Thursday, June 14, 2012
The Contract Means Nothing
Based on the contract recently negotiated between the union and administration, the criteria for DAC formulation includes some interesting language. Section 19.3e (3 is particularly pertinent: (3) By no later than April 1, 2012, the University President shall review proposed statements of Departmental Application of Criteria and shall notify the Department Chair and the department employees in writing of her/his approval or disapproval. If the University President does not approve proposed statements of Departmental Application of Criteria either in whole or in part, she/he shall provide a written statement to the Department Chair and each department employee of the basis for her/his disapproval with any suggested additions, deletions, or modifications of the proposed statement. Approval of the DAC will not be unreasonably withheld. If a department has no approved statement of Departmental Application of Criteria, the University President, after consultation with the Union Chapter President, shall establish a statement of Departmental Application of Criteria for the department. This section raises several troubling questions: First, where is the written statement from the president as to his objections to each DAC? Where is the written statement of his suggested changes? Is the union participating in this process? Obviously, the contract means nothing to this administration. This DAC nonsense is a direct attack on CSU faculty by a president who is clearly unable to govern this university without resorting to the kinds of tactics he has practiced in the past: attempted intimidation, threats and bullying; behavior that cost the City Colleges a considerable sum of money. What, I wonder, will it take for the CSU Board of Trustees to decide that it is time to fire this president? He continues to demonstrate his unfitness for the position he holds. As I detailed in a previous post, Wayne Watson has failed to comply with the terms of his contract in several areas: Enrollment continues to decline, the university has seen no increase in its financial health under his leadership, audit exceptions continue to far exceed those of previous administrations, the president's relationship with the faculty continues to deteriorate (although the administration rationalizes this by expressing the belief that only a few disgruntled faculty cause all the problems). Again, it is simply time for Wayne Watson and his apparatchiks to go.