CSU Faculty Voice: What I Think the Board Did Today

Thursday, June 25, 2015

What I Think the Board Did Today

In response to my esteemed colleague’s questions about today’s board actions, I can offer the following interpretation. I must emphasize that this is based on a reconstruction of what I think are available facts surrounding this “resolution” and may be inaccurate. I invite anyone with knowledge of the actual circumstances to provide an alternative perspective, or to correct any inaccuracies in my account.

What I think the board did today is simple: they retroactively approved Wayne Watson’s expenditures for legal representation and gave him basically a blank check to continue to squander university funds on his personal defense. University guidelines and state policy require that any professional services contracts exceeding $100,000 be approved by the university’s Board of Trustees. It seems like the board either did not know about the extent of our contract legal expenses or did not care. In any case, the board today told Watson he could throw more money away on litigation.

Once again, it seems apparent that there is no oversight for this administration. Neither our board nor the state legislators seem inclined to exercise any control over a president whose various misdeeds have already cost the university dearly. For the past several years our board has taken the position that the faculty opposing Watson are always wrong. Now, the persons responsible for the well-being of the university have underscored their support for this failed administration and have committed the university to untold additional expense for the defense of Watson’s various administrative excesses.

We can only hope the university will survive.

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.