CSU Faculty Voice: Quick Updates

Monday, October 1, 2012

Quick Updates

So much going on since the Board of Trustees meeting two weeks ago that it is impossible to get everything out in the open.

A few things here:
1. UPI meeting last Thursday included a visit from one of the CPS union organizers--an interesting perspective on grass-roots organizing that pulled in a lot of teachers--wonder if we will ever have to do that here?
2. DAC grievance is still ongoing. Many Dept. DAC Committees have replied to Dr Watson's comments, but not all. Confusion abounding over the dates again--this time: was it Sept 17th (as various deans were beating us over the head about) or was it October 1st? Turns out it was Oct. 1st.

There will be another UPI meeting on OCT 11th--more details about that forthcoming, lots of stuff besides the DAC to talk about.

3. HLC--remember how the HLC committee was asking and asking faculty to complete the Faculty Satisfaction Survey to substantiate the report? I even posted something here in May on behalf of the HLC leadership--fear of retaliation was what might have been keeping members from completing it, but those fears were supposed to have been allayed by the HLC.

Well, whatever happened to the results of that report? Does anyone besides members of the HLC committee know? It certainly doesn't seem to appear in the penultimate copy of the HLC report that I read on the website. Does anyone know if it is in the new one? The only info the Senate received was that the results were not very positive and that there was some issue about Noel Levitz (company who seems to handle all our surveys) wanting more money to tabulate the material. Can't we do that ourselves? This is still a university (in spite of organization to the contrary) and many faculty members have experience in statistical analysis. At any rate, we did the survey, why can't we see the results?

And by the way, who was ultimately responsible for the final version of the CSU Self-Study report that was submitted to the HLC last week? I understand that even the HLC Steering Committeee never saw the document in its entirety before being sent to press. Mention has been made of whole-scale revisions of the text (including data) made by members of the kitchen cabinet of the President's office. To quote another member of an HLC committee, "it's all been sugar-coated."

It would be interesting to know what the HLC Steering Committee would say if it were given its own "satisfaction survey."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks to Haki Madhabuti

"1. He/she must be a scholar of national note, with significant peer review publications and books in his or her field. There must be no doubt as to his/her standing in the community of scholars. This would also include a history of the candidate’s participation in the appropriate professional organizations.

2. He/she must have served with distinction as the administrative head of a major unit within an institution of higher learning or at the important position of Provost and/or Dean. Of course, prior service at the presidential level is preferred.

3. He/she must have a documented history of raising significant monies from the private and public sectors. At most major and research one universities it is not unusual to expect the president to come with a plan to raise in excess of half a billion dollars or more in the first few years.

4. The prospective president must have a consensus buy-in from the faculty, students, administration and staff, therefore, arriving with a unity mandate to lead by joining a University community that has bought into his or her vision for the future."

From an open letter to the CSU Community, 2009.