Various & sundry HLC pre-visit thoughts

So one of my colleagues has admonished me for airing 'dirty laundry' in this forum about the condition of the university. I was warned not to speak ill of our now threatened university lest our uncorrected deficiencies lead to our loss of accreditation or even closure or consolidation. I inquired whether this instruction to silence came from on high and was not surprised to hear that it had. The first problem I have with this is the wish to have faculty compromise their personal integrity during the HLC visit by not telling the truth as that is perceived as airing dirty laundry. I believe that at the end of the day, I only have my integrity and it is something that I don't compromise and never for a job. I hope that my faculty colleagues, if asked, are completely truthful about whatever the Visitors inquire about. For the sake of their own integrity, I would hope truth wins the day.
Some months ago, the Provost assured faculty that the process of preparing for the visit and the visit itself would be open and transparent. I recently saw the visitation schedule and was struck by the lack of faculty feedback and involvement. Faculty has been given 45 minutes to meet with the Visitation Team. I then realized that the purpose of the visit doesn't center on faculty not doing their jobs. Rather it focuses on a Board of Trustees that had been asleep at the switch, a former president completely uninterested in protecting the university and an interim president completely hamstrung by a megalomaniacal BOT chairman who appeared hell bent on destroying the institution. Faculty is clearly not on the hook for another administrative and BOT failure. The unfortunate result of this is there has never been any accountability for the six years of university mismanagement. Choosing not to revisit the past is a mistake. Taking responsibility for the failings of the administration could serve to put much of the past behind us. The HLC gave the university instructions in 2003 to address a specific issue. The university did not comply with those instructions until after the announcement of the Focus Visit. Therefore, it seems to me that an admission of that publicly would begin a process of accountability. Replacing workers and shuffling administrators is not accountability. I am saddened that this administration is really no different from the past in terms of open and transparent communications and building a culture of accountability. I guess the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Finally, I am curious about the schedule. Are all of the meetings open? Why would any of the meetings of the accreditation team be closed? At a public university doing the public's business, I would expect a level of transparency promised by the Provost. It seems to further entrench a closed and secretive management style, one that has proven over the past two decades to dis-serve the university. I would have hoped there would be more clarity provided about the visit. Many faculty are interested in this process and have not been given the ground rules. Good communications is usually pro-active, not like what we are accustomed to.

This Is CSU

On Wednesday, March 24, I helped to coordinate an event sponsored by the Women and Gender Studies Committee, the Francophone Film Series, and the College of Arts and Sciences. We showed “Moolaadé,” a film by Sembene Ousmane (Senegal, 2004), and we followed the film with a panel discussion consisting of three faculty members from CSU and one faculty member from Kennedy-King College. About 30 people showed up to watch the film and discuss it – faculty, students, and staff from CSU, as well as others.

This film is about the difficult subject of excision, also known as female genital mutilation or female genital cutting. As the discussion showed, however, the film is about much more than this subject. It’s about gender relations and power, the female body as a discursive site, the question of how practices are maintained and how they are changed, tradition versus modernity, globalization, the question of “African-ness” in post-colonial Africa, the roles of the individual and the community, and many other things. As the discussion showed, the film is particularly rich because it raises questions about these issues in complex ways, encouraging viewers to think and rethink their ideas.

I mention this activity not to pat myself on the back for the small part I played in this event, but to point out that many other events like this are going on all of the time on our campus. These are the sorts of events that should be widely advertised to counter the negative assumptions about CSU raised in much of the mass media. These events show the leadership and scholarly engagement of our own faculty and students. And, I would suggest that these events increase student retention not just for the students who attend them but also for those who hear about the exciting and provocative discussions generated at these events, and probably even for those students who simply see a flyer and know these events are happening.

This is CSU. An engaged community of scholars, faculty, and students committed to learning beyond the boundaries of the classroom.

This is CSU. An engaged community of scholars, faculty, and students thinking critically about the world around us, its history, and the means for creating change.

This is CSU. An engaged community of scholars, faculty, and students realizing the mission of the university to “produce graduates who are responsible, discerning, and informed global citizens with a commitment to lifelong-learning and service.”

"So you think you can do it better"

So someone asked me recently what I would do if I were President of the university since I have leveled so much criticism at the functioning of the Board of Trustees and past presidents. I took the "so you think you can do it better" question quite seriously and have given much thought to what I would do as the President of CSU. Some of my ideas/plans/decisions would be controversial AND that is just the nature of the beast. Or we might have discovered they are good ideas had not the last presidential search process been so horribly handled.
First, I would clearly articulate to the campus community the role of my office and my duties. Having an open door policy is great as long as my open door policy doesn't undermine my subordinates and create mistrust within the campus community. I don't believe I am there to oversee the day to day operations. Rather, I am there to champion the university, to raise money, to speak to, educate and lobby the elected officials who determine our funding and our future, and to raise money. As you can see, raising money is critical to the long term success of the university. I would also relentlessly push the Board of Trustees to raise money for the university as well. The process of raising money also builds relationships that strengthen the university.
Second, I would meet with faculty regularly and hear from them what they needed from me for our academic endeavors to be successful. Listening is the key, not dictating based on whatever whim catches my fancy. As faculty I understand how much knowledge, experience and wisdom faculty bring collectively. In short, I would actualize the ideas of shared governance. I would have no tolerance for administrators who paid lip service to this important principle of academe.
Third, I would share my vision of the university, its role in the community, the city, the state and the nation. I would want to hear from the other visionaries on campus and then articulate that vision publicly and loudly. Part of my vision does involve being a builder president. There is however, only one building I would be investing significant energy in and that is a new state of the art science building. Not being an architect, scientist or engineer I can only estimate that the cost for such a building would be around 150 to 200 million dollars. Of course this is a bold vision. It is by being bold, taking risks and achieving that the institution moves forward. Building relationships in the private sector and working to get scarce resources from the federal government would be a top priority. The science faculty at this university are outstanding. Given the low level of infrastructure support here, they manage to conduct cutting edge research, teach at a high level and expose our students to possibilities unimagined before entering this university. One of the real down sides is that we do not have a College of Engineering. For the past 19 years Terri Young has done a truly remarkable job in managing the Engineering Studies program. Her success has in some measure been a double edged sword. The preparation that her students have received has created opportunities for them to succeed in earning degrees in engineering from other universities. Simply put the university's excellent Engineering Studies program hurts our retention and graduation numbers because we know at the front end those first time full time freshmen will not graduate from CSU because there is no College of Engineering at CSU. It seems it is time to fish or cut bait on this program. As President I would commit to the creation of an Engineering College to be housed in the new sciences building with the College of Pharmacy. Of course it will be difficult and expensive and the cost of not doing it is so much higher given our student body and what we are capable of. The university proved it can handle new programs. The College of Pharmacy is an example of what happens when the right people are hired, encouraged to do their jobs and allowed to succeed.
Fourth, I would work tirelessly to address the two problems that have plagued this university for decades namely poor communication and absence of an accountability culture. The communication deficiency can be attributed to any number of technical issues e.g. poor email system, antiquated telecoms etc. Yet it is my belief that a deficit so systemic originates from the top of any hierarchy. The belief that open and transparent communication comes from the President's Office. Accountability is the same way. The university doesn't have a culture of accountability because there has never been a Board of Trustees and President who have demanded it. Firing those that need to be fired does not indicate accountability. Rather it indicates picking the low hanging fruit. Accountability is about taking responsibility for ones' choices, their consequences, (intended or unintended) and the cost of the choice. It is also about living up to agreements. I view accountability as relational not punitive. It isn't a word to be thrown around to prove who is in charge. And I don't assume everyone has the same understanding of accountability that I have. I have sat in enough meetings in the last 18 years here to know that after a 2 hour meeting there might be no agreement on who is to do what by when. Things fall through the cracks and then everything becomes a crisis with administrators responding like 911.
Finally, I would put a management team in place that is prepared to move the university forward in the way that successful universities move forward. It is imperative to me that everyone on my team would have demonstrated an ability to be a servant leader. Because I say I am doesn't mean that I am. The proof is in the service not the words. Administrators seem to be so focused on managing that they forget or don't know about leading. Leadership is what the institution has been lacking since I've been here. Succinctly stated, I would lead.
Of course serving as the President of a university is a difficult job. Of course there are a thousand things I don't know about the responsibilities. And I believe I couldn't possibly do as bad a job as the last two presidents have.
And for the record, I have absolutely no interest in being a university president anywhere at any time.

More goings on.....

So in an earlier post, I alluded to the changes underway at the university. I wanted to pass along some other changes and non-changes. The first one I thought worth mentioning is the university’s plan to open a charter school. Originally scheduled to appear on the Chicago Board of Education’s February meeting agenda, it was suddenly and quietly removed from the agenda. Currently there is a plan to open the school in Fall of 2011. Given the controversial nature of charter schools, generally and the closing of Chicago Public Schools, the plan to thrust CSU into the K-12 education business may be ill conceived for a number of reasons. It doesn’t appear as though the university has considered the liability issues associated with educating minors. What will the insurance costs and potential damage to the institution in the event of any incidents be? Does the university currently have classroom and office space to spare for this endeavor? Given the level of deferred maintenance at the university, might it be better to focus scarce university resources on university functions rather than on a charter school which falls pretty far outside the boundaries of what the university does?

There has been some speculation that the university would be taking over the Carruther’s Center for Inner City Studies which is currently housed at Northeastern Illinois University. Located at 700 E. Oakwood Boulevard the Center’s studies are distinguished by their interdisciplinary nature in the social sciences and humanities with an emphasis on ethnic and racial issues as they apply to basic urban studies. Given the depth of knowledge of the current Executive Director of the Center about the business of CSU, it seems a natural progression to have the Center taken over by CSU as the university has another “builder” president wishing to expand the physical footprint of the university. I called the Public Affairs office at NEIU on March 11th, and was informed there were no plans by NEIU to give up hosting the Carruther’s Center. I will keep an eye on this and let you know if there are any changes...

And on a self-interested note, I am very curious why contract negotiations for UPI Local 4100 have not started yet. I imagine that the union negotiators are wise enough not to ask for money in the first year and there are several other issues that should be addressed. For example, if my contractual rights are violated by the administration, there is no consequence for the administration. Yet if I don’t fulfill my contractual obligations, there will most certainly be sanctions. That hardly seems fair. Why not award faculty two weeks pay for the first grievance won in a calendar year, four weeks pay for two successful grievances and cap it at six weeks pay for three or more grievances won in a calendar year? I am sure some administrators would start reading the contract more closely if there was some real accountability at this institution embedded in the contract.

What's Being Said in Springfield...

So if you haven't read the recent article about possible futures for CSU, I have provided the link. The long and the short of it is, CSU is in trouble. It has been in trouble for years, largely due to the wrong people being appointed to the Board of Trustees, the wrong people being hired to serve as president, a distinct lack of oversight by legislators entrusted to protect the taxpayers money and to a much lesser degree a faculty, mostly ignored by the Governor and by administration. Much of what is quoted in the article could be characterized as political posturing. Some of it can be characterized as responding to a larger crisis by focusing on a smaller issue. The legislature continues to search for the easy, fast and politically palatable solution for the state's financial situation. I question where the legislators' outrage was when the Faculty Senate asked the Governor to remove the Board of Trustees during a flawed presidential search process? A cry for help went unanswered and the university finds itself nearer to closing.
Given that there are some who would see the university closed or consolidated, it is even more curious that so much attention is being placed by the new regime on the construction of a dormitory, the relocation of the Child Care Center and the opening of a Charter School on campus. It would seem that the university should focus on the things it already does well and improve the things its needs to. What it shouldn't do at this juncture is undertake new projects that don't lie at the core of the institution's mission until the university rights itself. The university's administration and Board need to prove they can be trusted with public funds and can support the mission of the university effectively. Employing another "builder president" was a bad start. Increasing admissions standards, advertising further afield, asking the faculty for their wisdom on all academic matters, and taking a more proactive role in external fund raising would be a much better start. Those are the activities that would begin to restore the much maligned reputation of the university.
The students seem to be much more in tune as at the last Board of Trustees meeting the Student Government Association asked for the resignation of the Board chairman much to the surprise of the other board members. Faculty might take their lead from the students and continue the pressure needed to right a ship guided for decades by incompetence . With no Illinois Senate President to provide largess, the university must prove its mettle. Is it up to the task or will its failure seal its fate?

Some goings on at the Board of Trustees meeting

So there are clearly changes underway at CSU as reported during the recent Board of Trustees meetings. Not all of the changes make sense unless you understand the political culture of Chicago. For example, the university is prepared to spend between $25,000 and $50,000 on a feasibility study for the construction of a new 1,000 bed dormitory. The current dormitory is 325 beds. The feasibility study would be the first step in a longer process of moving the project to completion. I am not quite sure why the university would want to incur the debt of the construction of such a building given its poor construction history with the Student Union and existing dormitory. State law prohibits the use of appropriated funds to build dormitories or student unions. The university would have to borrow the money, most likely through a bond issue. And then I read a report from a consultant hired by the university to spearhead this effort. The crux of the issue was not in the construction. Rather it was that the dormitory would possibly (read likely) be privatized. This means the university would contract with a private vendor to manage some portion of residence life. Hmmmmm. In Chicago, this means that cronyism and shady deals are just around the corner. What company do tell would get that contract? Would it be a company that has a connection to a current and ostensibly future ex Board member who is currently involved in the real estate industry? Would the construction of the facility also be subject to the same cronyistic influences? If so, the university would be setting itself up for further scrutiny by the press and possibly by other bodies.

On another note, one of the benefits that progressive companies and organizations provide is on-site child care for its employees. CSU has had a very robust Child Care Center for many years. Once the Robinson University Center closed the child care function began a nomadic existence, even moving off campus which was clearly detrimental to the parents in need of child care. Now it seems that the Child Care Center is to be re-located and housed in the Education Building. Being co-located with the College of Education may in fact be a good idea. The location on the other hand may not be such a good idea. The Vocational Education workshops are to be dismantled and relocated. That space is to be transformed into the new Child Care Center. There may be asbestos in the building and in the area that needs to be removed before occupancy can occur. This is a straightforward construction project. Remove the existing machinery, conduct the asbestos abatement, rebuild the area into a child care center and open for business. Unfortunately, logic doesn’t always win the day. The worst case I can envision is a front page story on how the university chose to use a former industrial workspace that contained asbestos and other chemicals to house its child care center. It won’t matter that the abatement followed all of the federal and state guidelines and all of the machinery was removed appropriately and any necessary environmental cleanup was done impeccably. The only thing that will matter is the headline with the words, CSU, Child, and Asbestos in it. The university is potentially setting itself up for a public relations disaster. Hopefully the university administration will rethink this plan and avoid its potential pitfalls.

Graduate Thesis for all??

So one of my distinguished colleagues ran into a technical glitch and couldn't post directly. This is published on his behalf. And it saves me writing the second part of my posting on the Senior Thesis.

I did some research and found that in the discipline of history, of 57 public universities in the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, and the entire state university of California, only one university (Central Missouri) requires an M.A. thesis. The notion of an education-style "one-size fits all," glorified standardized test on steroids is a terrible idea.

In the discipline of history, the M.A. thesis requires a significant amount of research and writing and usually comes in around 100 pages (most often more). For most students, it is imperative that they select a topic in their first semester of grad school since the project will take close to two years to complete. Thus, a mandatory thesis requirement in history will lengthen the time to degree significantly.

There are other considerations: Sufficient primary source materials must be available to complete the project. In the event that those materials are not local, students must travel to archives and dig through letters, diaries, etc. Since all potential primary source material is not digitized, this travel entails a considerable expense for the student. Is the university going to provide any type of funding for this purpose?

In order to do primary research in historical subfields outside the United States, it is necessary for students to possess at least a reading knowledge of the appropriate language. This may not be limited to the European languages taught here. If a student wanted to do an African thesis, what kind of language support exists at the university? How about a medieval topic, is there a latin program here? A greek program for someone who might want to do a thesis in the ancient world? Simply put, a mandatory M.A. thesis would force students to select a topic based on what they could do rather than something they wanted to do. These topics would most likely be U.S. topics and close to home.

This would result in students being supervised by a minority of the faculty since the bulk of the history faculty are specialists in geographical areas outside the U.S. These faculty would effectively be precluded from functioning as thesis supervisors.

A required M.A. thesis would subvert the purpose of the M.A. in history and would ignore the needs of our graduate students. The current requirements of our M.A. program are comparable to the majority of similar programs in at least nine states, and I am sure across the country. Since a large number of our students are teaching, they are interested in a program that will help them improve their skills. In line with M.A. programs that serve a similar student population, our program requires a comprehensive examination which allows students to improve their knowledge in at least two fields. This has a positive effect on their teaching. A student can choose to write a thesis but only as a substitute for six hours of graduate-level course work, the examination is still required. In light of this, we are currently discussing the efficacy of creating a thesis "option" for the M.A. culminating experience

It is my belief that a mandatory M.A. thesis will ultimately destroy our graduate history program. Since no other M.A. granting university in the area has such a requirement, students would choose to attend a school with a program suited to their educational needs rather than one with an onerous and arbitrary required thesis and no institutional support for research in the social sciences.

The faculty are committed to academic rigor and to maintaining high standards for our students. This idea supports neither of those aims. It is simply a case of style over substance.

What's this about Theses???

So fair readers, I was contemplating how to respond to the suggestion (read demand) to institute both Senior and Graduate Theses as graduation requirements in Fall 2010. I will only examine the Senior Thesis and provide explanation on the Graduate Thesis in a later post. To call this an ill conceived idea would be understatement but that isn’t the purpose of today’s missive. Rather it is an explication of why this is an ill conceived idea and one that strains my confidence in the ability of the current regime to grasp some of the fundamental principles of a university.
At one level the intervention of a university administrator into an area that is the domain of the faculty without consultation demonstrates two disturbing things. First is a lack of understanding about the functioning of shared governance at a university. The second is a glaring disdain that this CEO has shown for the faculty of this university. Because a CEO has some whim about how academic programs should be configured does not give said CEO the right to arbitrarily impose said idea onto the university curriculum. And if, as some reports indicate, this is being done not for the students’ benefit but to show our accrediting body how academically rigorous we are then my confidence is further shaken. Had our CEO had a modicum of respect for faculty he would have asked the Chief Academic Officer to contact the Faculty Senate President and Union President with a request to examine this proposition. From there the faculty could begin the process examining whether it is feasible or efficacious to substantively alter the curriculum. It would be helpful if this CEO understood there are generally accepted processes for addressing issues like curriculum changes. I imagine that successful implementation of this idea would at minimum take several years.
First, the faculty has not decided whether this proposal would serve the educational needs of students in individual departments. A Senior Thesis may be of little or no value in the Department of Art and Design, while a portfolio may be preferable. And I have no knowledge whether there is a portfolio requirement already. If there is, then this idea serves no purpose. Thus it appears that individual departments must first be surveyed by the Academic Affairs Committee about the efficacy of a Senior Thesis.
Once the necessity is determined then faculty will be confronted with several institutional realities. First, the university routinely admits students that are not prepared for university level education in the areas of writing and critical thinking. This situation was recently exacerbated by the university lowering admission standards in the face of low retention rates. Expecting a high quality Senior Thesis from students unprepared when they enter the university will require a significant investment of university resources. These are resources that the university obviously doesn’t have when departmental budgets are covering salaries and payroll costs.
Second, the Writing Center must be expanded both in terms of space and number of writing specialists. It is unlikely given the anticipated wave of lay-offs that the university will be able to hire enough tutors to provide adequate service for the number of students in need or writing assistance to complete a Senior Thesis.
Third the university will need to provide CUEs to faculty who would supervise Senior Theses. Since the Collective Bargaining Agreement does not provide for mandatory participation, then some language would need to be negotiated before faculty could be compelled to participate. This would of course add an additional task for department chairs, that being to monitor which faculty are supervising which students.
Fourth, it is unknown whether the introduction of a Senior Thesis would extend the time of graduation for students initially, possibly for the first five to seven years of this new requirement. Given that the university suffers yearly criticism for its graduation rate, it is likely this requirement would worsen the graduation rate for some period of time. Additionally, we don’t know what catalog this proposal would effect under. Since the foundational work hasn’t been done it might be another four years before the catalog could be changed to reflect the Senior Thesis graduation requirement.
Fifth, a methodologically rigorous Senior Thesis could require some additional course work to prepare students for the research and writing process. I would expect that a Senior Thesis would be more than a book report and would require original research or it would be of no value. A worthless Senior Thesis would have an adverse impact on retention as students would view it only as another hoop and elect to transfer to another institution or not make CSU their first choice for admission. The introduction of a Senior Thesis also risks grade inflation which diminishes the value of the Senior Thesis and could subsequently bring scrutiny from our accrediting bodies questioning the academic rigor of the academic programs..
Sixth, there would need to be a reduction of teaching loads and class sizes because there would need to be an increased emphasis on Writing Across the Curriculum as one mechanism to prepare students for a Senior Thesis. Smaller class sizes would require more class sections, possibly more faculty, and more classroom space. That means more money.
Seventh, it is unknown whether students in the Non-Traditional Programs like the Board of Governors would be subject to a Senior Thesis requirement. If so, what faculty would supervise their work and why since they don’t belong to any of the academic departments. A conspiracy theorist might posit that this a a scheme to drive some departments out of existence and move CSU to an open enrollment type of university like community colleges.
Eighth, it is unknown whether the current articulation agreements would adequately prepare transfer students for the completion of a Senior Thesis. Would the curriculum need to be re-tooled since most students are transfer students? What would it cost to re-tool the curriculum especially in a financially strapped institution?
Finally, with more than a thousand students conceivably working on a Senior Thesis, what increased workload would be placed on the University Library staff. Would there need to be expanded library hours and increased library staffing? Where would the money for that come from? Given the university’s poor fund raising record and poor record of student support, how could the university manage to successfully implement a Senior Thesis, especially without the contribution and direction of the faculty?
Of course, maybe the Senior Thesis idea is all rumor and speculation. If so, never mind.

A Busy Week

There is a lot going on at CSU this week before Spring Break. The Board of Trustees meets all day in a series of meetings on campus on Monday. CEO Watson has called a meeting of the workers in a "Faculty" Town Hall in the SUB Rotunda on Tuesday (12.30-2 p.m.)and members of the College of Arts and Sciences can attend an all-College Assembly on Thursday.

If you haven't had a chance to familiarize yourself with the CSU "Self-Study Transparency" document that was sent out, have a look especially at p. 24 which takes a very subjective view (some might say it lies) about "shared governance" on the campus: "The University fully embraces shared governance at all levels—department, college and university. Issues related to governance are fully described in the Institutional Profile." (the detailed follow-up link is unavailable); pp. 59 & 113 cheer on CEO Watson's "CSU Renaissance" I guess his promise to the HLC will become power; p. 80 "Communications" explains the need to spend $145,000 on flatscreen monitors in the buildings--clearly an urgent need, just like lipstick on a pig (btw have you noticed the info on many of the screens is still listing events in February?); p. 99 describes Administrative support for faculty and staff "professional development" but only as they see it, i.e. teaching, not much on real research support unless you are in the money-making sciences, remember travel moneys have been cut, there are no sabbaticals for next year, and research cues have not been awarded in any way but by CEO fiat ("shared governance," yeah, right).

No one can afford to keep their head in the sand about what is going on around campus so try to attend some of these meetings or keep abreast by talking to those who will go.


FYI The Schedule of the Board of Trustees' Monday meetings follows. The last board meeting at the end of the day will include the full board --public comments there will be interesting.

Board of Trustees Meeting
Academic and Student Affairs Committee Meeting
Academic Library Auditorium, Room 415
March 8, 2010
7:30 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Verification of Meeting Notice
4. Action Item
a. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
5. Information Items
a. Academic and Student Affairs Update
1. Action Items
Tenure Recommendations
Emeritus Dean
2. Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Update
3. Child Care Center and Charter School Updates
4. College of Pharmacy Update
b. Update on Enrollment and Retention
6. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments
7. Adjournment

Board of Trustees Meeting
Finance and Audit Committee Meeting
Academic Library Auditorium, Room 415
March 8, 2010
9:30 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Verification of Meeting Notice
4. Action Item
a. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
5. Information Items
a. Financial Update
Action Items
1. FY 2011 Tuition Increase
2. Anti-Fraud Policy
3. Amended U-Pass
b. Internal Auditor Report
Action Item
1. Auditor's Charter
c. Office of Sponsored Programs
Action Items
1. Contracts over $250,000
a. MRI-R2: Acquisition of a 400 MHz NMR Spectrometer at CSU
b. Minority Biomedical Research Support - SCORE Program
c. Minority Biomedical Research Support - RISE Program
d. Library Services
Action Item
1. Contracts over $250,000
a. Yankee Book Peddler Library Service
e. Technology Information Update
Action Item
1. Contracts over $250,000
a. Data Storage
f. Enrollment and Retention
Action Item
1. Professional Service Contracts over $100,000
a. Marketing and Communication and Public Relations Plan
g. Athletics Business Plan
6. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments
7. Adjournment

Board of Trustees Meeting
Facilities Committee Meeting
Academic Library Auditorium, Room 415
March 8, 2010
11:30 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Verification of Meeting Notice
4. Facilities Update
1. Action Items
a. Language Change for Capital Improvements
b. Residence Hall Development
2. Information Items
a. Aquaponics Initiative
5. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments
6. Adjournment

Board of Trustees Meeting
Legislative and Personnel Committee Meeting
Academic Library Auditorium, Room 415
March 8, 2010
2:15 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Verification of Meeting Notice
4. Information Items
a. Legislative Update
b. Personnel Update
5. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments
6. Adjournment

Board of Trustees Meetings
Full Board Meeting
Academic Library Auditorium, Room 415
March 8, 2010
3:45 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Verification of Meeting Notice
4. Action Item
a. Previous Meeting Minutes
5. President's Report
6. Reports
a. Academic and Student Affairs
1. Action Items
Tenure Recommendations
Emeritus Dean
2. Higher Learning Commission Accreditation
b. Finance and Audit
Action Items
1. Auditor's Charter
2. Anti-Fraud Policy
3. Amended U-Pass
4. FY 2011 Tuition Increase
5. Professional Service Contracts over $100,000
a. Marketing and Communication and Public Relations Plan
6. Contracts over $250,000
a. MRI-R2: Acquisition of a 400 MHz NMR Spectrometer at CSU
b. Minority Biomedical Research Support - SCORE Program
c. Minority Biomedical Research Support - RISE Program
d. Yankee Book Peddler Library Service
e. Data Storage
c. Facilities
Action Item
1. Language Change for Capital Improvements
2. Residence Hall Development
d. Legislative and Personnel
e. Civil Service Merit Board
f. Foundation
g. Student Trustee
7. Recess into Executive Session Pursuant to The Illinois Open Meetings Act
a. Employment Matters
b. Legal Matters
c. Collective Bargaining Matters
8. Reconvene into Open Session
9. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments
10. Adjournment

Crisis of identity

So any faculty member who has spent more than five minutes on campus would probably realize that institutionally we function most of the time in crisis mode. It is either a financial crisis or a leadership crisis or an enrollment/retention/graduation crisis or some other crisis that we bring our attention to. One crisis that appears to be occurring in the background of our various and sundry crises is a crisis of identity.
So, loyal readers, you may ask "how could we be suffering from a crisis of identity?" Simply put, we don't know who we are as an institution. For all of the publicly documented failings of the past administration and Board of Trustees, one thing the previous regime did was begin to emphasize research and scholarly activity including publications as an expected part of faculty life. This shift to a more research oriented institution has been reflected in Departmental Applications of Criteria, Personnel Actions and the professional activities of many faculty. After several years of metaphorically heading west we are now turning back east as the emphasis appears to be on non-research activities. This shift can be characterized by the virtual elimination of sabbaticals, the arbitrary assignment of Research CUES and the negligible support for all but the sciences in grant funding.
As some faculty have feared it appears that we are moving away from being a university toward being a community college where the emphasis is on teaching. If this is the case, why won't the CEO or Board of Directors, sorry Trustees, explicate this clearly. State on the record that we are not really a university providing liberal arts based education any more, our mission is job training and preparation for an under-prepared student body.
I don't hold the CEO responsible for this 180 degree change. I believe the Board of Trustees is responsible because they hired a president with no substantive experience at doctoral degree granting institutions to manage a doctoral degree granting institution. I believe the CEO is doing his level best given his experience. And I have to ask did the Board of Trustees set him up to fail? If so, shame on them for their continue lack of competence and shame on Governor Quinn for not being an executive and acting to help the university through our myriad of crises.