ERIC ED338193: Progress on the Commission's Study of the California State University's Administration. A Report to the Governor and Legislature in Response to Budget Language in the 1990 Budget Act.

47 Pages·1.7 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT
RESUKE
HE 025 035
ED 338 193
Progress on the Commission's Study of the California
TITLE
State University's Administration. A Report to the
Governor and Legis:ature in Response to Budget
Language in tho 1990 Budget Act.
California State Postsecondary Education Commission,
INSTITUTION
Sacramento.
REPORT NO
CPEC-R-91-2
PUB DATE
Jan 91
NOTE
47p.
California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1020
AVAILABLE FROM
Twelfth Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, CA
98514-3985 (free).
Reports - General (140) -- Reports -
PUB TYPE
Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Administrators; *College Administration; *College
DESCRIPTORS
Planning; Communication Problems; Evaluation;
*Governance; Higher Education; Institutional Mission;
Interviews; Literature Reviews; Needs Assessment;
Scholarship; State Legislation
California State Postsecondary Education Comm;
IDENTIFIERS
*California State University
ABSTRACT
This documeat represents a progress report of a study
into the role and value of the California State University's central
administration. It contains as an appendix a report by the State
University on the evolution of its central administration, and it
includes a review by Commission staff of relevant national literature
on higher education governance, ane a synthesis of impressions
obtained by the staff from 50 interviews with individuals both within
and outside of the State University, including members of the
faculty; campus level academic, student, and business affairs staff;
campus presidents; and vast and current Trustees. In addition, a list
of preliminary conclusions from the study thus far is provided as
well as the staff's plans for further study, prior to submitting a
draft of the final report. Among the conclusions are that: (1) the
State University needs to be stabilized, both internally and
(2) there appears to be a climate of over-regulaticda,
externally;
both within the State University system and between the system and
the State; and (3) many of the existing organizational arrangements
in the State University are fundamentally sound and work well.
Contains 10 references. (GLR)
Reproductions supplied by EARS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***************************** ***** ****************** ********* ***** *****
S InPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
,FPMISSION 10 REPRODUCE THfS
AS BEEN GRANTED BY
/41-E.RIAL
r-4
.
ifornia
Post-
;;
;
liecondary
:ommission
E EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
T
,FOF,MAT ION CENTER tERIC1
. T1
7'
,j1
et,
le
.
,
1
-,
,!*., 72'4
,
7'
'
PROGRESS
SIN*47(44.,h..0
'
.
r-4
Sri
2
00
ON_TI:IE COMMISSION'S
.
.
c.rd
CALIFORNIA
OF THE
).
'1
."
A:STATE UNIVERSITY'S
'"'-XPV*.
'
zISTRATI
r;11:4i74
.
rir+yct-t
'
'
,
4.) )44.;.r.',.
gt,:4
fr.,:d4i4?*:c
*1,-74
%.44'.41:r.
77?
.
4
4
F
r:0,P^',.-
It
tP1
:0;4'
.
,
;"
t_22.
to.efr
I7
0-42
Z4'
1,4, 4
t
YE'
7;,,,Z:4,..ctri:.;1,.;4t:r.fIZ:ti.trtt:1/41*-;
;4;11
'%.4Trizu
"'
T1,;-.2,1t:iFer
?WV,
.:1'4"
;
.°
,
1."1,!,14
. '
4
r
.
'
-
-
..
nolvorv4%
;,14;14t\
,
4..
"
tti,;.4tJes'*;
Vitme
4,764,,A
"4/4A0
.
741,
:4%;
A111or
-W4
'
,'FA
0
'".
0.
.
;
."
".
.
CALIFORNIA
l'30STSECO,NDARY.;,'.',...'
frosT9scoam A
fry
N
c 0 MMISSI O
EDUCATION I
"
")
i
l',V;
,,:,.
}'
n
1
'
Ii
.
4
,
ki:', -,:
-;'-
I:
,
..
a
f
.
Z
,
i.''':?
CO 1, Mita- Q
..
.
.
Summary
Legislature directed
In July 1990, the California
study of the role
the Commission to undertake a
State University's
and value of the California
submit a progress
central administration and to
the end of January 1991
report on that study by
1991.
and a final report by June 30,
for that
This document is the progress report
report by the
study. It contains as an appendix a
of its central
State Univenity on the evolution
review by Com-
administration, and it includes a
literature on
mission staff of relevant national
2-3), a synthe-
higher education governance (pp.
the staff from inter-
sis of impressions obtained by
individuals both within
views with a number of
(pp. 3-5), a list
and outside of the State University
the study thus
of preliminary conclusions from
for further study
far (pp. 5-6), and the staff's plans
draft of the final report to
prior to submitting a
the Commission in June (p. 6).
at its meet-
The Commission discussed this report
Additional copies of the report
ing on Junuary 28.
from the Publications Office of
may be obtained
Questions
the Commission at (916) 3244991.
be directed
about the subztance of the report may
the Commission's execu-
tv Kenneth B. O'Brien,
to Jane V.
tive director, at [phone], or
director, at
Wellman, the Commission's deputy
[phone].
offices f the Califor-
On the cover: The systemwide
Golden Shore, Long
nia State University at 400
Beach.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
PROGRESS ON THE COMMISSION'S
STATE
STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY'S ADMINISTRATION
A Report to the Governor and Legislature
in Response to Budget Language
in the 1990 Budget Act
POSTSECONDARY
q
-
pi
0
z
C
rt
n
0
D
u.
-I
N.M.
-J
0
<
Z
U
CALIFORNIA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION 0
0
Sacramento, California 95814-3985
1020 Twelfth Street
Third Floor
$.
COMMISSION REPORT 91-2
PUBLISHED JANUARY 1991
This report, like other publications of the California Postsecondary
Education Commission, is not copyrighted. It may be reproduced in
the public interest, but proper attribution to Report 91-2 of the Cali-
fornia Postsecondary Education Commission is requested.
Contents
Legislative Impetus for the Study
1
Organization of the Study and this Report
2
Some ilasights from the National Literature
2
Themes from the Interviews
3
General Conclusions and Observations
5
Next Steps
6
References
6
Appendix: An Historical Perspective: Centralization and
Decentralization in the California State University,
9
1950-1990
Progress on the Commission's Study of the
California State University's Administration
=1111
Legislative impetus for the study
ucation Commission, 1988) did not address ques-
tions of the she- 'mg of responsibility or relative
In July 1990, through Supplemental Budget Lan-
staffing between the campuses and the systemwide
guage the California Legislature directed the Com-
administration, but rather looked at overall pat-
mission to study the "role and value" of the Califor-
terns of growth in administrative spending on the
nia State University's systemwide administrative
campuses in contrast to comparison institutions. Its
structure and operations, as follows:
mrAjor conclusions were that spendingfor State Uni-
versity administration had increased faster than for
The Commission, in consultation with repre-
the direct instructional program, although at a rate
sentatives of the California State University
either below or close to similar institutions nation-
and the Legislative Analyst, shall study the
ally.
role and value of the existing State University
Systemwide Central Office admiaistrative
Legislative concern about administrative spending
structure and operations in the management
returned in 1990 in a series of events that culminat-
of the State University system. The Commis-
ed last spring in the resignation of the system's
sion shall provide a progress report by Janu-
Since that time, a good deal has oc-
chancellor.
ary 31, 1991, and a final report by June 30,
curred within the system, although much is still in
1991, to the Governor and to the Jnint Legisla-
transition. The Trustees have appointed as Interim
tive Budget Committee, and to the appropriate
the former president
Chancellor Ellis E. McCune
fiscal and policy committees of the two houses
of the State University's campus in Hayward; they
of the Legislature.
have held a public debate on questions of internal
sharing of authority between the Trustees, chancel-
The budget crisis of 1990, which has continued into
lor, vice chancellors, and campus presidents; and
1991, brought into focus a perennial set of questions
they are well into a national search for a new chan-
and concerns in California about the relative prior-
cellor.
ity of spending for "administration" as contrasted to
a concern that is a generic one in
"programs"
These administrative changes occurred simultane-
State government and not isolated to the State Uni-
ously with the need to implement the deepest bud-
versity.
get cuts in the history of the State University. As
part of that decision process, the Interim Chancellor
The issue for the State University, however, pre-
and the Trustees made several decisions about refo-
dates last year's budget crisis. Although the recent-
cusing resources away from central administration
ly concluded Master Plan review essentially de-
to the campuses. They include: (1) a downsizing of
clared the current governance structure of the State
the system program for information services, and
University to be adequate for the challenges of the
(2) shifts in the management of academic programs.
future, for some time issues of administration and
To date, close to $15 million has been shifted from
governance within the State University have peri-
the system administration to the campuses; and
odically found their way to the Legislature.
In
more changes are possible, as reviews of all offices
1987, for instance, questions about the size, growth,
are ongoing. These organizational changes have
and cost of administration in the State University
been accompanied with a strenghening of the role of
led the Legislature to ask the Commission to con-
the State University Executive Council in decision-
tract with an independent consultant to compare
making and policy implementation, including par-
those characteristics of its administration with those
ticular attention to the fiscal and programmatic in-
of similar systems. That study by Price Waterhouse
put of policies at the campus level.
and MGT Consultants (California Postsecondary Ed-
1
P071
Some insights from the national literature
The Commission has thus been presentc1 with a
challenge in attempting to respond to the Legisla-
A review of material on the structure and gover-
ture's request to study the "existing" structure and
nance of colleges and universities in the United
operations of the State University's systemwide of-
States provides a number of useful guides about the
fice. The problem is that much is already changing
goals and priorities to be obtained in an ideal sys-
in the system, and much will undoubtedly change in
tem of higher education but few models to copy. No
the future. The Commission sees little of value or
two states organize higher education similarly
de-
use to the Legislature in focusitg this report on spe-
spite similar goals and institutional priorities among
cific organizational configurations of the system
them. And no other state has the particular chal-
on who does what, or who reports to whom
al-
geographic
lenge of California in both sheer size
though these are necessary and appropriate topics
and complexity of its higher
as well as numeric
for discussion and agreement among the Trustees
educational system. Moreoever, the research litera-
and the new Chancellor. As a result, the Commis-
ture is voluminous about single-campus governance
sion has tried to bring persrective to these issues by
and administration but far less rich about the par-
looking at the evolution ot the State University's
ticular challenges of higher education management
both historical-
administration in a larger context
in large multicampus systems. If California makes
to see what
ly within California and nat:onally
substantial progress in addressing those particular
kinds of issues and priorities for future direction
challenges, it could well serve as a model for the
may sunest themselves to the new administration
rest of the country.
within the University as well as that in Sacramen-
to.
In spite of the generality that no single right gover-
nance model exists for multicampus systems, cer-
tain t:.emes about effective patterns and prototypes
in higher educational governance reflect the chang-
Orgazdaation of the study and this report
ing needs and priorities of the growing systems of
higher education in the country. The 1960s can
To begin the study, the Commission requested that
probably best be characterized as a period of system
the Chancellor's Office prepare a description and
building in California as well as elsewhere, with the
analysis of the evolution of the central office admin-
"multiversity" model of Clark Kerr (1963) captur-
istration. That material is presented unedited as
ing the imagination of system builders and policy
the appendix to this report. At the same time, the
makers both in California and nationally. By the
Commission began a review of the national re-
following intensive master plan
1980s, however
...earth literature on higher education to synthesize
reviews in at least 14 states where State coordina-
important insights as they relate to the State Uni-
tion and governance were at issue -- the "big sys-
versity's situation. It presents that material in the
tem" model had fallen into increasing disfavor. In
next section of this report. The Commission staff
1989, Kerr revisited the issue of state coordination
then conducted confidential interviews with a wide
and in a study commissioned by the Association of
variety of individuals within the State University
Governing Boards concluded that he had "grave
and elsewhere in the State about their perceptions
concerns about the trend toward consolidated sys-
of current concerns and priorities in the State Uni-
tems":
versity. The Commission summarizes the central
The most essential point in policy for the future
themes of those interviews in the following part of
should be given a sense
is that each campus
.
.
.
this report, which then concludes with comments on
of important influence over its own destiny and
the central themes that suggest themselves as top-
an assurance that its own personality will not
ics for more intensive focus in the next phase of this
be coordinated and layered out of existence. At
work, along with suggestions of next steps for the
the same time, the individual campus should
State and the State University to take with respect
not court anarchy. The goal should be maxi-
to addressing them.
mum local autonomy under lay guidance with-
in a system of effective coordination -- a diffi-
cult combination to achieve.
2
ship" university. The particular problem from this
Kerr's particular concern was based on a discernible
trend outside of California toward state "super
pattern of imitation is that not enough institutions
boards." Similarly, the Education Commission of
"take pride in their own uniqueness." He calls for a
the States (1987) and others have tried to distin-
redefinition of scholarship to help end the "suffocat-
guish between issues of state-level coordination
ing practice by which colleges and universities mea-
by external status rather than
sure themselves .
as being concerned with the legitimate needs of the
.
.
and institutional gouernance
State
by values determined by their own distinctive mis-
which is fo-
sion" (1990, p. 55). The institution that he argues
cused on the institution
and have called for ensur-
stands to benefit the most from a redefinition of
ing decentralized campus-level decision-making de-
spite at-large coordination (McGuinness, 1986; Ca- scholarship is the comprehensive college or univer-
sity, which he refers to as the "ugly duckling of
ruthers,1987; Postsecondary Education Study Com-
mittee, State of Nebraska; 1989, Kaufman, 1989).
higher education" (pp. 60-62):
Such statements support Lee and Bowen's conclu-
The comprehensive college or univerbit, per-
sion from their major study of the issue, Managing
haps more than any other, can benefit from a
Multicampus Systems: Effective Administration in
redefinition of scholarship. Many of these insti-
an Unsteady State (1975, pp. 146-147):
offering a broad range of baccalaure-
tutions
are having a
ate and masters level programs
. many
important policy decisions involving
.
.
public higher education within a state can be
difficult time sorting out priorities
What we
.
.
.
urgently need are models for the comprehen-
more effectively resolved by an educational in-
stitution than by arms of state government.
sive institutions, distincthe programs and pri-
The central administrations of multicampus
orities that give distinctiveness to the mission,
systems may be one step removed from the in-
and are not purposely imitative of others.
ternal administration of campuses, but they are
university systems, not state agencies, and dif-
ferences between the two are profound.
Themes from the interviews
Outside of the literature on the management and
governance of higher education, use14i insights that
Commission staff held confidential interviews with
apply to the State University's administration can
close to 50 individuals both within and outside of
be found in recent work on the nature of scholarship
the State University system, including:
itself. From this literature, it appears that unless a
particular individual or political problem is plagu-
Past and current Trustees;
ing an institution, continued problems with "gover-
Central office academic and business affairs
nance" generally point to a larger set of problems
staff;
with institutional mission. There is some reason to
believe from this literature that, to the extent the
Campus presidents;
State University suffers from recurring governance
Campus level academic, student, and business
problems, they are symptomatic of the State Uni-
affairs staff;
versity's functional type in the higher educational
Members of the faculty;
landscape of the United States and are not unique
to California or this system.
Representatives of the Academic Senate;
Some recent work by Ernest Boyer, president of the
Representatives of the faculty union -- the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-
California Faculty Association;
ing, suggests that the basis for the particular dilem-
Statewide educational executives in other states;
ma of mission faced by regional or comprehensive
and
universities like the State University's campuses is
grounded in a widely held but nonetheless limited
Accreditation agency staff.
concept of scholarship. He believes that convention-
The interviews were candid, free-wheeling, and
al definitions of scholarship are unnecessarily nar-
very helpful in gaining insights about the system.
row and have lerd to the dominance of American
Although many different themes emerged from
higher education by the research-oriented "flag-
3
them, Commission staff ibund a remarkable consis-
of decisions that are sure to be difficult internally as
well as controversial externally. The ability of the
tency of perception by people at all levels within the
system to come to agreement about those kinds of
State University and by those outside of it about the
major issues facing the system. Although many
strategic and policy matters, and to sustain a con-
troversial debate about them in Sacramento, is of
might quibble with the specific characterization of
these issues, the three recurring themes as heard by
concern to many.
the Commission staff were:
2. A need to address a climate
1. A need for focus and internal setting of
of over-regulation and control.
priorities for the State University within
Perhaps in part because of the history of the State
its mission.
University in detaching itself from State govern-
ment, but also because of the sheer challenge of do-
The "mission problem," as heard by the Commission
ing business any other way, tho :2i.ste University
staff, is not often expressed as a fundamental quar-
rel with the State University's mission as expressed has a tradition of communicating between the cam-
in the Master Plan: People appear bo accept if not
puses and the systemwide administration as well as
with the State in transactional, formulaic "regu-
embrace that mission. Rather, there seems to be a
general lack of articulation of the unique role and
leeze" rather than in educational program or policy
contribution of the State University and the reason
terms. There is a policy basis for most of the regula-
for the system. Many characterize the system in
tions, but they seem W be lost in the mists of time,
and many peopk are unfamiliar with them. There
terms that are negative or relative (what it doesn't
have vis-a-vis the University of California, in par-
seem to be inadequate resources spent on familiar-
ticular) or simply political. The size and complexity
izing people with how to deal with this bewildering
of the State University is unique in the United
array of regulations, formulae, and formal as well
It has 20 campuses, with many different
States:
as informal controls, so
as is the case in any orga-
strengths and characteristics, and three general
nization -- there is a perception that resources come
to those who know how to "work the system" and
"clumpings" of campus types
comprehensive uni-
versities, polytechnic institutions, and liberal arts
not to the also-rans.
Although Commission staff
colleges. Yet these three "clumpings" are not ex-
found little specific evidence to corroborate the re-
source concern, on the smaller and geographically
plicit, and their uniqueness from one another is not
remote campuses particularly there is a sense of
capitalized upon.
having lost out.
This problem of mission is particularly acute in the
State University because of the current press of re-
Responsibility for addressing the problems of regu-
sources in the State of California. It is clear to most lation and control have to start with the Legislature
people that the State University is at least on the
and Governor, since much of what is in place has
been put there either in defensive anticipation of
if not already there
of being unable to ful-
edge
fill all aspects of its mission equally well with the
Sacramento or in reaction to specific legislative di-
rectives. But the State is not the only culprit, al-
current resource base. Enrollment is growing; the
student base is increasingly heterogeneous; expec-
though it is blamed for much of the regulatory ex-
cess in the State University. Although the State
tations for faculty research are growing; pressure to
improve educational performance is increasing; and
University has in the past argued for less control, it
has not put forward a practical agenda to accom-
funding is shrinking. The State University needs to
plish that goal. The only actual proposal that peri-
increase its base of resources, which will require a
odically surfaces is to give the State University con-
solid, articulate public explanation of its needs to do
that, accompanied by a sophisticated external bud-
stitutional autonomy analogous to the University of
But the State's budget situation is
get strategy.
California -- something that sends a symbolic mes-
sage rather than a specific one and that has not
such that the most sophi: ticated budget strategy
might net net new resources. Thus, decisions may
been terribly well received in Sacramento. Unless
and until the Trustees make the deregulation of the
need to be made by the Trustees to reduce the scope
a set
of programs or activities within the system system their own policy agenda, it is unrealistic to
4