The Collegian: 4
Commentary
September 27, 2021
New budget cuts revealed at faculty meeting
Although TU has faced budget cuts in the past, a new wave of reductions leaves faculty and students strangely hopeful. Adam Walsh Commentary Editor On Friday, Sept. 24, a College of Arts and Sciences faculty meeting took place under the direction of the new-ish dean, Karen Petersen. Of course, the second this meeting was planned, the rumor mill guaranteed there would be unexpected viewers, including a representative of The Collegian. The contents of that meeting split into two sections. Part one focused on a series of slides
the faculty. For instance, each department is supposed to have their own processes to decide on a new chairperson, as well as the power that chair holds in the department and their term limit. However, questions from the faculty illustrate the belief that portions of those responsibilities for setting rules and guidelines seemingly lied with administration. The terminology used drew forth images of protective items like guide rails and warning signs, and this discussion shifted to student retention. With a helpful chart, Petersen explained that student retention across the university remains in the 88 to 94 percent range, but she did indicate that the algorithms and processes used to calibrate and quantify these results were less than stellar and will require future tweaking. This seems to be the overarching theme of the new administration’s perspective on TU’s overall situation; the vast majority of issues are rooted in simple errors in the basic construction of the university that led to the possibility of exploitation, both incidental and intentional. With student retention came the question of what the university was currently doing to help students that were struggling financially. It’s no secret that the primary way to receive aid, both need- and merit-based, from the university itself is through meritbased scholarship determined by the applicant’s ACT score, a system which is always
claiming how the president’s schedule was made open to the public and how she would be happy to see anyone walking through her door to engage with her on pressing topics. She stated directly “I will not lie to you” and made clear her desire to reduce the amount of conspiratorial rumor mongering through
“[Dean Petersen] stated directly ‘I will not lie to you’ and made clear her desire to reduce the amount of conspiratorial rumor.”
up for debate. Primarily relying on these scores, rather than financial need, to award scholarships has created an environment where students from lower income households suffer disproportionately in comparison to wealthier families. This comes as no surprise, but Petersen’s acknowledgment of this as a problem that requires thought illustrates a capacity to care and an openness to change. Following the slide show, Petersen called for reports from two of the three standing A&S committees. First was from the curriculum committee, which consisted of quite a few technical terms that described the ways in which the provost office would track the change of curriculum and at what threshold, 25 percent, they would construct a greater report. Second came an executive commit-
students should be directly invited to important meetings instead of relying on receiving links from disparate sources. The report consisted of describing the creation and results of a new cross-discipline group of the department chairs and their nomination of a chair of the chair council, Dr. Donald Prudlo. Part of Tingey’s philosophy resides in a similar belief to Dean Petersen’s desire to make each side of the faculty/administration line distinct and visible. While the preceding information was extremely interesting and worth witnessing, the true meat of the meeting, as well as the concern drawn from other individuals, lies in the proposed budget cuts across campus. Introducing the topic, Petersen indicated that there would be no preferential treatment, that each of the four colleges would have a three percent reduction in the unrestricted portion of their budget while the administration and athletic budgets would receive a five percent cut from the same portion of the budget each. The unrestricted portion of the budget is somewhat equivalent to a discretionary or slush-fund type collection of capital used for non-compulsory expenditures. This translates to no cuts to faculty salary, layoffs or a reduction in travel costs covered by the university— President Brad Carson reportedly made the protection of these three factors mandatory to any proposed plan. Reactions, of course, were mixed. People seem amenable to an even-handed reduction, but the question of why we have to make this reduction seemed strangely muted. Instead, most of the ire came out of a question asked in relation to the announcement, that of a potential hiring freeze. Dean Petersen’s response was by the book, stating that there was no official university-approved hiring freeze. While true by definition, I have not met a new faculty member in quite some time, and that seems to be the common experience. German has had to convert professors from other languages to teach intro-level classes while Philosophy retains a diminishing staff, overworking the most aged department on campus. Petersen’s diction and approach to these heavy topics were actually quite heartfelt. She said that she understood how any budget cut would instinctively put the faculty on its heels, but also intimated that such a relationship would lead to more chaos and fractures than simply working together. In a series of statements, Petersen pointed out the willingness of herself and President Carson to meet with concerned individuals, pro-
it to be an online payroll system to be utilized by any company or business. Instead of having to remember to fill out a timesheet, or to punch a hole in a piece of paper when you come in or out to work, employees have to remember to a login username and password and to clock in and out digitally, as well as put in department from which the allocation of your pay comes from. All of this is found in one place, and if you miss a punch, you can always send a punch change request to fix the time on your punches so that you are paid properly. There are additional services that Paycom have added to their system over the years such as E-Verify, human resources and document storage all in one singular place, consolidating these resources and in theory making them easily accessed. The University of Tulsa decided in 2021 during the spring semester that they would
system that is supposed to be very consistent and efficient, it seems at face value that the concerns of those who do not like it are unwarranted, and that people are not willing to accept change. However, not everything is perfect with this all-in-one business tool Paycom. There is a very real flaw that makes it very problematic and needs to be addressed. The main problem for the University of Tulsa specifically is that not everyone is paid hourly. With a salary pay, as is the case in many areas of TU, an employee receives the entirety of their pay independent of how many hours in which they work. This makes using Paycom difficult, because if an employee clocks out when they have finished their work, then it is set up to pay them by the hour, so the employee may have to wait to clock out until much later to get the full amount owed, as if they are working hourly. This is hard
photo by Adam Walsh The seat of TU’s upper administration, Collins Hall, has struck fear into the hearts of students and staff; now, Dean Petersen has implemented an open door policy.
shown by Dean Petersen, illustrating figures on a few separate topics and reports from the standing executive committees in the A&S college. The second half was question/answer based, where faculty members could direct questions to Dean Petersen on any topic relevant to the running of TU. The primary thrust of the first portion coalesced around a series of points made by Petersen on the nature of TU’s active administrative machinery or, specifically, the lack of it. Development of procedures, policies and concrete structure for the approximation and application of decisions made by both Collins Hall and the Board remains as the first goal of this new administration. This prospective course would serve to reduce the gray area between the operations of the administrative branch versus that of
tee report where Dr. David Tingey noted the moderate student presence at a meeting and voiced the opinion that there should be more student interaction and invitation to these gatherings, as well as proposing the creation of two different terms for these prospective opportunities. His statements imply that
promising clear and coherent answers to any questions. This is not a six-month timeframe fix, a point Petersen repeatedly indicated, and she is correct. While it has been easy for a persecuted populace to find singular figures to direct rage at, there is more than enough blame to pass around for the budget crises, and we cannot afford alienating competent administrators working to fix problems we all care deeply about. The us/them dichotomy, as Petersen states, has contributed to a rumor-laden shadow administration that seeks out conflict and causes issues for the poor battered faculty. However, the faculty has definitely given an undue, if understandable, amount of grief to the administration. The overall vibecheck of the faculty at the meeting indicates a strong approval of President Carson, Dean Petersen and the new individuals in charge of the Admissions Office, which has begun accepting help from faculty members. Dr. Kristen Oertel in the history department has repeatedly attempted to offer her aid to the Admissions Office, only to be rejected for around 11 years. Finally, the new individuals in charge have accepted her help. This microcosm of accepting help changes the atmosphere between the two segments of the university, and sets an optimistic precedent going forward. Other pieces of good news came out in the meeting. Revelations that the minimum number of students enrolled in graduate courses to prevent the class from being cancelled has shifted from ten to six and whispers of written-proposals to reinstate graduate programs act as the opening moves in rebuilding TU’s reputation and the trust between faculty, student and administration.
courtesy utulsa.edu Previously employed at Middle Tennessee State University, Petersen brings to TU experience and a fresh start.
Paycom implementation a complete failure
With the change in payment systems, some staff members are left waiting for their paychecks, leaving those with bills to pay worried. Logan Guthrie Sports Editor It is nearly impossible to go anywhere on Tulsa’s campus without hearing someone complain about how much they despise the Paycom payroll system. This is a very new way for the college to do payroll, so it is very easy to dismiss any issues as people just not being willing to adapt, but they’ve been using Paycom for nearly a year and the problems seem to still be compounding. Paycom is not an inherently terrible system for clocking wages for employees, but there are multiple factors in its system as well as at the University of Tulsa that have made the transition difficult, leading to the negative experience of many university employees. Founded by Chad Richison in 1998, the idea behind Paycom Software, Inc. was for
“. . . not all of our problems with this system are Paycom’s fault.” be switching to using Paycom across the board for all employment at the college, to the dismay of many students, faculty and other employees. Practically, this seems like a reasonable and efficient move, considering that different areas of the university used widely different methods of tracking payroll. No department did everything the same way, and having one all-encompassing system should make things easier for the school as a whole. Paycom is also based in Oklahoma City, therefore by using this company, TU is supporting a local business. With all the apparent upsides to having this
to remember if you are no longer at work, and everyone has lives outside of their employment to also focus on such as family, friends and other activities, so expecting someone to remember to do this is an issue due to human error. While there are ways to schedule a shift, it is not readily apparent and easily accessed on Paycom’s page, and it is still based upon an hourly wage rather than salary. A payment structure based upon a salary pay or freelance is incredibly difficult to do with this system, and Paycom is simply not accommodating to this in many ways. The
fact of the matter is that Paycom is not made for people who are not paid hourly, and to force people to use it when they are paid by another method than hourly is not only making things harder on everyone at the university, but is really not fair to the supervisors, especially when they have to constantly approve punch change requests because people clock out early but want to get paid the correct amount for salary. On the other hand, not all of our problems with this system are Paycom’s fault. In fact, the majority of the issues with Paycom come down to the University of Tulsa itself. The college decided to completely uproot all of its payment systems with one fell swoop in the middle of a pandemic that took a good majority of students, faculty and various employees off campus. This was not at all something that the university needed to worry about at the time, and they haven’t in most cases provided any sort of proper training for the people that need to use this program. In many cases for student employees at TU, the only training was videos that did not explain well how Paycom works and there are just several functions that they will never use, such as document storage. The supervisors seem to not have the necessary help they need to use this system and relay this information to the employees. All these things considered, it is no wonder that there is an absolute hatred for the Paycom payroll system, and something needs to change if the University of Tulsa has any hope of running smoothly in this area.
