About a week ago, we received word that President McDavis was going to re-re-re-unveil Vision Ohio for Founder's Day. And, as much as we both wanted to get some sleep this week, we decided to comb through Vision for ourselves in anticipation of the big day. What we found was deeply disappointing. There just isn't space in a column of this size to mention everything that's wrong with this document. What we can do is forgo our usual format and address what we believe to be the most dangerous myths about Vision Ohio.
Myth #1: Vision is a clear, concise and transparent plan for Ohio University's future.
The main Vision document is a bloated 60 pages. If, however, you want to understand any of the important parts (such as the budget) you'll need to read an additional 63 pages of appendices. That 123 pages doesn't even include the individual plans for each college. And, as if the length wasn't irritating enough, the entire document is written as though committee members were being paid by the word. Giving us everything does not create transparency. Rather, it obscures the real meaning behind useless buzzwords and bureaucratic jargon.
Myth #2: Vision represents collaboration between students, faculty and administrators.
While it's true that students and faculty sat on committees, input is not the same thing as consensus. The student-administrator relationship is, by definition, unequal. And putting token students on strategic implementation committees feels more like a legitimation tactic than shared governance. If they can get us to accept Vision, it will shift responsibility away from the administrators and onto the document. They would be able to take credit for the good things and blame Vision for unpopular decisions. After all, you agreed to it.
Myth #3: The stated goals of Vision Ohio were created during the drafting process.
Actually, President McDavis outlined the goals of Vision Ohio in his 2004 inaugural address. This means that, before a single committee was convened, he had already decided what he ' and, by extension, we ' wanted. While it's important for a president to have goals, it is dishonest to try and suggest that they were reached through community consensus. We think his goals for Ohio University might be just what we need, but we haven't lost sight of the fact that they are his goals.
Myth #4: Vision is long, so it must be well-argued.
There's a reason it's difficult to find thoughtful opposition to Vision Ohio. It isn't because the document is well-reasoned. It's because few have the time necessary to develop an understanding of it. There's a notion that, because the document is so long, it's arguments must be impenetrable. This is known as a fallacy of verbosity
and it's worked very well to silence opposition. Our careful, days-long evaluation revealed that the arguments for change are pretty bare-bones. Considering the sweeping changes they are recommending, you would think they would provide us with compelling reasons for change. Instead, the inadequacy of our current systems is treated as a foregone conclusion.
Myth #5: The budgeting changes advocated in Vision Ohio are desperately needed.
In one of their appendices, the Resource Committee strongly suggests (demands) that we switch to something with at least four different names: responsibility-based budgeting strategic budgeting a balanced scorecard approach and metric-driven accountability. Whether or not these even refer to the same thing, we cannot be sure. What we do know is that they want to abandon the incremental budgeting system we currently rely on. Since they want to switch so badly, there must be some pretty serious problems with incremental budgeting. Not quite. Only three, rather flimsy arguments are made: that incremental budgeting limits reallocation across units, that it doesn't respond to changing needs and that continually shrinking funds make the new system the only choice. The rest of the discussion is dedicated entirely to how wonderful this new process would be, whatever they decide to call it. And what exactly are these changing needs? Could they be the need to cut a few programs?
Myth #6: Vision is about accountability.
Vision is described as a plan for the future, but it is much more than that. Across campus, there is a dramatic shift in sensibility taking place. Quickly and quietly, we are being moved into a top-down, corporate model of management. Many of the changes that Vision outlines are merely steps in that process. Faculty will now be measured in terms of productivity
and departments are being asked to justify their spending, their productivity and even their existence. Overall, we like the idea of accountability. Problem is, accountability is on the rise everywhere with the exception of the administration. Deep down, we know that both McDavis and Krendl are decent, trustworthy people. However, our quality undergraduate education (and you'll find no sarcasm here) has taught us to always be critical when people hold all the power in their hands and say, even implicitly, trust us. We think across-the-board accountability would be fairer and lead to smarter decisions.
Myth #7: You don't need to read Vision Ohio ' just listen to the provost or president explain it.
Here's a golden rule for becoming politically savvy: Never ever ever ever just listen to talking points. You need to pick up at least the main 123 pages (appendices and all) and struggle through it yourself. It's important that everyone sees firsthand how difficult Vision is to understand, how painful it is to read and how fundamentally flawed its premises are. And, when your friends ask you what you're reading and why you look so nauseated, just tell them that it's a prioritized strategy for strategic strategization. They'll know what you mean.
17
Archives
Doug Cloud
