A Short Look Back at the Past Six Years of Cronyism, Patronage, and Failure

In early 2009, the Illinois Reform Commission (an oxymoron?) published a report on political corruption in the state. The report emphasized the deleterious effects of public corruption on ethical behavior and good government in Illinois. Citing the state’s “culture of patronage and cronyism,” and the resulting “cloud of corruption that has hung over the state for long,” as a primary reason for the erosion of “effective government”; the report cited multiple abuses of the patronage hiring system, including: “rewarding well-connected or politically subservient persons with employment”; the expansion of “political” positions and the resultant “expectation of hiring and promotion based upon considerations other than merit.”

We have now arrived at the end of six-plus years of patronage and crony hiring here at Chicago State. How has the school fared? Has the outgoing administration’s propensity for cronyism damaged the university? Here are some numbers to ponder.

First, in fall 2009, Chicago State University employed 227 persons in administrative positions. The salary expenditures for these people totaled nearly $15.7 million, an average of $69,120 per person. By early 2014, the number of administrative employees at Chicago State had risen nearly 28 percent, to 290, while the total salary expenditure stood at nearly $20.1 million, and at a 28 percent increase, mirrored the rise in total positions. Average salary held steady at $69,185. The recent budget woes in the state obviously moved the regime to eliminate some inconsequential lower paying administrative positions, as the most recent data from the university reveals that there are currently 253 administrative positions, with a total salary expenditure of $18.7 million, an average of $73,963. Thus, the average salary increase for our total administrative staff amounts to nearly 7 percent in the past 18 months.

Senior Administrative Positions (Assistant Vice President and above) also rose between April 2014 and October 2015. In Fall 2009, Chicago State employed 11 senior administrators, by April 2014, that number had grown to 12, and to 15 by October 2015, a 36.4 percent increase from 2009. Total salary expenditures grew from $1.6 million in 2014 to over $2.1 million in 2015. All that against the backdrop of the university administration claiming “financial exigency” at every opportunity, trying to eliminate long-established Faculty CUEs for various endeavors, destroying academic advising, and otherwise micro-managing every CUE allocated to Chicago State faculty. The salary increase for senior administrators of around $470,000, much of it in late 2014 and early 2015, represents the equivalent of 587.5 CUEs for faculty. It seems there is money for some things.

Needless to say, these increased salary expenses for administrators come while the university is bleeding students, down 34.1 percent since fall 2009. The enrollment decline is the most graphic evidence of the failure of crony hiring here at Chicago State. Those “well-connected” or “politically subservient” persons were simply not up to the job. In what has admittedly been a challenging environment for Illinois public higher education, the Chicago State administration failed almost completely.

Responsible for this fiasco is a Board of Trustees that has consistently demonstrated its allegiance to the administration, particularly the president, while failing to address the problems caused by that selfsame administration. The Board’s recent actions seem to indicate it is again willing to reward the undeserving, even at the cost of undermining the incoming administration. As the year closes, we look forward with cautious optimism, hoping that—despite our precarious position and virtually non-existent leadership from a complicit and compromised Board—the school can survive, even flourish again.

The New Era Begins on a Snowy Morning

So I was more than pleasantly surprised to see a large moving van blocking the street on Longwood Drive near my local Starbucks. With temperatures not expected above freezing who would be moving today? Yes, loyal readers, Dr. Thomas Calhoun is officially taking up residence at the president's mansion. A long time coming, I would like to welcome the university's next president knowing that it signals a sea change in the management of an institution decimated by incompetence, misconduct and malfeasance. I wish Dr. Calhoun the best and hope to use this humble venue to chronicle the rebuilding of this important educational institution. 

Today's heroes are the movers braving the cold to ensure the new president gets moved in quickly so that he may go about the business of leading an institution devoid of leadership for the past six years.

Happy holidays!!!

16 days

A Lesson in How Not to Leave Gracefully

On Thursday, when one of my colleagues told me about our ridiculous Board granting tenure (apparently in the College of Education) to our outgoing president, I laughed. Can you imagine Watson as a member of the faculty? Can you imagine him serving on a committee? Doing any kind of research? How about teaching? What does the title President Emeritus really mean? What does tenure really mean?

This old guy is one step away from irrelevance. His time in the spotlight is ending and apparently no one is going to give him another chance to damage an institution of higher learning. In a desperate effort to cling to his last institutional affiliation, he likely had the Board in 2014 add a provision to his contract guaranteeing him Emeritus status upon retirement. Thursday, he likely staged the “spontaneous” motion for his tenure by Nikki Zollar, a long-time crony. Pitiful.

On Tuesday, he must be out of the presidential mansion. On January 4, a new president takes over. Rather than bowing out gracefully, with dignity, this modern Gollum will continue the unseemly pursuit of his “precious,” not realizing that it has slipped through his fingers and that the power he so craves is now out of reach.

The Zombie President

Just when you think he's gone, he resurrects.

The CSU Board of Trustees today, notably Trustee Nikki Zollar (she of the many City Colleges contracts), nominated Wayne Watson for tenure and the rest of the sheep voted to maintain Wayne. They gave the guy tenure. Tenure, that's right. Emeritus status AND Tenure. This is the most facocked situation this board has put us in since they voted to extend the Watson contract after the previous board had tried to get Wayne out of the presidency--remember Quinn gave Watson the board he wanted.

I have only heard that Watson will take his tenure in the College of Education. In a department? Will he teach? Will he get paid? Since I don't have enough of the specifics at this moment I'll leave it to my more informed colleagues to get the details.  Just remember how the old Wayne Watson harried Haki Madhabuti off the campus for being tenured and not teaching...Will what's good for the the goose be good for the gander? We have a 4/4 teaching load here, Dr. Watson, and you better be able to "make your load."

So much for the hopey changey thing the Board of Trustees promised us in the Fall when they did not bring Angela Henderson in as the anointed successor of Wayne Watson; they lulled us really good into accepting their presidential search with limited faculty input. Remember their phony email, "we heard  you..."

So much for the countdown phrase some of us have endured by our more patient and less vocal  colleagues, "if we only wait just 3 more, 2 more, 1 more year, 6 more months, 3 more months, 1 more month... he will be gone..." Nuh-uh. The zombie president will be with us even after he is gone...

So much for letting the new CSU president Dr Calhoun start fresh. Tell us Anthony Young, Nikki Zollar and the rest of you "overseers" of the university's good--what good is this going to do? You want Wayne out, but you don't want him to leave? Or, maybe you never wanted him out in the first place. Is Dr Calhoun in on this? Is he  supposed to be the front man for the continued shadow presidency of WW? Elnora Daniel did not have to work on the same campus as her predecessor Dolores Cross; Frank Pogue did not have to bump into Elnora Daniel on campus when he was interim president; and Wayne Watson and then Board Chair Leon Finney could not usher Frank Pogue off campus fast enough. Wayne Watson would never have stood for seeing Frank Pogue granted an office or two in the library with an assistant or two ...and yet you expect Dr Thomas Calhoun to try to work with his predecessor across campus. You really do want Dr Calhoun to fail, don't you?

The Trustee's performance today is a great big F-you to the faculty. 

More than this it is a signal to everyone in the state, the IBHE, and especially to the taxpayers of the state of Ill, that Chicago State University will remain unaccountable to them. It exists for the pols of Illinois to play with as they wish. The Board (i.e. the politically-connected) can place whomever they want into a job or a tenured position on this campus. Chicago State University is the ne plus ultra of patronage pits. Our Board might change the president, but not the institution. They are committed to the culture of machine politics and cronyism. They prefer to support a zombie president, one of their own, than a president who might think that the priority of an academic institution is academics not politics. 

Great News for Chicago State's Recreation Education Program.

Here's some good news about the school that is not on our university web site, which is dedicated to bringing the public news about our administrators, particularly the various awards our administrators get from organizations with which they, or some person they know, are politically or socially connected. These awards always seem to surface when one of our high-level administrators becomes the subject of scrutiny or criticism. Our SPERS faculty recently received re-accreditation from their national accrediting body and the Chicago State Recreation program was honored as one of "the best of the best" by the National Recreation and Park Association. Congratulations to the department staff and faculty: Chair Mark Kutame, Business Associate Tia Cooper-Snyder, professors Sarah Buck, Bryon Martin, Michael McNicholas, Debra Nelson, June Price-Shingles, Edward Reed, and Bob Szyman (apologies to anyone I missed). Here's the text of an article that appeared recently in the Beverly Review:

The Chicago State University (CSU) Faculty Senate recently announced that during the recent National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) 50th anniversary national conference held in Las Vegas, Nev., CSU’s recreation education program was honored at the Best of the Best ceremony and re-accredited by the Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Related Professions (COAPRT). COAPRT accredits baccalaureate programs in parks, recreation, tourism, sport management, event management, therapeutic recreation and leisure studies within the United States and its territories, Canada, and Mexico.
CSUs’ recreation program serves an urban community traditionally underrepresented in the leisure profession and has been accredited since 2004. The recreation program offers comprehensive and high quality courses of study in general recreation, recreation management, sport studies and therapeutic recreation and provides ample opportunity for interaction with student-centered faculty who have extensive practitioner backgrounds.
The recreation program curriculum encourages students to pursue professional development beyond the required courses and fieldwork by securing certifications, joining professional organizations, attending conferences and volunteering. The curriculum is designed to prepare students for national certifications as certified parks and recreation professionals (CPRP), certified therapeutic recreation specialists (CTRS), Environmental Education Association of Illinois and Project Learning Tree, coaching, mental health, and first aid and in grant writing.
CSU partners with a variety of leisure service providers within the Chicago metropolitan area with the goal of providing agencies with sensitive, knowledgeable and diverse entry-level professionals, who upon graduation, are eligible to take the CPRP and CTRS national examinations. CSU recreation graduates have gone onto successful professional careers throughout the country with a variety of leisure service agencies including park districts, special recreation associations, and in facilities for the elderly and those with disabilities. Some have also pursued post-baccalaureate studies.
For more information about CSU’s bachelor of science in recreation degree program, visit csu.edu.

Here's a shot of the article:

The article is available here: http://www.beverlyreview.net/news/school_news/article_bfc608ac-9dd1-11e5-ba15-d7a4c47bd48b.html

Only At CSU Redux

So only at CSU would you ask the following questions or make the following observations. Why would a failed fund raiser try to stay at the university on the board of directors of a new foundation? Well, you would have to ask Baldy's gang about that. To wit, the Provost appears to be conducting interviews for the new executive director of the The University Foundation at Chicago State (not to be confused with the CSU Foundation). That's very strange considering there really shouldn't be any hiring with a new president coming on board in just a matter of days. It should be left to Dr. Calhoun to influence this effort, not someone whose fund raising ability is well, nil. 

If this were Denmark, then the expression "something's rotten in Denmark" would be appropriate. As this is CSU, your humble narrator is left to shake his head in disbelief at the clown show that is currently performing. From the ridiculous "President Emeritus" to two resounding votes of no-confidence (one from the union and one from the Faculty Senate) in the Provost in the past two weeks to the personnel shuffles to the sham Foundation, I can conclude Only At CSU do these things happen. 

Instead of attempting to fix the shambles that is Academic Affairs, the Fauxvost is flitting about attempting to convince us to mistake activity for accomplishment. The re-appointment of Cheri Sidney to manage Financial Aid is deja vu all over again. Wasn't it her that led the university to its Provisional Status with the US Department of Education in her first stint in Financial Aid? 

Baldy's Gang is still at work with a mission to diminish if not destroy the university. 

Fortunately, there is only one party that bears responsibility for this fiasco and that is the Board of Trustees. Allowing this failed president to continue to pretend that all is well is unconscionable. For those holding the fiduciary responsibility for this institution what does this continued clown show say to the incoming president? How much more difficult will Dr. Calhoun's job be with these incompetents still on campus? Their continued presence is evidence of an absence of honor. The honorable thing for all of these cronies to do is leave before being fired or facing the wrath of those employees who remain. Without Baldy to protect them what unpleasantness might befall them if they remain?

If I believed in conspiracies, I would say that Baldy's Gang is trying to make the university unmanageable so that maybe the new president won't want to come here or will leave soon after arriving and they will get to stay in place. But since I don't believe in conspiracies I will take this behavior at face value and just say it is ersatz administrators playing at school. 

My fervent wish is that play time will soon be over and the kids sent away so that the grown ups can manage this university.

Will the Chicago State Board Rubber Stamp the "President Emeritus?" What Do You Think?

As I await the materials for Thursday’s Board of Trustees meeting, I wonder if the Board will legitimize the current president’s previously announced position of “President Emeritus.” At this point, the position now includes along with the fancy new title, at least one (and possibly two) support persons, two refurbished offices on the second floor of the new library, and a parking slot dedicated to the “President Emeritus.”

I have sent two communications to the Board in the past several days: one containing several questions about the “President Emeritus” position, the other notifying them of the results of voting on the No Confidence Resolution on the Provost. I believe I made clear that the vote against the Provost should be considered a vote against the outgoing president. I also emphasized that having the current president remain on campus after the new president assumes his duties would undermine Dr. Calhoun’s presidency. At this point, no one on the Board of Trustees has deigned to reply.

What will happen? Looking at the history of the Board’s governance, there seems to be little doubt. One of the constants over the past six-plus years has been the Board’s stance that whatever the president wants should be provided. Notably, there has never been so much as one vote against any administrative proposal. I expect to see the Board rubber stamp this attempt by the current president to hold on to his power, which will continue to enable him to damage the university. If the Board members want to know who is ultimately responsible for Chicago State’s current precarious position, I suggest they simply look in the mirror.

The Orwellian World Inhabited by Our Administrators: Laud a Provost Whose Leadership has been Overwhelmingly Repudiated by Staff and the University Faculty

Take a look at the Chicago State web site. On its front page, you will find a news announcement of an award the Provost and Athletic Director (a new Vice President’s position created by the administration just this year) received from the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. According to the web site, Angela Henderson received her award for “Academic Leadership.” At the tail end of the article, Associate Provost Bernard Rowan makes the following statement: “I think I speak for the entire CSU community when I say we are truly proud of Dr. Henderson and Dr. Hendricks. They are both great leaders and great examples for the University”!

What curious timing. This event occurred on November 21 and the news article appeared either yesterday or today. What has transpired at the university between November 21 and December 4 that makes this “news article” suddenly relevant?

I offer the following: On Tuesday, December 1, I sent an e-mail to the Provost reporting the results of the Union membership’s vote on a No Confidence Resolution on her leadership based on an assessment of her performance. Voting on the resolution demonstrated conclusively that the Provost has virtually no support from the UPI 4100 members of the “CSU community.” Here are the figures to date: Out of 150 total votes cast, 142 UPI members supported the No Confidence Resolution, 4 opposed it and 4 abstained. So, 94.7 percent of the voters expressed no confidence in the Provost’s leadership.

Getting deeper into the results, of the unit A, Clinical, and unit B faculty at Chicago State, the result stands at 127 in support of the resolution, 4 against, and 4 abstentions (94.1 percent). Tenured unit A faculty voted 86-3-3 in favor of the resolution (93.5 percent).

More than 50 percent of the 281 eligible voters participated in the election. The majority of eligible voters, total faculty, and tenured faculty expressed no confidence in the Provost. Notably, 64.7 percent of Chicago State’s total tenured faculty expressed no confidence in Angela Henderson.

In what seems an attempt to mitigate the results of an overwhelming vote of no confidence from Chicago State’s entire faculty and the academic support staff who belong to UPI 4100, the university sees fit to put a celebratory “news article” about the Provost on its web site. The article includes the Orwellian assertion by a senior administrator that the “entire CSU community” is proud of Angela Henderson.

Let me be clear about this. The members of the Chicago State Chapter of Local 4100 are actually an integral part of the “CSU community.” In fact, our union represents all the faculty at this university. As the Chief Academic Officer of the university, the Provost is charged with providing leadership to that faculty. The faculty and the union have resoundingly expressed no confidence in the Provost’s leadership. Therefore, Dr. Rowan, I suggest that you do not speak for the majority of 4100 members who made clear their disaffection with this administrator. As I said to the Provost in my December 1 e-mail, she should resign her position. No amount of fulsome nonsense will change that reality.

Anatomy of a Disaster: The Provost Ignores a Well-Founded Committee Recommendation and Imposes Her Uninformed Will on the University. Who Can She Blame?

As many of you know, we are currently witnessing the disastrous effects of the Provost’s advising policies. I went to the advising center yesterday and observed a number of students sitting outside, waiting to see an advisor, while the unfortunate advisors in the understaffed advising center worked diligently at their jobs. Clearly, this ill-conceived and ill-executed plan has created problems where none previously existed. How did we get into this position?

Before I answer that question with my interpretation, I think it important to remember that no one in this administration ever takes responsibility for their failures. That said, who will Angela Henderson blame for this unfolding catastrophe? Is it the responsibility of the persons charged with implementing this ridiculous set of procedures? Are the advisors themselves responsible? Are the students at fault? Could it even be me because I have advised our members not to go along with arguably the worst decision made by an administration with a long history of terrible decisions? Of course, the scapegoat remains to be determined, but it seems fair to say the administration will attempt to find one (or several).

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I will turn to the original question I posed as an historian attempting to offer a coherent chronology of the events that led us to this debacle. I make no claims that this interpretation is definitive, but it is certainly supported by some compelling evidence which I will share.

The story apparently begins some time in 2012 when Enrollment Management conducts some sort of advising analysis. In April and May 2013, a committee made up of CSU staff, faculty and administrators titled the “Ad Hoc Academic Advising Model Committee” meets and subsequently produces both a report on the “CSU Academic Advising Model,” and recommendations related to advising at the school. The most pertinent parts of the summary are below. They include these comments: “An analysis of the CSU advising model reveals that most of the problems with the academic advising model are not necessarily structural, organizational, or even resource-related, but rather are the result of systems, policies/processes, internal communication, and technology that do not work as efficiently or effectively as possible.” And this: “The Split Model (faculty/professional advisors) is the dominant one at four year public colleges and universities . . .” The report identifies a total of 111 persons doing advising at Chicago State, including 44 faculty and 34 Professional Advisors.

The committee minutes include a “SWOT Analysis” on the advising model that seems to be specific to professional advisors and unwittingly offers a preview of the present systemic failures. “Weaknesses and threats” include these weaknesses: “General student dissatisfaction, High student to advisor ratio, lack of training as it relates to curriculum, and Low morale. “Threats” include: “Loss of enrollment and low graduation rates, Problems with Drop Session, Communications, Perception of CSU (internal and external), Lack of benefits for professional advisors, Frequent curriculum changes.” Any of this sound familiar?

Ultimately, the committee recommends the continuation of the mixed advising model. In academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15, university students continue to be advised by a mix of faculty and professional advisors.

All this changes in August 2015 when Angela Henderson decrees that the entire advising process will change. In an imperious memorandum dated August 6, 2015, Henderson makes a number of regal proclamations: “Moving forward, the university center for undergraduate advising . . . will be the advising center.” Then, “All faculty and professional advisors will need to vector their Fall advising hours to occur in the Center. I realize that this will involve changes in practice and want you now to initiate the process.” Then, “Prior to my approving finalizing Fall advising assignments, I expect you to discuss with me your plan for aligning advising personnel with this expectation.” The source of this brilliant decision? A discussion “with the Deans at our recent retreat.” What happened to the Ad Hoc Committee’s report? In her infinite wisdom and using her vast university experience, Angela Henderson apparently decides she knows best and ignores the committee’s recommendations.

Despite this ridiculous pronouncement, fall advising goes basically as it always has gone, with most faculty advising students in their offices. However, a number of professional advisors find themselves reassigned to the advising center. The lack of faculty cooperation in this absurd endeavor apparently angers the Provost because she decides to cut faculty out of the process altogether. In a dishonest memorandum dated November 10, 2015, Henderson makes the dubious claim that “all undergraduate programs and departments have professional academic advisors performing duties through the University Advising Center.” The gist of Henderson’s memorandum seems to be that faculty are no longer allowed to advise undergraduate students. Henderson anoints the Dean of the Library as the leader of the Advising Center, although it is not clear what experience or programmatic expertise Dr. Darga possesses.

From the start, the new advising practices create confusion and disaffection among our students. After listening to some student complaints, on November 19, I write to Henderson expressing my concerns and detailing what I view as the major problems for students and advisors in negotiating the new system. These include: long wait times, an inability to get answers to basic questions, insufficient training and staggering workloads for advisors. In my concluding paragraph, I discuss my concerns about the well-being of advisors and the potential consequences of this bad system for our enrollment.

Henderson’s response provides a model of disingenuous bullshit. It elides the issues I raise in my e-mail and reverts to cliches and platitudes about students coming first and how faculty are doing such great work. Despite the vacuity of Henderson’s response, there is data on this issue, let’s do a little fact-checking on her various communications.

CLAIM: “all undergraduate programs and departments have professional academic advisors performing duties through the University Advising Center .”

FACT: The advising assignments are based on workload. On November 10, the undergraduate advisors numbered 9 (one took another position in the university a few days later). Most of their assignments reflected no logic. One advisor handled all of Psychology; another advised Criminal Justice and Political Science; four advisors had responsibilities in two colleges, two advisors had responsibilities in three colleges. On November 19, each advisor was responsible for an average of 362 students. In 2013, 26 professional advisors worked in the various departments/colleges. In late 2015, that number had been reduced to 8; hardly adequate coverage.

CLAIM: “We alrady have a team of advisors who advise the Freshmen and Transfer students.”

FACT: In May 2013, 8 professional advisors worked in the First Year Experience component of the university. By July 2014, that number had dropped to 5 with only 1 remaining in November 2015. Currently, first year advising is being done by six persons, 5 with administrative titles other than advisor, and one person whose job classification is apparently “advising specialist.” In Fall 2013, 78 faculty and professional advisors served Chicago State’s 4340 undergraduate students. In November 2015, only 14 “professional” advisors bore the responsibility for advising more than 3000 undergraduates.

CLAIM: “Regarding your concerns, it has been taking place for 3 years. Dr. Westbrooks organized an ad hoc committee to review advising.” This seems to suggest that somehow the committee bears the responsibility for the new advising processes.

FACT: Henderson obviously ignored the committee’s recommendations. As a result of her ill-conceived and possibly petulant and retaliatory actions, we have this ongoing fiasco.

CLAIM: “We are implementing best practices in the advising center and welcome input.”

FACT: “Best practices,” whatever that may mean, hardly describes the situation in the advising center. Instead, reality there includes widespread disaffection with the job and its benefits, chronic absenteeism, and alarming turnover. Students continue to be upset with long waits and the obvious confusion caused by advisors who are responsible for multiple programs in multiple colleges. The real damage done by this process is likely not to be felt for a number of years, but I think it almost certain that damage will occur.

The Provost’s fingerprints are all over this disaster. Look at the SWOT analysis. The Ad Hoc Committee did a great job of anticipating the major problems this system and the entire idea of an exploited class of "professional advisors" might create for the university. Did Angela Henderson even bother to read it? Even more important, is she capable of understanding its implications? Who will she blame? Stay tuned.

The Chicago State Administration: Management by Temper Tantrum

As many of our readers know, this administration has provided a number of textbook examples of horrible management. One of the more interesting and one that has thus far escaped discussion on this forum is the tactic I call management by temper tantrum. From available anecdotal evidence, this particular management practice has accelerated somewhat as the end of the year approaches. A few examples should suffice.

One practice favored by a small segment of our administrators is the storm out of the meeting response to any comments viewed as critical. It is sometimes accompanied by unwarranted accusations that you’ve “raised your voice,” a serious faux pas when dealing with some of our thin-skinned upper administrators. After setting the stage by making this ridiculous accusation, the administrator stands up and announces, “we’re done here,” or words to that effect. Sometimes that takes her/his subalterns by surprise and they sit dumbfounded while our offended administrator huffs and puffs until it becomes obvious that her/his inferiors are not going anywhere. S/he then orders the rest of the group to storm out of the meeting in unison. I personally have witnessed this version of management by tantrum on at least two separate occasions.

A second practice is somewhat similar. Again, accompanied by squeaks of indignation and often specious accusations, the administrator announces that “we’re done here” in a meeting over which s/he is not presiding. Apparently in the belief that her/his pronouncement carries considerable authority and should move the other meeting participants to either end the meeting or cease saying things the administrator finds objectionable, this type of tantrum is not usually accompanied by rising from her/his seat to leave the room.

In my estimation, the most interesting mode of management by tantrum is one recently employed by the University Provost, apparently against a group of Department Chairs. My information here is somewhat sketchy and I welcome any additions or corrections to this account, but I present it because I think it speaks volumes about the current state of affairs at our school.

The issue that aroused the Provost’s ire reportedly concerned the expressed belief by several Chairs that the new centralized advising system with faculty being excluded from advising was not working too well. According to the anecdotal accounts reported to me, possibly confusing Chicago State with North Korea, the Provost threatened to replace any Chairs who were not willing to follow her orders. What a splendid example of shared governance and respect for your colleagues!

The Provost’s response seems perfectly consistent with her stance on academic advising. An ad hoc committee on advising convened by Sandra Westbrooks recommended that the existing system of mixed advising (faculty and professional advisors) be continued. As with many recommendations from practitioners, the administration (the Provost) chose to ignore the expertise of the members of the committee and impose this nightmarish procedure on the university, in the process ordering the faculty to cease advising and to force students with whom they had long-standing relationships to endure the long lines at the advising center. Given the Provost’s obvious sensitivity about this issue and her demonstrated lack of management skills, a resort to management by tantrum when questioned about the efficacy of this process seems logical.

All of these anecdotal accounts reflect, I think, the problems that have beset the university since the inception of the current regime. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, our upper administrative ranks have mushroomed, particularly since 2011-12 when our enrollment began to decline precipitously. In 2011-12, Chicago State spent $1.148 million on the president and 8 senior administrators: 1 Provost, 1 Vice President, 5 Associate Vice Presidents, and 1 Athletic Director. By the beginning of 2015-16, the number of senior administrators had grown to 14 (with a new VP of Development vacant), at an estimated cost of over $1.8 million. We now have a president, 1 Provost and 13 Associate/Assistant Provosts, Vice Presidents, and Associate Vice Presidents. At least two new Associate/Assistant Provost positions have been created since 2011-12, along with new positions for 1 Vice President, and 3 Associate Vice Presidents.

That metastatic growth is bad enough, but the real problem lies in the incapacity of many of these persons to do the jobs in which they reside. One of the major reasons for that incapacity: a woeful lack of qualifications and experience in a university setting. Of the 15 senior administrators at Chicago State at the end of fiscal 2015, 6 were either personally connected with the current president or from the City Colleges of Chicago. This group includes the president, the Provost, the General Counsel, and 3 Associate Vice Presidents. If the Ethics Officer, Chief Information Officer and Chief of Police are included in that calculation, by the end of fiscal 2015, 8 of the 18 fall into the personal acquaintance/City Colleges category, with several being cronies.

Based on the results of 6 years of mismanagement by City College retreads, I think it fair to say that the experiment has been a failure. Perhaps several of these persons can delude themselves into believing they have been successful but the objective evidence says otherwise. I think they know that and are now resorting to the kind of childish, boorish, and ill-tempered management style they know best. Not surprising, after all, look at their role model.

When Does Emeritus Not Really Mean Emeritus? When Applied to Chicago State Of Course

As you can see from the definition, emeritus is an honorary title. I'm not sure that the adjective is meant to apply to some deadbeat hanging around the university in a newly spruced up office drawing a salary for doing basically nothing (save protecting his cronies as much as he can). Does anyone really believe that this person can write a coherent paragraph let alone a book? Perhaps he can solicit help from one of the other literary giants in his administration.

Here is a copy of the letter that went out this afternoon. I have several comments/questions. There is no such position anywhere in the CSU Board of Trustees governing documents. The only emeritus position is Professor Emeritus. Has the Board created that position for the outgoing president? If so, when did that occur? Did the Board vote in open session on the President Emeritus position? When? What necessity existed for the creation of such a position? What are the criteria for such a position? How many other former Chicago State presidents have been honored in this way? Why did this announcement come from the employee and not the Board? Who call the shots here at Chicago State? Does a lame duck president still dictate to the Board?

Wayne Remains--what is the Board of Trustees thinking?

With the insipid address to the "CSU Family," we are informed today by the man himself that he is granted the title of "President Emeritus" by his lackeys on the Board of Trustees and will remain at CSU through spring 2016.

One phrase comes to mind: WTF?

Aside from possibly acting as a buffer to protect the likes of his favorite administrative cronies for another six months, what is this about?  If anyone can tell me how this is good for a university that needs to rebuild and to heal from the malignancy of this presidency, please enlighten me.

The incoming president should be furious. Why was he hired to begin in January?

This convinces me more than ever that CSU is in existence for the students second. Its first role is to benefit the politicians and their friends. We have a long-time reputation as a dumping ground for the politically connected in the state of ILL. Well, this is the biggest dump the pols have ever given us.

Below is the drivel the "CSU Family" received earlier today:

Dear CSU Family,

It has been an honor and a pleasure to serve as the 21st president of Chicago State University.  As I look back over the last six years, I am proud of what we have been able to achieve together.   The experiences I have had during my tenure at CSU have strengthened my belief that education is the solution to many of the world’s challenges.  I am so grateful to all of the students, faculty, staff, alumni and friends who have shared my vision of a new and improved CSU, where students are educated, engaged, embraced, enlightened and empowered.

Dr. Thomas Calhoun will assume duties as the 22nd president of Chicago State University on January 4, 2016.  Please join me in extending a warm welcome to our new president and offering him our steadfast support.

At the request of the CSU Board of Trustees, I will continue my commitment to the university through the end of my contract, which ends June 30, 2016.  During this period, I will take on a new role as President Emeritus and relocate to my new office in the CSU library.  In my capacity as President Emeritus, I will serve as a resource to the incoming president, assist with fundraising activities, and engage in research.

I am excited to embark on this new phase of my personal and professional journey, a journey that began almost 50 years ago. I believe in CSU’s mission and I look forward to assisting in the university’s efforts to honor its commitment to teaching, research, service and community development.  I look forward to working with President Calhoun during the transition, having time to focus on my research interests, and spending more time with my family.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to you, the students, faculty, staff, alumni and friends of Chicago State University, for your support during my presidency.

Travel safe during this holiday season, and above all, take time to enjoy your family.

With warmest regards,


Wayne D. Watson, Ph.D.
President
Chicago State University

See the President of CSU dissemble before your very eyes...

The CSU website may be streaming a tagline ad nauseam to "Watch President Watson testify at the State Capitol" every time you log on, but a far more interesting interview is from Chicago Tonight, Eddie Arruza interviewing presidents from four ILL universities. Watch President Watson here--scroll to @11.18 minutes into the tape to hear how he raised standards, Raised Standards...RAISED STANDARDS!

http://player.pbs.org/widget/partnerplayer/2365609421/?player=WTTW&chapterbar=true&autoplay=false&endscreen=false&topbar=true

raised our standards raised our raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around managed enrollment raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised standards not paid out any lawsuits raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around managed enrollment raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around managed enrollment raised standards not paid out any lawsuits turned around raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards raised our standards managed enrollment raised standards 

Guess Who Is Getting Office Space in the Library?

For those of you wondering when our departing president is actually leaving campus, the answer is: apparently never. Remember 2009? Richard Daley, likely tired of this academic and administrative fraud's act, cashiered him from City Colleges, but as a reward for something, local politicians insured he was able to surface as Chicago State's new president. Now it's 2015, and after nearly destroying CSU, someone in the university has decided that he needs office space in the library--apparently to write a book. In addition, he's supposedly going to have at least one support person working with him in this endeavor. For me this raises several questions. First, how much is this going to cost the taxpayers? We don't have a state budget, but we can spend money for this. Second, who authorized those expenses and the allocation of university office space for someone who should be embarrassed to show his face on campus? Third, how long is this arrangement supposed to continue? Here are some photographs taken yesterday that show the two offices allocated to the outgoing president and his support staff. You'll note the work being done in one of the offices. Certainly here on the beautifully maintained Chicago State campus, this is a project of the highest priority. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Do Not Cross Big Daddy

In the waning days of Wayne at CSU, drama that seems to cling to him, is again reaching operatic proportions. CSU was in the news last week and the rats’ nest of Illinois politics was on full display. You’d think we’d be used to it by now. The stink of it has hung over this campus since the “grasping, clutching ole” pol in the Cook Building set foot on this campus. 

In true Chicago style, true, cynical Chicago political style, Cook County States Attorney, Anita Alvarez, handed down a 17-count indictment for theft, official misconduct, wire fraud, and computer fraud on former CSU Vice President for Enrollment Management LaShondra Peebles and her mother, Shirley Kyle. Alvarez claims Peebles and Kyle bilked the great state of ILL out of $4,450 in a ghost payroll scheme.

That’s right, $4,450.00.

Seriously, this is the best the Cook County Attorneys could do? “Chump change” isn’t it by Illinois (and CSU) corruption standards, even IF Peebles really did it?

So, trot out the little fish for public scorn and condemnation, ignore and shield the barracudas. Let the long-term abusers of the public trust at CSU continue to slop at the trough. Pathetic.

And so chickenshit.

The link for the article in the Chicago Tribune about LaShondra Peebles is here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-state-fraud-arrest-20151112-story.html

I’ve summarized the dull document below.

Lest you think, however, that Anita Alvarez and the crack investigative team at the States Attorney’s Office is going to swoop down on CSU and really clean house—think again. The only signed “witness” to the document of charges against Peebles is CSU Detective Michael Jones. Does that name ring a bell? He was the police officer who applied a chokehold to CSU student Jokari Miller at a CSU Board of Trustees’ meeting in 2014 (Miller refused to take off his baseball cap inside the meeting). See this post for a perspective on that issue:

http://csufacultyvoice.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-chicago-state-university-or.html

One wonders how it came into Det. Jones’ head to single out LaShondra Peebles for investigation among all the administrators on campus? What could have motivated him? And should the rest of us now feel free to start sending reports of acts of corruption to CSU’s very own Elliot Ness?

Moral of the story: if you cross Big Daddy, he will not just take you down, fire you and ruin your career, he will try to crush you.

LaShondra Peebles’ experience with Wayne Watson follows the pattern that my colleague discerned last year in a previous blog post:  http://csufacultyvoice.blogspot.com/2014/09/brittany-bailey-and-willie-preston.html (Sept 1, 2014). It goes like this:

1.  Demand unquestioning loyalty from anyone closely associated with you (and especially in your debt for their job)
2. Test that loyalty by insisting your employee do something that is distasteful, possibly illegal or criminal or to go along with same

·        2006 Maria Moore, former General Manager of WYCC-TV at City Colleges was directed by Watson to condone and overlook the use of WYCC-TV for “personal friends and political cronies”… “including but not limited to Emil Jones, Jr., Jesse Jackson, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Clinton Bristow, and Chuck Bowen.”

·        2010 Jim Crowley, lawyer at CSU, directed to restrict the flow of information to Chicago Tribune reporters and a faculty member requesting FOIA material on Watson’s expenses at the presidential residence before he was officially employed on campus

·        2013/2014 LaShondra Peebles. Interim VP at CSU, alleges Watson attempted to coerce her to "sign off" on a million dollar contract, and to file false charges against Dr. Phillip Beverly for sexual harassment.

3. If the employee shows no “loyalty” (i.e. willingness to do your bidding) threaten and then fire that person

4. If they bring a lawsuit claiming unfair firing, begin a smear campaign to muddy their reputation and deflect the heat they brought on you (muddy the narrative)

5. Use any tactic your influence gives you, the police, the courts, to crush the individual who has so defied you:

·        Jim Crowley: charges were filed against him with the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission so that he was unable to obtain employment with a law firm after being fired from CSU;

·        Willie Preston (student): was expelled from the university and filed two bogus charges against him: one for criminal trespass, the other a total fabrication to obtain an “order of protection” for Angela Henderson who abetted Watson in this matter. Both actions were subsequently dismissed in the Circuit Court;  

·        Jokari Miller (student) was arrested on campus, charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest for refusing to take off a baseball hat at a Board of Trustees meeting, subjected to a police chokehold during the arrest. Interesting that an old arrest warrant against him suddenly appeared just before he was to testify against CSU in a court case.

·        Dr. Phillip Beverly, faculty member, critic of the administration, was the subject of an investigation by a firm Watson hired for almost $30,000 in an attempt to dig up dirt and find or coerce witnesses to file bogus charges against Beverly (see payment to Laner Muchin);

·        LaShondra Peebles: alleges the most egregious actions including coercion to backdate a contract that was in excess of $1 million and to file sexual harassment charges against faculty member Phillip Beverly.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-chicago-state-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-met-0320-20150319-story.html#navtype=related-content

6. Wait years, force individual litigants to pay lawyers out of pocket while you use state attorneys and private attorneys on the taxpayers’ dime for your own defense. In the end, lose the case, the taxpayers of Illinois will pay the lawyers. The price tag for CSU is over $1 million for Watson’s defense, bogus investigations, attacks on the faculty blog, all by private firms (Pugh, Jones and Johnson; Smith Amundsen; Laner Muchin; Gonzalez, Saggio and Harlan; Fisher Phillips; Husch Blackwell). Personally, Watson has not lost a cent.

What a racket. And there are other individuals who could be listed as the collateral damage to these incidents.

LaShondra Peebles crossed Big Daddy. Her indictment last week is part of the performance of power that Wayne Watson uses to delay and deflect his own brand of thuggishness. We have seen this opera before. And it’s a stinker.

Peeble’s indictment papers (30+ pages) are repetitive—I’ve highlighted the main sections below.

1.     THEFT [Peebles/Kyle] in furtherance of a single intention and design knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over government property, to wit: U.S. currency, in an aggregate amount and exceeding $500 and not exceeding $10,000 in value, an amount of approximately $4,450, the property of Chicago State University, a unit of government, intending to deprive Chicago State University permanently of the use or benefit of the property…

2.     THEFT [Peebles/Kyle] in furtherance of a single intention and design knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over government property, to wit: U.S. currency, in an aggregate amount and exceeding $500 and not exceeding $10,000 in value, They created an impression Shirley Kyle was working hours when they knew she was not, the property of Chicago State University, a unit of government, intending to deprive Chicago State University permanently of the use or benefit of the property..

3.     THEFT [Peebles]… knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over government property… in value, an amount of approximately $2,700, the property of Chicago State University, a unit of government, intending to deprive Chicago State University permanently of the use or benefit of the property…

4.     THEFT by “…knowingly obtained or exerted unauthorized control over government property… in value, an amount of approximately $2,048, the property of Chicago State University, a unit of government, intending to deprive Chicago State University permanently of the use or benefit of the property…

5.     THEFT “…by creating an impression which was false and which she did not believe to be true, to wit: she created an impression that she was authorized to pay PMO501 when she knew that she was not…an amount of approximately $2,700, that she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the use and benefit of the said property…

6.      THEFT “…by creating an impression which was false and which she did not believe to be true, to wit: she created an impression that she was authorized to pay PMO501 when she knew that she was not…an amount of approximately $2,048, that she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the use and benefit of the said property…

7.     OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: [Peebles] being an employee of Chicago State University while in Official capacity, To Wit: Director of Compliance/Interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, with the intent to obtain a personal advantage for herself or another, performed an act in excess of her lawful authority, to wit: she committed theft, in that she hired Shirley Kyle, her mother, and approved payment to Shirley Kyle from Chicago State University for hours Shirley Kyle did not work…”

8.     OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: [Peebles] being an employee of Chicago State University while in Official capacity, To Wit: Director of Compliance/Interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, with the intent to obtain a personal advantage for herself or another, performed an act in excess of her lawful authority, to wit: she committed theft by using a Chicago State University Credit Card as payment to PMO501…

9.     OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: [Peebles] being an employee of Chicago State University while in Official capacity, To Wit: Director of Compliance/Interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, with the intent to Obtain a personal advantage for herself or another, performed an act in excess of his (sic) lawful authority, to wit: she committed theft by using a Chicago State University Credit Card as payment to PMO501…

10. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: [Peebles] being an employee of Chicago State University while in Official capacity, To Wit: Director of Compliance/Interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, with the intent to Obtain a personal advantage for herself or another, performed an act in excess of her lawful authority, to wit: she commited computer fraud when she accessed a Chicago State University purchasing program and approved a contract on behalf of the Purchasing Department when she did not have the authority to do so…

11.  OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: [Peebles] being an employee of Chicago State University while in Official capacity, To Wit: Director of Compliance/Interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, with the intent to Obtain a personal advantage for herself or another, performed an act in excess of her lawful authority, to wit: she commited computer fraud when she accessed a Chicago State University purchasing program and approved a contract on behalf of the Legal Department when she did not have the authority to do so…

12.  WIRE FRAUD: [Peebles] devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises and for the purpose executing the scheme or artifice, transmits or causes to be transmitted any writing, signals, pictures, sounds, or electronic impulses by means of wire, radio or television communications from within this state, to wit: She made an electronic payment, an amount of approximately $2,700, via paypal to PMO501 using a Chicago State Universiy Credit Card when she did not have authority to do so…

13.  WIRE FRAUD: [Peebles] devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises and for the purpose executing the scheme or artifice, transmits or causes to be transmitted any writing, signals, pictures, sounds, or electronic impulses by means of wire, radio or television communications from within this state, to wit: She made an electronic payment, an amount of approximately $2,048, via paypal to PMO501 using a Chicago State Universiy Credit Card when she did not have authority to do so…

14.  COMPUTER FRAUD: [Peebles] knowingly accessed or caused to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, or a program or data, with the intent of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud, or as part of a deception, to wit: she made an electronic payment, an amount of approximately $2,700, via paypal to PMO501 using a Chicago State University Credit Card when she did not have authority to do so…

15. COMPUTER FRAUD: [Peebles] knowingly accessed or caused to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, or a program or data, with the intent of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud, or as part of a deception, to wit: she made an electronic payment, an amount of approximately $2,048, via paypal to PMO501 using a Chicago State University Credit Card when she did not have authority to do so…

16. COMPUTER FRAUD: [Peebles] knowingly accessed or caused to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, or a program or data, with the intent of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud, or as part of a deception, to wit: she accessed a Chicago State University Purchasing Program and approved a contract on behalf of the Purchasing Department when she did not have the authority to do so…

COMPUTER FRAUD: [Peebles] knowingly accessed or caused to be accessed a computer or any part thereof, or a program or data, with the intent of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud, or as part of a deception, to wit: she accessed a Chicago State University Purchasing Program and approved a contract on behalf of the Legal Department when she did not have the authority to do so…

Our Administration Hard at Work Trying to Discipline Faculty for Crimes They Had Not Committed

Before I went back to graduate school to continue my education, I spent significant time in supervision and management, both in law enforcement and in the private sector. One of the things I learned quickly was to never act precipitously, since you can look like a complete ass when your assumptions are proven wrong. Here at Chicago State, our administrative standard seems to be peremptory, arbitrary, and precipitous action, resulting in some administrator looking like an ass.

As most of our readers know, the death throes of our administration have given us an continuing array of systemic failures and disastrous decisions the past few months. However, our intrepid administrators in these final days of this fetid regime still get aroused by the opportunity to mete out discipline to some miscreant faculty or staff member. When the administration's enthusiasm for vengeance runs into its basic administrative incompetence, the result can be downright embarrassing (at least to someone with the capacity to feel embarrassment). Recent communications from our "Ethics" Officer provide a textbook example of what I'm describing here.

Once again this fall, we had to complete that astoundingly cynical "Ethics Training." The window for doing the computer training ran from October 1 through October 30. Everything apparently went smoothly until the "Ethics" Officer determined that two faculty had, in fact, failed to complete the training. This, of course, is a "serious" violation of the rules here at Chicago State (which our administration always scrupulously observes). Since the well-being of the entire academic enterprise hung in the balance, our stellar "Ethics" Officer swung immediately into action, dashing off a threatening letter to the unfortunate faculty, demanding a meeting before the university lowered the boom on them for their "non-compliance" with a "university directive." The "Ethics" Officer informed one faculty member that s/he had only completed 43 percent of the training, and the other that s/he had only completed 54 percent of the training. Both were informed that a "sanction is being considered." The two faculty were also ordered to contact the Ethics Office by November 12 to make appointments for a meeting on either November 16 or November 17. Obviously this urgent matter had to be dealt with, even if the union representatives these faculty are entitled to have at such a meeting might not have been able to meet on either of the dates indicated in the imperial summons. True elementary school disciplinary practices on display here. The signature on the letter seemed designed to strike fear into the hearts of these faculty scofflaws--"Judge Bernetta D. Bush (ret.)" Wow!

With things looking bleak for our two poor faculty victims and with the "Ethics" Officer salivating at the chance to hang a couple of faculty skins on her belt, these faculty members threw a wrench into the machinery. Lo and behold, they both produced a "Certificate of Completion . . . for the successful completion of Ethics Training for University Employees." Both certificates bore the date of October 30, 2015, which was within the time period for completion of the training. Although the faculty notified the "Ethics" Officer they had completed the training, they have not been afforded the courtesy of a follow-up letter rescinding the meeting demand. Really a professional way to handle this.

Below are redacted copies of both the letter from the "Ethics" Officer and the "Certificates of Completion" produced by the faculty members. As an aside, since I had another career before becoming a university teacher, should I start signing everything "Alameda County Sheriff's Department Sergeant Robert E. Bionaz, #466 (ret.)"? What do you think?