It's a New School Year and the Stench from the Cook Building Still Permeates the Air: How the Administration Ignores or Reinterprets the Law. How to Throw Away $100,000. How to Foster Insecurity.

Ostensibly, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) commits public institutions to transparency, in the belief that public scrutiny is an important safeguard against institutional corruption. In Illinois, however, the laws governing the “free flow of information” and that purportedly ensured “transparency” were “neither adequately enforced nor broad enough to create a government that is sufficiently transparent, open and responsive to its citizens’ requests for information.” Thus, “public officials can conduct business without the public’s scrutiny,” which facilitated “a culture of corruption.” A 2009 report by the Illinois Reform Commission found FOIA compliance particularly problematic. In a 2006 report, the Better Government Association found that only thirty-eight percent of 408 government offices responded to legitimate FOIA requests. An additional thirty-nine percent provided no response. The association also found disturbing the significant “level of resistance, obfuscation, and outright hostility that greeted the ordinary citizen asking to see public records.” In Illinois, the lack of adequate laws created an “atmosphere in which corruption thrives, cynicism increases and accountability diminishes.” Given the information contained in the Reform Commission report, one might conclude that public officials in Illinois were not particularly interested in combating the state’s endemic corruption.

Illinois Reform Commission, “100-Day Report,” April 28, 2009, 7, 35-36. Accessed here: http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/reformnow/Documents/press%20releases/IRC%20100-Day%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf.

Chicago State University’s FOIA component could have served as a model for the commission’s report. Although FOIA requests have resulted in a considerable amount of information coming from university sources, Chicago State’s customary responses certainly reflect “resistance, obfuscation,” and even “outright hostility.” A brief comparison with the FOIA practices at the University of Illinois is instructive. At Illinois, the university maintains a publicly accessible FOIA log that includes (for all three campuses) the date, the name of the requestor, a description of the original request and the university’s response to the FOIA request. According to the Illinois Board of Trustees, in calendar 2013, Illinois received 621 FOIA requests. Requestors subsequently submitted 12, or 2 percent, (13 according to the U of Illinois FOIA office) to the Public Access Counselor for Review.

http://www.trustees.uillinois.edu/trustees/agenda/May-14-2014/

I maintain an unofficial FOIA log for my own requests since there is certainly nothing like the Illinois FOIA log available on the Chicago State website. Since August of 2013, I have submitted at least 18 FOIA requests. Chicago State has responded within the statutory time limit on five occasions. The other 13 requests necessitated appeals to the Public Access Counselor for review. The reason for the requests for review in 12 cases was the university’s complete failure to respond within the prescribed time limit, which constitutes a denial. Of the last 10 FOIA requests I have submitted (since December 2013), the university failed to respond all 10 times. While the University of Illinois system complies with the FOIA law 98 percent of the time, here at Chicago State, I have had to appeal to the Public Access Counselor in 72.2 percent of my FOIA requests. I think it possible that the Chicago State administration does not want to give me the requested public information.

Despite the administration's obstructionism, FOIA requests submitted by Chicago State faculty have nonetheless revealed a disturbing pattern of administrative incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. Recently, the university spent $100,000 to hire a search firm to conduct a search for a new Provost. The end result? Seemingly nothing since it appears that Angela Henderson still functions as the university’s Interim Provost. How and why did the university spend that kind of money? The answer to how is rooted in current Illinois law, a resolution passed by the Chicago State Board of Trustees and a Human Resources policy that, I believe, goes far beyond the intent of the law.

On January 1, 2013, a new law went into effect that prohibited the use of external search firms in hiring except for “in the hiring of the President of the University or (ii) in the case of when the President of the University and the Board demonstrate a justifiable need for guidance from an individual or firm with specific expertise in the field of the hiring. The University shall implement a policy under this Section, including qualifying criteria,within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly.” In response to this restriction, Chicago State’s administration requested carte blanche to use search firms for other administrative hiring, based on “qualifying criteria” far in excess of what appears to be the law’s intent. On March 8, 2013, the Chicago State Board acquiesced to the university’s “desire” to create “the option of using search firms in the following additional categories of possible searches: vice presidents; deans and health science faculty with terminal degrees.”

The policy that the university finally adopted is even more expansive, with so many “qualifying criteria” that a search firm could be used for almost any hiring (HR Policy Manual, p. 37). That is how this law:

Became this policy:

So, armed with dispensation from the Board and itself to hire a search firm for a new provost, the university did so. Why? The answer to that question is complicated, although I think not particularly opaque. First, Chicago State hired its old reliable search firm, the Hollins Group, the folks who brought us Wayne Watson in 2009. They paid them $100,000 to conduct a search that was already rigged. This meant that the “search committee” created for the provost search would have little or no input into the winnowing of the applicant files. Most of us have had the experience of spending time and effort on a search or other type of committee with a nil net result since the administration (read Wayne Watson) chose to do nothing about whatever recommendation the committee submitted. Clearly, the insider choice of Wayne Watson was his old sidekick, Angela Henderson. It is difficult to imagine how the Hollins Group would produce a list of finalists that would not include Henderson. In any real competitive search for someone to be the chief academic officer of a doctoral degree granting university, someone with Henderson’s non-existent scholarly credentials would not even meet the basic requirements of the job (of course, even here at Chicago State, she was possibly qualified to apply for an entry-level Assistant Professor’s position). Since the applicant group for Chicago State’s provost position did not include any finalists with a similarly meager C.V. (Wayne Watson did not apply), the four finalists included three persons who actually had some qualifications, along with Henderson. Could not this have been done more cheaply than the $100,000 price tag for the Hollins Group? The obvious answer is yes. However, the use of the Hollins Group made the potentially pesky faculty and staff irrelevant. Since the Hollins Group anointed the four finalists, the probability of the “right” candidate emerging out of the applicant pool could potentially be guaranteed. So, either way the search concluded—with a new permanent provost or with the current interim provost in place—the use of the Hollins Group was bound to be a waste of $100,000 of the taxpayer’s money, save to insure that the “right” candidate came out of the herd. Take a particular look at the second document.

Of course, at Chicago State, it is hardly standard procedure to have expeditious searches for administrative positions. An examination of the last two organizational charts published by the university demonstrates that reality while it also shows how this administration uses “interim” administrative appointments. On July 31, 2012, of 20 key administrative positions at Chicago State—Deans of six colleges, Dean of the First Year Experience and Dean of Students; Four Vice Presidents (Administration and Finance, Provost, Enrollment Management and Sponsored Programs); Six Directors (Intergovernmental Affairs, Budget and Resources, Counseling Center, Financial Aid, Institutional Research and Meetings and Events); the Registrar and the Internal Auditor—4 were staffed by “interim” administrators and 3 were vacant. Looking at these same 20 positions now, it appears that 12 are filled by interims and 2 are vacant. In a little more than two years, the number of interim appointments has tripled and the total number of interim/vacant positions has doubled. 16 of the 20 administrative positions are filled by persons who were not in those positions in 2012. Currently, Chicago State has extant job announcements for only 4 of the 14 interim/vacant positions. How does all this administrative upheaval serve the university? Not very well.

None of this is necessarily a reflection on the ability, performance or commitment of the occupants of those interim positions, rather the proliferation of interims speaks to an administrative culture which, at the top, values uproar and uncertainty over consistency. The precarious nature of administrative employment (except for a select few) seems far from optimum and creates the potential for university operations to suffer. As an example, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences is new. The previous Dean of the university’s largest college had been an interim appointee since at least 2011. There have been at least three fruitless searches for a permanent Dean. Why? Only Wayne Watson knows the answer to that question. Currently, the Financial Aid Director’s position seems to be vacant. Given the problems in that area, should filling that position be a priority? Apparently not, there is no current job announcement on the CSU website. Finally, I have heard from various administrators about the paperwork bottleneck in the provost’s office; apparently important paperwork frequently goes in and comes out long past the time it needs to be processed, if it comes out at all. Sort of like this:

Is This Extortion? Musings About Libel and Lawsuits

Although I appear as the chief protagonist in the theatrical libel/slander lawsuit filed recently by Angela Henderson, my exclusion from the list of defendants offers me an opportunity to comment on the on-going litigation. I have to say that I am still shaking my head at that particular complaint. In this post, I will offer some analysis and interpretations that have resulted from my perusal of that fascinating document.

Since material for complaints comes primarily from the complainant (lawyers function mainly as stenographers during that process), Henderson’s suit provides a clear view of the administration’s position on a number of issues. Frankly, you can almost see Wayne Watson’s behind Angela Henderson’s complaint.

Early on, the complaint makes sure to announce that at Chicago State there exists “a small group of disgruntled faculty . . . that has attempted to put a stop to the positive educational changes being made at the university.” Who says there are positive educational changes occurring at Chicago State? Why our friends at the HLC. Unfortunately, one of those “disgruntled” faculty members, namely me, does not share the HLC’s enthusiasm for Watson’s leadership genius, as continuously articulated by the heroic great man himself and validated by the HLC. Unfortunately this portion of the complaint does not describe the “positive educational changes” to which the document alludes.

In fact, through the complaint, I found out that I was the leader of the “disgruntled” faculty members. In my capacity as leader, I proceeded to download Henderson’s dissertation (a public document on a public website), “in order to undermine her reputation and credibility by falsely claiming that she engaged in plagiarism.” This behavior, of course, simply hews to my already established leadership pattern of “undermin[ing] the university and attack[ing] certain administrators, including Ms. Henderson.” All of this material appears on a single page of the complaint (page 2), offering a parade of accusations supported by nothing more than assertions from someone who has already demonstrated considerable difficulties with the truth.

The next page offers more of the same. Here the complaint runs into some difficulties because it expresses Henderson’s belief that I simply used a “software program” with all its inherent flaws, to detect Henderson’s plagiarism. As the complaint points out, “the software program cannot be relied on alone to detect plagiarism.” What a surprise is in store for Angela and her lawyers on that count!

Finally after rambling through the various examples of persecution visited upon Henderson by me, the complaint gets to the point. It has three parts: 1) Since the “generally accepted definition of plagiarism is intentionally (italics in original) taking the work of another and attempting to pass that work off as your own”; 2) “By definition, honest and unintentional mistakes are not plagiarism”; and 3) “Ms. Henderson has denied any allegations that she plagiarized her dissertation, in whole or in part.” Are these assertions not an admission that Henderson’s dissertation contains “honest and unintentional mistakes” and that while she really did not “intentionally” try to pass the work of other scholars as her own, she still did so? Do these assertions not weaken the argument that the plagiarism accusations were “false” and designed to “undermine” her “reputation and credibility at CSU”? (page 3)

How about the argument that the "generally accepted definition of plagiarism" requires that the plagiarizer "intentionally" commit the offense? Here is a sample of definitions, from universities, the American Psychological Association, the Modern Language Association and dictionaries, including Black's online law dictionary. You will note that none of these definitions require intentionality. Neither does UIC's Academic Integrity Policy. It looks like the definition of plagiarism is not exactly what Henderson wishes it were:

On page 4, the complaint finally gets to the two defendants, UIC Provost Lon Kaufman and Graduate College Dean Karen Colley. For the next seven pages, the document throws out a number of accusations, none of which include any specific libelous comments. Apparently, the only comment made publicly by either of the two defendants was Colley’s quote in the January 14, 2014 Tribune story, a boilerplate comment to the effect of UIC taking plagiarism allegations seriously. The final seven murky pages features a series of accusations that attempt to connect the defendants with violations and improper disclosure of Henderson’s privacy and FERPA rights because they had responded to a newspaper reporter’s questions. Henderson’s complaint accuses Kaufman of a “long standing personal and professional relationship” with Jodi Cohen, the reporter who wrote the January 14 story. Henderson offers no evidence of this relationship.

Another assertion supported by no evidence appears on page 7 when Henderson claims that at least "five other dissertations from the nursing program that had been checked against software programs which received higher or worse scores on the plagiarism index than hers did." And, "at least another 30 UIC dissertations, in addition to the [previous] five . . . also showed high or problematic software scores." Does this passage not confirm that Henderson's dissertation was "high" or "problematic" in terms of its plagiarism? The remainder of the complaint is a convoluted mélange of assertions and allegations, none of which contain any reference to comments made by the defendants, orally or in writing to any third parties. Here (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/illinois-defamation-law) is the legal definition of defamation (and libel, slander):

Of course, the truth is always a defense against defamation/libel/slander:

In its concluding paragraphs, the Henderson complaint apparently claims that the publicly published dissertation is somehow part of Henderson’s privacy rights as a “private academic matter”, which UIC is “required . . .to keep . . . private.” The complaint asserts that “the matters disclosed . . . related to Ms. Henderson’s private, not public life,” and that “the allegations were not of legitimate public concern.” Henderson’s complaint reiterates her claim that “the aforementioned allegations of plagiarism against Ms. Henderson are false.” (pages 9-10).

Given the complete absence of defamatory comments from the two defendants, one might wonder what this lawsuit is designed to achieve. There are a number of questions that need to be answered: 1) did Henderson plagiarize? 2) Since the answer to that question is yes, what should the penalty be for her plagiarism? 3) Did UIC violate FERPA in disclosing “private academic matters”? 4) Did UIC officials libel or slander Henderson? Based on the material in the complaint, I have come to several conclusions about that. Readers are certainly free to draw their own conclusions.

1) It seems likely that the academic administration at UIC intends to rescind Henderson’s degree, an action I consider completely appropriate. In her complaint, Henderson references the 14-member Graduate College Executive Committee’s recommendation that she “revise” her dissertation. If the UIC administration had accepted that recommendation, this issue would be resolved. The decision to impose more severe discipline is clearly within the purview of UIC’s administration.
2) If that is the case, the lawsuit becomes more understandable. It is a pre-emptive strike against the University of Illinois at Chicago, an attempt to extort them to desist in their efforts to rescind a degree Henderson clearly did not earn.
3) Since Henderson did, in fact, plagiarize her dissertation (according to the UIC College of Nursing’s Academic Integrity Policy), statements asserting that she plagiarized are, in fact, true.
4) Since statements about Henderson’s dissertation plagiarism are true, they cannot be libelous or slanderous.
5) Whether UIC violated FERPA or whether UIC officials committed libel/slander have nothing to do with the reality of Henderson’s plagiarism.
6) If Henderson wishes to pursue an action for FERPA violations, the appropriate venue is Federal Court.
7) By filing this action, Angela Henderson has put herself into a unique position. Instead of being able to run roughshod over a powerless student with few financial resources or political connections, she is now pitted against the largest university system in the state, one with significant resources and political influence. It seems a high-stakes gamble and we will see how it works out for her, and more important, how it works out for UIC and CSU.

It will be interesting to see how long this drags on.

Who Are The Banned?

So about a month ago, I made reference to "The Banned" and promised to provide more information on this small but apparently growing group of citizens. To that end, I submitted a FOIA request to get a better handle on this banning situation.

This was the university's response.

Of course this poses a dilemma in terms of privacy afforded by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Let me explain. 

If you read the response from the Office of Labor and Legal Affairs you will see that their denial is based on their interpretation of FERPA. The crux of the issue is this. If a student is banned from the university,  then they by definition they could be considered a danger to the university community. Otherwise, why would they have been banned? If the university community is not informed that a student has been banned how would say, the instructors of record know that the student is no longer authorized access to a public institution? Would the instructor(s) of record  then be guilty of allowing the student access to a university office, classroom or laboratory? Would that faculty member then be subject to sanction under Article 5 of the faculty contract? Would other university employees, who were also not informed, be subject to discipline by allowing a banned student on campus? That sounds very much like a set up for all parties involved. So if I understand this correctly, the university bans a student, doesn't tell anyone that they are banned and then waits to see if the student returns, conceivably to transact legitimate business, possibly to return library books or  request a transcript. If they do return, possibly to pick up a letter of recommendation from a faculty member, the faculty member is then complicit in the student violating the banning that the faculty member knew nothing about. Hmmm. 

So with the university's new "See Something, Say Something" initiative, how would the banned miscreants be reported if no one knows they are banned? And the university's response is that you can't know they are banned because of FERPA.

The situation described above is confusing enough. FERPA protects student privacy. Public safety may be compromised but privacy is protected? 

What happens when the banned person is not a student but a former faculty member? Several disturbing issues arise here. 

First, every person in the United States is protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This amendment provides for due process and equal protection. What was the due process afforded a former faculty member who was informed she was banned from the university? If there was no due process, might a federal law suit be in the offing? I raise this point because what was sent to me by the university included no information about non-students. I take that to mean that there is no policy. 

Secondly, is a former faculty member afforded privacy protections as the students are? Obviously, banning a former faculty member is a serious matter. So what protections do university students and employees have from someone who was summarily banned, apparently without due process? As a former colleague this person may have been engaged in a joint research project with me. Now that a banning has occurred does my research stop or does their participation stop?

These are all questions that the administration is incapable and/or unwilling to answer. My question is why. Is it because there is no viable policy making and policy review process at this institution? Is it because those most vulnerable are subject to rule by fiat by a petty dictator? Or is it just the ineptness of an administration whose failure has been well documented in this forum as well as others? The administration seems more concerned about satisfying petty slights than protecting the safety of the university. 

That is unconscionable!

U of Illinois to Angela Henderson--We're not Impressed

Here's the response by the University of Illiois president to the recent propaganda piece in the Sun Times. The article is here: http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/29263112-474uic-provost-not-demoted-just-took-another-post.html. We'll see if there's any response from the "journalist" who wrote the original article.

A Guide to Angela Henderson's Plagiarism is Now Available for Our Readers

For all readers of the blog, I have created a PDF file with the majority of plagiarized passages from Angela Henderson's dissertation, a plagiarism bibliography that references most of the sources from which she took her material, and copies of the title pages and highlighted plagiarized material from the various articles from which she stole her material. For anyone interested in looking at this summary, send me an e-mail at rbionaz@att.net and I'll forward you a copy. Also, I can send along the highlighted version of her plagiarized dissertation if you're interested.

More on the Henderson Libel/Slander Lawsuit: The Offenses and Defenses of the Watson Administration

Given the spate of allegations and assertions included in Angela Henderson’s recent libel/slander complaint, a few points might benefit from some clarification. Most important I think, are Henderson’s denial of any wrongdoing and the assertion in her claim that the plagiarism charges are lies.

There seem to be several bases for these assertions: 1) my efforts to undermine her reputation with false claims; 2) a convenient definition of plagiarism that requires it be intentional; 3) the implication that because other UIC dissertations displayed evidence of plagiarism, Henderson’s should not have been scrutinized.

In the nearly seven months since Henderson's plagiarism became public knowledge, Wayne Watson has done nothing to protect the academic integrity of Chicago State. In fact, he told one former administrator that the plagiarism allegations against Henderson amounted to "academic rape." This is part of the tried and true Watsonian tactic of attacking the messenger when any unpleasant truths are revealed about his administration. In the entire time Chicago State has suffered this president, I cannot recall a single instance when he admitted any culpability for anything. It is simply not permisible to level any substantive criticism against Watson or any of his cronies.

However, in Henderson's case, her dissertation was originally a public document, available for anyone to examine. Since I have a copy, I am able to analyze the dissertation. Here are some relevant facts: As I have said before, the dissertation includes at least 84 passages or complete sentences plagiarized from other sources. There are 19 major sources for this material, only seven of which appear in her text or bibliography; 1 source appears in the text but not her bibliography and no references to the other 11 appear anywhere in the dissertation. There are 50 pairs of quotation marks in the dissertation. Henderson quotes herself 4 times, 41 are quotes detailing questions in either studies by other authors or Henderson's own study, 3 are quotations from literary sources, one quotes students in the Henderson survey, 1 is a quotation from one of the studies that constitutes her "review of the literature." In the entire dissertation there is not a single page reference to any exact language.

Here is the Academic Integrity Policy of the UIC College of Nursing:

" . . . Similarly, using someone else's exact words must be indicated by enclosing those words in quotation marks . . . and giving the exact reference and page number where those words can be found. It is intellectual theft to use someone else's words or work product without giving them credit for the work through adequate attribution. Students who plagiarize in any of their work at the University are subject to Student Disciplinary Action."

I will leave it for the reader to decide where the truth lies in this ongoing tragedy.

Angela Henderson's Lawsuit Against UIC for Libel/Slander

Here is the complaint filed by Angela Henderson against UIC. The parts I find most compelling I've highlighted in yellow. On the cover page, note that the lawsuit is for Libel/Slander:

On this page, you'll see that I am the "leader" of the "disgruntled" faculty attempting to "undermine" the university as well as "stop" its advancement. Also, the one major accomplishment of Watson's regime, the accreditation that we would have gotten with anyone as president, is again trotted out as a one size fits all defense of the administration's competence. At the bottom of the page, a clairvoyant Henderson informs the court of the motives behind my examination of her dissertation:

This page features the various defenses of Henderson's plagiarism. Henderson might have made an attempt to get her facts straight here (see item 16):

From the Tribune story of January 14, 2014:

Again, Henderson should strive for at least a modicum of accuracy (see item 31):

Here is the only time Colley is quoted in the January 14 article:

On this page, the complaint asserts that the educational qualifications of the highly-compensated Chief Academic Officer at a Doctoral granting public university are "not of legitimate public concern."

Given the kind of suit Henderson has filed, it might be instructive for readers to research the criteria for libel/slander/defamation as well as the defenses against those allegations.

Cyber-bullying Policy: Put an End to the Criticism of the Wayne Watson Regime at Chicago State University

As faculty members (one retired) at Chicago State University (CSU) we wish to respond to the Op-Ed piece that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times by Wayne Watson, president of CSU (hereafter referred to as “Watson’s piece”). This is a fundamentally dishonest piece of writing. We maintain that Dr. Watson's cyber-bullying policy is yet another example of his continual and well-publicized efforts to suppress dissent.

Beginning with his appointment to the CSU presidency in 2009 by southside Chicago politicians, the Watson presidency has met criticism from a group of tenured faculty who contribute to a blog—CSU Faculty Voice—that has detailed the many failings of the Watson administration. On several occasions, that administration has clumsily and ineffectively tried to silence criticism, most recently in November of 2013 by sending a “cease-and-desist” order to the blog’s founder.

Readers should be aware that Watson's op ed conflates anti-bullying and cyber-bullying. There is no formal “anti-bullying policy” at CSU. Its Board of Trustees rammed through a cyber-bullying policy in May 2014, not bullying in general. The cyber-bullying policy as written is Watson's attempt to silence criticism of his regime, not faculty cyber-bullying of students; hence FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) filed suit against CSU in response to this cyber-bullying policy. Watson’s piece gives his readers no context for the need for a cyber-bullying policy, nor does he provide his readers with an explanation for the FIRE lawsuit. The FIRE lawsuit and faculty opposition are responses to the cyber-bullying policy that clearly limits free speech on campus.

Watson’s piece also conflates legitimate criticism of his administration and its personnel with genuine cases of bullying the weak and vulnerable. Are tenured professors at CSU who point out that interim provost Angela Henderson’s dissertation is extensively plagiarized really engaging in bullying? Is the exposure of lies on the official records of high-ranking members of the administration bullying? Is evidence posted on the faculty blog of the Watson administration’s manipulation of Chicago State’s budget and personnel procedures in order to hire his cronies bullying? To be sure, these revelations are unpleasant for those exposed, but do they constitute bullying? Hardly.

Watson misrepresents the bullying situation on campus. He relies on the dubious claims of a student concerning faculty bullying of students.  In the op-ed Watson refers to a ”student trustee [who] gave a passionate recounting of his own experience of bullying/harassment on campus.”  At a March 2014 CSU Board of Trustees meeting the student trustee says “I just never expected that faculty members began to attack students, either through cyber-bullying or through other methods, or showing up to SGA meetings and causing conflict within, you know, SGA.”  You can listen to entire ‘report’ from student at  http://www.csu.edu/boardoftrustee/meetingrecordings/audio/FBMpartthree03072014.mp3.   No evidence to support these allegations has ever been presented by the student trustee, Wayne Watson or his apologists.  A simple examination of the content of the Faculty Voice blog would put this lie to rest.

It is disingenuous of Watson to omit his own culpability and his own many verifiable acts of bullying of administrators, staff, students, and faculty. Physical intimidation, violence and the courts have been used to silence student critics of the Watson administration.  One need only look at the video of Watson’s attack on long-time vocal critic, Jokari Miller, for evidence of the lengths he will go to silence criticism. See the video here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=317785215048069

Wayne Watson has repeatedly demonstrated an obsession with loyalty and a desire to silence his critics. Since 2009, the Watson administration has made at least four attempts to stifle dissent on the Chicago State Campus. Watson has also shown a penchant for vindictiveness, one that has cost his employers dearly. In 2011, Maria Moore won a substantial settlement against Watson and City Colleges for a retaliatory firing. In 2013, the Watson administration intervened in a student election to prevent the winners, both vocal Watson critics, from taking the offices they had won handily. In February 2014, James Crowley won a $3 million jury award against Watson and Chicago State for a retaliatory firing. In March 2014, Glenn Meeks, former Vice President of Administration and Finance at Chicago State, filed a Cook County lawsuit against Watson and Chicago State for a retaliatory firing. In May 2014, the two students who were denied SGA office filed a federal lawsuit against Watson and Chicago State for violating the first and fourteenth amendments. In July 2014, two Chicago State faculty members also filed a federal lawsuit against Watson alleging violations of the first and fourteenth amendments. The last three actions are still in litigation.

As documented repeatedly on the Faculty Voice blog, the Watson administration has tolerated falsifications and dishonesty within its own ranks.  Now, in a rhetorically dishonest piece, Watson displays the kind of mendacity that is a staple of his administration.


Paul Gomberg, PhD (retired)
Ann Kuzdale, PhD
Pancho McFarland, PhD

More Budget Shenanigans: Money for Sabbaticals? No Way! Fiscal Constraints! Money for Under-the Table Administrative Raises? No Problem, We're Flush!

The Watson administration works hard to conceal its multiple failures from a variety of potentially pesky outside agencies. As Phil Beverly’s most recent posts discussed, the university has made troubling and unverified assertions about its federal financial aid compliance, resulting in a rather stinging rebuke from the U.S. Department of Education and provisional status for financial aid distribution until December 31, 2015. As the current financial aid fiasco demonstrates, the university administration often attempts to show competence where none exists and to cover up any evidence of its failure to comply with established regulations. Even more problematic are the university’s repeated attempts to present itself in public documents in ways that do not conform to the reality of its operations. Of course, Watson and his acolytes have found it easier to hoodwink the rubes on Chicago State’s board and in Springfield than the watchdogs in the federal government who seem less than impressed with the great man’s “vision” for the university.

Chicago State is required to report a variety of data to outside state entities. The school reports to the Illinois Board of Higher Education things like employee salaries, student data on enrollments, degrees granted, etc. All this information is available to the public through the IBHE website. The university also reports yearly to the Illinois State Legislature (ISL Forms). This report contains a wealth of information on university operations. It includes some of the same information the university provides to IBHE as well as information that offers a look at (but not limited to) yearly audits, contracts, more detailed employee data, and travel and equipment expenditures. I assume that most of the information reported to the state is also provided to the Chicago State Board. Chicago State also produces a closely guarded yearly budget report. The sum of this information becomes part of the “public face” of Chicago State University and is accessible to anyone with the desire to research the school’s operations.

Unfortunately, some of the information contained in these various reports does not bear close scrutiny, as the figures reported to outside agencies do not conform to the internal figures supplied through FOIA responses by the university. For this post, I will focus most of my discussion on financial issues, in particular, the integrity of the university’s reporting of salary data and its use of “overrides” to provide additional compensation for several administrators—compensation that appears in basically none of the reports the university files with outside agencies.

First, let us look at how the university presents itself to outside observers. In the management response to the most recent audit, the administration described “the University’s financial position” as “strong.” Continuing its rosy narrative, the response to the auditors declaimed that “the management of the University believes it is well positioned to continue its strong financial condition and level of service to its constituents.” The management response also took pains to trumpet the greatness of Wayne Watson’s leadership in securing accreditation for Chicago State, informing the auditors that “Dr. Wayne Watson . . . proudly announced the reaccreditation of the University in June 2013. The University is grateful and proud to note this resounding success. . .” (2015 ISL Forms NQ 25, Exhibit Q3A, 7, 17-18)

Based on the information supplied to the auditors by Chicago State’s administrators, one might conclude that the university has money for lots of things. However, a look at the Watson administration’s spending priorities paints a somewhat different picture. There is money for administrative salaries but not for faculty sabbaticals. Recently, one of my colleagues successfully grieved a sabbatical request denied by Watson due to “the fiscal constraints of the institution . . .” Wait, what happened to the university’s “strong” financial position? Based on my rough calculations, this colleague’s sabbatical will cost the university around $32,500. Has Chicago State’s financial position deteriorated so much since the school’s most audit response?

The ISL Forms report that from Fall 2011 through Spring 2014, Watson granted 7 sabbaticals (3 in 2012, 2013 and 1 in 2014 to 5 unit A faculty, 1 full-time lecturer and 1 administrator) at a cost of $208,715. Since under the CSU-UPI contract the yearly “quota” of sabbaticals is one for every 17 employees, it seems obvious that Wayne Watson has again arrogated to himself the ability to ignore contractual requirements. One might conclude that the fiscal crisis at Chicago State must be extreme to justify the virtual elimination of sabbaticals from the university.

Of course, we know that Chicago State has lots of money for certain administratively acceptable purposes. Salaries for cronies and other highly-paid administrators for instance. I have already detailed a number of budget shenanigans used by the administration to hire unnecessary administrators at exorbitant salaries—the shell game surrounding budget appropriations being the most notable. However, another tactic permits the administration to hide ways in which it spends tax dollars. The administrative override is used to increase the compensation of selected administrative personnel. At this point, FOIA requests have resulted in the university providing override information for five university administrators. While the university spent $33,930 on a sabbatical for an administrator in fiscal 2014, it spent $87,247.48 in “overrides” for these five other administrators.

Before doing a more detailed analysis of these overrides, several general points seem important. First, the administrators themselves are, in most cases, doing jobs as “interims”, a status Wayne Watson utilizes extensively. Second, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these administrators are engaged in the decision-making process that results in their receipt of administrative overrides. Third, although these overrides are theoretically reported to IBHE, the amounts appearing on that website are different than the total amount discovered through FOIA. In most cases, the overrides do not appear at all. For example, the university paid a total of $135,946.50 in overrides for these administrators from 2012-2014 and apparently reported a total of $19,119.66 (all in fiscal 2013) during the same period. As a result, Chicago State spent an additional $116,826.84 in three years on these administrators, an amount that appears nowhere in any easily accessible public record.

Here are the amounts spent by the administration on overrides for these five administrators:

Tyra Austin, Assistant Director of Financial Aid: Austin, hired with a falsified resume and without even the minimum qualifications for her position in 2012 apparently made a base salary of $55,000 in fiscal 2013 and 2014. This is difficult to ascertain since she is not even listed in the 2014 Internal Operating Budget. However, the administration paid Austin $3315.04 in overrides over 16 pay periods in fiscal 2013 (it reported $2900.66 to IBHE), and an additional $7,725 in 3 pay periods fiscal 2014. This last amount seems like a going away present to Austin since she apparently resigned at the end of June 2014 and the administration paid her the overrides in April and May of that year. Total overrides paid to Tyra Austin: $11,040.04. Total reported to IBHE: $2900.66

Shelia Collins, Interim Dean of Freshman Experience: Listed in the most recent Internal Operating Budget as Director of Academic Advising. Collins received a reported salary of $60,000 in 2012, $61,180 in 2013 and $63,660 in 2014. According to the university’s FOIA response, in 2012, the university paid Collins an override total of $12,498 in 2012, $24,996 in 2013 ($13,589 reported to IBHE), and $23,954.50 in 2014. The university has paid these overrides in every pay period except one since June 2012. Might it not be time to fill this position with a permanent employee? Total overrides paid to Shelia Collins: $61,448.50. Total reported to IBHE: $13,589.

Angela Henderson, Interim (?) Provost: Henderson, hired with falsified statements on her application/resume and having demonstrably plagiarized her dissertation, has not only continued to be employed, she was promoted by Watson to the Provost’s position on July 1, 2013. Listed in the 2014 Internal Operating budget as the Vice President of Enrollment Management at a salary of $154,500, the university has paid Henderson $20,508 in overrides for the last full fiscal year. Total overrides paid to Angela Henderson: $20,508. Total reported to IBHE: $0.

Farah Muscadin, Interim Dean of Students: Listed in the 2014 Internal Operating Budget as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs at a salary of $102,000, Watson recently gave Muscadin the additional position of Interim Dean of Students. Between April and the end of fiscal 2014, the university paid Muscadin a total of $3499.98 in six pay periods. Total overrides paid to Farah Muscadin: $3499.98. Total reported to IBHE: $0.

Lawrence Pinkelton: Interim Vice President of Administration and Finance: Listed in the 2014 Internal Operating Budget as an Associate Vice President of Administration and Finance at a salary of $118,440, the administration paid Pinkelton $7890 in overrides for four pay periods in fiscal 2013 ($2630 reported to IBHE), and an additional $31,560 in for the entire fiscal 2014. These overrides began after Watson fired Glenn Meeks as Vice President of Administration and Finance and obviously promoted Pinkelton to the Interim position. Total overrides paid to Lawrence Pinkelton: $39,450. Total reported to IBHE: $2630.

For faculty, the university “caps” override CUES at 6 ($4800), or 25 percent of the total maximum CUE load of 24 per year. As for earnings, faculty are not supposed to earn more than 20 percent above their yearly compensation. After all, we wouldn’t want the faculty getting rich at the taxpayers’ expense. Of course, those “caps” do not apply to administrators. The aggregate additional override compensation the university paid to the five above administrators averaged 17.3 percent. The overrides paid to Collins averaged 37.6 percent, to Pinkelton 26.6 percent. Obviously, the university sees no reason to cap the potential earnings of its administrators.

So, if you are someone interested in the goings-on at Chicago State, or if you’re a board member or state official, there is almost no way to determine from information supplied by the university what a number of administrative persons actually earn. This must be an example of Watson’s vaunted “transparency” and the seriousness with which he treats his stewardship of public funds. Frankly, the public and private faces of Chicago State do not mesh. For additional examples of this administration’s cynical treatment of the university community and the public-at large, one need look no further than the university’s website. As I have noted previously, mistakes abound, many continue uncorrected for years. If the visitor to the site can get past the various encomiums to the greatness of Wayne Watson, s/he will find that the last posting of Provost Council meeting minutes is from September 18, 2013, the last posting of an academic policy change is from Fall 2011. Indeed, the entire Provost section of the university webpage is “under construction,” a status extant since last July.

Clearly, Chicago State University has money for some things, support for faculty research and website maintenance not among them. However, it is vital that the school's administration keep its financial operations as opaque as possible.

Well Ollie, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into!

So let’s conclude our examination of the financial aid mess that CSU finds itself in. In the section of the report sent to the university by the US Department of Education, General Terms and Conditions, the department outlines what the university’s responsibilities are regarding being able to apply for full status in September 2015.

First, if we look at Paragraph 2a. we find that the university “...certifies that on the date it signs this Agreement, it has a drug abuse prevention program in operation that it has determined is accessible to any officer, employee, or student at the Institution.” That is very curious because when I searched for the aforementioned program on the CSU website, I couldn’t find it. For some reason the results of the search don’t scroll so I was only able to see what is presented below.

If the university asserted to the Department of Education that such a program exists, I, as an employee, would be hard pressed to know where to look for the program. If it can’t be found on the university web site through their search engine then how might an employee or student find this information? Additionally, if the administration manages this required program the way they comply with the provisions of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, then I can assure you that the institution would not have been in compliance with this requirement.  If I can’t find the program on the university web site, then how might I find it? I am sure that those who struggle with the truth in this administration will have some justification for why your humble narrator could not find the policy that the university apparently agreed to implement last year.
Second, the university agrees to comply with the Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, that is a provision of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act. This federal requirement is designed to protect student records and as is stated in the agreement, “...The Secretary considers any breach to the security of student records and information as a demonstration of a potential lack of administrative capability...” Two questions arise for me. The first is how would the university or its students or faculty know if they were in compliance given there is no director of compliance and the compliance function is being managed by committee. I am sure an interim will be named to join the long list of interims throughout the university. The more pressing question is whether there has already been a breach that the university is aware of and not communicated or if this is simply boilerplate language for agreements like this.
Third, paragraph 18 states that the "university will not knowingly...." Some of these provisions are of concern. The requirements that certain persons not be employed or contracted with is appropriate and yet how, given the repeated employment of cronies, unqualified persons, and those who lied on their job applications, could the university guarantee that these provisions would be complied with? It stretches credulity as far as I can see.

Secondly, the agreement requires the university to “complete, in a timely manner, and to the satisfaction of the Secretary, surveys conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System(IPEDS) or any other Federal collection effort, as designated by the Secretary, regarding data on post-secondary institutions.” 

Any Title IV eligible institution is required to submit IPEDS surveys, generally about three times per year. There are about a dozen different surveys that are part of Department of Education collection effort. The surveys and their due dates are accessible on the IPEDS web site. The consequences of non-compliance are determined by the Federal Student Aid office. Punishment could include fines of up to $20,000 per instance, or suspension of the financial aid program. This university has on occasion not submitted its IPEDS data as required, submitted information late or revised information after submission. Who at the university has the expertise in collecting, scrubbing and submitting data to ensure that revisions aren’t necessary?  It surely wouldn’t be anyone who has no experience in higher education like the Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management or someone whose professional credibility has been brought into question by proven plagiarism. How could either of these administrators be trusted to submit to the Department of Education data that could be considered credible or accurate given their history at the university?

So to recap, 1) the university is operating until 2015 on a provisional status; 2) that status requires compliance with a number of things the university has been out of compliance with; 3) there is yet another interim financial aid director to oversee the cleanup of the financial aid mess; 4) financial aid is being supervised by an Associate Vice President who has demonstrated a lack of ability to manage vital university functions; 5) the university is at risk because continued failure could lead to sanctions that could essentially close the university; and 6) the Board is noticeably silent about all of this.
It would appear this financial aid situation is serious and yet nary a peep from the Board of Trustees. No discussion at board meetings??? Surely the Board must have considered how tenuous a situation this is. Or maybe not, given their continued statements of confidence in this failed administration.