How about this???

So loyal readers, I am sure you are acutely aware of the incredibly shrinking university (in terms of enrollment, not numbers of administrators) and the horribly damaged reputation of CSU. I am sure many of you are saddened by the Board of Trustees doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I believe we need to capitalize on every opportunity to improve the institution's reputation. And like it or not, appearance on television is often one way to validate a university's position in the recruiting hierarchy. Our current Athletics Director had planned to have CSU on television for ten games of men's basketball this upcoming season. The buzz that would be generated in a city that is purported to have six of the top fifty high school players in the country would be palpable. CSU would be showcased as it makes it first voyage in the Western Athletic Conference (WAC). Imagine how that recognition could translate into admissions and more importantly, registered students. Imagine being able to turn around the failure of the past three years in Enrollment Management. Thus imagine my shock when I questioned the AD about the new season. He informed me that he was forced to cut $500,000 from his budget, already the smallest budget in the WAC, and yes CSU would have no television games this season. I asked if there were any other cuts that could be made instead of the TV package and he explained that the basics of managing the department were needed and television wasn't. I, of course, disagreed and then it dawned on me to ask, how much the television package would cost. He told me CSU was to be broadcast on Comcast Sports Net for $170,000, or $17K per game. I cannot describe the feeling that such a paltry sum stood in the way of the university being able to begin repairing its reputation. For an administration that has wasted tens of thousands of dollars on various and sundry as it has overseen an unprecedented decline in enrollment to not have $170,000 is unbelievable. 

How about this? How about taking a really close look at the area responsible for enrollment and determining the necessity of the continued employment of those responsible, then use the cost savings from administrators who have obviously failed the university to help improve the university's prospects for remaining viable. Given the cancerous growth of that area, a clean sweep of six figure administrators might just be what the doctor ordered.

What Kind of University Do Our Students Deserve? Do We Deserve?

Over the past two years, I believe I have made the case that our university needs a change in leadership in order to realize its potential. Although I continue to believe that, I want to offer some rudimentary proposals that might contribute to building a university that truly works for our students, staff, faculty and administrators. Although I believe that some, if not many, of my colleagues likely share these views, I speak here only for myself.

First, there must be stability in the upper ranks of the administration. Chicago State’s senior management currently features an interim Provost, an interim Vice President for Enrollment Management, an Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (for the third straight year), an interim Dean of the Honors College and an interim Dean of Health Sciences. I believe that searches for permanent occupants of these positions should commence immediately.

These searches should not include some of the problematic elements of previous administrative searches: the positions must be advertised for a suitable period, long enough to generate a list of qualified candidates. The position descriptions should be precise as to required qualifications. For example, the industry standard for provost includes not just an earned doctorate, but a strong record in scholarship and teaching. Of the twenty-four job announcements for provost currently online, fourteen require an academic and teaching record that qualifies for appointment as a full professor. To summarize, the position is for a senior scholar-administrator, a person with a proven record of research, successful teaching and administrative experience. A look at the four other old Board of Governors' universities reveals that the qualifications of the provosts at Western and Eastern Illinois exceed industry standards, while the provosts at Governors State and Northeastern Illinois meet them. Does Chicago State University deserve less? I hardly think so.

Current job announcements for The Vice President of Enrollment Management require less academic training as they tend to emphasize successful experience in enrollment management. However, the industry standard is at least a Master’s Degree, with 4-10 years of experience in enrollment management. For this important position, the incumbents at Eastern, Western and Northeastern exceed that standard as they all hold the PhD. Again, does Chicago State University deserve less?

The people who constitute the Chicago State University community deserve the best upper management team that can be assembled. Getting the best, most qualified people requires careful attention to writing the job description, a thorough search that generates a strong applicant pool, and an ultimate selection that adheres to the posted job requirements. Does anyone think this cannot be done here? Does anyone think that we, as faculty should not insist on an upper administrative team with qualifications at least as strong as our sister institutions? Finally, let us fill these other interim positions with permanent occupants. This kind of instability simply does not serve out institution.

I also have some modest proposals to improve faculty-administrative relations and to ease the needless tension that surfaces too often around academic issues. I propose that programmatic and curricular changes should emanate from the faculty and that faculty expertise must be the prime consideration when evaluating and creating curriculum and degree requirements, and in the areas of hiring, retention and tenure. I submit that faculty are the authorities in their particular fields and that their judgment should, except in rare circumstances, hold sway in those areas in which they are experts. In return, faculty must take their tenure obligations seriously, especially in the areas of academic rigor, hiring, retention and tenure. I certainly have no desire to administer this university. I only want to have my judgment valued in areas I know something about.

In my estimation, the university has reached a critical stage. With our student population standing at 5700, we cannot afford any more enrollment declines. Chicago State has not had this few students enrolled since the 1960s. Should we continue on the same path? Or is it time to consider alternative strategies? I think the future of this university depends on how we answer those questions.

Hey CSU Board of Trustees, Hey CSU Deans---take a look at Howard University

In case you missed the article in the Washington Post--Howard University's president stepped down. Guess why? Among other things--weak fundraising and student enrollment. Obviously things have been boiling over for months in a tense situation among the members of their Board of Trustees, but what is interesting is that the deans at Howard actually spoke out...

I know, I know, we are not Howard University...heavy sigh.

Howard Univ President Steps Down
Howard University President Ribeau retires
By Nick Anderson, Published: October 1 Washington Post

Howard University President Sidney A. Ribeau abruptly stepped down Tuesday after months of internal debate over the management and financial health of one of the nation’s premier historically black universities.

Ribeau, in office for five years, announced his retirement “from our beloved institution” after a tense three-day Board of Trustees meeting at the Northwest Washington campus that ended Saturday. He said he would officially leave the presidency at the end of December.

His departure follows two developments last month that many Howard boosters found dispiriting: a drop for the university in a major national ranking, and a downgrade in its credit rating. It also came a year after enrollment at the university suddenly fell 5 percent.

Ribeau, 65, had just this summer signed a contract extension to serve through June 2015, but he said Tuesday that he was not forced out.

“This is the time, this is the season, for me to retire from the presidency,” he told The Washington Post. He said the university had made progress on an ambitious agenda in a challenging economic time. “We’re focused, we’re back on track and the momentum is building.”

Ribeau declined to discuss what the university will pay to buy out his contract. He earned $759,340 in total compensation in the fiscal year that ended in June 2012, according to the university’s federal tax return.

The announcement, several weeks into the fall term, took some on campus by surprise.“I was quite astonished,” said Lorenzo Morris, a political science professor who chairs the Faculty Senate. He called Ribeau a “solid president” but said the transition could prove positive as the university shows that it is taking “a new direction in leadership.” But several older students and alumni who milled around the campus’s famed yard Tuesday evening said they saw Ribeau’s resignation coming. Tia Parchman, 20, a junior from Inglewood, Calif., said she hoped a change at the top will help fix longstanding administrative problems.“This may be a good thing for Howard,” she said of Ribeau’s retirement. “Hopefully somebody can come in and improve” relations with students. “Oftentimes, our requests are ignored.”

The board appointed Wayne A.I. Frederick, 42, Howard’s provost since June 2012, as interim president. Frederick, a professor of surgery and a cancer specialist at Howard’s College of Medicine, holds three Howard degrees.

The announcement of Ribeau’s exit came nearly four months after a rupture between the board’s two top leaders emerged, sending shock waves through the university community.

In a letter to trustees in April, disclosed in a June 7 published report, board Vice Chairwoman Renee Higginbotham-Brooks warned that Howard “is in genuine trouble.” The Texas attorney, a Howard graduate, cited concerns about fundraising, university hospital expenses and student enrollment, calling Ribeau’s job performance “lackluster.”

Board Chairman Addison Barry Rand, who is chief executive of AARP, replied on June 10 that Howard “remains academically, financially and operationally strong.” He said the vice chairwoman’s letter had painted “an unduly alarming picture of the university’s condition.”

The board rift put intense pressure on Ribeau and his administration.

Amid the turmoil, university officials have sought to reassure students, faculty and alumni. They described a cut this year of about 75 staff positions, including dozens of layoffs, as part of a retrenchment to improve efficiency. They pointed out that construction is underway on two new student residence halls on Fourth Street NW and an interdisciplinary research building on Georgia Avenue NW. Officials said the school’s endowment stood at $525 million in May, recovering from a steep drop after the 2008 national financial crisis.

Last week, the university welcomed its second-largest freshman class in 15 years and said that enrollment had risen 3 percent to more than 10,330, partially recovering from the previous plunge.

But the university’s image took a double blow in September.

First, its ranking on the U.S. News & World Report list of national universities continued a several-year slide, falling 22 places to 142nd. As recently as the 2009-2010 school year, Howard stood at 96th. Critics say the U.S. News rankings are arbitrary and misleading, but they remain influential as a gauge of prestige.

Second, Howard’s credit rating was downgraded on Sept. 24, from A3 to Baa1, in a pessimistic report from Wall Street analysts. Moody’s Investors Service cited “weak” fundraising, a university hospital with a “remarkably weak profile,” student enrollment fluctuations, deep federal budget cuts and questions about whether management can follow through on plans to cut costs.

Such developments raised alarms among loyalists of a school that the Fiske guidebook calls “the flagship university of black America.”

“We’re very upset,” said Marrel Foushee, of Chapel Hill, N.C. He said he earned a bachelor’s degree from Howard in 1974 and a master’s in 1977. “It’s terrible. The university is putting out propaganda. The real question from alumni is, what’s the real truth?”

Howard occupies a central place in the constellation of historically black colleges and universities. Founded in 1867 under a federal charter, the university counts the 19th-century abolitionist and social reformer Frederick Douglass among its early trustees and the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall among its alumni.

With schools of law, medicine and dentistry, Howard is a leading producer of advanced degrees for African Americans. The private institution also has a rare level of public support.

Congress has long approved special appropriations for Howard that far exceed federal funding for other historically black institutions. Howard’s line items in the federal budget have totaled as much as $234 million a year, or more than a quarter of the university’s annual spending plan in recent years. This year, that sum was cut to $222 million under the federal budget sequester, and it is unclear whether it will return to the previous level. University officials say the impact will hit hard.

Ribeau, a communications scholar who came to Howard after 13 years as president of Bowling Green State University in Ohio, pushed to overhaul Howard’s academic offerings. He engineered a phaseout of certain programs, such as a bachelor’s degree in fashion merchandising, in an effort to concentrate on core fields such as science, technology, engineering and math.

Ribeau also sought to streamline administration in a drive for efficiency and cost controls. He cited a string of balanced budgets as evidence of progress.

In June, Howard’s academic deans charged that “fiscal mismanagement is doing irreparable harm” to the university — a charge Ribeau strongly denied.

The deans urged the dismissal of Howard’s chief financial officer, Robert M. Tarola, who is an independent contractor. They alleged that the university was making staff cuts based on “inaccurate, misleading” data, and they raised questions about why PricewaterhouseCoopers this year terminated its work for Howard after serving as its external auditor for seven years. In October 2012, the firm reported “certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting” at Howard that it considered “material weaknesses.”

Staff writer Michael Livingston contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company

 

News Flash: Chicago State, The Incredible Dwindling University, is Bleeding Students!

This has been updated on October 2 to reflect the current data.

The most recent enrollment figures released this morning show that due to the "drop process," the university lost 101 students. This means that enrollment at Chicago State as we speak stands at 5701, a decrease of 406 students (a 6.6 percent decline) from fall of 2012. That makes the enrollment loss since 2010, 1655 students, or 22.6 percent. The enrollment decline attributable to Angela Henderson's tenure as head of Enrollment management? 1175 students--a 17.2 percent enrollment plunge. You might remember her as the person Wayne Watson thought the best candidate for the interim chief academic officer job at our shrinking little university. Should we take the failures of the Watson administration seriously now?

Chicago State in the National News

Here's a story from the USA Today that uses the measure of six-year graduation rate for full-time first-year freshmen and mentions Chicago State in an unflattering way.

Obama's college plan has potential genius: Column
Michael Dannenberg 3 p.m. EDT September 22, 2013
A rating system could help minorities and students from low-income backgrounds choose the right school.
Story Highlights
• Among the indicators on which the president wants to rate colleges is graduation rate.
• Many colleges are dispelling the myth that student characteristics effectively determine graduation rates.
• Obama's college affordability proposal could be the beginning of a civil rights in higher education plan.
President Obama's college affordability plan has been eclipsed by the diplomatic showdown over Syria and now talk of a government shutdown, but it will be back this fall when, hopefully, its true benefit will get an airing.
The plan sounds like an appeal to the middle class, but it could prove more a boon to minorities and students from low-income families. And therein lies a long-term impact that could be bigger than either of the stories dominating the news.
Currently, selective colleges compete based on prestige and amenities such as free Wi-Fi and the best gym facilities. The president's plan would instead aim to spur competition based on value as reflected in price and effectiveness. Most pay attention to the first part of that equation — tuition and fee price — but the value in the Obama plan lies in measuring and rewarding the second: effectiveness.
Among the indicators of effectiveness on which the president wants to rate colleges is the graduation rate of first-time, full-time students. Not a bad idea, given that the graduation rate averages less than 60% at four-year schools. And that's just the average. When Education Secretary Arne Duncan implements the Obama plan, he should be sure to break out the graduation rate and other measures of effectiveness by race and income. Then we can hold colleges accountable for results, forcing them to pay attention not just to diversity in admissions but also the performance and graduation rates of poor and minority students, for whom average disparities are enormous.
Fewer than two in five African-American bachelor's students and only half of Latinos will earn a degree in six years, compared with nearly two-thirds of whites.
Syracuse vs. Hofstra
Many in the higher education community argue these disparities are nobody's fault but the students', that it's unfair to hold colleges accountable for the performance of these students. Somehow, it's inevitable that certain groups of students will achieve at vastly lower rates than their whiter, richer peers.
But a close examination of the data reveals that many colleges are dispelling the myth that student characteristics effectively determine graduation rates. These schools graduate low-income students and students of color at significantly higher rates than other institutions serving similar demographic mixes. The president's plan could highlight those colleges where education works for everyone, drive students toward them with added funds and encourage other schools to replicate effective practices.
Compare Syracuse and Hofstra universities — two midsize, non-profit private colleges in New York with a median SAT score of about 1,175. Underrepresented minorities make up 17% of Syracuse's undergraduates and 18% of Hofstra's. About 25% of Syracuse's freshmen class are Pell Grant recipients, compared with 24% of Hofstra's.
Despite these similarities, Syracuse has a six-year graduation rate that is 22 percentage pointshigher than Hofstra's (80.2% vs. 57.9%). Fewer than half of Hofstra's black students (49%) will graduate in the same time that nearly three-quarters of black students at Syracuse (74%) will complete a degree.
How do Hofstra's administrators explain that? What are they doing about it? The Obama plan could prod them in the right direction and reward them for improvement.
Albany vs. Chicago State
The differences are nationwide. Consider two institutions at the other end of the selectivity spectrum: Albany State University in Georgia and Chicago State. At both institutions, nine out of 10 students are black and more than eight in 10 are low-income. Median SAT scores and high school GPAs are similar.
The similarities stop there. Four in 10 Albany State students graduate within six years, compared with only two in 10 Chicago State students.
Think about that. There's an 80% dropout rate at Chicago State, and the institution receives "competitively" awarded funds from the U.S. Department of Education.
In elementary and secondary education, the consensus view is that all children can learn to high standards and that students, teachers, schools, parents and peers all play critical roles in determining student success. In higher education, though, too many seem to think graduation is simply a matter of student ability and maybe financial aid, absolving colleges of responsibility to provide a good education to all the students they enroll. That's wrong.
Demography is not destiny in K-12 or higher education. With a few important additions, for the plan is not complete, President Obama's college affordability proposal could be the beginning of a civil rights in higher education plan. Let's hope he and others follow through.
Michael Dannenberg is the director of Higher Education Policy at The Education Trust.


The link is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/19/obamas-college-plan-scorecard-graduation-rates-column/2839715/

Administrative Failure 103: The Never-Ending Saga of Enrollment Management. Or, How to Make Chicago State the Worst Performing Public University in Seven States

Perhaps this is becoming redundant, but I have additional material that underscores the colossal failure of the Watson administration, something that our current board cares nothing about. This school’s enrollment performance is simply a disgrace, how serious our situation is should become even clearer given the objective measure of our ongoing enrollment debacle. However, before I get into the data, I want to say emphatically that I believe this university can be turned around if someone in the state in a position of responsibility cares. We need a new, truly autonomous board of trustees who will select a distinguished president with a scholarly record, four-year university administrative experience and some understanding of what is required of faculty engaged in teaching, research and service. That will assuredly not happen in this political climate, with this board of trustees.

I have extended my comparative analysis of Chicago State’s enrollment problems to include the following samples: 1) the 12 schools in 8 states that constitute our “peer” institutions; 2) all the non-research public universities in states contiguous to Illinois: Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa. This adds 57 schools to our sample (three in Indiana for some reason have no enrollment data past 2011), bringing the total to 63 schools and 2 university systems (Illinois and Southern Illinois), providing 62 other examples of enrollment management. Of the 63 schools in 15 states, only data from 2010-12 is available for 44, with 19 schools having released current enrollment data.

From 2010-12, Chicago State saw its enrollment shrink by 17 percent. This is the worst performance of all 44 schools during that time period. Only three other schools experienced enrollment drops of better than 10 percent, with a 14.2 percent decline being the second poorest enrollment performance. Overall, enrollment at these 44 schools increased by 2322 students, or .006 percent.

From 2010-13, Chicago State’s enrollment (still changing daily, although minimally) decline of 24.2 percent again leads the pack of 19 schools. Only two of the other schools saw their enrollments decline by better than 10 percent, with the current runner-up showing a 16 percent decrease. Overall enrollment in these 19 schools has dropped by 2.5 percent, or a total of 8914 students. Chicago State’s drop of 1784 students during this three-year period represents 20 percent of the total decline, that from a school with 1.6 percent of the student population.

To summarize, of the 63 schools in this sample, Chicago State has been the worst performing school in terms of enrollment, in both two- and three-year measures. Does anyone want to make the argument that this is a satisfactory performance? Is this what we should expect from the president? From the highly-paid administrators in Enrollment Management? Is this all that our students deserve? Is it time to send this flim-flam administration packing? The board’s decision on Friday made that less likely, but I do not believe it is impossible. What do you think?

From the top flows????

So I must admit to you loyal readers, that I was not at all surprised that a politicized Board of Trustees would continue CSU on its downward death spiral. I was saddened by the thought of hundreds or thousands of prospective students going elsewhere; saddened by the prospect of CSU being unable to attract world class faculty because of the plummeting and almost irreparable, reputation and saddened by the likelihood of the continuing cavalcade of cronies careening carelessly through the halls of CSU. And we should not be surprised! When a chief executive’s job can only be saved by the intervention of a political godfather, not accomplishments or fulfillment of contractual duties, then what would a reasonable person expect? If past performance is the best predictor of future performance, the prospect of this university remaining viable has been significantly reduced by the Board’s most recent actions. If any one has any questions about why this university is as dysfunctional as it is, one need only look at the Board and its actions. 

Every management book I have ever read, says that the tone and tenor of the organization comes from the top. Whether it be a Jimmy Carter White House that was micro-managed into ineffectiveness or Lehman Brothers which led the way of the near collapse of the world economy in 2008, it is the behavior at the top that trickles down to the lower levels and sets the context for how things get done, undone or not done. Thus for a Board not to hold the chief executive accountable for criteria outlined in his contract communicates to the institution that accountability is not important. Following the rules created by the Board is not important. 

An example might be helpful here. At the end of the last board meeting there were only three trustees present. There was no quorum so conducting business like adjourning the meeting is not possible. Therefore, the September 20th meeting is still ongoing and would technically need to be adjourned before the next board meeting is called to order. Now I understand this is just a technicality and yet technicalities are the rules that help keep order. Technicalities are not and never should be excuses for misbehavior or misconduct. I did something wrong and was convicted on a technicality??? No I did something wrong and was held to account because of the rule, regulation, directive or law that I violated. The expression of "it was a technical violation" is the refuge of those shirking their responsibility either to an institution or community. It is clearly unbecoming of those that have a public trust like trustees at a public university. How might we expect any improvement when the message communicated from the top is that improvement is not the priority? Apparently, the priority is maintaining a status quo that has included crony hiring, increased audit findings, declining enrollment, decline in executive fund raising, irreparable damage to faculty relations, and a destruction of anything resembling morale across the institution. 

I am sure that the regime apologists will find excuses for why things are the way they are including misstatements about what the faculty has done or not done. I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked what needs to change and when I respond to the questioner it is the leadership at the top that needs to change, the conversation abruptly stops. No one wants to speak the words "the emperor has no clothes," and yet until those words are spoken and understood nothing will change. And given the Board's past performance, there is no guarantee there will be any change. There is no evidence that the CSU Board of Trustees has the capacity or the will to hire a president befitting this university. 

So it is very likely either this president or the next will have as their legacy the closing of this university. And when that happens let the finger pointing begin.  

Some Random Thoughts on Yesterday's Opera Buffa

Yesterday I was struck by the structure of Wayne Watson's rhetoric. By turns during the meeting he relied on sclerotic banalities, unsupportable generalizations and assertions, turgid pedantry and occasionally, misleading statistical analyses. It was particularly painful to see him employ a succession of prosaic platitudes in order to rescue the unfortunate victim from Enrollment Management who had to deliver the bad enrollment figures to the board. I found particularly interesting his claim that nationwide, college enrollment had dropped 700,000 this year. Of course, he neglected to provide any context for that figure. In truth, college enrollments are down about one million students the past two years, or around 5 percent of the total student population in 2011. If that figure sounds familiar, it should, it is the same percentage drop experienced by Illinois public institutions during the same time period. Of course, it's a slight improvement over Chicago State's decline of 21 percent. Thanks to our new, vibrant board, we can now look forward to another two years of this poseur and his minions.

Breaking news from the Board meeting

So just when you think you have heard it all, you hear the body that holds the fiduciary responsibility for the institution states they have confidence in the vision of the president and are taking steps to extend his contract until June 30, 2016. No, loyal readers, that date is not a typographic error. In the face of declining enrollments, a shrinking endowment, more than 100 audit findings in three years, continued negative public perception and a plethora of ostensibly unethical behaviors, the Board of Trustees is extending the contract of the president. This is a chief executive who by the methodological standards employed in the recent book Presidencies Derailed should have stood down or been stood down several months ago. Having not satisfied five of seven contractual criteria the Board of Trustees ignored that in favor of having confidence in a vision; a vision that has yet to be realized in four long years. This action is a clear statement of how the Board views the University. CSU will continue to be a patronage plaything for certain political elites for the foreseeable future and is unlikely to realize its potential as an outstanding university.

Board of Trustees Meeting Tomorrow

Just a reminder of the Board of Trustees meeting tomorrow, September 20. Here’s the agenda

CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Board of Trustees Meeting
Full Board Meeting
Academic Library, Auditorium Room 415
September 20, 2013
8:30 a.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order………………Trustee Anthony L. Young

2. Roll Call…………………………Ms. Bonnie Phillips

.
3. Verification of Meeting Notice………………Ms. Bonnie Phillips

4. Action Item
a. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
1. June 28, 2013 Board Meeting
2. August 23, 2013 Board Meeting
3. Resolutions May and June 2012

5. Reports
a. Academic and Student Affairs……..Trustee James Joyce
1. Information Items
a. Academic Affairs Update…………………Dr. Angela Henderson
1. Action Items
a. Granting of Tenure Status Resolutions.………Dr. Angela Henderson
b. CUMAR Grant……………………………………Dr. Yvonne Harris
c. Textbook Learning and Materials Program Grant….Dr. Yvonne Harris
d. LSAMP Bridge to the Doctorate Grant……………Dr. Yvonne Harris
e. Combined Priority for Personnel Development...Dr. Yvonne Harris
f. Student Development at CSU (RISE)………………Dr. Yvonne Harris
b. Enrollment Management and Student Affairs Update………Ms. LaShondra Peebles

b. Finance and Audit…………………Trustee Michael Curtin
1. Information Items
a. Administration and Financial Affairs Update………Mr. Lawrence Pinkelton
1. Action Items
a. FY2014 Budget Approval………………Mr. Lawrence Pinkelton
b. Live Text………………………………………Mr. Lawrence Pinkelton

b. Athletics Update……………………Mr. Dan Schumacher
1. Action Item
a. Amendment to Board Regulations – Athletics...Mr. Dan Schumacher
b. Athletics Funding……………………………Mr. Dan Schumacher
c. Information Technology Update……Mr. Prashant Shinde
1. Action Items

a. Network Storage…………………………………………Mr. Prashant Shinde
b. Cable TV Service.………………………………….Mr. Prashant Shinde
c. Telephone Maintenance…………………………Mr. Prashant Shinde
d. CBORD…………………….……………………………………….…Mr. Prashant Shinde
e. Identity Management………..…………………Mr. Prashant Shinde
f. Ellucian Management & Support……Mr. Prashant Shinde

c. Facilities………………………………………………………Trustee Horace Smith
1. Information Item.
a. Facilities Update……………………………………Mrs. Monique Horton
1. Action Item
a. Fire Alarm System….………….…………………Mrs. Monique Horton

d. Legislative and Human Resources……Trustee Spencer Leak, Sr.
1. Information Item
a. HR Update………………………………………………Dr. Renee Mitchell
1. Action Items
a. Flexible Hours…………………………Patrick Cage, Esq.
b. University Alcohol Policy……Patrick Cage, Esq.
c. Conceal and Carry Policy………Patrick Cage, Esq.

e. Foundation …………………………………Trustee Horace Smith
6. Recess into Executive Session Pursuant to The Illinois Open Meetings Act
a. Employment Matters
b. Legal Matters
c. Collective Bargaining Matters
d. Minutes of Meetings Lawfully Closed

7. Reconvene into Open Session
1. Action Items

a. Approval/Release of Executive Session Minutes 2012-2013
8. President’s Report…………………Dr. Wayne Watson
a. Shared Governance……………………Dr. Bernard Rowan

9. Faculty Senate……………………………Dr. Phillip Beverly

10. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments

11. Adjournment