Administration
Dissecting UI’s priorities Yopp, but he said the very basis of the process, peer Data tied directly to budget review without expertise, reallocation targets for the made the data only useful 2019 fiscal year at the Univer- for understanding the sity of Idaho lacked reliabil- raters, not programs. Yopp said in the case of ity assessments necessary for publication in a reputable aca- program prioritization, it is demic journal, according to not clear whether raters had one UI mathematics professor. expertise on programs in the Associate professor Rob fields they rated or even in Ely was among faculty who understanding UI’s mission raised methodological ques- and strategic plan. “What you’re really getting tions on the budget reallocation process at a public is data about the raters, not meeting in September. In about the narrative itself,” he response, Provost and Ex- said. “In their data, the only ecutive Vice President John opportunities I see are how Wiencek said the ranking of well do people that are not academic and non-academic in mathematics, for example, programs to guide budget understand the role of mathreallocation was about being ematics in the university.” When it comes to knowlinclusive, not publishable. “By getting a significant edge about the strategic plan, number of votes, you’re ex- a 20-page document that outpressing, as best as you possi- lines UI’s plan for 2016-2025, bly can, the relative objective UI Vice President of Finance opinion of the university com- Brian Foisy said there were no methods of assuring munity here at large. evaluators underThat was the intent,” stood it. Wiencek said. “There was not He agreed with any expectation that Ely and other critics you’ve read it at a that the lack of a relevel of competency. liability process for Certainly, they were John Wiencek raters made the data given a copy of it subject to personal and you would expect any preference and bias. “Inherently, you have to decent evaluator to educate assume that people are giving themselves,” he said. Wiencek said the process everybody a fair review and relied on individual acbeing level-handed in what they do,” Wiencek said. countability. “It’s their responsibility to “But, the reality is everybody brings their perspective and make an informed choice and their life experience to their be aware of the strategic plan. decisions and they don’t It’s akin to voting,” he said. “You walk into a booth, and agree with each other.” Each academic depart- (vote) on public issue number ment’s alignment with UI’s four and there’s going to be all strategic plan counted for this legal gobble-dee-goop, 27.5 percent of the rank- and hopefully you have read ings. Evaluators could what that issue is about.” The rankings, along with be anyone working in an academic depart- other data about programs, ment or program. were tied directly to realloThis was to be in- cation targets released Sept. clusive by offering 7. These targets indicate the all UI employees a Provost’s executive level, chance to partici- which includes all academic pate in the process, programs, and an executive level labeled “other internal officials said. The method- sources” will face the brunt ology behind the of the $4 million internal program prioritiza- reallocation. tion rankings presented many problems for professor of mathematics David SEE DATA, PAGE A6 Kyle Pfannenstiel Argonaut
Graphics by Grayson Hughbanks
IN THIS ISSUE Ladies Rock! climbing night builds confidence and community.
sports, B1
News, A1
Arts, A7
Sports, B1 Opinion, B7
Students should speak on program prioritization. Read Our View.
Opinion, B7 University of Idaho
The Yarn Underground creates a knitting community.
ARts, A7
Volume 119, Issue no. 15
Recyclable