CSU Faculty Voice: Does Anyone in the Administration Understand Their Own Arguments? The Senate Controversy and the Administration's Lack of Knowledge

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Does Anyone in the Administration Understand Their Own Arguments? The Senate Controversy and the Administration's Lack of Knowledge

I heard today from someone doing an article on the Senate controversy that the administration claims there are 360 faculty members at Chicago State who should have been eligible to vote in the February Senate election to amend the 2011 Constitution. Apparently, this belief is one of the bases for the specious objections being made by the administration about “voting irregularities,” a groundless allegation repeated by our feckless Board of Trustees Chairman. Since the Chicago State administration’s position here is either completely disingenuous or completely ignorant, I will offer a clarification.

As most of us know by now, the issue is the Senate’s failure to adhere to the provisions of its 2011 Constitution. The Senate represents only unit “A” tenured and tenure-track full-time faculty, as the 2011 Constitution, Article III, makes clear:

As far as Senate elections, Article IX specifies that the only faculty members eligible to vote are those defined in Article III:

This seems a fairly straightforward calculus that anyone should be able to understand. Why is it that our administration seems to have such difficulty with this document? While it may be true that Chicago State employs 360 faculty, only a little over 200 are eligible to vote in Senate elections. How can a controversy created by the administration and stemming from such a profound lack of understanding about the Senate's governing document be resolved?

1 comment:

VoicedOct 2, 2014, 8:22:00 PM
Of course their "objections" are a ruse, and perfidy, pretense. That is what they're paid for, to "rewrite reality" and to lie, to stall.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add 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.