This document summarizes discussions around a proposal to centralize the University of Illinois' admissions process. There was conflict between campus administrators who wanted enrollment managers to report to local provosts and the University president who wanted to create an executive director position to oversee enrollment across all campuses. The president initially pushed back on demands for dual reporting lines but later compromised by proposing enrollment managers would primarily report to the executive director and secondarily to campus provosts. Disagreements around centralized administration and shifting reporting lines have occurred previously with other initiatives such as information technology.

1. ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT
Initiatives
to centralize
admissions
incite confl ict
BY DARSHAN PATEL
STAFF WRITER
Editor’s note: This is the second
in a three-part series regarding
contentious discussions
over proposed changes to
the University’s enrollment
management, after thousands of
emails were obtained by The Daily
Illini under the Illinois Freedom of
Information Act.
Concerns about campus
authority are still prevalent,
as off-campus administrators
push for a more centralized
University of Illinois.
The highly contested
enrol lment management
recommendations made last
year urged the University
to create an administrative
position that would oversee
See ENROLLMENT, Page 3A
More online: To see the actual emails obtained by The Daily Illini
through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, visit our website
at www.DailyIllini.com.
» » » » » » »
Dual-reporting in the works for campus admissions
The University administration is proposing to create an executive
director for enrollment management this spring. With this position,
all campus enrollment managers will primarily report to the executive
director and secondarily to the campus provost, as part of a
dual-reporting relationship.
Executive Director for Enrollment Management
Chicago
Provost
Lon Kaufman
» » » » » »
%POU#SFBL6Q#Z1IPOF%PJUJO1FSTPO
%PXOUPXO
Breaking down enrollment
management
! Campus chancellors
demanded that campus
enrollment offi cials report
to their respective provosts,
in addition to the executive
director for enrollment
management.
! University President Michael
Hogan compromised by
proposing a dual-reporting
relationship, where the
campus enrollment
managers would primarily
report to the University
offi cial.
! During last spring, campus
offi cials were worried
about a similar change that
was implemented with
information technology.
Chicago
Enrollment Manager
Kevin Browne
Before After
Urbana
Interim Provost
Richard Wheeler
Springfield
Interim Provost
Lynn Pardie
Urbana
Enrollment Manager
Stacey Kostell
Springfield
Enrollment Manager
Timothy Barnett
Source: University of Illinois SHANNON LANCOR Assistant Design Editor

2. ENROLLMENT “Her position began to reveal itself in a conversation
FROM PAGE 1A
... about our enrollment management plans going
forward,” Hogan told Kennedy, adding that Wise
demanded the dual-reporting structure. “I made
it clear to Phyllis that the decision to appoint and
fully empower an executive director of enrollment
management had been made over a year earlier by
the board and we were not going to backpedal on it.”
In an email from Hogan to Kennedy obtained by
The Daily Illini, details about why the University
rejected this idea on past reforms were redacted.
But after her conversation with Hogan, Wise sought
the opinion of interim provost Richard Wheeler, vice
provost for academic affairs Barbara Wilson and
former associate provost for enrollment management
Keith Marshall.
The next day, Nov. 23, Marshall told Wise that this
was a direct contradiction of what Hogan told the
campus enrollment managers in a summer meeting.
Marshall said Hogan went to great pains in that
meeting to say he would not implement enrollment
management like human resources or information
technology but would rather have the enrollment
managers maintain their direct line to campus and
the administration.
Marshall left that position in mid-November
after being “roundly criticized” by University
administration, according to an email sent to
colleagues by Eric Meyer, a member of the Urbana
enrollment management task force.
This is not the first time campus official has left the
job while restructuring initiatives were imminent.
Just last April, Sally Jackson, who was then
Urbana’s chief information officer, resigned from
her position, criticizing the decision to “centralize
authority over academic and research computing.”
The University had created an executive chief
information officer position, similar to the executive
director for enrollment management that Hogan
intends to create.
This shifted reporting lines of campus chief
information officers from the provosts to the new
University position. But even now, concerns have
not died down about the possibility of centralization.
“Each initiative that gets proposed or rolled out or
tries to be implemented, we have seen over the last 18
to 20 months a knee-jerk opposition in some quarter,”
Hardy said. “These are natural occurrences. These
things happen when you have a big institution and
there’s change. Some people find it hard to adjust
or accept change, (but) I think there has to be
changes, as we all know, given the fiscal situation
the University finds itself in.”
enrollment decisions on all three campuses.
But in a late-November meeting with University
President Michael Hogan, Chancellor and Vice
President Phyllis Wise and the other two chancellors
demanded that campus enrollment managers
continue reporting to their provosts, in addition to
a University-wide director.
Hogan gave in during a later discussion, promising
that campus enrollment management will have a dual
structure, reporting first to an executive director.
This plan was provided in a document sent to the
chancellors that outlined “talking points” for them to
convey to faculty leaders. Wise passed these plans on
to the Senate Executive Committee, which rejected
Hogan’s plan to centralize admissions, at its Dec.
12 meeting.
University spokesman Tom Hardy said these back-and-
forth discussions were all part of an ongoing
collaboration.
“The chancellors all voiced the concern that their
respective campuses had ... (and) the president
listened as part of a consultative process,” Hardy
said Friday. “They compromised and reached an
agreement to make sure the campus voice would
be heard.”
Whi le the enrol lment management
recommendations were reviewed on both a
campus and University level, Hogan had multiple
conversations with the chancellors to reiterate his
and the Board of Trustees’ plans. After one of the
meetings in late November, Hogan emailed the
chancellors explaining why he was hesitant to have
dual-reporting lines.
“A dual-reporting relationship was never
envisioned by the board or me. Indeed, it would be
impossible to recruit someone who would be held
accountable for the job but not have full authority
to get it done,” Hogan said. “Nevertheless, I remain
open to other suggestions that might ameliorate your
concerns.”
However, two weeks after that email, Hogan
wrote to board chairman Christopher Kennedy to
say that he was surprised how Wise had handled the
conversations to that point.