I know many, but probably not all, faculty members feel the way I do about this advice: if that's what Dr. Schmotter asks, that's what I will do. This is because I feel that Dr. Schmotter and really most of the upper administration of the school has earned this respect through years of putting the proof in the pudding. They have attended our faculty meetings, spoken to students, heard our concerns, grown the campus, and engaged with both faculty and students as collaborators. This is not to say that everything WestConn's administration has done has always been perfect over the last five years. But it is to say that the faculty and students have felt like partners in the decision making process. I have always felt a part of this community. And so if it is the case, at least for a little while, that I have to wait for a computer upgrade, or my job description will include mopping bathroom floors while the janitorial staff is short of members, I will do so willingly and with enthusiasm.
Such loyalty and understanding of policies is built through years of establishing trust with faculty and students. I really believe that the President, the Provost, and many of the Vice-Presidents and Deans have done this, because especially in comparison to other university WestConn is outstandingly run.
I cannot say the same thing about the way that the Registrar's office has been run recently. Do not misunderstand me: I believe that the staff of the registrar's office is nothing short of excellent, and that they consistently provide an excellent level of service while seemingly being perpetually understaffed. I also believe that it is good that our relatively new registrar, Lourdes Cruz, has implemented a number of changes to streamline what was sometimes a chaotic registration system in the past.
My concern is not about the myriad changes in policy from the registrar's office, or even about the enforcement of policies that previously went unenforced. It is about the perception, apparently widespread among WestConn faculty, that these changes are being pronounced from above with very poor communication about these changes to faculty or students. We are bereft of any information about why these changes are being pursued or why they are for the best.
Just two examples will suffice. The first is the enforcement of a policy that incomplete grades need to be turned in in written, rather than email, form and that they need to be handed in personally by the instructor to the registrar, rather than going through campus mail or handed to a student. There may be good reasons for this policy, though I doubt the benefits outweigh the inconveniences caused by it. But the bigger issue is how faculty came to know that the policy was being enforced. Chiefly, we came to know there was a problem weeks or months later when students would come to us announcing that there was an issue with the resolution of their incomplete grade--even though the form had been submitted long before. We would then have to contact the registrar to learn that there had been a problem with our procedure. Increasingly, processes that were done very efficiently via email in the past seem to be slipping through the cracks under the new policy, resulting in students getting erroneous failing grades on their transcripts and other problems.
Perhaps there are good reasons for this change. But to impose it on faculty without discussion or announcement is going to cause the faculty to resent the registrar.
A second example is the increasing demand, emerging I presume from the registrar's office (although it might also be from the provost) for faculty to set their schedules for teaching years ahead of time. I recently received a notice that I am to detail me schedule of courses, dates, and times through the summer 2011 semester. Again, perhaps there are good reasons for this. But without having an opportunity to know what they are, this requirement seems both unreasonable and detrimental to our students, since we cannot possibly estimate accurately now what the needs of our student population will be two years from now. That being said, I would be happy to accede to this demand if it were only explained to me by a person in authority. Why is it necessary for faculty to schedule courses two years in advance? What are the benefits? How do these benefits outweigh the opposing concerns that we will be scheduling courses that are neither timely or appropriate for the now-unknown needs of our future students?
All of this could be easily explained, I think, if the originator of these policies, whether it is Ms. Cruz or someone else, would simply come to faculty meetings to explain the changes at the registrar's office. Alternatively, emails could be written explaining these changes in detail. As it is now, many faculty don't feel included as partners in these decisions in the same way that we very much do feel included in conversations about the university's direction. This problem should be addressed.
