The recent article in the Chattanooga Times-Free Press regarding the
definition of goals for the Chancellor provides the occasion for considering
three important points.  First, those are EXACTLY the same goals that were
explained to me during my job interview by Sandra Packard in 1990 as the UTC
goals.  Have we failed so miserably during that time?  If so, why are so many
of the ineffective administrators, or their off-spring, still here?  Second,
these goals were set by the System, not by the campus, and may or may not
reflect our needs.  Finally, the attempt to bring together performance and
compensation is actually explicit, at least for the Chancellor.  Department
Heads and Deans have for at least 12 years been arguing for that relationship
for the faculty.  If the System intends to use this approach for the
Chancellor, one can only hope that the same plan will be applied down the
line, including other administrators, the faculty, and the staff.  (This is
where Fritz can make his pitch for a Union if the answer is it will not be
used, as I expect.)

The most important message in the article was the one I referred to in an
earlier memo.  The campus in general, and the faculty in particular, have
little input into goal setting, or evaluation of the administration or their
plans.  If this system was really driven by campus based goals, we would also
see pay outs for "Meeting the goals set by the faculty", "Improving the
atmosphere on campus", "Restructuring the administration to increase
efficiency", "Faculty ratings of administrator performance improving in
specific areas", etc.

Alas I fear we will all see the normal corporate outcome.  The bonus paid to
the boss bears no relationship to the effort required by the employees to make
him/her a success.  The employees can expect little if any "performance
bonus".  No administrator changes anything, only the employees, through their
commitment, make changes.  Yet administrators have continually had raises,
even when the faculty did not.  If one of us can be eligible for bonuses, then
we should all be - and the rules should be clear and achievable.

The remaining failure to be addressed is the need to make the goals of the
community and the goals of the system relate to each other in a meaningful
way.  Increasing enrollment, for example, is only a success if it is
accompanied by increasing resources.  Many programs on campus have seen that
there is no relationship between increasing enrollment and increasing
resources.  As we have seen with General Education, there is a very distant
disconnect between rhetoric and accomplishment - rhetorical approval came from
the administration, the back breaking work to implement the plan with very few
resources was left to us.  Unless the goals of the Chancellor are the goals of
the community, we are working at cross purposes and little will be
accomplished.

I think we should all applaud the sentiment expressed by the system President.
 But we should not be deceived.  This plan does nothing to help our campus,
only to conform to Knoxville's view of who we should be.  When will we finally
say enough, develop our own goals, and demand a working relationship that is
in our favor instead of theirs?

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]