Purpose: Faculty Senate E-Board Meeting with President Hamilton

Purpose: Faculty Senate E-Board Meeting with President Hamilton

Date: January 26, 2007

Attendees: President Hamilton, Lauren Bruce, Larry Foster, Bogdan Hoanca, Jocelyn Krebs, Caedmon Liburd, Kerri Morris, Greg Protasel

1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Discussion related to January 19th Letter from Kerri Morris, Faculty Senate president

E-Board: Want to express a need for involvement from and with statewide.

Hamilton: Chances are that if we would be involved with an interim chancellor, it would most likely be in September. If this were to happen, regardless of report date, I would probably lean very heavily toward putting in an interim to maintain momentum. I would want to do an interim for more than a year. I don’t want us to be messing around with a chancellor search. I would chat briefly with administrative officers here and seek a meeting with the deans to talk with them because it would be my intent (though not exclusively) to find a dean or a provost or somebody here that the campus knows who understands the system and get them in.

E-Board: Our first concern is that Elaine has even been successfully recruited. In order to be interested in a move, that presumes some lack of contentment. Does Statewide have interest in retaining her? The E-board wants energy and financial and moral support first put behind the person who has gotten the ball rolling with this momentum.

Hamilton: No, I would not be excited about her continuance.

E-Board: Why?

Hamilton: I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s appropriate. We don’t talk about personnel matters.

E-Board: Is there a reason you haven’t consulted us? This affects us directly, and our response about how we feel is as important as your own.

Hamilton: It is not as comprehensive. One aspect of her job is dealing with faculty. In that she’s done well, but she has many other responsibilities.

E-Board: One of our concerns is a historical one. I am sensitive to the fact that faculty don’t know everything. It’s fair to assume you have other items and agendas that have to be taken care of. The historical perspective is that Gorsuch was here and was quite admired. We hired a new chancellor, and she has been here for three years and is gone. If she is leaving, we’re actually finally moving forward and the momentum is there. I sense this real vigor in our faculty and staff and we’re moving forward. If Elaine does leave, our concern is losing that momentum, even with an interim. That has to be our paramount concern. One question is how will you help us keep that momentum? It will require resources from Statewide and here.

Let’s assume she does leave. Look at the lineage. Lee, then Elaine was here and replaced in three years. We don’t want the perception of a revolving door. How would we get another chancellor who could provide the same energy and enthusiasm? Coming from a DOD environment, the OPSEC of the university is a sieve. You can put a lot of rumors together. There were a lot of rumors when Gorsuch left, some right, some wrong. Faculty have significant rumor mill about why Lee left, why Elaine might. That’s our concern, along with momentum. We want to encourage Statewide to help us keep the momentum. We’ve put in a lot of effort, and it’s to your advantage as well.

We do still have some concerns on when the next chancellor is hired. Will faculty be involved in the review and evaluation of the chancellor? When Lee left, we had very little involvement in the performance decisions. For Elaine, we have zero influence on whether she’s doing a good or bad job. Let’s assume she’s not going to be here. Can you help us be involved in how the chancellor from the MAU is evaluated performance-wise? We can tell you a lot that probably would be to SW’s advantage to know.

Hamilton: How common is this in universities?

E-Board: We don’t know, but the information would be helpful.

Hamilton: I would be willing to bring that up to candidates and see if they would be willing to do that.

E-Board: We actually did with all the candidates in the last chancellor search. Faculty Senate had just passed a performance measure that would create metrics to determine how faculty & administrator. Candidates were asked how receptive they were during interview. In that setting, it was kind of a jaded question, but they were at least aware.

Hamilton: That would be valuable. I suggested a 360 review to Chancellors that could be a valuable tool. None of them decided to take me up on that. A couple Statewide folks took it up and thought it was a good idea. All reported it was a little brutal and very useful.

E-Board: Faculty Senate recently changed the instruction evaluation instrument and is working on implementation. We talked with Deans and Directors about their evaluations, doing a 360 process and working out confidentiality. But they thought it would be useful to evaluate themselves, as an aspect.

Hamilton: As I say, I think that if you have a chancellor who has already agreed that that would be a good process during the search, there’s a certain amount of promises and follow through. I wouldn’t feel compelled to get involved if one campus wanted to and another didn’t. I think this it’s a good technique. It would be a great technique for the chancellor. You mentioned confidentiality. I’m not sure the chancellor would be terribly excited if you said you’d give it to them and also the president.

E-Board: The intent was to foster a dialogue between faculty and administrators, including SW administration. There are other parts of her job, and I don’t think you see all of her job either. It would be nice to have concrete evidence that you and the Vice Presidents care about the feedback. You to my knowledge have never asked for it about Elaine. Your decision is stunted. Elaine listens and is responsive. The concern is that things seem not terribly in control at Statewide end. Rumors, including some from VPs, have been flying about this possibility since fall. We wonder why faculty weren’t involved in this discussion early last semester.

Hamilton: There are many aspects. I will tell you that some of you did choose to talk to me unsolicited. I would’ve felt uncomfortable and I think I still would soliciting comments on a chancellor.

E-Board: I’ll take a pessimistic view because I’m more concerned about the future than the past. If Elaine does accept something that takes her away from here, what do you have in mind for maintaining the strength of the infrastructure we already have administratively and are there funding levels for the rest of this? What kind of person/ leadership do you want for this place?

Hamilton: Unfortunately, it should still be memorable what the process was with selecting current chancellor. Concerns and critiques with that methodology should be dealt with. It was done with very strong faculty presence. We made certain faculty had total control over that by a dominance of search committee, and were allowed to make recommendations & selections.

Your comment on momentum. I think this is valuable and would help to wipe away rumors. The perception is wrong. I do like Lee and admire him tremendously. There is a lot of rhetoric at Anchorage, and always has been, about the ratio of students to funding. It’s an argument Mat-Su could give you. Since I’ve been president, 71% of new building construction by dollar amount has been at Anchorage. 52% of capital improvements have been at Anchorage. You were in a circumstance where, if you’re going to run into 13 years of flat funding, start as a have, not a have not. Huge migration, brand new 4 year college, demands all over, not a dime to fill those demands. There was a pent up demand and need at ANC. Decisions don’t represent favoritism. Momentum hasn’t come from President or Chancellor. It has come from an institution that has a demanded need that now has at least modicum resources to meet. Buildings make a difference, no doubt. Shows we’re growing. Even more momentum if we’d gotten more money. Enormous satisfaction of understanding there’s a demand and getting funding, rather than a demand we can’t fill.

E-Board: I agree. From the external perspective was influx of students. Internally, met demand with leadership. Lee pushed us to meet that demand. Elaine is outspoken, and has pushed to get the campus off the campus. That has moved us to the next realm of meeting that momentum. Our concern is whether we’ll be able to maintain that with leadership change.

Can we focus on the interim process? Have you chosen an interim already? If not, how will (E-board) and representative faculty be involved in making that choice?

Hamilton: I’m not going to put anybody in there that… Suggestion will come from either provost or senior administrators. Deans will have an opinion, and to the extent that you might believe deans don’t represent you, I’m comfortable meeting with you and showing people on the table. I’m sure that if there was no confidence, we wouldn’t move that way.

E-Board: What term are you looking at for the interim? What would be most productive?

Hamilton: I’d be willing to discuss that as well. I can’t say because I don’t know if they will be willing to do it for a certain period of time. I’m committed that it should be someone you already know who is already working here.

E-Board: A piece of this is that there is a possibility of feeling that the decision not to encourage Elaine to stay is in part because she is someone who really fought for UAA. Whether that is the case at the higher level, that’s a broader read for the public. We understand the downside in dividing campuses for failure with legislators. But beyond that, she was someone who seemed to fight for UAA. She appeared to be someone who fought hard for UAA.

Hamilton: You thought she fought hard for UAA. So do I.

E-Board: If she does leave, we’ll have to find out when. Depending on critical things that need done, it may affect the choice of the best person for interim. What are the top two critical things you feel we need to address?

Hamilton: Push forward 1000 day vision. We have two things that are terrifically time sensitive. One is the training of the workforce that will hold legacy jobs for the pipeline, from engineers to welders. We can’t miss another pipeline. Since the last one, $82B of nonresident income has been generated. If that was in state, it could have supported our economy. Another priority is the International Polar Year. I’ll add a third. Accountability in Performance Based Budgeting. Those are the things that need to be moved forward. We have a new administration and a new legislature. Not to be derogative, but this is a new administration where you would be mistaken to underestimate how little she knows about the university. I sat down with her for 45 minutes, and she took notes while I told her about the university.

E-Board: From faculty & staff, we have some changes in our administration on the side of admin services. Rumors are floating around. Should we prepare for other major leadership changes?

Hamilton: I would be as surprised as you are, but who knows? I was terribly disappointed to see Cyndi Spear going. Wonderful person. I’m not aware (of anyone else leaving). We just lost Lorelai Carter in Development, and she delivered us several million dollar commitments. If you’re going to hire talent, you’ve got to start to get concerned when nobody recruits them. We hire talented people. People come to recruit them.

E-Board: Back to an earlier point, is there a way that communication could be strengthened between your office and the e-board to talk about what the perception is of the leadership at the campus? Is there an appropriate and constructive way for that? May not serve evaluation of chancellors, might not serve them on their behalf, but is there a way that we could serve you better?

Hamilton: Any time you’ve ever invited me down, I will make a time. Any time you want to talk to me, I’m probably in Anchorage twice a week, and I’ll probably have a window one of those times. I’ll talk with you at night, weekends. You’ve never invited me before. The way you do it is you tell me your issues, concerns, I’ll take notes and you can utilize the president. It would be hard for me to imagine that I couldn’t get the sense of how you feel leadership is doing at the campus. I think it would be untoward for me to solicit that from you, however I think the communication could be done quite easily.

E-board: Is there a way we could do that same sort of discussion with regard to a possible interim? You said along the way that discussing your nominees might be an option. That would be a productive, positive step for e-board.

Hamilton: The way to mess up interim would be to put someone in faculty wouldn’t work with. In that sense, you have a veto power. “We can’t work with that person” would be stupid for him to move forward with that person.

E-Board: Having an interim for too long becomes not an interim, but something else.

Hamilton: I’d be happy to discuss it. We want someone fully knowledgeable, approved by faculty who can keep us going while we need to educate the public and governor. We also need someone willing to serve for whatever term we decide. Would be absolutely silly to put in an interim and begin search in August. But tell me what you think.

E-Board: Last thing I have is: would you be able to share what you’re looking for in terms of performance of a chancellor? I understand if you can’t talk about specific decisions, but it could be helpful to e-board in interim, search if they could understand what pieces you’re looking for.

Hamilton: I could list them all, but my list and your list wouldn’t be different, but your observations & sources would be different. We’ll have the same list, but we may not have the same evaluation.