Mythbusting Mr. O, Part 1
Last Wednesday, the Texas Tribune interviewed Rick O’Donnell, the controversial, short-term employee the UT System regents hired, fired, and last week paid $70,000 to avoid a lawsuit. While I believe Mr. O’Donnell sincerely believes what he says, I also believe he is biased and, consequently, wrong on a number of fronts.
Editor’s Note: This is the first of two posts on this issue. Read part two.
File photo by Val Cook
It really is about research. Mr. O’Donnell suggests that the controversy at hand is not about research and that UT-Austin advocates raise that issue as a red herring. The sense of research being under attack is real. He can diminish the significance of his flawed white paper on research or implementing budgets that separate research from teaching, but this is the core of what makes UT-Austin exceptional and was the foundation for the burnt-orange call to arms.
It really isn’t about the regents, but process. The Texas Exes’ alarm over the issues of Mr. O’Donnell’s hiring and the unproven policy initiatives he is associated with came about because of a flawed, non-inclusive, and alarming hiring process, as well as his writings and associations.
UT System Board of Regents Chair Gene Powell hired Rick O’Donnell without the participation of other regents or the chancellor. O’Donnell became the 18th-highest-paid employee during a system-wide hiring freeze in the face of massive budget cuts and the largest budget shortfall in Texas history.
He asked people not to judge him based on things he had written or individuals and institutions of his past. Yet his actions appeared to align with those very writings and associations.
No one is alarmed that regents would serve their role as regents. The concern was the unprecedented break from steady oversight stewardship to micromanagement. I know of no time in the history of the UT System that any employee apart from the chancellor reported directly to the regents.
A few years ago, the UT Board of Regents demonstrated the type of thoughtful process we expect when it reviewed the Brackenridge Tract property in West Austin. The thorough, transparent process included multiple stakeholder groups over an extended period, assisted by a professional firm. When the regents deviate from this precedent of transparent data collection and discernment, it causes understandable alarm.
I don’t think this process was malevolent on Chairman Powell’s part. What probably works well in private real estate would not successfully build trust, generate consensus, and foster stakeholder buy-in for dynamic, complex university systems. Just as many of us find fault with his process, Chairman Powell expressed concerns about the Texas Exes’ decision to share our concerns in an open letter. Both sides clearly perceive communication and process deficits from the other.
This was not an overreaction. The role of regent is like that of a Federal Reserve board member: Their words will be parsed and their actions must be steady for risk of destabilizing complex markets and overall public confidence. This process and the associated “breakthrough solutions” threaten the university’s standing and prestige.
Here’s why: There are only two major market forces in higher education: the labor force (faculty) and the learning force (students). Faculty choose where to teach, and a great faculty member can choose anywhere. Great students are recruited and choose the institution that they believe is the best match. One of the most important factors for both groups is prestige.
The pushback from the UT community was in large part because of what we witnessed at Texas A&M. There are lessons to be mined from A&M’s “red and black” reports, including lower morale (which can only negatively impact productivity and faculty recruitment) and deflated national reputation. A&M experienced its first peer-rating decrease in a decade in the first survey after the national publicity from the think tank “reforms.”
Unvetted policies that potentially damage our most elusive capital—our reputation— interfere with our ability to attract the best and the brightest.
Our colors are orange and white. Mr. O’Donnell, in an attempt to illustrate the political dynamics of his situation, suggested that Senator Judith Zaffirini “bleeds orange and purple.” The only school I know of that employs that combination is Clemson University. While I am sure it is a simple mistake, I think it symbolizes his engagement with the UT-System: It was not a match.
Read part two here.
JJ Baskin is member of the Texas Exes Public Affairs Committee and the Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education.
Share this article
![UT Is Transforming Education [Watch]](http://alcalde.texasexes.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Picture-2.png){kind=small}
-
Rose Cahalan: Hi James, The Gatsby display case and a few other materials will be available fo...
-
James Reinhardt: What are the hours at the Ransom Center. Will it be open on Monday, 5/27/2013...
-
Tom: Soon we'll have crazy fire ants. These will be ants who do terrible, destructiv...
-
David N. Currey: The article implies that the crazy ants aren't in Texas yet ("...it'll be a very...
-
Spencer: Oh how I miss access to Web of Science... To be fair, you can read the abstract...
11 Comments
This is absolutely pathetic. The Alcalde has become obsessed with demonizing Rick O’Donnell, Jeff Sandefer, and TPPF. We get it. You hate reform. Now what is your solution. Graduation rates are way too low at UT (around 50% for 4 years, better but still not great for 6 years). Tuition is rising too fast, even as state spending has increased. UT has not boosted its rankings in national publications even as its budget has exploded in recent years. There is too much overhead. Students are graduating with 25K in debt on average. What are the solutions for getting tuition under control, improving affordability, and improving excellence in factors like graduation rates and just plain learning outcomes? At least some students aren’t going along with the freak out session and are suggesting things could be better.
http://youtu.be/BeTKmGbC7Rk
Bill, you are wrong. You are obsessed with demonizing UT.
UT’s graduation rates are the best in Texas. But they need to be higher. STUDENTS need to pick majors earlier and make better decisions.
Tuition is rising because the state support has not kept up with inflation.
UT’s national prestige has risen steadily while its budget has remained flat. UT won’t get into the top 10 rankings because it has a huge number of students–and that number isn’t going to change.
Students who cannot afford UT ought to seriously consider community college or other systems schools for their first two years. No one forces students to take out massive loans.
MEANWHILE, Perry and the legislature have CUT grants and scholarships.
REAL BREAKTHROUGH SOLUTIONS
1. INCREASE STATE SUPPORT FOR UT
2. INCREASE STATE GRANTS AND SHOLARSHIPS
3. LET THE PRESIDENTS AND FACULTY DO THEIR JOB
4. FORBID WEALTHY PERRY DONORS FROM BUYING THEIR WAY ONTO THE BOARD OF REGENTS
“UT’s graduation rates are the best in Texas. But they need to be higher. STUDENTS need to pick majors earlier and make better decisions.”
-You do realize that one of the factors that helps UT recruit students is the broad base of programs they can get into if they aren’t 100% sure of their life plan at 18. That was certainly one of the reasons why I chose to attend.
“Tuition is rising because the state support has not kept up with inflation.”
-We’re in a recession, and the Legislature had to put forward a balanced budget. We all want more money for everything, but we don’t have it. What do you want cut so that UT (which has $1 Billion in Gold Bullion reserves) can get more taxpayer money?
“Students who cannot afford UT ought to seriously consider community college or other systems schools for their first two years. No one forces students to take out massive loans.”
-Wow, I never thought I’d see the day where liberals don’t want to help out the lower socioeconomic classes with trying to improve their status. This fits in perfectly with the “elitist” mindset that is perceived of the University system.
“Breakthrough Solutions”
-So basically you want the Legislature to give more money to UT, and then not ask how it is spent, or have any kind of sense of oversight in how it is spent? That as a taxpayer offends me. If my hard-earned taxdollars are being put toward something, I want to know where, and how much. Even Public Schools are posting check registers online, why can’t UT?
1) Texas’ economy is doing very well. I don’t know where you got that info from, but UT does not have gold.
2) Wait, so you are against students going to other system schools or community colleges? Or do you think that UT-Austin offers something distinctive and better? IF the latter, what sets UT apart?
3) UT already has information online. The fact that you can’t or won’t look for it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. UT reports to the UT System. Look at their website.
SO YOUR SOLUTION is to impose untested, disastrous solutions produced by a man who charges $50,000 a year at his business school?
Really? I like how the “higher ed debate” skips over the fact that tuition is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Who is sticking up for the students??
Tuition is on the rise because the state does not properly fund UT. Why don’t you stick up for students and campaign for higher state support?
I can think of a really prominent red herring, this article. It is infuriating that the Alcalde and mutltiple other publications seemed so focus on reputation that they are missing the real point, the exploding cost of higher education.
It’s time to face the facts that in light of deep cuts to funding at every level of state government, Texas has to tighten it’s belt like everyone else, and not just stick its head in the sand like nothing is wrong.
Phil, UT has already tightened its belt quite a bit.
It is the legislature that is sticking its head in the sand, pretending that it can fund UT on the cheap and still get great results.
Ask yourself this, why did they cut Texas grants and scholarship for thousands of students? These weren’t even tied to specific institutions.
Also, why were the cuts deepest in higher education? Higher education funding does not make up more than 20% of Texas’ budget, yet almost half of the budget cuts came from higher ed. Pretty atrocious on Perry’s part.
You say that Mr. O’Donnell was “the 18th highest paid employee among a systemwide hiring freeze.”
It’s probably true that he was the 18th highest paid “UT System” employee (if you just count the relatively small system office, and NOT the actually universities in the UT system). But you’re trying to make it appear as if he was the 18th highest paid “systemwide”. There are countless people paid far more than O’Donnell in the UT system, and many are not teaching many (if any) students or doing productive research.
Here are just the UT salaries: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/ (O’Donnell wouldn’t even have been on the first page– or the second— or the third—- or the fourth—– or the fifth—— or the sixth——- or the seventh…. he would have been on the 10th page, roughly 300th down the list, just at UT).
If you’re really, truly trying to inform your audience, why do you feel the need to mislead readers?
Bill, which professors are not teaching or doing any productive research? Can you be specific rather than be accused of offering misleading information, which is precisely what you accuse others of doing?
Bill, thanks for the feedback.
Indeed, I was referring to the UT System which before restructuring had about 900 employees, making highest paid employee number 18 significant in its own right. Like you, I accessed the Texas Tribune database, but I used the UT System list as I was writing in that context. It is my understanding there was a system-wide hiring freeze, and that applied to system functions, not all the campuses and universities.
But I do want to apologize for not being as precise as I could have been as it is sincerely my desire to inform the audience on this issue.
FYI, I noticed that your citation of my article was: “the 18th highest paid employee among a systemwide hiring freeze.” I did not use the word “among” but “during” which I think alters the meaning of the sentence and could be misleading in its own right. This may account for why you read more meaning or intent into that phrase than I intended.
That said, I will do for you what you did not do for me and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this too was a lack of precision rather than your own need to mislead readers.
While it appears from your first post that your mind is made up on these matters, I think we will all be better served if we can engage in more civil discourse as engaged citizens and less political hyperbole as anonymous bloggers.
Hook’em!