Report of the

ad hoc Committee

Review of the Office of the

Ombudsperson

Submitted to

William C. Powers Jr.

President
July 2006

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Committee Members

John Dalton, Chair

Assistant Dean for Graduate Studies

Donna A. Bellinghausen
Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs

Michelle L. Broadway
Senior Administrative Associate
Office of Graduate Studies

Elizabeth A. Brummett
Student, Plan II Honors: Latin American Studies
Student Government Vice President 05-06

Moira E. Priven
Graduate Student
Educational Administration

Monica A. Reed
Human Resources Advisor

Stanley J. Roux
University Distinguished Teaching Professor
Faculty Ombudsman

Page 2 of 9

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

I.

Page 3 of 9

Introduction and Overview

The Office of the Ombudsman was created in the summer of 1969 by President Norman
Hackerman. President Hackerman was responding to the request of John R. Silber,
College of Arts and Sciences, Rostan Kayoussi, President of the Students Association,
and Wayne McCormack, Ombudsman for the College of Arts and Sciences to expand the
ombuds services of the College of Arts and Sciences to the entire University student
community. In 1993 Policy Memorandum 4.140 (see attached, exhibit 1) was approved.
The memorandum set forth the current guidelines for the Office of the Ombudsman and
stipulated that the office shall report directly to the President of the University. The
administrative needs of the Office were handled by the Dean of Students until 2003 when
those responsibilities were transferred to the Vice President for Student Affairs. At this
time the Ombudsman began meeting with and reporting directly to the Office of the
President. On August 1, 2005 Policy Memorandum 4.140 (see attached, exhibit 2) was
revised to reflect that the name of the office had been changed the Office of the
Ombudsperson.
In January 2006, then President, Larry R. Faulkner, assembled this ad hoc committee to
review the Office of the Ombudsperson. The catalysis for the review was a fall 2005
budget request submitted to the Student Services Budget Committee by the Office of the
Ombudsperson. The budget request included a substantial increase, most of which would
be allocated for a full-time appointment of an Ombudsperson. The committee was
specifically asked to review the Office of the Ombudsperson in the context of our
University and its needs as well as in comparison to other peer institutions. The
committee has compiled the following assessment of the Office of the Ombudsperson by
reviewing the purpose and history of the office, staffing, finances, as well as comparing
the ombuds services offered by twelve comparable institutions.
II.

Assessment of Current Services

In February 2006 the committee met with the current Ombudsperson, Lauren Bloom,
to learn more about the services, caseload, staffing and budgeting needs of the office.
Ms. Bloom provided information indicating that over the past 8 months the Office of
the Ombudsperson had served 800 students, 115 of which were considered actual
cases. On average, the office has opened approximately 14 cases per month, which is
consistent with information gathered over the past 5 years. Since the 2000-2001
academic year the office has opened approximately 15.5 cases per month.
The types of cases varied in degree of seriousness from accusations against a faculty
member using a students information for his own gain, to less serious matters such as
library fines. The services provided for non-case students included: responding to
emails, phone calls, and walk-ins. These students were provided information and
referred to appropriate University resources.

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 4 of 9

A. Staff
The current staff in the office are mostly students including: one part-time
Ombudsperson and two part-time assistant Ombudspersons. The only full-time,
non-student, staff in the office is an administrative associate. Former
Ombudsperson, Amber Holloway, stated the biggest criticism of the Office of
the Ombudsperson was, and continues to be, that there is no continuity of services
because a new student is hired every year and comes to the position with only a
vague idea of how to carry of the role. This concerned was also voiced by James
Vick, former Vice President for Student Affairs, when he was interviewed by the
committee. Dr. Vick also stated that the quality of service was inconsistent from
year to year depending on the student serving in the role as Ombudsperson.
Despite the inconsistency of service and lack of training that comes with a student
Ombudsperson, Dr. Vick felt strongly that students must maintain an active role
in the office and his recommendation was to continue with the student
appointment for the position of Ombudsperson.
The committee concluded that appointing a student each year to serve in the
position of Ombudsperson is an ineffective model of operation. We also believe
that students do not come to the role with adequate training and experience to
handle the complex issues often presented to the office. The inexperienced staff
undermines the credibility of the office and provides a service well below that of
comparable institutions.
B. Benchmarking
To better understand the effectiveness of the Office of the Ombudsperson the
committee began collecting information about Ombudspersons' Offices at
comparable institutions (see attached, exhibit 3). The committee obtained
information from: the University of Michigan, Ohio State, Arizona State
University, Texas A&M University, University of California at Los Angeles,
College Park in Maryland, University of California at Berkeley, University of
Colorado at Boulder, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, SUNY in Stony
Brook, University of Virginia, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
From the information collected, the committee realized that there is no
consistency between offices at various universities with regard to budget, staffing,
reporting structures, caseload, or constituencies served.
Staffing of the office at the various institutions varied from one position to seven
positions, with various combinations of staff, faculty, students, and administrative
support. Education and status level of the staff also varied considerably; however,
most offices were staffed with at least one full-time dedicated position filled with
a Masters or Ph. D. level administrator or faculty. The reporting structures
varied mostly between reporting through the student affairs organization and
reporting directly to the presidents office. About half of the institutions
contacted have an Ombuds office on campus that is designed to serve students

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 5 of 9

only and about half of the institutions contacted are set-up to serve faculty, staff,
and students from the same office.
It appeared that each office has been established and modified to work within a
specific system and to meet the unique needs and structure of each institution.
Even though we did not find any one model that could serve the needs of our
campus, we did compile the various models for discussion by the committee.
Models discussed included: the existing model, a full-time ombudsperson model,
a co-ombudsperson model, an advisor model, and an advisory committee model.
C. Budget
The office been principally supported by student fee funding. Additional funding
comes from a small state funded budget as well the support provided by the
Office of the President.
2005-06 Budget
Expense Category
Classified
Wages
Operating
Travel
Total Fees

Amount
26,489
11,944
15,193
1,000
54,626

Source
Fees
Fees
Fees
Fees

A&P
Classified
Total State

13,827
13,344
27,171

State
State
State

Total Operating
Budget
81,797
Additional funds from Presidents Office 2005-06
Computers
12,474
Ombuds Conference 1,790
Total
14,264
Funds from Presidents Office 2004-05
2 conferences for
Current Ombuds
& for incoming
9,374
Staffing
Current Staff
Salary
Administrative
Associate
40,219
Ombudsperson
17,412
Assistant Ombuds

1 @ 9.00/hr fall and spring

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 6 of 9

2 @ 8.75/hr fall and spring

For the current office structure and operational needs the office appears to be somewhat
under-funded. Specifically, the budget for training and professional development is less
than what is actually needed for one staff to attend a conference or training workshop
designed for an ombudsperson. This need is currently rectified by one-time supplemental
funding provided by the Office of the President.
III.

Recommendations

The committees report focuses on proposed changes to the Ombudspersons Office that
serves students on campus. The University currently has separate services to address
staff and faculty needs and the committee does not believe that a need currently exists to
change or merge the separate structures. The findings and recommendations of the
committee are based on the following purpose for the Office of the Ombudsperson:
The Office of the Ombudsperson serves as a confidential, neutral,
independent and informal resource for students.
The Office of the Ombudsperson is a place where both the academic and
non-academic questions and concerns of students can be discussed
confidentially in a safe environment.
The Office of the Ombudsperson offers informal dispute resolution
services, provides information on rights, resources and referrals, and helps
students consider options available to them in resolving their concerns.
The Office of the Ombudsperson also provides coaching and training on
dispute resolution skills and facilitates constructive discussions between
parties in conflict.
The Office of the Ombudsperson promotes positive organizational change
by identifying patterns and causes of conflict at the University and by
making recommendations to the University leadership regarding
improvements in policies, procedures, services and systems to better serve
students.
A. The committee recommends replacing the part-time student Ombudsperson with a
full-time professional staff member. The position should be Administrative and
Professional and titled Ombudsperson or other similar, appropriate title such as
Special Assistant to the President. The committee also recommends the office
continue to employee one administrative associate and hire part-time student
assistant ombudspersons at the current funding level. The recommendation for a
beginning salary for a full-time Ombudsperson is $60,000. It is also
recommended that the office continue to report directly to the President of the
University.

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 7 of 9

Rationale:
A result of the current structure is that the full-time position of
administrative associate bears the burden of administering the office
during the absence of the student ombudsperson. The administrative
associate has also shouldered a great deal of the responsibility for training
each new student Ombudsperson on both administrative and professional
aspects of the position. This is far outside of the scope of an administrative
associate and is an unfortunate consequence of the current structure.
The strongest criticism of the Office of the Ombudsman has been that
there is no continuity of services because a new student is hired every year
into the position. Those coming into the position have widely different
levels of experience. The student is expected to coordinate an office,
supervise a full-time employee and create a budget recommendation for
student fees. By the time the Ombudsperson has obtained a certain degree
of comfort and knowledge of the position, he/she is near the end of the
appointment. The committees benchmarking exercise did not identify any
other University employing a student ombudsman.
The salary range appears to be aligned with other titles at the University,
e.g., Senior Program Coordinator, whose responsibilities include directing
an area that provides student services and supervision of both full-time
and student staff.
The committee also believes that a full-time professional staff person will
increase the overall exposure for the office, as well as boost its credibility.
As a result we believe the number of cases opened by the office will
increase.
B. The committee recommends that a request be made to the Student Services
Budget Committee in the fall 2006 semester for an increased allocation to the
Ombudspersons 2007-08 budget. The increase should include the $60,000 salary
item and benefits estimated at $16,800. This will represent a 108% in student fees
and a 72% overall increase for 2007-08. The committee further suggests that the
line item for the Ombudsperson salary in the state funds be retained and moved to
operating expenses. The increase in the operating budget will give the office
more flexibility and cover the additional funding provided by the Office of the
President.
Rationale:
The increase in funding is aligned with the recommendation to create a
full-time professional position. The committee feels strongly that the
funding for the full-time Ombudsperson should be allocated from student
fees, much like the Office of Legal Services for Students. Students have a
great deal of ownership and history with the office, and the committee
believes that an annual request for continued funding will allow student
leaders to regularly evaluate the position and the services it provides.

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 8 of 9

It is the hope of the committee that retaining the State funds and shifting
them to operating expenses will alleviate the need for supplemental
funding by the Office of the President. The committee also believes these
funds will be adequate for continued training and professional
development for a full-time Ombudsperson.
Budget

Student Fee Account

2007-08
2006-07
Proposed

% Increase
Expenses
2005-06
over 06-07
A&P Salaries
(Ombudsperson)
60,000
New position
fringes*
16,800
Classified**
26,489
27,268
27,268
Wages***
11,944
12,318
12,318
Operating***
15,193
15,193
15,193
Travel***
1,000
1,000
1,000
Total
54,626
55,779
115,779
108%
*Estimated fringes of 16,800 will be requested from SSBC but will not be
reflected in 07-08 budget as fringes are centrally funded.
**2007-08 University salary increase not reflected in this
estimate.
***Proposing flat budget (as approved by SSBC) for these accounts
Budget

State Funded Account

2007-08
Expenses
2005-06
2006-07
Proposed
A&P*
13,827
14,544
Classified**
13,344
13,343
13,343
Wages***
101
Operating****
14,645
Total
27,171
27,988
27,988
*Move A&P Budget to Operating in 07-08
**Reflects flat budget for 2007-08 (potential University salary increase
pool not included)
***Wages holds the salary money that remains from the Ombudsperson's
Sept - May appointment. Moved into Operating in 2007-08.
Total Budget for Office of the
Ombudsperson
Sources
Fees
State
Total

2005-06
54,626
27,171
81,797

2006-07
55,779
27,988
83,767

2007-08
Proposed
115,779
27,988
143,767

% Increase
over 200607
108%
0%
72%

Report of the ad hoc Committee to Review the Office of the Ombudsperson

Page 9 of 9

C. It is the recommendation of the committee that the office space provided for the
Ombudsperson be evaluated to ensure that it is adequate for the needs of a fulltime professional staff.
Rationale:
The committee believes the location of the office is ideal. The lower level
of the Student Services Building (SSB) provides a fairly confidential
location in a high-traffic building. The two interior offices are quite small
and do not easily accommodate meetings involving more than 4 people.
Further, the entrance to the office is somewhat standoffish, and does not
convey a welcoming environment. The committee recommends that
(minor) renovation options be explored that will allow the office to
continue meeting the needs of privacy and convenience while creating
both an inviting entrance and a more comfortable meeting space.
IV. Conclusions
The proposed changes to the Office of the Ombudsperson are based on the need for
increased student services on the UT campus. In the committees conversation with Juan
Gonzalez, Vice President for Students Affairs, he acknowledged a concern for the lack of
resources available to students when navigating a large institution. The office of the
Ombudsperson has consistently provided an invaluable service to students for more than
thirty-five years. However its current staffing arrangement is inadequate, especially in
lacking continuity of experience and consistency of service from year-to-year. We
believe this deficiency would be largely overcome by replacing the part-time student
Ombudsperson with a full-time professional staff member. This improvement would
significantly raise the standard of Ombuds service for students on campus, and make it at
least equal to that enjoyed by students at peer Universities.