"These students also deserve a university that is run like a university, not a patronage machine . . ." Emil Jones, talking about Chicago State on March 7, 2013.
"It’s also part of my job to clean up any existence or any potential, ah, any potential of patronage existing under my watch.” Wayne Watson speaking on "Chicago Tonight," March 7, 2013.
I recently submitted a FOIA request for the educational credentials of various administrators since they are not available any longer in the Chicago State catalog. When I received the response, someone named Tyra Austin, the Assistant Director of Financial Aid, appeared on the list with the notation that she possessed a B.S. from Howard University. However, there was no date of degree listed, a piece of requested information which had been provided for virtually everyone else on the list of administrators. When I checked with the degree verification service used by Howard University, the response was that Austin had no bachelor's degree of any kind. I realize that degrees can sometimes be delayed for various reasons, but here's the problem: The university hired Austin (apparently with her high school diploma in hand) as the Assistant Director on August 16, 2012, at a salary of $55,000 per year, with a boost in pay at some point during the fiscal year to $66,000. Interestingly, the Financial Aid Counselors who work for Austin make far less than that and they are apparently required to have at least a Bachelor's Degree.
Now I don't have incontrovertible evidence that Austin was a crony hire, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck. What do you think?
This is an update on September 13 2013: According to the National Student Clearinghouse, Austin's last date of attendance at Howard was August 11, 2012, five days prior to her being hired at Chicago State.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Emil's Farm
It's been a long summer musing about the events at CSU from the spring
--that display of the Emil Jones machine coming to Dr Watson's rescue at the March Board meetings--public relations networks and all-- calling all and sundry, getting the
church folks to show up--just like old man Daley taught--and the coup de grace of the coup d'etat--the neutering of the Board
of Trustees by a gutless Governor. Quinn that [bleep] has been a fixture all summer at
the big southside festivals –will he really get the Af Am vote or will they go
to another Daley? Joke would be on him wouldn’t it?
I knew that Emil controlled the southside, but after seeing last spring’s performance we are more of a jewel in his crown and empire than I had thought.
So the ride toward what I don’t know continues…
Big discussion at the Faculty Senate yesterday—many, many faculty “disgruntled” by man & woman hours put into search committees –avg is probably 150 hrs and A LOT of wasted money--only to find that HRH Watson, who has enlarged presidential power on this campus in a way never dreamed of by his female predecessors, who has made himself the final authority for all hirings on campus, turned back candidate after candidate. What did someone estimate 31 authorized searches (that means, the go- ahead was given by the Admin) with only 13 new hires among tenured faculty? Please correct me if I’m wrong. And why were so many searches turned down by his Eminence? No reason given. Not required to give a reason. Masters of the Universe do not explain. (Memo to the administration’s shared governance committee: “Hello?”)
Maybe this is why faculty did not show up in overwhelming numbers for Convocation last week. Is it true the Admin were high-fiving themselves and talking about the “faculty-driven” convocation at last week’s whatever council meeting? At the Senate yesterday the estimates were that no more than 200 people showed up (granted enrollment is down) and most of those who did were administrators…
The fiction of governance on this
campus, shared or otherwise.
Well, in case you need it spelled out for you, transparency and shared governance here atEmil
Jones University
In the meantime there is no shared governance on this campus and no hope of it because essentially the Imperial Presidency does not want it. When the President has authority over the Board of Trustees the story is over. Since Emil swept in with the pols last spring and Gov Quinn took down the board, the power that a Board of Trustees is supposed to have no longer exists. The president holds power over them--fear o'Emil will drive that board now as never before. No “hopey-changey-thing” here on campus anymore. Do we really think the president is going to “share” governance with faculty?
There are no university committee actions that have binding power on the president, not even in a theoretical sense. He does not have to accept any committees' "recommendations" be they the grand Board of Trustees or the lowliest department recommendation for chairperson (now only a one-year appointment--someone please tell me what is the difference between that and an interim appointment?) whatever shreds of a shared governance committee's "recommendations" he may perfunctorily call for he is not bound to follow.
University moneys are centralized in this president’s hands. Remember how deans used to have that discretionary power to dole out a few hundred bucks for a conference? He has centralized the hiring process in his office as evidenced by the number of candidates he, he with the Ph.D. that is not in your field, decided were not suitable teachers and colleagues for you after you conducted nation-wide searches.
Someday we may be released from the patronage machine that keeps us a provincial mediocre institution no matter how much talk or publicity we and the p.r. folks churn out about our "global" connections and "how much good we do." Change will probably come when something is forced from the outside because clearly there are a lot of folks hoping the goose that lays the golden eggs will keep laying and maybe someday their self-interest will be fulfilled and maybe they will not be fired after a year or shafted (at least not too soon) by the machine--ask a few of Watson's ex-hires about that aspect to riding the patronage pony.
So when are we going to get mad enough and channel that into some action down here on Emil’s Farm? Is this the year? I keep hearing old B. D. in my head—get the live version of this one:
No, I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin' me insane…
...I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother no more…
Well, he hands you a nickel
He hands you a dime
He asks you with a grin
If you're havin' a good time
Then he fines you every time you slam the door
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother more...
"PSSST...very attitude-y"
I knew that Emil controlled the southside, but after seeing last spring’s performance we are more of a jewel in his crown and empire than I had thought.
So the ride toward what I don’t know continues…
Big discussion at the Faculty Senate yesterday—many, many faculty “disgruntled” by man & woman hours put into search committees –avg is probably 150 hrs and A LOT of wasted money--only to find that HRH Watson, who has enlarged presidential power on this campus in a way never dreamed of by his female predecessors, who has made himself the final authority for all hirings on campus, turned back candidate after candidate. What did someone estimate 31 authorized searches (that means, the go- ahead was given by the Admin) with only 13 new hires among tenured faculty? Please correct me if I’m wrong. And why were so many searches turned down by his Eminence? No reason given. Not required to give a reason. Masters of the Universe do not explain. (Memo to the administration’s shared governance committee: “Hello?”)
Maybe this is why faculty did not show up in overwhelming numbers for Convocation last week. Is it true the Admin were high-fiving themselves and talking about the “faculty-driven” convocation at last week’s whatever council meeting? At the Senate yesterday the estimates were that no more than 200 people showed up (granted enrollment is down) and most of those who did were administrators…
Well, in case you need it spelled out for you, transparency and shared governance here at
In the meantime there is no shared governance on this campus and no hope of it because essentially the Imperial Presidency does not want it. When the President has authority over the Board of Trustees the story is over. Since Emil swept in with the pols last spring and Gov Quinn took down the board, the power that a Board of Trustees is supposed to have no longer exists. The president holds power over them--fear o'Emil will drive that board now as never before. No “hopey-changey-thing” here on campus anymore. Do we really think the president is going to “share” governance with faculty?
There are no university committee actions that have binding power on the president, not even in a theoretical sense. He does not have to accept any committees' "recommendations" be they the grand Board of Trustees or the lowliest department recommendation for chairperson (now only a one-year appointment--someone please tell me what is the difference between that and an interim appointment?) whatever shreds of a shared governance committee's "recommendations" he may perfunctorily call for he is not bound to follow.
University moneys are centralized in this president’s hands. Remember how deans used to have that discretionary power to dole out a few hundred bucks for a conference? He has centralized the hiring process in his office as evidenced by the number of candidates he, he with the Ph.D. that is not in your field, decided were not suitable teachers and colleagues for you after you conducted nation-wide searches.
Someday we may be released from the patronage machine that keeps us a provincial mediocre institution no matter how much talk or publicity we and the p.r. folks churn out about our "global" connections and "how much good we do." Change will probably come when something is forced from the outside because clearly there are a lot of folks hoping the goose that lays the golden eggs will keep laying and maybe someday their self-interest will be fulfilled and maybe they will not be fired after a year or shafted (at least not too soon) by the machine--ask a few of Watson's ex-hires about that aspect to riding the patronage pony.
So when are we going to get mad enough and channel that into some action down here on Emil’s Farm? Is this the year? I keep hearing old B. D. in my head—get the live version of this one:
No, I aint gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin' me insane…
...I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother no more…
Well, he hands you a nickel
He hands you a dime
He asks you with a grin
If you're havin' a good time
Then he fines you every time you slam the door
I ain't gonna work for Maggie's brother more...
"PSSST...very attitude-y"
Administrative Failure 101
Throughout his higher education administrative career, Wayne Watson has demonstrated a talent for self-promotion. He and his various mouthpieces have created a narrative of Watson the competent administrator that simply fails to withstand close scrutiny. Replete with meaningless jargon like “change agent,” “paradigm shift,” “establishing accountability and transparency,” “institutional renaissance,” “enhance our professionalism,” and “change our work culture,” this narrative is long on bluster and short on substance. However, it is possible to determine just how effective the Watson administration has been using data for the past four years that is easily accessible from a number of sources. I will revisit the issue of audit findings and examine them from a slightly different perspective to determine if the conclusions I drew from my earlier posts on the Watson administration’s ineptitude relative to financial and compliance issues hold up when different data are used as evidence.
I will not rehash the miserable audit statistics of the past three years except to reiterate the point that Watson has blamed the horrible financial and compliance performance during his presidency on prior administrations. When the first of the three successive poor audits came to light in 2011, Watson quickly moved to distance himself from the findings and claimed that his administration would identify and correct the problems. How has he done?
One of the pieces of information provided by the Auditor General’s website is the number of repeat findings in each audit. In general, it seems reasonable to conclude that repeat findings represent an administrative failure: the inability to correct a previously identified problem. High numbers of repeat findings signal poor performance by an administration. Similarly, a large percentage of repeat findings reveal an administration that is struggling to correct its internal problems. Of course, the larger institutions should be expected to generate the largest number of audit findings: high numbers of audit findings in schools with comparatively few students are particularly telling.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what exists here at Chicago State. Our repeat audit findings for the past three years number 49. During that same time period, there were 88 audit exceptions identified, resulting in repeat findings constituting 55.6 percent of all audit findings from 2011-13. The only institution with more repeat audit findings is the University of Illinois system, with 80 audit findings out of 127 total exceptions, or 63 percent of their findings. In fact, for the past three years, these two institutions have been responsible for 129 of the 178 total repeat audit findings (72.5 percent) in Illinois public universities.
Chicago State’s audit performance would look better if the school were similar in size to the Illinois system. However, Chicago State’s average enrollment (2010-12) was 6784 compared to Illinois’ 76,655. CSU's average represents 9 percent of the Illinois system’s enrollment. On average, for the past three years, Illinois public universities have averaged one audit exception per 2,500 students. The Illinois system averaged one audit exception per 2100 students. Chicago State’s average? One audit exception for every 197 students. Given this ratio, if Wayne Watson were running the Illinois system, it would have averaged nearly 390 audit findings per year for the past three years, a slight increase over their actual average of 36.7.
Finally, comparing Watson’s performance to Elnora Daniel’s reveals an increase in both repeat findings and percentage of repeat findings. Between 2004 and 2009, the Daniel administration had 31 repeat audit findings out of a possible 66, or 47 percent. It seems reasonable to again conclude that although the Daniel administration was not particularly good, Wayne Watson’s is far worse. I have provided links to this date before so I will not do so again, but those interested can find the audit summaries on the Illinois Auditor General’s website, the quotes attributed to Watson come from various sources, which I will be happy to provide upon request.
I will not rehash the miserable audit statistics of the past three years except to reiterate the point that Watson has blamed the horrible financial and compliance performance during his presidency on prior administrations. When the first of the three successive poor audits came to light in 2011, Watson quickly moved to distance himself from the findings and claimed that his administration would identify and correct the problems. How has he done?
One of the pieces of information provided by the Auditor General’s website is the number of repeat findings in each audit. In general, it seems reasonable to conclude that repeat findings represent an administrative failure: the inability to correct a previously identified problem. High numbers of repeat findings signal poor performance by an administration. Similarly, a large percentage of repeat findings reveal an administration that is struggling to correct its internal problems. Of course, the larger institutions should be expected to generate the largest number of audit findings: high numbers of audit findings in schools with comparatively few students are particularly telling.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what exists here at Chicago State. Our repeat audit findings for the past three years number 49. During that same time period, there were 88 audit exceptions identified, resulting in repeat findings constituting 55.6 percent of all audit findings from 2011-13. The only institution with more repeat audit findings is the University of Illinois system, with 80 audit findings out of 127 total exceptions, or 63 percent of their findings. In fact, for the past three years, these two institutions have been responsible for 129 of the 178 total repeat audit findings (72.5 percent) in Illinois public universities.
Chicago State’s audit performance would look better if the school were similar in size to the Illinois system. However, Chicago State’s average enrollment (2010-12) was 6784 compared to Illinois’ 76,655. CSU's average represents 9 percent of the Illinois system’s enrollment. On average, for the past three years, Illinois public universities have averaged one audit exception per 2,500 students. The Illinois system averaged one audit exception per 2100 students. Chicago State’s average? One audit exception for every 197 students. Given this ratio, if Wayne Watson were running the Illinois system, it would have averaged nearly 390 audit findings per year for the past three years, a slight increase over their actual average of 36.7.
Finally, comparing Watson’s performance to Elnora Daniel’s reveals an increase in both repeat findings and percentage of repeat findings. Between 2004 and 2009, the Daniel administration had 31 repeat audit findings out of a possible 66, or 47 percent. It seems reasonable to again conclude that although the Daniel administration was not particularly good, Wayne Watson’s is far worse. I have provided links to this date before so I will not do so again, but those interested can find the audit summaries on the Illinois Auditor General’s website, the quotes attributed to Watson come from various sources, which I will be happy to provide upon request.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Students organize moving candlelight vigil for Telkia Burns
On Tuesday September 3rd fifty students and
faculty were joined by ten members of Telkia Burns’ family to celebrate his
life and mourn his premature death as a result of street violence. Two things
made this a remarkable event. First, several speakers were intimately part of
Telkia’s life and loved him for the good man he was; they spoke of his military
service, his devotion to his family, his determination to pursue his college
education, and the many gifts of friendship that he gave to others. We were
moved by this tribute to Telkia Burns.
Second, the event was entirely the result of student
initiative and organizing. It showed the remarkable ability students have to do
something significant to honor a friend. The candles were there. Someone
brought paper plates so that hot wax would not drip on our hands. The
organizers had prepared an agenda so that the tribute would unfold in an
orderly way. They had planned how attendees could help the family without
students’ having any involvement with any donations. The amphitheater to the
south of the cafeteria glowed and sparkled with candlelight as students and
faculty listened respectfully to the moving tributes to Telkia and the
condemnation of the violence that ended his life and that of many others. This
student initiative was made all the more remarkable because the administration
had sought to discourage this wonderful event.
All who worked to organize the vigil and make it a success
are to be commended!
More on the September 3 Student Vigil
This afternoon, I spoke with Ms. Marsh on the telephone regarding the e-mail I sent her on September 3. This is the gist of our conversation: The original commemoration of Telkia Burns life did not involve an official student group. Rather, the request to use university facilities emanated from someone representing a group of students who were friends with Mr. Burns. The student "wanted to do something" to remember Mr. Burns but told Ms. Marsh that s/he did not even know where to start. Ms. Marsh told the student that since Student Affairs already had rooms reserved for Welcome Week, it would be possible to use one of those rooms for a memorial service. In addition, Ms. Marsh spoke to the student who organized the September 3 vigil and suggested that they could participate in the memorial already being planned. She had a meeting scheduled the next day with the September 3 organizer who, according to Ms. Marsh, forgot about the meeting and did not speak with her about what options existed for either participation in the original commemorative event or another possible memorial for Mr. Burns.
Ms. Marsh indicated that she desired to create a protocol for these kinds of circumstances so "students don't have to go through," additional stress at an already difficult time. She said that one possibility might be to designate a specific area on the university grounds for events that must be organized on short notice. Finally, Ms. Marsh said that there would be no discipline as a result of students holding the September 3 vigil. Ms. Marsh told me she had spoken earlier that day with the student organizing the September 3 event and that they had amicably resolved any issues or misunderstandings.
Ms. Marsh indicated that she desired to create a protocol for these kinds of circumstances so "students don't have to go through," additional stress at an already difficult time. She said that one possibility might be to designate a specific area on the university grounds for events that must be organized on short notice. Finally, Ms. Marsh said that there would be no discipline as a result of students holding the September 3 vigil. Ms. Marsh told me she had spoken earlier that day with the student organizing the September 3 event and that they had amicably resolved any issues or misunderstandings.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
The Administration Speaks on the Telkia Burns Vigil
As Professor Pancho's earlier blog indicated, when more information regarding the administrative response to the proposed September 3 student vigil for Telkia Burns comes to light, it will be posted. Here are two e-mails, the first sent on August 29 by the Director of Student Activities to one of the organizers of the event. The second e-mail is one I sent Ms. Marsh this afternoon. I have yet to receive a response.
------ Original message ------
From: MaToya Marsh
Date: 8/29/2013 10:10
Subject:September 3rd Event
This email is in regard to the non approved event that you have scheduled for September 3, 2013. While I am sure that your intent was in good spirits, there are rules that must be followed when using University's grounds for events. As you know you must first submit a request on behalf of a club or organization to the Office of Student Activities who then submits it to the Office of Meeting and Events for final approval (minimum 10 business days). Without this approval you are not allowed to move forward with this event. Failure to adhere to this directive is a direct violation and will be forwarded to the Office of Judicial Affairs. If you have any questions feel free to contact me via email.
--
MaToya S. Marsh
Director of Student Activities & Student Leadership
Department of Student Activities
Chicago State University
773-821-2601
mmarsh@csu.edu
Dear Ms. Marsh:
I am writing about the administrative decision to deny permission for students to hold a September 3 candlelight vigil on campus in memory of Telkia Burns. In your e-mail to one of the organizers of this event, you reference the necessity of following “rules . . . when using University’s grounds for events.” You continue by writing that any group wishing to use university grounds “must first submit a request on behalf of a club organization . . . for final approval (minimum 10 business days).” You then threaten the organizer with disciplinary action by writing “Failure to adhere to this directive is a direct violation and will be forwarded to the Office of Judicial Affairs.”
This e-mail raised a number of questions. First, which campus group served as the sponsor of the previously held commemoration for Telkia Burns? Second, given that his death occurred on August 25 and that the commemoration took place late last week (August 29 or 30 I believe), it seems that the 10-day requirement was not followed for that event. Is this the case? If so, why does the September 3 event apparently have to meet different criteria? In exigent circumstances may not the university waive the notification requirement? Finally, is it necessary to accompany this denial with the kind of threat you made in your penultimate sentence? Is that Judicial Affairs referral some kind of statutory requirement or does the Department of Student Activities possess some discretionary authority in that area?
Yours truly,
Robert E. Bionaz
Associate Professor of History
SCI 275
995-3863
rbionaz@csu.edu
------ Original message ------
From: MaToya Marsh
Date: 8/29/2013 10:10
Subject:September 3rd Event
This email is in regard to the non approved event that you have scheduled for September 3, 2013. While I am sure that your intent was in good spirits, there are rules that must be followed when using University's grounds for events. As you know you must first submit a request on behalf of a club or organization to the Office of Student Activities who then submits it to the Office of Meeting and Events for final approval (minimum 10 business days). Without this approval you are not allowed to move forward with this event. Failure to adhere to this directive is a direct violation and will be forwarded to the Office of Judicial Affairs. If you have any questions feel free to contact me via email.
--
MaToya S. Marsh
Director of Student Activities & Student Leadership
Department of Student Activities
Chicago State University
773-821-2601
mmarsh@csu.edu
Dear Ms. Marsh:
I am writing about the administrative decision to deny permission for students to hold a September 3 candlelight vigil on campus in memory of Telkia Burns. In your e-mail to one of the organizers of this event, you reference the necessity of following “rules . . . when using University’s grounds for events.” You continue by writing that any group wishing to use university grounds “must first submit a request on behalf of a club organization . . . for final approval (minimum 10 business days).” You then threaten the organizer with disciplinary action by writing “Failure to adhere to this directive is a direct violation and will be forwarded to the Office of Judicial Affairs.”
This e-mail raised a number of questions. First, which campus group served as the sponsor of the previously held commemoration for Telkia Burns? Second, given that his death occurred on August 25 and that the commemoration took place late last week (August 29 or 30 I believe), it seems that the 10-day requirement was not followed for that event. Is this the case? If so, why does the September 3 event apparently have to meet different criteria? In exigent circumstances may not the university waive the notification requirement? Finally, is it necessary to accompany this denial with the kind of threat you made in your penultimate sentence? Is that Judicial Affairs referral some kind of statutory requirement or does the Department of Student Activities possess some discretionary authority in that area?
Yours truly,
Robert E. Bionaz
Associate Professor of History
SCI 275
995-3863
rbionaz@csu.edu
Sunday, September 1, 2013
A Tragedy At So Many Levels
So, one thing I have discovered is there is most often no single right answer to things and there are often many wrong answers. Regarding the most recent tragedy to befall the university, the senseless loss of a student’s life, I believe it very easy to be caught in the whirlwind of emotions, grief, anger, fear and begin to see things less clearly than usual.
Let’s put out the facts as I understand them. A student wished to have a vigil for the victim, collect money for the family and have the event on campus. The event would be sanctioned if all of the requisite paperwork was completed and an employee from the Cashier’s office were present to collect the money. Otherwise, the university would be at risk of an audit finding, and likely a criminal investigation for mishandling money. If the student did not agree to the rules as they have been implemented for several years then that student would not be allowed to conduct that event. My understanding is that the student communicated their unwillingness to adhere to the standard protocol. The Division of Student Affairs has legal, moral and fiduciary responsibility for our students and the institution. In pursuit of those responsibilities students may not get what they want and in the long run should learn valuable life lessons about following established procedures. How that message is delivered may not always be elegant and as long as the institution follows its own rules and those rules are designed to advance the institution then we should generally support them. It is when the rules aren’t clearly established or followed that problems occur. Any follower of this forum will know that this university and its most current iteration of management has had significant challenges in this area, so much so that a monitoring report will be due to the Higher Learning Commission addressing issues of communication and the institution’s adherence to policy.
Another challenge that was highlighted for me in this situation is the absence of direct communication and a systemic mistrust of the administration by faculty and students. Your humble narrator has often written about communication challenges at this university. There are two major challenges to communication. First, is the absence of the mechanisms needed to communicate. Second is the presence or absence of the will to communicate. The university has adequate mechanisms so I am left believing that the major failing is in the will to communicate. This administration has failed the university numerous times, the declining enrollment only being the most recent. So poor communication is par for the course. Unfortunately, it has spilled over into the faculty ranks. I believe faculty don’t have the will to communicate with this administration because the veracity of the response is likely to be suspect. I am dubious in initiating communication because it is likely to result in time that I have wasted and can never get back. I clearly understand my colleagues’ frustration and as much a reminder to myself as them, we must go to the source of the problem and get the facts as understood and presented. When those “facts” don’t quite jibe with reality then we can continue to challenge.
So to my faculty colleagues I say let us be rigorous in our inquiry as we are the group at this university trained to do that. We don’t just support or oppose something or someone predicated on base self interest, like getting one’s family members hired for a job they aren’t qualified for. We critique based on sound intellectual arguments and use inconvenient things like data. We don’t throw things against the wall to see what sticks. I believe us to be better than that which we critique.
I believe this conversation should have been directed toward focusing our outrage at the senseless loss of life and not on the failings of an administration that provides little in terms of leadership to the university or the community at large.
Let’s put out the facts as I understand them. A student wished to have a vigil for the victim, collect money for the family and have the event on campus. The event would be sanctioned if all of the requisite paperwork was completed and an employee from the Cashier’s office were present to collect the money. Otherwise, the university would be at risk of an audit finding, and likely a criminal investigation for mishandling money. If the student did not agree to the rules as they have been implemented for several years then that student would not be allowed to conduct that event. My understanding is that the student communicated their unwillingness to adhere to the standard protocol. The Division of Student Affairs has legal, moral and fiduciary responsibility for our students and the institution. In pursuit of those responsibilities students may not get what they want and in the long run should learn valuable life lessons about following established procedures. How that message is delivered may not always be elegant and as long as the institution follows its own rules and those rules are designed to advance the institution then we should generally support them. It is when the rules aren’t clearly established or followed that problems occur. Any follower of this forum will know that this university and its most current iteration of management has had significant challenges in this area, so much so that a monitoring report will be due to the Higher Learning Commission addressing issues of communication and the institution’s adherence to policy.
Another challenge that was highlighted for me in this situation is the absence of direct communication and a systemic mistrust of the administration by faculty and students. Your humble narrator has often written about communication challenges at this university. There are two major challenges to communication. First, is the absence of the mechanisms needed to communicate. Second is the presence or absence of the will to communicate. The university has adequate mechanisms so I am left believing that the major failing is in the will to communicate. This administration has failed the university numerous times, the declining enrollment only being the most recent. So poor communication is par for the course. Unfortunately, it has spilled over into the faculty ranks. I believe faculty don’t have the will to communicate with this administration because the veracity of the response is likely to be suspect. I am dubious in initiating communication because it is likely to result in time that I have wasted and can never get back. I clearly understand my colleagues’ frustration and as much a reminder to myself as them, we must go to the source of the problem and get the facts as understood and presented. When those “facts” don’t quite jibe with reality then we can continue to challenge.
So to my faculty colleagues I say let us be rigorous in our inquiry as we are the group at this university trained to do that. We don’t just support or oppose something or someone predicated on base self interest, like getting one’s family members hired for a job they aren’t qualified for. We critique based on sound intellectual arguments and use inconvenient things like data. We don’t throw things against the wall to see what sticks. I believe us to be better than that which we critique.
I believe this conversation should have been directed toward focusing our outrage at the senseless loss of life and not on the failings of an administration that provides little in terms of leadership to the university or the community at large.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Candlelight Vigil for Beloved Student Stirs Controversy; Please Show Support, Tuesday, September 3, 9pm
Friends and loved ones of Telkia Burns want to memorialize him and comfort his family by holding a candlelight vigil in the quad next Tuesday, September 3 at 9pm. Please let everyone know and show support for students.
Unfortunately, the story doesn't end here with a community coming together to mourn the passing of a loved one. Sources tell me that instead this independent student initiative is creating controversy. Apparently, elements in the university administration do not want such symbols of solidarity and community on campus. The Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) has objected strongly to students holding this event. According to my informants, DOSA held their own event commemorating Burns. After the event a student and friend of Burns passed out flyers announcing their candlelight vigil. The student was approached by a member of DOSA who demanded that the flyers be handed over. The student refused and was then threatened with a scolding from the Dean of Students. To her credit, the student persisted and the vigil is being organized. Later, the student received an email threatening her with disciplinary action under the student conduct code if she did not cease her dangerous activity of having people light candles and remember the life of Telkia Burns. The student reports that she felt disrespected by the administration and that this is typical of the attitudes of many.
I hope that wisdom prevails and that admin supports this positive show of community support and campus solidarity. Unfortunately, yet again, students have been disrespected. Is this indicative of admin's attitude toward our students as it has been towards our faculty? Is it time to get in the game? Many students think so and are organizing a group to begin to demand a change at CSU. A planning meeting is set for Wednesday and Thursday of next week in SCI 1F. Flyers announcing the meeting are posted around campus.
More information regarding this situation is forthcoming. For now, see below for information on the vigil.
Unfortunately, the story doesn't end here with a community coming together to mourn the passing of a loved one. Sources tell me that instead this independent student initiative is creating controversy. Apparently, elements in the university administration do not want such symbols of solidarity and community on campus. The Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) has objected strongly to students holding this event. According to my informants, DOSA held their own event commemorating Burns. After the event a student and friend of Burns passed out flyers announcing their candlelight vigil. The student was approached by a member of DOSA who demanded that the flyers be handed over. The student refused and was then threatened with a scolding from the Dean of Students. To her credit, the student persisted and the vigil is being organized. Later, the student received an email threatening her with disciplinary action under the student conduct code if she did not cease her dangerous activity of having people light candles and remember the life of Telkia Burns. The student reports that she felt disrespected by the administration and that this is typical of the attitudes of many.
I hope that wisdom prevails and that admin supports this positive show of community support and campus solidarity. Unfortunately, yet again, students have been disrespected. Is this indicative of admin's attitude toward our students as it has been towards our faculty? Is it time to get in the game? Many students think so and are organizing a group to begin to demand a change at CSU. A planning meeting is set for Wednesday and Thursday of next week in SCI 1F. Flyers announcing the meeting are posted around campus.
More information regarding this situation is forthcoming. For now, see below for information on the vigil.
IN LOVING MEMORY
OF
TELKIA BURNS
THE CSU FAMILY IS COMING TOGETHER TO
HONOR ONE OF OUR OWN IN THE QUAD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3RD AT 9 P.M
Friday, August 23, 2013
Is It Time Yet to Get Into the Game?
As we begin a new school year, I will again make an appeal to those faculty who have remained quiescent during the past year. I can only say that the longer you remain quiet, the more dire the university’s situation becomes. I have seen the working enrollment statistics for the upcoming semester and they are alarming. The school seems to be in a downward spiral for which our current administration has no solution. I again call for the firing of Wayne Watson and some of his senior administrators, particularly those administrators who have spent the past two-plus years in Enrollment Management. I will detail the reasons for my continued belief that these changes are the first step in bringing the school back from the edge of the abyss.
On March 14, 2013, Hermene Hartman, one of Watson’s most vocal cheerleaders wrote:
“A small group of faculty members gave Watson a vote of no confidence. He has invaded their workspace with responsibility and accountability . . .” Notably, neither the Hartman article nor any of the effusive praise periodically heaped on Watson by his fawning supporters ever mentions his “responsibility and accountability.” In fact, over the course of his entire upper administrative career, Watson has taken credit for accomplishments while blaming failures on someone else. What follows is an examination of his performance at Chicago State that assigns him both credit for the university’s accomplishments and blame for its failures. Since we now have nearly four full years of data, it seems an appropriate time for this kind of assessment.
In addition, we have a benchmark for presidential performance at Chicago State: Elnora Daniel. Since the Watson administration has consistently used the Daniel administration as a yardstick to measure bad performance, and since a considerable amount of data exists that enables comparisons between the Daniel and Watson administrations, I will use the Daniel administration as both a point of departure and a model of administrative incompetence and ultimate failure.
A note on the methodology: For enrollment data, I have not included the president’s first year since that enrollment should be properly attributed to the previous administration. For example, Elnora Daniel served as president from the 1998-99 school year through 2007-08. Enrollment data for her tenure come from 1999-2000 through 2008-09 figures (fall enrollments only). For Wayne Watson, although he has been here since 2009-10 (beginning ostensibly in October), his enrollment data are from 2010-11 through 2012-13. The 2009-10 enrollment figures are attributable to Interim President Frank Pogue.
Similarly, for audit findings, Daniel is responsible for audits beginning with the 2000 audit report (which covers the fiscal year 1998-99) and ending with the 2009 audit report (for fiscal 2007-08). Wayne Watson is responsible for audits from 2011 through 2013. The 2010 audit findings are attributed to Frank Pogue.
Statewide, Chicago State has been the poorest performing school in terms of enrollment between 1999-2012. While overall enrollment at Illinois’ public institutions has increased by 1.5 percent (from 187,730 in 1999 to 190,594 in 2012), Chicago State’s enrollment has dropped 19.4 percent (from 7580 to 6107). No other school is even close, with Eastern Illinois’ 7.2 percent decline being the second-worst performance. Notably, Northeastern Illinois has seen its enrollment increase by 2 percent during the same time period. Audit findings reveal Chicago State to be in a similarly negative position. While the reports on the Auditor General’s website are not complete, between 2004 and 2012, the public university system generated 733 audit findings. The University of Illinois system (36 percent of the university population) led with 208 (28 percent) audit exceptions, with Chicago State, (3.6 percent of the university population) generating 183 audit findings (25 percent). Eastern Illinois finished third with 74. Historically, since Chicago State is the worst-performing school of all Illinois public universities in terms of enrollment and since it is second in audit findings to a system with 13 times its population, it seems fair to characterize the performance of its administration as poor.
Here are the figures for Elnora Daniel: During her ten-year tenure as Chicago State President, the average enrollment was 7040 per year, with a high of 7580 in 1999 and a low of 6810 in 2007. During her time as president, the school’s enrollment decreased by 10 percent, from 7580 to 6820. Her audit performance amounted to a total of 107 in ten years for an average of 10.7 per year. Her last three years were particularly bad with a total of 49 audit exceptions, or 16.3 per year. Nevertheless, in six of Daniel’s ten years, her administration generated fewer than 10 audit findings. In addition, during Daniel’s tenure (2003), the university received 10-year accreditation from HLC as well as recognition from the NCATE accrediting body. Thus, even the “bad” administration of president Elnora Daniel had its moments.
So, Daniel’s ineptitude set the standard for poor performing administrations at Chicago State. How does Wayne Watson’s administration compare?
One of the things the Watson acolytes do continuously is create myths surrounding the competence of their hero. One of these myths is that Watson “saved” Chicago State’s accreditation. In fact, the 2010 focused visit by the HLC dealt with specific administrative issues centered on administrative oversight of enrollment and communication problems between the administration and university staff. The Watson administration deserves credit for satisfying the concerns of the HLC, although subsequent events have demonstrated that enrollment issues have hardly been solved and effective communication is still a goal (maybe?) not a reality. The Watson administration also deserves credit for its efforts to raise the graduation rates of full-time, first-time Freshman to over 20 percent (although the retention rate dropped from 53 percent to 48 percent). However, this does not suggest that Watson “saved” the university. Since Chicago State received accreditation under a “bad” administration in 2003, it seemed likely that the school would have received accreditation in 2013 with anyone as president. In fact, I would argue that administrative efforts to ensure our continuing accreditation is the least we should expect.
So, if Watson claims the credit for two accomplishments that are primarily the result of the efforts of faculty and staff, he must accept the blame for the administrative failures that have brought the university to our current critical juncture.
The performance of the Watson administration in the areas of enrollment and financial and compliance accountability have been woeful, far worse than the incompetence exhibited by his predecessor. Chicago State’s enrollment has dropped by 17 percent since 2010, by far the worst performance of any Illinois public university. During this same period, overall enrollment in Illinois public universities has decreased 4.4 percent. It looks like another dramatic decrease will occur this fall.
Audit findings during the Watson administration have skyrocketed. In fairness, his administration has reduced them from 41 in 2011 to 29 last year, but the school continues to be just behind the University of Illinois in the number of audit exceptions. The Watson administration is responsible for 104 of Chicago State’s 183 audit findings (56.8 percent) since 2004. Since Watson became president, Chicago State, with less than 3.5 percent of the Illinois public university system’s students has generated 29.3 percent of its audit findings.
Watson’s response to the enrollment problems has been to promote one of the architects of the disaster that has become Enrollment Management to the top academic post in the university, while retaining at least one other demonstrably incompetent senior administrator in a key position in that office. Ignoring the new Provost’s absolute lack of academic production, her inability to meet the standards for full professor (or likely even tenure), Watson rewarded her for years of loyalty, and thumbed his nose at the faculty in the process, by promoting her to her current level of ineptitude. Even in a bureaucratic system, the performance of these two administrators should result in their termination, not in promotion and/or retention.
The party line on the audit findings seems to be tiresome rhetoric citing extenuating circumstances or the tried-and-true “we aren’t responsible.” After four years, neither seem a particularly useful response to the problems.
Some final comments and questions here. In March, Watson was able to hide behind his political benefactors and benefited from the stupidity and cowardice of a Governor who has demonstrated on at least two occasions that the needs of the political and chattering classes outweigh the needs of the students and staff at this university. How long can he be protected by these people? How long before the realization that Watson is running this school into the ground (as he did with the City Colleges) spurs someone to take notice of what is going on here? To act? Finally, do the faculty here care? At what point do people get alarmed? Does the enrollment have to reach 4,000? 3,000?
The numbers I have cited here are all available on the CSU website here: http://www.csu.edu/IER/universityprofile.htm, on the IBHE website, or from the Auditor General’s website.
On March 14, 2013, Hermene Hartman, one of Watson’s most vocal cheerleaders wrote:
“A small group of faculty members gave Watson a vote of no confidence. He has invaded their workspace with responsibility and accountability . . .” Notably, neither the Hartman article nor any of the effusive praise periodically heaped on Watson by his fawning supporters ever mentions his “responsibility and accountability.” In fact, over the course of his entire upper administrative career, Watson has taken credit for accomplishments while blaming failures on someone else. What follows is an examination of his performance at Chicago State that assigns him both credit for the university’s accomplishments and blame for its failures. Since we now have nearly four full years of data, it seems an appropriate time for this kind of assessment.
In addition, we have a benchmark for presidential performance at Chicago State: Elnora Daniel. Since the Watson administration has consistently used the Daniel administration as a yardstick to measure bad performance, and since a considerable amount of data exists that enables comparisons between the Daniel and Watson administrations, I will use the Daniel administration as both a point of departure and a model of administrative incompetence and ultimate failure.
A note on the methodology: For enrollment data, I have not included the president’s first year since that enrollment should be properly attributed to the previous administration. For example, Elnora Daniel served as president from the 1998-99 school year through 2007-08. Enrollment data for her tenure come from 1999-2000 through 2008-09 figures (fall enrollments only). For Wayne Watson, although he has been here since 2009-10 (beginning ostensibly in October), his enrollment data are from 2010-11 through 2012-13. The 2009-10 enrollment figures are attributable to Interim President Frank Pogue.
Similarly, for audit findings, Daniel is responsible for audits beginning with the 2000 audit report (which covers the fiscal year 1998-99) and ending with the 2009 audit report (for fiscal 2007-08). Wayne Watson is responsible for audits from 2011 through 2013. The 2010 audit findings are attributed to Frank Pogue.
Statewide, Chicago State has been the poorest performing school in terms of enrollment between 1999-2012. While overall enrollment at Illinois’ public institutions has increased by 1.5 percent (from 187,730 in 1999 to 190,594 in 2012), Chicago State’s enrollment has dropped 19.4 percent (from 7580 to 6107). No other school is even close, with Eastern Illinois’ 7.2 percent decline being the second-worst performance. Notably, Northeastern Illinois has seen its enrollment increase by 2 percent during the same time period. Audit findings reveal Chicago State to be in a similarly negative position. While the reports on the Auditor General’s website are not complete, between 2004 and 2012, the public university system generated 733 audit findings. The University of Illinois system (36 percent of the university population) led with 208 (28 percent) audit exceptions, with Chicago State, (3.6 percent of the university population) generating 183 audit findings (25 percent). Eastern Illinois finished third with 74. Historically, since Chicago State is the worst-performing school of all Illinois public universities in terms of enrollment and since it is second in audit findings to a system with 13 times its population, it seems fair to characterize the performance of its administration as poor.
Here are the figures for Elnora Daniel: During her ten-year tenure as Chicago State President, the average enrollment was 7040 per year, with a high of 7580 in 1999 and a low of 6810 in 2007. During her time as president, the school’s enrollment decreased by 10 percent, from 7580 to 6820. Her audit performance amounted to a total of 107 in ten years for an average of 10.7 per year. Her last three years were particularly bad with a total of 49 audit exceptions, or 16.3 per year. Nevertheless, in six of Daniel’s ten years, her administration generated fewer than 10 audit findings. In addition, during Daniel’s tenure (2003), the university received 10-year accreditation from HLC as well as recognition from the NCATE accrediting body. Thus, even the “bad” administration of president Elnora Daniel had its moments.
So, Daniel’s ineptitude set the standard for poor performing administrations at Chicago State. How does Wayne Watson’s administration compare?
One of the things the Watson acolytes do continuously is create myths surrounding the competence of their hero. One of these myths is that Watson “saved” Chicago State’s accreditation. In fact, the 2010 focused visit by the HLC dealt with specific administrative issues centered on administrative oversight of enrollment and communication problems between the administration and university staff. The Watson administration deserves credit for satisfying the concerns of the HLC, although subsequent events have demonstrated that enrollment issues have hardly been solved and effective communication is still a goal (maybe?) not a reality. The Watson administration also deserves credit for its efforts to raise the graduation rates of full-time, first-time Freshman to over 20 percent (although the retention rate dropped from 53 percent to 48 percent). However, this does not suggest that Watson “saved” the university. Since Chicago State received accreditation under a “bad” administration in 2003, it seemed likely that the school would have received accreditation in 2013 with anyone as president. In fact, I would argue that administrative efforts to ensure our continuing accreditation is the least we should expect.
So, if Watson claims the credit for two accomplishments that are primarily the result of the efforts of faculty and staff, he must accept the blame for the administrative failures that have brought the university to our current critical juncture.
The performance of the Watson administration in the areas of enrollment and financial and compliance accountability have been woeful, far worse than the incompetence exhibited by his predecessor. Chicago State’s enrollment has dropped by 17 percent since 2010, by far the worst performance of any Illinois public university. During this same period, overall enrollment in Illinois public universities has decreased 4.4 percent. It looks like another dramatic decrease will occur this fall.
Audit findings during the Watson administration have skyrocketed. In fairness, his administration has reduced them from 41 in 2011 to 29 last year, but the school continues to be just behind the University of Illinois in the number of audit exceptions. The Watson administration is responsible for 104 of Chicago State’s 183 audit findings (56.8 percent) since 2004. Since Watson became president, Chicago State, with less than 3.5 percent of the Illinois public university system’s students has generated 29.3 percent of its audit findings.
Watson’s response to the enrollment problems has been to promote one of the architects of the disaster that has become Enrollment Management to the top academic post in the university, while retaining at least one other demonstrably incompetent senior administrator in a key position in that office. Ignoring the new Provost’s absolute lack of academic production, her inability to meet the standards for full professor (or likely even tenure), Watson rewarded her for years of loyalty, and thumbed his nose at the faculty in the process, by promoting her to her current level of ineptitude. Even in a bureaucratic system, the performance of these two administrators should result in their termination, not in promotion and/or retention.
The party line on the audit findings seems to be tiresome rhetoric citing extenuating circumstances or the tried-and-true “we aren’t responsible.” After four years, neither seem a particularly useful response to the problems.
Some final comments and questions here. In March, Watson was able to hide behind his political benefactors and benefited from the stupidity and cowardice of a Governor who has demonstrated on at least two occasions that the needs of the political and chattering classes outweigh the needs of the students and staff at this university. How long can he be protected by these people? How long before the realization that Watson is running this school into the ground (as he did with the City Colleges) spurs someone to take notice of what is going on here? To act? Finally, do the faculty here care? At what point do people get alarmed? Does the enrollment have to reach 4,000? 3,000?
The numbers I have cited here are all available on the CSU website here: http://www.csu.edu/IER/universityprofile.htm, on the IBHE website, or from the Auditor General’s website.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Who Got to Hire and Who Didn't This Summer
Here’s the summer scorecard for faculty hiring at CSU. On June 13, 2013, the university website (admittedly a somewhat dubious source listed 31 positions, 29 for assistant, associate, or open professor ranks, 1 full-time lecturer and a “reading educator” position in Elementary Education. The positions broke down as follows: Arts and Sciences: 12 positions (2 in English, 1 in Psychology, 1 in Social Work, 3 in Math/Computer Science, 2 in Geography, 1 in Sociology, 1 (lecturer) in Spanish, and 1 in Biology); Health Sciences: 4 positions (2 in Health Studies, 1 in Nursing, 1 in Occupational Therapy); Education: 9 positions: (4 positions in LIMS, 1 in Early Childhood, 1 “educator” in Reading, 2 in Special Education, 1 in Recreation); Pharmacy: 4 positions; Counseling: 1 position.
Based on the announcement of the upcoming new faculty orientation, it appears that 12 new faculty were hired out of a potential 31: 4 in Pharmacy, 2 in Special Ed, 1 each in Nursing, Psychology, CMAT, Social Work, Biology and Spanish. There are also an additional 3 faculty for positions that were not listed on the website on June 13: 1 in Biology and 2 in Chemistry/Physics. Departments apparently shut out in the hiring process include: English, Math, Geography, Sociology, Occupational Therapy, Reading, Recreation, and LIMS, Health Studies, and Counseling.
I must emphasize the tenuous nature of these figures, given the unreliability of the sources. If anyone has any additional information, I would be happy to revise my calculations.
Based on the announcement of the upcoming new faculty orientation, it appears that 12 new faculty were hired out of a potential 31: 4 in Pharmacy, 2 in Special Ed, 1 each in Nursing, Psychology, CMAT, Social Work, Biology and Spanish. There are also an additional 3 faculty for positions that were not listed on the website on June 13: 1 in Biology and 2 in Chemistry/Physics. Departments apparently shut out in the hiring process include: English, Math, Geography, Sociology, Occupational Therapy, Reading, Recreation, and LIMS, Health Studies, and Counseling.
I must emphasize the tenuous nature of these figures, given the unreliability of the sources. If anyone has any additional information, I would be happy to revise my calculations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)