Reorganization Committee

Charge

 

 

Membership

Scope Assumptions Protocol

Opportunities To Improve Organizational Structure For Academic And Academic Support Functions At ETSU

CHARGE

The Team is charged to review the current organizational  structure for academic and academic support functions at ETSU and to propose any changes that might  enhance effectiveness or efficiency without incurring any additional administrative costs.

SCOPE

The scope of the review will include consideration of the organizational structure and related issues on the main campus (i.e., excluding the College of Medicine) that include the following:  

Location and mission of academic departments that comprise colleges
Location and mission or purpose of academic program majors, minors,  concentrations, and other academic  or academic support functions located in colleges
Location of academic or academic support programs or services NOT located in colleges
Scope of responsibility and authority and any other relevant issues involving appropriate division of labor as they relate to “macro-level” job expectations for deans, assistant and associate deans, department heads, directors in academic or academic support units, program coordinators, and others performing administrative or support tasks

ASSUMPTIONS

  1. Are there changes in administrative or programmatic organization that would result in enhanced synergy between or among academic or academic support departments, programs, or personnel?
  2. Does ETSU have too many small academic or academic support departments or programs, and are there opportunities to reduce administrative costs through consolidation?
  3. Are there organizational changes that could reduce administrative costs?
  4. Are there organization changes or “macro-level” changes in major features of job descriptions or expectations for heads of academic or academic support units that would more effectively increase job satisfaction for those holding such positions?  That is, could the expectation to perform routine administrative tasks be assigned to fewer people in order to permit others to engage in the more challenging aspects of academic leadership, student success, faculty and other personnel support and development, and programmatic goals and accountability for their effectiveness?
  5. Do the size, complexity, or heterogeneous character of any academic or academic support functions militate against providing adequate administrative leadership, support, or accountability?
  6. Are there changes in organization that would result in more effective communication with internal or external constituents?
  7. Are there changes in organization that would result in more effective use of space, equipment, or support services?
Any proposed changes should emerge from the Team’s review and deliberations. There are NO  a priori decisions concerning results of the review.
The Team should assure that it considers issues of quality, cost, and synergy when it develops recommendations.
Organizational reviews of this sort occasionally fall prey to the either true or false assertions  that they merely represent “tinkering” or “checker games” or “administrivia” that cannot withstand scrutiny as to the value of their outcomes.  The Team should be aware of these potential pitfalls and should be prepared to document the qualitative value or purpose of its recommendations.
Historically  when reviews or proposed organizational changes at universities have been considered, determination of how to resolve the issues often hinges on those proposing a change being required  to bear a significantly greater burden of proof than those arguing for the status quo.  If such conflict arises, the Team should consciously be aware that it is specifically delegated both the authority and the responsibility to require both proponents and opponents of proposals to defend their positions in light of  projected outcomes.
Members of the Team must agree to serve with the goal of exercising unbiased assessment of evidence and recommendations for actions  based on their professional judgment as opposed to considering themselves advocates of particular constituencies.  Persons invited to serve on the Team should disqualify themselves for reason of bias if they have reached a priori conclusions as to the desirable outcome of the review that would preclude their objective consideration of the issues at hand.
The Team should assume that its charge is to conduct an unbiased review and to make recommendations that would enhance effectiveness or efficiency.
The Team is required TO COST all recommendations, and it should assume that no aggregate increase in administrative costs is acceptable.  In order to address this requirement without equivocation, the Team should cost both its individual and its collective recommendations.  Proposed changes WILL NOT result in any net increase in administrative costs.
The review will include but not be limited to producing answers to the following questions:

PROTOCOL

The Team will collect, request, and review evidence and standards of best practice as it deems appropriate. 
The Team will hold hearings, solicit comments or opinions from individuals, and  present Interim reports as it considers appropriate.
Once the Team concludes that it is prepared to make a Report, it will submit that Report as a DRAFT and solicit comments and critique from the Faculty Senate, Council of Chairs, the Deans Council, and the general University community (through an  appropriately publicized electronic distribution).
The Team will consider those comments, critiques, and responses to the electronic posting and  will prepare a final Report.
The Team’ s final Report will be submitted for review and action to the Academic Council.
The Report  endorsed by the Academic Council will—via normal protocol—be submitted through the Provost for final approval by the President.
Membership of the Team

 

 

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Membership ]

Send mail to reorg@etsu.edu with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: March 26, 2002