Loading
Print This Issue
Subscribe:
E-Almanac

The Ombudman's Office at 40

PDF
October 25, 2011, Volume 58, No. 09

Academic Years 2009-2011

Joan Goodman, University Ombudsman, 2009-2011

A Backward Glance

In August of 1970, following student demonstrations and general unrest, the University of Pennsylvania Task Force on University Governance recommended the establishment of an Ombudsman’s office “to receive requests for information or complaints from any member of the University community.” The success of any institution, it continued, “rests in large measure on the degree to which it is responsive to the needs of its constituencies.” The  Ombudsman “would have no powers of decision but would be empowered to investigate general problems or specific complaints upon his own motion as well as upon complaint.” And so, in 1971, President Martin Meyerson appointed Professor Joel Conarroe as the first Ombudsman. I quote extensively from Conarroe’s elaboration of the office (Almanac September 14, 1971) as the vision has remained constant for 40 years.

The Ombudsman’s job is to be an accessible, objective, and responsive auditor….Receiving and examining complaints from members of the university community—students, staff, administrators, faculty—the Ombudsman attempts to secure, where called for, either a satisfactory explanation or expeditious and impartial redress. These grievances may concern either individual problems or matters affecting broad sectors of the campus....Moreover, the Ombudsman recommends to the appropriate administrator(s) steps that will prevent a recurrence. [In pursuing an investigation] the grievant is asked to explain what he wants the Ombudsman to do, and is told what he can reasonably expect to have done. The Ombudsman never uses the name of the grievant during the investigation unless he has permission, nor is any action initiated on the individual’s behalf without consulting with him. Our office will have access to any university records pertinent to the case. Our own records, however, are privileged.

The office continues to welcome the full gamut of University constituents and has remained steadfast to the core practices articulated 40 years ago. A handful of visitors come with concerns about programs, policies, the misconduct of others in the Penn community, or the well-being of the University: A professor is worried about the fate of her school though she has retired. A graduate student has doubts regarding the safety of a laboratory. An undergraduate questions her ethical obligation under the honor code to report misconduct. Mostly, however, we are in the personal-help business. Individuals arrive to discuss their particular Penn-related problems. In part this is because there are now in place other procedures to address some of the systemic problems confronted by early Ombudsmen. For example, it is no longer true, as Ombudsman James Freedman found (Almanac September 9, 1975), that over 25% of the complaints come from students objecting to academic matters, “particularly grades and examinations,” and Jacob Abel reiterated (Almanac January 23, 1979), “disputes over grades were the most frequent source of complaint.” Schools have established grade appeal processes, as is appropriate given the nearly absolute grading discretion of instructors. Nor is it true, as noted by Ombudsman Freedman, that schools lack governing norms to resolve issues of academic integrity. Here, too, procedures have been formalized by the schools, often in collaboration with the Student Conduct Office.

The focus of the office is helping aggrieved visitors share their concerns, review options, and plan potential responses. While we give full attention to the indignation, outrage, and recriminations that prompt the complaint, our effort generally is to frame the problem in a broader context, walk with the individual toward more dispassionate and constructive thinking and, to the extent possible, jointly resolve or at least mitigate the situation going forward. And where no outward change can occur, it is as true today, as it was when James Freedman wrote (Almanac May 11, 1976): The “provision of individualized attention and the offering of sympathetic support make all the difference.”

Currently

As noted on the web site, www.upenn.edu/ombudsman/ inaugurated last year (with the able assistance of GSE doctoral student Mary Conger):

The Ombudsman’s office welcomes any member of the Penn community who is experiencing difficulty, conflict, or confusion in his or her work, studies, or life at the University more broadly. We offer an accessible and safe place to resolve differences, explore matters of concern, get information, improve communication, or generate and evaluate options. Our mission is to ameliorate those conditions that may impede community members finding satisfaction with their lives at Penn. Our door is open to students, staff, employees and faculty. We encourage people to contact us at the earliest stages of a problem so that we can assist before it escalates.

We are a small office with a large mandate. Because the Ombudsman is appointed part-time for two years, the bulk of the work is executed by the full-time Associate Ombudsman. I served with two extraordinarily able Associates, Michele Goldfarb and Gulbun O’Connor (who, retired after more than 20 years of service, returned for the 2010-2011 academic year). Each was as skilled as she was dedicated. From years of experience in the art of problem resolution, they artfully guided the range of individuals who came our way. Each was also a powerful advocate in instances where clear improprieties had occurred and a wise counselor when visitors needed to envision a world and life beyond their current all-consuming complaint. Confidentiality requirements amplify the intrinsic solitariness of the Associate Ombudsman’s job and prevent much collegiality. Their motivation, therefore, arises not from the recognition of, or association with, others, but exclusively from personal commitment to the work and to the well-being of the University community.

The office works. In the past two years we had 399 visitors. Of these, 44% were categorized as employees, 30% as students, 20% as faculty, and the remaining 6% as other. (Please see the accompanying table for details.)

What is bothering those who come to us? I have been struck by two abiding themes in the complaints we hear: harshness of treatment and fear of retaliation. While recognizing that we see a tiny fraction of a largely contented, appreciative, and loyal Penn community, it is worth noting that grievances are often less provoked by what is done than how it is done. Loss of a position, income sacrifices, negative personnel reviews may sting, but the greater wound is often the accompanying sense of unworthiness when news is poorly delivered. There are instances in which employees are dismissed without prior warning or discussion; when a denial of reappointment or severance notice comes late in the day communicated abruptly and impersonally. Bureaucratic and legal University requirements surrounding personnel matters, that sometimes dictate uniform procedures and minimal disclosure, may exacerbate what is perceived by the grievant as an arms-distant, frigid, uncaring process. The recipients, who sometimes have served in a department for 20 years, occasionally more, are left feeling, variously, confused, dispensable, worthless, furious, anguished, and/or stripped of dignity. Students, though rarely expelled, also complain about discourteous impersonal treatment, about those in authority taking arbitrary actions without consideration of their interests. Whether in any particular case the reported perception of unnecessary harshness is warranted by the facts, we cannot always be sure. But we have no doubt that the perception itself exists and is widespread. We believe it is the burden of those in authority to do what they reasonably can to minimize it by telling bad news sensitively. Sensitive means adequate advanced preparations for exit interviews and sympathetic explanations offered with as much candor as circumstances permit.

 Despite the University’s admirable policy prohibiting retaliation, this fear remains a major concern of our grievants (and is even stronger, we understand, among those who want, but are afraid, to talk with us). Employees are reluctant to disclose problems to their superiors, staff members sign evaluations without comment even when they think a report is egregiously erroneous, junior faculty do not speak in meetings lest their opinions are used against them, employed students will not talk with their superiors when asked to perform tasks they believe inappropriate. The silence, and in some instances outright lying, that results from anticipated retaliation stifles communication and inhibits problem resolution. Repeatedly we suggest to a complainant that he or she talk directly to the individual perceived as the source of the problem; repeatedly we are told this is impossible—the cost is too great. In such an atmosphere it is obviously impossible to increase mutual understanding and trust, not to mention encourage the free exchange of ideas. It is of note that Ombudsman John Keene raised the same concern in his 2007-2008 report (Almanac April 7, 2009).

Going Forward

Forty years ago few universities had an Ombudsman Office; we can take pride in being among the first. But this has changed. Along with the growth of the ombudsman movement in universities, corporations, and government the field has been increasingly professionalized. Today an International Ombudsman Association (IOA) holds conferences, publishes a journal, trains novices, offers certification, and specifies principles of practice. Its explicit normative standards are broadly accepted among the Ivies and other institutions. Because in some instances our practice is not in compliance with IOA standards, we are ineligible for full membership.  While there is no one-size-fits-all exemplary model, it is nonetheless my strong recommendation that Penn conduct a review of our Office in light of these standards.

There are questions of structure, policies, and procedures that, after 40 years, need to be re-examined and clarified. Many of these have been addressed by the IOA whose benchmarks we can accept, partially accept, or reject.

Examples of matters to be addressed include:

•   What is the relationship of our Office to other parts of the University administration?

•   What reporting obligations does the Office have and to whom?

•   What access should the Office have to documents held by the administration?

•   What should be the limitations on confidentiality (see the web site www.upenn.edu/ombudsman/for existing restrictions)? 

•   What should be the process of selecting the Ombudsman and Associate Ombudsman?

•   Should the term of office exceed the current two- (sometimes three-) year limit given the complexity of the University and the large number of people with whom members of the Office interact? Ombudsman Anita Summers suggested a term extension in her 2003 report on the Office (Almanac September 30, 2003).

•   What should be the policies on record-keeping and follow-up?

Clarifying our own practices against both the settled and evolving practices of the profession will assure transparency of procedures, long-term stability, and a continuing momentum for the next 40 years

Two Years of Experience in the Ombudsman’s Office
2009-2011

Academic Year

2009-2010

2010-2011

Total Cases

195

204

Categorized by Issues Raised

 

 

Academic

5

21

Academic Integrity

2

5

Academic/Procedural

31

25

Job Related

91

85

Job/Promotion/Compensation

8

9

Job/Benefits

4

5

Job/Procedural

18

9

Procedural

23

19

Misc./Personal

12

26

Student Financial Services

1

0

Categorized by Status of Complainant

 

 

Employees

83

74

Monthly Paid

50

61

Weekly Paid

29

10

Part-Time

4

3

 

 

 

Faculty

39

34

Dental Medicine

6

7

SP2

0

2

Medicine

12

10

Nursing

0

2

Veterinary Medicine

9

5

Arts & Sciences

10

5

Graduate School of Education

0

1

School of Design

0

2

Wharton

2

0

 

 

 

Part-Time Faculty

15

6

 

 

 

Post-Doctorates

3

3

 

 

 

Resident

1

0

 

 

 

Others (alumni, parents, former employees)

5

16

 

 

 

Students

49

71

Undergraduate

20

34

Arts & Sciences

8

17

Wharton

3

2

Nursing

1

3

Wharton/Engineering & Applied Science

1

0

Liberal & Professional Studies

7

7

Engineering & Applied Science

0

5

 

 

 

Graduate

29

37

Engineering & Applied Science

3

7

Nursing

4

6

School of Design

3

2

Arts & Sciences

7

12

Dental Medicine

2

0

Dental Post-Graduate

1

0

Fels

0

1

Graduate School of Education

0

1

Medicine

1

1

Medicine/PhD

0

1

Biomedical

2

1

Wharton PhD

0

1

Wharton MBA

3

2

Wharton/Engineering & Applied Science

0

1

SP2

1

1

Veterinary Medicine

2

0

 

Almanac - October 25, 2011, Volume 58, No. 09