“The mission of the _______ is environmental
research and education concerning the long-term dynamics of the barrier
islands, lagoons, marshes and watersheds of the _____.”
2.
Vision Statement
A vision for a FSML is a more in-depth articulation of
the mission and addresses a shorter time span. Each operational area of the FSML may have its own vision,
goals and objectives to guide decisions and policies. Here is a vision statement that might evolve from one of the
above mission statements:
“To use the site
and facility to promote the integration of environmental and ecological
awareness into every aspect of undergraduate education.”
There would be a similar
vision statement addressing appropriate research for the FSML.
3.
Goals
Programmatic goals evolve from components of the mission
and vision, and are more specific. Here are two sets of goals that might evolve from the above
FSML mission statements:
a.
Provide a research climate that results in fundamental
discoveries about ecological and environmental processes.
b.
Ensure that faculty and students are the central element
in fundamental field science investigations.
c.
Promote participation in FSML programs by visiting
researchers and students.
d.
Establish a mechanism to communicate field science
to the general public.
__________________________________________________________________
a.
Through
research we will understand the long-term dynamics of the coastal environment.
b.
Through
education we will foster environmental literacy.
c.
Through
research and education we will advance the conservation of one of America’s
premier natural treasures.
4.
Objectives
Specific objectives set the programmatic goals into a
timeline, such as for one-, five-, 10- and 20-years.
a.
To become fiscally responsible, with
a business plan that emphasizes financial self-sufficiency to a large
degree, beyond a fundamental financial commitment from the university. (One-year
objective)
b.
To provide
a physical facility that supports and encourages accomplishment of the
mission and goals. (Five-year objective)
c.
To achieve
national prominence as a coastal research center. (10-year objective)
See Table II.B.4 for an example of objectives
set into a timeline.
The sum of mission, vision, goals and objectives statements
provides a powerful tool for planing and administering a FSML. Opportunities that arise, such as the
donation of a piece of property that has specific management restrictions
attached, can be evaluated in light of these statements of purpose. Some opportunities should be declined
if they don’t fit the mission of the FSML. Other opportunities can be pursued because of the manner in
which they would enhance the mission of the FSML. Ignoring the power of articulating these statements of purpose
means that administration of the FSML takes place in an ad hoc manner, and risks the consequences of managing in a
vacuum without firm guidance.
A number of benefits to leadership that evolve from understanding
the institutional mission are articulated in “Director’s
Guide to Best Practices” (Byrd 2000).
C.
Governance of the FSML
1.
There are two distinct models for FSML governance:
a.
Model I:
Governance by a sponsoring institution, which is usually a university,
college, museum, or larger nonprofit corporation. As of January 2001 approximately 85% of OBFS member FSMLs were
part of a larger institution.
b.
Model II:
Self-governance at an independent FSML, with no sponsoring institution. These FSMLs are usually nonprofit corporations with federal
tax-exempt status. AS of
Jauary 2001 about 15% of OBFS member FSMLs were independent.
2.
How is governance effected?
There are a number of questions associated
with governance. Each should
be answered in writing, and a process established for appropriate action.
a.
Who determines policy?
b.
Who hires and fires?
c.
Who evaluates the Director/Executive
Director?
d.
Who controls the strategic
plan, and other planning processes?
e.
Who approves the budget?
For Model I FSMLs, many of these functions
are intrinsic to the FSML, although authority may lie with either the
sponsoring institution. For
Model II FSMLs, the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees dictate where authority
rests. Some of the
literature available from the National Center for Nonprofit Boards (www.ncnb.org)
can help a Model II FSML understand the national norms for nonprofit
governance. Another resource
is the “Trustee Handbook:
A Guide to Effective Governance for Independent School Boards”
(De Kuyper 1998), sponsored by the National Association of Independent
Schools (www.nais-schools.org).
3.
Advisory
Committees and Other Groups
Many FSMLs have found tremendous benefits in using
advisory committees. Most
common is a Scientific Advisory Committee, composed of scientists who
conduct research at the FSML as a minority of committee members, other
national or international colleagues, and persons with special expertise
such as high-level regulatory executives.
These committees meet at least once a year and address policy
issues related to the scientific content of research or educational
programs at the FSML. To be most effective, their advice is
solicited in a proactive fashion rather than in response to one or more
emergencies. And most important,
their advice is taken very seriously.
Other advisory groups can be constituted to deal
with fundraising, finances, endowments, capital projects, or any number
of topics. Not only do
FSMLs benefit directly from expertise that might otherwise be available,
but there are benefits to be gained from having powerful individuals
from other professions knowledgeable about and vitally interested in
the activities of the FSML.
D.
The Nature of the Directorship
1.
The Qualities
of a FSML Director
Directors of FSMLs are in unique positions within
the sponsoring institution.
Directors are often hired with a primary appointment as faculty
or curator, and with a secondary administrative appointment. As a result, they have a large number
of tasks to perform that are very different from people in the organization
who have similar primary appointments (i.e., faculty colleagues). They may be expected to interact with
the president of a university on one day, and to quickly repair a boat
motor for a field class on the next.
In searching for the Director of a FSML, an organization
should attempt to find candidates who have vision; administrative, supervisory,
and fund raising experience; are interested in strategic planning and
development of programs in education and research; and are broadly trained
in the sciences. Specialized
skills will include being an excellent communicator, being knowledgeable
in database and information management, and having some experience in
working effectively with the public, government organizations, non-government
organizations and private foundations.
Successful directors are often personable, extroverted,
high-energy people with well developed people skills. They will not be afraid to get their hands
dirty during the operation of their FSML. Depending on the nature of the FSML, an effective Director
doesn’t necessarily need a Ph.D.
A combination of experience, skills, knowledge and personality
are often more important than academic credentials.
2.
Managerial
Responsibilities of a FSML Director
The managerial responsibilities of a Director will
vary depending upon the scale of operations of a particular FSML. The range in scale of FSML operations
is very great. Some FSMLs
are complex, multi-million dollar operations employing dozens of people
and having very large physical plants or large land holdings. At the opposite end of the spectrum are simple, low budget
operations employing only one or two people that have limited physical
plant and land holdings.
The most complex operations are for those FSMLs
that mirror the mission and activities of their sponsoring institution
and are located in remote locations.
A good example might be a university-sponsored facility that
is located far from urban centers but carries out most functions of
the parent institution. This FSML would offer undergraduate or
graduate instruction and curriculum development; would support housing
and food services for faculty, students, and researchers; would equip
and maintain laboratories, classrooms, and animal care facilities; and
would provide informal educational and recreational activities for the
residents of the facility.
FSMLs such as this are, in fact, stand alone miniature university
campuses that have all the managerial and administrative problems associated
with a larger university campus.
In general, remote FSMLs will demand more resources
and administrative effort to manage properly than comparable facilities
located in close proximity to their home institution. The phrase “out of sight and out
of mind” is particularly true for any remote FSML. Parent organizations must make greater
commitments to remote FSMLs to ensure that they prosper. The Director is well advised to establish
a strong presence within the sponsoring institution. One of the Director’s critical tasks
is to educate the administrator to whom he/she reports about the FSML.
This education is most effective if it includes periodic visits
to the FSML by the administrator to whom the Director reports.
The Director should also consider visits from other key sponsoring
institution personnel, so that they have a context for understanding
the special challenges faced by the FSML staff with whom they interact. This can often lead to special funding allocations to address,
for example, health and safety issues which arise during a tour of the
FSML facilities by the sponsoring institution’s health and safety
director. The Director’s
efforts at establishing relationships with key administrators will with
time lead to inclusion in the informal problem-solving and mutual support
networks that, beyond the formal administrative structure, are usually
the route by which needs are addressed and problems solved.
Since FSML Directors often have little or no prior
administrative experience, the Director also needs to engage in self-education
about the sponsoring institution’s administrative structure and
culture. Universities often
offer workshops which can accomplish two goals: 1) rapid increase in
understanding of administrative structure and procedures, and 2) a chance
to establish a relationship with sponsoring institution unit administrators
outside of the chain of command.
In most cases, the FSML Director will be a middle
level manager within a larger organizational structure. The level of reporting within the sponsoring
institution should be concordant with the administrative level at which
the categories of activities in which the FSML engages are integrated
at the sponsoring institution.
For example, if the FSML engages in both outreach and research,
the FSML Director should report to the administrative level which includes
both outreach and research in its responsibilities.
In the case of a university-funded FSML, the Director should
in general report to someone at the level of a Dean or above. In the
case of an independent FSML, the Director will often report to a Board
of Trustees or similar group.
The
Director will have the following overall responsibilities at all FSMLs:
a)
integration
of FSML activities both within the FSML and within the parent organization
b)
communication
up and down lines of administration
c)
program
planning
3.
Models for the Directorship
The administrative activities at a FSML
can be organized in a task tree as illustrated in Figure II.E.1. Depending upon the mission of the FSML
and its scale, the proportion of these tasks which the Director executes
vs. those which the Director delegates will decrease in proportion to
FSML size and complexity. Regardless
of size, the Director plays a critical role in the integration of tasks
and information, in reporting to the sponsoring institution, and for
budgetary and programmatic planning.
Many models currently exist for the directorship
of FSMLs. The type of model
often depends upon the size, location, financial health of the parent
institution, and whether the FSML is public or private. FSML directorships include full-time appointments, partial
appointments, rotating appointments, faculty who are tenured or tenure-track,
or directors that are drawn from the business community because of their
experience in the private sector.
It is a guiding principle that in most instances a FSML will
only prosper if:
a)
The Director
has a full-time appointment.
b)
The Director
is a tenured faculty member (or equivalent) in the case of academic
organizations.
c)
Every attempt
is made to ensure that the Director is long-lived in the position in
order to cultivate administrative and other beneficial relationships.
d)
The Director
has business experience if the mission of the FSML demands a significant
amount of interaction with the public or business community.
To reiterate, FSMLs will not prosper unless a Director
can devote full and focused efforts toward development of their unit.
We recognize that this is often not possible, and not desirable in some
unusual instances, but then special attention must be paid to the establishment
of an evaluation strategy and reward structure commensurate with the
increased responsibilities of the Director of an FSML.
4.
Evaluation
of the Director
The parent institution should recognize the diversity
of tasks and establish evaluation procedures that reflect that diversity.
The Director may need release time from departmental teaching
or committee responsibilities in order to achieve FSML administrative
goals. Ideally, a percentage
of effort to be allocated to research, administration, teaching and
service would be part of both the Director’s job description and
the evaluation procedure. Most FSMLs could truly use a 100% administrative Director. If research is part of the Director’s
job description, then it should not exceed 25% of the Director’s
time in order for the FSML to be administered effectively.
Teaching and institutional service responsibilities should be
minimal. This generalization doesn’t apply
to situations with enough financial resources to hire a multitude of
assistants to the Director.
Annual performance evaluations of the Director
can be difficult. For example,
in many instances, a Director may be drawn from the faculty of a parent
university. However, despite
the multitude of tasks that a Director must perform, they are often
simply evaluated along with their departmental counterparts with little
attention being paid to their responsibilities as Director.
In the case of tenured faculty, evaluations of
scholarly performance should be tempered by the fact that the Director
has large temporal and professional commitments to the management of
the FSML. These commitments are often far above
and beyond the “normal” load of a colleague in one’s
own department, but are often ignored or perceived to be unimportant
by an evaluating committee. A
clear set of criteria must be developed for judging how well the Director
has met the demands of FSML management, and rewards developed which
compensate for the loss of research productivity associated with the
unique job of being a Director.
As a principle, specialized evaluation procedures
should be developed for the Directors of FSMLs. The annual review is
an important process that not only aligns the priorities of the sponsoring
institution with the FSML, but also aligns the performance of the Director
with the mission, goals, and objectives of the FSML. Since no one at the sponsoring institution may have direct
experience with FSML administration, it is highly desirable to establish
periodic external reviews which include administrators from other FSMLs
with established records of excellent administration. This recommendation is also important for stand-alone
FSMLs, which often operate in administrative isolation from other similar
institutions.
E.
Organization
1.
Staffing
and Responsibility Assignment
The administrative activities of a FSML
can be organized in a task tree as illustrated in Figure II.E.1. The scale of the station’s activities
determines the level in the tree at which FTEs are assigned. For most FSMLs, the sponsoring institution
provides a number of “umbrella functions”. These might include ultimate fiscal responsibility,
accounting and auditing, purchasing, risk management, human relations,
legal services, and transportation services.
However, the FSML, because of its remote location, often performs
at least portions of these tasks or faces significant challenges in
coordinating sponsoring institution functions with FSML on-site needs
and functions. This situation creates inevitable dissonance
in budget, reporting lines, and information flow. This dissonance leads to conflict, and
can contribute to a ‘them’ vs. ‘us’ fingerpointing
culture which greatly undermines effective administration. Understanding the source of the conflict
in the manner described above can help to resolve these issues and find
solutions.
In developing a task chart similar to Figure
II.E.1 for a FSML, tasks not pertinent to the mission or situation should
be removed and others unique to the facility should be added. For example, many nature reserves will not have dining services if they
do not have a resident population of students or scientists.
Job titles at the FSML should describe the
nature of the staff member’s duties as closely as possible, while
preserving future flexibility in responsibility assignments as the FSML
and the staff member’s capabilities grow.
Official job titles with the sponsoring institution often will
not match the FSML functional job titles, since the official job titles
must be taken from the sponsoring institution’s taxonomy of job
titles. Due to differences in scale, the division
of responsibilities among job titles will differ between the FSML and
the sponsoring institution. This
inevitably leads to substantial problems, including inappropriate actual
activities in relation to job title, inappropriate pay scale associated
with the level of responsibility and experience, inadequate avenues
for pay and position advancement.
Ideally, the sponsoring institution will address this by adding
a set of job titles specific to the FSML personnel.
Figure II.E.1. Task Chart
for FSML
2.
Organization Chart
Every FSML should develop an organization chart that links
tasks that need to be performed to positions that people fill. There is no one typical organizational
chart since FSMLs vary greatly in size of operation and number of personnel. See Figure II.E.2 (above) for a sample basic organizational
chart for FSMLs.
The flow of information up the organizational chart to the
sponsoring institution, and the flow of funds, expectations and information
back to the FSML from the sponsoring institution, are critically important. Ideally, all information flow, budget lines, and reporting
should be in parallel. When
these lines are not parallel, administrators of units at the institution
end up being asked to fund staff or activities they do not ordinarily
fund. For example, the Director of a moderately
large field station reports to the Chair of Biological Sciences, and
the operating budget of the field station is derived entirely through
that department. This field
station, like all field stations, requires custodial service. On campus, custodial service is performed through Facilities
Management and is off-budget for the departments. The result is that custodial services are a source of constant
conflict, with the Department believing that it is not their responsibility
to fund custodial services, and Facilities Management seeing the field
station as a remote outpost of the department, and not their responsibility.
The Director is the primary conduit for reporting to the sponsoring
institution. Typically
and ideally, the Director is responsible for all aspects of FSML administration,
and is formally responsible for all reporting and information flow.
However, because the FSML benefits from a number of umbrella
functions performed by various units within the sponsoring institution,
substantial amounts of informal reporting and information are exchanged
laterally between personnel FSML and sponsoring institution staff.
This is a necessary evil, but can cause serious difficulties
for the Director if he/she is not kept apprised of developing issues
that involve the lateral interchanges with the institutional administrative
units.
The Director is responsible for the execution of all aspects
of administration, but delegates execution to one or more staff members.
In large FSML operations, authority for day-to-day operations
is delegated fully to an Associate Director.
This is critical if the Director is to accomplish the complex
planning, integration, recruiting, fund raising, reporting, and public
relations activities which are the most critical and least effectively
delegated of the Director’s responsibilities.
F.
Staffing and Human Resources
1.
Employee Handbook
An employee handbook is an essential item in a
FSML’s repertoire of administrative policies. It provides an important foundation of legal protection for
not only the FSML but for its employees.
An employee handbook describes some of the expectations that
an FSML has for its employees.
It also outlines the policies, programs, and benefits available
to eligible employees. Once
this document has been established, it is important to keep it up to
date. Additionally, it is important that all
employees are familiar with this handbook and have an individual copy
for their reference.
a.
Handbook
basics
The establishment of an employee handbook can be
a large task. However,
software is available to make the task less daunting.
Additionally, the available software provides valuable legal
templates for many issues. A
popular software package for employee handbooks is “Policies Now”. It has a long-term track record, and is
widely used by human resources professionals. As of the writing of this document, “Policies Now”
can be purchased for under $100. It can be found at www.amazon.com. Additionally, “Policies Now”
offers handbook updates as new legislation comes into play. This service provides a valuable resource
for keeping employee policies and forms up-to-date.
b.
Handbook sections
Software such as “Policies Now” will
assist with the development of the sections listed below. These sections are crucial portions of
any employee handbook.
i.
Acknowledgment
form
Employee handbooks should be given to each
employee for their reference.
“Policies Now” provides an acknowledgment form that
employees must sign upon receipt of their handbook. This provides a written record of an employee’s receipt
of the handbook. It is
their responsibility to be familiar with its contents.
ii.
Introduction
An employee handbook should begin by providing
an introduction to the FSML. It
should also include an introductory statement which defines the intended
use of the handbook.
iii.
Employment
issues
General employment issues should be discussed in
this section, such as the employment selection process and job posting. More detailed employment issues include:
-
Equal Employment
Opportunity
-
business
ethics
-
immigration
law compliance
iv.
Employment
status and records
This section may deal with items such as:
-
the various
classifications of employees
-
personnel
files
-
reference
checks
-
probationary
periods
-
performance
evaluations
-
job descriptions
-
salary
administration
-
promotions
-
new hire/rehire
policy
v.
Employment
benefits
Employees are usually keen on keeping informed
of their benefits, and this section provides useful information for
FSML staff. Issues discussed
in this area can include:
-
vacation,
holidays
-
sick leave
-
health
insurance
-
any other
applicable insurance coverage (life, disability)
-
pension
vi.
Timekeeping/Payroll
This section provides information on the
specifics necessary for payroll timekeeping. It can include information on:
-
timesheets
-
paydays
-
payroll
termination
-
severance
pay
-
deductions
vii.
Issues
of the workplace
There are many critical issues involved in the
workplace, and they can be effectively addressed in this section. These issues would include:
-
safety
-
use of
telecommunications systems
-
smoking
policy
-
use of
equipment and vehicles
-
business
travel expenses
-
computer
policy
-
professional
memberships
viii.
Leaves of absence
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal
law that is a requirement for certain employers. It provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid
leave during a 12-month period.
To determine if a FSML is subject to the FMLA, please check the
federal government’s Department of Labor’s website at www.dol.gov. Additionally, if a FSML would like to provide any other types
of leave, it may define those leaves in this section.
ix.
Employee
conduct and disciplinary action
It is critical to be able to provide written expectations
of employee behavior and to spell out the steps involved in disciplinary
action. Not only is it
fair to provide employees with this information up front, it also provides
a measure of legal protection for the FSML by making its policies clear
and known. It is also crucial
that all disciplinary actions be recorded in a written format, even
if a verbal warning is given.
A notation to the personnel file can be made.
Again, this provides a measure of legal protection to the FSML,
and it assures that everything is documented properly for the employee. Issues in this section include:
-
employee
conduct
-
drug/alcohol
use
-
sexual
harassment
-
substance
abuse policy
-
progressive
discipline
x.
Miscellaneous
Each FSML will have a variety of miscellaneous
items that should be conveyed to its employees. Such items can include:
-
recycling
-
political
activity policy
-
suggestion
program
-
housing
facilities
2.
Staff Management
a.
Staff challenges
There are a number of challenges that make managing
staff at a FSML more difficult that in a more traditional institutional
setting. These include:
i.
All the
tasks of a campus are being performed by a handful of staff.
ii.
Staff easily
feel overwhelmed by the number and kinds of tasks they must perform.
&n
