Report
of the Ombudsman
A
Two-Year Report
by Anita A. Summers,
University Ombudsman
2001-2003
This
is a report on the
activities of the Office
of the Ombudsman for
the academic years
2001-2002 and 2002-2003.
The Office was staffed
part-time by me, as
University Ombudsman
during my two-year
appointment and by
Dr. Gulbun O'Connor,
the full-time Associate
Ombudsman. Dr. O'Connor
has served in this
capacity for almost
two decades and brings
essential continuity,
wide knowledge of the
functioning of the
University, and her
own deep insights to
the Office.
The
report divides into
three parts. First,
there are some general
comments on the objectives
and realities of the
operation of the Office
of the Ombudsman. Second,
data are provided on
characteristics of
the complaints coming
to the Office. Table
1 presents characteristics
of the subject matter
of the complaints. Table
2 presents characteristics
of the complainants.
And Table
3, new to these
reports, presents data
on the outcomes of
the efforts of the
Office and the time
spent on these efforts.
The
third section of the
report summarizes the
implications of the
data and provides some
observations on the
University from the
perspective of the
Office of the Ombudsman.
I.
Objectives and
Realities
The
activities of the Office
of the Ombudsman should
be put in its appropriate
perspective: (1) It
assists individuals
in finding resolutions
to problems that have
not been resolved through
normal channels. There
are many conflict resolution
mechanisms throughout
the University of Pennsylvania--but,
as in every large institution,
not all of them work
perfectly, and not
everyone knows about
them. (2) It hears
complaints in complete
confidentiality (unless
criminal acts are revealed),
and proceeds only with
the approval of the
complainant. (3) Frequently,
the Office recommends
changes in existing practices.
What
does the Office of
the Ombudsman not do?
(1) It does not take
on matters that are
already in legal proceedings.
(2) It is not an advocate
for any individual
or group, only seeking
a resolution acceptable
to both parties. (3)
It does not replace
existing grievance
mechanisms, but only
supplements them.
Penn
is a large university,
and it is inevitable
that conflicts that
appear to be unresolvable
arise. We, of course,
see many of these overheated
situations. It is our
job to lower the heat
by bringing our insights
to the problems so
that both parties move
to more temperate demands,
and, by using our access
to a wide number of
faculty and administrators,
help to bring resolution.
It has been a source
of real satisfaction
to me to see how the
overwhelming proportions
of complainants and
respondents, as they
talk through the issues
in a neutral environment,
and listen to experienced
perspectives, agree
to work out solutions
that are mutually acceptable.
We spend considerate
effort in suggesting
reasonable resolutions
and in negotiating
these in explicit detail.
With few exceptions,
respondents--supervisors,
faculty, deans, department
chairs--have been responsive
to our requests to
meet with us and review
alternative solutions.
However,
not all complaints
get resolved. Sometimes
one of the parties
is completely unyielding.
Sometimes one of the
parties has a mental
health problem, and
we do our best to be
sensitive to the implications
of the difficulty.
It is not our role,
of course, to diagnose--only
in very obvious situations
do we encourage the
use of the University's
mental health facilities.
II.
Characteristics
of the Complaints
What
is the subject matter
of the cases that present
to the Office of the
Ombudsman? As Table
1 clearly indicates,
the overwhelmingly
largest and constant
proportion of the cases
(around 42%) arise
from nonacademic job-related
issues--promotion,
salary, and micromanagement
by supervisors are
examples. About 15-20%
of the cases involve
academic issues, most
of which are procedural--graduate
students not receiving
the guidance they expect,
and untenured faculty
not receiving the mentoring
and "rules of the game" they
expect are examples.
The total number of
cases is fairly steady--varying
between 5% and 10%
from year to year.
Table
2 categorizes
the complainants.
About 60% arise
from employees.
In this last year,
faculty (A2s)
accounted for
almost 20% of
the complainants,
as they did in
2000-2001 (not
shown separately
in the table).
In other years,
the percentage
hovered around
10-12%. It is
not clear whether
or not this is
a random spike
or a trend, or
what underlies
the trend, if
it is one. But,
it might be a
heads-up to note
that a significantly
increasing number
of faculty complaints
come from those
holding associated
faculty titles--such
as adjunct, research,
and clinical.
Student
complaints constituted
around 32% of the total
for each of the academic
years since 1997-1998,
but dropped to 22%
this past year--and
dropped about 30% in
absolute numbers. But
one year does not a
trend make! It may
represent their increased
satisfaction or it
may be a random blip.
How
successful is the Office
of the Ombudsman in "lowering
the heat" on campus? Table
3 attempts to give
some relevant data
on the inputs (number
of hours we spend on
cases) and the outputs
(type of result) for
the last two academic
years. Most cases--the
approximately 80% of
the cases that are
inquiries handled by
phone and complaints
resolved through negotiation--are
resolved taking less
than 10 hours to bring
to closure. A handful
of additional cases
were resolved using
legal arrangements,
or are expected to
be resolved. Several
cases were unresolved
and negotiations continue.
Some have already taken
between 10 and 30 hours
and some more than
that! A number of cases
were unresolved, but
action is continuing
elsewhere in the University.
Finally, last year
the Office undertook
three investigations,
and this past year
two. We undertake these
at the request of an
administrator. They
are very time-consuming
activities, well over
30 hours each (one,
this past year took
over 60 hours). However,
they have the capacity
to make a poorly functioning
section of the University
work much more smoothly.
Each involves extensive
investigation and interviews,
and terminates in an
advisory report. As
with the individual
cases, we have been
appreciative of the
extraordinary degree
of cooperation and
appreciation of those
involved.
III.
Conclusions
The
data and my qualitative
observations suggest,
quite clearly, that
the overwhelming majority
of cases coming to
the Ombudsman's Office
get resolved. Neither
the complainant nor
the respondent may
be perfectly satisfied,
but, they can both
move on. The assurance
of confidentiality
and neutral evaluation
of both sides of an
issue appear to enable
a negotiated resolution.
These
negotiations reveal,
overall, a few persistent
trouble-making factors:
(1) When letters of
appointment are written
in ambiguous terms
(for example "in a
few years you are expected
to É"), there will
be conflict in many
cases, when the employer
thinks the employee
is not meeting the
expectation. We suggest
a careful review of
letters of appointment,
with a review of the
trade off between the
advantages of discretionary
vs. explicit language.
(2) The importance
of civil discourse
between supervisor
and employee should
be emphasized in the
appointments of every
person placed in a
supervisory position.
Many cases arise because
of harshness of manner,
rather than from substance.
(3) The expansion of
the mental health outreach
activities on campus
are to be applauded.
Increased efforts to
draw people into the
mental health help
facilities when needed
significantly reduces
campus conflict.
One
additional point involving
the operation of the
Office of the Ombudsman
may be worth noting.
The change of the University
Ombudsman every two
years insures a constant
input of various faculty
perspectives into the
mediating process.
However, the frequency
of the change is, in
my view, too great
for the faculty contributions
to have a lasting impact.
It
is my not-at-arms-length
conclusion from
my two years as
Ombudsman that
the Office serves
a unique and very
constructive service
to the University
community.