Draft Report to the UFS:
The Board of Trustees Retreat
Goal. My main goal for the retreat was to get members of the BOT to acknowledge FAU’s slide in the SUS. I began by describing the credibility gap between administration/BOT rhetoric about how things are going, and faculty experiences in recent years. I maintained that the most relevant indicators are the comparative data showing FAU’s standing in the SUS. The state of the University was discussed. The good news is that trustees indicated they were concerned about the state of the University. President Pritchett’s impact is already evident: the Board discussed, debated, and voted.
Visioning. The retreat was mostly devoted to visioning/strategic plan. There was much plowing of plowed ground. Major issues (e.g., campuses; communication and branding; compensation; evaluation/accountability) were assigned to workshops or referred to committees or staff for discussions and recommendations. The Board has some hazy understandings of some basic academic matters. Faculty should consider the workshops/committee meetings opportunities to explain the difference between faculty and administration; the problems with relying on bonuses, special awards (e.g., Clearwire money or some sugar daddy), or merit pay to solve the acknowledged salary problems; and faculty accountability (including SPOTs); and traditional University functions.
Presidential Selection. I voted to delay the search for two years, as urged by the deans in a signed letter dated September 17th, but first presented to the Board at the retreat. I thought completion of some of Interim President Pritchett’s projects would allow some dust to settle before a new president came on board. A majority of the Board thought that there are reasons to believe strong candidates would apply (particularly strong in research and development). The BOT vote was not “flouting” the dean’s recommendation.
I did not advocate for a requirement that the president have a doctoral degree, or for increased faculty representation on the search committee (I am the only faculty representative). I thought the majority of the Board had made up its mind about important search issues: the major qualification for this stage in the University’s development is development skills (other than political); the Chair of the BOT would work with a search firm and present three applicants to the search committee; the search committee would be small (12 members not selected to represent constituencies). I think token faculty representation on the search committee is less important than faculty advocacy of the importance of taking better care of academic affairs.
Agenda. I think it is time for the faculty to begin thinking about planning recommendations, to start putting some of the ideas/facts, college/program discussions, and visioning exercises together for discussion as options/priorities/models for the University. Would the following be useful?
FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY
MODELS
- BACK TO THE FUTURE
Return to original mission
High quality undergraduate programs
Raise admission standards
Smaller undergraduate enrollment
Graduate programs
Research
2. ON-LINE (FAU-E)
Significant increase in commit to E-education (distance learning)
Workforce Training (mastery model)
NOTE: Trustees were surprisingly skeptical of the university trying to compete in the distance learning education marketplace. Why should a parent pay room and
board if a student is “taking” a course while lying in the dorm room bed?
3. GROWTH
Expand Programs and Locations
Increase Access (enrollment and degrees)
4. DEVELOPMENT
Strengthen existing programs
Develop Program Priorities
Articulate Campus Missions
Emphasize Research
Establish Priorities
Define Research as funded, unfunded, and creative activities
5. STATUS QUO