Bits and Pieces: As if you need a reason NOT to vote for Gov. Quinn; and look what they do at other universities when administrators, um, you know...

I'm just passing along a few links that some colleagues have forwarded this week.

In case you missed the Tribune's weekend editorial on whether or not to vote for Gov Quinn, one of the reasons not to is...us.

...The list of poor judgments, often for political ends, is lengthy: Quinn has sought favor from south suburban voters by committing public money to a future Illiana Expressway that stands to be an unneeded boondoggle. The governor's mishandling of board appointments aborted efforts to bring new leadership to chronically troubled Chicago State University on the city's South Side...

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-pat-quinn-endorsement-edit-0302-20140302,0,4544597.story

And I guess things are more cut and dried at Kean University in NJ. They dispatched this administrator pretty quickly for something that really is, well, pretty cut and dried.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/top_administrator_leaves_kean_university_after_plagiarism_probe.html


CSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING is Friday--all day in the Library Auditorium. Public comment is the time to express your concerns to them (whether they listen is another question, nevertheless...)

Here We Go Again: An Out-of-Control Watson Administration Attempts Another Attack on Free Expression

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell from The Freedom of the Press first published in the Times Literary Supplement, September 15, 1972. Accessed here: http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Our university is apparently chock-full of people with delicate sensibilities. Persons who require protection from our intrepid administration because they are the victims of hostile, bullying behavior by other, truly horrible, members of the university community. Wayne Watson and his stooges are now in the process of creating a new narrative, built as usual around faculty culpability for all the problems that bedevil Chicago State. Enrollment declines? The bad publicity created by the faculty–things like lying on applications/resumes, cheating to get jobs for which they are unqualified–makes prospective students look elsewhere. The university’s poor, arguably laughable academic reputation? Again, the bad publicity created by the faculty– especially faculty who plagiarize their dissertations to acquire unearned Ph.D.’s, or “run to the media” with complaints rather than presenting them to the honest and scrupulously fair administration–presents the university in a bad light. Watson believes the Faculty Senate is “hostile” and apparently undermining all the wonderful efforts of the administration–hostility and a penchant for ham-handed vindictiveness and retaliation on the part of the faculty that resulted in the recent defeat in court and subsequent punitive damage award of $2.5 million against the university. He is appalled by the lack of “civility” demonstrated on the Faculty Voice web site–incivility on the part of the contributors to that site that includes ridiculous threats of law suits over non-existent trademark infringement claims– and has been forced to unleash his legal team in an effort to muzzle that site and stifle dissent. Against this backdrop of conspiratorial and damaging behavior, Watson, the quintessential consensus-builder, tries heroically to struggle along against the unreasoning and unreasonable attacks from his unspeakable enemies. Thank goodness he was able to single-handedly earn re-accreditation for the institution.

Our creative administration is prepared to unveil a new strategy. On the agenda for the March 7 Board of Trustees meeting is something called a “Cyber Bullying Policy.” I will discuss this in greater detail but I would first like to do a brief recap of how I believe such a policy came about.

In early November, I began posting evidence that demonstrated irrefutably that at least three university administrators: Angela Henderson, Cheri Sidney and Tyra Austin had lied on their resumes/applications. I also notified Human Resources of the falsehoods that appeared in the official records of two of these three persons. I received a response from Renee Mitchell that claimed knowledge of the lies and assured me that the university had “taken appropriate action,” an interesting assertion since appropriate action in case of falsification of university records is termination. Around this time, at a PEC meeting, Watson bemoaned the “incivility” of the Faculty Voice, and speculated that it might constitute “cyber bullying,” and Patrick Cage, according to his ridiculous assertion in the November 11 letter discussed below, claimed to have discovered the existence of the faculty blog.

On November 11, Cage sent his now infamous “Cease and Desist” order to Phillip Beverly, ordering him to “disable” the web site. Cage cited the blog’s lack of “content civility standards” as one of his areas of concern, although he failed to link that concern to his purported grave fears about the blog’s trademark infringement. You might remember the national ridicule generated by Cage’s letter and its obvious attempt to stifle the free speech rights of Chicago State employees. In response, several faculty members consulted an attorney who sent a letter to the university disputing Cage’s claims. The site continued to operate and its contributors continued to post pieces critical of the administration and several of its most prominent members. The site’s operator made some minor changes to its appearance.

These changes were apparently insufficient for our administration and its legal team. On January 3, a legal firm hired by the university sent another threatening letter to our attorney. This letter ordered the operators of the blog to place a disclaimer on the site that specified that its contributors were not speaking for the faculty “as a whole.” The contributors to the Faculty Voice have ignored that demand and have made no further modifications to the site’s appearance.

In mid-January, news about Angela Henderson’s plagiarized dissertation relegated discussions of trademark infringement to the background. As I described in a previous post, I discovered the dissertation on the UIC Indigo web site on December 14. A cursory examination revealed obvious plagiarism and by the time I finished going through the document, I found more than 80 passages taken verbatim from various sources with no proper attribution or even quotation marks. On January 14, a newspaper article detailed the plagiarism and the following day, an editorial appeared. Henderson’s plagiarism again exposed the university to national ridicule.

Watson’s response to all this is instructive. Given a second opportunity to protect the academic integrity of the institution, he chose to do nothing. As he had done for Sidney and Austin in the case of their lies on official university records, Watson allowed Henderson to remain in her position. Given pronouncements that he has apparently made in various contexts, Watson considers my exposure of the plagiarism to be the real problem.

As previously reported on this blog, immediately after the plagiarism revelations, Watson ramped up his attack on the legitimacy of the Faculty Senate. The recent memorandums threatening to eliminate the senate by February 26, 2014, if we failed to comply with our constitution and the ridiculous FOIA request regarding our election procedures demonstrate that Watson still desires to find a way to eliminate that pesky faculty governance body.

Now the university is moving to establish a “Cyber Bullying Policy,” that is simply another attempt at an end-run around the first amendment. I will post it here and you can make your own determination:

There are two major links between all the incidents I have just described: dishonesty and a basic lack of academic integrity. Given Wayne Watson’s history, I see neither as particularly surprising. The president of this university has done nothing scholarly since receiving his Ph.D. more than 40 years ago. He has, however, through political maneuvering and the tactics of bullying, intimidation and divisiveness succeeded in building himself a lucrative administrative career at the expense of the taxpayers of the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. What do his accomplishments include?: precipitous drops in enrollment at both City Colleges and Chicago State during his leadership tenure, financial shenanigans that include gifts of scores of millions of dollars of public funds to political cronies and friends. These include Emil Jones’ family members, Watson’s chief shill Hermene Hartman and current member of the Board of Trustees Nikki Zollar. Watson has also rewarded friends and cronies with jobs for which they do not meet the qualifications and/or in which they perform incompetently (see Angela Henderson, Cheri Sidney and Tyra Austin for examples). Given the opportunity to demonstrate his allegiance to “academic rigor” a platitude he frequently spouts, Watson revealed his true beliefs by refusing to discharge employees who have exhibited common dishonesty and/or committed flagrant and serious violations of acceptable academic standards.

Of course, the ultimate problem in all these administrative efforts is that they miss the real point of what an academic institution should stand for. The problem with people lying on applications/resumes is not that they are exposed, it is that they do it in the first place. The problem with a university’s chief academic officer cheating to obtain a degree is not that someone reports it, it is that her/his behavior is dishonest. The problem with the president’s performance is not that the Faculty Senate has seen fit to pass two overwhelming votes of no-confidence, it is that his performance has been so woeful that those votes became necessary. The problem with unethical financial behaviors is not that someone discovers and reports them, it is that they occur. As members of an academic community, we should be concerned with a search for truth (whatever that may be, according to our disciplines). Liars and cheaters must be extirpated from the community of scholars or we retain no integrity.

I can assure Watson that attempts to destroy this forum by establishing dubious policies will have no effect on our continued criticism of him, his administration and many of its functionaries. There is much more to be revealed and it will be brought into the light of day, there is nothing that anyone in the Cook building, on the Board of Trustees or in the State of Illinois can do to stop that. Truly, the worst is yet to come.

I Guess This is What University Presidents Do With Their Time: The Administration Wants to Invalidate the Election So Sir Wayne Can Vanquish the Senate

"it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it." Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of The Universe, quoted here: http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/tomsnyder/hg-2-28.html

I wonder if there is anyone left out there who does not realize what is now afoot here at Chicago State. Since 2009, Watson has attacked what faculty influence existed upon his arrival. A review of some of his efforts: the seemingly arbitrary reorganizations of the Colleges of Education and Arts and Sciences; the DAC fiasco of summer 2012; the improper crony hiring of Criminal Justice faculty in 2012; the several attempts to stifle faculty dissent, including the computer usage policy, communications policy and the recent attacks on the Faculty Voice; interference in faculty hiring; the on-going conflict with the Faculty Senate over its “representation” that masks a simple desire to eliminate that troublesome body; and the recent contract with a “Workplace Intelligence Firm” to do some kind of an investigation on “certain conduct relative to University procedures.” The most recent Watson memorandum about the Faculty Senate is simply another tactic in the Watson effort to consign to irrelevance the faculty of Chicago State.

One of the key components in the Watson attack on faculty has been its mendacity. His recent memorandum purports to be concerned with alleged problems in the balloting for the Faculty Senate amendments. Watson’s e-mail of March 3, 2014, claims that “The University has since received various complaints from eligible faculty indicating that they neither received notice of the election nor cast their ballots.” I wonder who he could be talking about since no one from the Unit A faculty has complained to anyone in the Senate about the allegations made by Watson. Certainly, if the administration communicates (or if the individuals themselves contact me or some other representative of the Senate) the names of those persons who claim to have been denied a ballot, I would be happy to determine their eligibility to vote and whether or not their names appeared on the e-mail list I used to disseminate election material to Unit A faculty.

Otherwise, allegations on behalf of anonymous persons carry little weight, except with an administration determined to dismantle what remains of legitimate faculty governance on this campus. Imagine what a legislative body created and assembled under the watchful and approving eye of Wayne Watson would act like.

Between February 10 and 18, I sent out no fewer than three e-mails regarding the Senate election. I’ve attached PDF copies of those e-mails. A post on the CSU Faculty Voice on February 18 reminded all unit A faculty that the election’s conclusion was that day and that if they wished to vote they should do so. I am in possession of all ballots cast as well as a master list of all faculty who cast ballots. I verified that all persons voting in the election were eligible to do so.

The vote approving the Senate amendments was about as close to unanimous as possible. Altogether, 98 unit A faculty cast ballots. The smallest margin of passage was 94-3. Some faculty did not vote for all the amendments on their ballots, but overall, of 878 votes cast for individual amendments, 869, or 99 percent favored the amendments. Faculty cast only 9 total votes against the 9 amendments.

The trajectory of this contretemps is instructive. The Faculty Senate operated under the representation that Watson finds so objectionable for two full years before the administration decided that the current configuration possibly made the senate’s actions “invalid.” Watson sent out an ultimatum to follow the procedures in the 2011 constitution on January 28, 2014, with a deadline of February 26, 2014 to hold an election as required by the document. Almost immediately after being notified of the unpalatable (to him) results of the election, Watson sent the request for documentation to which the Senate President responded. Since he obviously did not like the Senate President’s response, Watson and his crack legal advisor filed a FOIA request for the material they claim to need in order “to verify that a proper election was held and that the appropriate notices were sent.”

That’s all nice rhetoric but it ignores some simple realities. First, there are no concrete rules for elections in the Senate Constitution. The only criterion is that the faculty election be by “ballot.” Second, eligibility to cast votes in Senate elections is restricted to faculty who are tenured and tenure-track (unit A), according to articles III and IX of the constitution. The recent election complied with both those requirements. Unfortunately, this vote did not result in the outcome Watson and his minions desired.

We have already seen the administration toss out a student government election, now they are trying the same tactic with the Senate. However, they do not get to determine who is eligible to vote. Neither do they get to weigh in on the “propriety” of the election procedures. Both those subjects are the purview of the Faculty Senate, per the constitution to which the administration eagerly wishes us to adhere. Copies of e-mails attached:

As you can see, election announcements went out via e-mail on February 10, 14 and 17. On February 18, I posted a final reminder on the blog.

"Here I come to save the day..." "I'll save you Nell..." "It's a bird, it's a plane..." "COWABUNGA!!!"

THE SUPER CAPE IS OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!!

When last we left, our hero was battling the forces of evil in the faculty Senate...

Will he succeed and close them down? 

Perp walk those perpetrators of pure fact off campus? 

...STAY TUNED.  SAME BAT TIME SAME BAT STATION...

Faculty Senate meets tomorrow at 12.30 in Library-c'mon down and see if the Chief is there to hang faculty in chains! 

In the meantime read below the Caped Crusader's memo.

M E M O R A N D U M

TO:                 CSU Faculty

FROM:           Wayne D. Watson

DATE:            March 4, 2014

RE:                  For Your Information:  Faculty Senate Constitution Update

This memo is to update you on the status of amendments to the Faculty Senate Constitution. On February 24, 2014, the Faculty Senate communicated to University administration that an election was recently held to ratify amendments made to its Constitution in September 2011.

Subsequent to the election, the administration received correspondence from the Chairman of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Phillip Beverly, indicating that amendments to the Constitution had been approved by 99 % of the faculty. The University has since received various complaints from eligible faculty indicating that they neither received notice of the election nor cast their ballots.

On February 25, 2014, in an attempt to verify that a proper election was held and that the appropriate notices were sent, the University sent correspondence to the Chair of the Faculty Senate requesting the following information:

1.               Date(s) of the election(s)

2.               A description of how the election was conducted

3.               Originals of all ballots cast (or an opportunity to view these documents)

4.               List of persons responsible for counting the ballots

5.               A copy of the original Constitution with the amendments highlighted as tracked changes

6.               Method and verification of determining which faculty were eligible to vote.

A copy of the response to this request, which was submitted by the Chair of the Faculty Senate on February 27, 2014, is attached for your information.  A copy of a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request sent by University General Counsel to the Chair of the Faculty Senate is also attached.

We will continue to keep all members of the CSU faculty informed of developments relative to this matter.            

Attachments (2)

Why Did Watson Hire a "Workplace Intelligence Firm" to do an Investigation?

Over the past several years we have learned a number of things about the Watson administration: First, it does not like public scrutiny. Second, this administration insists on adherence to established policies and procedures from some university groups but not from others, while it continuously violates university policies. Third, it has no problem with varying levels of dishonesty on the part of members of the administration and is apparently heedless of the negative consequences for the university. Fourth, the president of Chicago State has demonstrated a rather costly penchant for retaliation that is remarkable, even by Chicago political standards. Just ask Jim Crowley and Maria Moore about that.

For example, the administration’s response to revelations of the outright falsehoods and academic dishonesty of some of its senior members has been to attack the persons exposing those lies. Rather than dealing with the extensive documentation underpinning and the serious issues raised by those lies, the administration ignores the misbehavior of its own members and brazenly attempts to stifle dissent by trying to destroy the Faculty Voice, split the faculty and delegitimize the efforts of the Faculty Senate.

Recently, it seems that the administration may have formulated a new avenue of attack. Although some of what follows is speculation, I hope readers will find the interpretations somewhat persuasive. Several members of the faculty are beginning to examine the various ways our administration spends public funds. Looking at the budget requests for fiscal 2014 and requesting specific expenditures creates a picture that demonstrates where the administration’s fiscal priorities lie and where it spends its discretionary funds.

Part of this discretionary spending occurs in the contractual expenditures for legal representation, which have grown exponentially in the past three years, contributing to a huge increase in the university’s expenses for legal services. In Fiscal 2010, the university budgeted $45,257 for contract legal services, in fiscal 2011, the same amount. In fiscal 2012, this amount grew to $124,557 and exploded in fiscal 2013 to $316,212. Along with this nearly 700 percent increase in the budgeted amount for contract services, personal services expenditures (salaries) grew from $178,620 in 2010 to $767,834 in 2013, an increase of 430 percent. Due to these increases, the total cost of Labor and Legal affairs skyrocketed from $264,328 in 2010 to $1,124,400 in 2013, a nearly five-fold increase.

The university likely spent the majority of the funds designated for contract legal services in fiscal 2013 on the Crowley case. However, a recent contract may reveal the intent of Chicago State’s administration to take clandestine and troublesome measures in a continued attempt to destroy its opponents. On February 12, 2014, Watson signed a contract with the law firm of Laner Muchin, for a maximum of $30,000 to “Represent Chicago State University . . . in connection with a review of certain conduct in relation to the University’s operating standards.” Further, the contract stipulates that “The scope of legal services will include an investigation, and the providing of advice and services in connection with the investigation and representation.”

Just who is this legal firm? It has done a great deal of business with the City Colleges of Chicago, much of it when Watson was Chancellor. Laner Muchin’s web site advertises it as “The Workplace Intelligence Firm,” and boasts of its reputation as a firm that “translat[es] complex laws and regulations into thoughtful, real-world solutions. It means helping our clients address their daily challenges within the workplace, as well as in matters before courts or government agencies . . .”

I think this contract raises a number of questions. With a staff of attorneys and a budget of over $1 million dollars why do our legal folks need to spend $30,000 on this contract? do we really need a "workplace intelligence" legal firm to evaluate conditions at Chicago State? Just what kind of "certain conduct" are they charged with investigating? Which "operating standards" are they dealing with? Exactly who are they planning to investigate? I suppose time will reveal the answers to all these questions, but I think, given our recent history, it is highly likely that the administration will use this firm to attack individuals or institutions that represent the Chicago State faculty. I would welcome any thoughts on this.

And One More Story

So loyal readers, one more publication has coverage of our newly returned colleague. The Chicago Law Bulletin weighs in with its coverage. Providing the legal interpretation of the university administration's behavior, this article is particularly insightful. 

The story continues....

And the others chime in

So loyal readers, it wasn't just the Chicago Tribune, but now three other news outlets that are reporting on our soon to be returned colleague, Jim Crowley. Links to the stories are here: Chicago Sun Times, Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed.

Reading these stories gave me pause as I began to consider several unanswered questions. For example, where would Mr. Crowley work? I find it highly unlikely he would work in the Legal Department as they have more than enough attorneys tending to the university's mounting legal needs. Might he find himself in Auxillary Operations? Well that would be unlikely as well since that does not exist and I don't know if Jim could co-exist, in an ethical context, working with an Associate Vice President who lied on her employment application with no consequence. Does that leave the academic department flush with attorneys known as the Criminal Justice, Political Science and Philosophy department as his new work place. Yes loyal readers, I would ask you refresh your memory about the illegitimate hiring orchestrated by the university's president in August of 2012. No, you say. Surely academic departments are held above petty administrative machinations? Sadly, not at Crony State University, where we hire our friends and re-hire those we fired unjustly. 

Sources close to Mr. Crowley indicate he is ready to return to the university and assume duties commensurate with his education and experience. And given that administrators have received pay increases in the past four years he is likely to earn more than the salary he was being paid when he was terminated. 

Welcome back Jim.

You mean we scooped the Tribune

So it seems our humble efforts to keep the community informed have been of some modest benefit. The Chicago Tribune has now reported on this unfortunate misstep for the university, namely a multimillion dollar judgement in a landmark decision. The irony is not lost on me that the university would be found responsible in an Ethics Act case. Even the presence of the first Executive Inspector General, Z Scott, on the CSU Board of Trustees could not prevent this misstep. Luckily for us though the current board has complete confidence in the President or the university might really be in trouble. 

Several loyal readers have asked about details of this case. I will work to provide some insights in this forum for those interested in the anatomy of a $3 million judgement. Look in the upcoming weeks to several posts about this case as I believe it is the first of many to come.

Chicago State's $2.5 Million Man Makes the News Again: More Good Press for Chicago State and its "Educator of the Year" President Wayne Watson

Here's a link to a story on the Watson Clown Show's latest ethical, fiscal and public relations disaster: The somewhat embarrassing loss of the Crowley lawsuit. I particularly like the university's attorney claiming that Crowley's firing was proper because he engaged in "preferential treatment" for himself and a friend. Certainly none of that here at Chicago State! I guess Wayne Watson cannot order a university attorney to violate state and federal law without at least incurring some monetary consequences. Of course, it's only the Chicago Tribune. Time for one of Watson's friends to give him another award for being "the finest educator of our time," or some other such nonsense. Time again for the Watson administration to blame the faculty for the bad publicity. How much will this guy eventually cost this school and the taxpayers of the state of Illinois? Anyway, you can read about the $2.5 million man's folly here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-jury-awards-former-chicago-state-university-employee-25m-20140226,0,6922446.story

Actual Vote in Recent Balloting

At the request of someone commenting on another post, here are the actual vote totals. The vote was previously presented by percentage because that is the determining factor in whether the amendment passes or not, (2/3 of the vote remitted).