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

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

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

Chicago State in the National News

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

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


The link is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the top flows????

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

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

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

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

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

Some Random Thoughts on Yesterday's Opera Buffa

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

Breaking news from the Board meeting

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

Board of Trustees Meeting Tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Reconvene into Open Session
1. Action Items

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

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

10. Other Matters
a. Public and Employee Comments

11. Adjournment

And now for the “Really Big Show….” (aka the Three Ring Circus!)

This post is brought to you from a colleague of ours who has some concerns and asked to have this posted.--Corday

Just what you’ve been waiting for, ladies and gentlemen! A big production! The “Evening with Smokey” looks like a great scholarship and fundraising event for our students and for the University. Nothing raises the scholarly and academic profile of the institution like a trip down memory lane of the “golden oldies,” does it? Unless you’ve eliminated anyone and everyone who has any institutional memory of the place but I digress….

 As we all know, CSU has a “communication” problem…. And the recently anointed (and newly populated and re-populated) Office of Marketing and Communications (OMC) has been up and running now for several years under the new regime. Or is it the Department of Integrated Marketing Communications? or Public Relations and Communications? or the Office of Publications? If one looks on the current OMC website, one is not really sure what the old “Office of Public Affairs” has become. I’m sure the new inhabitants will know….

In any case, whoever is functioning as the leader (in an interim capacity no doubt given all of the turnover this office has had the last few years) they will know how to advertise the “big event!” You would think they have things down by now, especially after the giant four story tall “starving child” poster that took the South Loop by storm last year communicating “something” about CSU. And who could forget the impressive “You Greater” campaign (otherwise known as the “HLC marketing job”) that has really taken off! Doesn’t everyone have a green CSU pen by now? Given these experiences, let us see how well we’re doing marketing what is best about CSU for the “big event!” A little ad campaign for a fundraising event should be no problem for our experienced marketing team, right?

Amidst the hustle and bustle of the first weeks of class, it is likely only a few folks noticed the first electronic poster emailed to the entire University community. Of course, it was followed a day later with a revised version containing some new information. Clearly, the branding geniuses under the leadership of Sabrina Land would not have forgotten to tell folks where the event was being held? Isn’t the title of the University enough? It’s on campus somewhere, right? Besides we’re just trying to pump out a little poster for the big event to generate a little “buzz” as the new year begins, right? Good thing they didn’t spend any money on hard copies, eh? or did they? I guess we’ll never know. They bury mistakes around here… Happily, the revised electronic version sent out a day later indicates clearly the day, time, and location of the event. Still unclear however, is the difference between “premium” and “VIP” floor tickets, select and general seating, and what attire one should wear to a “strolling supper reception.” Of course, foolish me! With three drinks per ticket and an open bar, it will become clear enough I’m sure. Just follow the crowd! That is until event security doesn’t let you into the “VIP” area like some concert bouncer…

While I believe CSU can indeed put on a first class event that represents the University community well, our first electronic poster attempt also illustrates how public perception of ineptitude at CSU may be correct and how “on-the-job training” continues unabated in the marketing department. Let us count the ways: when looking at the first poster, one has no idea where the event is to be held. There is no location given beyond “CSU” and the date. Should I wear a low cut dress? Or a ball gown? Will the event be held in a gym? The new Library? or the old Robinson building? As we look closer, let’s say I am interested in the fundraiser dinner and then a little entertainment afterwards. But the choices are all so confusing. Should I get “select seating?” or the premium package? And what’s the difference? Is the cash bar included or does that cost extra for a different “package?” Such a dizzying array of choices…. one drink or two? maybe three? Should I get the ticket package that contains dinner and the show? Or can I just go to the really big show and skip the dinner? Is a donation required for one or both events? By the way, are there one or two events? What do you expect when it appears as if so many of the folks who have prepared these announcements seem never to have produced anything more than a series of “cut and paste” jobs by attaching a corporate logo and hoping for the best prior to their CSU employment. For those of us who have planned campus wide events at CSU over the years, there used to be a policy manual. Materials were proofread by people who looked for such information before it was distributed.

As should be obvious by now, the need for a second announcement was caught quickly by our crack marketing team. The revised poster comes out a day later listing the location and mailing address of the university as well as a phone number one may call if you wished to find out more information. But for some of us, the damage is clear and the poster fiasco has already communicated “ineptitude.” Many of the questions I asked above still remain unanswered by the revised advertisement. The whole fiasco illustrates how poorly CSU communicates its central ideas and how little information is really contained in the glitzy, glossy brochures being produced by the Office of “Whatever Title You Wish to Insert Here” these days. Select seating, premier packages, “strolling receptions” and a bunch of other nice sounding but vacuous distinctions that seem to make the “big event” appear really special are foregrounded while critical information like location and contact information are absent or contained in “supplementary communication.” It’s as if to say, “just call us and we’ll tell you which category of tickets you’re eligible for…”

So now we have arrived at the main issue: if this is how one “markets” a major event at CSU, how much greater and more significant would the failures of communication be if the same folks who created the poster fiasco claimed to know how to “brand” a university? And what if the folks making decisions in the “Office of Whatever” are without any training or experience marketing in an academic setting?  Do any of the members of the OMC possess experience creating the “branding” or institutional identity of a major state University? If not, the result might be to produce much of the same kind of confusion witnessed in the poster fiasco university-wide. For example, how do we fix financial aid? Where do we set up information tables to reach the most number of students?  which classes do we cut or let go? do our new academic advisors help or hinder our students? are they properly trained or prepared? and which candidate is the “best fit” for the position we just advertised? All of these “academic” concerns require the same kind of sensitivity, experience, and willingness to learn from others as writing good copy about the “big event.” Without such experience and sensitivity (and with apologies to Smokey Robinson), the big event looks like it risks becoming a three ring circus despite the nice color glossy “campaign materials.” Given the weighty structural issues that face our little university, the “poster debacle” will probably be little more than a minor distraction and no one will care. Besides… how alike is the activity of creating an advertisement and running a university? 

 Perhaps we are communicating more than we think….

Administrative Failure 102: Or Hey! Hermene Hartman: Watson's a Loser

"The Chicago State University presidency is ideal for Wayne Watson. Education is his passion. He will bring the school to new heights with student enrollment, a wonderful facility and a good team. I hope for the students' sake that he is the choice. His skill set is perfect, his commitment is sincere and his accomplishments speak for themselves. And perhaps, just perhaps, this experienced veteran educator will take Chicago State University to greatness." Hermene Hartman on April 17, 2009.

Forgive me for posting twice in one day, but I've just finished research into the audit findings and I wanted to share the results. The examination reveals a far more accurate statistical breakdown. Here it is:

2011: Chicago State 41 exceptions, Urbana-Champaign 35 exceptions, UIC 7 exceptions, UI Springfield 1 exception. 2012: Chicago State 34 exceptions, Urbana-Champaign 31 exceptions, UIC 5 exceptions, UI Springfield 1 exception. 2013: Chicago State 29 exceptions, Urbana-Champaign 24 exceptions, UIC 4.5 exceptions, UI Springfield 2.5 exceptions (one audit finding was present at both UIC and UI Springfield). Three year totals: Chicago State 104 exceptions, Urbana-Champaign 90 exceptions, UIC 15.5 exceptions, UI Springfield 4.5 exceptions. Chicago State had 15.6 percent more audit exceptions than the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a school with more than 43,000 students. This officially makes the Watson administration's compliance performance the worst in the state.

This is just one of several dismal administrative statistics during Wayne Watson's tenure. As of last night, Chicago State's total enrollment stood at 5796, down 311 (or 5.1 percent) from Fall 2012. This year's figure contributes to the total decline of 1566 students (or a drop of 21.3 percent) since 2011, again the worst administrative performance in the state in terms of enrollment management. This decline comes as no surprise since Watson presided over a 22.3 percent drop in enrollment at the City Colleges during his last nine years as Chancellor. In fact, we now have thirteen years of data to use in evaluating Watson's performance in enrollment management. During that time the schools he "led" experienced only two years of enrollment increases: City Colleges in 2008-09 (Watson's final year) added 83 students to a population of 95,224 (an increase of .000872 percent or 872 one millionth of a percent). In Watson's first full year at Chicago State, the population increased from 7235 to 7362, a gain of 127 students (or .01755 percent). Historically, these meager increases have been wiped out by yearly enrollment drops of 6.1 and 9.6 percent at City Colleges and successive declines of 6.5, 11.3 and 5.1 percent at Chicago State.

In terms of fund raising for the university, the Chicago State Foundation's income has decreased 46 percent under Watson's regime, while contributions have decreased around 35 percent. Of course, it is hardly necessary to recount the difficulties Watson continues to have with faculty and the press.

Hartman's 2009 column represents an almost textbook version of doublespeak. Permit me to provide a translation. "The Chicago State University job is going to Wayne Watson whether you like it or not. Self-promotion is his passion. He will bring the school to new lows with precipitous drops in student enrollment, a crumbling facility (see the Science building or the parking lots for examples), and a bumbling, highly-compensated, crony-filled team. . . His skill set is non-existent, his vindictiveness and cynicism are legendary and his accomplishments as a scholar, "educator" and administrator are negligible. And perhaps, just perhaps, this political hack will leave Chicago State University on life support."

Patronage or just a reward for services rendered?

In the past two years, university employees with close ties to Wayne Watson have benefitted materially from those ties. The four administrative employees Watson brought on board in late 2009, Police Chief Ronnie Watson, Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management Cheri Sidney, General Counsel Patrick Cage and Human Resources Director Renee Mitchell have received raises averaging 19.9 percent over the past two years. During that time, the salaries of these four have risen from an average of $114,928 to $137,804.

These four persons are part of an eight person group who either worked with Watson at City Colleges of Chicago, have a close personal relationship with him or have demonstrated unwavering loyalty to Watson for the past few years. The others in this group: Associate Vice President of Finance Maricela Aranda, Vice President of Sponsored Programs Yvonne Harris, Executive Director of Project Counseling (TRIO) Jasmika Cook and of course, newly-minted PhD (according to Human Resources--that information is yet to be verified independently) and Provost Angela Henderson. The average raise for these eight persons in the past two years: 17.65 percent.

The overall salary increase for all full-time employees at Chicago State for the past two years has been 8.4 percent or an average of 4.2 percent per year. In comparison with the eight persons above, the three Deans who have retained their positions for the past two years have seen their salaries increase 6.7 percent (3.35 percent per year), while the nine chairs have enjoyed a 4.7 percent (2.35 percent/year) raise. In addition, in 2011, the salary difference between the 8 Watson-connected administrators and the 12 deans and chairs stood at 10 percent. Following the raises Watson awarded to his most valued administrators, the difference now stands at 23 percent.

As far as individuals are concerned, the biggest raises have gone to persons who are part of the Watson group of eight. Leading the way is the new Provost Angela Henderson with a promotion and a likely salary increase of 38.7 percent, (this is an estimate based on the most recent raise that put the Provost at a higher salary than the Dean of the College of Pharmacy). Given Henderson’s abysmal performance as Vice President of Enrollment Management (university enrollment down better than 21 percent for the past three years, including 15.8 percent since she came to Chicago State, retention rate down), it is amazing that she still has a job, particularly in light of the president’s much ballyhooed (cynical?) focus on “responsibility and accountability.” Of course, Henderson possesses other qualifications: she is a long-time Watson crony, having worked for him and been the recipient of his benevolence at City Colleges. And let us not forget the sterling performance of her husband, Victor Henderson, defending Watson valiantly against the "scurrilous" accusations hurled against him in March.

Not surprisingly, second place on the list of individual raises goes to Human Resources Director Renee Mitchell (25.0 percent). Mitchell produced that amazingly contradictory whitewash of the Criminal Justice hirings in 2012. Third place belongs to Watson’s girlfriend, Cheri Sidney, who has enjoyed at least one promotion and a salary increase of 19.3 percent. Sidney’s lack of qualifications are well-documented, an on-line Bachelor’s degree from DePaul when she was hired with no significant upper administrative experience and no administrative experience whatsoever in institutions of higher education. Sidney, who has seen her salary increase 25.9 percent since her hiring in 2009, now has a Master’s Degree in Applied Professional Studies from the DePaul School for New Learning (awarded June 14, 2013). Anyone wishing to explore the rigor of that particular degree program can simply log on to the School for New Learning website. Since coming to Chicago State, Sidney has been an integral part of the failures of the Enrollment Management colossus.

Fourth place belongs to Police Chief Ronnie Watson with an 18.9 percent increase. Watson, who has additional duties related to buildings and grounds, physical facilities and parking, now makes $137,916 and has the responsibility for a staff of 109, including 26 badge personnel (according to the Chicago State directory). Watson’s salary is comparable to the lower salary range of a Chicago Police Commander who is responsible for one of the city’s twenty-plus police districts and hundreds of employees.

Rounding out the top five is Patrick Cage at a 17.4 percent raise since 2011. We all know Mr. Cage from his several forays into censorship and his nonsensical 2012 comments about Chicago State’s loss of a first amendment case that eventually cost the university over $200,000 in court costs and legal fees, as actually a “win” for the university. Although it should be noted that the first amendment violation did not occur on Wayne Watson’s watch, Cage’s statements exposed the university to additional ridicule.

When Watson awarded huge raises to three administrators at the beginning of the year, university spokesperson Thomas Wogan claimed that the raises were based on “merit and performance” and that “competitive salaries are needed to retain talented employees.” For at least two of Watson’s favorites, their “merit and performance” should have earned them termination. For the others, when compared to some of their fellow administrators, their connections to Wayne Watson appear to be an important factor in determining their worth. Compared to these generous pay increases, how have you fared?