You might remember the original memorandum, sent from Watson to several hundred members of the university community on January 28, 2014. In his memorandum, Watson expresses his great concern for the failure of the faculty senate to follow established processes for amending its constitution. In particular, Watson's memorandum quotes article IX of the senate's 2011 constitution which specifies the procedure for amending the document. Watson believes that "it is important the status of this issue to the general faculty body of CSU." Hence, the mass e-mail. In his January 28 communication, Watson gives the faculty senate until February 26, 2014 to "follow the process above to make amendments as prescribed in the Faculty Senate's 2011 Constitution." If the senate fails to follow Watson's demand, the university would then ask the "faculty-at-large to make a determination as to how it wishes to participate in the governance of the university." Watson then waxes enthusiastically about the Faculty Senate, claiming that "the work of the Faculty Senate is of great value to the University," adding a strange and somewhat opaque qualifier "since it is a mechanism that should promote inclusiveness and shared governance." Finally, Watson expresses his optimism that "by working together we can overcome these hurdles." Unfortunately, Watson neglects to mention to which hurdles he refers.
Since it is often impossible to know what motivates someone's behavior, I will refrain from speculating as to the actual meaning of Watson's January 28 memorandum. What can be said with some degree of certainty is that it constitutes a threat to the existence of the Chicago State University Faculty Senate. Watson will eliminate the body unless the processes and timetable outlined in the memorandum are followed. Personally, I am on the record as agreeing with the administration's position that the changes to the Constitution do constitute amendments and that the appropriate procedure should, indeed, be followed.
In response to Watson's memorandum, the Faculty Senate moved to properly amend its constitution. The proposed amendments went out in writing to members of the Senate with more than the required period of notification between the dissemination of the information and the next regularly scheduled meeting. At that meeting, a quorum of senators voted unanimously (with four abstentions) to approve the amendments and send them to the unit A faculty for a vote. The voting took place between February 11 and 18, 2014, and resulted in an overwhelming affirmation of the changes in the Senate's constitution. The Senate president communicated the results of that balloting to Watson on February 24, 2014.
On February 25, 2014, Watson sent another memorandum, this time not distributed to the university generally. This memorandum, directed to the Faculty Senate president and copied to a number of administrators, requests clarification on six specific points, none of which appeared in Watson's memorandum of January 28, 2014. They are: 1) the dates of the election; 2) "a description of how the election was conducted"; 3) an opportunity to "view" the "originals of all ballots"; 4) "a list of persons responsible for counting the ballots"; 5) a copy of the original Constitution with "highlighted" changes; 6) the method used to determine "which faculty were eligible to vote." Watson's memorandum demands (he does say "please") that the senate provide this information no later than the end of the day on Thursday, February 27, 2014.
Again, I will not speculate as to the motive(s) behind this memorandum as I prefer to allow the reader to draw her/his own conclusions. I will, however, ask why the administration feels this information is necessary? Why does it need it immediately? It is simple enough to provide a response to the six requests, but there is nothing in the 2011 Faculty Senate Constitution that requires that body to seek approval from the Chicago State administration for the conduct of an election. The only requirement in article III is that the election be by "ballot," which is unspecified as to form. The constitution describes no specific procedure, something that the administration must (or should) know. Really, all the administration needs to know is the final result of the balloting. In the case of the recent balloting on the Faculty Senate Constitution, that result was virtually unanimous approval. I find it interesting that an administration so concerned about the senate following its procedures apparently wants to evaluate the actions of that body, an incursion into the realm of faculty governance that seems both unnecessary and unwarranted. I have attached both memorandums for your perusal.
-page-001.jpg)
Were the ballots sent to the whole faculty as stated in Article IX? It is remarkable that there was such unanimity in the results. It sounds like the results of a faculty senate vote, not a faculty vote.
ReplyDeleteAs additional information, I there were at least four different mailings to unit A faculty. All included a ballot. I make no claims to 100 percent accuracy, but overwhelmingly, if someone did not vote it was because they chose not to, not because they did not get the opportunity.
DeleteThe ballots were sent to the entire unit A faculty as required in the Constitution. I find your skepticism remarkable. Is it impossible for a number of faculty to feel similarly on a particular issue?
ReplyDeleteCould you please present the results by number of ballots counted yea and nay, rather than solely by percentages. That's how we do it in elections and referendums.
ReplyDeleteIt's rather sad that these results are being posted here rather than in a campus newspaper as they would be at most universities.
You are correct that the university newspaper would be the place for it. Ask Dr Watson why students are still being charged $ to support an entity that he disestablished.
DeleteDr Watson is concerned with "process" when it suits him and interprets all university governance structures in a way that centralizes power in his office. He has no problem abrogating contractural rights of the faculty in creating their own DACs. He has no problem abrogating departmental rights in rewriting the hiring policy documents without consultation of the Faculty Senate or any other body so as to centralize all decision-making in his office. He has no problem interfering in the operations of the Student Government Association elections and their constitution. He has no problem maintaining, no, defending, as his second-in-command, his friend and protege, an interim provost who has plagiarized her dissertation and has lost all credibility in being able to uphold academic standards at any university. All this, and it is the Senate's adherence to process that is out of order. I doubt very highly that Dr Watson would be happy if even 2 or 3 more "balloting" processes were taken. Until the Faculty Senate is completely beholden to him and under the thumb of the president's office he will continue to call foul. When is that university-wide vote of no-confidence set to take place?
ReplyDeleteSGA recently agreed to give the admin most of the student activity fee money collected in order to pay admin salaries. The SGA President and Student trustee have both stated their unconditional support of the President. The quid pro quo from the administration is to turn a blind eye to the unconstitutional acts of SGA.
ReplyDeleteThe faculty Senate has decided to NOT become enablers of the corrupt administration, so the admin attacks the faculty Senate at every opportunity.
It looks to me like Watson and his minions can't believe that the Faculty Senate doesn't conduct business in with the same dishonest way that they do. It's got to be galling to be caught lying and cheating over and over again.
ReplyDelete