New Contract--more questions

A colleague in one of the sciences offers some concerns for consideration. I am posting them here. Many people have said they cannot attend the meeting today and still want to ask substantive questions about the contract.

I will add one more question of my own. After more than a year, is it necessary to rush this contract through by this week in time for the Board of Trustees meeting next week? If people still have questions, at this point, what is the rush?

My colleague's questions--note the last paragraph.

1) Clinical Faculty. We are told that this only applies to the folks in Pharmacy, but this new title is NOT Clinical Pharmacy Professional. Several colleges include faculty who are involved in clinical education. Nursing, OT, Education, Social Work etc. all include clinical education, but this new category of clinical faculty who have all of the requirements of teaching faculty and no tenure was developed based only on the needs of Pharmacy. The current version of the contract also includes a reference to "external clinical faculty" but the document does not define this term.

2) Clinical, Teaching and Research Faculty. These titles are also used in the document defining different types of graduate faculty in the policy of the graduate school. So will we now have faculty who are research faculty according to the graduate school but teaching faculty according to the contract?? The folks who wrote this contract seem unaware of the new graduate faculty designations.

3) In many accredited professional programs accreditation requires that instructors only teach within areas that they have documented expertise. This leads to a need to have team teaching in some courses. According to the current contract, you get an extra CUE for team teaching if you work in the nursing department, but not in any other department. This seems very odd.

4) We have clarified that faculty get an .5 CUEs for working with MASTERs level thesis students so that this is not confused with the required undergraduate thesis. But I did not see any provision to provide extra CEUs for classes that will now include an undergraduate thesis. Several composition courses include extra CEUs because of the added work of grading several student papers. Are we not expecting that the requirement for an undergraduate thesis will create more work?

5) Considering the rate at which quality faculty are leaving and the rate at which the administration is denying tenure, I think allowing them to force us to teach well beyond 24 CUEs will encourage CSU to hire fewer faculty and to overwork those of us who stay. The rates for overload will certainly make this a cost effective alternative to hiring.

6) The requirements for a terminal degree in OT were changed so that only three specific degrees will be accepted. This change was NOT marked in red. This makes me wonder what else was changed without notice. '

I could go on and on. But in summary, I don't believe that this contract provides the support that CSU faculty need to promote the educational goals of this University.

New Contract--time for discussion?

At the UPI meeting on Tuesday there was little time for discussion and questions about the contract so there will be another meeting in SCI 100 at 12.30 p.m. There was supposed to be blog or listserve open last week for people to post questions about the contract if they could not attend the meeting, but that does not seem to be working.

Since UPI wants votes in by Sept. 15th it is imperative that members understand the new contract which is coming at a point when the sands are shifting at CSU. Does the contract negotiated over the last year take into account all the changes that are being wrought for instance by the Admin in reorganizing the College of Arts and Sciences or in dismantling the College of Graduate Studies? These are some questions that I have had and I would encourage others of the faculty to voice their concerns --better yet vote in favor if you think the contract will protect us during this period of chaos and disorganization or vote no if you don't think so.

And feel free to post a thread here anonymously if you like though I know many people are afraid to voice their real points of view in the retaliatory climate we have on campus.

My questions and comments to the UPI Contract Team:

Thanks for negotiating the raise, assuming the Gov. doesn't make us take furlough days to offset it, it's nice to have some hope.

1. Has the university Admin breached the existing contract by drastically reorganizing the College of Arts and Sciences this summer without consultation and discussion in the Faculty Senate?

2. What is now meant by "department" in this new configuration of the CAS and who is in charge of overseeing it if chairs are reduced to division heads? Is this reflected in the new contract? Since the Admin does not know yet or has not yet revealed how division heads or coordinators will be organized, how can these be covered in the new contract? It seems like the contract UPI negotiated is for a different place than one that will exist in a few months time.

3. The Administration got their foot in the door of a post-tenure review process that could eliminate tenured faculty in the new contract (not that I necessarily disapprove of the language per se that is there), but what did faculty get in return for this?

4. With the closing of the Graduate College, how, in the name of heaven, will "departments" be able to handle all the paperwork of the admission and graduation process since the role of Grad Coordinator has been reduced to being that of Grad Advisor and the whole extra cue process is connected to how many students attend your program, not how many submit applications? How are "departments" with no chairs or with mere Graduate "Advisors" supposed to pick up this work which will involve a lot of tedious correspondence and parry questions on financial aid, Veteran's benefits, calculate gpa's from God knows how many programs that a student attended, and a myriad of other details ALL of this WITHOUT proper secretarial aid or even functional computer printers in our offices? We have been told in no uncertain terms by Ms Ce Cole Dillon that there will be no new printers bought for faculty just as there is no upgrading of the smart classrooms planned. I have to beg for any office supplies I get. We currently have one "department" secretary who works for 6 disciplines.

5. Why is the word "consultation" with faculty used so infrequently in the new contract?

Please advise.
To all: does the new contract really secure us?

While Rome is Burning...

One year before Chicago State Community College and the City College Re-employment Center is to face a full accreditation visit we have

->fired a long-standing Dean of Arts & Sciences who had more university knowledge than all the people on the top floor of Cook Administration put together, had been through at least two previous accreditation visits, was chairing an accreditation committee, was on the HLC steering committee, and had connections to IBHE and HLC

->decided to reorganize the College of Arts and Sciences to reflect our CEO's understanding of higher education as a community college (a fear expressed at the time of the trumped up search that "hired" said CEO); CAS was reorganized in the summer and will face yet another disorganization in January. Try explaining this to students who were wandering around campus in August wondering what happened to their department chairs & department offices in search of signatures since no memos went out to them or faculty describing, let alone explaining, the rationale for the changes (Puh-leeze don't say it is to save money since we are bleeding money at the top in hiring every new VP and/or former City College friend of our CEO).

->decided to shut down the College of Graduate Studies--this is the latest news. Aside from the University of Chicago and some universities of that ilk, do you know any school that offers graduate programs and does not have a School of Graduate Studies? So all those curriculum mandates the CEO and Provost made last year to require a thesis are meaningless. Who is going to enforce that departments do this since the administrative work is devolving onto the departments? Who is going to oversee that departments are following procedures, that theses are being written, that they are being collected, bound, etc. Who is going to oversee the calculation of grad credits--the Admissions Office? the Registrar's Office? Since undergrad enrollment is so low, maybe they do need extra work to do. Or, is the dismantling of the Grad College a step toward eliminating all disciplinary M.A. programs? Or is it another step in completing our march to true community college status?

->shut down the Economics Department and this year bring many many more programs up for program review (God help that committee). Faculty might want to check to see whether they are on "the list."

->no campus newspaper, no mechanism for the Administration to get its message out to the faculty and students (assuming they are not simply on some nihilistic course) about what the heck kind of direction this university is going. It leaves mere mortals like us to speculate in office corridors and on this sad little blogsite.

One year before accreditation I am wondering what we will say to those accreditation officers since it seems like we are careening out of control. If there is some method behind this madness--if the CEO already knows that the Gov/Trustees have decided to close us down/sell us off/merge us with UIC please advise. Otherwise it looks like a lot of fiddling while the house is on fire.

New Contract

The new contract has been hammered out and sent round by email for discussion and approval over the next few weeks. On Thursday there will be a meeting of the Union Membership to discuss the contract. Plan to attend on Thursday, Sept. 8th in Wm Science 100.

Considering the Administration's mandating of curriculum changes that we faculty have been pushed to accept (and let ourselves be pushed into accepting), considering the failure of the Administration in consultation over college reorganization, following the same pattern of act first and ask for input later, considering the dispensing of required terminal degrees for hiring at the Dean and VP levels, considering the lack of a faculty representation on the Board of Trustees, this contract is one way to ensure your rights on campus. Does it reflect a notion of faculty purview over curriculum matters? Faculty should note the post-tenure review changes that the Admin wanted in spite of the limits on support for faculty research on campus (other than for pedagogy projects)--two years of no sabbatical approvals. Did we get something in return? For the next five years, do we remain "advisory only?"

Find out on Thursday.

Weds & Thurs Students Speak Up

ATTENTION: CONCERNED STUDENTS
COME SPEAK YOUR MINDThere are many problems that affect students, teachers, and campus workers at Chicago State. We need to do more to address them. Students (and others) who would like to become active from a social justice perspective should assemble
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 31 AT 12 NOON
OR
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 1 AT 12:30
WILLIAMS SCIENCE CENTER 1F CONFERENCE ROOM (1F LEVEL, WEST SIDE)Topics of interest for concerned students may include, but aren't limited to:

• Bookstore policy of not allowing students to select their own books
• U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, adequate services for veterans
• Need for a student newspaper
• Automatic billing of $500 for health services
• Health care cuts in the Chicago area, closing of Oak Forest Hospital; service cuts at Provident, Stroger, and health clinics

• Police abuse, “consent” searches on the street and in cars, support for prisoners
• Student-centered radio station addressing student issues
• Problems receiving good service from financial aid office
• Cuts to state aid to elderly for prescriptions and health care
• ANY OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING US


This announcement has been prepared by those who wish to encourage more students to stand up for social justice. For information contact Pancho McFarland, x2333

What's in a name?

A year ago, as the semester was ending, an administrator told me that when we faculty returned from the summer CSU would be a very different place. Well, that prediction was a year late.

Just before summer began this year @14 junior faculty members across campus in their fourth year retention, found out they were not going to be retained. Since faculty don't hire, deans do, (remember we faculty only "recommend," we are "advisory only" and God help you if you attempt to send a ranking of candidates to your dean, the Deans' prerogative to hire is sacrosanct) then if this isn't a big old administrative failure I don't know what is. In an age when it is a buyer's market for Ph.D.s how could our Deans have hired 14 people who were so completely un-retainable? Maybe that sacrosanct right to hire needs to be reevaluated at contract negotiations. Or, is it that something else is going on masked as cost-cutting measures, get rid of anyone who is potentially a pesky overpaid tenured faculty member? UPI take note.

But faculty were not the only ones to be cut this summer. One year before accreditation, CSU Admin fired its long-standing dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Rachel Lindsey was swept out of office sometime in June--officially she has "retired," but rumors, as they are want to do, abound.

We in the College of Arts and Science then heard that there was to be a massive reorganization of the college departments--ostensibly to save money. All those departments with their money-sucking chairs would be cut down this fall to the confusion of faculty and students who have been wandering around wondering what happened to their dept chair. By January 2012 we are expected to attain our final status as Chicago State Community College with people attached to "divisions"--no info has been forthcoming on how the division head would manage all those former departments and people. All this has been mandated with no consultation of the Senate's Academic Affairs Committee. And isn't there something in the union contract about the need to consult regarding university reorganization? One more ding to the Admin on the failure of shared governance. We are back in Alice's Wonderland: mandate first, then consult those advisory-only faculty later.

So the College of Arts and Sciences is turned into a community college, but where is the savings in money at the university when new lines for administrators are being created over at Cook Admin at the same time? Oh, right. The demise of the departments allows the creation of new Administrators. Got it. As one faculty member said, the CSU Commencement ceremonies in May looked like a reunion of Chicago City College administrators. And another of my more cynical colleagues has been referring to CSU's "City Colleges Reemployment Program" instituted by our ex-Chancellor of City Colleges.

And just to add to this summer melange of mandates and counter-mandates, out comes the Chicago Tribune with the gloves off. We are again on the front page and subject of an editorial and cartoon (that one really hurt)for keeping students with low gpa's enrolled (and I guess able to get financial aid). Of course the CEO was shocked, shocked to find out that this was going on, this practice didn't start with him, he's only been here for 2 years going on three, so no one should blame him for this, that would be unfair because after all he didn't know anything about it.

In the summer, CSU changed its mission and vision and is touting some kind of new "brand." Having lived through the time of the Noel Levitz consultantcy back in the day (does anyone today remember that brand?), I'm wondering if the time isn't right for a name change. The "C" now most certainly stands for Chaos.

If you are as disaffected by all the chaos on campus, let your Senators and UPI reps know. Attend the Board of Trustees meeting coming up in September and let them know how you feel during the public comment section. It may not change anything immediately, but the discontent will go on record. Better yet, join with some students who are trying to organize a meeting to develop a student group to become active concerning campus issues/problems as well as other issues. See the poster below and pass along the info to your students.

ATTENTION: CONCERNED STUDENTS
COME SPEAK YOUR MINDThere are many problems that affect students, teachers, and campus workers at Chicago State. We need to do more to address them. Students (and others) who would like to become active from a social justice perspective should assemble
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 31 AT 12 NOON
OR
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 1 AT 12:30WILLIAMS SCIENCE CENTER 1F CONFERENCE ROOM (1F LEVEL, WEST SIDE)
Topics of interest for concerned students may include, but aren't limited to:

• Bookstore policy of not allowing students to select their own books
• U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, adequate services for veterans
• Need for a student newspaper
• Automatic billing of $500 for health services
• Health care cuts in the Chicago area, closing of Oak Forest Hospital; service cuts at Provident, Stroger, and health clinics

• Police abuse, “consent” searches on the street and in cars, support for prisoners
• Student-centered radio station addressing student issues
• Problems receiving good service from financial aid office
• Cuts to state aid to elderly for prescriptions and health care
• ANY OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING US


This announcement has been prepared by those who wish to encourage more students to stand up for social justice. For information contact Pancho McFarland, x2333

CJC&FE

So if the conventional wisdom in the academy is that a university reflects its faculty, what has become of CSU faculty? A bit more than two years ago, some faculty expressed concern that the applicant selected by the Board of Trustees to manage the university was not qualified to become president of this institution. He was (is) limited in his understanding of the function, operation and culture of doctoral degree granting institutions. There was concern voiced that CSU was to be turned into a junior college, possibly the new flag ship of the Chicago junior college system, unfortunately the same system that had a 7% graduation rate while being managed by the Board’s candidate. “No,” others protested. Your humble narrator was berated for being a naysayer, a Chicken Little if you will. I was accused of being an “obstacle to progress.” And now two years on, (at least according to a 50 page report from the State University Retirement System) many of us have pretty clear evidence of the inexorable descent from doctoral degree granting institution to junior college serving unprepared, sorry under-prepared, students. The recent top down reorganization of the College of Arts & Sciences and subsequent firing of the long serving dean of the university’s largest college attest to the fact that this regime has only one goal in mind, devolution to a junior college. The recent rejiggering of the CAS was only phase one with phase two coming next year in time for the much anticipated Higher Learning Commission re-accreditation visit. Reducing the number of chairs from 15 to 4 and moving from departments to divisions is clearly a 1980s junior college model. It is not surprising therefore, since the only experience the incumbent has is in a junior college system. It appears as if the CEO is betting that most people will mistake activity for accomplishment. Change for the sake of change, change for the sake of managing by fear and intimidation, change for the purpose of obfuscation are never good reasons for change.
I was struck by the recent memo announcing the former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was leaving the university after 35 years. It is possible to infer from the wording of the memo that her departure was expected and voluntary. It was curious to me therefore, when the CEO and Provost were noticeably absent at the going away luncheon hosted in the college on Thursday June 30th. Had her departure been amicable and expected, I am sure the two most senior administrators along with lesser administrators would have wished her well in her post-dean and post university life. I was very struck by this decision being announced during the summer when administrations are notorious for making decisions without any input from faculty who largely are absent from campus. This behavior was the motivation for the Faculty Senate to form the Summer Committee so that shared governance would not be forgotten by administrators during the summer months.
Also curious was the recent elimination of the Economics department and its major and minor programs. One could conclude that junior colleges don’t need Economics so its elimination is understandable as the university's devolution continues. What isn’t understandable is continuing to operate an Ed.D. program or a College of Pharmacy. Those are expensive programs and definitely unneeded in a community college like this university is becoming. I would invite the regime to consider eliminating those two programs which would save at least ten times what is saved by eliminating Economics. And then as CSU focuses on its entrepreneurship mission and selling fish (without Economics?) other programs can benefit from the elimination of those money eating doctoral programs.
Maybe a name change will be in the offing as well. Moving from Chicago State University to Chicago Junior College & Fish Emporium could well be nigh.

New ideas???

So it would probably be hyperbolic to describe the university’s inexorable march toward becoming a junior college as the educational equivalent of the Bataan Death March of World War II. During that event more than 11,000 Filipino and American military personnel lost their lives. But, the current period in the university’s history seems similar in that the university is being driven in a direction of inevitable failure by leadership that does not grasp the significance of the collateral damage it is inflicting by its continued mismanagement. The latest torture the university endures is two-fold.

First, CSU will become a drop-in center for students from Moraine Valley Community College with our or their students taking classes at CSU taught by MVCC faculty. The reasoning for this escapes me. If it is designed to circumvent some first-time, full-time freshman designation for students admitted to CSU who are “under-prepared,” it probably should have been managed a bit more opaquely so as not to attract attention to the fact the regime is trying to circumvent the rules established by the US Department of Education. Also, given that faculty are routinely told that there is limited classroom space, especially for night classes, when would these classes be scheduled and what CSU faculty would be displaced? This professionally unhealthy connection to junior colleges is disturbing. The more we act like a juco, the harder it will be to be taken seriously as a doctoral degree granting institution.

The second scheme is much more disingenuous. In it, students enrolled for more than twelve semesters who are not graduating are to be contacted and encouraged to change majors to an Individualized Curriculum in order to graduate, and the university will foot the bill for them to come back and complete the last semester in the original degree program to which they had enrolled. I must say that if this is the way the regime plans to fulfill the promises of the testimony given by the CEO on March 17^th to the Illinois House Appropriations Higher Education committee, then I am extremely dubious. This type of academic shenanigan is more likely to create an accreditation stir than the march toward becoming a junior college. It also does not consider the reasons for the student not having completed a degree in 12 semesters. The impact on students has not been considered. What message does it send to students to tell them to accommodate the university when the university may not have accommodated them? Given the reported difficulties of ‘under-prepared’, working students, I would have thought the efforts would have been directed to assisting students not finding ways to cheat the system.

I believe this scheme compromises the greatest asset of the university, its academic reputation. Of all of the negative publicity CSU has received in the past 15 years, its academic performance and reputation have not been directly threatened. Students and alumni continue to speak favorably of the academic experience they received. This scheme is a direct assault on the faculty of this institution. Matters that affect the academic integrity of the institution must be discussed and decided upon by the faculty. Most universities have language on the diploma that states faculty grant the degree, not administrators with their inane ideas for gaming the system. And with the reputation of the institution remaining in tatters under management, indistinguishable from the Daniel Administration, this appears to be another series of self-inflicted wounds that will no doubt be blamed on “the white media” who will not give a poorly managed institution a pass on its worse than mediocre administrative performance.

Here’s a suggestion. Raise admission standards, eliminate all remedial courses, do not offer special programs during the summer to compensate for sub-standard K-12 education, and recruit high quality students from outside of the city of Chicago and State of Illinois. CSU will not be recognized as a high quality doctoral degree granting university until it has leadership that understands it is not the local high school.

OD Experts Anyone???

So I was talking to one of my colleagues about the state of the university and posed a question about the efficacy having psychologists with expertise in organizational behavior conduct an assessment of the institution, much like a therapist assesses a patient. I remember from graduate school my Organization Theory professor telling us that organizations are just people writ large. I also recall commenting to a past president that if she wanted to leave a real legacy at the university, she would need to change the corporate culture of the institution, essentially do something to modify its behavior. It appears that presidents come to CSU with expectations of constructing new buildings with little regard for changes to the core of the university. What might a year-long observation and analysis by OD experts of Chicago State University reveal? Would the experts observe that communication is poor? Might they discover there is no culture of accountability? Might they observe that leadership has been negligible? Might they find there is no morale problem with rank and file employees because there is no morale? Might they find a faculty that believes it has been neglected, ignored and overlooked in matters that are central to the sound operation of a university? Might they observe a culture of administrative paternalism that routinely contributes to low retention and graduation rates? Might the high turnover of administrative personnel catch the attention of observers? And if only a fraction of these observations were true, what would they recommend the university do to address them? I don’t think we would need a team of experts to assess the university AND at this point in its downward spiral, could that hurt? Since incoming administrations have a peculiar predilection of not listening to faculty, outside experts might be the only hope of rescuing a drowning university.

The under message

So I realize that human communications is a complicated phenomenon. There are the words that are spoken, the words that are unspoken, the gestures made and withheld and the messages over and under the words. I am curious why over the past three days, I received 50 emails about the Drug and Alcohol Policy at the university. I understand this is the response to an audit finding that the university was not in compliance with Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C., Section 701, et.seq.) and the Drug-Free Schools Act of 1989 (34 C.F.R. 86, et seq.). I also understand that creating the paper trail may have required sending an email and a written memo to all faculty and staff but 50 emails. It gives me pause to ask why the massive over-reaction to a fairly straightforward requirement. Does the university get bonus points on the next audit for sending out 50 emails? Probably not. And the message under this response is the regime will generate a great deal of activity with little accomplishment. Discerning observers never mistake activity for accomplishment and I consider myself a discerning observer.