11-3-09: Stanford: Editorial: Funding prioritization needs greater transparency

Last week, the Stanford Historical Society hosted an event called “What Does the Board of Trustees Actually Do?” An interesting presentation, led by current Board Chair Leslie Hume and former Chair Burt McMurty, provided insight into the collection of 35 individuals who govern Stanford University. A great love and desire to serve Stanford was said to be the only criteria for a potential trustee appointee. Well, the fact is that many students also feel deeply passionate about our campus, and the Editorial Board believes greater transparency regarding trustee and administrative work would give the student body necessary insight into how the University prioritizes funding.

The Editorial Board understands that preserving Stanford and advancing its overall excellence is the over-arching aim of administrators and trustees alike. Each October, President Hennessey reports to the board regarding the past year and plans for the current academic year. Every five years, the chair of the board and other selected faculty and staff partake in a 360-degree internal review of the University. However, little is done to build open broad lines of communication for students, outside of nominations commission appointments and ASSU positions.

Lost within the discussion of the reporting mechanisms is not only the inability of students to play any role in the agenda-setting process, but also the lack of a shared understanding regarding the metrics employed to assess progress and success. More transparency with regard to the management of University resources would allow students to become better stewards of the University’s best interests, principally regarding how to best serve students.

Though nearly all students understand our endowment is down almost 30 percent, fewer realize our annual endowment payment–which is decided every February by the trustees–is less than 10 percent of our operating budget. While feeling the pinch of the endowment stems inevitably from troubled economic times, little of the financial prioritization of available funds is made open to the student body. More specific information regarding the metrics and finances of the Vice Provost of Student Affairs, the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education and the newer office of the Vice Provost of Graduate Education would do much to inform the broader Stanford community about how the University is prioritizing programs and issues most relevant to students.

The ASSU is providing a great service to the student body through its series of town hall events. The latest allowed University employees from Residential and Dining Enterprises to share their strategies and successes with the greater student body. Late Nite dining and a multitude of sustainability initiatives are examples of the many resources we enjoy that sprang from student input. A more relevant town hall, led by Provost Etchemendy, was also highly informative, but held in the middle of summer. And while the town hall structure has been helpful, in the long run it really does little to open broader lines of communication outside of University committee and ASSU positions. These events are unable to touch the increasingly pertinent issue of administrative accountability.

Though many complicated and interrelated factors must be considered in budgeting at the University level, the Editorial Board feels that at the end of the day, relying solely on information weaned from headlines limits students’ ability to provide beneficial insight into the validity of administrative prioritization.

Stanford is often characterized as a highly decentralized institution. In many ways, the autonomy granted to academic and administrative departments allows for more specialized and economical scholarship and service. However, greater transparency is still needed with regard to how the University and its trustees prioritize finances.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1035287