[4]
URBANA — Faced with mounting faculty resistance to enrollment management reforms, University of Illinois President Michael Hogan repeatedly pressured campus chancellors to publicly endorse the plan even as they pushed back to retain campus control over admissions, newly released documents show.
The president exerted his control by summoning them to meetings, giving them "talking points" to show their support and enlisting help from UI Board of Trustees Chair Christopher Kennedy to prod administrators to get on board.
In response to an Illinois Freedom of Information Act request, the UI released thousands of pages of documents related to the contentious debate on enrollment management.
The News-Gazette requested copies of these communications, dated from mid-November 2011 through early January 2012, in the wake of Lisa Troyer's Jan. 4 resignation as Hogan's chief of staff. Anonymous emails, sent to faculty leaders about the enrollment management debate in December, were traced to her computer, an investigation found.
The emails provided to The News-Gazette show Hogan growing increasingly frustrated with the pace of the reforms as faculty on the University Senates Conference and campus administrators raised questions about how much control a new university-wide enrollment management executive director would have over admissions, financial aid and other enrollment matters.
In the emails, Hogan referred to the Urbana faculty as "oppositional," chastised new Urbana Chancellor Phyllis Wise for failing to quell a "defiant" senate and told Kennedy that he had reiterated to Wise that "my goals are her goals."
In a heavily redacted Jan. 5 email to Wise, Hogan said he was "not happy" with her "lack of leadership on enrollment management" and said she knew about the board's plans for enrollment management reform when she was hired.
"I expect you to be an advocate for the campus, of course, but also an advocate for the Board and the president as we push forward with an agenda that you knew about when you accepted the job," Hogan wrote.
In an email from Wise several days later, the chancellor took strong exception to Hogan's characterization.
"In fact, I have discussed enrollment management on the Urbana-Champaign campus in a nuanced manner to balance faculty (and my) concerns about the need to be able to manage campus level enrollment issues effectively vis-a-vis your and the Board of Trustees' concerns about diversity, articulation, and the effective use of financial aid. Thus, I would argue that I have exerted the kind of leadership that encourages an open discussion of the options before us.
"In my concept of leadership, it is extraordinarily important to pay attention both to the people who report to me, as well as those to whom I report," she wrote.
Questions directed to Hogan, Wise and other chancellors on Monday were answered by UI spokesman Tom Hardy.
Hardy characterized the discussions as "robust" and said the many documents released reflected a "frank and candid review" on enrollment management.
"Such a debate is essential and healthy, providing a thorough examination that ensures the best possible plan emerges. If emails among top managers of any public or private organization were reviewed on major initiatives, you would find the same kinds of discussions."
Hogan urged the chancellors to reassure the campuses that their concerns were being addressed and, "as the chancellors agreed, the enrollment management initiative would benefit the campuses and the university," he said.
November meetings
Enrollment management reforms kicked off in spring 2011 when President Hogan hired two outside consultants to review how the UI could improve student diversity, attract high-achieving students and improve financial aid packages.
However, it wasn't until the fall, after the final report was submitted, and the Senates Conference began reviewing it, that the debate became heated. Faculty, particularly on the Urbana campus, raised questions about the recommendations in the report, arguing a centralized system didn't make sense for three such distinct campuses.
During three weeks in November and December, Hogan called two meetings with Wise, Chicago Chancellor Paula Meares and Springfield Chancellor Susan Koch to discuss their stance on enrollment management, emails show.
Hogan ordered the chancellors to attend a meeting with him and his staff on Nov. 22, reminding them trustees had endorsed the recommendations.
Hogan was irritated that the Senates Conference had responded specifically to each of the 21 recommendations, initially endorsing only three, rather than simply advising Hogan on what the faculty role had been on admissions and related matters.
"Given the contentious and divisive atmosphere that has developed around these issues in the senates, I think it may be time to" (remainder of sentence is redacted, or blacked out, by the university), Hogan wrote to the chancellors.
At the Nov. 22 meeting, according to an email from Wise, the chancellors and other UI administrators were surprised to learn that Hogan planned to have the proposed campus-level directors of enrollment management report only to the new central executive director, and not to their own provosts. The administrators argued a dual-reporting line, at the very least, was required, but Hogan was "not convinced," Wise wrote.
In an email later that day, Hogan thanked the chancellors for their "candor" in the discussion but explained that he and the board felt a dual-reporting relationship would make it "impossible to recruit someone who would be held accountable for the job. Nevertheless, I remain open to other suggestions that might ameliorate your concerns."
Meares and Wise then sought input from their provosts, admissions staff and campus deans about the reporting line.
Talking points
Then, following a Dec. 5 Urbana campus senate meeting, Hogan fired off a Dec. 6 letter to Kennedy with a "heads up" about the enrollment management initiative.
He was upset about comments made by faculty senator Mark Roszkowski calling for a confrontation with the president on the issue. At that meeting, the senate had reviewed, and was generally agreeable to, a task force report on the enrollment management recommendations that called for a more collaborative approach. But two campus deans also spoke up saying it was crucial for the campuses to retain control of admissions and retention issues.
In his email to Kennedy, Hogan said he was "dismayed" Wise had not challenged Roszkowski or the deans.
"I'm meeting with Phyllis on Thursday about this and I'm hopeful that after a very frank discussion with her, she will begin to assume a strong leadership role on this and other matters," Hogan said.
Earlier in the email, Hogan said he'd been surprised by Wise's previous responses to the senate's concerns and reminded her before the meeting that trustees had charged him with implementing the recommendations.
"I reminded her that my goals are her goals and that the senate meeting in which this would be taken up would be a critical opportunity for her to lead the Urbana campus," he told Kennedy.
The president met with Wise on Dec. 8, then with the three chancellors on Dec. 9, documents show. That night, Hogan sent them a set of "talking points" to communicate to their faculty and campuses about enrollment management within the next two days.
"I join the President and the Board of Trustees in supporting efforts to enhance our enrollment management operations," the document began.
The talking points directed the chancellors to say that they had met with Hogan and each other about implementing the reforms and agreed on steps to ensure that concerns raised by faculty "will receive the president's full attention and the full attention of others involved in this work," according to the document.
They apparently persuaded Hogan to allow a "dual-reporting structure," with admissions reporting primarily to the director and secondarily to the chancellor/provost, documents show. An enrollment management policy council would also include the campus provosts, and the chancellors would be allowed to sit in on interviews for the new enrollment management director.
The document also stated that faculty and deans would continue to have the same role in enrollment management.
The three chancellors collaborated on their responses over the weekend before sending them out to their faculty and staff so "we are all in sync," as Meares put it.
That same weekend chancellors were drafting their responses, Hogan briefed Kennedy about the issue and on Sunday emailed him draft messages for Kennedy to edit and then send to the three chancellors and Senates Conference Chairman Don Chambers.
In the message he sent to the chancellors, Kennedy said Hogan had told him "that he and the chancellors had come to terms and that you are now prepared to lead your campuses in the implementation."
Trustees have been concerned about enrollment trends such as decreasing diversity, lower yields and inadequate financial aid, he wrote.
"This is why we approved the appointment of an executive director of enrollment management and asked Mike to have our operations reviewed," and why the board endorsed the report, Kennedy said.
An hour after he sent the email to the three chancellors, Kennedy sent a similar message to Chambers.
"In short, the recommendations represent Board policy, as well as the President's goal. The two should be viewed as inseparable and we hope that the Conference will not find itself at odds with what the trustees, as well as the President, are trying to do," he wrote to Chambers.
The next day, on Monday, Dec. 12, the three chancellors sent their messages to senior administrators (copied to university administration).
It was also on that day — Dec. 12 — that the now infamous anonymous emails were sent to members of the Senates Conference, urging them not to pretend to reach a consensus on their own. The conference was drafting its own response to the enrollment management report.
Since then Kennedy has met with the Senates Conference to review their concerns on enrollment management, Hogan has apologized for the anonymous email incident and faculty have passed unanimous resolutions criticizing the president for his "failure of leadership."
Recently the president has said he will release a revised enrollment management plan later this month.
"In the end, we expect that it will yield a mutually acceptable compromise that will best serve the interests of future students, our campuses and the university as a whole," Hardy said Monday.
More
What experience does Hogan have that this plan of his will be effective? Does he have any or is this just an example of enlightened central planning? I don't like the way he's strongarming the campuses, that's for sure.
What experience does he have? none. The report was written by two outside consultants, doesn't make too much sense in places, and doesn't draw on faculty expertise . When this was pointed out, Hogan demanded it be "fast-tracked."
It would be nice if someone would explain what type of changes in enrollment the board and Hogan are trying to puch on the University. We do not seem to see any interviews with the principals asking some tough questions.
The News-Gazette seems to only go half way in trying to get the full story out.
Nice hire UIllinois! Soooooo glad I left to work at another school.
The article should not have taken a value position by saying that faculty are resisting Hogan's proposed "reforms." They should have been described more neutrally as "changes."
Whether these changes are "reforms" or not is exactly what is at issue.
Dr. Hogan denied any knowledge of the Ethics violating e-mails from Dr. Troyer's computer. Dr. Troyer denied sending the e-mails from her computer. Dr. Troyer resigns as Dr. Hogan's Chief of Staff losing her $200,000.00 salary. She accepts a "teaching" position in the Dept. of Psychology with a $109,000.00 salary even though her major studies were in Sociology. Trustee Kennedy voiced support for Dr. Hogan. Kennedy must be the only person who believes Hogan if he really does. Hogan's days are numbered. He can try to ride it out; but his creditability is shot. His $600,000.00 plus salary has not been earned. All of this from a man whose study has been President Harry S. Truman ( "the buck stops here" ). What a hypocritical, unethical "scholar". Everytime he speaks in the future, people are going to be thinking: "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!"
Indeed, the "reforms" are much better described as "changes," a restructuring of recruitment and enrollment so that undergrad classes are structured by a central office, not by campuses or schools.
A pursuit of US News rankings, high-performers, well-funded out of staters, and "yield."
For what an enrollment manager does see the Atlantic magazine article posted on the Campus Faculty Website: http://cfaillinois.org/2012/02/13/the-most-money-a-class-can-buy/ [19]
Was the faculty adequately consulted about this? Absolutely not --.
Central admission is a really stupid idea. Nobody applies to all three. That said, if Hogan and the trustees want it, the trustees should just mandate it. Why ask for input from the Urbana chancellor and faculty senate if you're not going to pay attention to it?
"I reminded her that my goals are her goals and that the senate meeting in which this would be taken up would be a critical opportunity for her to lead the Urbana campus," he told Kennedy.
What a BULLY! I would imagine that was the attitude with Lisa Troyer and the emails! I have a new title for President Hogan........Short-Timer!
Hogan's honor is too lacking for him to be an effective leader. Better to give him his golden parachute and get a better replacement ASAP.
One of the changes recommended by the enrollment management plan is the admission of a greater percentage of international and out-of-state students at the UIUC campus in the freshman class in order to increase diversity. This "diversity" happens also to increase tuition dollars for the university, but that is not mentioned. The percentage of in-state students who would lose their seats to the new international and out-of-state students would potentially be able to enroll at UIC, where the freshman class is recommended to increase, but not to increase through international and out-of-state students. Then, after two years, students who are at UIC who wanted to go to UIUC, would be given a right to transfer, if they met certain requirements. This right would be the same as currently applies to community college students. Sounds good? The net result is that community college students would be edged out, and the "diversity" at UIUC would cease to include the kinds of students that come from our state community colleges. This is not serving the land-grant mission of the university, at least as I understand it. It is using the cover of "diversity" to raise revenue, period.
I believe the land grant mission pertains to teaching, research, and extension by colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts on public lands. To remain competitive and continue to attract high-achieving students, UIUC will need to increase student body diversity. There are Land Grant Institutions in many states that have much higher percentages of out-of state students. According to College Board, 65% of Purdue's student body is in-state, compared to 89% at UIUC. Out-of-state students are not inferior, and should certainly not be admitted solely to improve the bottom line, but rather to bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to campus that will only serve to enhance the qualtiy of education for all. High-acheiving prospective undergrads seeking an excellent education in a stimulating environment may forego UIUC because of its lack of diversification. If UIUC chooses to protect its own by limiting the out-of-state talent pool, it will be to its own demise.
Is Purdue a state university? I thought it was a private university. The latest issue for Higher Education is the recruiting of out-of-state, and foreign students to obtain the maximum tuition. Articles reflecting this trend across the country bear this out. I know that some will comment that the state only pays 18% of the university's cost. This is a phenomenon all across the country. Illinois is not alone in doing this. The ploy of diversity is really an excuse for solving the universities cost. Part of the costs are the high salaries of administrators. Is it necessary to hire a university president at a salary of $600,000.00 with a Chief of Staff at a salary of $200,000.00 plus tenure? President Obama spoke of this trend only days ago. He threatened to decrease funding if the universities did not try harder to control costs. Everyone realizes the benefit locally, and state wide for state residents to obtain college degrees. University administrative costs must be cut back. The cry will go out regarding that the costs are necessary to obtain the best administrators. Since this is a national problem of decreasing public funding, where will they go? It seems very clear that the U of I did not benefit in providing Dr. Hogan with his huge salary. The U of I is not alone in the "diversity" issue. It is the same for all public universities.
Purdue University in West Lafayette is a public land grant university. It also has a highly ranked engineering program, as does UIUC.
Last spring, the University of California announced that it would be accepting a higher percentage of out-of-staters to offset the decline in state funding. Berkeley is California's original land grant college, and I believe that in-state students represent about 75% of their student body. (42% are Asian) The tuition for out-of-state students is almost three times as much for in-state kids---on the books. But who knows what anyone really pays with all the scholarship money floating around.
I don't know enough comment on administrative salaries, but I do agree that costs have gotten to be outrageous. Let's just hope that by the time all of this settles out, U of I will be stronger and flourishing for years to come.
I stand corrected regarding Purdue. Thank you for clearing up my mistake. I agree about hoping that things change at the U of I. It is interesting that private colleges are dropping tuition rates to entice new students according to the news this week. The delay, or lack of state funding has hurt public universities across the country. I do believe that the "diversity" issue only pertains to the tuition amount for non-state students. It does deprive state students in terms of admissions space. It hits the poor students, and the middle income students the most. They may be able to complete the transfer programs in their local community college; but after that, they are limited in continuing, and completing their degree. Cuts in administrative costs have been called for in the media covering the tuition rate increases.
It is amazing to me that Universities manage to ignore research on compensation and motivation: the gist of it is, for white-collar work more money paid results in less productivity, not more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=relmfu [35]
Paying someone $400,000, then his sucessor $600,000 when research into compensation that it has no positive (and often a negative) benefit does not make sense for a premeire research institution! It's especially alarming once you realize that the taxpayers pay for most of what a typical American spends his paycheck on: housing (we house the President), transportation and entertainment (campus tickets are comp'd).
At a time when leading coporations like Google, Zappos and Bonobos are eschewing typical corporate top-down dictatorial structure and working hard for a more academic/research culture, this University continues a drive to be more "businesslike" while ruining the culture that is the University of Illinois AT Urbana-Champaign:
http://startups.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/01/culture-trumps-strategy-an... [36]
But Hogan has spent little of his time here learning about the culture and Board President Chris Kennedy has zero first-hand knowledge of University of Illinois culture as he was never a student, faculty or staff member.
I have a completely new hightened respect for Chancellor Wise and how she stood up to Hogan! Bravo! All bullies get what they deserve in the end.
There is too much administration in all Illinois educational institutions. You have to start somewhere and Illinois taxpayers just have to be given the most efficient, effective schools and universitites we can. What exactly does a Chancellor do? How is it different from a university president?