1.) To what extent to you believe faculty interests differ from those of
administrators? 

Ultimately all of our interests are the same - to prepare students to be
contributing world and American citizens and to advance knowledge of
ourselves and the world. I do think, however, that this mission sometime
gets lost upon administration. I view faculty as front line producers of
both educated students and new knowledge. Generally we have good
administrators and they take pride in their specific job
responsibilities. However, I think it imperative that faculty be
involved in administrative decisions to make sure that functional
decisions serve our overall mission, and not simply the mission of a
support system.

2.) How should we maintain academic integrity in the face of increasing
financial pressures?

We have a strong academic culture and in the past we have had a strong
self management culture, where faculty were involved in many of the
decisions made to run the University. The faculty governance system we
have now is a shadow of how the University once operated. We need
faculty advisors, firmly committed to our academic mission  who are
willing to get involved in administrative decisions to remind
administration of our highest ideals and to make sure any decision that
appears to compromise our mission is thoroughly debated.  We also need
faculty advisors self-aware enough to know how to accept creative
measures that advance our mission without feeling threatened by change.
I believe change is coming to the University in many ways, but our
mission will, and should, remain the same. I think an academic
entrepreneurial spirit for ``mission driven'' organizations is vital to
ensure advancement of the mission.

3.) What are your views on increasing inequalities within the faculty
based on, for example, tenure-track vs. fixed term appointments and
differing salary levels? 

There are many ways that faculty and staff contribute to our mission,
not all recognized in the advancement process. Ideally faculty and staff
should be compensated according to the contributions they make to our
mission. The system we have now is built upon the desire to maintain
academic integrity and freedom of expression, which are important
ideals. However, it can lead to apparent inequalities in compensation
and contribution. Many schools have adopted a 5 year review of tenured
faculty. The next step might be to tie these reviews to compensation, so
that Chairs and Deans have more flexibility, regardless of rank of
rewarding contributions. Fundamentally, however, those attracted to the
University life are not motivated to make money, so I doubt if we will
ever be able to compete with business or privately funded universities.
After all we are a publicly funded institution.  

The short answer to this question is that I would like to see more
equalization of faculty salaries across tenure and non-tenure tracks
based upon contribution to our mission. 

Staff salaries, however, need review as well. We need to monitor the pay
for the lowest paid employees to make sure that wages are high enough to
attract strong workers and to allow a decent living. I also do not
believe that we ought to get into the trap of competing with business
for our EPA administrators, thus forcing those salaries significantly
out of line with senior SPA administrators.

4.) How would you respond on behalf of the faculty if you found out that
administrators had circumvented serious faculty consultation to pursue
major outside funding for a controversial new curriculum?

I'm not sure what serious faculty consultation means. I believe almost
all decisions that have been made involve some faculty consultation,
even if it is only a few faculty. The forum for serious faculty
consultation, I think, is the Faculty Council. Beyond this forum,
however, it is often difficult to engage faculty in meaningful
discussion. If the Faculty Assembly deliberations were broadcast or
webcast, would many faculty tune in?

To answer your question, if I found out that a controversial decision
had been made without faculty consideration, I would recommend to the
Chair of the Faculty that the issue be discussed at the Faculty Council
and that dissemination of this discussion be widely advertised and
webcast for faculty who could not attend. 

5.) Would you prefer to see a faculty governance system that is focused
on prominent University issues (e.g., academic freedom and educational
policy) or one that is more focused on faculty's specific  needs (e.g.,
benefits and salary)? Or, alternatively, how would you seek to balance
the two? 

I think the faculty governance should be a check on decisions that do
not advance the mission of the university. I do not think the faculty
governance system should be used simply to advance the interest of the
faculty. Faculty benefits and salaries, while important to individual
faculty, have to been viewed within the context of how they contribute
to improving education for our students and how we are addressing
society's greatest problems.  Faculty consultation should be used to
improve decisions made for the entire university, not just the faculty.
My allegiance is to this University - its students, its mission, it
institutions, its faculty, its staff - not to any one segment.

RESPONSE FROM JIM PORTO, Ph.D. MPA

CANDIDATE FOR FACULTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE