The University of Arizona

Report of the Ombuds2000 Task Force

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE
PRESIDENT'S CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROCESS
FINDINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS

I. STRUCTURE II. POLICY & PRACTICE III. MARKETING IV. NEXT STEPS

SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
INVENTORY OF DISTRIBUTED MATERIALS
LIST OF APPENDICES

OMBUDSPERSON TASK FORCE REPORT JULY 2000

Submitted to President Likins by Task Force Members:

  • Jennifer Aviles
  • Sarah Becker
  • Julie Burkhart
  • David Butler
  • Roger Caldwell
  • Claudia D'Albini
  • Jim Drnek
  • J. D. Garcia
  • Jerry Hogle
  • Willie Jordan-Curtis
  • Derick Kurdy
  • Barbara Lancaster
  • Connie Lang
  • Cathy Nicholson
  • Janie L. Nunez
  • Lisa Reams (Our Town Family Center)
  • Patti Ota
  • John Schwarz
  • Fran Sherlock
  • Ted Tong (Chair)
  • Sue Theiss (Chair)
  • Susan Wilson-Sanders
  • Lynne Wood

PRESIDENT'S CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE

A dispute systems review design of the existing Ombuds Committee will help establish a more fully integrated system able to respond to an entire range of conflicts in the most effective, satisfying and least costly manner. A well-designed program will channel people toward interest-based approaches first. I would like to expand the efforts of the Ombudsperson Committee and further encourage the campus community to make 2000 our "year of conflict transformation." Please consider the goals, activities and desired outcomes of the existing Ombudsperson Committee as well as new goals, activities and desired outcomes, and what steps the University should take to accomplish these desired outcomes. "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." M. Proust @ 1900, Paris, France.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Task Force believes all members of the campus community must exercise more responsive actions and cooperative roles to ensure successful resolution of disputes and conflicts that arise from interactions and engagements in classrooms, offices, laboratories, residencies and elsewhere on campus. There is at present a considerable lack of campus awareness and understanding of the scope and range of problem-solving services offered by the Ombudsperson Committee. Administrative indifference and apprehension for retaliation often shadow the campus climate for problem resolution. The absence of incentives and accountability to address complaints and grievances often encourages actions that are adversarial, contentious and formal. The Task Force finds that this institution must invest the commitment of leadership and resources to enable changes in the means by which disputes and conflicts can be appropriately addressed and justly resolved to take place. The Task Force strongly recommends a funded core support structure including an office, staffing, and facility specifically designated for cooperative problem resolution on campus. The level of service provided must be skilled, creditable, consistent, accessible, responsive, "safe" and confidential, and available to all members of the campus community. Training for dispute prevention, constructive conflict resolution and developing mediation skills would be an important educational activity of this service. Marketing efforts to inform the campus community of the presence of a problem resolution service are needed and should be supported. Absence of commitment of institutional leadership and failure to impose accountability for conflict resolution from administrators campus community wide will undermine any effort to create a "model" cooperative problem resolution service tailored to effectively meet the range of needs that are here on this campus. The Task Force concludes this Report to President Likins with specific strategies and its recommendations for achieving the outcomes and objectives that would successfully fulfill the aspiration of making the Year 2000, the University's "year of conflict transformation."

PROCESS

The Ombudsperson Task Force (OTF) met six times. Meetings included:

  • Understanding the scope and structure of the current program, its history, and review of related resource documents.
  • Identifying strengths, weaknesses, and organizational issues of current program and related opportunities.
  • Reviewing peer institutions and other innovative models.
  • Reporting and consideration of common issues shared with ASU, NAU, Arizona community colleges, and the Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens' Aide.
  • Identifying interdependent conflict resolution resources on campus.
  • Collecting a list of major "stumbling blocks" via e-mail and identified three major areas of concern - Policy and Practice, Structure, and Marketing.
  • Identifying specific issues related to faculty - a survey was sent to two faculty listservs to assess what resources they access, if any, for conflict resolution services.
  • Encouraging open discussion and sharing of ideas.

While agendas were set for each meeting, the chairs chose to let the discussion and pace of the meetings be primarily set by the participants to encourage open discussion and sharing of ideas.

FINDINGS

Several recurrent themes for improving and expanding the Ombudsperson program arose through our discussions, surveys, and review of resource materials:

  1. The majority of the university community is not aware of the services offered by the Ombudsperson Committee, or does not understand the scope of services offered.
  2. There is a lack of understanding of many of the avenues for conflict resolution services at the University, and how they do or do not interact with the Ombudsperson program.
  3. There is a perceived climate of retaliation throughout levels of management by employees voicing their concerns and trying to address problems.
  4. There is a perceived lack of accountability and attendance to conflict and human issues by many senior administrators.
  5. There has been a culture developed over the years, especially for faculty, that if one wants to address problems one needs to take a formal course of action through department or college committees, university administrators, or attorneys.
  6. There is currently a .5 FTE Ombudsperson for Campus Life that reports to the Vice President for Campus Life. In addition, in the spring of 2000, the President took steps necessary to create a 1.0 FTE Program Coordinator position in an effort to expand and improve the efforts of the Ombudsperson Committee. That position reports to the President through the Senior Associate to the President.
  7. The current committee structure lacks funded core support needed for marketing, education, and it lacks core staff to provide credible, consistent, and quickly accessible and responsive service.
  8. A benefit of the current structure is the diversity of its members and broad network of conciliators and resources.
  9. Additional members of the university community would use early dispute resolution services if they knew how to access the appropriate services, believed it safe to access these services, and believed support for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) existed from the President and senior administrators.
  10. There are a variety of needs for conflict resolution services - some which involve complete neutrality, some education for prevention, some require involvement from a conciliator, some need advocacy to change a policy or procedure, and some require a grievance process. The Ombudsperson Committee alone cannot attend to all these needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. STRUCTURE

To be effective in making the year 2000 a period of conflict transformation, a structure is needed that provides the following:

  1. A variety of conflict resolution options to meet a variety of needs.
  2. Works cooperatively and proactively with other interdependent units and processes.
  3. Has a funded core which is accountable for providing a high level of service, is readily accessible, directs inquiries appropriately, and participates in marketing and education necessary to make the university community aware of its scope and availability.
  4. Is fully supported and utilized by the President and senior administrators.
  5. Is a safe place for employees and students to take their concerns.

It is clear that the current Ombudsperson program is limited by its volunteer structure. Without core [staff] support, the program will be unable to reach additional members of the university community, and will be unable to provide a level of service that can lead to a cultural change regarding conflict transformation envisioned by the President. "If we don't change the direction we are going, we are likely to end up where we are heading" . . . Chinese saying. Suggestions for Structure

We recommend a more detailed review of Cooperative Problem Resolution (CPR) and Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Services at other institutions to address the need for an expanded structure. A University of Arizona CPR/ADR Program could include:

  1. An Ombuds Office composed of the current Program Coordinator, a .5 FTE Ombudsperson for Campus Life, and/or part-time appointed Ombudsperson designated to handle cases and accommodate specific needs (i.e., AHSC relations, designated "faculty" issues) experienced in Ombudsing, with specific job description(s) to be determined.
  2. A Mediation Center (community trainers and facilitators, certified mediators available from Ombuds, Human Resources, and other areas of campus could be drawn upon for their mediation expertise, training, and establishing a peer mediation program).
  3. A stand-alone facility that employees can feel safe and comfortable going to. Many staffed Ombuds programs throughout the nation designated office space that provides neutrality from other offices at the university. We recommend that administration begin looking for space similar to the UA Life & Work Connections house, which is centrally located for Main Campus and AHSC employees, encourages employees to visit, and promotes a feeling of confidentiality.
  4. Affiliations with, for example, Employee Wellness, Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, Human Resources, UA Facilitators, and other units which provide some form of conflict resolution, or have some investment in related processes.

In addition, it is important to demonstrate commitment and support for this program at the highest level. The Ombuds Program would like the opportunity to address the reporting structure with the President. It is imperative that the program be perceived as neutral, safe, and supported by the President's Office. The appropriate reporting structure will enhance the credibility of the program.

The benefits of a CPR/ADR structure include:

  1. Ongoing and strengthened relations through a CPR/ADR structure will enhance shared training opportunities and cost-effectiveness, provide peer feedback on resolution skills and standards of service, increase networking and resource information, and ultimately benefit those served.
  2. Improved visibility to greater numbers of the campus community.
  3. Improved credibility (ongoing training and increased accountability to provide high quality service from core staff).
  4. Improved response time and appropriate routing of cases (intake person/office).
  5. Provision of preventive education and peer mediation programs.
  6. The elimination of conflict-of-interest situations.
  7. A cultural change, where students and employees believe they have a place to address their concerns in a non-adversarial manner and without fear of repercussions.
  8. The investment of funds in an ombuds program so as to improve relations, to prevent litigation or time consuming grievances, to avoid the costs associated with employee turnover, and to work towards the elimination of ineffective relations.

II. POLICY & PRACTICE

Key issues must be addressed for any conflict resolution program to be effective because:

  1. There is a strong belief that some policies and decision-makers undermine the effectiveness of the Ombudsperson and other programs by not appropriately attending to issues of conflict.
  2. There have been acts of retaliation towards employees, faculty members and students who bring their issues to a third party for assistance.
  3. There have been instances when an employee is appropriately routed to a supervisor, administrator, or committee to use a process that should help them, only to find retribution or inadequate attention to their case.
  4. There appears to be a lack of accountability for managers and administrators who deal ineffectively or inappropriately with personnel issues.

The task force's perception of this is supported by some of the responses in our limited survey to the faculty, case reports, and reports from peer institutions with the same problem. Documentation supporting these perceptions is available to the President upon request through the Human Resources Office and the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office. Ombuds case reports made available to the President support this, as well.

Lack of adequate support and accountability by senior administrators will undermine any efforts made to provide conflict resolution services to the university community. Dr. Michael Dues, a professor in the Communication Department and expert on conflict management, states, "An organizational climate that is counterproductive to constructive conflict resolution tends to minimize or completely negate any influence of conflict management training."

"We must be the change we wish to see". . . Ghandi

Suggestions for Policy and Practice

  1. The university community must be informed by the President very soon of his expectations regarding use of available ADR services.
  2. There must be a commitment by managers and administrators to effectively address conflicts and related personnel and organizational issues, with the understanding that they are responsible for taking appropriate action.
  3. The Ombudsperson program should provide, in concert with other units, education to senior administrators and managers regarding basic assessment skills, and available services and programs for assistance.
  4. Managers and supervisors should beacknowledged and rewarded for effective resolution practices.
  5. Managers and supervisors should be held accountable for poor problem resolution practices.

III. MARKETING

With limited funds and personnel time, the Ombudsperson program has been unable to provide the level of marketing needed to reach and inform many of those who could benefit from its ADR services. Posters, website connections, directory listings, and general presentations upon request have been helpful for those looking for Ombuds services; however, there are many people and units on campus who don't know enough about the program or its existence to even initiate contact. While the task force proposes further review of an appropriate and effective marketing plan, several good suggestions have already been offered.

Suggestions for Marketing

  1. Produce a list/brochure/website of all units which provide ADR services and related units. Include a brief description of each, and outline where services overlap and/or work in concert with each other.
  2. Increase the number of presentations to the university community, specifically targeting management first, and provide more interactive activities.
  3. Include creative stuffers in paycheck envelopes to provide quick information about the Ombudsperson program - perhaps on something useable like a bookmark, business card, or rolodex card.
  4. Produce a 10 minute educational video similar to the one developed by American Express with different versions of scenarios to address specific audiences.
  5. Coordinate an annual resource fair to include Ombuds, Campus Life, UA Facilitators, plus any interested affiliates to share information regarding our services in person with the community, and
  6. Provide ongoing ombudsperson advertising on the first page of the UA website.

IV. NEXT STEPS

As a follow-up to these OTF findings, we recommend:

Short Term Recommendations (July - July 2001)
  1. A written communication from President Likins to the UA community to inform employees and students of his expectations regarding a cultural change towards conflict resolution practices;
  2. The Program Coordinator should use the Findings of this Task Force to continue to improve the processes established for the Ombudsperson Committee;
  3. Funding should be provided by the central administration in order to improve present marketing and training. This includes funds to replace what was borrowed from the current Ombuds budget for Task Force meeting expenses April - June 2000 (approximately $400.00);
  4. A more in-depth survey of the unique needs of the UA's conflict climate to assure we design a program to effectively address those needs;
  5. A further review of academic CPR/ADR programs, which we could model our program after;
  6. A detailed proposal provided by the Ombuds Task Force for an enhanced structure, appropriate funding plan, and marketing strategy;
  7. A commitment from UA central administration to provide funds for a Task Force to complete E. through F. Expenses related to a thorough review of other model Ombuds programs could include travel, meeting supplies, and expenses related to visitors/consultants, and funds to pay a Task Force member for project specific time to accomplish E. through F. (i.e. detailed research and writing proposal

Long-Term Recommendations (begin July 2001, and continue, if funding available)

University Actions:

  1. If it is determined there is a need for the establishment of a CPR/ADR office:
  2. Identify appropriate space and staffing requirements;
  3. Recruit any additional core staff for Ombuds program as appropriate and provide enhanced training;
  4. Begin major marketing campaign to promote new CPR/ADR office and enhanced Ombuds program;
  5. Establish UA certification criteria for Ombuds, mediators, and other conciliation roles, and provide ongoing, coordinated training for all;

The Ombuds/CPR/ADR Office will:

  1. Apply for future funding through grants, permanent funding through the Arizona Board of Regents, and foundations;
  2. Provide ongoing education to the university community to improve conflict resolution practices and reduce costly grievance processes; and
  3. Take a more active role in reviewing pattern problems which result from ineffective policies and advocate for system changes.

CONCLUSION

We are pleased to have participated on the Ombudsperson Task Force. We believe that this program, in concert with other programs currently offering forms of conflict resolution, can be expanded to accommodate many of the needs of our university community. We hope the administration will support an enhanced structure as outlined above, to ultimately create a shift in climate which values conflict as an opportunity to improve relationships rather than allows conflict to be avoided, attended to ineffectively, or mis-used through retaliation. The human cost to the latter is obvious. While difficult to measure, the financial cost is tremendous as well. The task force recommends proceeding with the "Next Steps" as outlined above, following your concurrence, so that we can begin our part in making this a period of Conflict Transformation.

Appendix A: Minutes of meetings: 4/5, 4/10, 5/3, 5/8, 5/24, 6/21

Appendix B: Grid identifying key obstacles to address

Appendix C: Chart of peer Ombuds program models

Appendix D: Summary of responses to faculty survey

Appendix E: American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section of Dispute Resolution Report to the House of Delegates supporting the greater use of "ombudsmen" and endorsing proposed Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices dated July 2000; and University and College Ombuds Association Provisional Standards of Practice

Appendix F: Key reference articles

Ombuds2000 Task Force Inventory of Distributions and Considerations (in order of presentation to the Task Force)

Article from the October 1996 Dispute Resolution Journal, The Role of the Ombudsman in Higher Education, by Larry Mankin, ASU Ombuds Chair

Article by President Peter Likins for the April 2000 UA Life & Work Connections Newsletter titled, What's an Ombudsperson?

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee Annual Report 1998-99

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee Guidelines, adopted by the President's Cabinet, April 1994, and revised July, 1998

Excerpts from The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Manual, including:

a. Welcome to the Ombuds Committee

b. Words of Wisdom for Ombuds by Ombuds

c. ABC Crisis Intervention Model

d. The University and College Ombuds Association Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics

Articles by Bill Warters, Ph.D. of Wayne State University: Making the Case for Campus Mediation, Feb./March 1995

Some Important Functions Provided by a Campus Mediation Service

Brochures from campus ombuds programs and conflict resolution services from other universities

Excerpts from Mediation in the Campus Community, Designing and Managing Effective Programs, William Warters, 2000, including:

a. Campus Ombudspersons

b. First Steps in Building a Program

Article by Tom Sebok, Ombuds and Director of the Ombuds Office, University of Colorado at Boulder, Expanding Ombuds Services to Assist in Resolving Faculty Disputes, The Journal, 1998

Article by Leonard J. Marcus, director, and Barry C. Dorn, associate director, of the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at the Harvard School of Public Health, Mediation Before Malpractice Suits?, Newsweek, March 2000

Article by Herbert L. Costner, Ombudsman, University of Washington, 1959-1996, Can We Talk? Conciliating Faculty Complaints by Discussion and Negotiation, The Journal, 1999

Ombuds2000 Task Force Chart of Identified Stumbling Blocks and Rankings

Chart of Conflict Resolution Services at Pac 10 and Peer Institutions

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee - Summary of Present Marketing

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee - Statement on Case Reports and Report Form

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee - Frequently Asked Questions

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee - Directory Listing of Committee Members

The University of Arizona Ombudsperson Committee - Brochure

University of Virginia Annual Report of The University Ombudsman, 1998-1999

American Express Corporation's video titled, "Office of the Ombudsman - Conversations"

Ombuds2000 Task Force Summary of Faculty Survey Results

Presentations by University of Arizona programs, groups and departments, including:

  • Appointed Personnel
  • ASUA Legal Services
  • Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
  • Committee on Conciliation
  • Disability Resource Center
  • Employee Relations - Main Campus and AHSC
  • Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
  • UA Facilitators
  • Faculty Chair
  • Freshman Center and The Learning Center
  • UA Life & Work Connections
  • OASIS Center for Sexual Assault & Relationship Violence
  • Ombudsperson Committee
  • OUR Family (in partnership with the University of Arizona community)
  • Staff Advisory Council

The American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, Section of Dispute Resolution, Recommendation and accompanying Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices, for consideration by the ABA House of Delegates, July 2000

University and College Ombuds Association new Provisional Standards of Practice, July 2000

The University of Arizona Ombuds Committee Budget 1999-2000