|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial
The Faculty Newsletter was born at a time of crisis, in an attempt to forestall further crises. The precipitating act was the administration's announcement that the Department of Applied Biological Science (ABS) would be eliminated. The decision to terminate the department was not the issue; there were reasonable arguments on both sides. However, the faculty was not involved in the decision, and was unaware that any such action was under consideration. The announcement was not just a reminder to the faculty that the administration was empowered to make such decisions without consultation, but also clear evidence that they would do so when they thought it necessary. The furor lasted for months, and repercussions linger in the form of distrust between faculty and administration.
The ABS dispute pointed out the need for better faculty-administration communication, as well as the need for better intrafaculty discussion of matters of common interest.. The Faculty Newsletter was instituted to meet these needs, by providing an open forum for introducing and exploring issues of interest to the faculty. In addition to unsolicited contributions from the faculty on any subject thought interesting or amusing to our colleagues, regular commentary in the pages of the Newsletter from the chair of the faculty, synopses of committee reports, discussions of proposals to be considered at faculty meetings, and the like, have proven the wisdom of this intent. Although, from its inception, the Newsletter solicited input from the administration, it remains an independent entity, run and completely controlled by the faculty.
The Newsletter operates with a volunteer Editorial Board and a professional Managing Editor. The Managing Editor is responsible for all aspects of production except for soliciting articles and approving final copy (the responsibility of the Editorial Committee for each issue). We produce and distribute approximately 15,000-17,000 copies of 5-6 issues per year, at a total cost of approximately $80,000 per year. This is more than is available via individual donations (which paid production expenses for the first several issues). Advertising revenue does not seem desirable and would probably be inadequate. Subscription-based delivery would probably double the cost of production. Very early on it was clear that the Faculty Newsletter would have to depend upon funding support from the administration. And yet we required a funding arrangement that allowed us to maintain editorial autonomy.
We argued that, similar to parking lots and lunch rooms, the Faculty Newsletter provided a service to the faculty which also benefited the administration (and hence the Institute as a whole). To the higher administration's credit, it has always supported this position. The Provost's Office, under Jay Keyser, covered expenses when the Newsletter was just starting, and the President's Office, under both Paul Gray and Charles Vest, has strongly supported our efforts ever since.
As of spring 1996, we began operating under a five-year agreement with the President's Office guaranteeing level funding, and endorsing our unique funding mode. The agreement was also endorsed by the Faculty Policy Committee, which agreed with our claim that we, to a substantial degree, responsibly represent the collective interest of the faculty.It is our claim that we represent the faculty that justifies our access to Institute funds. Our responsibility is to use the money responsibly, in the best interest of the institute.
We are vulnerable to criticism because of the volunteer (non-elected) nature of our Editorial Board and its relatively low membership. It has been suggested that the Editorial Board should be selected by the Nominating Committee. We believe, and successfully argued before the Faculty Policy Committee, that an Editorial Board selected by the Nominating Committee would lose credibility as an autonomous entity. The Board could be selected by a vote of the faculty, but a meaningful election would require a great deal of effort on the part of the "candidates" and the complicated mechanics of the voting process. It is much simpler to have a policy in which any faculty member who wishes to join the board may do so. The volunteer nature of Board membership seems to us to be optimally democratic.
We prefer to believe that the low volunteer rate is a reflection of the faculty's satisfaction with the way the Newsletter is currently run. But, of course, such a belief is self-serving. We are planning to poll the faculty via e-mail to determine the actual level of interest in, and support for, the Newsletter. This information will be useful, but it is not enough. The obvious solution to the criticism that the Editorial Board is too small is to have more volunteers. If you are a member of the faculty, you are, as the credit card ads say, prequalified.
We believe that our unique blend of unappointed editors and no-strings funding is working, and that the Newsletter is helping to make the Institute a better and more interesting place.
October 25 is St. Crispin's day. What better day to join our band? If you think the Newsletter is important to the Institute, join us. If you think the Newsletter should be doing some things differently, join us.
Now that the SAP accounting/reporting system has rolled out and indeed a further upgrade is planned it may be time to assess just how well we have done.
Recent anecdotal information through correspondence with faculty, researchers including graduate students, and support staff has revealed that SAP may have transferred a significant burden from the central administration to individual units. Some estimate that they are now spending more than twice the amount of time getting approval for and tracking purchase orders, reconciling monthly statements, and printing material that used to be mailed on a regular basis and which is now available only in electronic form. The cost of the printing has also been transferred to the local level without any apparent reduction in overhead charges for what is now a direct cost. These problems may be exacerbated by the removal of secretarial assistance as individual budget line items from research grants obtained from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.
Could it be that the promise that SAP would improve life has not been fulfilled? In order further to evaluate the situation, we are inviting commentary through the Faculty Newsletter on experiences with SAP. Please talk to your staff and others who use SAP and e-mail at fnl@mit.edu; (put "SAP" in the subject line). We'll share your comments next issue.
It appears that Reengineering at the Institute has been completed. Yet many questions remain. What was done? How successful was it? How much money was spent/saved? What (if anything) is next? In the next issue of the Faculty Newsletter we will attempt to answer these and other questions relating to Reengineering. And we’ll have a Q&A with the man who is primarily responsible for much of what goes on around here, Executive Vice President John Curry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|