REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

Introductory Remarks

The Faculty Senate at its meeting on March 3 endorsed the recommendation of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Ombuds Office to send a representative (preferably the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee) to the 1st Annual Conference of the International Ombudsman Association. Provost Travis agreed to fund the trip, and Professor Haynor (Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee) was designated as the faculty’s representative at the conference.

The conference took place in San Diego from April 2-5, 2006. Well over three hundred people participated, with academic, business, governmental, and non-profit ombuds offices represented.

This report is organized around the issues that any organization that is considering the establishment of an Ombuds office needs to grapple with. Both the formal presentations and numerous informal discussions with people in the field shed considerable light on these issues.

1. Is there a need for an Ombuds Office?

The first question is: How would you know if an Ombuds office needs to be created? In effect, the organization (SHU in our case) would conduct a “needs assessment.” One could make a strong case for the establishment of an Ombuds office if disputes and grievances that undermine the functioning of the organization are not presently being handled effectively. This would be the case if these unresolved differences prevent the organization from adapting to new situations and making changes that would move it forward. A sign that an Ombuds office is necessary would be a widespread feeling of estrangement and marginalization on the part of those who perceive themselves as “voiceless.” Such an attitude undercuts the esprit de corps and suppresses organizational commitment to a dangerously low level. Can a prima facie case can be made that Seton Hall is presently in such a condition? Are the incidences of conflict, within the faculty ranks, and between faculty and the administration on the rise? Are these conflicts being handled adequately through existing channels? Are the mechanisms currently in place to deal with conflicts effective and do they generate trust? At SHU, are there persons who feel alienated and marginalized to the extent that their commitment to the University is severely compromised? A strong case can be made for the institution of an Ombuds office to the degree that existing mechanisms for exercising power and resolving conflict are perceived by a significant portion of the University community (including students, of course) as unfair, unjust, or illegitimate, or as producing outcomes that are unfair, unjust, or illegitimate. In such a climate, an Ombuds office would make an indispensable contribution to University life and functioning. Its commitment to clearly articulated standards of practice (independence, neutrality and impartiality, confidentiality, and informality) would help foster legitimacy and a sense that the organization is conducting itself in a fair and just manner. (See APPENDIX A.) An Ombuds office would not seek to eliminate or suppress conflict, but rather to manage and channel it in directions that have constructive effects on organizational functioning and on the level of commitment that members have to organizational goals. Thus, the primary mission of an Ombudsperson is to facilitate the resolution of conflicts within the organization through mediation, thus preventing any slide toward a litigation culture.

2. Should the Ombuds Office have a narrow or an expansive charge?

Ombuds offices in Colleges and Universities range from comprehensive in nature (serving the needs of students, staff, administrators, and faculty) to a focus on a particular constituency. Clearly, the direction in which a College or University moves reflects its institutional history and imperatives. The present initiative at SHU was faculty driven. It came out of the Faculty Senate and responded to perceived abuses of administrative power as well a sense that the existing grievance mechanisms have proven to be largely ineffectual or unfair, perceptions that have spawnedboth a litigation mania, on the one hand, and faculty disaffection, on the other. In light of this history, it would make sense to move toward the establishment of a Faculty Ombuds office at Seton Hall.

3. How would the Faculty Ombuds position be structured?

One issue involves whether the position would be full-time or part-time. This would depend of course on the volume of “visitors” that could be anticipated. I raised this issue at the conference with several Faculty Ombudspersons. Based on these conversations, a faculty of our size would probably justify the appointment of a part-time Faculty Ombudsperson, at least at the outset. We should be open to the possibility that increasing demand might very well necessitate the creation of a full-time Ombuds position. The specific terms of appointment would need to be negotiated. The person appointed as Faculty Ombuds would in all likelihood have a reduced teaching load and be excused from any other Departmental, College, or University service. Whether a stipend is involved is something that would have to be determined. The question of administrative support would need to be discussed as well.

4. Who would be suitable candidates for theFaculty Ombuds position?

The part-time Faculty Ombudsperson would ideally come from the ranks of the Faculty. One possibility is to recruit a Professor Emeritus. Or, the person could be recruited from the ranks of tenured faculty, preferably someone with the rank of Full Professor. Under no circumstances should a non-tenured faculty member be appointed to this position. A case could be made for appointing someone with administrative experience (as Chairperson, Program Director, or in any of a number of capacities in the Dean’s or Provost’s Offices, or leadership positions within College or University governance structures. (e.g. the Faculty Senate). In addition, the ideal candidate would have expertise in organizational behavior and development, for the mission of the Ombuds office is not limited to the peaceful resolution of particular disputes (an important enough mission no doubt) but includes organizational transformation as well.

5. What would be the relationship between the SHU Ombuds Office and the International Ombudsman Association?

The appointee would go through training that would result in her or his certification by the International Ombudsman Association. The IOA sponsors courses and workshops that lead to certification. (See APPENDIX B.) Seton Hall University would sign a charter with the IOA that would pledge the University to set up its Ombuds Office in accordance with the latter’s Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics.

6. What would be a realistic timetable for the establishment of an Ombuds Office at SHU?

STAGE 1: DEVELOPING AN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT (Summer/Fall, 2006)

  • We could invite Ombudspersons from the NY Metropolitan area (from, for example, Columbia, Princeton, Rutgers, Montclair State, Kean, Pace, Baruch) to our campus for day-long discussions with the Executive Cabinet, the Deans, the Faculty Senate, faculty members, and students. In this meeting Ombudspersons would share their experiences with us, their success stories as well as their failures, so that we can have a solid grasp of both the opportunities and pitfalls associated with the establishment of an Ombuds Office in a University context.
  • We could conduct campus-wide discussions on how an Ombuds Office would address critical organizational issues at Seton Hall and contribute to organizational transformation, to making SHU a learning organization. Again, all stakeholder groups would participate in this dialogue. A commitment to establish an office might emerge from these discussions, and the broad contours of the Ombuds position at SHU would begin to take shape. A first year budget would be finalized, with start-up and recurring costs identified.

STAGE 2: RECRUITMENT OF SHU FACULTY OMBUDSPERSON(Spring, 2007)

  • A faculty search committee would be formed to make recommendations to the Provost. Candidates would meet with the various stakeholder groups within the University community.
  • The Faculty Ombudsperson would be named by May 31, 2007.

STAGE 3: SETTING UP THE OMBUDS OFFICE (Summer, 2007)

  • The protocols and promotional material (see APPENDIX C) to be used in the Ombuds Office would be developed and finalized.
  • The Ombudsperson would take introductory training courses.

STAGE 4: THE LAUNCHING OF THE SHU OMBUDS OFFICE (Fall, 2007)

  • A fully operational Ombuds Office would commence on September 1, 2007.
  • The Ombudsperson would take additional training courses that would lead eventually to professional certification.

Concluding Remarks

A few concluding thoughts are in order related to the work of the Faculty Senate Ad Committee. First, the Committee would need to be reauthorized by the Faculty Senate for the 06/07 academic year. A call for members would go out. As was the case this past year, the Committee would be chaired by a Senator with tenure. (I will be on sabbatical next year, and cannot continue to serve as Chair. I would, however, very much like to remain on the committee, and be kept apprised of scheduled meetings and committee activities.) The Faculty Ad hoc Committee could play a useful role in coordinating Stage 1 activities next year, and perhaps even in the Stage 2 recruitment process.

Respectfully submitted by Anthony L. Haynor, Chair, Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Ombuds Office, April 18, 2006.