WU Self-Study Report Chapter 4

Washburn has organized its resources in fairly traditional ways to meet its needs. It has all of the necessary structures in place to accomplish its academic and other purposes. The University has appropriate numbers of faculty and staff. More importantly, Washburn has regular processes by which it evaluates staffing issues and makes adjustments. Its physical plant is well-maintained, and processes are in place for continually evaluating maintenance and resource needs. A Facilities/Capital Master Plan is in place and updated annually. The University is in sound financial condition. Mechanisms for financial decisions are in place and functioning effectively.

Washburn operates according to principles of shared governance between the administration and faculty. Structures are in place at all levels to guide this process. Nonetheless, concerns about the practice of shared governance (rather than its structure per se) arose during the self-study, and these concerns are presented frankly. Some changes have been made; others are in progress. Communication between faculty and administration must always remain a top priority.

That Washburn is continually evaluating itself for improvement is evident in this chapter as well. In addition to formal procedures discussed, note also special studies conducted from time to time, such as the "Schmidt Report" in section B, part I.

This chapter is organized as follows. Section B discusses the human resources, section C the financial resources and section D the physical resources. As is appropriate, Section B (human resources) is the most detailed. The outline of Section B follows:

Section B: How effectively has Washburn organized the human resources necessary to accomplish its purposes?

Washburn has articulated the mission, goals, and objectives of the University as a whole and the various departments and programs of the University. Each of these activities requires a set of resources for successful completion. Monitoring systems are in place to ensure that the approved purposes are being achieved. Among these is regular assessment to ensure that the human resources are in the appropriate numbers, appropriately qualified, efficient, and effective in performing their purposes and responsibilities. These systems include, but are not limited to: job descriptions, annual goals, annual personnel evaluations, audits, program reviews, Resource, Planning and Process Committee activities, and area head review of performance.

Part 1: How effective are the University's administrative personnel in exercising appropriate responsibility for the institutional activities assigned to them? Are administrative personnel well-qualified for the positions in which they serve? Is the number of administrative and other non-faculty personnel appropriate for our institution, and are they distributed appropriately within the institution?

In any large organization there will be a range of performance by employees, from outstanding to unacceptable. Generally speaking, Washburn's administrative personnel are qualified, experienced, dedicated and loyal, and perform their duties at an above average level. There are systems in place to identify those employees who are not performing up to expectations and to communicate the need to improve. If that is not successful, such staff can if possible be transferred to positions more suitable to their abilities, or if necessary employment can be terminated.

The University maintains job descriptions specifying qualifications and requirements for each staff/administrative position. Candidates failing to meet these qualifications are screened out during the hiring process. In virtually every position, there is a need for incumbents to continue to enhance and expand their knowledge to better discharge their responsibilities. Programs to assist in staff development are discussed in chapter 5, section C.4.

Generally speaking, the number of administrative personnel is adequate and there is proper distribution. Procedures and systems are available for assessment which can result in addition, reduction or transfer of personnel. Washburn has been increasing the size of its administrative workforce for many years. However, Program Review and the Resource, Planning and Process Committee (RPPC) continue to identify administrative areas with additional staffing needs (for example, the Academic Computer Center).

Nonetheless, concern has been expressed by many faculty regarding the growth in size of administrative staff. In 1994, Dr. Gary Schmidt, associate professor of mathematics, conducted a study which compared relative increases in the number of faculty and administrative positions over a 20 year period. His results have come to be known as "the Schmidt Report." During the Spring of 1997, Dr. Schmidt updated his report. A synopsis of this report follows.

Budgeted positions were examined for the FY 74, FY 94 and FY 97, and included all areas except the Physical Plant and Athletics. To provide a basis for comparison, the report noted that fall 1994 headcount enrollment was 6,439, compared to 5,126 in fall 1973. This represents a 26% increase. The fall 1996 headcount enrollment figure was 23% higher (6,281) than the 1973 total.

	1973-74	1994-95	1996-97	% increase 1973-1994	% increase 1973-1996
School & Dept. Faculty & Staff
Faculty	153.41	226.00	234.26	47%	53%
Clerical	10.93	27.15	27.30	148%	150%
Central Admin.(1)
Administrative	13.50	29.20	27.38	116%	103%
Classified	29.47	45.97	43.50	56%	48%
Academic Support
Administrative	14.00	46.88	49.48	235%	253%
Classified	13.32	34.00	34.00	155%	155%
Student Services Administration (including CLASS)
Administrative	11.50	21.50	25.50	87%	122%
Classified	15.08	28.50	29.50	89%	96%
College & School Administration (2)
Administrative	5.83	23.49	21.75	303%	273%
Classified	9.30	23.00	24.50	147%	163%

Schmidt followed up his original report with an investigation into the reasons behind the numbers. His investigation "found each new position addressed a very definite need." These needs included expanding the University, addressing federal/state requirements and accreditation guidelines, incorporating technology and moving toward full state affiliation.

In an attempt to increase efficiency and to reduce the number of administrative FTE's, the VPAA and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences have changed certain department chair positions and the associate dean position from 12 month to 10 month status, effective at the start of the current academic year. Greater flexibility and some cost savings are also expected to result. This concept is being tested with these positions, and if found satisfactory, will be applied to other similar positions. All such administrative positions are to be reevaluated at their next vacancy.

Part 1a: Structure of the University Administration

Board of Regents
President
	Vice President for Academic Affairs
		Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
		Deans of the 5 major academic units
		Director of the Division of Continuing Education
		Directors of academic support units (Academic Computer Center, Mabee Library, International Center, CLASS, Mulvane Art Museum, KTWU, Media Center)
	Vice President for Administration and Treasurer
		Controller
		Business Manager
		Directors of Budget, Physical Plant, Security & Personnel, Administrative Data Processing, Student Union
	Dean of Students
		Directors of Multicultural Affairs, Student Activities and Greek Life, Residential Living, Student Services, Health Services
	Dean of Enrollment Management
		University Registrar
		Directors of Admission and Financial Aid
	Executive Director of Planning
		Director of Institutional Research
	Executive Director of Governmental and University Relations
	Director of Affirmative Action
	Athletic Director
	Director of Alumni Association
	University Counsel
	Special Assistant to the President

Part 1b: Major Academic and Academic Support Units

The major academic units of Washburn University are the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business, the School of Nursing, the School of Applied Studies and the School of Law. Brief histories of these units and their mission statements appear in the Washburn University Catalog, which also contains details of all academic programs within these units. In addition, the Division of Continuing Education coordinates non-credit programming, and works with the major academic units to develop and manage off-campus credit programs.

Academic support units include the Mulvane Art Museum, the Institute for International Studies, the Mabee and Law Libraries, the Academic Computer Center, the Center for Learning and Student Success, public television station KTWU, and the Instructional Media Center. Descriptions of many of these areas are found in chapter 5, part C.5 of this report. Student support services are also described in that section.

Part 1c: The Washburn Endowment Association

The Washburn Endowment Association (WEA), formerly Washburn College, has existed for many years as a manager of institutional endowment funds. However, on July 1, 1995, the staff of what had been the University Development Office was transferred to WEA, and WEA accepted primary responsibility for raising funds for Washburn University. (The Law School, KTWU and the Athletic Department still maintain their own fundraising staffs.) The actual transfer involved nearly a one-year transition period, but immediate results were observed. Total funds raised increased from $4,910,793 in (calendar year) 1995 to $7,055,978 in 1996. Over $6.1 million in new gifts were received by WEA during FY97.

The University has long recognized the value of endowments. As of June 30, 1997, the market value of endowed funds managed by WEA for the benefit of Washburn University totaled over $80 million. This amount is not far below the total endowment for Wichita State University, though that doctoral-granting institution is twice the size of Washburn. Washburn's endowment is 3-4 times the size of the regional state institutions (Emporia State, Pittsburg State and Fort Hays State). Further, out of 138 public institutions participating in a recent NACUBO survey, Washburn ranked 21^st with an endowment at that time of $15,703 per full-time equivalent student. Within the past 10 years, Washburn has initiated the practice of adding ten percent of new endowed fund income back to the principal of the endowed fund.

Part 1d: Comments and Concerns from Specific Groups

During the self-study, certain groups expressed specific concerns with regards to the question of the qualifications and effectiveness of administrative personnel. These concerns are listed below. Responses from appropriate groups or from the University administration are given in italics.

College of Arts and Sciences Department Chairs' Concerns and Comments

The department chairs of the College of Arts and Sciences expressed concern about significant turnover in leadership in the University Relations area, resulting in some confusion regarding external communications. Department chairs reported being told at certain times that the WU crest is required on all external documents, and that these documents must be cleared through University Relations, then being told that neither of the above was necessary.

Response: The University Relations area has been reorganized, but staff size is limited. University Relations provides general publications guidelines, and gives assistance when requested. Its role is not to "police" publications.

Academic departments work with the Student Affairs area when faced with classroom situations involving inappropriate student behavior or adaptations required to assist students in receiving an appropriate educational experience in the classroom. Fairly straightforward policies are in place to deal with inappropriate student behavior. However, compliance with the American Disabilities Act continues to provide interesting challenges for both the departments and Student Affairs. The procedures for providing standard adaptations such as tape recorders, notetakers and readers appear to be effective. Technology adaptations vary with each student, of course, so accommodations are made on a case-by-case basis.

Departments reported satisfaction with most interactions with the administrative areas reporting to the Vice President for Administration. A slight concern expressed is the amount of lead time required for the submission of textbook adoption forms.

University Bookstore response: Long lead times are important for ordering textbooks, as they are for any labor and research intensive project. As the approximately 1000 book orders each semester are received, they are checked for accuracy, including a database search for new editions, calls to publishers and communications with departments to obtain further information. The orders are then entered into the text management system where enrollment figures are compared to past sales histories to determine quantities needed for each title. Want lists are sent to wholesalers to acquire as many used books as possible, when appropriate. In a highly competitive market, it is essential to send these lists as early as possible. Other savings accrue from this process as well, including reduced shipping costs. Orders are then placed with publishers. Shipping and price incentives are available for early orders. On the other hand, orders placed later often meet bottlenecks or out-of-stock situations. Needless to say, this is but the beginning of the book handling process, since much work must take place when these orders arrive.

The following table compares book order deadlines at Washburn with those of other nearby university bookstores:

	Summer	Fall	Spring
Washburn	March 1	April 1	October 15
Emporia State	March 14	April 1	October 21
University of Kansas	March 14	April 14	October 15
Kansas State University	March 20	March 20	October 20

Some College department chairs expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Data Processing. Their concerns included the following:

(3) The reporting structure leads to data coordination problems. ADP reports to the Vice President for Administration, while the ACC reports to the VPAA. (The following illustration was given by the chairs: The ACC relies on student data files provided by ADP to generate class group login IDs for students every semester. During the Spring 1997 Semester the login generation program did not work properly after working without problems for several semesters. Later it was discovered that ADP had changed the field formatting in one critical field but had not informed the Academic Computer Center.)

ADP Response: To more clearly understand these concerns, the director of ADP met with some College department chairs and with the associate dean of the College. Queries are limited because of concerns by the University Registrar and the Dean of Enrollment Management regarding their ability to enforce FERPA rules. Concern about the ability of the AS/400 to handle the load also exists. Better communication rather than administrative reorganization is the solution to the types of problems reported by the chairs. The directors of both computer centers meet regularly to share problems and concerns. Activities of the ADP are prioritized according to importance to the institution. Payroll and related activities, for example, would almost always have a higher priority than departmental requests for information. Hopefully, however, all requests can be handled in a reasonable time frame.

The College departments also work closely with the areas reporting to the dean of Enrollment Management, and were generally satisfied with these interactions. The chairs indicated that the Registrar's Office makes itself readily available to clarify requirements and to provide degree audits for student advising. They described this area's service as prompt and efficient. The fact that these degree audits are still completed manually rather than through software is a concern to some.

Registrar's Office response: While an electronic degree audit is not available, the Registrar's Office, along with representatives from Administrative Data Processing, Academic Advising and the College of Arts and Sciences Office, have developed an electronic "Academic Summary" to help simplify advising. For the foreseeable future, all degree audits will be completed manually. Each of the last five catalogs has included major changes. These changes, coupled with various requirements contained in catalogs dating back to 1989 that still impact students, result in numerous variations in the 18 degrees and 100 degree programs. This has made the development of software nearly impossible given existing resources.

The Admissions Office provides departments with information regarding incoming students and requests appointments with faculty members for students visiting the campus. The student visitation process has been streamlined, and information regarding the student visitor is relayed back to the department promptly after the visit. Dealing with transfer credit is a continuing challenge. Determination of transfer equivalencies are sometimes not available for several weeks after the transfer student enrolls.

Response from the Admissions Office: In response to these concerns, the processing of transfer equivalencies has been expedited. A form showing equivalents is available prior to advising. However, students whose records are incomplete or who apply late may not have their complete transfer record available until sometime during the first semester of enrollment.

The Director of Mabee Library reports to Academic Affairs. The On-line catalog feature has enabled departmental faculty to conduct catalog searches from their offices, a great time-saving feature.

Also reporting to Academic Affairs is the Director of the Media Center. Classrooms, instructors and staff are supported by the Media Center in the use of audio-visual equipment and supplices, as well as through services such as transparency making, tape duplication, satellite conferencing and video production.

The Facilities Use Coordinator also reports to Academic Affairs. This area is responsible for scheduling classrooms and other facilities on campus. Departments work closely with this office when existing classes must be relocated or additional classes added. Currently, this process has been completed manually, which used to result in double-booking of classrooms, although such a problem is infrequent now. Recently purchased software should greatly add to the speed and accuracy with which this activity is accomplished.

The Director of the Academic Computing Center reports to Academic Affairs as well. The demand for technological support for faculty productivity and research activities as well as support for classroom use has grown tremendously. Staff members of the Academic Computer Center have struggled to keep up with the demand. As much as possible, the Center has automated academic processes, but requests for services greatly outstrip their ability to respond. The automated procedures available to departmental faculty are easy to use and the Center's response to faculty requests is generally prompt, except in the area of equipment maintenance, the chairs reported.

Finally, chairs reported that the areas under the Center for Learning and Student Success (CLASS) which existed prior to the formation of that unit were familiar to faculty and functioning smoothly. These areas are academic advising, career services and counseling/testing. However, the learning enrichment program is so new that few faculty are aware of its purpose and objectives, and are therefore unsure when to refer students to CLASS.

The vast majority of departmental interactions with administration occur with those administrative areas reporting to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The deans of the University's various academic units report to the VPAA, and department chairs work closely with their respective deans in administering the various academic programs on campus. Chairs felt that academic programming processes (such as curriculum, scheduling and budgeting) appear to be functioning smoothly, with deadlines announced far in advance and straightforward procedures for implementation. However, the department chairs expressed concern that too many administrative areas report to the VPAA Office, making it difficult to ensure that each area is functioning smoothly and efficiently.

Response: All of the service areas which report to the VPAA undergo Program Review, which includes an area self-study and the collection of user satisfaction data. The Program Review Committee then makes an evaluation of the performance of each unit. Additionally, the VPAA meets on a regular basis with all area heads, and each area head must submit an annual report to the VPAA. The administration views the span of the VPAA's responsibilities as typical for such a position.

Allied Health Department Faculty Concerns and Comments

Faculty of the Allied Health Department wrote that "for the most part Washburn's administrative personnel have been effective in exercising appropriate responsibility for the institutional activities assigned to them" and "all Washburn administrative personnel appear to be qualified for the positions in which they serve." However, this group expressed concern that "we have a tendency at times to promote from within even though that person may not be the most qualified for the position." They also felt the changes in administrative organization have not been communicated effectively to the faculty.

"Washburn administration has a tendency at times to be resistive to change and new ideas," said these faculty. "Washburn as a whole needs to become more proactive rather than reactive."

The Washburn Student Association (WSA) Concerns and Comments

Members of WSA's Academic Affairs Committee said they had received complaints from students that "Financial Aid has lost or misplaced several people's scholarship and loan checks." They suggested that organizational improvement in the Financial Aid Office was needed.

Office of Enrollment Management response: The Financial Aid Office is one of the highest volume offices on the Washburn campus. It processed scholarship, loan, grant and work study aid for over 3,750 individual students in 1996-97, and awarded over $24 million in aid. More telephone inquiries are received in Financial Aid than in any other campus unit.

In the past few years, the Program Review process, a performance audit and an outside consultant have made recommendations for reorganization in financial aid. In addition, a survey of financial aid recipients in 1996-97 suggested a number of areas where customer service should be improved.

The dean of enrollment management examined the operation during the Fall 1996 semester, and instituted a major personnel change the following spring. A new director of financial aid was appointed July 1, 1997. The director has been charged with the following to respond to the concerns indicated above: (1) Personnel reorganization to ensure timely processing and a service-oriented, user-friendly environment; and (2) technological reorganization to provide effective communication within the office, and between the office and the U.S. Dept. of Education, loan providers, Administrative Data Processing and the Business Office.

Part 2: Are our administrative structures, procedures and policies well-defined, well-understood and efficient?

Washburn publishes and maintains a Business and Financial Affairs Handbook and a University Faculty Handbook. These two publications are distributed widely and provide information about the structure of the University administration and its policies and procedures. These documents are dynamic and require review and revision periodically. There must also be a continual educational process with employees to attempt to make sure that the policies and procedures contained in this documents are well understood and complied with by the affected employees. Checks and balances exist to test compliance, and in cases of non-compliance appropriate actions are taken. Regular workshops are conducted to be sure that academic deans and department chairs are kept current on important administrative policies and issues.

Part 3: Does the Board of Regents operate in accordance with stated policy and provide the appropriate leadership to the University?

The University Legal Counsel serves as secretary to the Board of Regents. One of the many responsibilities of the secretary is to ensure that all Board operations are conducted according to University policy and state law, especially open meeting and open records laws.

The Board and the administration work together to provide leadership and direction to the institution. Any governing board must be constantly vigilant to focus on policy decisions rather than straying into management. At the same time, administration must earn the respect, trust and confidence of the Board in order to make it easier for the Board to accept its policy role.

Certainly, the relationship between Board and administration changes over time as board members and senior administrators change. During the 1996-97 academic year, the leadership role of the Board was very evident, as the Board took on the critical responsibility of conducting the search for a new president. The Board consulted with a presidential recruiting firm and worked with a representative search committee to identify and screen potential candidates. Ultimately, two highly qualified candidates were brought to campus, and the appointment of the new president was made with input from the full University community.

During the self-study process, only one concern about the Board was raised, regarding how information about meetings is disseminated. College of Arts and Sciences department chairs expressed the concern that the attachments to Board of Regents agenda are not distributed to deans/directors prior to Board meetings. These attachments often contain the rationale for action items, and the chairs say the unavailability of these attachments does not allow them to review and evaluate the implications of proposed changes prior to action by the Board.

Response from the Secretary to the Board: The agenda is typically published and distributed, on average, 10 days in advance of the meeting and is accessible simultaneously through the University's home page. Notice of the regularly scheduled Board of Regents meetings for the entire academic year is posted on the University's home page and notice is provided to all in accordance with the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Copies of the complete agenda are also available for review at the Law Library, at Mabee Library and at the Board Secretary's Office. The presumption is that the respective vice presidents keep the deans and directors who report to them apprised of items of importance, and the deans and directors in turn keep those who report to them updated on these matters. In addition, the two faculty representatives to the Board of Regents use electronic mail to keep the faculty aware of Board agendas and actions. Further, policy matters relating to academic issues and academic units come to the Board of Regents through the shared governance process. The rationale for the present practice of not copying more sets of the complete agenda for distribution to all offices on campus is that the overwhelming number of items on the agenda relate to routine business of the University (i.e., liquidated claims, contracts, and so on) which are of no interest to the majority of the University community. The benefit of wider distribution of photocopies are outweighed by the burden and expenses of the resources consumed, particularly when, as here, the information is readily accessible.

Overall, there seems to be satisfaction with the Board's decisions and with the leadership it provides. The Board appears to be ready and willing to work with the new president to face the challenges ahead.

Part 4: Is the faculty-administration shared governance system organized appropriately, and does it operate effectively?

The foundation for shared governance is found in Article V of the University's By-Laws. There are numerous other official ways governance is shared, such as through the University Council and its numerous standing committees, through Program Review and through the Resource, Planning and Process Committee (RPPC). The governance ideal Washburn strives to achieve is the sharing of ideas, wants, needs, opportunities, difficulties and views in formal and informal settings. These exchanges should be based on mutual respect and the desire to achieve common goals for the betterment of all.

For the most part, the shared governance system is organized in the traditional way. Certain responsibilities are clearly delineated as the province of the faculty (see page 1-2 of the University Faculty Handbook, 10^th edition), with exceptions made only in extreme circumstances. Each major academic unit (the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Nursing, the School of Applied Studies, the School of Business and the School of Law) has faculty-dean shared governance programs in place. Matters internal to these units are usually resolved within the respective governance unit. Matters of broader interest often arise from within these units and are passed on to the University Council for further consideration.

Part 4a: Academic Unit Governance

Governance Structure of the School of Applied Studies

All policy recommendations of the School of Applied Studies are the responsibilities of the School Faculty Council and its related committees, subject to conformity to established University policy. The School faculty council consists of the dean, associate dean, and all full-time faculty within the School with the rank of instructor or higher. The Council meets as needed throughout the year.

Standing committees include the Scholarship Committee, Promotion and Tenure Committee, Curriculum Committee and the Certificate and Award Ceremony Committee.

Curriculum matters are initiated by the faculty, approved within the originating department, forwarded to the Curriculum Committee (which consists of one faculty member from each department) for review, and with its approval forwarded to the Faculty Council for consideration.

The Dean is the chief administrative and academic officer of the School. The Dean is responsible for staffing, budgeting, research, and faculty development. The dean shares responsibilities in matters of policy development and implementation with the School Faculty Council. The power to review and make final decisions on all matters internal to the school is the responsibility of the dean.

Governance Structure of the School of Law

The School of Law has an extensive committee structure to meet its shared governance needs. Committee membership and responsibilities are spelled out in chapter 8 of the University Faculty Handbook. All policies that impact faculty and students are reviewed by an appropriate committee (or committees) with faculty and student representation. Changes in policy or in academic requirements are presented for a vote to the faculty as a whole.

Governance Structure of the School of Nursing

Governance in the School of Nursing is exercised primarily through committee structure. The major policy making body is the Nursing Academic Policy Committee, the purpose of which is to provide for decision making and to facilitate communication within the School of Nursing. The full-time faculty of the School and the elected student representatives constitute the membership of the Academic Policy Committee and have full voting privileges. Part-time and Adjunct faculty, in accordance with the University Bylaws, do not have voting privileges at the school level but are encouraged to attend meetings and have voice. The Dean chairs the Academic Policy Committee, which meets every semester. The Academic Policy Committee receives written minutes, reports and recommendations of all nursing standing committees and takes action on academic matters as well as those related to policies and procedures of the school. Student representation on the Academic Policy Committee includes the president of the Student Nurses of Washburn Association (SNOW) and elected representatives (and alternates) from each of the three levels of the program.

All changes in nursing degree or graduation requirements, after approval by the Academic Policy Committee, are submitted first to the University Council and then to the General Faculty of the University for approval.

Faculty Standing committees of the School of Nursing carry out the functions of the School and are of two types: 1) committees related to the academic programs (Program Committees) and 2) committees related to school activities and faculty welfare (School Committees). The Program Committees are the Admissions, Retention and Progression Committee, the Curriculum Committee, the RN Articulation Committee and the Campus Skills Laboratory Committee. The School Committees are the Continuing Education Committee, the Library Resources Committee, the Faculty Development Committee, the Faculty Research Committee, the Graduation Committee, the Social Affairs Committee and the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Ad hoc committees are established by the Dean or the Academic Policy Committee as the need arises. Membership on committees is by appointment, designation or election, as stated within the structure of the individual committees.

The organizational structure of the School of Nursing and the size of the faculty are conducive to the faculty acting as a committee of the whole on faculty and other matters. The faculty meet monthly for purposes of communication and to discuss faculty issues, school and/or university matters, as well as curricular and program issues. The Dean consults with the faculty on budget considerations and other matters that come before the school.

The Dean is the principal administrator of the School of Nursing and reports directly to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Dean is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school, including development and support of faculty teaching, research, scholarly development and service; management of fiscal resources; promotion of a climate that fosters academic excellence and cooperative, effective communications among faculty, students and administration. The Dean fosters the development and implementation of long-range plans for the school and ongoing program evaluation; serves as a leader of the faculty; represents the School of Nursing within the University and the broader community; serves as a liaison with state, regional and national professional organizations and governmental bodies in promoting the goals of the school and in maintaining its accreditation status.

Governance Structure of the School of Business

The School of Business is governed under the principle of shared responsibility between the school faculty and the dean. The faculty exercises its responsibilities through participation in standing committees who recommend policy and action to the faculty as a whole and to the dean.

The School functions in an inter-disciplinary manner, eschewing formal departments. Each tenure-track faculty member serves on at least one of four standing committees: Planning and Review, Curriculum, Faculty and Personnel, and Student Affairs. An Executive Committee is comprised of the chairs of these four standing committees. An elected Chair of the faculty presides over twice monthly faculty meetings. Administrative officers include the Dean, the Associate Dean and the Director of Graduate Programs. Each of the latter serve as ex-officio members of the standing committees. A non-academic program, the Small Business Development Center has a Director and Assistant Director, reporting to the Dean.

The Tenure and Promotion Committee includes all tenured members of the School faculty (including the deans and program director). All tenured faculty deliberate and vote on tenure cases. Candidates for promotion to Associate are reviewed and voted on by ranks above Assistant Professor; promotion to Full professor is voted on only by Full Professors.

The Dean is the chief administrative and academic officer of the School of Business who directs academic programs and is responsible for staffing, budgeting, research and faculty development. The Dean shares faculty responsibilities in matters of policy development and implementation. The power to review and make final decisions on all matters internal to the School is the responsibility of the dean. In cases of non-concurrence between the dean and the faculty, the faculty may transmit its views to the vice-president for academic affairs, or, when necessary, to the president and the board of regents.

Governance Structure of the College of Arts and Sciences

The College of Arts & Sciences is governed under the principle of shared responsibility between the college faculty and the Dean. The college faculty exercises its responsibilities through a representative College Faculty Council and a College Promotion and Tenure Committee. However, all policies regarding faculty status and all guidelines involving changes in graduation requirements, in degrees and majors, and in college governance require approval by the faculty of the whole. Action by the faculty or the College Faculty Council is binding unless challenged by the Dean. Cases of impasse are resolved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Actions by the College Faculty Council can also be challenged by a petition signed by no less than 10% of the college faculty. Successful petitions require that the challenged action be brought before the college faculty for disposition. Actions by the College Committee on Promotion and Tenure are recommendations subject to further review.

It is the responsibility of the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences to initiate, institute and review college policies governing admission, retention and dismissal of students, curriculum design and requirements, methods of conducting its educational programs, faculty status and related personnel matters, the selection, evaluation and retention of the dean and chairpersons, and the use of resources. Furthermore, in accord with its policies, the faculty implements the curricula, awards degrees, recommends appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotion, tenure, dismissal of faculty, selection, evaluation and retention of the dean and chairpersons, and rules and structures under which the college functions.

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences are assigned to academic departments. These departments are clustered into units called "divisions" based on academic relationships. The five divisions of the college are: humanities; social science; natural sciences, mathematics and computer information sciences; creative and performing arts; and education/health, physical education and exercise science.

Under the leadership of the chairs, academic departments are responsible for issues related to curriculum, student advisement, faculty status, library holdings, and the procurement and maintenance of equipment and materials. Divisions serve as conduits for information between faculty and the Dean, between the faculty and the College Faculty Council, and between divisions and their elected representatives. Divisions also provide a forum for discussing college and/or university issues and review and make recommendations concerning curriculum changes proposed by departments within the division.

The College Faculty Council is a representative agent of the college faculty and assists in carrying out the responsibilities of the college. The CFC is composed of one representative from each academic department within the college, the elected chairpersons of each division, and the Dean of the college, who is the presiding officer. Standing committees of the council are the Committee on Committees, the Curriculum Committee, the Professional Development Committee, the Resources Committee, and the Student Academic Appeals Committee. Additional committees are impaneled when necessary to deal with specific responsibilities.

The College Promotion and Tenure Committee examines tenure and promotion petitions, department committee and chair recommendations and advises the Dean as to whether or not the petitions demonstrate that the candidates have met the standards for teaching, scholarly activity and service. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee consists of one member elected from each division.

The Dean is the chief administrative and academic officer of the College of Arts and Sciences and directs and supervises academic programs and is responsible for staffing, budgeting, research, and faculty development. The dean shares college faculty responsibilities in matters of policy development and implementation, along with department chairs, and the College Faculty Council. The power to review and make final decisions on all matters internal to the college is the responsibility of the dean. In cases of non-concurrence between the dean and college faculty, the faculty may transmit its views to the vice president for academic affairs, or, when necessary, to the president and the board of regents.

College of Arts and Sciences faculty were surveyed regarding their views on governance within the College. Fifty-eight (41%) of the faculty responded. All but three respondents indicated they had served on 3-7 committees, spending an average of 6-7 hours per month in such service. Those serving on committees found the experience worthwhile and thought committees "usually" accomplished something beneficial. All respondents strongly agreed that faculty should participate in governance. Among those faculty with 5-15 years service, there is mild disagreement that divisions within the College should be maintained. Those faculty with less than five years or more than 15 strongly agree that the divisions should be maintained. All three groups understand why the divisions exist.

There appears to be general agreement that faculty understand how the College is governed and understand how the College Faculty Council functions. There is strong agreement that the College Faculty Council has enough members and mild disagreement that it is efficient.

College chairs expressed that coordination of governance among the College and the various Schools is not particularly effective, especially in curricular matters. Concern is that decisions are made in certain parts of the University that may impact others (course duplication, correlate requirements, and so on).

Part 4b: The University Council

The University Council is the center of shared governance at Washburn (see Section One, part VI.A. of the Faculty Handbook). It has responsibility to formulate and recommend to the Board of Regents through the president policies on a variety of essential matters. Voting membership of this body includes 10 elected faculty members (including the senior elected faculty representative to the Board of Regents), the president, the two vice presidents, the chief student affairs officer, the director of the University Library and the president of the Washburn Student Association. Non-voting members include the academic deans, the junior elected faculty representative to the Board of Regents, three students elected by the Student Association, and one by the Student Bar Association. Prior to Fall 1997, the president served as chair of this body. However, one key result of the self-study process was a change to an elected chair of the Council. The chair must be a faculty member of the Council, and is elected annually at the first meeting by the voting membership. Adding the faculty representatives to the Board of Regents to the Council was also a change brought about by self-study; the idea behind the change is to improve communication between the Board and this important faculty governance body.

While the University Council is the focal point for shared governance, governance activities are also shared through 18 standing committees which report to the University Council. Membership on these committees include faculty, students, staff and community members as appropriate. Minutes of the meetings of these bodies are sent to the Council.

Varied opinions and concerns have been voiced regarding shared governance. For example, members of the Professional Development Committee of the College Faculty Council stated that "the faculty-administration shared governance system is organized appropriately and seems to operate effectively." Faculty of the School of Applied Studies noted that "communication and teamwork" could be improved. "Administration, colleges and departments," they wrote, "need to communicate more effectively with each other, and work together as a united team. At times, it appears that administration, colleges and departments make decisions/proposals that have great impact on other departments and colleges without seeking input from those departments and colleges."

Perhaps the most comprehensive discussion of shared governance during the self-study took place within the University Council itself. The elected faculty members of the Council formed a sub-committee to address the self-study questions about shared governance. Their first action was to propose the change described above in the makeup and chair of the University Council. The change was approved by the Council and ultimately by the Board of Regents. Subsequently, the subcommittee put forward a report on shared governance, which was debated and modified by the full Council.

The self-study report of this body was highly critical of the operation rather than the structure of shared governance at Washburn. Problems with both the administration and the faculty were pointed out. Because of the importance of this body in Washburn's shared governance structure and the seriousness with which the University is taking these concerns, the response of the Council is printed in full below. The University Council and the administration are strongly committed to working together to resolve these concerns and to improve communication among administration and faculty.

Part 4c: Response of the University Council to the question, "Is the faculty-administration shared governance system organized appropriately, and does it operate effectively?"

The comments that follow are the report of the University Council to the Self-Study Steering Committee on the issue of shared governance. They are printed verbatim. The italics indicate that the entire section is quoted.

Washburn University has organized its human resources to accomplish its purposes. This is not to say that with respect to shared governance the organization has maximized these resources and has organized them in the most efficient way possible. The development of an optimum faculty-administration shared governance structure is an on-going process and is related to GIRs 5 and 7 of the institution which basically state that the final decision on all matters pertaining to Washburn University rests with the Board of Regents. The President, Vice-President for Academic Affairs and the other senior staff members of the Washburn administration do exercise final decision authority with regard to day-to-day operations, but only within specified areas of authority delegated by the Board. The faculty do not have this type of delegation with the exception that all new academic programs must be approved by the faculty.

This arrangement of Board authority is not unique to Washburn and is not a point of contention with the faculty. However, the Board often concurs with the Administration requests for programs and policies. This makes it very important that the faculty and administration have an effective mechanism in place allowing for productive bi-directional communication to occur between these two bodies. This is vital if a faculty-administration shared governance structure is to be useful. If this communication is not productive or even if it appears to be non-productive, the faculty feels its input into University functioning is ineffective.

While there are the usual committees found at any university with joint faculty-administration membership, these committees most often function in terms of operational details rather than in joint governance decisions. There does not seem to be an efficient mechanism for faculty to get their ideas to the administration nor a consistently operating protocol for the administration to explain their goals and the rationale behind them. This is obviously not the fault of just the administration or just the faculty. We seem to have developed a protocol whereby if we communicate, we talk at each other rather than with each other. This is not conducive to productive shared governance.

Part of the problem is that the faculty itself is a diverse grouping of people and interests and there is no way established for the faculty as a group to decide what issues are important to them and then try to work out a university faculty position on a given issue. If, in fact, this can be accomplished, there then needs to be a way in which informal discussions can begin with the administration to address these issues. A key point is that these preliminary discussions need to be informal, a give and take, to see what common ground can be developed. Possibly, the faculty at large can select faculty members who can begin the dialogue with the administration. There are pools of faculty expertise in a variety of areas which could be tapped. What could be created is an informal faculty roundtable in which interested faculty could discuss issues which will impact their role in the University.

Similarly, the administration could identify its members which have areas of expertise. These faculty and administration pools could serve as the basis for these informal discussions.

When these discussions have progressed to the point where common interests have been identified and potential solutions determined, these can then become part of the formal process, being sent to the appropriate committees. Eventually this should reach the University Council. Under the University bylaws, all matters pertaining to University functioning are to be presented to the University Council. Depending on the nature of the matter under consideration, and who or what entity will be the final decision authority, such matters are submitted for informational reporting, committee study and recommendation or discussion and decision upon voting.

The University Council is made up of nine members elected as representatives from major academic units on campus, plus five members retaining voting rights by virtue of their ex officio status as administrators. Other members of the Council, such as school Deans, as well as other interested persons, may be invitees to Council proceedings but they are not voting members. Three student representatives are also included as members of the Council, but only one student member (President of the Washburn Student Association) may vote. Recent changes in the structure, composition and functioning of the Council have resulted in the Chair and Vice-Chair being elected positions drawn from the Council faculty members. The faculty representatives to the Board of Regents are also Council members with the senior representative being a voting member. Also the Council agenda must be submitted at least one week in advance of the meeting; this being mandated to ensure that the council members have some time to consult with their constituents.

This realignment of Council membership will provide a direct connection between the University Council where decisions are made at the faculty-administration level and the Board of Regents where the final decisions are made. One of the difficulties facing the Board is that they are not necessarily getting comprehensive picture of the issues that are confronting the University. They are getting primarily an administration point of view through the perspectives of the University President, Vice-President for Academic Affairs and the Vice-President of Administration and Treasurer. There is not, or has not always been, a faculty perspective. To be honest, there is not a faculty perspective, or at least not one significantly different from that of the administration, on many issues. On occasion, however, there are differences and the faculty viewpoint is difficult to get across. The recent changes in the structure of the University Council will help address this problem, putting the faculty representative to the Board of Regents on the University Council thus giving the faculty a more direct representation to the Board. However, a more complete solution would be to adopt some version of the ideas expressed earlier whereby the administration and faculty could develop consensus positions prior to meeting with the Board and then present a unified view that the Board could then consider, confident that it reflects the broad spectrum of University opinion. In those few cases where a common viewpoint cannot be developed the Board will be in a position to hear both sides and make a decision based on all of the facts and ideas available to them

There are examples where this failure of communication has occurred. A recent example was a proposal from the faculty to the Board to consider the issue of faculty salaries in the near future, particularly in the context of new leadership for the University and a change in membership of the Board, both of which were to occur shortly after the proposal was made to the Board. The Board asked for pertinent statistics to be collected and made available to them. The Administration compiled the information and sent it to the Board without any input from the faculty or its representatives. Not only was there no faculty input, the information was placed on the Board agenda at the request of the administration before the new leadership was in place which was in contrast to what the faculty had wanted and thought the Board had wanted. If effective bidirectional communication was in place, this should not have happened. On an issue like faculty salaries, the faculty should not feel left out, especially since resolution of the issue will necessarily impinge on a variety of faculty concerns, such as tuition, enrollment, faculty loads and a host of other issues.

Another example was the issue of armed security on campus. The administration decided that this was something that needed to be established and they did the surveys, hired consultants and brought the issue to the Board without ever asking the faculty for any input. A faculty representative to the Board finally found out about it and surveyed the faculty finding only one faculty member who supported the idea of an armed campus security. When this was mentioned at the Board meeting where approval was to be given, the Board was faced with approving something that the faculty had not been given any chance to comment on and it placed the Board in an awkward position.

Still other examples of this failure of communication were the issues of recruitment and retention which challenge many campuses. The administration was, and is, very concerned about this and rightly so, but the actions they have taken to address this were done with little or no input from the faculty. They made personnel changes, created new administrative positions, made time consuming demands on the faculty and otherwise affected the way the University conducts its business. This is not to say that these decisions were wrong, that has yet to be decided, but they were made in such a way as to leave the faculty wondering what role they were playing in the University. If the faculty is to have no role in these issues, what is their role? These kinds of issues can leave the faculty dispirited and demoralized, uncertain as to whether they are important in University governance and even less willing to participate in that governance.

There is another channel of hierarchical organization that contributes to governance issues and that is the organization which flows from the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the Deans of the respective schools and colleges to the chairpersons of the respective departments and then on to the faculty. This is primarily a conduit for implementing policy decisions made at higher levels. Often the announcement from the chair is the first time the faculty member has heard of the policy again furthering the feeling of estrangement from the institution. This despite the fact they are continually being told the faculty is the most important part of the university. Good examples were the policy changes dealing with recruitment and retention mentioned above. This channel of communication is an example of trickle-down administration basically going in only one direction and serving only as the starting point. There is very little chance of faculty being able to send information the other way. There is no mechanism to ensure that comments from the faculty to the chairs will be passed on. The chairs serve at the pleasure of the administration and are responsible for implementing administration policy. The same of course is true at the higher levels of organization. It is very hard to make water flow uphill.

There is a faculty-administration governance system in place. Could it be organized better? Yes. Could it operate more efficiently? Yes. Among the suggested areas of improvement are:

Developing a mechanism which will allow the faculty to develop their own views of governance issues and permit an informal interaction between faculty and administrative representatives which could result in the formulation of consensual position to be presented to the Board.

Develop effective ways to bring Departmental Chairpersons into a more meaningful role in university governance commensurate with their considerable responsibilities.

Clear the channels of communication and define the paths of administrative control to facilitate maximum efficiency and representation.

The key word in shared governance is "shared". Only by increasing the sharing of this responsibility and utilizing the many faculty talents on this campus can we move forward together to make this institution live up to its impressive potential.

Part 5: Do we have appropriately qualified faculty in sufficient numbers to effectively operate our academic programs?

Program Review is designed to respond to this question. It looks at the current status of programs and takes into account the changing environment and changing needs of programs. Recommendations are made for addition or reduction of resources as necessary. It is the responsibility of academic administration to work with faculty to articulate the qualifications of new faculty and to ensure that these faculty meet or exceed the qualifications. Practices for filling faculty positions are thoroughly detailed for each major academic unit in the Faculty Handbook.

In the survey described in part 4 of this section, College of Arts and Sciences faculty believe there are enough qualified faculty to meet the College's mission and to support the individual academic disciplines within the College. They expressed confidence that the Program Review process is effective in identifying where there are needs for more faculty, but were not certain that the RPPC and budget processes will be able to quickly respond to these needs.

Section C: How effectively has Washburn organized the financial resources necessary to accomplish its purposes?

Part 1: Do our financial expenditure patterns match well with our stated purposes, and exhibit a commitment to provide the environment and the human resources necessary for effective teaching and learning?

The higher education environment is one of decreasing expectation of and reliance on increased public financial support, reassessment of tuition policies, new forms of revenue, and use of assessment to match resources to needs. At Washburn and most other institutions, these adjustments and assessments are in process.

Washburn has varied and relatively stable revenue streams (see Chapter 2, GIR #21). Its financial resources are reasonably adequate to accomplish its purposes, and the University has both formal and informal systems in place to allocate the resources available efficiently and effectively.

The Annual Financial Reports, Strategic Financial Indicators and the Facilities/Capital Master Plan verify that Washburn's expenditure patterns match well with its stated purposes. On a regular basis Washburn compares its demand ratios (expenditure patterns) with other public four-year Universities with data from Minter and Associates. Washburn's allocations to the instructional expense category is 43.1%, above the median value of 41.4%. This makes sense since Washburn's primary purpose is undergraduate (and selected graduate) teaching.

Part 2: Are the mechanisms by which financial decisions are made appropriate and effective? Are they sufficiently inclusive?

Financial decisions are made daily at virtually every level of the institution. At the departmental or unit level, department chairs or unit directors, in consultation with their faculty and/or staff, determine how to spend funds budgeted for supplies and operating expenses, as well as funds designated for "other salaries" (student workers, temporary employees, and so on). These units operate on an annual budget, and when the occasional need for additional or special funding occurs during a fiscal year, those requests are sent on to the next highest administrative level.

The same sorts of decisions are made at the academic dean or area head level. In addition, financial responsibility for contracting with adjunct faculty rests with the academic deans. Funds are transferred from the deans' offices to the respective departments to meet teaching needs, determined by the department chairs in consultation with the deans (or in schools without department chairs, by the deans themselves). Travel budgets are likewise centralized at the dean/area head level. Deans and area heads are also responsible for allocating discretionary funds to meet special needs in their units.

In addition to financial duties similar to those of deans, directors and department heads, administrators at the vice presidential level oversee the above transactions, and make allocations from discretionary funds where necessary.

Purchasing decisions are made through typical processes. Units desiring to make a purchase prepare a requisition, which must be signed by the individual responsible for the account on which the purchase is made. The University's Purchasing Office reviews the requisition to ensure that it is within policy and appropriately signed, prepares bids where necessary, and produces the purchase order. When the item is received, it is checked by the area that placed the order, and once approved the vendor is paid by check through a check and balance system in the Purchasing and Business Offices.

One of the most important financial decisions that is made is the decision to fill a vacant faculty or staff position. When a vacancy exists, the head of the unit (department chair, director, and so on) makes a formal written request to fill the opening. These requests must be approved at all higher levels. In the case of faculty, the vice president for academic affairs must ultimately give approval to fill the position; for staff, that responsibility rests with the vice president for administration.

In brief, the process by which the University budget is developed is as follows. The Resource, Planning and Process Committee (RPPC) consists of faculty and staff who do not have significant budget duties as part of their regular positions. The committee is jointly chaired by the VPAA and the VPAT, the executive director for planning is an ex officiomember, and the budget director is a non-voting member of the committee. The RPPC is charged with taking the long-range view of the needs for resources to fund the mission of the University, and to provide early warning for the administration of significant needs. Examples of the types of strategic requests that the RPPC would deal with are as follows: "OOE increases are not keeping pace with inflation (with explanation)." "This unit anticipates that its three computer labs will need to be replaced every three years; thus, one lab needs to be replaced per year."

Each September, the RPPC requests input from every campus unit, then prioritizes the input received and makes comments as appropriate. The VPAA and VPAT are responsible for making sure the deliberations remain focused on the mission. In December, the RPPC issues its report to the president, who replies to the committee in January. Committee members carry the report and the president's responses back to their constituencies. RPPC also serves as a way for the administration to share its concerns about resources with representatives of the university community.

In January, the Budget Committee meets the day after the governor's "State of the State" address, in which he or she makes recommendations for state aid increases for Washburn as well as for the Kansas Regents' institutions. At this meeting, the Budget Committee (consisting of the two vice presidents and the heads of Governmental and University Relations, Athletics, WEA, Enrollment Management, Planning and Alumni Affairs, with the budget director and the associate VPAA serving as non-voting resource persons) reviews the likely resources for the budget year beginning the following July 1, and prepares a recommendation for the Washburn Board of Regents. This recommendation combines the information received from the governor and the current information about other sources of revenue with a set of preliminary budget instructions made by the Board the previous May (see below).

The percentage increase in salaries and operating expenses to be allocated in the next year are the principal expense recommendations made. The Budget Committee attempts to the extent possible to keep these increases comparable to those planned for the state institutions. The Board of Regents then ratifies or changes the instructions at its January meeting, and then the increases are ready to be issued to all departments.

From January through March, departments prepare budget submissions based on the current year budget plus any increases. At the same time, departments indicate needs for additional funding by preparing "budget priority requests." These requests often arise as the result of RPPC discussions in previous budget cycles. Departmental budget submissions and priority requests are sent to the dean/director level. Deans and directors review budgets in their areas, and attempt to meet some of the needs for additional funding through reallocation within their areas. Their priorities for additional funding are then added to the information, and it is forwarded to the vice president/area head level. Similar reallocation and prioritization takes place at that level, and then these prioritized budget requests are reviewed by the Budget Committee, which prepares a recommended budget and submits it to the president. The president issues his decisions in mid-April, and then the budget director prepares the complete detailed budget document. The Board of Regents gives preliminary approval to this document at its May meeting, and employment contracts are issued the next day. This part of the process concludes in July of each year, when the Board holds the statutorily-required public hearing and then gives formal approval to the budget.

Also in May, the process is brought back full circle. In early May, the staff of the Kansas Board of Regents informs Washburn of what the Regents' schools will be asking for in the fiscal year beginning in 14 months. Washburn must submit a similar request by early June. The Budget Committee meets to discuss the University budget needs and drafts a recommendation for the Washburn Board, which approves the initial policy at its May meeting. This policy goes to the Kansas Board, which considers the request at its June meeting. Typically, there is some disagreement about how much the state aid for Washburn should increase. In September, both the Kansas Board of Regents and Washburn submit the proposals to the Governor, who as noted above announces his legislative recommendations in January.

Thus, input regarding the budget, both short-term and long-term, is sought from a variety of sources at all levels. Improved communication is always possible, however. One suggestion is that one of the faculty representatives to the Board of Regents be a member of the budget committee. Another suggestion regarding this process also emerged from this self-study. Members of the Resources Committee of the College Faculty Council indicated that, while the budget process is "fair and appropriate," they would "appreciate more involvement of the Deans in the initial budget processes where the percentage increase available for operating expenses and salaries is determined."

A concern about a very specific type of financial decision came from faculty in the Allied Health Department, who stated that "there have been times that proposed classes that would have more than paid for themselves have been canceled because administration did not want to pay a faculty member overload, or there were not immediate funds for an adjunct." These faculty indicated that the University should reconsider its overload policy.

These faculty also pointed to situations in which "mandatory program supplies ...have been needed, but the budgets were not increased to provide for the needed supplies." They indicated dissatisfaction with administrative policy against the assessment of laboratory fees to offset these costs.

Part 3: What are the principal financial constraints faced by the University? What problems will the University face as a result, and what are the long-term strategies for operating within these constraints?

Washburn projects that its annual financial needs require approximately $1 to $1.5 million new operational dollars per year to maintain existing programs and activities at their current levels. Additional resources will be necessary to implement new programs or enhance existing programs. Washburn has and will continue to internally reallocate resources, and to operate as economically and reasonably as possible. However, that provides only limited short-term solutions. The long-term solution is to find new resources necessary to provide the educational services required. Failure to do so will result in the reduction of type and quality of services provided, elimination of programs, and the like.

The University's general strategy has been to become a state university and at the same time to take actions to increase other sources of revenue, such as ad valorem taxes, state aid, tuition and private gifts. Washburn has been fairly successful in increasing those forms of revenue. The University administration and a Regents committee are working on these on-going plans and strategies.

Washburn's capital funds are, in part, derived from a special ad valorem tax levy. These funds can only be used for capital expenditures. This is a primary reason why Washburn's physical plant is in much better condition than those of most other institutions. However, these funds are not adequate to continue to maintain the plant and provide funds for new construction. The University must convince the Kansas Legislature of its capital needs and attempt to have the Legislature increase the Debt Retirement and Construction Fund from 3 mills to at least 5 mills. If approved this would raise in excess of $1.4 million annually for the capital improvement process.

Section D: How effectively has Washburn organized the physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes?

Washburn's physical resources are generally effective, well maintained and in the proper size to accomplish its purposes. There are notable exceptions to this general assessment. The University has needs to provide more resources for capital maintenance, capital improvement and equipment. The University's Facilities/Capital Master Plan contains these assessments and recommendations.

The "notable exceptions" referred to can be examined in detail in Addendum 1 to the Facilities/Capital Master Plan, but can be summed up as follows. Requests for funds have regularly exceeded availability of funds, and are projected to continue to do so by amounts between $1.2 million and $1.9 million over the next five fiscal years. Two major building projects are anticipated, an addition connecting Henderson Learning Center to Mabee Library to add classroom and laboratory space, and construction to meet student housing needs.

The proposed solution to this lack of capital funds is explained in section C, part 3, above.

Part 1: Are academic resources and equipment adequate to support the University's purposes?

The University makes annual allocations to purchase necessary equipment. The University spends between $500,000 and $1,000,000 a year for all types of equipment. In the last several years the primary equipment expenditures have been in the area of computers and related telecommunications technology. The funds allocated in the past have provided adequate equipment to support the University's purposes. However, the computer technology needs appear to be insatiable. Washburn will require additional funds to provide reasonably up-to-date computer technology while meeting a variety of other equipment needs. (See section C, part 3 of this chapter.)

The physical resources by which the ACADEMIC COMPUTER CENTER (ACC) fulfills its mission to support the University's academic and research programs are described below. Student computer labs are equipped with high resolution color workstations with a graphical user interface, mouse and optional floppy drive for student access to computing resources.

The locations and number of seats in student computer labs maintained by the ACC are: Bennett 108, 20 seats; Bennett 106, 24; Morgan 17, 24; Morgan 18, 24; HLRC 23, 12; HLRC 309, 10; Benton 212, 24; and Benton 210, 24 seats. (It should also be noted that student computer labs operated by specific academic units exist as well. These include specialized labs for science, mathematics, computer information science, nursing, business and law.) ACC labs are open 96 hours per week when classes are in session. The ACC also provides dialup access to computing resources for 7x24 access.

The network resources are provided from both Unix and Windows NT servers. The ACC believes that these two server environments will allow faculty and students access to any applications software needed for classroom instruction and faculty research. The ACC operates 11 large Unix servers and 8 Windows NT servers. The many applications supported by these servers are too numerous to list, but an overview follows:

The network servers have CD-ROM drives which make CD-ROM data bases available to the users. A CD-ROM tower is located on one of the NT servers.

In general, the Tektronix net stations located throughout the campus allow easy access to on-campus, server-based computing resources as well as resources available via the Internet. Server power is added as needed to support the user community. Two servers are "authentication" servers which are the servers users log in to, but their actual work can be performed on other servers in a manner transparent to the users.

Specialized servers on the network include the following: bootp server for booting netstations via the network; name servers, primary and secondary domain name service; news servers to serve Internet news groups; list servers to support lists provided to the Internet; application servers, both Unix and NT servers available from any netstation; web servers to support Washburn's WWW presence and campus intranet; Netscape servers to support student and faculty web browsing; network file servers (NFS); print servers to control printers connected to hosts as well as directly to the network; video server to serve MPEG1, MPEG2 and real-time video streams into classrooms and offices; and calendar server for faculty and staff.

Printers are available via the network, and at least half of these printers are Hewlett-Packard Laserjet laser printers.

MABEE LIBRARY provides access to electronic resources through a menu system that is available via the campus network including the library's online catalog which provides access to the collections of Mabee, the Curriculum Resources Center, the Law Library, and the Kansas Supreme Court Library. Subscriptions to more than 60 databases are also available on the menu. Vendors include UnCover, SilverPlatter, Information Access and FirstSearch. Instruction in a classroom setting and at the reference desk are provided to assist patrons in using the databases effectively. Tip sheets, both online and as handouts in the library, are also available to library patrons.

The director of Mabee Library points out that the building is beginning to show its age and indicates that deterioration of systems is requiring a great deal of attention. The building is well-designed, however, which lessens the impact of the process. Nonetheless, space is becoming a major problem in the library. An addition to the library is part of the campus master plan, and the library staff is eager for this addition to get underway. Storage areas are nearing capacity, as are stacks. Similar problems are reported in the Curriculum Resources Center.

Another concern of the director is the large number of student employees that must be used to staff the library. In addition, materials budgets are not keeping up with book/periodical inflation, resulting in an erosion of purchasing power. Improvement is also needed in the aging exit gate/security system.

Part 2: Is the physical plant sufficient and is it adequately maintained so as to provide an environment that supports teaching and learning? What steps are taken to insure that students are provided a safe and healthy environment?

The reader is referred to the University's Facilities/Capital Master Plan for details about the first question. While the physical plant is generally sufficient and adequately maintained, there is a need for additional space (for instance, in the library) and additional funds for capital maintenance. As indicated above, the University is in the process of identifying new resources to fund these needs.

Washburn has been and will continue to be committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for its students, faculty, staff and guests. As part of this commitment, Washburn has employed a safety officer whose responsibilities include University-wide safety considerations, including (but not limited to) survey of facilities, observation and correction of unsafe situations, training of personnel in safe practices, and the like. Additionally, Washburn has completely reorganized its Security Department, including a significant allocation of resources to increase the number of officers, professionalize the Security operations, and establish the Security operations as a police force.

[ WU Home ] [ Directory & Information ] [ Emergency Contacts ] [ Site Map ] [ Contact WU ] [ Important Policies ] [ Accessibility ]
© 2000-2010 Washburn University, 1700 SW College Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66621 (785) 670-1010
Contact webmaster@washburn.edu with questions or comments.

Chapter 4

Criterion Two:

The institution has effectively organized the human, financial and physical resources necessary to accomplish its purposes.

Section A: Quick Summary of Chapter 4