Mark+David+Stadtlander

Mark Stadtlander
Final Paper EDACE 786: Facilitation for Results Spring 2010 On February 23, 2010, Kansas State University President Kirk Schulz and the Kansas State University Faculty Senate hosted an open public forum to discuss proposed cuts to the university budget. The forum, held in Forum Hall in the K-State Student Union, allowed anyone concerned about budget issues to ask the president questions directly. According to Melody LeHew, Associate Professor - Apparel Textiles & Interior Design and Faculty Senate President, “The faculty-senate hosted open forum with president Schulz is just to provide an opportunity for campus to interact with our CEO.” (personal communication, March 7, 2010). An article ran in the Monday, February 22, 2010 Manhattan Mercury that outlined the president’s proposals for almost $8 million in cuts and $7 million in revenue increases. These cuts included a $6 million cut to the Targeted Excellence program, a program started by previous university president, Jon Wefald. Other units named for proposed cuts included the National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization, the Alumni Association, and athletics (Felber, 2010). The article did not mention the open forum being hosted the next day. Because of the setting of the meeting, faculty and staff were the primary stakeholders invited to the meeting. There were at least two newspaper reporters and one television crew present. Faculty were made aware of the meeting though e-mails from Candice Becker, Administrative Assistant for the Faculty Senate Office. One message read in part: Faculty Senate will host two open forums in the upcoming weeks. As was the case last semester, these will provide additional opportunity for the campus community to ask questions and have a conversation with President Schulz regarding the budget reduction and generation ideas that have been submitted and analyzed in recent months. This is also an opportunity to discuss other questions and concerns. Your participation in these events will be greatly appreciated! (Becker, 2010b) Another message from Becker was sent letting faculty know they could watch the forum live, or delayed on the Web. Good morning! You were sent a reminder earlier this morning about the Open Forum taking place today with President Schulz. We encourage you to attend in person, however, if that will not be possible for some, the Forum will be available via webcast at the following link: http://www.k-state.edu/president/speeches/ (Becker, 2010a) Becker described the planning that went into the forum as, “Multiple phone calls were made and many e-mails were sent in order to determine availability of president's schedule; rooming accommodations; audio/video needs.” She said that, “No steering committee was formed. President LeHew and myself [//sic//] discussed the planning, and the leadership council if needed.” When asked about how the forum would be conducted, she said, “Discussion did take place when the first forums were held last semester as to whether or not to have a moderator, possibly President LeHew, and it was determined the president could handle all questions. Also, it was undetermined at that time whether or not to have a panel on stage, or just the president and in the end, it was decided to have just the president.” Becker said that, “Faculty Senate hosted the forum, so I directly assisted in the planning (rooms, dates, equipment, etc.), but the Faculty Senate Leadership Council does a lot of the background discussions” (personal communication, March 5, 2010). LeHew described the planning that went into the forum, “We found a date that would work in President Schulz’s schedule that did not overlap any other faculty senate events.” She confirmed that there was no steering committee. When describing the facilitation of the forum, LeHew said, “We set the approach last semester, and I made the decision to introduce President Schulz and be flexible and responsive to audience level of participation.” She said that no other facilitator was discussed (personal communication, March 7, 2010). Forum Hall is a fixed-seat auditorium that seats 575 people (//K-State Student Union - maps - Forum Hall.//). The auditorium has a sound system, sloped seating area, and a raised stage. The media relations unit at K-State estimated that there were 200 people present (Mayes, 2010). The projection screen at the front of the auditorium showed the approximately 10 people watching the forum at the K-State Salina campus. The stage was open and the president used a wireless microphone. He did not stand behind the podium to answer questions. On the stage were five artificial plants, a U.S flag, a Kansas flag, and a Kansas State University flag. There was water available for the president on the podium and he did get a drink during one question. LeHew opened the forum by recognizing the faculty senate leadership team. She instructed the audience that when the floor was open to questions, that they should come forward to ask questions or give comments to one of two microphones at the front of the auditorium. Schulz opened with a brief summary of a recent visit by the Kansas Board of Regents. He said that the best estimate of where the university needs to be financially is to cut $15 million from the budget. He closed his opening remarks by saying, “come forward and ask what you will.” There was no rush from the audience to ask questions. When the president opened the floor for questions, no one came forward. He responded with, “Well thank you all for coming,” which put the audience at ease until someone did ask a question. The questions that the president answered included questions about the Targeted Excellence program and what affects the suggested cuts would have on the research component of the university. There was only one time that two people approached a microphone at one time. When that happened, one speaker took a seat by the microphone while the other person asked a question. The president did answer questions through the teleconference link to Salina. Schulz used his list of suggested cuts to answer a question asked. In an e-mail earlier in the week, faculty members were made aware that the list of cuts was available on the K-State Web site. The only outburst in the forum was when an interim dean called out something from the crowd, rather than from a microphone. Fewer than 20 people asked questions during the forum. A K-State student present in the audience, who did not give his name, did ask a question. The president said that he wanted to control rumors and have information available to the faculty at K-State. He regularly sends e-mails summarizing current issues in the president’s office. The forum ended when no one else came forward to ask questions; most of the audience left quietly. The day after the forum, the Manhattan Mercury ran a front-page headline that read, “Cuts not temporary, Schulz says” (Wofford, 2010). The story summarized the president’s comments on budget cuts and revenue creation plans. The editorial board at the Manhattan Mercury ran an editorial with the headline “Painful choices for K-State.” It credited the Targeted Excellence program for bringing the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility to Manhattan and lamented the loss of funding for the program. In reference to President Schulz’s comment that faculty and students would have to get comfortable with the cuts, the Mercury editorial staff wrote, “That might be necessary, but as cut to Targeted Excellence illustrate, it certainly won’t be painless,” (Seaton et al., 2010). At the March 9, 2010 meeting of the Kansas State University Faculty Senate, Chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on University Planning, Tom Vontz reported that he was pleased with the president’s presentation and that President Schulz responded to every suggestion for cuts that the faculty and staff put forward. The Faculty Senate Committee on University Planning is charged with this responsibility: “It shall be the duty of the faculty senate to participate, in an advisory capacity, in the process by which distribution of university appropriated resources in support of the academic, research, and service missions of the university is determined.” (//University handbook, appendix E: Constitution of the K-State Faculty Senate.// 2002). The committee participates in the decision making if there are university-wide cuts that include the loss of tenured positions.

Observer Reflections
President Schulz took a calculated risk by being on the stage alone during the question and answer time. I think most of the audience knew that it was not his idea to cut the budget; the need is coming from the Kansas Legislature. By opening with a joke about his experience with a wireless microphone, he became more personable. These two factors together reduced the “us versus them” mentality that could have led to conflict. By standing on the stage alone and not behind the podium, the president became more approachable and human. If I had set up the forum, I do not know if I would have had two microphones and no one directing people with questions. It worked out fine because not a lot of people asked questions, but if there had been, it would have been easier to either have one microphone or have someone guiding the people with questions to the microphone. It did work well to have people with questions come to the front of the room. Because they were at the front, the audience did not have to turn around to look for them, and the audience in Salina could see them via video conference on the screen there. The faculty had access to the budget reduction suggestions that the president was addressing days in advance. This works well because we had a chance to look them over. By announcing his suggestions early, both on the Web and through a press release, the audience had time to form their questions in advance of the forum. If the budget reduction suggestions had been handed out at the meeting, people would have been reading through them and not listening. Although there was not a recorder taking notes in the forum, the forum was recorded and can still be watched on the Web. This provides an opportunity for anyone who is interested in the forum to watch it and anyone who attended to review the presentation. I think the president and Faculty Senate hosted an informative event. The president came across as approachable and as a team leader rather than an authoritarian. By setting the stage this way, I think the audience accepted what the president was saying without having to like it. The humor and approachability diverted resentment or conflict in the meeting. I think the risks paid off well for the president and the openness will gain him allies in the difficult budget decisions that will have to be made. 