Engstrom stepping down

[tnt]

The missoulian article seems to me to be a half hearted attempt at being politically correct and a rehash of the Clay Christian Press release:

"The productivity of UM’s competitive research enterprise this year is at an all-time high, with world-class faculty making amazing scientific and technological discoveries and advancements.
UM’s development and nurturing of private gift support is at an all-time high, which is vital to continued excellence and innovation in the university’s teaching-and-learning opportunities.

UM’s athletic programs today are recognized not only for their success on the court or field of play, or their rising academic excellence by student athletes, but also for their strong compliance with NCAA regulations and guidelines.

The new Missoula College is no longer just a dream or a long overdue project, but it is now a reality and is ready to serve generations of students and employers long into the future.

Finally, after major policy and procedure reforms launched by President Engstrom very early in his presidency, UM is now a model campus for thousands of colleges and universities across the nation for preventing sexual violence and providing a safe, healthy, enriching environment in which to teach, learn, and live."

 

[GrizLA]

:clap: :thumb:

Did you know this? First 3 paras of linked Gazette article.

"Denise Juneau has won two statewide elections as a Native American woman.

As the 48-year-old congressional candidate ramps up her campaign against first-term Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, she is matter-of-fact about her sexual orientation, making her Montana’s first openly gay candidate running for federal office.

While Juneau introduced the woman she is dating at a fundraiser in Bozeman last week, she has been open for some time about her sexuality, without making a big deal of it."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/juneau-becomes-montana-s-st-openly-gay-candidate-for-federal/article_439a27d3-fa58-5485-8e17-130d9d8f80d7.html

And your point is? This fact is not relevant to her ability or lack of ability to lead UM into a new direction.
The DUI's I would guess would be more influential in whether or not she is chosen.

My point was to provide the prior poster with additional factual information, from an article, because he said he hadn't been aware of the DUI's. I made no comment or argument with what I posted. I asked if the poster was aware of it.

A question for you. Do you think it would be good for UM to hire, now, a president without significant higher education experience, without any experience in higher ed administration, a couple DUI's, and who is apparently openly gay. Do you think the faculty and alumni, and the bulk of the larger donors, would be supportive of that? Do you think she would be good at overseeing and supporting UM athletics?

Don't forget, she's also openly Native American and openly female.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GrizLA]

Sitting around the table this evening with some from the Drama Dept. They share the views of most, Engstrom has thoroughly demoralized the campus with his inability to even recognize the problems let alone design solutions. When he does seek outside help, he hires incompetent recruiting firms. Noting that the University slogan, announced with great fanfare when Royce took over, attempting to put his "stamp" on everything, we got a logo derisively called the "wet noodle," abandoned the proper usage of "The" University of Montana and ... "thrive." In a state where the population views the term as relevant to a bottle-fed calf. It finally changed, recently, to "Let's Go There!" which the assembled thought was probably worse than "Thrive!" And used in ads that are likely the most uninspired college ads out there.

The next Pres has a big hole to dig out of. This process went on far too long, the damage allowed to accumulate and become self-perpetuating, and in hindsight demonstrates some truth to the observation that bad managers don't improve by giving them 2,3, 5 or seven more years.

On the bright side, the new VP of enrollment seems to clearly "get it." But he's also not painting a pretty picture. The bad PR has been going on too long. Most of the kids now choosing college have heard nothing but bad news about UM since they were in the Sixth Grade.

After Hurricane Katrina, Tulane did a massive revamp of its educational mission, replacing the gloomy headlnes with challenges, and progress and change. It seems to have worked for them.

Curious still as to what the trigger was for this. The November enrollment figures have still not been released. The Enrollment VP has been highly and publicly critical. I suspect the November numbers must be very bad.

Enrollment indeed the crux of the bane that has settled over UM. High Ed liberal arts programs are feeling the strain, UM doing much worse in terms of retention as well as looking less attractive for prospectors. UM has done well in attracting international students, but a worrying trend in recent political thought and action could well damper students from attending here. The hundreds of students from abroad (many from Asia) are paying the full bill, often sponsored by respective governments. If they feel unwelcome here or less attracted to UM, we could experience a dire plummet in future enrollment.

And, yet, UCLA, USC, South Carolina and many others see burgeoning enrollments in Liberal Arts, Fine Arts and other non stem offerings. Show biz is BIG biz.............foreign students do pay a larger portion of the bills but they bring with them a world perspective that is often missing in Montana.The world is a big place and engineering and computer sciences are highly competitive globally, and that will inevitably lead to an over abundance of engineers. Until Montanans tax themselves to support the various public colleges in the state, education at the higher level will fall farther behind. UM is not an A &M school but it is ideally suited for a medical school, taking a good look at how North Dakota with fewer taxpayers does it, or NAU and its Communications offerings. UM once boasted an above average journalism school and today that field is on death watch floundering while new technologies, and old, are reinventing the means of communication. NAU is recognized for its excellence in that area...UM just needs people with a vision larger than what it has had in recent years...For a decade or more, the football program had that vision and achieved a well earned respect. That did not happen by accident.

 

[UMGriz75]

The missoulian article seems to me to be a half hearted attempt at being politically correct and a rehash of the Clay Christian Press release:

"Finally, after major policy and procedure reforms launched by President Engstrom very early in his presidency, UM is now a model campus for thousands of colleges and universities across the nation for preventing sexual violence and providing a safe, healthy, enriching environment in which to teach, learn, and live."

The Missoulian did not tally the couple hundred million dollars in settlements paid out to aggrieved young men as a result of nearly complete disdain by Federal Courts for that "model" as practiced on campuses that used the UM Model. The "Engstrom Model" has been the single largest fiasco for higher ed since the advent of Title IX itself. It is simply bizarre that the Missoulian, an alleged newspaper, pretends to be unaware of the stunning cost and failure of that "approach."

 

[argh!]

The missoulian article seems to me to be a half hearted attempt at being politically correct and a rehash of the Clay Christian Press release:

"Finally, after major policy and procedure reforms launched by President Engstrom very early in his presidency, UM is now a model campus for thousands of colleges and universities across the nation for preventing sexual violence and providing a safe, healthy, enriching environment in which to teach, learn, and live."

The Missoulian did not tally the couple hundred million dollars in settlements paid out to aggrieved young men as a result of nearly complete disdain by Federal Courts for that "model" as practiced on campuses that used the UM Model. The "Engstrom Model" has been the single largest fiasco for higher ed since the advent of Title IX itself. It is simply bizarre that the Missoulian, an alleged newspaper, pretends to be unaware of the stunning cost and failure of that "approach."

got any references for that $200 million claim?

 

[zengriz]

High Ed liberal arts programs are feeling the strain,

...everybody knows the best way...
...arts major off the porch...
...pay him for the pizza...

... :shock: ...

 

[PlayerRep]

Over 130 such lawsuits by those (falsely) accused of sexual assault by universities, according to this link. Summaries of status of a bunch of them, if not all.'

http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/court-decisions/

 

[EverettGriz]

PR, I only read roughly 20 of those at random. In that lot, I only found one in which tthe sexual assault allegation was false. In some there hadn't been a determination yet. But it seems somewhat inappropriate to label them all false accusations.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, I only read roughly 20 of those at random. In that lot, I only found one in which tthe sexual assault allegation was false. In some there hadn't been a determination yet. But it seems somewhat inappropriate to label them all false accusations.

Fair enough, but read the other 110. Also, look up the underlying allegations made by the attorneys of the accused. The lawsuits aren't being brought because the accuseds' believe the university treated them fairly in reaching whatever conclusion they reached against the accuseds.

You probably don't think JJ was falsely accused. I do. And that's why he ultimately wasn't kicked out of school, and UM paid him $300,000 (or whatever it was).

Are you still supporting and apologizing for Engstrom, by the way? You were probably the last poster to support him.

 

[EverettGriz]

You don't read well, pr.

Or rather, you ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Not that that is exactly news to anyone on the board.

 

[UMGriz75]

Universities are settling these cases fast. They know they can't win; all it is is bad publicity, a pissed off jury and large jury award, and so they are settling. JJ's was a relatively small settlement; skilled litigators would have put that one at ten times the settlement amount. The current rule of thumb is that for every case filed, about five are settled prior to the lawsuit, and there are a substantial number currently in the "gray zone" -- the period of time during negotiation and before the statute of limitations have run.

 

[PlayerRep]

You don't read well, pr.

Or rather, you ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Not that that is exactly news to anyone on the board.

What's my agenda? Here's your big chance.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, I only read roughly 20 of those at random. In that lot, I only found one in which tthe sexual assault allegation was false. In some there hadn't been a determination yet. But it seems somewhat inappropriate to label them all false accusations.

To me, these indicate that there wasn't evidence to "convict". The unviversities have to convict in a kangaroo court setting, because the claiims are false or without enough merit to convict.

1. "Following a 21-month long same-sex relationship, John Doe was accused of “numerous inappropriate nonconsensual sexual interactions,” leading to a Disciplinary Warning with no suspension, and a notion in his educational record of sexual misconduct. ...In a wide-ranging opinion, the Massachusetts District Court found for the student, ruling that “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.”

2. "One day after a female student filed an allegation of sexual assault, the university ordered the male student’s “immediate removal from campus for an indefinite period of time.” The Rhode Island District Court upheld the accused student’s complaint with regard to erroneous outcome under Title IX, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment."

3. "A female student alleged that a non-consensual sexual encounter occurred during the 2014-2015 academic year. Relying on the the affirmative consent policy adopted by the school for the subsequent 2015-2016 academic year, the hearing panel ruled the respondent to be responsible. The Rhode Island District Court ruled against the University and ordered a re-adjudication of the case, noting “When combined with other errors set forth herein, it is clear that Doe’s contract rights were violated.”

4. "A female student accused two male students of sexual assault. A three-year suspension was imposed on Doe I, while Doe II faced disciplinary probation. The students filed a lawsuit alleging lack of due process and sex discrimination. The Southern Ohio District Court upheld the university’s motion to dismiss, writing “Even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they received constitutional due process protections.”

5. "Paul Nungesser was accused of rape by fellow student Emma Sulkowicz. The man was found innocent of wrongdoing by the university, and the local DA declined to pursue the case. "

6. "Following an allegation of non-consensual sexual contact, Vito Prasad was suspended for a two-year period. Prasad filed a lawsuit against the university claiming breach of contract, lack of due process, gender bias, and other violations. Highlighting the shortcomings of the university’s single-investigator model, the New York District Court ruled the plaintiff’s erroneous outcome claim could proceed."

7. "A male student involved in a consensual BDSM relationship was found responsible for violating two student conduct regulations, including one pertaining to sexual misconduct, and was expelled. The student filed a lawsuit, claiming violation of his due process and free speech rights. In a far-ranging analysis, the Virginia District Court ruled against the university’s motion to dismiss:

8. "ccused of sexual misconduct, a male student was expelled from the university. The student sued, alleging due process violations and sex discrimination. In 2015 the Northern Georgia District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, although the judge indicated he was “greatly troubled” that the university’s adjudication procedures were “very far from an ideal representation of due process.” In 2016 the Northern Georgia District Court denied the school’s motion to dismiss the student’s due process and Title IX claims."

9. "Without any hearing, Jeremiah Marshall was suspended on accusations of sexual assault. Nearly two months later a Panel conducted a hearing and ruled to expel Marshall from the university. Marshall filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of due process, free speech, and sex discrimination. The Southern Indiana District Court allowed Marshall’s Title IX claim to go forward."

10. "ohn Doe, accused of sexual misconduct, was found not responsible by the hearing board. The complainant appealed and the decision of the hearing board was set aside, resulting in a five and a half year suspension. The Western Virginia District Court ruled that the university “denied Doe a ‘meaningful hearing,'” thus violating his property interests."

 

[UMGriz75]

I am told that the "turning point" came during the recent BOR meeting in mid-November, 17-18. When challenged in executive session on his specific plans and goals for fixing "anything," he fumbled and hemmed and hawed. Quote: "He would not give a straight answer on anything and it became clear during the meeting that he was still not sure what the problems were, let alone what to do."

That explained the timing of the relatively harsh public criticism by BOR staff that appeared in news articles November 22.

 

[Grisly Fan]

It seriously can't have taken this long for the BOR to ask tough questions? Really? The governor needs to ask the BOR some tough questions...

 

[grizpack]

It seriously can't have taken this long for the BOR to ask tough questions? Really? The governor needs to ask the BOR some tough questions...

This... They didn't notice the problems, and failure to do much to correct them over the 3 prior years???

 

[UMGriz75]

It seriously can't have taken this long for the BOR to ask tough questions? Really? The governor needs to ask the BOR some tough questions...

It is perplexing because this has been foreseeable for quite some time. I've written about it here in what some would call excruciating detail because 1) it was obvious to experienced management people that Engstrom was not a "manager," and 2) once a downward spiral starts in any organization like this, business, academic or sports, they are hard to reverse and if attention is too long delayed, they can become a death spiral.

At this point, the accumulated loss in revenue due to student tuition losses is over $150 million. If someone had stepped up and said, in 2011, can the University of Montana (or any similar institution) suffer an accrued loss of $150 million over the next five years, the answer would have to be "not without a fundamental change in the kind of institution it is."

For instance, one of the changes -- one that becomes self-perpetuating -- are tuition waivers. UM and MSU used to be relatively similar in total waivers, in the ballpark of $12 million for each school. "After Royce," this began to change dramatically. UM, for the current fiscal year, is offering only $12.4 million in tuition waivers (a 14% cut from last year, and compared to $15 million for 2013).

MSU will be offering $24 million in tuition waivers this year. Whereas "tuition waivers" assisted roughly about 2,000 FTE students to attend each school "way back when," now its about 2,000 at UM and about 4,000 at MSU. MSU is simply buying a large part of its enrollment increases from UM.

The "waivers" aren't limited to their direct effect. As with recruiting athletes IN Montana, in-state tuition waivers are far more likely to have a "synergistic" effect of attracting peers and family members to the awarding school that similar out-of-state grants do not.

While representing a net cost superficially, neither Montana school has quantified the increase in enrollment numbers and revenue enhancement from that synergistic effect. We know its there, that it is likely positive, and that it has long term enrollment effects. Just that, nobody's tried to quantify it.

But Engstrom's strategy, like his cutting of the recruitment budget, reflects his "bizarre" approach to management: he cuts the things that then ensures the need for future cuts; the engine of the classic death spiral.

Now, this wasn't the part that the BOR figured out. That part was Engstrom's personal performance during the executive session. Despite the adverse publicity of the 6.3% UM enrollment decline announced in September, and the further (unannounced) decline in the final October report, Engstrom was simply unprepared to discuss the matter.

It appears that this was the first time the Regents really realized that past assurances (all too willingly accepted by a BOR that is not "sterling" in its own management expertise) that this was all temporary, that the "turn-around" was on its way, that Engstrom had hired this or hired that to manage recruitment, that each was a form of "buy-time" without actually ever analyzing specific problems or promoting specific solutions.

There is a moral to that story: organizational competence rarely follows demonstrated incompetence -- true in business, true in academics, true in sports. The story here was written three years ago. The BOR itself has exacerbated all of the problems, including creating many new ones that would not have occurred but for the delay, the passage of time, and the increasingly corrosive effect of accumulated cuts and ongoing "bad news."

 

[griz71]

It seriously can't have taken this long for the BOR to ask tough questions? Really? The governor needs to ask the BOR some tough questions...

It is perplexing because this has been foreseeable for quite some time. I've written about it here in what some would call excruciating detail because 1) it was obvious to experienced management people that Engstrom was not a "manager," and 2) once a downward spiral starts in any organization like this, business, academic or sports, they are hard to reverse and if attention is too long delayed, they can become a death spiral.

At this point, the accumulated loss in revenue due to student tuition losses is over $150 million. If someone had stepped up and said, in 2011, can the University of Montana (or any similar institution) suffer an accrued loss of $150 million over the next five years, the answer would have to be "not without a fundamental change in the kind of institution it is."

For instance, one of the changes -- one that becomes self-perpetuating -- are tuition waivers. UM and MSU used to be relatively similar in total waivers, in the ballpark of $12 million for each school. "After Royce," this began to change dramatically. UM, for the current fiscal year, is offering only $12.4 million in tuition waivers (a 14% cut from last year, and compared to $15 million for 2013).

MSU will be offering $24 million in tuition waivers this year. Whereas "tuition waivers" assisted roughly about 2,000 FTE students to attend each school "way back when," now its about 2,000 at UM and about 4,000 at MSU. MSU is simply buying a large part of its enrollment increases from UM.

The "waivers" aren't limited to their direct effect. As with recruiting athletes IN Montana, in-state tuition waivers are far more likely to have a "synergistic" effect of attracting peers and family members to the awarding school that similar out-of-state grants do not.

While representing a net cost superficially, neither Montana school has quantified the increase in enrollment numbers and revenue enhancement from that synergistic effect. We know its there, that it is likely positive, and that it has long term enrollment effects. Just that, nobody's tried to quantify it.

But Engstrom's strategy, like his cutting of the recruitment budget, reflects his "bizarre" approach to management: he cuts the things that then ensures the need for future cuts; the engine of the classic death spiral.

Now, this wasn't the part that the BOR figured out. That part was Engstrom's personal performance during the executive session. Despite the adverse publicity of the 6.3% UM enrollment decline announced in September, and the further (unannounced) decline in the final October report, Engstrom was simply unprepared to discuss the matter.

It appears that this was the first time the Regents really realized that past assurances (all too willingly accepted by a BOR that is not "sterling" in its own management expertise) that this was all temporary, that the "turn-around" was on its way, that Engstrom had hired this or hired that to manage recruitment, that each was a form of "buy-time" without actually ever analyzing specific problems or promoting specific solutions.

There is a moral to that story: organizational competence rarely follows demonstrated incompetence -- true in business, true in academics, true in sports. The story here was written three years ago. The BOR itself has exacerbated all of the problems, including creating many new ones that would not have occurred but for the delay, the passage of time, and the increasingly corrosive effect of accumulated cuts and ongoing "bad news."

POY/egriz Pulitzer for championship jargon.

 

[UMGriz75]

Royce Engstrom has had one heck of a year. In January, the board of regents gave the embattled University of Montana president a raise, even though plummeting enrollment forced him to enact layoffs throughout the school. In May, the Montana Associated Students named him 2016 Administrator of the Year, citing those very layoffs as the group commended him for "realigning the workforce so that the budget reflected the institution's current enrollment." Then, last week, the regents fired him.

He was not technically fired, of course. The head of the board of regents, Clayton Christian, announced only that Engstrom had decided to step down. The statement implied that the deposed president came around to Christian's point of view that he should not be president anymore.

"After careful discussion and consideration, University of Montana President Royce Engstrom and I have decided that he will step down as UM's president effective December 31," Christian wrote. "I asked President Engstrom to consider this transition at this time based on my belief that a change in leadership direction is the right step for UM going forward."

Engstrom has declined to speak to reporters ever since, presumably because he is busy getting his car washed before he goes to pick up his Administrator of the Year award from the frame shop. If we want to understand what happened, we can only peer at Christian's statement, the most interesting phrase of which might be "at this time."
...
It might also have something to do with his weak performance at November's board of regents meeting. Engstrom assured everyone that UM has a "laser-beam focus" on increasing enrollment, but the details did not live up to the precision of his metaphor. The overall impression was of a president who knew what he needed to do, but still wasn't sure how he planned to do it.

None of that matters now, because Engstrom is finished. He leaves UM with a straitened budget and the opportunity to hire its third president in seven years

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/change-of-course/Content?oid=3273958

 

[zengriz]

...call it the rolls royce recession...
...it was like the fairy tale "the king is naked"...
...everybody could see it but nobody stood up to the plate...

... :wtf: ...