Thought for the day...

From a long serving (long suffering) colleague, a journey back to the Vietnam War era.

"We the unwilling, led by the incompetent and criminal have done the amazing, forever with nothing. We will now attempt the impossible and probably fail. No reality distortion field here."

A response from a retiring colleague

This is a rejoinder submitted by Professor George Williams.

 

"Obviously, Dr. Walter misses the issues of my original “Dear Colleague” letter posted by P. Beverly. So let’s try again.

1.      PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS: This issue is not so much what they did behind closed doors, but the fact that they actually met behind closed doors and excluded the union negotiating team.

L. Walter, E. Sullivan and J. Daniel (for one session only)  excluding the other negotiating team members met with the CSU President at his request for several sessions to finalize contract negotiations. The question is WHY? Possible answers: [select  one or all]

a.       The CSU President was unhappy with his own negotiating team;

b.      The CSU President wanted to finalize the contract on his terms so he could say (as he did with the CCC  union negotiations) that contract settlement required his special powers of mediation;

c.        [You supply your own motivation]

The issue is that the reduced union negotiating team of Walter and  Sullivan  should not have met in PRIVATE with the CSU CEO.  Referencing the College of  Pharmacy  integration and Appendix G  update  has nothing to do with the issue except to obfuscate  and deflect the criticism.

The Criticism of Walter and Sullivan is Chicago politics of “behind closed doors” meetings which resulted in the union acceptance of post tenure review, a 5 year contract with minimal salary increases, and inaction on other items on the table

2.      RUSHED VOTING to approve the contract. A membership meeting was held and voting began at that meeting on an incomplete version of the contract which has been posted online only a couple days prior to the membership meeting?

Again WHY the rush?

3.      PRO-ACTIVE LEADERSHIP: This issue is not so much with what was finally accomplished with the Administration’s computer usage policy, but the actual timeline of union intervention.

This criticism is of the union chapter president’s reaction to the “Computer Usage” proclamation and the timeline of the union intervention. The outcome of the fiasco was to be expected and for which there is nothing to compliment oneself. The entire point is that the day after the CSU proclaimed its new policy, the union should have responded by telling the membership to ignore the computer usage proclamation, not a week later.

In summation, let’s expand the criticism of the union, both union leadership and membership. Union meetings consist of a handful of loyal members -  why? Why did the union chapter president refuse to an open debate or Q&A meeting with Professor McFarland? Why is there not a CSU union blog similar to the Faculty Voice? Why is there no information ever posted for the membership concerning grievances (except those which are personal)?"

A question from a student

So I was talking to one of my students after class and she asked an interesting question, “ how do you fund raise?” It was interesting coming from a student and interesting because there has been so little discussion of fund raising at an institution whose students’ greatest challenge is financial. I told her that essentially it was the responsibility of the development office to generate leads, soften up donors and prepare the field for the closer who is usually the university president. Because the chief executive is involved there should be many ‘big check’ photo opportunities. There should be lots of pictures and short blurbs in the papers about the campaign. Even during economic down times a place like Stanford University was able to engage 10,360 volunteers to solicit support from more than 166,000 donors over five years of the Stanford Challenge to raise $6.23 billion. That is a remarkable achievement and I would never expect such an achievement from a small state university like Chicago State University. However, I would expect some vision around some major fund raising goal. It could be the investment of all the political and social capital of the institution in the construction of a new science building, one that the plans for have already been drawn up. But the university is investing scarce state resources in a West Side campus, an undertaking with a dubious beginning and uncertain progress to this point. The university could set a programmatic goal, (not a brick and mortar campaign that many presidents are fond of) for its fund raising efforts. For example, what if the university dedicated itself to raising enough money every year to eliminate the need for its students to take out any student loans for the period of their attendance. What if financial responsibility were a core value that was extended to protecting our students’ economic futures? How would an effort like that raise the stature of the institution and mitigate against the continued negative press the university experiences? Might it make the recruitment efforts of the university easier? Might it change the culture of the institution? Might it just be the right thing to do? So along with the academic accomplishments of NCATE accreditation, the College of Pharmacy’s expected stellar performance in its accreditation and the institution’s anticipated HLC re-accreditation, a visionary undertaking like this could transform the university. Of course support from financial institutions in this campaign would be unlikely as they would not be able to prey upon our students and help create financial hardship for an already vulnerable demographic. The curious thing about all of this is why hasn’t this idea been discussed already by those at Chicago State University with so much more experience in higher education  than your humble narrator.

A Letter From A Retiring Colleague

So as is our policy, we publish on behalf of the faculty. Any faculty member is free is request publication.

Dear Colleague,

This is George Williams, a Lecturer in the English Department. I currently teach online, have been employed at CSU for the past 25 years, and have been an active member in a number of university committees.

I have been a member of the union contract negotiating team for the past three negotiated contracts, and I am deeply concerned over the recent negotiations and contract settlement. As a result I am asking you to support Dr. “Pancho” McFarland in the upcoming union elections for chapter president. I believe the CSU union needs a change of leadership and “Pancho” with his background in Sociology and labor activism presents a welcome change.

The union negotiating team consisted of six members: Ms. Jamie Daniel (union negotiater), Dr. Laurie Walter, Dr. Gabriel Gomez, Dr. Beverly Meyer, Ms. Romona Raymond, and myself. The team met for a year with CSU administration’s team led by Dr. Patrick Cage. A major negotiating issue was integrating the College of Pharmacy in the existing contract. Suddenly, however, the union negotiating team was excluded from the final 4 negotiation sessions during which Laurie Walter and Ellie Sullivan met with Dr. Watson at his request. Results of those sessions were post-tenure review, a nominal salary increase, and a 5 year contract.

Such sessions, I believe, were poor form and resulted in a contract that was rushed through membership approval without allowing membership adequate time for analysis. Also, items that had been on the table failed to appear in the final contract.

Additionally, Dr. Walter has refused to participate in a Q & A or debate session with her rival for the chapter presidency.

I believe a change to a pro-active leadership is necessary. Witness the latest fiasco concerning the CSU computer usage policy. 

On Wednesday, January 4, faculty received an email from Administration informing us that we had to sign a certification.

Our chapter president 6 days later, on Thursday, January 12, sent us an email informing us that she had sent the “powers-that-be a demand to bargain this change in working conditions”.

Then on Thursday, January 26, we received an email from the union president saying “Members who have not yet signed [the Computer Usage Policy certification] should do so, adding ‘I am signing this policy under protest.’”

I do not consider this timeline pro-active leadership.

The Ballots are here!

So loyal readers, as I relayed to you on Saturday, the regime rescinded its communications policy and in the process threw the faculty union president under the bus. I am still perturbed by this and I have endeavored to see the 'under' in all of it. Was this desperation on the part of the administration, seeking to shift responsibility for another failure? Or was there something deeper? Does the administration believe that the union has no power and subsequently its leadership can be publicly sacrificed without consequence? The timing of this cannot be coincidental. Faculty are in midst of union elections. Maybe this was done to further demoralize faculty and suppress turnout. Or maybe this was done to incite faculty to distract them from voting. The point is there is a union election. It might be the most important election in the past 15 years as it is the union that is responsible for protecting faculty rights in the workplace. If you believe the union has represented you well, I imagine you will vote to stay the course and continue with the current leadership. If you believe that a new course is needed then you will vote differently. The crucial element here is that faculty must vote. The union is only as strong and vital as its membership. If union members do not stand up, take responsibility for their union and vote, then I fear the worst is yet to come.

A Rube Goldberg Organization

So I always enjoy when students complete their homework and am doubly happy when colleagues do what they say they will do. To wit, the Provost provided me with a copy of the university’s organization chart, dated January 19, 2012. It would be understatement to say I was taken aback by this document both in form or presentation and in substance. It is poorly designed and a closer inspection reveals that the institution is poorly organized. For example, the recommended span of control is exceeded by the President. An ideal span of control (number of direct reports) is between five and nine. The chart shows eleven, hence the need for a chief of staff. Might a less expensive alternative been to reorganize more efficiently with an eye to lines of supervision that more closely mirror a university?
I had several questions about this chart and some concerns. First, why is the Counseling Center not reporting to the Provost as all of the Counselors are Unit A Faculty members. I find it appalling that any Unit A member would report to non faculty, in this case the Dean of Students and the Vice President for Enrollment Management. I would choose to believe that my faculty colleagues in the Counseling Center would prefer to be treated like faculty by people who can effectively evaluate faculty performance.
Second, why does Physical Plant report to the Chief of Police? This is an odd configuration for such an important job. Does the current police chief have some background as an architect or operating engineer that we didn’t know about? If not, the university should hire a Director of Physical Plant who has the requisite experience.
Third, why in the world is Institutional Research in Enrollment Management? It is much better situated in Academic Affairs as research seems to be the province of the academic side. Oh, but that would mean that the Provost would hire the person to manage the enterprise and might not employ the City College Re-employment Program standards in hiring. That the university should suffer to ensure the continuance of the CCRP is unconscionable.
Fourth, I think I understand now why the regime has such difficulty in communicating effectively both internally and externally. An examination of the org chart reveals an Associate to the President for Communications & External Relations, a Director of Public Relations & Communications, and a Director of Marketing and Communication with the latter two positions residing in the division of, you guessed it, Enrollment Management. Which of these three wrote the now retracted communications policy? Which of the three speaks for the university officially, like a Public Information Officer or Press Secretary? Apparently none, since anonymity is the order of the day. How many memos do you receive from the regime that actually have a signature on them. Are lower level functionaries prohibited from signing missives that they issue?
Which brings me to my final concern and that is the cancerous growth of the division of Enrollment Management. If you notice the light blue area of the org chart you will find all manner of departments reporting to enrollment management. A curious thing is that the Registrar reports to this division through an Associate Vice President. Curious because the Registrar should report to the Provost as the Chief Academic Officer since the Office of the Registrar is solely about protecting the academic integrity of the institution, not a position suitable for on the job training as we currently have. I believe some “right sizing” in this area would address any number of institutional ills including enrollment, communications, and access to institutional data. You will find posted my suggestions for restructuring the institution to place functions in logical reporting lines, not in lines that make the President “comfortable.”
And to think, there has been no public conversation in the press about the university’s 34 audit findings. I guess there is something to be thankful for.

Click on the chart for full page

Time To Go

As a follow-up to the previous post, I have copies of two e-mails sent by the union chapter president to the administration regarding the communications policy. The first, dated March 28 (or nine days prior to the Tribune story), reminded Renee Mitchell (with a copy to Patrick Cage) that "we (UPI) look forward to seeing a notice to the campus community about the Communications Policy." The second, dated April 3 (or three days prior to the story) and sent to the same people reads: "Thank you, Renee . . . That resolves #2 on the list I sent last week. . . Communications Policy, . . . still outstanding."

Thus, the chapter president sent not one, but two reminders to the administration that the “campus community” awaited the university’s announcement on the communications policy. As for the university’s contention that recision of the policy should have been announced by the chapter president, that argument is so sophomoric it deserves no response.

The broader issue here is the question of what did the president know and when did he know it? Wayne Watson’s management style has featured an aversion to dissent and retaliation against persons who dared disagree with him. At both the City Colleges and here, members of his administrative “team” filed civil actions against Watson for his vindictive and retaliatory behavior. Since he has become president at Chicago State, the university’s administration has made several attempts to stifle free expression.

The first, in November 2009, came in the form of a draft titled “CSU Policy Manual,” that articulated the purported need for a uniform message to the news media and that “supports the University’s one face to our students [and the] community.” This problematic policy apparently generated enough opposition to be put on the shelf. Undeterred however, the administration then overstepped with January’s “Computer Use Policy,” a vague and poorly written document that could have been construed to subject to disciplinary action the writer of any comments critical of the administration or any administrative persons. Again, considerable opposition to this policy forced the administration to bargain with the union over its wording. The final version has still not been released by the administration. In addition, between November 2009 and January 2012, the university president has also made numerous comments in a variety of venues that indicate that members of the university community should be careful about talking to the media, with the implication that comments by some faculty loose cannon could damage the university’s image.

Finally, the most recent brouhaha over the “communications policy,” represents the failure of the most audacious attempt yet by our administration to silence dissenting voices. This policy, written in a style that should embarrass an average fifth-grader, sounded like a “gag” order issued by some power-drunk magistrate. The fact that someone in the administration saw fit to draft a document like this demonstrates a non-existent understanding of either basic free speech rights or the function of a university.

What has Wayne Watson’s role in these various fiascoes been? There seems to be no paper trail leading directly to the president’s office, but is it not reasonable to assume that, given his demonstrated propensity to micro-manage and his obvious desire to control the message emanating from the school, communications this significant (especially the computer use and communications policies) would require his approval? In any event, the president looks ridiculous here. Either he approved of these imbecilic policies, or a person or persons in his administration is running wild, issuing blustering fiats and writing unenforceable policies that clearly violate the first amendment.

I maintain that it is time for Wayne Watson to step down as president of Chicago State University. If he chooses not to resign, he should be fired by the Board of Trustees. Let us have no more nonsense about what a “good” job he’s doing, it is time for the Board to act in the best interests of the students, staff and faculty at this school. There are several reasons for my belief, most rooted in his contract and its provisions:

1) Wayne Watson is charged with raising money for the university. How has he done in that regard?

2) Wayne Watson is charged with increasing the university’s enrollment. His performance here? Enrollment is down nearly one thousand, to below 6,000 students. Recently, the scandal over the administration’s failure to identify students who were scholastically ineligible for financial aid caused embarrassment for the university. The administration’s response? These were systemic problems and not our fault.

3) Wayne Watson is charged with maintaining good relations with the faculty. His performance has fallen short here. In addition, his management style has apparently been so problematic that the Board recently hired a “Chief of Staff” to help the president manage the university and its personnel.

4) Wayne Watson is charged with reducing the number of audit findings. The most recent audit reveals 34 exceptions (down from 41 in the previous audit), with 22 repeat exceptions. The worst year Elnora Daniel ever had resulted in 20 exceptions. Again the administration’s response is that these problems emanate from systemic deficiencies. Wayne Watson has now had three academic years to identify and fix these problems. The audit results speak for themselves.

Finally, even a cursory glance at the negative press coverage of the university makes clear where the problems are. I am unaware of any major scandal involving the faculty at this university. Indeed, the things that have caused embarrassment for the university are all ultimately the responsibility of the president: missing computer equipment, poor fiscal management, allowing students who should have been dismissed for poor scholarship to continue to enroll and receive financial aid, an antagonistic and disastrous relationship with the news media (except for those fawning acolytes who write puff pieces about the president), and the buffoonish attempts to crush dissent and stifle free speech.

In summary, we have had three years to observe and evaluate Wayne Watson’s leadership at Chicago State. I believe that he has demonstrably failed to live up to the provisions of his contract and should resign or be removed from this position.

Whose on first???

So adding insult to injury the administration has, according to the Chicago Tribune and a terse university email, retracted its censorship policy and attempted to throw the faculty union president under the bus by insinuating that it was her responsibility to communicate to the university that an un-vetted and unconstitutional university policy was rescinded. Really??? If lower level functionaries are led to believe that they can issue missives infringing on the First Amendment rights of faculty then there is a serious leadership deficit at the university. Some would demand that firings are in order. How many missteps does an administrator get before they lose their job after further damaging the institution's reputation???

CSU Org Chart --uh, who's the provost again?

Has the CSU administration heard of the First Amendment?

So imagine my surprise that while reading The Ticker from the Chronicle of Higher Education, a short blurb was posted about CSU’s new communications policy. It seems to me that the policy may already have failed as a faculty member was quoted in the article cited in The Ticker blurb. Will there now be disciplinary action taken against this tenured faculty member engaged in a First Amendment activity? I am not surprised that the regime is once again embroiled in an avoidable controversy. It has mis-stepped again by not participating in shared governance with the faculty. Like the poorly conceived Computer Usage Policy, this most recent statement by the administration reinforces their belief that faculty participation in decision making is unnecessary. Once again, CSU is negatively thrust into the spotlight by its inept administrative decisions. I have serious concerns that this institution lacks the capacity or ability to learn, especially from its mistakes. I am sure that none of our administrators spent one second considering the implications of this policy outside of the university. For example, faculty applicants may decline offers after reading of this inane policy, further complicating the employment process and thus the educational process of the institution. Since these administrators don’t participate in the academic life of the institution they would be wholly unaware of these implications thus the need for SHARED GOVERNANCE. I could be wrong but I am beginning to hear a drum beat in the hinterlands and it is saying......

Officially Absurd

Once again, our administration has subjected Chicago State to public ridicule. This time it is that ridiculous "Communications" policy that seems to prohibit anyone on campus talking to anyone else about anything without administrative approval. Given the continuing negative press this administrative "team" generates for this university it is simply time for them to go elsewhere. I wonder how long it will take our Board of Trustees to realize that our current leadership (headed by the million dollar man and filled with Community College lateral transfers and crony hires), is not up to running this, or any other university.

For the story, see:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-state-media-police-called-an-obscenity-and-absurdity-20120405,0,264020.story.

Governance vs "Service"

"The faculty governance question becomes ever more urgent as other types of collective power (like unions) are undermined. But who really WANTS to be on the Faculty Senate?"

This was one of the comments to the article I read last week in the Chronicle of Higher Ed which I'm linking and posting below. It is an appropriate read for this month since certain elections for faculty offices in our Union and Senate are coming up. The UPI Presidency race is between the incumbent Laurie Walter and Pancho McFarland. Ballots from the main UPI office have been sent to home addresses with a stamped card to mail in. To my knowledge there is no debate or forum planned between Drs. Walter and McFarland, but we will keep you posted if one will take place. I invite both candidates to use this blog to post their vision and mission (look at me--mouthing the HLC language)if they so choose.

And various departments on campus will also be holding elections this month for Senate membership to fill expired seats. At the Senate meeting on Tuesday we learned, sadly, that our current and long-serving Senate President Yan Searcy will be moving over to an Administrative position in the College of Arts and Sciences' Dean's Office. I know I speak for many others when I say that I will miss Dr. Searcy's calm presence, his diplomatic instincts, the depth of his intellectual vision and especially his fearless advocacy for faculty concerns. Many people may not be aware, and it should have been blogged about earlier, but last month, thanks to the efforts of Dr Searcy and the new Board of Trustees President Rozier, several faculty members from the Faculty Senate had lunch with the Board of Trustees during the March Board meeting. This simple meeting symbolized a great deal and is a huge leap forward in faculty/university relations. I'm seeing it as the beginning of an easier dialogue across campus constituencies. (The goal of gaining faculty membership on the board might not be the pipe dream some have claimed it to be). And Dr Searcy's move to administration is less a loss to the faculty as it is a gain for all of us at the university. Unlike many of the corporate-speak administrators who have been put into positions at this university from places outside academe and seem to be unaware of the academy's concerns, Dr Searcy is not one of them. Good luck Yan, you're not stepping down, you're stepping in.

Which makes me wonder, who will now step up?

The article below is a strong statement for faculty to stop equating "service" with "governance." Faculty with tenure have a responsibility to the institution that gave them that. Just because we have a union contract does not relegate faculty to worker bees who are "advisory only" at any level of the university. One of the comments below spoke to me quite personally when I decided several years ago that I would no longer serve on committees (e.g. dept., college, university "service") that were simply trumped up for accrediting bodies, eye-wash, toothless, and invariably, "advisory only." See if you relate to this statement as well:

Faculty governance disappeared during my teaching career (1975-2003). In the early years, faculty opinions, advice and votes mattered. As time went on, all committees became "advisory". We spent hours on reports, five year plans, assessments etc. only to realize that nothing changed. We cast votes of no confidence on administrators whose contracts were renewed in spite of our concerns. Over time, we came to view faculty "service" as an exercise in futility. Decisions were made at the top. Reports were prepared that no one read. Indifference and apathy became the norm...

Faculty must run the academic side of the university. The Senate and the Union both need to take back power that has been allowed to be ceded to administrative sections of the campus. There is no reason we cannot have a faculty representative on the Board of Trustees when the students have one. There is no reason that faculty in departments conducting a faculty search cannot even rank the candidates of their choice when they send their list on up to the Dean. Together with this Deans owe the faculty the courtesy of a report as to why he or she chose to go against the faculty's first choices. It is disappointing that the new union contract did not negotiate this shred of "shared governance." And even if it is not "contracturally negotiated," the administrators who claim to have the best interests of the university at heart should insist that their faculty are the best ones to make such academic determinations. I challenge the Deans at CSU to permit what the contract does not give us. As one of the commentators to this article notes: "The upper administration can continue to play musical chairs, moving from one institution to another, until the money runs out," but the faculty are the ones who are left having to live with administrative decisions long after administrators have moved on.

Faculty hiring at CSU is not yet a shared process at CSU. At the Senate meeting on Tuesday we were informed that tenure-track hires were being rejected at the Presidential level. This is a problem.

There is a lot of work to do in the Union and in the Senate and many Senate Committees need to be reinvigorated. This is not a time for faculty to act like tenured adjuncts.

Chronicle of Higher Education
"Belief and Lazy Consensus: Focusing on Governance"March 28, 2012, 8:00 am
By Jason B. Jones

http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/belief-and-lazy-consensus-focusing-on-governance/39232#disqus_thread

A crucial word in the world of soccer commentary is belief. Related to confidence, belief names the sense a team or player has that they can impose their shape or will on a game.

Belief is somewhat like momentum, in that it’s difficult to quantify but clearly visible. A solid goalie lets in an uncharacteristically bad goal, and a team will deflate for ten minutes; likewise, a series of big saves can help an overmatched team find the creativity to steal some goals of their own. (I’ve always liked Alan Jacobs’s post on penalty kicks as an illustration of belief.)

I think there’s a metaphor here that’s related to faculty governance.

The simultaneous erosion of tenure-track positions over the past three decades and the systematic abuse of contingent appointments has, as Debra Lee Scott has recently observed, left professors discombobulated: “We have been deprofessionalized. And by de-professionalizing us, the administration has gained control and silenced the faculty” (via Jonathan Rees).

The quietism of some faculty stems from many sources: the desire not to seem like a crank; misconceiving of the work of the university as “service” rather than governance; deciding to focus on your disciplinary colleagues elsewhere (or online) instead of your institution; a healthy human hatred of meetings–all of these add up to a sort of despair that the faculty can make a difference.

They amount, in short, to a crisis in belief.

Faculty are outstanding grumblers, so it may be surprising to talk about quietism–but there’s a difference between complaining and working to address a problem. Each ought to have its day, but too often the stress remains on the former, and those complaints end up failing to drive change.

I will always be an admirer of those who try to support faculty governance and independent judgment, and those who speak up for the institutionally silenced. I’m even unreasonably fond of Bethany Nowviskie’s avowedly reckless proposal, in “lazy consensus,” to adopt an “extreme bias towards action” in academic governance, by deciding “the default answer is always yes.”

It’s reckless because, as she admits repeatedly insists that “In order to give you this advice in good conscience, I need to paste warning stickers all over it. And this is what they say: “You must only use lazy consensus to do what you know is right.” From my point of view, “doing what you know is right” often leads to some pretty shocking abuses.

But Nowviskie is trying to find local ways to grapple with the crisis in belief:
Now, my point with these examples has not been to push any one agenda at you, but to suggest that lazy consensus has already been working against us in every case where we don’t engage. You can easily see its negative side in the wider political arena. But on the very local level, it kicks in and becomes a factor in any set of decisions where we developers and systems folks and middle management get so busy that we go completely heads-down and become oblivious to larger trends and directions. When that happens, we end up not having a voice. We end up being the people who don’t speak up even though we’re nominally represented, and no matter what we may really think, we are therefore assumed to be a +1.

Finding our way out of that oblivion strikes me as absolutely critical. (My preferred strategies tend to involve identifying key people to run for offices, and then working to help their election.)

(Plus, the guiding spirit of Nowviskie’s talk is “drive it like you stole it,” which gives me an opportunity to rejoin, “she drove it fast, and with a multitude of casualties.”)

COMMENTS1. Faculty governance disappeared during my teaching career (1975-2003). In the early years, faculty opinions, advice and votes mattered. As time went on, all committees became "advisory". We spent hours on reports, five year plans, assessments etc. only to realize that nothing changed. We cast votes of no confidence on administrators whose contracts were renewed in spite of our concerns. Over time, we came to view faculty "service" as an exercise in futility. Decisions were made at the top. Reports were prepared that no one read. Indifference and apathy became the norm. Now with the high percentage of adjuncts, the centralized upper administrations have all of the power. I rather think they like it that way. But there is a day of reckoning coming very soon. Those with the power who make the decisions will now face the future without much continuity and advice from below. As baby boomers retire, adjuncts are left to teach without any voice or status or even any personal investment in the success or failure of an
institution.

The upper administration can continue to play musical chairs, moving from one institution to another, until the money runs out.

It is all so very sad.

#2• Here's a perspective why faculty will not succeed in participating in governance. Faculty must take action, put themselves in harm's way, to support each other and even support those they disagree with, when, for example, administrators and their ally colleagues isolate and act to get rid of a colleague.
Not only insist on due process, insist on open due process, participate in due process, refuse to let administrators bypass or short change due process. And shut the place down when administrators corrupt the university and its principles.
Faculty all to often let little misconduct pass, which prepares them to let any misconduct pass. If you have to look for misconduct or doubt it exists on your campus, you don't know what's going on on your own campus or you don't care or your too afraid to get involved.

Governance is like power, you can cede it or take it. If you don't have the authority, then you must take it.