Bits & Bobs

So fair readers I am taking this time to share with you some of the things happening on our lovely campus. First, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has opened a Disaster Recovery Center (DRC) in the lobby of the Jones Convocation Center for citizens impacted by area flooding that occurred a couple of months ago. It is the only DRC on the South Side and CSU has graciously agreed to host it for the next couple of weeks. If you know anybody in need of assistance as a result of the flooding please don’t hesitate to send them to the DRC.
Second, the Senior Thesis discussion continues. The Board of Trustees was informed last Friday that the Senior Thesis requirement will reach full implementation by Spring 2015, not Fall 2010 as initially reported. I suspect there were a plethora of administrative, logistical and curricular details that weren’t considered until consultation with the faculty occurred. I guess this could be a lesson in why faculty consultation at a university is important. One of the Trustees expressed a concern that if the Senior Thesis was to be applied, every discipline should have a writing requirement. That means that the Senior portfolio in Art would still be required as would a substantive written project. As the Senior Thesis is a work in progress, there will be more questions answered and details addressed to stay on task for the 2015 implementation date.
Third, your humble reporter was informed by the University Police Chief that he was over-trained in the area of Emergency Management. And by over-trained, I imagine that means that having a faculty member who is accredited by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency as a Professional Emergency Manager. I plead guilty to that qualification. I have made several comments to the BOT about my concerns about the university’s absence of preparedness in the event of a crisis or major event. The Chief informed the Board that the university had met the ‘minimum requirements’, leading me to conclude that the university is minimally prepared. The disturbing thing about those remarks is some belief that meeting the minimum should be satisfactory or acceptable. That somehow striving for excellence in this area is anathema to the administrative mindset. I fear this administrative belief, not refuted by the CEO, permeates the administrative fabric of the institution and in some substantive ways prevents the university from breaking out of the rut that it appears to have been in for at least the last twenty years. I would hope that an astute CEO would definitively repudiate any implication of minimalism in this educational setting and demand excellence and not just meeting the minimum standards. It sends the wrong message to the university community, especially in the area of preparedness and safety.
I suggested to the BOT the university consider a Green Initiative. It involves moving our diesel powered vehicle fleet to bio-diesel, creating an urban farm and composting program and implementing an E-Recycling program to recycle computers, printers, fax machines, and other electronic devices that have reached end of life. Currently, State of Illinois property control rules and regulations require that equipment be turned in and moved off campus to be warehoused. I proposed that the university, under a pilot scheme, seek to have those rules suspended for the purpose of E-recycling. There are companies in the private sector that take the property and refurbish it for use in other markets, often overseas. It would of course require that the university exhibit some leadership and do something not done before. Or would it? The Board was informed by the University’s Chief Information Officer, that this was a bad idea because in 2-3 years the use of technology will have obsoleted computers as we know them so there would be no need for electronic recycling. Who knew that CSU was moving so fast in the technology world that in a scant 2-3 years we would do most of our computing on mobile devices?
And on a final note, rumors abound about CSU students selling their recently gifted I-Pads, only weeks after getting them. Upon hearing that I became concerned about the property control implications. State property purchased with appropriated funds being sold by students can’t possibly be good for the university. Is that an audit finding waiting to happen? Thankfully, I was assured that the I-Pad which retails starting at $499, is considered a consumable and not equipment. Therefore, no property control requirements exist. If the university were ever challenged on why it used state tax dollars for technology that was sold by the users, the institution would be justified by citing the rules and therefore suffer no damage to our institutional reputation.

Notes from the June BOT meeting

So what better way to spend a Friday morning and afternoon than at the BOT meeting. I thought I would bring you, our loyal readers, up to date on the goings on at the highest levels. First, I would like to extend my congratulations to Professor Victor Sorrell on being named Professor Emeritus. His long and distinguished service has been noted by the university in awarding him this status. Thank you Victor for you wisdom, perseverance and willingness to be of service to the highest ideals of the Academy and this university.
I did get some phone calls on another matter facing the university, namely the fallout from Professor Madhubuti leaving the university recently. The questions were about the future of the Gwendolyn Brooks Center, the Black Writer’s Conference and the acquisition of Ms Brooks’ papers. For those who don’t know, the Gwendolyn Brooks Center was approved by the Board of Governors in 1992. This center is the repository of the works of the Illinois Poet Laureate and focuses on advancing the study of black literature and poetry. I thought it only appropriate to broach the subject during the Academic Affairs Committee meeting to wit the following was made public by Dr. Rachel Lindsey, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. First the Center will remain open under the direction of Professor Quraysh A. Lansana. The Center will continue to host the Black Writer’s Conference, with the next one scheduled for April 2011. Unfortunately, we were informed that the university would not be receiving Ms Brooks’ papers, though a contract and earnest money was paid. Upon questioning by the BOT Chairman, it was discovered that the university president demanded an appraisal of the work be done before the contract was executed. There was no language in the contract calling for an appraisal and the agreement fell through.

I did take a moment to remind the full Board later in the day about good news of the Center remaining at CSU and the disappointing news that once again, the university loses a valuable asset. First, CSU eliminated the Hospitality Management Program and three years later DePaul University opened a new Hospitality Management Program. Second, Professor Haki Madhubuti leaves the university under circumstances that are less than cordial and then is hired by DePaul University. I would fully expect DePaul University to become the repository for the papers of the Illinois Poet Laureate within a few months. Is there no way to compete with DePaul University? Yes, I believe there is; by valuing the assets we have here and not casting them off out of hubris.
I also took some time to speak about that subject near and dear to most faculty, shared governance. Apparently, some $4 million was released by the State to the university to begin work on the West Side Campus (WSC). The money is contingent on having a plan on how to use the funds. I implored the BOT not to waste one second of time on this idea until the campus has addressed its $75 million of deferred maintenance amongst other things. Rumor has it though, the CEO and BOT Chair were out scouting for sites on the West Side, an activity your humble narrator finds curious as the faculty haven’t even been asked what we will do at this new campus. I would think that we would want to have some vision of what we are doing before we go looking for where we will do it. I reminded all in attendance that whether it is something as expansive as the next Strategic Plan or as specific as the WSC, faculty need to be involved in the discussions.
And on another facilities note, the elevator in the Cook Administration building will be the first to be repaired in the elevator upgrades. Timing on the other buildings will follow. I am glad our senior administrators will not be forced to use the stairs any longer than necessary.
I have heard from more than one new administrator that the university doesn’t function like corporate organizations to which I replied because it isn’t. The inherent presumption of the superiority of the corporate model relative to all others is misplaced and incorrect. If that were the case, the self correcting market would have prevented the financial crisis we are in, the environmental disaster in the Gulf and the unprecedented concentration of wealth in this society. So the corporate model is not superior or inferior. It is what it is. The academic model is the same. Respect for the difference is typically what educated people practice. I appreciate the struggle of those who have never been in Academe AND there may be some professional Darwinism here. Adapt or die. No single person is able to change a system. Presidents have come and gone and the system remains in place. So the complaints about the dysfunction or inefficiency of the Academy vis-a-vis the private sector are noted. And as scientists have long accepted adaptation to surroundings has proven to be the best survival strategy in history.

Some goings on at the Board of Trustees meeting

So there are clearly changes underway at CSU as reported during the recent Board of Trustees meetings. Not all of the changes make sense unless you understand the political culture of Chicago. For example, the university is prepared to spend between $25,000 and $50,000 on a feasibility study for the construction of a new 1,000 bed dormitory. The current dormitory is 325 beds. The feasibility study would be the first step in a longer process of moving the project to completion. I am not quite sure why the university would want to incur the debt of the construction of such a building given its poor construction history with the Student Union and existing dormitory. State law prohibits the use of appropriated funds to build dormitories or student unions. The university would have to borrow the money, most likely through a bond issue. And then I read a report from a consultant hired by the university to spearhead this effort. The crux of the issue was not in the construction. Rather it was that the dormitory would possibly (read likely) be privatized. This means the university would contract with a private vendor to manage some portion of residence life. Hmmmmm. In Chicago, this means that cronyism and shady deals are just around the corner. What company do tell would get that contract? Would it be a company that has a connection to a current and ostensibly future ex Board member who is currently involved in the real estate industry? Would the construction of the facility also be subject to the same cronyistic influences? If so, the university would be setting itself up for further scrutiny by the press and possibly by other bodies.

On another note, one of the benefits that progressive companies and organizations provide is on-site child care for its employees. CSU has had a very robust Child Care Center for many years. Once the Robinson University Center closed the child care function began a nomadic existence, even moving off campus which was clearly detrimental to the parents in need of child care. Now it seems that the Child Care Center is to be re-located and housed in the Education Building. Being co-located with the College of Education may in fact be a good idea. The location on the other hand may not be such a good idea. The Vocational Education workshops are to be dismantled and relocated. That space is to be transformed into the new Child Care Center. There may be asbestos in the building and in the area that needs to be removed before occupancy can occur. This is a straightforward construction project. Remove the existing machinery, conduct the asbestos abatement, rebuild the area into a child care center and open for business. Unfortunately, logic doesn’t always win the day. The worst case I can envision is a front page story on how the university chose to use a former industrial workspace that contained asbestos and other chemicals to house its child care center. It won’t matter that the abatement followed all of the federal and state guidelines and all of the machinery was removed appropriately and any necessary environmental cleanup was done impeccably. The only thing that will matter is the headline with the words, CSU, Child, and Asbestos in it. The university is potentially setting itself up for a public relations disaster. Hopefully the university administration will rethink this plan and avoid its potential pitfalls.

Wanna see what the Board is up to???

So when does ignoring the people you are appointed to serve become more than insulting? I have posted to our YouTube account some of the comments made at the last BOT meeting. Until we have some competent leadership on the BOT I commit to posting highlights from the board meetings just to keep us informed and to keep the light shined on the functioning of the board. Here are some clips you might find entertaining and informative.

Yan Searcy

Yan Searcy Redux

Phillip Beverly

Phil Cronce

Beverly Anderson

Measuring the Board of Trustees by their own standards

A friend of mine happens to be the president of a college on the west coast and put me on to the website of an organization known as the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges http://www.agb.org/. It provides good reading for anyone interested in what trustees at public institutions should strive to be. I've excerpted a few sections here.

The complaints over the past two months about Chicago State's Board of Trustees are not without foundation. If you are still unconvinced by the arguments that have been put forward in this blog or by the students and the more vocal members on campus or by the resignation of the Search Advisory Committee or the petitions by the faculty and the resolution by the Faculty Senate, try applying some of these qualities outlined by the AGB to our current Trustees. See how they measure up by these outside objective standards.

Re: "Public institutions" [note to the BOT: you do not "own" Chicago State University, it is not yours to give away to friends or political allies who think they are entitled to it].

Public trustees serve colleges and universities that are “owned” by citizens (not government bodies or officials); they are responsible for acting on behalf of the public as their individual consciences and judgment dictate. The citizen board--regardless of whether its members are appointed or elected--has emerged as the best alternative to governmental control of higher education. Public institution trustees stand at the center of a system of checks and balances that permits them to delegate their authority--but not their responsibility--to their chief executives, faculty, and students
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 “Public Institutions”

Regarding "Governance at Public Institutions" [n.b. consultation]
Trustees should understand three important values and traditions within the academy: academic freedom, institutional independence, and consultation with affected parties in institutional decision making. It ultimately is the responsibility of the trustees, with the help of their chief executive and other academic leaders, to define each value or tradition as it applies to their institution in contemporary society.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 "Governance at Public Institutions"

Apply the following points from the AGB's discussion on "The Commitment of Trusteeship" to CSU's Board of Trustees. Do you think they measure up? Have they scrupulously put aside conflicts of interest (like friendships with the 2 presidential candidates?) Have they led the university with large contributions of money? Most notably, look at item #6. Have they truly consulted the university constituencies in their conduct of campus business? Have they understood the idea emphasized here that a university is not a corporation that can be ruled in a heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian manner, like a business corporation?

The following questions have been adapted from “The Commitment to Trusteeship," an essay written for AGB in 1990 by governance expert and retired college president John W. Nason.

3. Have you any conflicts of interest? Trusteeship today is more vulnerable to potential conflicts of interest than in the past. Boards have ways of addressing and resolving conflicts of interest—chiefly by recording them in advance and by allowing individual trustees to excuse themselves from decisions that may present potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts may lend themselves to misinterpretation. Prospective trustees must calculate all risks.

4. Are you prepared financially to support the institution, and are you prepared to ask others to give money? This is a double-barreled question: Trustees must be prepared to carry out both tasks effectively. The board must provide leadership in fund-raising. Independent college and university trustees should give according to their financial means. Capital campaigns especially must begin with the generous donations of board members.

5. Are you prepared to be a public advocate for the institution? Sooner or later, a chief executive will need the public support of his or her board; trustees must be prepared to defend their institutions. Trustees must support controversial or unpopular policies, decisions, or actions. Institutions must be free to decide what and how to teach; who will teach; whom to admit; what research to conduct; and what values the institution embraces. Trustees must be prepared to use their personal status and goodwill to defend their institution’s integrity and reputation.

6. Are you prepared to work within the conventional framework of academic governance? The academic world differs from the corporate world in several important respects. Most notably, important policy decisions are the result of consultation among the board, the chief executive, and the faculty, among others. This process can be unsettling to executives who are accustomed to unilateral decision making. Nevertheless, most institutions operate under some rubric of shared governance, and trustees must learn to accommodate decentralized decision making.

Additionally, presidents have less authority than the business CEOs. Rather than dictating orders, academic presidents often lead by persuading others to follow. Trustees need to recognize the importance of the president’s role as mediator and provide sufficient support. Further, boards of trustees remain more actively engaged in the institution than boards of most for-profit enterprises. Trustees must ask questions, challenge recommendations, and explore alternatives.

Finally, trustees must be prepared to accept group decisions, even when they disagree with them. And while trustees should not shy away from voicing strong convictions and independent judgments, once a group decision has been made a good trustee will support it. If not, he or she should be prepared to resign.

7. Do you understand the full range of college or university trusteeship?In general, three personal qualities identify the successful trustee. First, a trustee should be curious about every aspect of the institution’s operations and be willing to ask questions. Second, a trustee must tolerate ambiguity and be able to function effectively in an environment where complex questions preclude simple answers. Third, a trustee must have a sense of humor—that is, a sense of proportion and perspective, and a realistic view of one’s own limitations. It’s a great job.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=334

So, at the most basic level, by the standards of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, do you think CSU's Board of Trustees understands what a public institution of higher learning is and their role in it? Or, have they failed? Call or write Governor Quinn and let him know.

CSU in the news again???

So I see our non-searching search process has made the news. Apparently there are some who believe that the election of Barack Obama ushered in a new era of doing the public’s business in an open and transparent way. There are some who believe that being a political insider could be a liability in some situations, like being picked to be the next president of this university months before the previous president announced her leaving. Leaving the university community out of the process in any substantive way is an indicator that the BOT didn’t get the memo about politics as usual.

Let’s recap, shall we. After a contentious contract negotiation several years ago, the Faculty Senate voted no-confidence in the leadership of the president. The BOT was notified and never responded to the faculty concerns. Then we had copier gate, audit gate, audit gate part deux, furniture gate, International Studies gate and other minor incidents demonstrating a lack of board oversight. We fast forward ahead to the Presidential Search and the BOT spends $75,000 to find two finalists who live down the street, literally. I am beginning to wonder if the search process and the two candidates discovered as a result of it are indicators of a larger problem that the university community should really consider.

It looks like a message has been delivered to the BOT because they are going to be busy on Thursday April 9th. The Board has two scheduled committee meetings at 7:30 AM and 9:30 AM. They have also included a special meeting of the full board at 8:30 AM. I hope they don’t rush through these meetings as careful and deliberate consideration of university business is critical. Included in that is hearing what the community has to say and I imagine the community has much to say, especially about the appearance of politics as usual in the selection of the two finalists in the presidential search.

So what would happen if by magic neither of the two candidates were selected to be the next president? Would that preclude future insider dealing? Would that guarantee a more open, inclusive process the next time? Would that encourage the interim president to stay longer, perhaps another year as he was invited by a high ranking Illinois House representative? Or does real resolution of this situation reside at a higher level perhaps beyond the friendly confines of 95th & King Drive?

I welcome your thoughts.