Public Admission

So loyal readers, I feel compelled to admit to being wrong about a recent prediction I made about the number of courses that would be cut this semester. I predicted 250 courses would be cut. I was wrong. It was actually 278. Of the roughly 1,500 courses we started with that is only an 18% cancellation rate. I wonder what would happen to an airline that cancelled 18% of its flights. How long would that airline stay in business? So what happens to a university that develops a reputation as an institution where students can't get the classes that they need to graduate in a timely manner? Does enrollment decline? No faculty member would argue that no classes should be cancelled but the process used by this administration is so dysfunctional as to be counter-productive to sound management practices. In the past five or so years there was much hoopla about the implementation of Ad Astra. It was to be the tool that would manage space utilization, course planning, and scheduling. The university would be saved from the semi-annual blooding ritual known as the cut session. At yesterday's Faculty Senate meeting, the body was informed that the university, did not purchase the module of Ad Astra that manages course planning. There was talk, according to the Provost, but as usual no action taken. The administration is much more focused on the minutia of faculty governance apparently as many hours have been dedicated by this administration to ensuring the most disrespectful intrusion into faculty affairs possible by administrators with no university experience, much less university faculty experience. As an aside, I find it deeply troubling that a provost would be appointed who is not tenurable in an academic department. That slap in the face of all faculty demonstrates the utter contempt this failure of an administration holds for its professional betters. But I digress.The administration's inept response to this fiasco is to try to fix individual students' situations instead of some rational, data driven decision making about a process that has devolved into a horror for the less than 5, 000 remaining students. As long as band aids are applied to sucking chest wounds, the patients will die. In our case enrollment, now in the hands of the least competent administrator on campus, will continue to plummet. 

One of my distinguished colleagues has often commented on the nature of the patronage pit that is CSU. The irony is that there will be no patronage without students enrolling for classes. There won't be students if the word on the street is that CSU has no classes to offer. This university is circling the drain and if the "reformers" in the state want to eliminate the patronage pit, all they need do is let this Board and administration stay in place just a couple of semesters longer.
Another cruel joke played by the universe was the small flicker of hope that the Board of Trustees might be righted with the appointment by Pat Quinn of former State Representative Kim du Buclet. The late term appointment was promptly rescinded by Governor Rauner. And the disintegration of the university now continues unabated. For those of us who actually care about the university and don't just mouth the words, we should send Thank You cards to Pat Quinn in his much needed retirement for his part in this avoidable disaster.

Further Reflections on Course Cancellations: Analyzing the Cuts in Students’ Education

I stand by the argument I made a few days ago: the “cut session” in which administrators cancel courses only serves to destroy the very foundation of the university: students pursuing their education. In order to provide further evidence for this argument, I will examine several of the courses that were cancelled in the Spring 2015 semester. To be clear, I am only looking at courses cancelled in the College of Arts & Sciences (CAS), since I received a detailed spreadsheet of all courses in the CAS for the semester, detailing which courses were kept and which were cancelled. In addition, I’m sure faculty in the programs affected could provide much more detail than I do here about each course and its relevance to their programs. I just try to focus on the most apparent problems of cancelling these courses.

The first group of courses that I will highlight are freshmen seminar courses, which presumably are best for students to take while they are freshmen. Two of these courses were cancelled in the Spring 2015 semester:

--BIOL 1000-61, Freshman Seminar in Biology (6 students registered when it was cut)

--C J 1099-01, Freshman Seminar in Criminal Justice (6 students registered when it was cut)

In both cases, these were the only sections of these courses offered. So, will students in these majors be exempt from such courses or will they have to take them after the courses are no longer useful?

A larger group of courses cancelled in the Spring 2015 semester are general education courses, typically also most useful to take early in one’s undergraduate education. These include courses for which there were no other sections, such as:

--ANTH 1010-01, Intro. to Cultural Anthropology (8 students registered when it was cut)

--PH S 1150-01, Basic Astronomy (5 students registered out of 20 max when it was cut).

Also, the only evening sections of many general education courses were cancelled, including:

--ENG 1240-61, Writer’s Workshop II (9 students registered out of 20 max when it was cut)

--ENG 1270-61, Composition I (6 students registered when it was cut) 

--FREN 1020-61, Elementary French II (7 students registered when it was cut)

--MUS 1134-61, History & Appreciation of Music (6 students registered when it was cut)

--PH S 1100-61, Practical Physics I (5 students registered out of 20 max when it was cut)

Cancelling the only evening sections of general education courses puts students in these courses in difficult situations, since they are likely unable to take the daytime sections of these courses due to work, family responsibilities, or even other courses they are taking. Finally, there are cases like SOC 1010-01 & 1010-03, Intro to Sociology (8 & 9 students registered respectively when the sections were cut), which are both gen ed course and required for the major & minor in Sociology. Does the administration really think these two sections wouldn’t add another 3-4 students prior to the start of the semester? Even if they didn’t, what are these 17 students supposed to do?

The last major group of courses cancelled that I want to note are courses which are important for major programs and graduate programs. Often these are upper-level (3000 or 4000-level) courses, which presumably would not require as many students for the course to run successfully as one would need in an introductory level course. This group also includes core courses for major programs, which may be at the 1000 or 2000-level. Most of the time, these are the only sections of these courses offered.  Here are just some of these kinds of courses which were cancelled for the Spring 2015 semester:

--AFAM 3020-61, The Great Debate (7 students registered when it was cut)

--BIOL 3055-61, Evolutionary Biology (5 students registered when it was cut):  required course for Biology majors (at least those with Environmental Biology or Secondary Teaching options)

--CHEM 3240-01, Inorganic Chemistry (3 students registered out of 15 max when it was cut): required course for some Chemistry majors (Biochemistry option) 

--C J 1200-61, Intro to Law (7 students registered when it was cut): only evening section of course, 2 daytime sections of course, 1 online section (but this was full), required course for all CJ majors

--C J 5870-51, Seminar: Social Inequality/CJ (7 students registered when it was cut): graduate seminar

--CPTR 3700-01, Communications & Computer Networks I (9 students registered when it was cut)

--GEOG 2230-51, Geography of the World Economy (5 students registered when it was cut): required course for majors & minors and for some Education programs

--HIST 2200-01, Key Problems in World History (4 students registered when it was cut): required for majors & also a gen ed (diversity) course

--HIST 2220-01, Intro to Historical Thought & Methods (6 students registered when it was cut):  required for majors, also cut in Fall 2014 semester, included 2 graduating seniors in course

--HIST 4150/5150, History of Islam in West Africa (5 undergrad & 1 grad student registered when it was cut):  one of few African history courses (and all other African history courses were also cancelled), grad student in course specializing in history of West Africa

--POL 2210-21, Public Administration Principles (7 students registered when it was cut): core course for one of key area of discipline/major

--POL 3300-61, Public Management (6 students registered when it was cut)

--POL 3380-61, Women and the Law (6 students registered when it was cut)

--SOC 3350-61, Complex Organization (5 students registered when it was cut)

--SOC 4560-01, Social Welfare Policy (8 students registered when it was cut)

What’s particularly striking about this long list of courses cancelled in major programs is the importance of these courses for students with these majors, which means students enrolled in most (if not all) of these courses have likely been set back in their plans to complete their majors.

In closing, let’s look again at the lack of consideration paid to students’ schedules, which we already saw in the cancellations of evening sections of general education course such as C J 1200-61, ENG 1240-61, ENG 1270-61, FREN 1020-61, MUS 1134-61, and PH S 1100-61. Outside of these general education courses, we can also find courses useful to students in particular majors which had evening, such as:

--BOT 2050-61, Algae/Plants/Fungus (5 students registered when it was cut)

--MATH 1420-61, Calculus II (5 students registered when it was cut)

And, just so students who can only take courses primarily in the day weren’t left out of the process, the administration also cancelled CMAT 1130-01, Communications for Professionals (6 students registered when it was cut), which was the only daytime section of the course offered for the semester.

So, what’s the take away from this analysis of courses cancelled in the Spring 2015 semester? First, while some specific programs might have been harmed more than others, the cancellations were far reaching and affected students at various stages of their education – from freshmen, to general education students, to students completing their majors – and students enrolled in a wide array of courses. Second, given the breadth and depth of the course cancellations, it seems unlikely that students enrolled in these courses will find it easy to replace their cancelled courses with other courses equally useful or relevant to their education. With the large number of evening sections cancelled, I wonder if students in these courses can even find any courses at all to take at this point. Finally, it seems clear that courses cancelled this semester have done significant damage to students’ education. As one student who emailed me recently asked, “words cannot describe how frustrated I am … How do they [the administration] expect [me] to complete [my] degree? It is outrageous, and this is one of the reasons why enrollment is steadily dropping.”

Kaleidoscope: More Detail on The Administration's Rationale (or non-rationale) For Their Execrable Course Cancellations

I have had a number of e-mail exchanges about the cut session, including several with Chicago State administrators in the past two days. In sum, these e-mails offer a compelling portrait of a process that simply does not work. As near as I can figure out, this is the way these cut sessions now unfold:

The administration has established an arbitrary standard of 50 percent enrollment to keep a course, apparently any course. Of course, Professor Steve’s recent post demonstrates the chaotic results of that process. I suppose we should feel fortunate that even more courses were not cut. For "under enrolled" classes, advisors are required to submit justifications which may or may not be considered. Then, our administrators take their axes to the course schedule and create panic and confusion among faculty and especially among the student victims of this farce. In their effort to assure me that their intentions were benign, a number of the e-mails adopt a defensive posture. Unfortunately, they do nothing to clarify the reasons behind the multiple difficulties created by the cuts.

There are a number of problems with the statements being made by administrators. I will explain.

A few days before the cut session, at least one administrative person claimed that course cancellations were not about the cost of running classes. This position seems undermined by an e-mail sent by Angela Henderson to the Deans on January 5. The pertinent portion is here:

“I am reviewing the class size report for today. We need classes very close to 20 and 25. We are dealing with budget issues that will not allow us to run very small classes.”

So what is it? Are these cuts because of financial issues? According to at least one official, no. If they are not cut because of fiscal constraints, then why are they cut? As usual, we are not getting anything resembling a viable explanation.

In other e-mails, administrators make claims that are simply not accurate. Here’s one example:

“it is counter-productive to cancel courses in which graduating seniors are enrolled or classes that are required for majors or student teaching. . . Courses identified as being a methods course or needed so that a student could complete fieldwork or student teaching were not cut.”

Comparing that rhetoric with the facts, here’s what we find: In our discipline, a course which certainly qualifies as a “methods” class, which is required for all majors and which contained two graduating seniors, was cut for the second time this school year. In addition, not one, but two classes required for students doing Secondary Education were cancelled: CAS 2630 and ED 4500/5500. For one student, this creates the possibility that unless the course is resurrected in the Special Session, his program completion will be delayed until Fall 2015. How does cutting that class serve our student’s educational needs?

Another inaccurate statement is this one: “Where justifications, as mentioned above were provided, those classes were not cut.”

In fact, the advisors in our discipline did submit a justification for the methods class I discussed above. The justification clearly indicated the presence of two graduating seniors in a class required for all majors. Contrary to the assertion in the e-mail, this class was indeed cut. I received an e-mail from one of the unfortunate graduating seniors asking what can be done to finish the program’s graduation requirements. The only option at this point seems to be an independent study. I’ll try to arrange one before they get cut, as they were last semester.

At this point, I do not care whether the people responsible for this fiasco had good intentions or not. I only care about fixing the myriad problems this ridiculous exercise has generated so our students can finish their programs and realize their educational goals. The patent idiocy of this reliance on “metrics” or simple mathematical formulas should be obvious by now. How the hell do we insure that this does not happen again?

Fallout From the Cut Session: Destroying the Essence of a University

As an academic advisor, one of the tasks I have to complete prior to the start of each semester is to provide “justifications” to administrators – chairs, deans, whomever in Academic Affairs – as to why classes offered in my discipline should not be canceled. These classes are “in jeopardy” due to “low enrollment,” which seems to mean whatever arbitrary number someone has determined is the correct number of students all classes should have, regardless of program or the nature of the class (also important to note, this number seems to change every semester). Since becoming an advisor several years ago, I have found this the most perplexing part of dealing with the power structure of the University. After all, isn’t the main mission of the University to educate students, and don’t we do that by providing classes every semester that are essential for their general education or education in their majors or professional programs? Why should we have to justify continuing to offer the classes that have been planned by faculty and departments to meet students’ needs? Shouldn’t it be the opposite situation, i.e. the administration justifying why they want to cut a particular course?

Over the past two academic years, as the numbers of courses cut by the administration have grown at an ever increasing rate, I no longer simply ask those questions. Instead, it seems clear to me that the result of these cut sessions is the destruction of the very essence of the University – to educate our students. After all, it’s the faculty and students who bear the brunt of the outcome of each cut session. And the worst of that outcome is reserved for students:  preventing them from learning about subjects/areas that they chose to study, setting them back in their progress towards degree, and in some cases even preventing them from graduating altogether.

The cut session for the Spring 2015 semester provides plenty of evidence for that conclusion. One of the courses cut by the administration in my discipline is the methods course required for all undergraduate majors – a course that was also cut in the Fall 2014 semester, which is typically only offered in the Fall semesters but because of it being cut we decided to offer it again in the Spring semester. Let that sink in for a minute. A course required for all students in a major was cut, not once but twice in consecutive semesters. Now, for further information. There were seven students enrolled in the course in the Fall and six in the Spring. There were students who are scheduled to graduate in May 2015 enrolled in the class in both semesters. Will they graduate this May? What course can be substituted for a required methods class in the discipline in which they major? What about other students who attempt to sign up for this course in the future, only to have it cut again? The administration has either de facto removed this requirement from the major or has prevented students from graduating with this major.

Similarly, a teaching certification student was enrolled in a required Education class in the Fall 2014 semester, and it was cut. He enrolled in the same class in the Spring 2015 semester, while he is student teaching, and again that class was cut. Will he complete his teaching certification this semester, or will he have to continue to try to take this course even after he has completed all other requirements including student teaching? Who knows.

I’m guessing that my experience is not unique, and I welcome comments from others who know of similar examples of students being harmed by the results of the cut sessions. Please take time to note some of those examples in the comment section.

I have tried repeatedly to figure out a logic for the cut session and its results. As time has gone on, the only logic I can see is that it’s become part of the process of destroying the very mission of the University to educate its students. As a faculty member and an advisor, what can I tell students who search for an explanation and a strategy to deal with this situation? I can think of only one reasonable response: transfer to another University. Surely, students are already thinking about this option and many have done so in the past. So, here we have an intersection of the problem of the massive enrollment declines on the University that have been so thoroughly documented on this blog and the very heart of the academic mission of the University. Can we add these things together? I think so.

Predictions for 2015!

So I have found that the end of one year and the beginning of the next allow for two things; reflection on the past and inquiry about the future. I won’t reflect on the activities of 2014 but I will inquire about what you loyal readers might see coming in 2015.
First, will the audit findings of the recently completed state audit show continued mismanagement of university resources or has the university turned the corner and finally driven its findings into the single digits? You might recall that only CSU and the University of Illinois system have averaged double digit audit findings for the past 15 years. Will 2015 be the year when some positive publicity will come the university’s way regarding its financial management?
Next, how large with the pre-emptive layoffs be? Yes, loyal readers I believe that the layoffs, rumored to be starting in January, will be done as a pre-emptive measure in anticipation of substantial state budget cuts. It appears that the university’s right sizing initiative continues. Unfortunately, none of the administrators with six figure salaries and proven poor performance will be subject to an opportunity to pursue other career options. And given the posting in this venue of the insurance coverage for the university, it is unlikely that insurance will cover the continuing increasing damages and costs for the Crowley case. Are these layoffs actually a way to find the money to satisfy that judgement once the case is heard by the Illinois Appellate Court?
And as we are talking about legal matters, will the university find it necessary to hire more attorneys and law firms to represent it in its ongoing docket of cases? If so, how many firms might need to be retained to dispose of the pending legal actions facing the university? Of course, the university through its spokesman will say that all the cases are groundless and the result of disgruntled employees or some such nonsense. As a follower of the judicial process, that is the expected response and yet, you loyal readers don’t appear to be persuaded by the protestations of the administration. This doesn’t include new lawsuits looming on the 2015 horizon. As I am not a gambler, I can only imagine that there will be other suits filed this year that will lead to further negative publicity which leads to declining enrollment which threatens the existence of the institution even more.

Another question present with many is how much longer the decline in enrollment will continue. It is likely to be under 5,000 students for the spring with no relief in sight. And with the unannounced interim vice president for enrollment management floundering, there is no hope for the Fall 2015 semester. I predict the Fall 2015 enrollment to be 4,500 students. Given that our financial breakeven point is about 6,500 students it would appear that the university has been operating at a loss for some years now. Obviously the bored trustees don’t seem interested in the plummeting enrollment even as they asked Ms Sidney pointed questions about enrollment and were answered with Orwellian doublespeak.
Related to the plummeting enrollment is the academic bloodbath known as the cut session. This semi-annual ritual has taken on new significance as criteria for retaining classes has been changed in the face of plummeting enrollments. As a refresher, let your humble narrator walk you through my experience with the cut session.  I asked the previous three provosts why we cut classes. Classes were cut to save money. I asked “How much money was saved?” I was told that they didn’t know. I asked about the “calculus or formula for determining the cost savings.” I was told there wasn’t one. I then asked “Why classes were cut if there was no evidence of cost savings and no formula to collect evidence of cost savings?” I was told that classes were cut because it saved money. The expense that was never calculated was the ill will that was generated toward the students who had classes cut. Many of those students voted with their feet and left the university, taking with them the story to tell their friends about not being able to get the classes they needed to graduate at CSU. 

Hmmmm. I wonder if that has anything to do with declining enrollment, especially given the significant increase in courses that have been cut in the last five years. Prior to this administration, if 80 courses across the university were cut that was a bad year. Last semester over 200 courses were cut. I would predict when the course addendum comes out later this week, we will find 250 courses cut. The connection of these outcomes to previous decisions is clear. Flawed searches lead to flawed outcomes and the university not being able or allowed to offer courses because it can’t recruit and retain students is one of those outcomes from the flawed presidential search in 2009.
One way to recruit and retain students is to put qualified people in place, don’t micro-manage them and let them do their jobs. Another way is to have more university financial aid available so students aren’t as dependent on loans as many of our students are. To that end the CSU Foundation plays a critical role in generating money for the university. Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees has been convinced that the Foundation has failed and that the person to correct that failure is the president. Thus the question for 2015 is how much is this new fund raising machine going to generate. High value donors don’t give to unrecognized non-profits. There is no tax advantage. The 501c3 designation given by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is from the US Tax Code. That designation is not awarded like a tax identification number which you can get online. I am curious if given the university’s checkered financial management history whether the IRS would given heightened scrutiny to the application for tax exempt status especially given the presence of the CSU Foundation.
Finally, I am curious about whether and to what extent questions from Springfield might emerge about the mismanagement of this university. Are legislators going to provide cover using the same tired excuses that the administration spouts about small number of disgruntled faculty, everything is fine, the university is being right sized etc. or will those responsible for appropriating tax payer dollars finally put an end to this Kafkaesque nightmare and give the university a chance to recover. Will the chairs of the appropriate legislative committees ask and demand logical answers to questions or will the game of legislative hearings being facades continue? Will the new governor weigh in and demand in his corporatized way that dead weight be shed from the state budget? Will ultimatums be issued to those who have quite possibly irreparably damaged the university with an expectation that they fix the many broken bits? Will there be hand wringing and questions posed about what can be done while the institution descends further into disintegration?
The reality is that the university will reach a point where it will not be able to recover. I am afraid we are rapidly approaching that point. 

Our Highly-Paid Administrators Address Our Enrollment Problems: The Chicago State Web Site an Embarrassment Again

The level of administrative incompetence on display at Chicago State is beginning to take on mythical proportions.

A quote from Peter F. Hamilton's 2012 novel Great North Road raises the question we all should be asking. I've changed the pronouns to make the quote fit the circumstances at Chicago State “[He] couldn't organize an orgy in a brothel. How the hell did [he] ever wind up in charge?" Peter Hamilton, Great North Road, p. 312. Of course, we know the answer to that question. Thank you Leon Finney and Richard Tolliver and a special thanks to Emil Jones for insuring that the clown show continues to play.

The university's administration is addicted to the use of "metrics" which permit them to blame their myriad failures on anyone and everyone outside the circle of Wayne Watson's friends and lovers who are currently running the school into the ground. Of course, these "metrics" have no basis in reality, they're simply delusions those highly-paid bunch of sycophants foist upon the hapless students and staff of this university.

The upcoming course cutting session will be another body blow to the students at Chicago State. I will have more on this in subsequent posts, but the administration's ridiculous criteria for selecting which courses to eliminate and which to keep will cause many of our students to scramble around at the last minute, looking to fill their schedules in order to meet degree or financial aid requirements. Although the Watson administration likes to use students as props in photo-ops, their practices demonstrate utter contempt for the men and women who attend what is left of this university.

The people in this administration simply do not know what they are doing. As the university swirls around the drain, they preen, pose and posture and issue their puffed-up proclamations. They have no practical solutions for our distress, save to blame everyone but themselves for the Chicago State debacle. The utter bankruptcy of their administrative capabilities is currently on display for all the world to see on the Chicago State web site.

Here's the lead image on this morning's web site. This has been up for several days

So we're paying a number of people lavish salaries to manage our enrollment and that's what they come up with? We're all supposed to bring someone to Chicago State to enroll? What about Watyne Watson's "right-sizing?" What about the fact that he told the board he did not want to see the school get much above five-thousand students? What is the truest indication of how the administration feels about our enormous enrollment decline?

Of course, after our stellar administrative minions finish their culling of courses, even if persons did bring students in to register, they most likely would not have any classes for which they could register. How long do we have to suffer these incompetents?

The GAO Puts Watson's One Achievement Into Perspective

If Chicago State does not have the worst administrative “team” in higher education, it certainly ranks near the bottom. No need to again chronicle the myriad failures of Wayne Watson and his friends and lovers who run the school. Given the scope of his administrative failure, it is not surprising that he and his sycophants continuously bring up the university’s reaccreditation, since that is the major accomplishment that has occurred on his watch.

I have argued that Chicago State’s reaccreditation was really no more than what should have been expected of a school that has been accredited for decades. The faculty and staff at this university know their business and we would have received accreditation regardless of who sat in the President’s office in the Cook Building. While that is not to say that accreditation is not a major project, a successful outcome of that process is only to be expected. It seems the least the students, staff and faculty can expect.

Despite the hyperbolic reports in the media, Chicago State was never in danger of losing its accreditation and Wayne Watson and his administration did not “save” the school from that catastrophic prospect.

A recently released report by the Government Accountability Office underscores those points.
Titled “Higher Education: Education Should Strengthen Oversight of Schools and Accreditors,” the report offers a number of observations about the inadequacy of the accreditation process. Most important, the report points out the statistical improbability of any school ever having its accreditation terminated by any of the accrediting bodies. The GAO found all this troubling, writing: “GAO’s analysis raises questions about whether the standards accreditors use ensure that schools provide a quality education, and whether Education is effectively determining if these standards ensure educational quality.” (2)

Of a total of 8187 schools participating in either regional, national or programmatic accreditation programs, between 2009 and 2014, “Over a 4-1/2-year period, accreditors—independent agencies recognized by the Department of Education (Education)—sanctioned about 8 percent of schools for not meeting accreditor standards. They terminated accreditation for about 1 percent of accredited schools.” (2)

During that time period, accreditors sanctioned 621 schools (7.6 percent), placed 328 (4 percent) on probation and terminated the accreditation of 66 schools (.8 percent). (13) Even more noteworthy, the GAO investigation discovered that “Accreditors issued terminations and probations mainly to for-profit schools whose longest programs were 2 years or less, and which enrolled fewer than 1,000 students.” Over 80 percent of terminated schools and 63 percent of schools placed on probation were for-profits, even though for-profit schools make up only about 38 percent of all schools participating in federal student aid programs.” (21)

The GAO reported that 207 of the schools with probation (63.3 percent) and 55 of the 66 schools whose accreditation had been terminated (83.3 percent) were for-pofit schools. (21) The average number of students enrolled in the 66 schools losing their accreditation was 134. (63)

According to the GAO, 62 percent or roughly 5075 schools were either public or non-profit institutions. Thus, the 11 schools in these categories that lost accreditation between 2009 and 2014 constitute .2 percent of that total. Given that the odds against any public or non-profit school losing its accreditation are roughly 500 to 1, Chicago State’s successful reaccreditation effort is hardly surprising.

Link to the GAO report is in this article (page numbers cited refer to the page numbers of the PDF, not the report itself):
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/23/gao-education-department-should-strengthen-oversight-of-accreditors

Chicago State's Financial Situation: Are We In Difficulty and if so Why?

Trying to figure out Chicago State’s finances is sometimes akin to untying the Gordian Knot. Not because there is insufficient information, but because often different sources provide very different financial information. In an attempt to cut the knot, I offer here a layman’s analysis of our financial situation.

Some background: First, the administration is apparently now wringing its hands over our declining revenues. I understand that one of our financial wizards commented that we have been losing $5 million a year for the last couple of years (or something like that, I welcome any more accurate information). This is apparently the precursor to another bloodbath round of layoffs–undoubtedly of our most poorly paid and vulnerable employees–to meet the possible financial crisis engendered by Bruce Rauner’s election. As I have said earlier, I think the university’s existing financial liabilities, particularly pending judgment(s) are at least an important component of our purported financial exigency. Taking the long view and examining the university’s financial position since 2009, I again must wonder why we are in financial difficulty.

Ostensibly, the most accurate sources of information relative to Chicago State’s financial position are the audit reports produced by the Illinois Auditor General’s Office. I have used the 2009 through 2014 reports to reveal the figures I will discuss. These reports are available here: http://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/ABC-List.asp. I will also use the ISL forms submitted to the Illinois State Legislature by Chicago State and the recent financial report submitted to the Chicago State Board of Trustees by the Interim Vice President of Administration and Finance. I must note that many of the final report’s figures for 2013 do not match the audited figures for 2013, although the net position is identical.

These reports catalog a number of financial dealings: the university’s general revenues and expenses, the university’s net asset position, breakdowns of revenues and expenses by category; and numerous other items. Here are some of the highlights of our financial history.

First, our net position since 2009 (assets vs. liabilities) has increased by $20 million dollars, from $126 to $146 million (the current figure reported by Administration and Finance).

Second, our total revenue has mirrored the change in our net position–a $20 million dollar increase from $129 million in 2009 to $149 million in 2014.

Third, our expenses have increased $24.6 million since 2009, rising from $131 million to nearly $156 million. One of the major sources of that rise is an increased amount for fringe benefits which the university pays and for which it receives reimbursement from the state. Since this results in a zero sum, the adjusted revenues and expenses look like this:

Revenues have increased slightly since 2009, rising from $110 to $111 million. At the same time, expenses have increased from nearly $112 million to $117 million. Notably, since 2012, revenues have declined from $119 to $111 million while expenses have increased from just under $110 million to $117 million. This while our enrollment declined by 21.2 percent between 2009 and 2014 and by 14.7 percent between 2012 and 2014. Again, one must ask why our expenses have increased out of proportion to the university’s enrollment.

A more detailed analysis of the expenses reveals that expenditures for instruction declined by 4.8 percent, while reported scholarship expenditures increased 14.3 percent, expenditures for the physical plant increased 21.4 percent and for “support” services, the increase reaches 35.7 percent. The audit reports also indicate the amount of cash on hand in university coffers at the end of the fiscal year. This has risen dramatically since 2009, from $5.5 million to $14.8 on June 30, 2014. All this financial data translates into a 43 percent increase in the cost/per student at Chicago State University, from $6631 per student in 2009 to $9494 in 2013 (2014 figures are not yet available).

To summarize, while the university’s enrollment has declined precipitously since 2009, its revenues have not mirrored that decline and its expenses have risen out of proportion to the enrollment decrease, resulting in the cost-per-student skyrocketing. If I were an Illinois legislator, I would want to know why this school seems to be in the process of squandering a surplus that resulted in a $23 million cash balance at the end of fiscal 2012.

Part of each audit report is a discussion by Chicago State’s management that provides an evaluation of the data. In every audit report, our administration offers this: “The University’s financial position remained strong.” In the most recent audit report (through June 30, 2013), the discussion included this:

“Looking forward into the future, the management of the University believes it is well positioned to continue its strong financial condition and level of excellence in service to its constituents.” (So why all the talk of layoffs and excruciating cuts?) A crucial element to the University’s future will continue to be its relationship with the State of Illinois as the University relies on State appropriations to finance its higher education mission which includes maintaining enrollment (of course, we know how that is going) . . . The University continues to monitor the State’s financial condition and the factors that may influence the State economically and politically which may in turn impact the level of support the State is willing or able to continue to provide to its universities generally and to Chicago State University in particular.” If that’s the case, why do these state fiscal issues apparently come as a surprise?

The discussion concluded with this:

“[T]he University is alive and vibrant and is focused on continuing its mission by leveraging all the resources required to do so. Management believes these efforts focus the University on a
path of enhancement and a path of financial sustainability.”

So there’s the contradiction. The administration tells the auditors and the state legislators that we’re “well-positioned” and “strong” financially. They tell us that we’re struggling. As an untrained and possibly even ignorant observer, I wonder where the hell all the money has gone. Another one of the many questions about the Watson administration that at this point remain unanswered. Of course, the figures are what they are, but they raise at least this question for me: how do you spend lots more money on lots fewer students?

If we indeed need to lay off people, I would suggest we begin with that cadre of worthless, highly-paid administrators who have gotten us into this situation.

Here Is Chicago State's Liability Insurance: If That's All We Have, It Does Not Come Close to Covering the Amount of the Crowley Judgement

During the past five years, members of the Watson administration have demonstrated a remarkable propensity for exaggeration or outright lying. In the February 26, 2014, story reporting the Crowley decision, Thomas Wogan claimed that the university's insurance would cover the damages awarded by the jury. Here are Wogan's comments:

Recently, a colleague sent me a copy of the university's insurance certificate. The liability limits are $1 million per occurrence and $3 million aggregate. Here is a copy of the relevant portions of the insurance certificate:

Here is the relevant portion large enough to read:

Of course, this means that the university is responsible for the payment of at least $3 million of the always increasing judgement. However, I believe that the university is responsible for the entire amount since the insurer is likely to refuse to pay for liability purposely caused by Wayne Watson and his administrative minions.

If any of this material is incorrect, I invite representatives of the administration to provide a rejoinder.

2014 In Review and Some Musings on Enrollment and Finances

Let’s review some of the “accomplishments” of the Watson administration during the past year and let’s talk a little about money in 2015.

JANUARY 2014

In the first week of January, the administration’s thuggish threats of legal action for bullshit claims of “trademark infringement” against the CSU faculty blog result in Chicago State again becoming a national laughingstock.

In mid-January, the school again makes headlines in a negative way as the University of Illinois at Chicago examines the dissertation of Chicago State’s Interim Provost for plagiarism. An anonymous hearing officer apparently clears the Interim Provost of those charges in July (although that fact was not made public until November). Despite the anonymous hearing officer’s decision, the dissertation’s repeated failure to provide proper references for obviously borrowed language clearly meets the standard for plagiarism as articulated in the UIC College of Nursing’s Academic Integrity Policy. Reportedly, the Interim Provost revises the dissertation to bring it into compliance with the College of Nursing’s standards. To date, the revised dissertation is available neither on the UIC Indigo web site nor through Pro Quest.

In late January, Wayne Watson decides that the Faculty Senate must conform to the requirements of its 2011 constitution. Although the Senate has been operating under new rules since September 2011, the Watson administration orders the Senate to hold an election to amend the constitution in compliance with its requirements.

FEBRUARY 2014

On February 6, the CSU Faculty Senate votes no-confidence in Wayne Watson for the second time in fourteen months. In addition, the Faculty Senate votes no-confidence in Interim Provost Angela Henderson. Obviously, no one on the CSU Board or in the state cares.

In late February, the Senate election to amend the constitution results in nine amendments passing with virtually no negative votes, the closest being 94-3. This information is transmitted to Watson who immediately demands the Senate prove that its election was legitimate. This began a farce that is still ongoing.

In perhaps the year’s top accomplishment, also in late February, the Watson administration loses a landmark retaliatory discharge-unlawful termination-whistleblower case in Cook County Circuit Court. During the trial, both Watson and Patrick Cage apparently give “impeachable” (false) testimony and the Circuit Court jury finds their actions so egregious that after less than 30 minutes the fourteen-member group awards former CSU legal counsel James Crowley nearly $3 million dollars, including $2.5 million in “punitive” damages.

MARCH 2014

At the Board of Trustees meeting on March 7, 2014, the administration has former student Willie Preston arrested for violating an unlawfully issued order of protection against the Interim Provost.

In late March, former Chicago State Vice President of Finance and Administration files a retaliatory discharge-unlawful termination-whistleblower lawsuit against Watson in Cook County Circuit Court. More excellent press for Chicago State results.


MAY 2014

May was a big month for Watson and his cronies. First, on May 9, Chicago State Police, in full view of Watson, members of the Board and other CSU administrators, choke and arrest a student, Jokari Miller, for refusing to take off a baseball cap at a Board meeting.

In mid-May, Willie Preston and Brittany Bailey name Watson in a Federal lawsuit alleging that Watson and CSU violated their first and fourteenth amendment rights. More excellent publicity for the school.

Also in May, the university throws at least $100,000 away on a sham search for Provost. Lining the coffers of the Hollins Group, the same organization that brought us a president that no other university would likely employ, the search produces a rigged set of finalists that includes the Interim Provost, a person no viable university would likely employ in such a position. After bringing three “candidates” to campus, Watson hires no one, setting the stage for the November appointment of his long-time crony to the position.

JULY 2014

As part of an initiative to further free speech on college campuses, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education files a federal lawsuit against Watson and CSU alleging violations of the first and fourteenth amendments. As one of the plaintiffs, I am unable to discuss the case, except to say that it is still ongoing. Anyone desiring more information can read the compliant, which is public information.

AUGUST 2014

In late August, the Cook County Circuit Court again spanks Watson and the administration by issuing a “scathing” opinion upholding the Crowley verdict. Throwing good money after bad, the Watson administration decides to appeal the jury’s original decision. This case is still ongoing. Again, lots more horrible publicity for the school.

SEPTEMBER 2014

The administration’s attack on the Faculty Senate ratchets up as the Board withdraws recognition of the Senate on September 5. This prompts protests from a number of organizations and persons, including AAUP, FIRE, other Illinois Faculty Senates, and our UPI local.

OCTOBER 2014

On October 1, the blog announces that CSU’s enrollment has dropped to 5211, a 29.2 percent decline in just four years. This decline represents the fifth largest drop among a total of 257 public and PBI institutions surveyed.

NOVEMBER 2014

On November 14, the CSU Board again recognizes the CSU Faculty Senate. This does not end the contention, however.

In late November, completing the rigged search process that began with the Provost’s job announcement, Wayne Watson elevates his old crony to the position of Provost.

DECEMBER 2014

On December 12, Watson informs the Faculty Senate and University Faculty that he rejects every one of the nine amendments passed overwhelmingly by the faculty in February 2014. The administration makes its desires clear: the Senate should exist as a representative body with equal representation for all colleges. Another example of the high regard in which Watson holds the CSU faculty.

Also on December 12, Watson persuades the Board of Trustees to remove fund-raising from the existing Chicago State Foundation and place it into the hands of Wayne Watson, who, in his five years here has spectacularly demonstrated his inability to raise money.

On December 19, a Cook County Circuit Court Judge vacates the order of protection against Willie Preston. During the proceeding, the Assistant Attorney General representing Angela Henderson admits that no order should have ever been issued, since no lawful grounds existed for such an action.

The above list is obviously subjective and omits a number of important occurrences.

Finally, a brief foray into the school’s finances. As the administration has made clear, the school is being asked to prepare a budget for fiscal 2016 with a 20 percent reduction in state appropriations. Although there is no final decision pending, it appears that the university will see its state appropriation reduced in 2015-16.

Looking at the audited financial statements of the university from 2010 through 2013 reveals some interesting facts. Here are the highlights:

Enrollment declined 22.6 percent during that period.
State appropriations (general fund) decreased by 13.4 percent
State fringe benefits increased 67 percent.
Aggregate state appropriations increased 16 percent.
Tuition revenue increased 17.3 percent.

In sum, during a time when our enrollment dropped 22.6 percent, our revenues from the state and tuition increased 16.4 percent.

Where did that money go?

Here are some selected expenses:
Instruction decreased 2.0 percent and as a proportion of total expenses decreased 12.6 percent.
Scholarships decreased 6 percent.
Plant operations increased 37 percent.
Academic, Student, Institutional Support increased 21.4 percent.

Total expenditures in these four categories increased 8.8 percent from 2010 to 2013, all at a time our enrollment dropped by 22.6 percent.

What does all this mean? I am not going to suggest that we can absorb a 20 percent decrease in state funding. However, the administration’s spending the past several years does not reflect a university with the kind of steep enrollment declines we have suffered. As a taxpayer, I am inclined to wonder where all that apparently excess money went.

Finally, there is the looming specter of the James Crowley judgment. My estimate of the cost to the university at the end of 2014 is around $4.1 million (and growing). Not included in that total are legal fees for either Crowley’s attorney’s or the private counsel retained by the university. There seems little doubt that the final price tag will exceed $5 million. Despite Tom Wogan’s cavalier dismissal of the judgment as being covered by the university’s “insurance,” I have my doubts. I know of no liability policies that cover intentional acts that create liability for the insurer. In addition, the university has successfully resisted efforts to examine the extant insurance coverage. I will just say that I doubt the university has sufficient insurance to cover this kind of a loss. In that case, I wonder whether the possible budget crisis is being used by this administration to schedule staff reductions that will enable it to save enough money to pay Crowley’s bill. That possibility coupled with the likelihood that when payment comes due Watson will be gone, having walked away with his second lavish pension, makes me suspect that this will be another of those Watsonian exercises in subterfuge.