I attended the April 1 meeting of the University of Louisville\u2019s Faculty Senate hoping for updates in a number of areas of both faculty and community concern that we have been following. These included the politically motivated grants to the Business School, compensation packages for senior UofL executives, and Board of Trustee concerns about University governance. \u00a0In all honesty, I came away disappointed.<\/p>\n
Koch\/Schnatter Foundation Grants. Deferred Compensation and Bonuses to UofL Executives. In his presentation to the Senate, President Ramsey addressed the matter personally. He repeated what has become the University\u2019s party line that the money was approved by the UofL Foundation to provide incentive for him to stay, comparing it to Coach Rick Pitino\u2019s compensation package in that regard.\u00a0 He attempted to downplay the multi-million dollar amount of the bonuses by pointing out that he was not getting it all at once. \u00a0In response to a question, he assumed that the discussions how his awards were initiated \u201cshould\u201d appear in the minutes of the UofL and Foundation Boards.\u00a0 It was revealed later in the meeting that a comparative pittance of $4 million will also be provided by the Foundation for faculty raises.\u00a0 Rather than taking some of the sting out, that makes the disparity in compensation even more apparent!<\/p>\n We knew it all the time! President Ramsey also took the occasion to point out the increasing amounts of academic support transferred from the Foundation to the University each year, noting that some $143 million was transferred this year, indeed more than the $139 million of general fund support from the state of Kentucky! \u00a0However, no mention of what the Foundation money was being spent on was offered in this venue.\u00a0 I propose that the President\u2019s important assertion would be strengthened by a full disclosure of the Foundation\u2019s receipts and spending.\u00a0 The limited public documents available to me include things such as \u201cloans\u201d to the University about which no additional information is given. How are such monies used? \u00a0I further suggest that more openness has the potential of mitigating the disappointment of an across-the-board 3% tuition increase<\/a> announced immediately following President Ramsey\u2019s discussion of his own compensation.<\/p>\n Board of Trustee concerns about governance.<\/strong> Other matters. Adjunct faculty<\/strong>. Recent legislative session. UofL administrative reorganization. Doubling down on unnecessary secrecy?<\/strong> Enough!\u00a0 If I have made an error in fact\u2013 always a possibility\u2013 please let me know.\u00a0 If you have something to add, please feel free to do so. If you wish to receive notice of new postings, please sign up in the side-bar where indicated.\u00a0 Absolutely no spam will result.<\/p>\n Peter Hasselbacher, MD
\n<\/strong>Last month, Pres. James Ramsey signed linked contracts<\/a> on behalf of the University and the University of Louisville Foundation accepting a potential $6.3 million dollars but which carries with them tight restrictions on the kind of thoughts allowable in the minds of recipients.\u00a0 Others and I found the restrictions impermissible in the academic setting but I expressed my opinion why University Administration would have no objection, indeed, no option except to accept both the money and the outside control.\u00a0 In accepting the grant, the University violated its own rules<\/a> about requiring faculty approval before new centers or programs were applied for.\u00a0 In the faculty Senate meeting of March, representatives of the relevant faculty Academic Program Committee pointed out that no such approval had been requested.\u00a0 The Provost made much of the great value the administration placed on\u00a0the input of its faculty but what else could she say?\u00a0 The fact is, that as of the April 1 Senate meeting, the Committee had not met to consider the matter and there was no further discussion offered from the assembly. In contrast, in his March newsletter<\/a> to the community, President Ramsey makes acceptance of the grant sound like the done-deal that skeptics in the community like myself believe has occurred.\u00a0 Certainly there was no mention in the update of any contingency upon faculty approval. No doubt faculty other than myself are feeling steamrolled.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>At the March Senate meeting<\/a>, a motion was made to form an ad hoc<\/em> faculty committee to consider the extensively reported executive compensation packages given to current and recently retired senior UofL executives. \u00a0In the interim, the matter was considered by the Senate Executive Committee and it was announced at last week\u2019s meeting that such a committee would be formed.\u00a0 The composition of the committee and any limits on its charge were not mentioned.\u00a0 It remains to be seen if the concerns of the faculty about legal or ethical issues, or about the less discrete but still significant impact on employee and faculty morale will be addressed.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>In discussion above, President Ramsey noted that \u201csometimes we sort of think of the Foundation as a secret organization,\u201d but that he did not want to see the it painted as \u201ca villain.\u201d\u00a0 In its protracted litigation and appeals<\/a> (none of which it has won to date,) the UofL Foundation claims that it is a private entity, independent of the University of Louisville, and not subject to the same rules of transparency and accountability as the University itself.\u00a0 \u00a0I therefore found it ironic when President asserted that the Foundation \u201cdoes what it is asked to do by the UofL Board of Trustees.\u201d Hasn\u2019t he just given up the last shred of the Foundation\u2019s legal argument?<\/p>\n
\nIn summarizing the outcomes of recent UofL Board of Trustee meetings, President Ramsey stated that a group of Trustees wanted to look at how they did their business, and in particular to debate a list of 19 suggestions<\/a> brought forward by \u201ctwo or three\u201d Board members last summer. An ad hoc<\/em> committee<\/a> was to be formed to address stated concerns but it has not yet even met.\u00a0 Ramsey noted that \u201cwe try to stay out of these discussions\u201d but in my opinion he gave away his position by wondering aloud whether the debate was about governance of the board or governance of the University.\u00a0 Dr. Robert Hughes, the Board\u2019s Chairperson and a strong supporter of President Ramsey, has suggested in effect that the Board of Trustees should not be meddling with the internal workings of the University. My reading of the Board\u2019s charge from Kentucky statute<\/a> is that supervision of the University\u2019s management is just\u00a0what the Board is supposed be doing.\u00a0 How this matter plays out will have a major determinative effect on the University\u2019s future.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>There were a variety of committee reports offered to fill out the monthly two-hour meeting.\u00a0 Notice was given of the appointment of an interim director of Human Resources.\u00a0 In response to questions about whether a national search would be performed, little could be said.\u00a0 It is apparently not clear where a new HR position would be placed within University administrative structure.\u00a0 The recently vacated position<\/a> was filled by a Senior Vice president.<\/p>\n
\nThere was discussion of use and compensation of part-time, or adjunct faculty.\u00a0 The issue of dependence of State colleges and universities on other than full-time faculty and the relatively low pay and benefits has been in the national news and featured in our own Leo<\/a>.\u00a0 It was reported that limitations in UofL data systems prevents even basic questions about how much these folks are being paid for their work from being addressed. The College of Arts and Sciences requires these free-agent teachers for a majority of its class offerings, a dependency that has been a major factor in the last three rejections of UofL\u2019s applications to host a Phi Beta Kappa chapter in Louisville.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>A report on the recent Kentucky legislative session was given. \u00a0Aside from who can use what bathroom, there was not a whole lot that impacted UofL.\u00a0 In this vein, there seemed to be some mild penis envy that the University Kentucky was awarded $135 million in this non-budget session for the new research facility it did not get last year. It is clear that positioning for a greater slice of the state-funded pie by schools other than UofL and UK will continue. The two major Universities are seeking ways to reward them further for their research productivity. I trust that rewards for teaching productivity are not left as afterthoughts.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Restructuring the financial and informational technology functions of the far-flung administrative units of the University is still progressing through its planning phases. The trigger for this process was the series of financial scandals and a failing report card from an as yet mostly undisclosed external audit<\/a>. There is talk of dual reporting within the various schools and colleges and upward to central administration. How the University handles the balance of federalism on its campuses is likely to ruffle some feathers.\u00a0 It seems certain that more, not fewer administrators will have jobs\u2014 at least for a while.<\/p>\n
\nEmerging from the discussion for greater centralization of University administration were complaints from the faculty body about new rules for computer usage.\u00a0 Nominally being imposed to guard against data beaches such as those occurring in the healthcare industry,<\/a> the faculty had questions about an agreement they were being asked to sign and requirements for encryption of files on their work computers. They wondered why their lecture notes had to be confidential!\u00a0 They anticipated difficulties with academic cooperation among colleagues.\u00a0 Apparently there plans are being considered to equip all University computers with a standard set of security and encryption software. The sceptic in me sees a different motivation on the part of the University. Perhaps someone can forward a copy of the IT-use agreement and new computer-use requirements to put things in perspective for the rest of us. There are important trade-offs of security and privacy in play.\u00a0 They need to be resolved for the right reasons.<\/p>\n
\nEmeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
\n7 April 2015<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>