When I read the e-mails describing the current library crisis, I found myself
wondering why we are here again?  It is easy to point the finger at
individuals, and certainly the Dean of the Library and former Provosts have
contributed to this problem, but notonly in the obvious way.  One of the
primary lessons of the TQM movement was that institutional factors were far
more important that people in the failure of organizations.  So why are we
surprised?  No changes in structure have occurred.  We must not mistake a more
open discussion for changes in structure.  The process is only different if
the outcome is different, and the outcome continues to be the same.

My first thought was "I feel cheated and lied to by the administration", an
anonymous group of well-intentioned people constricted by money, politics and
the shear size of their task.  I appreciate the efforts of Chancellor Stacy,
yet here we are again, in "nothing ever changes" mode.  In fact it is the lack
of change during this period of change that is the most frustrating.  As we
consider the recurring theme of Library rescission it seems appropriate to ask
how did we get here again?  There seem to me to be three reasons we have
arrived at this point in time, and one place to begin for a solution.

1.  Setting priorities
Priority setting is why we are here.  No one at any level has decided that the
library MUST be a certain way and worked to make it happen.  It is easy to
blame the administration here, since no faculty entity has the opportunity to
SET priorities.  This administration, and each administration in turn, give
lip service to the faculty as the heart of the university.  Unfortunately, as
a constituency, our priorities are generally ignored.  Only the administration
can change this approach.  If we are so student-orientate, why do we have an
empty, new stadium and a marginal library?

The funding process has bottom up input and a top down decision.  Look, for
example, at the major changes over the last 10 years.  Try this exercise.
Make a list of the 10 most important changes over the last 10 years.  Now look
at any priority list you can find, we have none on-line, and not much of what
happened was on those lists.  We have no shared vision; hence we have no
shared priorities.  If we did, I doubt that three of the major building
projects would have been a parking deck that we all pay for, an office
building, or a stadium.  None of which contribute to the academic life of the
campus.  Even the academic priorities have been set by outside accrediting
agencies that demanded better space, not because WE as a faculty or a
community, believed that was our most significant need.  The spending of the
Lupton money continues this trend; some unidentifiable vision of who we will
be that does not include the faculty in the decision making only the
deliberation.

As a faculty member it is easier to see the mote in the administration's eye
than the log in mine.  We have not sat down and said the library is such a
priority that we will solve this problem.  In each instance where there has
been what the faculty sees as an administrative problem, I hear the same
response.  "Hey, they get paid the big bucks, let them solve it."  But they
will not ever solve it.  It is ours to fix.  Don't think you have the time,
interest, resources - you have just set the priority for the library after
other priorities.  Join the club.

It is important to remember that the system, not people, directs many of the
decisions.  The library is a victim of the THEC funding scheme.  The
University cannot ignore the imperative to keep accreditable programs
accredited, thus placing an outside priority above a local one.  The result,
however, is that certain aspects of the library must be protected, always
placing the budget ax on those academic programs that do not have
accreditation.  Here the state dictates the structure of our library.

A first solution must come in making the library a REAL priority.

2.  Who made the decision?

We see the continuing "illusion of democracy" at UTC.  The faculty Library
Committee appears to have been as blind-sided by the Dean's plan as anyone.
Why?  It is the continuing issue of administrative independence.

There is no aspect of university life for which the faculty has sole
responsibility, outside of the classroom.  No changes occur without anointment
from on high.  A consultative body needs to have a sense of impact.  The
faculty, whether as a Council or a Senate, that has no domain of control is
merely an exercise in futility.  The discussion of issue for 15-20 years until
an administrator finally says "I have a great idea" and puts into place the
faculty recommendations is not uncommon.  Even worse is the continuing
discussion with no solution despite the recommendation of alternatives, just
look at the history of summer school.

By engaging the faculty in an issue and then allowing them no control, we are
continual placed in the position of dashed hopes.  When we wonder why the
faculty morale continues to be very low, one need only look at the literature
on learned helplessness.  Research demonstrates that continual exposure to
unavoidable punishment leads to inaction and depressed mood.  The Library is
one of the few places where the faculty has the PRIMARY interest.  Yet even
here, the faculty committee is the last to know and has no way to direct the
outcome.  Even if we assume there is no malice here, we againg encounter the
the continuing belief that some parental figure must always approve or we, the
faculty, would spin out of control in our ivory tower view of the world.

The fact is that the university stays open because a committed group of
people, Department Heads and below, work diligently to make lemonade from the
lemons delivered by our administrative superiors.  Does anyone at the Library
have a juicer we can borrow?

The issue of control appears to boil down to this - is there any where in the
academic chain of command where a faculty person, or Department Head for that
matter, can make a decision that is theirs alone?  Indeed, is there anywhere
in the governance system where a decision is tied to a person or committee?
If we cannot identify who makes decision, then we have no sense of who's in
control.  The "Captain of the Ship" model is archaic and ineffective, as we
continue to see at UTC.  We need to think about who should make what decision,
and not continue to allow everything to be done behind closed doors.  Open
discussions and closed decision have made no change in the outcome for UTC.
It's time for a change.

The second part of the solution involves both a change in approach and a
change of process. Process I discuss more below, but we need to start joining
other more successful states in organizing a system that works to bring
resources together, rather than diffuse them in the name of independence.  New
problems arise from any solution, but no solutions arrive from doing the same
old things.

3.  Assuming responsibility

One of the most insidious consequences of an over controlling, parental
environment, is that no one assumes responsibility for the consequences of
their actions.  From the administrative side, we frequently here, "We do that
because we are told to by Knoxville."  Strangely, when I have followed through
and called Knoxville on those issues, they are rarely as they seem.  We have
local control over most of what we do, but no one wants to assume
responsibility.  A clear example is how graduate students get paid.  We have a
complex system of extra service pay for student doing several jobs, "because
that's what Knoxville tells us to do."  Actually that is not what Knoxville
does, nor do they claim that it is the only way to do things.  In fact, the
system office says, "That's how UTC handles it."  I do not raise this issue to
be solved, but rather to show how the defusion of responsibility allows for no
one to be responsible.

Let's stand up and be counted.  Each decision should bear the name of the
decider.  Faculty do that every day when we assign grades and sign our name to
them.  Each decider should face the consequences of their actions.  In this
environment, it would be appropriate to divide the decision responsibility
among the functioning groups and let them have a role.  When no one is
responsible, then nobody is responsible.

A solution here?

There is a way around this problem.  First let us define the problem.  We know
there is inadequate money, but that is only part of the problem.  The real
issues are how will our process be different if the library was our top
priority, how will we start to find the resources we need, and who will
actually do the work.  The library could serve as a model for developing a new
decision structure at UTC, one the includes constituencies in the decision,
not merely the conversation.  It seems feasible to look at the range of
decisions to be made and to distribute the responsibility for that decision in
an identifiable way.  The black hole of decision making must be eliminated,
not so we call all point fingers, because we are almost certain never to
reward, but so that we can see the decision trail in a public way that allows
for correction.

In any other part of the University when we hit a problem like this, we hire a
consultant to help us redefine our mission, resources and options.  Why
haven't we done this with the library?  When we hired the current Dean, the
vision the library staff had used for some years was disrupted; electronic
efforts were stymied by a change of opinion.  Now we will hire a new Dean who
will be given free reign to decide for us what we want.  Let's not do that.
Let's appoint an Acting Dean, build a community plan, and then hire who we
need, not merely whom we can get.

Second, let's come up with some new alternatives. The territorial issues
within the system seem to be an unspoken background to the present problem.
As a current visitor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I see
a very different view of library.  More and more is electronic and available
across the state.  The electronic does not replace, just makes available, the
hard copy.  But there is only one library and the whole system belongs to the
same library.  I must admit I have not spoken to "distant" libraries to see
their reactions, but I get a very different sense from the us and them in the
UT system.  UNC even has a cooperative arrangement with Duke, so they are
operationally one library from a student/faculty point of view.  Maybe part of
the UTC problem comes from attempting to stay independent from Knoxville.  I
merely pose the question of how our inability to become an integrated system
confounds the problem of library.

Finally, we need to address the issue of community.   We have no academic
community at UTC, only a collection of fiefdoms.  Now is the time for
confederation.  Community building is hard work, but it can be done.  Not by
public discussion and private decisions, not by diverting responsibility, not
by recapitulating the failed system of the past.  Now is the time to look to
the future, to build a new community of scholars who will work together to
accomplish our goals.  It would be nice to have administrative support, but
that is not essential.  WE can be the force for change, if only we decide to
make it a priority.

Richard Metzger, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate
Application Production Systems
110 West Main Street
Carrboro, North Carolina
voice: 919-932-1340
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
        [log in to unmask]