by Harrell Rodgers
Despite the flawed composition and design of the recently appointed University of Houston System reorganization task forces, the UH System Board of Regents may finally be giving serious thought to eliminating the System and much of the duplication among the campuses, and strengthening UH leadership. These changes are long overdue.
The task forces, composed primarily of representatives from the System and other campuses, are unlikely to recommend changes that will correct the structural and leadership problems that have long plagued UH.
Unfortunately, because the System administration long justified its existence by playing off the small campuses against UH, the task forces will probably issue recommendations that are not optimal for any of the campuses. It will take considerable effort and good faith on all our parts to convince our colleagues across the System that we all lose by spending scarce dollars on unnecessary bureaucracy, by duplicating our efforts and by failing to work constructively with one another.
The regents are increasingly aware of the dysfunctional paranoia fostered over the years, and they realize the task forces' recommendations will be flawed. They know this because the UH Faculty Senate, the UH administration and a number of other UH faculty groups have carried on a very productive dialog with them over the last six months.
The result is that the board seems interested in making the type of quality changes required to allow all of us to serve our public with genuine distinction. Board members also know they can make bold changes and still guarantee fair treatment to all the campuses because the leadership reports to them.
There is danger, however, if the regents start this process without remembering something very important: When our decade-old fiscal crisis became particularly serious some years ago, the System administration found itself desperate for funds. To spare the bureaucracy, the System decided to reduce funding for UH academic programs. To the System leadership, academic programs were considerably less important than the massive, suffocating bureaucracy built to bolster their egos.
As a result, the System actually grew while academic programs at UH lost one-in-three inflation-adjusted dollars. Quality university administrations across the nation took exactly the opposite approach. They downsized and streamlined bureaucracies to invest more of their scarce dollars in academic programs. Quite naturally, these universities have fared much better than UH has.
The regents have, over the last year, demonstrated that they understand public resources were not being used to the best advantage. The board should also consider that if reason had prevailed, UH's annual budget would be millions higher, and the System's would be much lower.
To make up for past errors, the board should shift funds back to UH first, and then fashion a plan to merge the System functions on the UH campus and consolidate leadership in a combined chancellor/president position.
These changes need to take place as soon as possible. While System funds remain idle, academic programs at UH continue to decline. Additionally, until the chancellor and president positions are combined, UH cannot address its most pressing need -- a national search for quality leadership.
Rodgers is a UH political science professor.