Profs. Criticize Administration's Size

While the nation's capital faces the red pen of bureaucracy slashing, Harvard, too, confronts questions about the steady growth of its own administration.

Several professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) have charged in interviews and at recent Faculty meetings that the growth of the central administration has ballooned out of control.

They say that FAS should be consulted on budgetary decisions, since the central administration is insufficiently accountable and therefore spends recklessly.

Administrators counter that the growth of the center has simply paralleled the growth of the faculties.

They add that this expansion is not wasteful, but a reflection of a healthier University, pointing to a number of centrally-administered programs that have blossomed in recent years.

Assessing the Growth Rates

In interviews and at Faculty meetings over the last year, several professors--most notably Coolidge Professor of History and Economics David S. Landes--have repeatedly raised concerns about the ever-expanding central administration bureaucracy.

The professors point to a 1992 draft of a paper authored by Lamont University Professor Emeritus John T. Dunlop, a former dean of the Faculty.

According to the minutes of last May's Faculty meeting, the report shows that the number of exempt staff University-wide increased by roughly 3 percent per year from 1973 until 1988. (Exempt staff receive neither a salary nor hourly wages, according to Human Resources spokesperson Merry Touborg.)

While this growth occurred, however, the number of non-exempt employees, the number of students and the dollar-value of research grants remained virtually unchanged, Dunlop reported.

Landes says this growth is both unaccounted for and unacceptable. He says the central administration has an obligation to provide a detailed annual report, as well as to subject its budget to observation and control.

"The budget should be finalized before the year of expenditure," Landes says. "It should reflect planning and constraint, and the Faculty should be consulted."

An analysis comparable to Dunlop's study was released in November by the Office of Human Resources. The report, prepared by Associate Vice President for Human Resources Candace R. Corvey and FAS Associate Dean for Human Resources Polly Price, focuses on trends between the fall of 1988 and the fall of 1994.

The Corvey-Price report illustrates a continuation of Dunlop's earlier pattern. According to the report, the University's exempt staff grew annually by 2.9 percent between 1988 and 1994.

But President Neil L. Rudenstine says a cursory examination of the numbers is deceiving.

He attributes much of the center's recent growth to the significant increase in research grants awarded to Harvard faculty, large-scale improvements such as the library reconversion project, the increased demand for Harvard Dining Services and the funding of University programs from outside sources.

Rudenstine also calls attention to growth that is outside Harvard's control. Increased government regulations with mandatory compliance, Rudenstine says, have forced the central administration to add additional staff members.

"New regulations come through, literally, almost all the time," Rudenstine says. "And you have no choice, whether it's removal of hazardous waste, new safety measures for this or that, or new kinds of bookkeeping. We need more people to simply do the reports and check the data."

Several members of FAS disagree with Rudenstine's explanation. One faculty member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says the bulk of the center's growth has been wasteful.

"It's an example of the typical unnecessary growth of bureaucracy," says the faculty member. "Advancement in computer technology has resulted in the need for more computer support staff, but doesn't explain the growth measured in thousands of positions."

The professor says the growth is even more unacceptable in an era when the FAS is combating budget deficits.

Rudenstine acknowledges that several schools, including FAS, the Graduate School of Design and the Kennedy School of Government, have made impressive strides towards balanced budgets.

Due to its budget-cutting efforts, FAS had to cut the number of exempt employees for four consecutive years between 1991 and 1994.

And the faculty member says that while many of Harvard's schools have done significant belt-tightening to reduce their deficits, the central administration has not made corresponding spending reductions.

But Touborg rejects the professor's assertion that the faculties trimmed their budgets while the central administration grew fat.

She says that the central administration and the faculties have both grown at roughly the same rates.

In the November 1995 Corvey-Price analysis, the Office of Human Resources reports that both the central administration and the faculties experienced the same rate of growth, 5.8 percent, in the largest category of exempt staff--administrative and academic managers.

The discrepancy appears to arise because the administration is evaluating data from a period, 1988-94, that extends before the time when budget-cutting in the FAS began in earnest in 1991. Also, the Human Resources analysis measures only a subclass of exempt staff. Complete data were unavailable at press time.

Out of Control?

The faculty member who spoke on condition of anonymity blames Harvard's highest governing board for not adequately containing Mass. Hall's spending.

"Faculties actually have to be accountable for the dollars they spend," the professor says. "The central administration is accountable to no one...except the Corporation, which doesn't seem to do anything about it."

Touborg objects to the contention, noting that the central administration, on the recommendation of the Central Administration Budget Committee, has instructed each of its departments to limit the growth of its 1996 budget to no more than two percent, roughly equal to the rate of inflation.

And before this year, Rudenstine says, there were no requests for the specific information; as a result, individual growth figures were often lumped into aggregate statistics.

"It hasn't been an issue particularly, and therefore people have been added out," says Rudenstine. "Because putting things in little boxes, that's sort of the way somebody wants to know it...it's not so easy to reconstruct 20 years, or leave alone six or seven or eight."

According to Landes, however, concerns about the size and scope of the central administration are not new.

"I've been calling for a report on the budget of the central administration for the past 10 years," Landes says. "I've become a pessimist on the issue. The central administration doesn't have the answers because it doesn't even know the numbers involved."

Better Recordkeeping

Limitations in the University's recordkeeping system pose a formidable obstacle to the accurate measurement of the central administration's growth, Rudenstine says.

"We do not have the kind of information technology system in place that connects all of Harvard," Rudenstine says. "And that means that almost everything that has been done has been hand-calculated, and it has been hand-calculated snapshots, and sometimes the snapshots have been at different times of the year."

Rudenstine adds that Harvard's sheer size, combined with the fierce decentralization of its schools, creates further complications.

"This is not to say that there hasn't been growth," Rudenstine says. "It is simply to say that tracking the growth and getting it precise, and reconciling different bases, isn't as easy as one might wish."

Touborg says the administration is currently moving to develop a technologically-improved record-keeping system.

"The result will be a better grip on growth, and a better sense about how it compares in one area or another," she says.

Touborg adds that the planned improvements will allow the administration to monitor growth more precisely by distinguishing between seasonal fluctuations and permanent increases in support staff.

The central administration currently uses a system based upon changes in payroll expenditures, Touborg says.

But Landes says improved record-keeping alone will not be enough; the University requires a fundamental change in the way it spends its money.

"The first step is to have public Faculty discussions, endorsed by the central administration, of the way the [central administration] budget is allocated and managed," Landes says.

Fractured Relations

The Faculty's scrutiny of the central administration's finances began in earnest following objections to the 1994 decision to reduce faculty benefits.

At several meetings in 1994 and 1995, a host of professors lambasted the administration for failing to consult before the reductions.

Tensions were particularly high in May, after the Corporation rejected a faculty recommendation to roll back a one percent reduction in the University's contribution to retirement benefits.

The issue further escalated as several faculty members complained about how the central administration obtains its funds from the individual faculties while retaining absolute control over their allocation.

Landes accused the central administration of "taxation without representation."

Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul and McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering Frederick H. Abernathy have joined Landes as the most outspoken professors on each of these issues.

In a letter to The Crimson last June, Paul voiced his concerns over the increasing tensions between the FAS and the central administration.

"[The faculty objections] involve the restoration of genuine consultation and collaboration, as distinct from the misrepresented and discredited consultative procedures of 1994," wrote Paul. "This is an issue which is not going to go away, since decisions involving the best use of the resources of the University in accomplishing its missions of education and research must involve the faculty as well as the administration."Crimson File PhotoDAVID S. LANDES

Landes says this growth is both unaccounted for and unacceptable. He says the central administration has an obligation to provide a detailed annual report, as well as to subject its budget to observation and control.

"The budget should be finalized before the year of expenditure," Landes says. "It should reflect planning and constraint, and the Faculty should be consulted."

An analysis comparable to Dunlop's study was released in November by the Office of Human Resources. The report, prepared by Associate Vice President for Human Resources Candace R. Corvey and FAS Associate Dean for Human Resources Polly Price, focuses on trends between the fall of 1988 and the fall of 1994.

The Corvey-Price report illustrates a continuation of Dunlop's earlier pattern. According to the report, the University's exempt staff grew annually by 2.9 percent between 1988 and 1994.

But President Neil L. Rudenstine says a cursory examination of the numbers is deceiving.

He attributes much of the center's recent growth to the significant increase in research grants awarded to Harvard faculty, large-scale improvements such as the library reconversion project, the increased demand for Harvard Dining Services and the funding of University programs from outside sources.

Rudenstine also calls attention to growth that is outside Harvard's control. Increased government regulations with mandatory compliance, Rudenstine says, have forced the central administration to add additional staff members.

"New regulations come through, literally, almost all the time," Rudenstine says. "And you have no choice, whether it's removal of hazardous waste, new safety measures for this or that, or new kinds of bookkeeping. We need more people to simply do the reports and check the data."

Several members of FAS disagree with Rudenstine's explanation. One faculty member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says the bulk of the center's growth has been wasteful.

"It's an example of the typical unnecessary growth of bureaucracy," says the faculty member. "Advancement in computer technology has resulted in the need for more computer support staff, but doesn't explain the growth measured in thousands of positions."

The professor says the growth is even more unacceptable in an era when the FAS is combating budget deficits.

Rudenstine acknowledges that several schools, including FAS, the Graduate School of Design and the Kennedy School of Government, have made impressive strides towards balanced budgets.

Due to its budget-cutting efforts, FAS had to cut the number of exempt employees for four consecutive years between 1991 and 1994.

And the faculty member says that while many of Harvard's schools have done significant belt-tightening to reduce their deficits, the central administration has not made corresponding spending reductions.

But Touborg rejects the professor's assertion that the faculties trimmed their budgets while the central administration grew fat.

She says that the central administration and the faculties have both grown at roughly the same rates.

In the November 1995 Corvey-Price analysis, the Office of Human Resources reports that both the central administration and the faculties experienced the same rate of growth, 5.8 percent, in the largest category of exempt staff--administrative and academic managers.

The discrepancy appears to arise because the administration is evaluating data from a period, 1988-94, that extends before the time when budget-cutting in the FAS began in earnest in 1991. Also, the Human Resources analysis measures only a subclass of exempt staff. Complete data were unavailable at press time.

Out of Control?

The faculty member who spoke on condition of anonymity blames Harvard's highest governing board for not adequately containing Mass. Hall's spending.

"Faculties actually have to be accountable for the dollars they spend," the professor says. "The central administration is accountable to no one...except the Corporation, which doesn't seem to do anything about it."

Touborg objects to the contention, noting that the central administration, on the recommendation of the Central Administration Budget Committee, has instructed each of its departments to limit the growth of its 1996 budget to no more than two percent, roughly equal to the rate of inflation.

And before this year, Rudenstine says, there were no requests for the specific information; as a result, individual growth figures were often lumped into aggregate statistics.

"It hasn't been an issue particularly, and therefore people have been added out," says Rudenstine. "Because putting things in little boxes, that's sort of the way somebody wants to know it...it's not so easy to reconstruct 20 years, or leave alone six or seven or eight."

According to Landes, however, concerns about the size and scope of the central administration are not new.

"I've been calling for a report on the budget of the central administration for the past 10 years," Landes says. "I've become a pessimist on the issue. The central administration doesn't have the answers because it doesn't even know the numbers involved."

Better Recordkeeping

Limitations in the University's recordkeeping system pose a formidable obstacle to the accurate measurement of the central administration's growth, Rudenstine says.

"We do not have the kind of information technology system in place that connects all of Harvard," Rudenstine says. "And that means that almost everything that has been done has been hand-calculated, and it has been hand-calculated snapshots, and sometimes the snapshots have been at different times of the year."

Rudenstine adds that Harvard's sheer size, combined with the fierce decentralization of its schools, creates further complications.

"This is not to say that there hasn't been growth," Rudenstine says. "It is simply to say that tracking the growth and getting it precise, and reconciling different bases, isn't as easy as one might wish."

Touborg says the administration is currently moving to develop a technologically-improved record-keeping system.

"The result will be a better grip on growth, and a better sense about how it compares in one area or another," she says.

Touborg adds that the planned improvements will allow the administration to monitor growth more precisely by distinguishing between seasonal fluctuations and permanent increases in support staff.

The central administration currently uses a system based upon changes in payroll expenditures, Touborg says.

But Landes says improved record-keeping alone will not be enough; the University requires a fundamental change in the way it spends its money.

"The first step is to have public Faculty discussions, endorsed by the central administration, of the way the [central administration] budget is allocated and managed," Landes says.

Fractured Relations

The Faculty's scrutiny of the central administration's finances began in earnest following objections to the 1994 decision to reduce faculty benefits.

At several meetings in 1994 and 1995, a host of professors lambasted the administration for failing to consult before the reductions.

Tensions were particularly high in May, after the Corporation rejected a faculty recommendation to roll back a one percent reduction in the University's contribution to retirement benefits.

The issue further escalated as several faculty members complained about how the central administration obtains its funds from the individual faculties while retaining absolute control over their allocation.

Landes accused the central administration of "taxation without representation."

Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul and McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering Frederick H. Abernathy have joined Landes as the most outspoken professors on each of these issues.

In a letter to The Crimson last June, Paul voiced his concerns over the increasing tensions between the FAS and the central administration.

"[The faculty objections] involve the restoration of genuine consultation and collaboration, as distinct from the misrepresented and discredited consultative procedures of 1994," wrote Paul. "This is an issue which is not going to go away, since decisions involving the best use of the resources of the University in accomplishing its missions of education and research must involve the faculty as well as the administration."Crimson File PhotoDAVID S. LANDES