Posted on Sun, Nov. 21, 2004 *

Floyd must resolve UMKC turmoil*

Martha Gilliland spoke prophetically when she warned of “communication chasms” while delivering her state of the university address at the start of this school year.

“What is said by one group is heard as something else by another,” the University of Missouri-Kansas City chancellor said. She called upon the staff and faculty to deal with the problem head-on.

This week they did, but not in the way Gilliland intended.

The resounding “no confidence” votes by tenured faculty members in four of UMKC's 11 schools are a clear signal that the long-standing tensions between the chancellor and her faculty are disrupting the campus.

University of Missouri system President Elson Floyd said he was “monitoring” the situation, but the time for that has passed.

Floyd needs to decide whether to defend Gilliland, tell her to change her leadership style or let her go.

Since her arrival in 2000, Gilliland has made progress in her efforts to make the university a more integral part of Kansas City. She has helped create more of a campuslike atmosphere.

But many professors were dismayed early in her tenure when they were pressured to attend “transformational” sessions directed by a California consultant. Some professors found them demeaning or just silly.

Gilliland's appropriate efforts to make UMKC fit in with the area's emerging life sciences initiative brought on the wrath of faculty in the School of Biological Sciences.

Professors in other schools, however, complained that Gilliland didn't seek their opinions early enough.

A faculty brittle with mistrust needed only a tap to fracture into open protest. Gilliland's administration provided far more than that with a paper recently circulated to professors. It lays out a preliminary plan for a major reorganization of the university's academic structure.

The proposal suggests that the schools of law, education, engineering and business be merged into a College of Professional Education. It also floats the idea that Arts and Sciences could be dismantled and parceled out to other schools.

The clumsy way the plan was introduced — professors found it in their e-mail boxes — raises questions about how in tune Gilliland is with the climate of her campus.

Faculty in the areas proposed for merger or dismantling were understandably distraught at the idea of tearing apart traditional academic relationships and worried about the effect the proposed changes might have on their careers.

Professors already suspicious about the administration's focus on life sciences saw the blueprint as a move to promote that area at the expense of others.

Gilliland should have foreseen those concerns.

The chancellor's energy and determination to enhance the status of UMKC are laudable. And it is true that college campuses are notoriously resistant to change. But the communication chasm at UMKC is real, and Gilliland's inability to work with her faculty has done much to create it.