Ombuds Office Annual Report: Sept. 1, 2004-Aug. 31, 2005
This report, by Stanford Ombuds David Rasch, summarizes the activities of the university's Ombuds Office from Sept. 1, 2004, through Aug. 31, 2005. Included is a brief description of the services of the Ombuds Office, a statistical summary of the office's activities for the year, and a discussion of some of the common concerns that faculty, staff and students brought to the Ombuds Office.
The Role and Purpose of the Stanford's OmbudsThe ombuds helps members of the Stanford community resolve their problems fairly, confidentially and informally. Any Stanford student, faculty or staff member is welcome to seek the advice of the ombuds. The rights and interests of all parties to disputes are considered carefully. The ombuds is bound by purpose and charge to be impartial, neutral and confidential, working independently and informally to achieve outcomes fair to all.
The Ombuds Office began its operations on Feb. 4, 1970, with the appointment of Dr. Herant Katchadourian as the first Stanford University ombudsman. The original proposal for establishing an Ombuds Office outlined the following purpose and charge:
The Ombudsman's task is to protect the interests and rights of members of the Stanford community from injustices or abuses of discretion, from gross inefficiency, from unnecessary delay and complication in administration of university rules and regulations, and from inconsistency, unfairness, unresponsiveness, and prejudice in the individual's experience with university activities. The Ombudsman exists to receive, examine, and channel the complaints and grievances of members of the Stanford community, and to secure expeditious and impartial redress.
The services of the ombuds supplement, but do not replace, other options for dispute resolution on the campus. The ombuds acts to resolve problems and serves as an alternative to the more formal processes such as grievance procedures. Faculty, students and staff may come to the Ombuds Office to discuss a concern, problem or conflict without being "on the record." A discussion of an issue with the ombuds does not constitute formal notice to the university, so concerns about policy violations and improprieties such as sexual harassment may be discussed confidentially. The exceptions to this are situations in which the ombuds is made aware of a threat of physical harm to another.
A meeting with the ombuds is an opportunity to discuss a problem and consider courses of action one might take. The ombuds may also assist by facilitating communication between two or more people through mediation or shuttle diplomacy. The ombuds is impartial and does not take sides in a dispute, conduct formal investigations, participate in formal grievance procedures or testify in lawsuits.
The Stanford Ombuds Office adheres to the code of ethics and standards of practice of the International Ombudsman Association. These guidelines are listed on the Ombuds Office website: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/ombuds. The Ombuds Office is located in Room 104 of Building 310.
StaffDavid Rasch was appointed university ombuds on May 1, 2004. He is a psychologist and, prior to serving as ombuds, was director of the Stanford Help Center, the counseling service for faculty and staff. He has been with Stanford University since 1985. He is a member of the International Ombuds Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution and is a lecturer in Stanford's Continuing Studies Program.
Summary of ActivitiesCases Opened:
291
Visitors: (323)
Faculty 8.6%
Staff 55.3%
Graduate Students 18.1%
Undergraduate Students 12.5%
Post Doc 1.6%
Other 3.9%
Gender:
Male 52%
Female 48%
Ethnicity:
Native American 1.6%
Hispanic 7.0%
Black 7.8%
Asian 16.8%
White 66.8%
Additional People Contacted:
183
Mediations:
21 cases; 52 participants
Presenting Issues: # of Cases
Personnel Matters: 180
Most common personnel matters:
Conflict with a Supervisor 95
Discipline/Termination 24
Civility/Respect 15
Tenure/Promotion 11
Performance Appraisal 11
Layoff 10 Disability Accommodation 8 Sexual Harassment 7 Race/Culture 6 Conflict with Supervisee 5 Ethical Concerns 5
Academic Issues 63
Most common academic issues:
Conflict with Academic Adviser 23
Academic Standing/Dismissal 18
Grading Dispute 16
Disability Accommodation 10
Honor Code Charges 5
Ethical Concerns 4
Student Life 45
Most common student life issues:
Fee or Billing Dispute 16
Housing/Dining Issu 7
Non-Academic Student Activities 6 Sexual Harassment 6
Roommate conflict 5
Other 3
The Ombuds Office opened 291 cases during the past year, which is a 7 percent increase over last year's total. A case is defined as any situation in which a problem is thoroughly discussed and options for resolving it are generated. These cases involved 323 people who participated in initial sessions and 183 additional faculty, staff and students who were contacted during the problem resolution process. Brief conversations involving informational requests about the office and referrals to other resources are not included in the statistics. Most of the cases and all the mediations involved face-to-face meetings, though some situations were handled on the phone if a meeting was impossible to arrange because of scheduling or geographical constraints. The presenting problems were recorded as personnel, academic, student life or other. The most common concerns are listed under each heading; several cases involved more than one of these issues. "Personnel" problems are those involving faculty and staff that are related to their work at the university. "Academic" issues involve students and their education, and "student life" concerns include a range of non-academic issues involving students. "Other" problems are those that do not fit into the first three categories.
StudentsPost-doctoral, graduate and undergraduate students made up about a third of all cases seen this year. Fifty-one graduate student cases and five post-doctoral cases were opened this year, and almost half of these involved conflicts with an academic adviser. These students typically felt quite vulnerable and cautious about addressing problems with their primary adviser due to the importance of that relationship for their job recommendations and professional futures. They often sought the Ombuds Office as a resource because of its confidentiality, and the issues included academic and dissertation advising complaints, academic standing issues, personality clashes, authorship disputes, ethical concerns, funding problems and sexual harassment. On a few occasions a resolution was achieved through a mediation process, and more frequently the student was advised about possible courses of action, relevant policies and additional resources on the campus. Other graduate student problem categories included housing problems, tuition and fee disputes, disability accommodation and interpersonal conflicts at home or in the lab.
The ombuds also spoke to the Graduate Student Council about the services of the office and also consulted with members of the Committee on Graduate Education about challenges for graduate students seeking to resolve conflicts related to their programs or advisers.
Thirty-eight undergraduate cases were seen. The most common concerns were grade disputes, academic standing issues and billing disputes. Frequently the ombuds served as an intermediary with these difficulties to gather information, advise and encourage a resolution acceptable to all within the policy guidelines of the university. Some students presented complaints that involved student housing, sexual harassment, the student judicial process and disability accommodation. In these situations, students spoke with the ombuds to explore their options, and were referred to the relevant university policies and offices when appropriate.
The ombuds also served on the Advisory Board for the new Center for Mediation and Communication (C-MAC), which offers peer mediation and conflict resolution services for Stanford students. C-MAC also will provide workshops for students and student organizations on communication and conflict resolution skills.
StaffA little more than half of this year's cases were staff concerns. Most of these referrals come from word of mouth or publicity, and occasionally from the prompting of a concerned supervisor or human resources officer. Sessions with the ombuds are confidential, but with permission there are times when communication with others in the workplace is useful. In many cases, the ombuds contacted colleagues, supervisors or other offices to make inquiries and facilitate the resolution of a problem.
Conflict with a supervisor was the most common complaint. These conflicts included performance appraisal disputes, disciplinary measures, terminations, layoffs, sexual harassment, diversity issues, lack of civility, disability accommodation, workload expectations, personality clashes and formal grievances. Workplace conflicts often generate a high level of discomfort and fear, especially among those who have less institutional power, and most of the staff who came to the office were looking for a place to safely air their concerns and explore options for resolving their problems. In some cases, listening and coaching seemed to be the most useful approaches, and at other times the ombuds mediated disputes or engaged in shuttle diplomacy. Handling the emotional, interpersonal and organizational realities of a workplace problem can be very challenging, and staff conversations with the ombuds usually touched on all these areas.
This year, the Presidential Advisory Committee on Workplace Policies recommended that the Ombuds Office increase awareness of its services among temporary and casual employees. To this end, information about the office is being disseminated to those departments that employ temporary and casual employees through brochures and e-mail notifications. The brochure is also now available in Spanish, and a Spanish link has also been added to the Ombuds Office home page. The office also has a Spanish translator available upon request for meetings with the ombuds.
FacultyTwenty-six faculty used the Ombuds Office last year. Their concerns were varied and included the tenure-decision process, conflicts with colleagues, conflicts with deans and department chairs, sexual harassment, benefits complaints and difficulties with students. Several additional faculty, deans and department chairs were also contacted by the ombuds in the course of resolving concerns presented by students and staff.
MediationsTwenty-one mediations took place during the year involving 52 people. These sessions involved two or more people in a dispute who wished to have the ombuds facilitate their discussion. The ombuds role in these situations is to be a neutral facilitator who keeps the discussions respectful, focused and productive. Participants agree to keep the conversations confidential and only share information outside the meeting if everyone agrees. Most of the mediations were a single session, but several required additional meetings and individual contacts to effectively address the problems. The process of discussing differences openly and respectfully in a safe environment generally has a positive effect, though sometimes the participants enter the process feeling somewhat apprehensive or skeptical.
Other ActivitiesIn addition to working with the cases that came through the office, presentations were given by the ombuds in a number of departments and community settings. Presentation titles included "Resolving Conflict in Academic Institutions," "The Personal Challenges of Being a Supervisor," "Graduate Students and the Ombuds Office" and "Conflict Resolution Skills." The ombuds also was invited to lead a workshop on conflict resolution for union stewards and managers.