Letters to Reporter 'wide of the mark,' president says

To the Editor:

This is prompted by two letters in the Reporter's "Mailbox," 18 March 1999. Both letters addressed UB's responses to the SUNY mission review process; one from Professor Samuel D. Schack, Department of Mathematics; the other from Professor John C. G. Boot, chair, Department of Management Science and Systems.

In my view, both letters are wide of the mark on many issues, but they serve the useful purpose of calling attention to the fact that we are engaged in the mission review dialogue. Much good will be served by the UB community engagement in that dialogue, now and over the next several weeks/months.

Thanks to the miracles of modern information technology, that engagement can be commenced by any interested party going to http://wings.buffalo.edu/provost, where the several documents submitted to system office are available for all to see, and for all to comment upon. Earlier iterations of most of these documents have been on the Web commencing in mid-February; and the most recent item, "Mission Review" and "Response," was first posted on the Web site on March 17 and the current version went out March 25. Hard copies of all of this, and some earlier drafts, were provided to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee commencing in mid-February. The Faculty Senate Academic Planning Committee has received all of these documents, and some earlier versions going back to December 1998. In addition, the deans have been engaged in the process since its inception in fall 1998, and they have received copies of all iterations since December 1998.

Our approach to the mission review process is unique to this campus, I think, and follows from our determination to integrate our campus academic planning with the system office process. In my view, all the documents now on the Web are responsive to the 37 (not 39) questions posed by system office in their solicitation to the 29 state campuses. In my view, this was a good choice on our part. While it may provide system office with more than they had anticipated, it also provides them and us with a much more comprehensive review of UB's plans and aspirations, and will engage them more directly in our planning efforts. We all should welcome the opportunity to work with our system colleagues on mission and plans for UB.

Since the mission review is an iterative process, as is our ongoing academic planning process, all members of the community have an opportunity to participate since all of this is now available on the Web, to all who wish to participate. So join us in the process.

In the meantime, we expect that the Faculty Senate Academic Planning Committee will take the lead role for the senate in responding to Provost Triggle's contextual overview of our current situation and his observations about directions we need to take in order to meet the many challenges facing us. I join in his views and in the wise and perceptive observations and planning principles and parameters laid out by Provost Headrick in his 1997 planning report. All three of us look forward to hearing from all who will engage in the process, and participate in the dialogue.

Concern for issues of process is always appropriate, but by so doing we must not provide yet another victory of process over progress. Concern for process and nothing more abdicates the more important work of shaping future outcomes; process is important, but it should not be our most important product.