Senate Drama Follow Up? or Trickle Down?

Two days after a Faculty Senate meeting where several important votes took place in the life of our University, it appears as if another failure to inform and notify affected parties of critical information has occurred. And it didn’t take long for the same strategies of avoidance and failed communication practices to recur. While an individual senator expressed concern over notification procedures, election violations and the gradual diminution of the faculty’s role and voice on curricular matters on an important University committee, these concerns were never communicated directly to the committee in question by either the Chair of the committee nor by several administrators who were present at both meetings. The tragedy is that these acts of omission are being imposed upon this “faculty elected” committee not by the administration, but by one of our own: another faculty member! The rubber stamp of authoritarian approval was then rendered complete when two administrators attended the same meeting and failed to notify the committee of these matters. Here are some of the pertinent facts:

The November meeting of the University General Education Committee (GEC) that followed the Senate meeting last week started with ten minutes of silence (apparently there is little to discuss) while awaiting a quorum. The Chair of GEC then informed the committee members how a quorum is to be calculated (in a manner that directly contradicts his own statements in a previous committee meeting although this time were close to being accurate for a change). The Chair then proceeded to conduct the meeting as if a close 11-10 vote two days earlier that threatened to disband (and reconstitute) his committee had never happened. The first matter of business, passing the revised General Education outcomes, also had barely survived an 11-10 vote that requested the motion to be tabled for 30 days pending a university wide forum to be held. But neither of these two facts were mentioned or discussed at this meeting.

This led to my asking, “Why is it that CSU faculty are never (or rarely) informed about critical information that may affect their decision-making ability by other university constituencies?” And “does it not matter that nearly half of another faculty elected body found it sufficiently necessary to hold off on approving these outcomes pending an additional month of discussion and deliberation?” And yet this committee simply rolls on to yet another vote without knowing what occurred two days prior? And how come we keep “deciding on” things without being informed of actions taken by other reasonably knowledgeable and well-intentioned faculty colleagues serving on other committees on campus?

In fairness, I should note that for the first time in four GEC meetings, a reasonably substantive discussion occurred in the GenEd committee on the GenEd outcomes where it had not previously. Instead of the usual pleasantries and vague statements I heard the last few months like, “Gee, things are in flux and a lot of change is coming at CSU,” the primary discussion this time was over the significance of the following three phrases: “liberal education,” “liberal arts education,” and being “liberally educated?” These concepts refer to significantly different educational frameworks for general education with greatly varying meanings that will now require assessment (as if we are really clear on the meaning of these terms and as if we had found consensus as a result of collective deliberation on the rest of the terms in this document for our institution).

Naturally, it would be good if there were consensus on the committee that approved this document about the meaning of these terms. Much of the content of this document, how it is to be assessed, and what relation it has to the GenEd curriculum is less well understood. Indeed, I would argue that it has not been well-discussed and that email communication and online editing of a limited body of received commentary has not produced a well deliberated result or an institution wide consensus on these matters. While the discussion at this particular meeting was good, nonetheless it was surprising to this observer that a general consensus on the committee was lacking still after so much discussion had “supposedly” already taken place. And it was also surprising that the GenEd document was approved as amended without the CSU community as a whole being informed of the final version. How can discussion occur when no one has possession of the latest version of the document? Indeed it had not been subjected to anything more than the mere “editing” of a few sentences for twenty minutes during the previous seven months in the GEC itself (since April 2011).

Two items should catch your attention that make this meeting “blogworthy:” First, how can one vote on a document that has been edited from one already been approved by two other university-level committees? Does the Chair intend to return this edited document to the Senate and GEAC for re-approval? And secondly, why did neither of the two administrators who were present inform the committee of the Senate action two days earlier when both were present at the Senate meeting?

The point is that by not providing key information, a deliberative body can continue to deliberate on non-essential items and imagine that is it doing its job without really addressing critical information. Ultimately, the failure to consider said critical information could result in unpleasant and unexpected consequences in the future. In this case, without properly discussing the new General Education outcomes sufficiently and their connection to the current GenEd requirements, the membership will now be faced with the task of explaining future decisions to remove some current GenEd courses from the approved list to their colleagues. This will likely lead to reduced enrollments in key programs and likely to staff reductions that will be unexpected. At least folks will have a few semesters to come up with a reasonably good justification for this decision before the damage appears at which point the administrators in the room last Thursday will be long gone. And just as likely is the possibility that many of the committee members will have resigned from or stopped attending the meetings when they become too “difficult” or “burdensome.” Were they to remain, they will be expected to explain the reason for their vote last Thursday which will be much more difficult because they were not well-informed of the content of the document vote don in the first place.

Representation, effective communication and proper deliberation really are significant on this committee!! And leaving out critical information to affected parties, failing to genuinely discuss and deliberate upon important matters, and administrative attempts to cover up unpleasant facts really does “trickle down!” Ultimately, these decisions (and the lack of sound processes in reaching a result) do affect our students, the quality of the education they receive, and the integrity of the university’s academic reputation.

None of these items were on the agenda.

BOGged Down

In a few days 701 Board of Governors students, more than 10% of our total enrollment, will require advising for their Spring 2012 courses and the dizzying maze of confusion caused by the CEO and CAO of CSU who commanded that BOG transform into something else. That something else is General Studies (GS). While the proposed changes to the program as presented by the office of the Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (who will now inherit the program in this endless reshuffling of university programs, units and departments) illustrate a degree of hard work by faculty, chairs, Deans and staff in the CAS and BOG program, the new General Studies program is troubling for several reasons.

First is the student confusion and extra hassle this brings; the very things students complained about during the 2009 campus teach-in and the comments collected this semester by the Independent Student Union (a collective of students concerned about the direction of the university). BOG students received a letter from Provost Westbrooks on August 12, 2011 informing them of the changes. According to Dr. Westbrooks, “The reason for the reorganization of the program is to ensure that the degree earned by the students will prepare them for the challenges of professional life in the 21st Century.” The rationale sounds reasonable until you consider why many BOG students are in the program. These are students who are non-traditional age. They are pursuing a degree either because their job or job advancement requires it or for personal reasons. So, immediately one should scrutinize the soundness of this transformation.

Back to Westbrooks’ letter: After they are informed that the name has changed students are told that they must chose one of four options. These include 1) finishing their BOG degree by the end of Fall 2013. They have three semesters to complete or they will be transferred to GS; 2) change major to GS; 3) change to a traditional major program; or 4) Change to an Individualized Curriculum Program if they have earned more than 90 hours toward BOG degree. Finally, Provost Westbrooks explains that advisors will be available to assist them. I have faith in our university faculty and staff and believe that those advisors who will now be asked to much more work (will they get properly remunerated for their work?) are very good at their jobs. However, you can’t ask anyone to learn the entire curricula of each department and program in the university! BOG students who wish to choose option 3 will find this process difficult. Many have already expressed confusion and frustration at this additional hurdle on their way to achieving their educational goals.

The BOG confusion serves as metonym, metaphor and meditation on the confusion experienced by many students this semester as colleges, programs and departments were shuffled by executive order. Students sought guidance from faculty who upon return from summer break found out about these latest illogical institutional initiatives (III). One young man summed up this problem at the recent Board of Trustee meeting when he described how his department chairperson changed three times since last semester.

The Interim Dean’s office explained that as the last Illinois State University to have a BOG program we were an anachronistic bunch. We are told that the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) is ecstatic about this move into the next century. So, was this top-down authoritarian imposition into academic affairs (sovereign faculty space under any shared governance regime) a good idea? It depends on who you ask. If you ask current BOG students, you are likely to receive a negative response. These students, who were described as ‘experimental subjects,’ may not like the outcome of this ‘experiment’. Hopefully, the IBHE and HLC will answer in the affirmative.

But, we won’t know the answer to this question for some time. What we do witness is the intrusion into faculty space without an understanding by the regime of what is required to undertake such a reconstruction of a large program. This is illustrated by the scrambling that the committee to eliminate BOG and create GS had to do to develop this still incomplete program. Other faculty committees are being asked to sign-off the reconstruction/demolition/reincarnation of BOG without it even being completed. This, just days before registration. While I have faith in my colleagues and our CSU students that they will get through this maze relatively unscathed (though, obviously this will cause hardship for many), this illustrates well why faculty must govern academic affairs. Those who are not in the classroom nor do the grinding work of running the day-to-day primary mission of the university (learning) can’t possibly know whether or not their plans for reconstruction are pedagogically sound or whether they will assist students in acquiring their degrees, certificates and other qualifications. Nor can they know the amount of frustration and energy, and lowering of morale and enthusiasm that such ill-conceived notions bring.Traditionally, wholesale program changes and eliminations emanate from the faculty. A faculty knows the academic side of the university. Thus, this body is best positioned to develop it. Administration generally serves as a rubber stamp or in an advisory capacity on curricular matters. Their role is to support faculty initiatives and work to take care of the university’s budget. They might also care for the university’s reputation.

Drama in the Senate Meeting!

Wow! A faculty Senator called another Senator’s proposal “stupid” in the Senate meeting yesterday afternoon and accused him of shamelessly seeking to advance his career by, of all things, offering to serve on a university committee! High drama in the CSU Senate! Of course, things are not always as they appear at CSU.

In fact, the real issues are failed notification procedures, improper committee appointments, failure to follow committee Bylaws and the gradual denigration and loss of legitimacy of a very important faculty elected body. And you thought this blog only focused on administrative failures!

It is important to note that when the Senator in question “claims” to follow Robert’s Rules during the conduct of his meetings closely (though he only uses these to silence the dissent of “certain” faculty members) that often he interprets these rules to his selective advantage. And it is important to note that the Senator in question has a duty under the Bylaws of his committee to perform certain actions in a timely manner (distribute petitions of candidacy for committee vacancies to all eligible faculty members) and he repeatedly fails to do so, all while complaining that he desires faculty input! The truth is that he desires only “certain” input: the input that supports his preconceived ideas or input that he can direct to his own ends. The result is a “faculty elected body” that is not really faculty elected. The committee is “stacked” with new members ill-prepared to meet the challenge of their task and often under-informed of the consequences of their decisions. Decisions whose consequences will be felt long after they are gone and where accountability becomes difficult to establish and any resulting damage difficult to repair. Credibility is hard to win once it has been lost.

And in fact, this committee has few members with any institutional memory regarding policy development at a very important time: right before the HLC visit. Indeed, the Senator in question often claims to have been working very hard on important committee matters. In fact, this committee under his leadership often dallies for months at a time and repeatedly fails to deliberate over the actual consequences of committee actions. Did I neglect to mention that this committee is central to the academic integrity of the university? And that informed deliberation and tolerance for dissent are usually qualities desired in higher education? But alas, we want our students to think critically… faculty members seem to be exempt from this criteria!

And so we settle for another ill-informed policy decision (like the approval of the General Education outcomes yesterday without so much as one public and university-wide forum!) that will play itself out over the next several years causing the predictable Sturm und Drang that will follow in the wake of such decisions. Much of this could have been avoided if only the committee had really discussed and deliberated over these matters (as opposed to merely editing a document). And much of this could have been avoided if only the committee had allowed those with expertise to offer their insights on the matter without assuming inappropriately that they were trying "take over." Spectacle and short term thinking has often triumphed over substance and long-term planning.

And to think we noticed only the administrative failures to notify the university community of the rationale for its decisions or to communicate these effectively! In fact, some of the faculty achieve the same outcome and ineptitude for themselves that they chastise others for…

How “stupid” of us, indeed.

And I guess things may not always be as they appear!

Comparative Search Processes 101: an example of transparency for CSU?

A friend of mine connected to that lofty institution on the north side known as DePaul University forwarded a letter to me that she received from their president. It was an invitation to faculty "to share the deliberations" with their board of trustees and "to invite you to participate in the decision they will make to select a new university provost."

This letter could be a primer for our own Trustees and upper Administration as well as the Human Resources Department (btw now acting as a career center for hapless CSU students since the student career & placement office was eliminated this term). Our Admin has seemed skittish at best, hostile and secretive at worst, about including faculty in its alleged "searches" for Vice Presidents (btw the Shared Governance Committee of the Senate is still waiting for a response from Ms. H's office over who was on the last VP search, guess it will have to be gotten through the Freedom of Info Act tsk, tsk). And my goodness, the the DePaul Univ. President referred to faculty as "colleagues" in his letter. Since our Admin wants to make CSU over into a version of the City Colleges (note its most recent appointees and those on campus who seem have the ear of the CEO) perhaps it would be worthwhile looking outside the community college and corporate boxes to see how other universities do it. I know, I know, we are not DePaul University (they are not a political patronage pit), but if you want to improve your tennis game you play with someone who is better than you.

So here are some highlights. Wish I could say this is the type of letter I would ever receive here at CSU.

..."As you know, search processes in higher education follow a predicatable timetable. They generally begin in late summer or September with the formation of a representative search committee, seek a search firm to assist the committee, and then collaboratively create a job description for the position. That position is advertised to surface candidates. Simultaneously, through other connections of the faculty or the search firm, additional candidates are recommended and/or encouraged to apply. Offers are generally make to succesful candidates in the late winter or early spring, with the hope that the successful candidate will conclude affairs at her or his present institution and come to DePaul midsummer.

[Timing of the Search since it is the end of the fall term]

"It's simply impractical to ask the Faculty Council, Staff Council and the Student Government Association to propose candidates for the search committee before the winter quarter. The Trustees and I have little desire to conduct a compressed search for a position that is so important to the life of the university. For these reasons, the board thinks it best that we appoint an interim provost for the 2012-2013 academic year and begin the process of search for a new provost this February, getting a head start on the following year's cycle. This will give DePaul ample time to think through what we are seeking in a new provost and to search for a strong pool of candidates.
I am writing today, therefore, to seek your consultation on who you might propose to serve as interim provost. The board is seeking someone who is already a member of the DePaul community, so that the learning curve required for one year's leadership is minimized. That individual must also agree not to apply for the full position. This is for two reasons. That individual's attention should not be divided during the year by both the duties of the job and the search process itself, and the university community should not have to wonder whether decisions are being made to influence the selection process. Both the search process and the day-to-day administration of the university are "cleaner" if the interim provost is not applying for the position.
Obviously, an interim provost must have come from the faculty ranks earlier in his or her career and have shown a significant record of progressively responsible administrative acumen and skill, able to handle the many responsibilities of the provost's office... we also will be seeking someone with good knowledge of standard practices in faculty governance and who has a natural tendency to work collaboratively.
...I invite you to recommend candidates and share your reasons for proposing them. I also invite you to send me any thoughts you might have as to what the interim provost should accomplish during the year of the appointment. I will ask the office of the Secretary to send you a website shortly to which you can submit those thoughts, with the option of doing so confidentially...
Search for a Provost
At the same time I invite the Faculty Council, Staff Council and the Student Government Association to begin immediately the process of nominating members to serve on the search committee for the new provost. I expect the committee's work to begin in early February, and to pick up steam beginning in the Fall of 2012.
I specifically ask Faculty Council, Staff Council the Student Government Association, the deans and the Office of Academic Affairs to propose a slate of candidates and alternates so that the trustee chair can assemble and propose to the board a search committee that is appropriately representative of the larger university. This will also provide additional names if for any reason an individual finds that she or he can no longer serve.
The search process for provost will be conducted in the same manner as in past years. The search committee will consist of trustees and representatives of the faculty, staff, student body and administration. The chair of the board will appoint a chair from among the trustees and that chair will assemble the search committee. Internally, there will be three faculty, two staff, one student, one dean and one representative each from the Office of Academic Affairs and the Office of the President. As always, the Office of the University Secretary will staff the search process, a major task for which I am grateful. And, as always, the entire university community will be invited to meet finalists and submit their recommendations.
I can assure you that the trustees intend to listen carefully to the thoughts of the university community as the process unfurls. I ask you, therefore, to participate in this search process as you are invited along the way. The role of provost is the single most challenging job at any university, and it is important that we find and select an outstanding individual for this task...

We know that CSU's provost will retire in June. When does our university leadership intend to lead Faculty, Staff, and Students in this search? Can we hope for even half the transparency and shared participation that the DePaul University community is promised? Or, are the rumors here true and another City Colleges colleague of the CEO is already in place to take over as provost?

In the news again?

So how many more hits can the university withstand? To wit, an editorial in the paper of record, a story on the NPR affiliate in Chicago, and a story on the local ABC affiliate all mentioning the university’s connection to an emerging scandal with the former director of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). A local television station ran a story on October 17th  that was curious in this regard. The written version of the story, some eleven paragraphs long, mentions the former DCFS Director, his close friend and subject of the Executive Inspector General’s investigation and Chicago State University. There are clearly other  agencies involved so I find it very curious that a mention of Chicago State University would be so randomly added at the end of the story. Given that it is alleged that $18 million was misspent what amount was misspent through the university? If it were $180,000, then why would a 1% participation in the alleged fraud warrant a mention in the article? It seems as if the mention of the university isn’t directed at the university but at some agent of the institution. The ABC 7 story states “There are several officials at Chicago State University also implicated in the scandal.” So is the university being portrayed accurately or is it an employee at the university and if so how high ranking an employee. As it turns out the amount of money involved is at least $1million, possibly more. During the Board of Trustees meeting in December 2008, the Board voted unanimously to accept a federal and state funded grant given to the university from the City of Chicago. Little would the Trustees know that their actions would drag the university squarely into the middle of another political scandal. As it turns out, the current CEO hired a new Interim Vice President for Grants and Research Administration, what was previously known as the Office of Sponsored Programs. The newly hired administrator had neither experience at universities or experience in Sponsored Programs, possibly setting her up for what was to come later. When a “Chicago Department of Family & Support Services Head Start Support Services Contracts Non-Federal Share (In-Kind) Cost Report” was due, the Interim Vice President admitted that she signed a document without having the documentation required by the “Agency Certification for Non-Federal Share Expenses.” This essentially defrauded the state and placed the university in a precarious position relative to perceptions of the institution’s ability to perform appropriate oversight for taxpayer provided grants.  The Office of the Executive Inspector General recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Dr Harris for her failure to conduct appropriate oversight. The university responded in a letter dated August 1st, 2011 that Dr Harris “will receive a one day suspension.”
So it appears that it isn’t “several officials.” Rather it is one official placed in a position without requisite experience or knowledge by a president who though responsible for the university, has declined to publicly admit culpability in this matter. Of course one would hope that when the criminal and civil cases are launched all who are responsible will be held to account whether they wish to admit to it or not.
And on another note, is it really surprising that CSU is portrayed negatively and sometimes incorrectly when a member of its governing body lacks the sensibility to quietly resign from the Board of Trustees so as not to be a distraction or cause collateral damage resulting from an ongoing  federal investigation. Details of this story can be found here. Fortunately Governor Quinn recognized that and appointed three new Board of Trustees members on October 24th. Details of the new appointees can be found here.

Stay tuned.

Failing to lead

So it was quite a shock when I discovered that the university isn’t subject to just one audit per year. The State Universities Civil Service System (SUCSS) conducts a Biennial Institutional compliance Audit, the final report of which was issued August 16th, 2011. Imagine your humble narrator’s surprise to find that the university received 9 material findings. Taken in a vacuum, that number of findings is virtually meaningless, so I decided to inquire further, looking at the institution’s last SUCSS audit report, other state universities and other agencies under the audit supervision of the SUCSS. My non-scientific findings did lead me to some disturbing conclusions. 

First, the university is very consistent in its audit findings under the current administration. The most recent audit report from the State of Illinois Auditor General’s office showed a three fold increase in the number of audit findings (13 to 41) from FY 2009 to FY 2010. The SUCSS audit report shows a similar three fold increase in its audit findings, climbing from 3 in 2009 to 9 in 2011. Among the findings were, paying employees outside of the approved salary ranges, improperly maintaining the register and referring candidates and failing to follow regulatory guidelines in layoff transactions. These findings are all violations of the State Universities Civil Service Act.

Second, in the most recent audits of the state universities, only UIC received as many audit findings as CSU. This is surprising given that UIC has a budget of $1.95 billion, a total enrollment of 27,000 students, and nearly 11,000 Administrative, Professional and Support staff. The cost per budget dollar, per employee or per student is significantly less at UIC than at CSU. Illinois State University racked up 8 material findings, up 2 from its previous report. Western Illinois University and the University of Illinois Springfield tallied two material findings each while Eastern Illinois University only recorded one material finding.

Finally, I examined the audit reports for the Illinois Board of Higher Education, the State University Retirement System and the State University Civil Service System. In each of their most recent reports, these three agencies received no material findings.

As these audit reports are conducted by different agencies I wondered how the university’s performance might be characterized based on these findings.  Is CSU three times worse off under the new regime than it was even under the previous interim president? If so, is the recent praise by members of the Board of Trustees for the performance of the president warranted? If, as is indicated in the presidential contract on page2 that there is an expectation of reducing audit findings as a measure of performance, a reasonable person could conclude that the president has failed in that regard. Of course, I would imagine hearing that it was the fault of the subordinates or the fault of the previous administration. Taking the latter argument first, how responsibility could be placed on a previous administration who on their watch had 13 and 3 audit findings turn into 41 and 9 findings on the current watch is quite an intellectual stretch. And taking the former assertion next, I would respond with the question of who placed those subordinates in positions of responsibility in the first place? 

Thus the buck stops with the university president. I still haven’t heard any admission of responsibility for the audit findings of either audit report. It isn’t reports that indicate failure. The lack of acknowledgment of responsibility is the leadership failure.

Not so random thoughts

So a few bits and bobs have tumbled around in my head during the past few days and I thought I'd share them with you loyal readers.

* I have been thinking about the memo sent out from the administration about the university’s termination policy. It was an interesting memo. Because it didn’t apply to faculty I viewed it as a disinterested third party. The portion of the memo that struck me was that some behaviors were so egregious that immediate termination was warranted. Since this was a termination policy memo, I assumed that meant ending the employment at the university permanently. The problem I had with the language of that section of the policy was that it completely disregarded the constitutional protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments of equal protection and due process. Because an administrator says an employee has done something warranting termination doesn’t make it so. Whatever egregious behavior is accused still must be proven in some sort of process.  Every state employee below a certain level has rights. The policy should have been corrected to provide for suspension pending a termination procedure but to leave the impression that an administrator or supervisor would be able to be judge, jury and executioner is inappropriate and legally incorrect.
* I was amazed by the number of university employees that are paid $90,000 per year or more. Thirty of those are faculty, while the other sixty are administrators. Save for the academic administrators, which the regime is working vigorously to reduce the numbers of, what exactly does a $150,000 Vice President for Enrollment Management do? I am curious what warrants a level of pay slightly below the chief academic officer of the university..
* The Board of Trustees finally had enough members show up to form a quorum to approve the FY 2012 budget. After a cancelled meeting on October 10th where only three trustees were in attendance for a Special Board meeting the Board met on October 13th. The lack of attendance for a meeting to conduct university business begs the question why the Governor hasn’t replaced the three board members whose terms have expired, who incidentally were three of the four who didn’t show up for the meeting. The Governor seems to have made good choices for the recent appointments as three of the four most recent appointees were in attendance.
* I invite the regime to put to rest the spreading rumors that the next chief academic officer of the university is to be the current Vice President for Enrollment Management. If the rumor is true it would be unfortunate to appoint a Provost with no terminal degree, no publication record, no experience as a university tenure track faculty member, and no experience as a university dean. It is likely to raise red flags with accrediting bodies, the IBHE, and other agencies. A simple acknowledgment that this appointment is only a rumor would put this issue to rest.
* It appears the City College Re-employment Program is in full swing. Is a recently retired employee from Kennedy-King on her way to CSU for a little of the Illinois double dip?
* It is good to see that as the university “right sizes”, the official residence is getting a new driveway. I would assume this would be necessary for all of the potential donors seeking to share their corporate largesse with the university. This sort of infrastructure investment is better used at the official residence rather than in repairing the campus parking lots. Technically, I would suspect that the money for this is in a different account than the money to repair parking lots. Or maybe it is simply a matter of priority setting.
* Given the top down, ill conceived restructuring that has been occurring under the regime, I suggest that faculty in each college form a College Structure Committee to address how academic units should be organized. In response to the question of whether faculty can do that, I consulted the Collective Bargaining Agreement and found no prohibition on the faculty in participating in shared governance. So faculty, take the lead from the Graduate Council committee that is reorganizing the Graduate School. The business of the academic life should be the first priority of the professoriate. Consequently, being more proactive could lead to a more productive work environment. Leaving it to the professional juco administrators is likely to lead to reduced productivity.
* And on a final note, it’s that time of year. Yep, it’s Ethics Training time again. Thankfully, faculty can make their annual digital sojourn to remind them to be ethical for another 12 months. Given all of the opportunities the faculty has to be unethical and steal from the public treasury, an annual reminder to resist giving in to the lesser angles of our nature is probably a good thing.  Don’t forget to do your Ethics Training.

College Reorganizing Rationales

So I find myself disappointed, either for not understanding some greater administrative wisdom at play or at some of my colleagues for their unquestioning acquiescence to continued missteps by the regime.  During a College of Arts & Sciences meeting, the interim dean relayed the corporate double speak from the regime about increased efficiencies, improved communications and reduced unit size as being the rationales for reorganizing the College into what clearly resembles a junior college. I was dubious as this was explained because some fundamental questions had not been answered.

First, what problem was the solution of re-organizing into a juco solving? If the answers were size, efficiency and communications, where was the data to support those conclusions? The organization chart of the College could have been reconfigured with only minor adjustments providing an Assistant or Associate Dean for each of the three areas, Humanities, Social Sciences and Sciences. Each of those Assistant or Associate Deans could be faculty appointed part time to oversee those areas and free up the Dean to not have to supervise chairs from more than 15 departments.  Having part time administrators drawn from the faculty ranks who serve and then return to faculty raises the probability of the faculty not being captured by the mindset of administrative aggrandizement. A three year appointment should suffice in spreading the joy of administrative duties to those who would want to serve.
If size were a justification for reorganization what were the standards that were exceeded that warranted the disruption this reorganization created? Much larger universities than this one have not found a need to reorganize because of size. The University of Illinois at Chicago for example, have 22 departments and programs with 350 tenure track faculty who teach 9,300 undergraduate and 1,200 graduate students. As the largest college at that university, it appears that they haven’t been directed by their chancellor to disrupt the educational mission based on some unsubstantiated corporate speak. Since no data was presented and the rationales only in a cursory fashion I can only imagine it was spun from mid-air like many of the changes foisted upon the university by this regime. Ill-conceived and poorly thought out, this idea lacks any rigorous examination and unfortunately would not stand up to any intellectual scrutiny. Thus I am left with the belief this reorganizing has some other, unspoken more insidious agenda behind it.

Second, why is faculty being included in the discussion of how to manage an academic unit when the plan has already been implemented without them? This perfunctory inclusion is insulting and continues to demonstrate the contempt the regime holds toward faculty, regime apologists notwithstanding. Was the first reorganization based only upon the termination dates of chair contracts? An examination of chair contracts from the College of Arts & Sciences reveals a very interesting thing. The planning for this reorganization has been underway at the highest level since May 2010, as evidenced by appointment letters with language like “...During the coming year, we may revisit the organizational structure of various units, which may involve your unit.” So if the regime was planning reorganizing the academic units, why were faculty not substantively involved for 17 months? With the first, still unannounced/unacknowledged reorganization still causing confusion with students and faculty, I ask why is the regime reluctant to send out a written memo of its decision to ignore faculty (and the faculty contract) and reorganize the university’s largest college roughly a year before the university’s accreditation visit.

It is intellectually lazy to make statements like increasing efficiencies or improving communications without operationalizing what those corporate speak terms mean to highly skilled academicians. What efficiencies emerge when department chairs have more work to do and less help to do it? What efficiencies are realized when departmental offices are dispersed and students find it difficult to locate the appropriate office. What improved communications are generated when disciplinary compatibility are considered less important than operating the City College Re-employment Program.

If the interim Dean is to be taken at his word, then the plan for reorganizing will be left to the faculty. I doubt that since it is past behavior that is the best predictor of future conduct. In that case, the re-organization is already done. It just hasn’t been imposed on the faculty and students yet.

So, Who's Who at CSU? (And who will be the new Provost?)

A notice I saw recently in an office at CSU made reference to the "Conga Line of Retirements" that is taking place this year --many are administrators, faculty, staff, who are hoping to avoid the 8% loss of retirement benefits (or whatever it is that Gov. Quinn is planning) that will take effect in June 2012. Notable losses to expect: the Dean of the Honor's College, Dr. Milo, in December of this year, and our Provost, Dr Westbrooks, in June 2012. The Conga Line began more than a year ago--remember the firings of a lot of staff? Some folks have been harried out (remember Dr. Madhabuti?) or fired (remember Deans McCrank and Lindsey?), others have just said enough of the madness that is CSU and decided to quit/retire while the going is good (too many to list). Someone recently suggested I might like to follow suit--hmmmm...

At any rate the exodus of so many has made for a grand reshuffling of personnel including collapsing and reconfiguring offices, departments, colleges, the whole shootin' match. Wow, one year before our accreditation visit and we are just a hotbed of activity all over campus. But, as one colleague reminds me, "don't mistake activity for productivity." And as another would say, "the Admin just wants to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic." My more earnest colleagues chide such cynicism--yet they cannot seem to point to a grand scheme or master plan that would explain not just the need but the haste and urgency in which all this is being undertaken. But all things will be revealed in time, I suppose--what with the freedom of information act and all.

At any rate, you could be optimistic and say that it is always nice to see some new faces, get some new blood, fresh perspectives. Maybe. Has anyone wondered, however, who are all the new Cook Admin vice presidents, associate vps, interim associates, assistants that are popping up as soon as some new retirement or firing takes place?

If you look through an old copy of CSU's 2006-2008 Undergrad Student Catalogue you will find a directory in the back that lists Administrators, Associate and Assistant Deans, Chairpersons, Academic Programs Directors, and Faculty. It's quite a detailed listing. Each person is listed by name, title or rank, department to which they are associated, the date of their hiring, the titles and places of their final earned degrees. One thing about our former Prez Elnora Daniel was that she was a stickler for having people in academic administration at Chicago State University actually have earned Ph.D.s or at minimum an M.A. of some sort to hold office. Do you remember her emphasis on this? Faculty still have to have the terminal degree in their field to get tenure or promotion now, this is contractural. So what about the new administrators?

Well, it's not Elnora Daniel's campus anymore. The online catalogue which was supposed to be easier to maintain and keep up with changes is woefully out of date (all those mandated thesis requirements last year and program changes must have created quite a backlog of work). I understand the job has recently fallen into the lap of an individual newly reshuffled from another department so good luck to them with all that. BUT, if you check the online catalogue in comparison to the old printed catalogue the out of date listing of administrators does not include their academic credentials (or any credentials for that matter). Why is that? If it is an oversight then I hope the new website manager will rectify this and let us see who and where the new blood at CSU is coming from. Please tell me that Dr Watson is appointing people to these $90,000+ a year jobs under his prerogative who have more than a bachelor's degree.

And interim or not who will be next in line to the provost's job? This is the chief academic officer at a "doctoral-granting" university, one assumes this will be a properly credentialed person ("Ph.D. in hand" as the job ads in academe usually state). Since we know that Dr Westbrooks is leaving, when is the call going out to establish a university-wide provost search committee--hopefully not in April so that it has to run over the summer when the 9-month contractees (i.e. faculty) are not around? In 2003 we got dinged by the HLC accreditation report for shenanigans on that provost search and we will get dinged this accreditation for the shenanigans regarding the prez search of 2009. How many dings can we sustain?

Does anyone see the iceberg on the horizon?

How could shared governance look?

As a follow-up to my earlier post on shared governance, here is how I imagine Chicago State could operate if a genuine commitment to maximizing the effectiveness of the university’s human resources existed here. Not to disappoint some of my colleagues, but shared governance is not participatory democracy. Rather, it represents an understanding of which decisions should be made by which university groups. As a 2001 article makes crystal clear:

“Faculty sometimes defend the principle of shared governance by invoking the democratic principle of self-government, but the primary justification for the need for shared governance is not deference to the ideal of rule by the people. A college or university is not strictly speaking a democratic polity. [However,] (n)ot all the constituencies of an institution of higher education are equally positioned to make sound judgments about what is appropriate or necessary when it comes to teaching and research. Consequently, the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which remains the AAUP’s principal policy document on the issue, premises its defense of shared governance on the assumption that faculty ought to exercise ‘primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process,’ because the faculty—not students, administrators, or boards of trustees—have the greatest expertise in these matters.”

“Inextricably Linked”: Shared Governance and Academic Freedom, by Larry Gerber. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2001/MJ/Feat/gerb.htm

This quotation speaks to the underlying flaws in Chicago State’s version of “shared governance.” Here, faculty are not treated as experts in curriculum, teaching, or “faculty status.” As our recent history demonstrates, arbitrary decisions regarding curriculum and faculty retention ignore or do not seek the recommendations of “expert” faculty trained in specific disciplines, privileging instead the judgment of persons with little or no understanding of those disciplines. How could this be done better?

I would argue that the key is for our administration to recognize faculty expertise and substitute a collaborative, rather than a hierarchical para-military “we decide, you make it work” approach to curricular and personnel questions. Everyone on this campus has a vested interest in our success. If the administration has concerns about the rigor or questions about the requirements of specific programs why not ask the experts on those programs? My colleagues and I frequently make changes designed to improve the rigor of our degree programs–a process undoubtedly replicated by faculty across campus. Imposition of poorly conceived curricular and graduation requirements, elimination of programs (or colleges)in spite of overwhelming faculty support for their continuation, and unsupportable decisions to terminate tenure-track faculty, have a deleterious effect on students and faculty, sowing discontent and resulting in mistrust. This toxic mix contributes to an atmosphere of disaffection that a top-down management style only exacerbates.

I am not calling for some kind of revolution here. Rather, I am arguing that an effort on the part of our administrators to return (if it ever resided there) primary responsibility for their areas of expertise to the faculty would result in a healthier campus climate, and likely help assuage faculty concerns about their lack of influence in programmatic and curricular issues. While I believe that everyone is motivated only by a desire to improve the university, we need to try a different approach. Interestingly, Northeastern Illinois offers a model for us to consider. In curricular matters, their Senate constitution reads:

NEIU Faculty Senate Constitution

ARTICLE VII: DEPARTMENTAL OR OTHER EQUIVALENT UNITS (INCLUDING
PROGRAMS)

Each College and Resource Professional area is divided into departmental or other equivalent units. The embodiment of the University is the academic department. It initiates all matters regarding curriculum and must approve all curriculum proposals before they are considered by the appropriate College Academic Affairs Committee. Department/unit/program bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Faculty Constitution.

It seems like this would work no matter how we are reconfigured.