective performance. There is no collective accountability for the unit now.
Another question was whether budget would be more centralized. The university division of dollars to units will be held at the university level. Once distributed to the units, deans and department heads will need to be held accountable to establishing certain goals.
Marketing and Professional Development have been working together to get notices out for the monthly meetings.
We currently have 87 members.
There was a great response to the last workshop. Dr. Wallace would like to come back in January to do another workshop but there are campus conflicts with her available dates. February 19 will be pursued as a possibility for Dr. Wallace. The cost for Dr. Wallace's workshops will be significantly less in the future. Marketing will get publicity/feedback from some of those who attended the last session to use in advertising the next session and provide an explanation for why a blanket is needed. Outlook and PC training are anticipated for February or March. Funds may be asked for to pay for printed materials for the Outlook class. Dr. Roper will offer his "Managing From the Middle" workshop on April 16.
There were several requests to have the report of minutes sent to board members within a week or two after the meeting so that it could serve as a reminder of what things need to be accomplished before the next meeting. There was also a request for clarification in the November minutes in the second paragraph under "Membership." Email notifications of professional development events should be sent in text form with a link to the web site. The minutes were approved with the clarification noted.
The November 30, 2002 Treasurer's Report was distributed. We received $2500 from the Provost: $1200 for the first of Dr. Wallace's wellness workshops and $1200 for the second workshop. That leaves $100 not accounted for. $50 will be used to cover part of the refreshment bill for the first session and then another $50 for the second session. The Treasurer's Report was approved.
Service Project Report
We collected over 460 pairs of socks but only about 17 people attended the Sock Hop. Even though a number of people said it was a good idea, support was low. Socks were donated to a Philomath family organization, Vina Moses in Corvallis, and the Fish Clothing Closet in Albany.
PFLA Letter of Support
Several members of the Professional Faculty Issues Group sent a draft to the Executive Assistants asking if they wanted to sign a letter of support to be submitted to the Provost. Donetta Sheffold, Past President, suggested that the PFLA Executive Board also submit a letter of support to the Provost. Donetta submitted a draft, which was approved by the board. A suggestion was made that, as members of the Professional Faculty Issues Group go out and talk to other groups, they also ask for the support of those groups.
The possibility exists for PFLA to partner with Student Involvement in maintaining and providing a leadership library. This connection will be pursued.
President Search Committee Nominations
PFLA has been asked to put forth two names for consideration of participation on the search committee for the new president. The board decided that the PFLA recommendations should be PFLA members. Discussion surrounded the time commitment involved and names to be submitted. A motion was put forward and carried to submit the names of Edie Blakley and Karel Murphy.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Next Meeting. January 8, Wednesday from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. in MU 212.