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.