So not understanding the pressing demands of being a volunteer board member,I am just wondering out loud what they might spend their time doing. It has been almost five months since the Faculty Senate asked the Governor to replace the Board of Trustees for “misconduct, incompetence and malfeasance.” In the intervening months a more important scandal emerged. Yes, political influence peddling of admissions at the University of Illinois superseded the questionable selection of a president at CSU. A retired federal judge and a commission were needed to sort through the U of I scandal. Meanwhile, on the South Side the BOT has not even made any official notification of who is running the university. Instead the Board appears to be focused on faculty work load and program elimination, and firing and hiring of university personnel. The Board does not appear to be focused on issues I imagine a board of trustees of a troubled university would be focused on. Maybe some attention to the issue of restoration of MAP funding for the Spring semester would be of some help to the 3,000 students who won’t be here without that funding. Maybe some attention to getting a university budget approved earlier than a month prior to the end of the fiscal year. Since that has been identified as a problem by the HLC, I would think that our volunteer trustees would want to address real problems. Maybe some attention to the risk of losing accreditation would inspire the volunteers to speak up.
In its May meeting the Faculty Senate took the unprecedented step of creating a Summer Committee in order to have an official presence at the university to ensure neither the administration nor the BOT got up to unobserved mischief. One of the issues that emerged was how the university was spending money. One of the things the university was spending money on was lobbyists. I believe faculty would agree that effective intergovernmental relations is critical to the institution. Lobbying is just one element of those activities. Since FY 2000, the university has spent roughly $850,000 on lobbyists. The question is not about how much was spent. The question is about the oversight and return on investment. I have seen no documents, memos, letters, reports, or any other written statements about the work products of these lobbyists. What did the BOT and the Presidents they supervised get in return for the $850,000 spent? I would think the Board would be more interested in stewarding scarce university resources and ensuring the university and its students and faculty benefit from its efforts.
And then there was the recent newspaper story and editorial about the university’s $40 million surprise. The BOT chair stated that he didn’t know anything about the capital development windfall. One might think that maintaining communication links with legislators would be a job for the volunteer trustees.
I spoke to Governor Quinn’s staffer who manages higher ed issues and she told me that it was “very likely” new trustees would be appointed by the end of September. If I were to guess I would imagine there would be new appointees after the September BOT meeting on the 23rd. Given Illinois politics, there are no guarantees.
Could it get any worse? Probably. And it is bad enough having a board of trustees that continues to be malfeasant and incompetent. Will the end of September come soon enough?
So loyal readers you may have noticed I have not posted much this summer. Let me assure you that it isn’t because there has been nothing happening at our fair university. It is because too much has been happening. For the next few days I will attempt to bring you up to date with the interesting goings on and hopefully inspire some exciting dialogue. So let’s begin our inquiry into the local happenings with the following.
This past Wednesday all available members of the Faculty Senate were invited to the President’s Conference Room by the Provost. No, we don’t actually have a President but we do have a President Elect or Unpaid Consultant occupying the President’s office but don’t let me digress. The purpose of the meeting was the viewing of a PowerPoint presentation and the answering of questions related to the subject raised by the Provost. This meeting was also a prelude to the Campus Assembly held this past Thursday.
Here is the situation as I understand it. In 2003 we were joined by North Central Association (NCA) evaluators for our continued accreditation visit. The good news from that visit was the university received a ten year stamp of approval. The bad news was that the NCA determined that the university did not have a comprehensive enrollment management and retention system. The university was given three years to begin correcting that problem and then report back to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the NCA about the systems that had been implemented, the progress of those systems with accompanying data and analysis to ensure that the university was making progress on improving its retention and graduation rates. In 2006 when the report was due the then serving Provost was given three weeks notice the report was due to HLC. Of course, no policies had been implemented and no data collected. A report was generated containing three weeks worth of policy implementation and no data. The university was then given three more years to show progress on the 2006 report. A report was prepared earlier this year and submitted to the HLC. The response of the Commission was to schedule a “Focused Visit-Mandated: 2010 - 2011; on all of the enrollment management issues at the University, including leadership, funding, infrastructure, retention and recruitment.” The possible consequences of this Mandated Visit are significant. The university could receive probation, lose its accreditation, or have its regularly scheduled accreditation rescheduled to an earlier time frame. A loss of accreditation would result in a loss of the ability to receive federal financial aid which would in effect force the closing of the university. This “death penalty” sanction is possible and unlikely. What I believe is more likely is that the university will create some response for the evaluators and promise to do better and would agree to an accelerated visitation schedule.
The troubling elements of this situation are numerous. First, who is going to be held accountable for this Mandated Focused Visit in the first place. When asked the unpaid consultant responded the university wasn’t going to look back. This is very curious given those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Second, I am concerned that this situation is symptomatic of a larger and deeper dysfunction in the university that only a visionary leader would be able to address. A visionary leader is needed to change the culture of the university. Otherwise, when the university is visited again for its Continued Accreditation visit, it will most certainly demonstrate the underlying cracks in the foundation. Third, I inquired about where the resources for this herculean effort will come from. Will the Academic Affairs side of the house be pillaged again for what is clearly an administrative failure? With more financial resources this situation would be much easier to address but with so many self inflicted wounds around the university’s financial management, those with resources are understandably reluctant to help. Finally, it occurred to me that the faculty’s hands are clean in this situation. This is an administrative failure compounded by an obvious absence of oversight by the Board of Trustees which has focused its attentions in other areas. It is likely the HLC team will find that the Board has failed the university, its faculty, students and ultimately the taxpayers of the State of Illinois.
So what happens next? The faculty has essentially three options here. First, we can help maintain the status quo of token representation in the committee/task force hand picked to rescue the university from withdrawal of accreditation. Second, faculty could sit this one out and prove to the HLC that there are indeed deep dysfunctions that are likely to be exacerbated by the next occupant of the President’s office. Or the faculty could demand to oversee this process. The faculty could become the dominant force in this effort and demand the authority to design and implement whatever policy is needed to ensure the university doesn’t receive the death penalty or any sanction that would significantly impede its progress. Of course I realize that the university administration will never relinquish control even in the face of these dire circumstances. The university will continue doing the same things, expecting different results and with no accountability faculty will watch as the professional administrators roll the dice with our professional futures and the lives of our students.
There are still unanswered questions that I am trying to get answers to and when I do, you will be the first to know.
Maybe I am just jaded given the twelve years of continued mismanagement I have witnessed. Maybe what will really happen is that the university will be rescued and we will all live happily ever after.
The teach-in committee will be meeting again Friday, Sept. 11, 12:00 noon at the Library 1st floor cafe. Faculty should inform students and encourage them to attend as well as attending themselves.
The post below, about the teach-in, was posted by me on behalf of a colleague.
At the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday, the Senate approved a proposal submitted by the Ad-Hoc Teach-in Committee to conduct a campus-wide teach-in on September 23. At the Senate meeting, it was determined that all faculty should participate (Unit A, Unit B, adjunct, and emeritus). Over the next week, Senators will be polling all university faculty to determine their support and participation. Full participation is essential to ensure the success of this event, so please let your senator(s) know of your support and willingness to participate. Senators will report faculty support and participation by Wednesday, September 9 at noon � so communicate with your senator(s) today! This event is extremely important in light of the ongoing challenges being faced by the university, particularly in response to the news to be revealed on Wednesday in the all campus assembly headed by the Provost.
The intent of the teach-in is to educate ourselves relative to recent changes and challenges faced by Chicago State University and strategies for developing a CSU environment of shared governance. The teach-in will bring faculty, staff and students together to develop an agenda that benefits the entire CSU community.
Here are the details of the event:
The event begins with attendance at the September Board of Trustees meeting held at 7:30am and continues until 7:00pm with a two-hour break between 4:00 and 6:00pm. There will be four hour-long dialogues, an informal lunch meeting, and a two-hour session between 2:00 and 4:00pm. Dialogues will be led by facilitators who present information, ideas, and questions for all to discuss. A note taker will record all of the ideas and resolutions presented at each dialogue. A proposed schedule with session topics is at the end of this blog post.
Faculty members can contribute to the dialogues in a number of ways:
First, the teach-in committee still needs members to help finalize the event. Any interested parties can contact Dr. Pancho McFarland (panchomac87@hotmail.com) to be added to the committee email list.
Second, faculty members can volunteer as facilitators and note takers at the events. Please contact Dr. McFarland for information regarding the roles of facilitator and note taker or to volunteer.
Third, please bring your classes to participate in the dialogues on September 23.
Finally, we hope that faculty will continue these discussions in their classrooms, informally with colleagues, and in groups that will continue to work on these issues throughout the school year. In the spirit of I am CSU, we hope this event will help us begin to create a shared vision, take shared responsibility, and achieve shared excellence at CSU.
Proposed Schedule: Coyuntura/Linkages: CSU All-Campus Dialogue, September 23, 2009
Session Topics Community-University Links Shared Governance: Understanding and Impacting Decision-Making CSUs History: How does CSU Fit Into Our World Today? CSU Students' Education CSU and the Media: On the PR Offensive CSU's Mission and Our Role in It
"What happens when a university’s corporate management betrays the institution’s core educational mission; when it abandons its key constituencies; when it hides its intentions and plans; and when it manipulates or withholds essential financial information?"...
No, I'm not talking about CSU. But I encourage everyone to read below what happened at Antioch College when that institution's Board of Trustees usurped functions that belong to faculty and systematically excluded faculty from governance. See also the AAUP Report Association's "recommended standards for faculty participation in program development, curricular control, budgetary allocation, declaration of financial exigency, and treatment of faculty..." at the following link: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/academicfreedom/investrep/2009/Antioch.htm
Gary Rhoades, General Secretary of the AAUP, has a parable for us in this article.
The Near-Death Experience of Antioch College: A Cautionary Tale
What happens when a university’s corporate management betrays the institution’s core educational mission; when it abandons its key constituencies; when it hides its intentions and plans; and when it manipulates or withholds essential financial information? The AAUP’s investigative report on Antioch University provides disturbing and disheartening answers to these questions.
Antioch College, founded in 1852 in Yellow Springs, Ohio, has had a long history as a pioneer in liberal arts education. Significant innovations, subsequently adopted by many other institutions, have included cooperative education, experiential learning, community governance, recruitment of African American students before and after Brown vs. Board of Education, and the country’s first study abroad program. Through good times and bad, Antioch has produced distinguished graduates such as Coretta Scott King, Stephen Jay Gould, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. It has received top rankings among colleges whose graduates go on to complete the PhD as well as continuing recognition in the areas of academic challenge, enriching educational experience, active and collaborative learning, and student-faculty interaction.
The Antioch University administration and board of trustees, in suspending the operations of Antioch College and then closing the institution on June 30, 2008, appears to have decided that the college’s rich history of progressive education and its residential liberal arts setting were luxuries that its 21st-century management philosophy could not afford and did not need. Antioch’s closure is thus of concern to everyone interested in high quality liberal arts higher education. The report of the AAUP’s investigative committee analyzes the protracted dissolution of Antioch College in the light of the Association's recommended standards for faculty participation in program development, curricular control, budgetary allocation, declaration of financial exigency, and treatment of faculty under such exigency. The report details the gradual deterioration of faculty governance at Antioch through a series of administrative actions over several decades that led ultimately to the closure of the college. Key managerial decisions made by the administration repeatedly disregarded longstanding principles of faculty consultation and shared governance.
Specifically the report reveals that the Antioch University administration:
usurped the faculty’s responsibilities by mandating a new curriculum that the faculty neither initiated nor approved;
failed to consult with the faculty regarding the college’s financial condition prior to the declaration of financial exigency and the process by which university administrators and board members had reached that decision;
failed to provide faculty members the right to examine or challenge the decisions both to declare financial exigency and to close the college;
systematically reduced the flow of budgetary information to the Antioch College faculty and its governance bodies;
failed to protect the autonomy of Antioch College and, in fact, significantly undermined it by approving a shift of administrative functions from Antioch College to the university administration without ensuring means for communication or sharing of governance;
During its 156-year history, the college had struggled through many hard times but had been sustained by the strong tradition of its faculty's engagement with enlightened boards, distinguished administrators, eminent alumni, and talented students working together to serve the common good.
Fortunately, those devoted to the Antioch tradition have once again taken critical steps toward reopening Antioch College. As announced on June 30, 2009, the governing boards of Antioch University and the college’s alumni have reached agreement on opening a new Antioch College, independent of the university. Reopening is anticipated for fall 2011. Antioch College, it seems, will rise again phoenix-like and survive to continue its tradition of progressive education. But its near demise provides clear and eloquent testimony to the havoc wrought by a board and administration that abandoned their commitment to liberal arts education and to the fundamental principles of shared governance.
Gary Rhoades, General Secretary The AAUP Online is an electronic newsletter of the American Association of University Professors. Support the work of the AAUP. Join today!
The placid atmosphere at CSU since the aborted August 3rd "meet and greet" of the Trustees' flunky Wayne Watson, now termed "president-elect," should not be mistaken for docility or reconciliation on the part of the faculty, staff, or students. While there have not been many posts this month to this blog, a lot has been going on behind the scenes.
Watson, who is not to take office until October 1st, has been parading around campus, speaking at orientation, visiting dorm rooms, essentially calling the shots with or for Trustee Leon Finney (it's really hard to distinguish between them or to say who is really running CSU) since July. All this seems at best to be inappropriate action for someone whose job doesn't begin until October 1st. Watson claims he is "volunteering." Hmmm. At worst, it may be a violation of SURS and the board's own contract with him.
But I'm not here to go into those details right now. I do want to alert people that there has been a lot going on on our campus all summer and that those of us sickened by the Trustees' continued interference in the day to day workings of CSU and their contempt for the faculty, staff, and students that led them to give away our presidency to a politically- connected crony, will continue to be investigated and discussed in this blog.
I will also mention that at this time the student newspaper Tempo is on hiatus, hopefully not for too long, for a number of reasons. The on-line student paper, The Cougar Chronicle, however, has returned and its first issue is just out and accessible at http://www.cougarchronicle.net See this issue for Yan Searcy's eloquent statement to the university community as we begin this school year. And the Cougar Chronicle trumpets the not-yet president Watson as "The Great Conciliator." We'll see.
So, the first week of the new regime is over, well sort of. Below is the text of an email message sent by the Faculty Senate President Yan Searcy.
"Greetings Senators!
At a 9am conference call of the President's Executive Council, The Board of Trustees Choice for President of Chicago State University, Dr. Wayne Watson, was introduced as "President Elect."
This was found to be a curious title. The contract of Dr. Watson allegedly states that his term as president was to begin on August 1st . After inquiry, it was discovered that the signatory on university related business remains Dr. Westbrooks. In addition it was found that Dr. Watson's monetary compensation is to begin on October 1st.
It is unclear why this is the case. Rumors have surfaced and some have suggested that this may be related to retirement pension issues. If this is indeed the case, then any type of compensation on the part of Dr. Watson would bring up ethical, legal, and professional concerns related to the state retirement pension system. State housing and state vehicle use are considered compensation. Again, we are unclear of the rationale. We do not wish to operate in a culture of rumor.
In addition, it is unclear what the responsibilities of a "President Elect" are. It is unclear whether the directives of a" President Elect" are binding.
Senators at this important juncture (at the start of a new school year and the beginning of a new presidential term) the university community must gain clarity, particularly as ethical concerns continue to plague the leadership of CSU.
In service,
Yan Searcy CSU Faculty Senate President"
So the the first question I want answered is who is the president? Being unclear about who is in charge diminishes further the reputation of the institution. As Yan points out in his message, are any of the directives binding. For example, the number of personnel actions that have taken place in the past few weeks may actually have been illegal.
There was a possibility that the new regime would have started off on a high note with a meet and greet on Monday morning. About fifteen minutes prior to the start of the event the university community was notified that event was canceled without explanation. Rumors began to surface almost immediately, including a very plausible one that the 'President Elect" was summoned to Federal District Court to appear as a defendant in his most recent wrongful termination lawsuit. That would be the lawsuit referenced by my colleague on Monday.
A second, also plausible explanation, is that the "PE" could not participate in any activity which would indicate his acceptance of employment in a State University Retirement System (SURS) institution. So was the recent inspection of the university dormitory by the "PE" an activity indicating his acceptance of employment prior to the legally required period of no employment. I can fully understand wanting to make a good impression on the students in the residence hall, but wasn't the real reason for the inspection to get the dorms in top shape for the students from Mississippi Valley State who will be participating in the Bud Biliken Parade tomorrow? Was the continuous back and forth about the parade an indicator that the "PE" was actually serving in an official capacity? Was the installation of a telecommunication system at the official residence an indication of acting in an official capacity? Were the numerous meetings and requests for information from the "PE" as far back as May an indicator of acting in an official capacity? Who was responsible for giving the movers instructions about what furniture was to go where in the official residence? Was it the "PE"'s official cheerleader and chief sycophant, someone rumored to now be in charge of the marketing efforts for the university. The University Legal Counsel's office has not responded to my Freedom of Information Act requests in the legally mandated time period. What is the "PE" and his masters on the BOT hiding? Will we find out that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of the malfeasance and incompetence of the BOT manifested in the flawed hiring process of the "PE"?
Maybe a visit by 75-100 faculty to Governor Quinn's office will at least get a commission formed to investigate the activities of the university board of trustees. Or should we have something a bit less important like an influence peddling scandal. Oh wait, that's what we have. Go figure.
As usual I welcome any comments to clear up the proliferation of rumors surrounding our university.
I had been thinking about posting something on my experience doing research while at CSU, and the importance of the summer for getting substantial research done. You know, to try to add another conversation to this faculty blog to reflect the diversity of our work as faculty members at CSU. But, then I saw these articles in both the Chitown Daily News and the Capitol Fax Blog, which report that WYCC, the City College's public television station, is the subject of a state ethics investigation as well as a federal law suit for allegedly producing free videos for politicians who were friends of then-Chancellor Watson.
Some choice bits from the Chitown Daily News: "The Daily News learned of the investigation from a July 15 internal e-mail titled "Meeting regarding Ethics Report." The e-mail was sent by LaDonna Perry, who works in the ethics office, to WYCC's general manager and to a college vice president who oversees the station at Kennedy-King College. The e-mail highlights more than a half-dozen issues and criticisms contained in an "Ethics Report." The report lists at least 15 programs that were never broadcast and were allegedly "distributed only to friends and associates of the Chancellor." The programs showcasing Jones included “Emil Jones fundraiser,” “Emil Jones State Senate California Trip,” "Emil Jones St. Francis Hospital" and four editions of "Emil Jones Golf Promo."Other programs included “Jesse Jackson Birthday Party" in 2006 and “Todd Stroger Registration Event” in 2004."
And, just slightly later in the article: "The e-mail also mentions Maria Moore, the former WYCC general manager who took issue with the Chancellor's request "to have WYCC assist with filming the Jesse Jackson birthday video …" Moore sued the City Colleges in federal court last week, saying that she was fired in 2007 after she voiced concerns about the television station being used for political ends."
And, then here's the substance of Moore's lawsuit: "“Each time Dr. Moore voiced her concerns to Chancellor Watson, he told her ‘I’ve heard your concerns. You’re wrong, I’m not asking you to do anything unethical. Do what I tell you to do or I’ll have you fired for insubordination,’” the lawsuit reads. Finally, the lawsuit says, she was fired in late 2007 after she was denied a medical leave, even though she had a letter from her doctor."
Perhaps it's time to renew calls to Gov. Quinn and others to act quickly and decisively before the fall semester starts. In the words of the title of the article from the Capitol Fax Blog, "Just when you think you’ve seen it all…"
So part of the responsibility of tenure is to speak for the un-tenured. They are in the precarious position of not having the same protections and yet being part of the university environment and activities. I was contacted by one of our colleagues who requested to be heard and here is that piece.
As you’ll recall, several months ago, dozens of Chicago State University faculty members and students protested what we perceived to be a rigged presidential selection process: Following the Board of Trustees’ national search, which cost Illinois taxpayers $75,000, the final candidate was the politically connected chancellor of the City Colleges of Chicago, Dr. Wayne Watson—a candidate rumored to have been tapped for the job prior to the launch of the search.
Faculty members appealed to Governor Patrick Quinn to restore fairness and integrity to the process. We demanded a new search. He did absolutely nothing. That’s in stark contrast to his instantaneous response to the board of trustees’ crisis at the University of Illinois, which is not located in a middle-class African American residential area, unlike Chicago State.
When members of the board of trustees at UIUC were accused of manipulating student admissions, the governor interceded with flourish, cameras rolling. When members of the Blagojevich-appointed board of trustees at CSU were accused of manipulating the selection of the most important position on campus, the governor cowered backstage.
Even after the faculty’s concerns about Dr. Watson’s qualifications to lead this institution bore fruit, Governor Quinn has said and done nothing. As state lawmakers work to pull the state from the quicksand of an unprecedented budget crisis, Quinn has allowed the appointment of the man responsible for inexplicable cost overruns of 118% at new Kennedy-King College campus. Ironically, Dr. Watson counts this as one of the highlights of his career as the City Colleges’ chancellor. The project was budgeted at $93 million. To date, the cost is $202 million, and is expected to rise when all the bills are tallied. The additional $109+ million can’t be explained because records are missing. How convenient!
Patrick Quinn blazed into the governor’s chair promising reform. He has replaced entire boards at other state agencies. Incidentally, while much is being made about the ascension process of UIUC’s current board of trustees’ chair, no one has mentioned that Rev. Leon Finney maneuvered his way into the chairmanship of the CSU board after only two years on the board, without holding any other position. As vice chair, Rev. Richard L. Tolliver was next in line. Quinn has remained mum, allowing Blagojevich’s CSU trustees to put a plague on our house.
Rev. Finney, who is frequently mean-spirited, condescending and disrespectful to the University’s presidents and high ranking administrators at public Board of Trustees’ meetings, raised the faculty’s ire again when he ordered the admission of students with low ACT scores. And he wanted the tuition to remain the lowest in the state.
Again, Quinn said nothing about the devaluation of a state university with some of the finest minds in higher education. CSU faculty members hail from prestigious universities throughout the country and the world. We have produced some of the state’s most successful business, political and educational leaders—and more African American physicists than any university in the country. Yet, our expertise has less value than our colleagues at other state universities.
Incoming president Wayne Watson reportedly told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that CSU faculty members must learn to teach. To that end, he allegedly plans to provide us with additional methods courses. Has Dr. Watson has observed even one CSU class? Why is he so committed to spending taxpayer dollars to improve our teaching skills? Who’ll get that contract?
The faculty has protested. Governor Quinn has turned a deaf ear.
Quinn’s disrespect for the Chicago State faculty generously gave Rev. Finney, the man many say orchestrated Watson’s selection, carte blanche to treat the university, which belongs to the state’s taxpayers, like a carnival prize he’d won at the State Fair:
According to an Open Letter to the Board of Trustees written by then-Interim President Dr. Frank Pogue, Rev. Finney usurped Pogue’s authority to run the day-to-day operations of the University—authority granted to the CSU president in the board of trustees’ by-laws;
In a public board of trustees meeting, Dr. Pogue revealed that Rev. Finney also allegedly halted Pogue’s search for a vice president to run the University’s financial affairs, despite numerous past irregularities found by state auditors and the possibility for more without a senior financial administrator’s oversight;
Several administrators say Finney visited offices and instructed them how to do their jobs—jobs for which he has no expertise, educational background or previous experience;
In May, Finney sent a memo to the entire staff, prohibiting the hiring or reassignment of any personnel without the Board of Trustees’ approval. Among the effects of this order, the search for a new campus police chief was halted; and
When the interim president’s contract ended on June 30, Finney took the reins until Dr. Watson’s contract period officially begins on August 1. Both have been spending lots of time on campus in recent weeks.
Still, Quinn and the other Chicago State trustees have said nothing. As a result, what many staff members characterize as Rev. Finney’s reign of terror continues, and every taxpayer in deficit-plagued Illinois will pay the tab. He is now in the process of firing senior administrators and other staff—without cause, according to their termination letters—just because: just because they were appointed by Interim President Dr. Frank Pogue and just because he’s now in charge. Illinois taxpayers’ bill for this stunt will total hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why?
According to Chicago State University Board of Trustees’ Regulations, employees terminated without cause must be given notice three to 12 months in advance. It is University practice to send these employees home, instead of allowing them to continue working until their termination date. The rationale is that it minimizes the possibility that the employees will harm University property or personnel, in response to being fired for nothing—or in some of the recent cases, fired for doing a great job. It makes sense, under the circumstances. So off these employees go, remaining on the CSU payroll until their termination date finally arrives, three to 12 months later.
For CSU Provost Dr. Sandra Westbrooks, appointed by Rev. Finney and the board of trustees as the University’s most senior administrative officer until Dr. Watson officially arrives, this has been a tumultuous July: Allegedly at Rev. Finney’s or Dr. Watson’s behest, she has terminated at least five of her colleagues on the President’s Executive Council (PEC) and several other administrators.
On Wednesday, July 1, Dr. Westbrooks sent a grateful e-mail to one PEC member, wishing that she “could clone” her. The next day, she sheepishly entered that administrator’s office, pie-eyed and near tears, explaining that she had been ordered to fire the administrator—without cause, of course. And so, right or wrong, painful or not, the Provost did it, even while observing that after spending a month terminating her colleagues in preparation for Wayne Watson’s arrival, she’d probably be terminated herself.
Currently, none of terminated administrators has been replaced. None of their work is being done, and the University and the state are receiving no return on the administrators’ salaries. To add insult to injury, when they are replaced after Watson arrives officially, taxpayers will pay two individuals for doing one job until the terminated employees’ notice period expires. That’s consistent with the appalling lack of fiscal discipline that Watson exhibited at the City Colleges.
In the meantime, Governor Quinn and the other Blagojevich trustees are whistling in the wind. In a quest for great leadership and fiscal responsibility, the University’s faculty senate has implored Quinn to replace this board—a few of whom have expired terms—and he has done nothing. We asked him to fill the vacancies on the board, and he has ignored us. Why? Perhaps the good Rev. Finney has provided some clues.
No slave to subtlety, Finney has made only two new appointments during the past two weeks, most notably the reassignment of the attorney who formerly reviewed and approved large purchasing contracts. He will now do that again as the Associate General Counsel and Assistant Vice President for Auxiliary Operations.
The faculty has expressed concerns that the selection of Watson signaled the beginning of Chicago State’s use as a patronage tunnel for jobs and contracts. Clearly, room is being made for bodies. Monthly or quarterly FOIA requests for purchasing office records will reveal to whom the University is awarding contracts. Maybe with vigilant taxpayer oversight, no records will go missing.
Despite its top-notch faculty and staff and beautiful sprawling campus, Chicago State has been challenged with declining enrollment. Among the contributing factors is the board of trustees’ failure to approve a marketing budget for a number of years. There’s no advertising in online, print or broadcast media. The Office of Enrollment Services struggles to afford brochures and other marketing material while competitors advertise heavily to our prospective students. This is an anomaly among other state universities.
Few, beyond the range of a bullhorn, are aware of the treasures at Chicago State: Few people know that our students are engaged in significant alternative energy research with solar cells and fuel cells. Few know that our nursing students have a higher pass rate on the national certification exam than their counterparts in the state or the nation.
There’s been a lot of negative publicity about our graduation rate, which only counts those who enrolled as first-time, full-time freshmen. But with a student body of 6,800, more than 1,000 were conferred bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees at Chicago State’s spring commencement. They will be wage earners and taxpayers, and they’ll be outraged by the callous disregard with which this governor has treated their alma mater and their tax dollars.
August first has not yet arrived. Wayne Watson is not yet officially the president of Chicago State University. Governor Quinn has time to appoint a reform-minded board of trustees. It’s also not too late to investigate the legitimacy of Watson’s selection and order an legitimate, cost-effective, ethical search for a leader who can move the University forward, rather than turn it into a funnel for patronage jobs and contracts.
Quinn holds full responsibility for what is happening at Chicago State and has a vested interest in addressing it, because it glaringly reflects the credibility of his dedication to fiscal responsibility and educational excellence. Neither the University nor Illinois taxpayers can afford Watson’s reckless spending sprees. If Quinn continues to endorse cost overruns as the status quo, we certainly can’t afford him.
So the summer is moving along. The university is conducting some house cleaning, reshuffling, reorganizing and the like. One of the statements that I have heard is that the new administration will clean house. Firing people is pretty easy. Hiring competent people to replace them is a bit harder. Our fair university has often found it hard to do the latter. Our history in that area is spotty at best. What we can expect next month is a politically connected administrator more interested in how long the blinds in the dormitory has been up than the deeper issues of managing a university. And this is what we get, someone who has never been an administrator at a university. I haven't quite figured out which organization has the worst curse, CSU or the Chicago Cubs. Will administrative competence ever land at CSU?
