Emotions high as faculty, students respond to ratings

Photo by Jason Hostetter

President Loren Swartzendruber and Information Systems Director Jack Rutt explained the prioritzation process to a group of students on Monday evening.

Faculty and staff hoping to hear whether their programs would be cut may have been disappointed by Monday morning's prioritization meeting.

The 10 a.m. meeting was used primarily to explain the prioritization process before releasing the results of individual reports to department heads. Members of the committee emphasized that no decisions or recommendations have been made yet.

The session opened with the recognition that emotions might be running high. "Anxiety has entered our world in lots of ways," said Campus Pastor Julie Haushalter. She addressed the frustration and anxiety associated with war and hurricanes as well as the concerns faculty and staff might be feeling about the prioritization.

Ken J. Nafziger, professor of music, expressed the gravity of the situation by comparing it to the time the administration building burned down in 1984. "There's been one other time when I've been here when it's been difficult to choose a hymn," he said.

President Loren Swartzendruber spoke regarding the importance of the prioritization process, and Jack Rutt, director of information systems, explained the rating system.

Swartzendruber and Rutt provided a similar presentation for around 20 students who gathered in the Campus Center later the same evening. Swartzendruber explained that one of the problems EMU faces is unfunded depreciation. Institutions generally set aside money to fix up buildings that go into disrepair. Unfunded depreciation occurs when there is no money set aside to maintain buildings against normal wear and tear. It's something most people wouldn't think about until the roof starts leaking, Swartzendruber said.

EMU is currently $700,000 short of what it needs to keep buildings from going into disrepair. The University Commons was not totally funded when built. An endowment of $4 million to replace fitness equipment has still not been created. In order for EMU's budget to be financially responsible, Swartzendruber said the institution would need to reallocate $2 million, less than 10 percent of the budget.

Although the focus of attention usually lands on cutting programs, Swartzendruber said that part of the solution was finding creative ways to enhance revenue. EMU is not raising as much money as other similar institutions, and increasing student number would not provide an immediate solution.

Students at the meeting were concerned about their voice in the process. Senior Sharon Kniss asked about ways for students to comment on the process, saying that the talk so far assumes that students are interested only in which programs have been cut and that this was the first time the process had approached students. Senior Paul Yoder asked about how student perception of their own involvement in the process might affect future investments.

"What may feel like lack of involvement now . . . often looks different 10 years out," responded Swartzendruber. He said he rarely runs into alumni who feel that their voice wasn't heard as students.

Having student representatives on the PSC would have been too complicated in terms of scheduling meetings and working over the summer, said Swartzendruber. He also thought they would have been bored out of their minds with all of the details involved in the ratings.

Students were encouraged to contact their department heads and participate in the coming web survey. Swartzendruber also told students they were always welcome to send him e-mails with their thoughts.

"There will be further discussion regarding at what point and in what manner . . . [department ratings] information will be disseminated publicly," Swartzendruber told students. The issue was raised at the faculty meeting when Assistant Professor of Computer Science Charles Cooley commented that this had turned into "a very narrow departmentalized process," and questioned what the campus was going to discuss without the ability to compare their results to other departments. Bonnie Lofton, CJP director of development, also questioned how people would know where to focus their creative ideas. Members of the PSC responded that the decision to release reports to department heads was intended as a measure of sensitivity toward departments. The department heads can make their own decision of how to deal with the results.

A straw poll taken among faculty and staff about whether rankings should be made public was inconclusive, Swartzendruber said later. They had asked only who approved the idea and not who was opposed, he said. The PSC said they would discuss the possibility of making the categories public in their meeting on Thursday. They would not reveal the details of these rankings.

The Bible and Religion Department has already chosen to make their results available to students and other interested persons. According to Department Chair Nancy Heisey, the staff discussed it as a department and decided there was no reason to keep their scores a secret. "Those who are interested I think should know," she said. She emphasized that while the reports are available, they are not being handed out on the street.

SGA is working on a way to make rating information available to students.