A colleague asked me to post this regarding the recent death of retired faculty member Dr. Bart McSwine, former chair of African American Studies. I am sure more up-to-date information will be posted by the university at some point. In the meantime we understand that his funeral services are tentatively scheduled for Visitation on July 11th from 3-7 pm at Midwest Memorial Chapel, 26 W. 154th Street, Harvey, IL 60426. Funeral is set for July 12th.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
It's July 1st do we know who's who?
Apparently the only thing we know today, July 1, 2014, is that faculty are following the students and taking CSU's Board of Trustees and administration to court. Check out the 25-page document concerning CSU's infringement of constitutional freedom of speech in the form of threats to the CSU blog and the thinly veiled free-speech silencer "cyber-bullying policy." Tsk, tsk, so many tender Tommies out there in cyberland. The Fire lawsuit doesn't, but should, include HRH Dr Watson's penchant for banishing people from campus premises at his whim (no "due process" for doing such--hey isn't that another constitutional thingy?). Honestly, I never heard of so many people being banished from sight since I last read Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars.
"I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I don't know enough about you..." (Diana Krall)
Anyway, while we know about the Fire lawsuit today, it is July 1st--old contracts done, new ones begin--does anyone really know who some of our administrators are? Back in the olden days when we had something of a personnel calendar that was more or less adhered to you received your personnel documents in a relatively timely manner. It seems that things just go into a black hole somewhere in Cook and don't emerge for months on end (I just got my 2013-2014 personnel notices this week), can't imagine when I'll get my 2013-2014 "portfolio" back, and weren't all those job interviews going on in May supposed to net us some deans and a provost? So, on July 1st, 2014, who is:
1. the Provost--what's the hold up in sending out AH's appointment letter? Do we have a provost today?
2. Department Chair--a few departments had elections this spring, but here it is July 1st and many of us are still waiting for the announcement that HRH has appointed someone. I suppose it doesn't matter much because who can learn such jobs in 1 year which is all chairs are now. Dr WW removed the 3-year term from dept chairs and turned them into permanent interims at 1-year appointment.
3. Dean of Arts and Sciences--ok, I think an announcement was made a few weeks ago that someone was dean for certain days in June, then someone else was going to be dean for a few days after that and then, I believe, Dr. Leroy Jones was going to be dean until a permanent dean could be found. Huh? Since Rachel Lindsey left there has been a CAS Dean's search every year (time, money wasted) and still we just get another interim?
4. Associate Dean--do colleges have these in place--when you don't give out contracts no one knows for sure...
5. University Advisors-- I guess some of these folks also did not receive contracts on July 1st and are not working. Who's handling all those students Enrollment Management is bringing into the univeristy? Oh right, silly question.
What kind of management strategy is this? Oh right, right, right, "come in, create chaos, then exploit it."
Well, time to get back to reading Animal Farm...
"I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I don't know enough about you..." (Diana Krall)
Anyway, while we know about the Fire lawsuit today, it is July 1st--old contracts done, new ones begin--does anyone really know who some of our administrators are? Back in the olden days when we had something of a personnel calendar that was more or less adhered to you received your personnel documents in a relatively timely manner. It seems that things just go into a black hole somewhere in Cook and don't emerge for months on end (I just got my 2013-2014 personnel notices this week), can't imagine when I'll get my 2013-2014 "portfolio" back, and weren't all those job interviews going on in May supposed to net us some deans and a provost? So, on July 1st, 2014, who is:
1. the Provost--what's the hold up in sending out AH's appointment letter? Do we have a provost today?
2. Department Chair--a few departments had elections this spring, but here it is July 1st and many of us are still waiting for the announcement that HRH has appointed someone. I suppose it doesn't matter much because who can learn such jobs in 1 year which is all chairs are now. Dr WW removed the 3-year term from dept chairs and turned them into permanent interims at 1-year appointment.
3. Dean of Arts and Sciences--ok, I think an announcement was made a few weeks ago that someone was dean for certain days in June, then someone else was going to be dean for a few days after that and then, I believe, Dr. Leroy Jones was going to be dean until a permanent dean could be found. Huh? Since Rachel Lindsey left there has been a CAS Dean's search every year (time, money wasted) and still we just get another interim?
4. Associate Dean--do colleges have these in place--when you don't give out contracts no one knows for sure...
5. University Advisors-- I guess some of these folks also did not receive contracts on July 1st and are not working. Who's handling all those students Enrollment Management is bringing into the univeristy? Oh right, silly question.
What kind of management strategy is this? Oh right, right, right, "come in, create chaos, then exploit it."
Well, time to get back to reading Animal Farm...
The Swami Was Wrong! What Must the Board Think?
So I think the Swami’s prediction is wrong, to wit, this case, CV 14-04970, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois today. Feel free to visit this link, FIRE, to see the complaint in its entirety. No, loyal readers, neither I nor my colleague Bob Bionaz will be able to discuss this case until it is resolved, save giving updates along the way that don't compromise our case. I am sure if you have been following this humble forum for the past several months, you will be aware of the actions taken by administration officials to silence dissent. Sadly, it is now out of our hands and in the hands of the federal court.
Stay tuned as we do our best to keep you apprized of the case’s progress.
Wayne Watson, Fortune Teller
Apparently at the board meeting on Friday, Watson told the board members during their executive session that there were "no more lawsuits coming." We'll see how accurate our Swami's prediction turns out to be. Stay tuned.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Why Should Wayne Watson Get Another Day? Are We Better Off Now Than We Were Five Years Ago?
Since today, June 30, 2014, marks the expiration date of Wayne Watson’s original contract as Chicago State’s president, it seems logical that we revisit President Watson’s contract and assess his performance. All the material referenced below is available in the public record, in fact, all of this evidence comes from the Chicago State website or the university’s published Internal Operating Budget. The assessment of President Watson’s performance will be based on the evaluation criteria established by the board in 2009:
Section 2.03 defines 9 general duties the president is charged with performing (2.03a through 2.03i). They include “general leadership for the university,” along with several general statements defining his role as the university president. Section 2.04.b. specifies the seven criteria by which the board will evaluate the president’s performance. These sections will provide the backdrop for this assessment.
The relevant statistical data on Chicago State’s enrollment and fiscal performance in the past five years follows:
1) Enrollment: 6820 in 2008-09 (the last year before President Watson took over Chicago State), 5701 in 2013, a decline of 16.4 percent
2) Enrollment of first-time, full-time Freshmen: 402 in 2008, 225 in 2013, a decrease of 44 percent.
3) Graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen: 13.8 percent in 2008-09, 20.7 percent in 2012-13, an improvement of 50 percent.
4) Retention rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen: 57.7 percent in 2008-09, 54.8 percent in 2012-13, a decline of 5 percent
5) Audit Findings: Since 2010-11, Chicago State has had 120 audit findings, the most of any Illinois state institution. This number exceeds Illinois-Urbana-Champaign’s 111 total during the same period. Although the number of 2014 findings dropped sharply from the previous year, Chicago State, with 3 percent of the state’s university students, generated almost 19 percent of its audit findings. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign enrolls about 8 times the number of students as Chicago State. Between 2003-09, Chicago State generated 74 audit findings. During the Watson presidency, audit findings have increased 38 percent.
6) Fundraising: Contributions to the CSU Foundation under President Watson have averaged $1.15 million since Fiscal 2010. Contributions from Fiscal 2003-08 (Fiscal 2009 is not included as the university president was an interim) averaged $2.13 million. During President Watson’s tenure, contributions have declined 46 percent.
Looking back over the past five years, President Watson’s performance looks like this:
Successes:
1) Section 2.03: Wayne Watson has, in general, done what the board expected him to do in section 2.03. He has not been derelict in the performance of his general duties, although on a qualitative level, section 2.03.a. and 2.03.e. are not complete successes
2) As he points out often, President Watson presided over the university’s successful accreditation effort.
3) Section 2.04: Under President Watson, Chicago State has succeeded in raising the graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen (2.04.b.(2)). In addition, the Pharmacy program has grown under his presidency, which may be considered a success under the somewhat opaque section 2.04.b.(4).
4) In some cases, on a departmental or individual level, President Watson has made a positive difference for particular faculty, students or staff.
Failures:
1) Overall Enrollment: down 16.4 percent since 2008-09.
2) First-time, full-time Freshmen enrollment: down 44 percent since 2008-09.
3) First-time, full-time Freshmen retention rate: down 5 percent since 2008-09.
4) Contributions: down 46 percent since Fiscal 2008.
5) Audit Findings: up 38 percent since 2003-09.
6) Graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen has declined slightly for the past three years, from 21 percent in 2011 to 20.7 percent in 2013. Overall, President Watson’s graduation rate is 18.5 percent. While this is an improvement, it still means that 4 out of 5 matriculating Freshmen will not graduate within six years, fodder for the university’s critics.
7) Relations with the faculty: while this is difficult to quantify, the Chicago State Faculty Senate has returned two nearly unanimous no-confidence votes in the president in 2012 and 2014. In addition, the Faculty Senate voted no-confidence in President Watson’s choice for Provost in 2014.
8) University’s Image--Relations with the media: Again, this is difficult to quantify but it seems reasonable to assert that Chicago State’s media image has deteriorated dramatically in the past five years. The Watson administration has generated a number of scandals and the president now speaks only to the sympathetic press, basically refusing to speak to the major city dailies.
As he has done consistently almost since the beginning of his presidency, Wayne Watson fails to perform adequately in sections 2.04.b.(1), 2.04.b.(3), 2.04.b(5-7). In addition, his success in 204.b.(2) is mitigated by the drop in enrollment for first-time, full-time Freshmen and the basically flat retention rate for that same student cohort.
As far as 2.03.a., “General Leadership for the University,” President Watson has demonstrated a number of troubling administrative practices that have resulted in dramatically increased administrative ranks and a remarkable centralization of administrative control in the president’s office. Some relevant data will reveal the accuracy of this assertion. This data is based on a comparison between the budget of 2008-09 and 2013-14:
First, remember that the university’s enrollment has declined by 16.4 percent during this time period. These positions are positions supported by either tax revenue or local income (tuition, etc.) and are part of the budget appropriation. Unappropriated positions are not included in this survey.
1) Budget for salaries: 2008, 56.6 million; 2014, 61.2 million. An increase of 11.6 percent.
2) Overall university budget: 2008, 69.6 million; 2014, 83.9 million. An increase of 20.6 percent.
3) Positions classified as administrative: 2008, 177; 2014, 236. An increase of 33 percent.
4) Administrative salaries: 2008, $13.6 million; 2014, $17.5 million. An increase of 28.7 percent.
5) Tenure, tenure-track faculty positions: 2008, 233; 2014, 207. A decrease of 11.2 percent.
6) Civil Service positions: 2008, 347; 2014, 327. A decrease of 5.8 percent.
7) Total positions: 2008, 757; 2014, 770. An increase of 1.7 percent.
Along with the dramatic increase in Chicago State’s administrative ranks has come a reorganization of the university’s budget units, putting more and more control directly into the hands of President Watson.
In 2008, the university’s budget included 6 budget divisions with 170 sub-units. In 2014, the budget shows 4 divisions with 162 sub-units. The following tables demonstrate the changes from 2009 to 2014:
Several things about these numbers stand out. First, the president’s office has absorbed a number of sub-units previously existing elsewhere. Most notable are the University Police (from Labor and Legal Affairs), Buildings and Grounds (From Administration and Finance) and of course Labor and Legal Affairs is no longer a free-standing budget division, but part of the president’s office. The percentage of aggregate salary increases from 2008 to 2014 for the various sub-units are as follows: Salaries in the president’s office have increased 395 percent; for academic affairs, 7.9 percent; for Enrollment Management, a 48.3 percent increase. In contrast, for Administration and Finance, salaries decreased by 41.5 percent.
The sum of all this is that Wayne Watson’s performance as Chicago State’s president has resulted in more failures than successes and his willful transformation of the university into a haven for well-connected administrative hires seems directly related to a number of the woes experienced by the school. While Wayne Watson has failed to achieve the goals set for him by Chicago State’s board, he has clearly been successful in dramatically increasing the administrative ranks while the school bleeds students. Do you think we’re better off now than we were five years ago?
Section 2.03 defines 9 general duties the president is charged with performing (2.03a through 2.03i). They include “general leadership for the university,” along with several general statements defining his role as the university president. Section 2.04.b. specifies the seven criteria by which the board will evaluate the president’s performance. These sections will provide the backdrop for this assessment.
The relevant statistical data on Chicago State’s enrollment and fiscal performance in the past five years follows:
1) Enrollment: 6820 in 2008-09 (the last year before President Watson took over Chicago State), 5701 in 2013, a decline of 16.4 percent
2) Enrollment of first-time, full-time Freshmen: 402 in 2008, 225 in 2013, a decrease of 44 percent.
3) Graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen: 13.8 percent in 2008-09, 20.7 percent in 2012-13, an improvement of 50 percent.
4) Retention rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen: 57.7 percent in 2008-09, 54.8 percent in 2012-13, a decline of 5 percent
5) Audit Findings: Since 2010-11, Chicago State has had 120 audit findings, the most of any Illinois state institution. This number exceeds Illinois-Urbana-Champaign’s 111 total during the same period. Although the number of 2014 findings dropped sharply from the previous year, Chicago State, with 3 percent of the state’s university students, generated almost 19 percent of its audit findings. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign enrolls about 8 times the number of students as Chicago State. Between 2003-09, Chicago State generated 74 audit findings. During the Watson presidency, audit findings have increased 38 percent.
6) Fundraising: Contributions to the CSU Foundation under President Watson have averaged $1.15 million since Fiscal 2010. Contributions from Fiscal 2003-08 (Fiscal 2009 is not included as the university president was an interim) averaged $2.13 million. During President Watson’s tenure, contributions have declined 46 percent.
Looking back over the past five years, President Watson’s performance looks like this:
Successes:
1) Section 2.03: Wayne Watson has, in general, done what the board expected him to do in section 2.03. He has not been derelict in the performance of his general duties, although on a qualitative level, section 2.03.a. and 2.03.e. are not complete successes
2) As he points out often, President Watson presided over the university’s successful accreditation effort.
3) Section 2.04: Under President Watson, Chicago State has succeeded in raising the graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen (2.04.b.(2)). In addition, the Pharmacy program has grown under his presidency, which may be considered a success under the somewhat opaque section 2.04.b.(4).
4) In some cases, on a departmental or individual level, President Watson has made a positive difference for particular faculty, students or staff.
Failures:
1) Overall Enrollment: down 16.4 percent since 2008-09.
2) First-time, full-time Freshmen enrollment: down 44 percent since 2008-09.
3) First-time, full-time Freshmen retention rate: down 5 percent since 2008-09.
4) Contributions: down 46 percent since Fiscal 2008.
5) Audit Findings: up 38 percent since 2003-09.
6) Graduation rate for first-time, full-time Freshmen has declined slightly for the past three years, from 21 percent in 2011 to 20.7 percent in 2013. Overall, President Watson’s graduation rate is 18.5 percent. While this is an improvement, it still means that 4 out of 5 matriculating Freshmen will not graduate within six years, fodder for the university’s critics.
7) Relations with the faculty: while this is difficult to quantify, the Chicago State Faculty Senate has returned two nearly unanimous no-confidence votes in the president in 2012 and 2014. In addition, the Faculty Senate voted no-confidence in President Watson’s choice for Provost in 2014.
8) University’s Image--Relations with the media: Again, this is difficult to quantify but it seems reasonable to assert that Chicago State’s media image has deteriorated dramatically in the past five years. The Watson administration has generated a number of scandals and the president now speaks only to the sympathetic press, basically refusing to speak to the major city dailies.
As he has done consistently almost since the beginning of his presidency, Wayne Watson fails to perform adequately in sections 2.04.b.(1), 2.04.b.(3), 2.04.b(5-7). In addition, his success in 204.b.(2) is mitigated by the drop in enrollment for first-time, full-time Freshmen and the basically flat retention rate for that same student cohort.
As far as 2.03.a., “General Leadership for the University,” President Watson has demonstrated a number of troubling administrative practices that have resulted in dramatically increased administrative ranks and a remarkable centralization of administrative control in the president’s office. Some relevant data will reveal the accuracy of this assertion. This data is based on a comparison between the budget of 2008-09 and 2013-14:
First, remember that the university’s enrollment has declined by 16.4 percent during this time period. These positions are positions supported by either tax revenue or local income (tuition, etc.) and are part of the budget appropriation. Unappropriated positions are not included in this survey.
1) Budget for salaries: 2008, 56.6 million; 2014, 61.2 million. An increase of 11.6 percent.
2) Overall university budget: 2008, 69.6 million; 2014, 83.9 million. An increase of 20.6 percent.
3) Positions classified as administrative: 2008, 177; 2014, 236. An increase of 33 percent.
4) Administrative salaries: 2008, $13.6 million; 2014, $17.5 million. An increase of 28.7 percent.
5) Tenure, tenure-track faculty positions: 2008, 233; 2014, 207. A decrease of 11.2 percent.
6) Civil Service positions: 2008, 347; 2014, 327. A decrease of 5.8 percent.
7) Total positions: 2008, 757; 2014, 770. An increase of 1.7 percent.
Along with the dramatic increase in Chicago State’s administrative ranks has come a reorganization of the university’s budget units, putting more and more control directly into the hands of President Watson.
In 2008, the university’s budget included 6 budget divisions with 170 sub-units. In 2014, the budget shows 4 divisions with 162 sub-units. The following tables demonstrate the changes from 2009 to 2014:
Several things about these numbers stand out. First, the president’s office has absorbed a number of sub-units previously existing elsewhere. Most notable are the University Police (from Labor and Legal Affairs), Buildings and Grounds (From Administration and Finance) and of course Labor and Legal Affairs is no longer a free-standing budget division, but part of the president’s office. The percentage of aggregate salary increases from 2008 to 2014 for the various sub-units are as follows: Salaries in the president’s office have increased 395 percent; for academic affairs, 7.9 percent; for Enrollment Management, a 48.3 percent increase. In contrast, for Administration and Finance, salaries decreased by 41.5 percent.
The sum of all this is that Wayne Watson’s performance as Chicago State’s president has resulted in more failures than successes and his willful transformation of the university into a haven for well-connected administrative hires seems directly related to a number of the woes experienced by the school. While Wayne Watson has failed to achieve the goals set for him by Chicago State’s board, he has clearly been successful in dramatically increasing the administrative ranks while the school bleeds students. Do you think we’re better off now than we were five years ago?
Thursday, June 26, 2014
How About a Mass Resignation Tomorrow?
Tomorrow is another Board of Trustees meeting. Instead of the usual humdrum fare, how about if three of the major architects of the disaster that has become Chicago State resign? For the good of the institution of course. Wouldn't it be a nice gesture if Wayne Watson and his two cronies, Angela Henderson and Cheri Sidney finally dropped the pretense of being university administrators and threw in the towel? I have made this argument consistently and believe that all the evidence to support the cessation of university employment for these three is warranted. However, new evidence continues to reveal itself. At this point, I will depart from my usual practice of posting complete documents and just say that a recent report from an unimpeachable source provides additional justification for the termination of all three.
During his term at Chicago State, Wayne Watson has received numerous accolades for his greatness from organizations with which he had close relationships or personal ties with officials. The judgement by independent observers of his administrative performance has been slightly less fulsome. Here are a couple of tantalizing passages from the (right now) closely held document which, in the spirit of transparency, Watson has apparently not shared with the Board:
As you will undoubtedly note, I have redacted much of this information. However, I think the gist of the comments is apparent. It is past time for these tiresome people to leave this institution.
During his term at Chicago State, Wayne Watson has received numerous accolades for his greatness from organizations with which he had close relationships or personal ties with officials. The judgement by independent observers of his administrative performance has been slightly less fulsome. Here are a couple of tantalizing passages from the (right now) closely held document which, in the spirit of transparency, Watson has apparently not shared with the Board:
As you will undoubtedly note, I have redacted much of this information. However, I think the gist of the comments is apparent. It is past time for these tiresome people to leave this institution.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Is the First Amendment Alive and Well at CSU???
So I am curious whether my learned colleague Dr. Bionaz is maintaining the requisite civility standards for this forum. Should he wonder about whether the First Amendment still resides on state property I offer the following for consideration. From the Albuquerque Journal, this story gives me hope that the Constitution is not a suggestion but a reality.
It also gave me pause to consider that it appears that a pattern is forming with regard to a state institution not responding to Freedom of Information Act requests as required by law. Your humble narrator submitted two FOIA requests, one on June 11th, and the second on June 17th. It is the latter request that I am very concerned about.
"(5 ILCS 140/3) (d) Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g)."
As this reference will attest, the university has 5 business days to
respond and as of this post I have received no response from the university. This constitutes a denial of the request under the statute. This is the
third request that has gone unresponded to this year. The Attorney General's office has already responded to my first request for review.
What is of the gravest concern to me is the content of the request. As you will see below I am requesting information that has a safety/security component that affects the entire university community.
 |
| Highlighted sections are mine |
If people are being banned from campus, then as a member of the campus community, don't I have a responsibility to know who these dangerous miscreants are so that I may dutifully report them to the authorities so that everyone will be safe and no one's feelings will be hurt? I understand state resources are constantly on guard to protect certain administration officials from harm or insults or dirty looks. Hardly what police officers signed up to do I would imagine.
Yes, loyal readers, you may be as dubious as I am about members of the campus community and/or members of the public being banned from a state university but I am most concerned about the process that led to them being banned in the first place. Please note in my request the second bullet. It seems to me that if someone is banned and there is no policy for banning them that a 14th Amendment due process suit against the university could be in the offing. As officers of the university have fiduciary responsibility for the institution, I would dare say that anyone who participated in such a decision might not be protected under state law. Just a guess because as you my loyal readers know, I only play an attorney in my own imagination much like this regime plays at being university administrators.
I, of course, expect that after my request for review is received, I will be told there are no records responsive to my request, which would then beg the question, are there any persons banned from CSU at all and if there are no records responsive to my request and any of these unrecorded "banned" individuals shows up on campus then what happens. I am curious if the university intentionally chose not to mention its compliance with what I would assume is university policy, to the Higher Learning Commission in its recently submitted monitoring report.
 |
| Redactions are mine |
It could put the university at risk for another lawsuit and as everybody knows the insurance certainly won't pay for that one.
Loyal readers, do stay tuned to see how this turns out. Maybe your humble narrator will end up on the banned list as well and will need to perform his duties from outside of the confines of this most
Monday, June 23, 2014
When Do We Find Out About the New Provost? Will it be our Plagiarizer in Chief?
Since the information about Angela Henderson’s plagiarized doctoral dissertation surfaced in January, Wayne Watson and the Chicago State administration have been basically silent on the matter (save for accusing Watson’s opposition of doing “everything they can to undermine” members of the administration). Now, following a $100,000 search, there is still no announcement whether or not Angela Henderson will be the new permanent Provost at Chicago State. How can she even be considered? I will argue that she should be categorically rejected as a candidate for this or any other administrative position and fired from the university.
There has been no affirmative defense of Henderson’s academic dishonesty. Excuses abound: she only forgot a few citations; she had her FERPA rights violated; the charges are nothing more than “allegations.” Also in response, the Chicago State administration has reportedly “gotten” copies of other faculty dissertations, including mine and Phil Beverly’s—obviously to examine those works for possible plagiarism. According to one administrator, the administration is currently looking at C.V.’s of past Provosts to determine how Henderson’s qualifications stack up against those persons. Of course, none of this addresses the issue of her cheating. In fact, she does not deserve to hold a position at this or any other university. She has not earned that privilege and she did not earn her Ph.D.
In order to support my contentions, I have quantified Henderson’s cheating. First, there a number of irregularities in her dissertation: obviously plagiarized sentences and passages, a “padded” bibliography and textual references. Although the PDF of the dissertation runs 149 pages, the majority of its textual material appears on pages 1-49. Since pages 4-10 are devoted to a discussion of the purpose of the study, the articulation of several hypotheses, a list of definitions and diagrams describing the study’s “conceptual model,” that leaves pages 1-3 and 11-49 (a total of 42 pages) as written text that includes a discussion of literature relevant to the study. An overview of the dissertation reveals that irregularities appear on 36 (85.7 percent) of those pages.
When I began looking at Henderson’s dissertation on December 14, 2013, I quickly realized that it was extensively plagiarized. Obviously, perfection is not the scholarly standard in any discipline although writers should take pains to insure that borrowed material and ideas are properly cited and that material appearing in the text should also appear in the bibliography. If I had found two or three passages that were incorrectly cited or one or two references that did not appear in the bibliography, I would have considered those to be simple mistakes—sloppy but not dishonest. However, what I found was a consistent and repeated pattern of sentences and passages that were obviously taken verbatim from other textual sources, without either quotations or page numbers. This pattern included obviously plagiarized material that I found on 28 of the 42 pages (66.7 percent) I referenced earlier.
In total, there are 45 full sentences and an additional 39 passages, some lengthy, plagiarized on those 42 pages. Henderson’s plagiarism ranges from simply failing to put exact language into quotation marks and referencing appropriate pages to the more serious offense of lifting whole passages from works that are ultimately not cited and presenting that material as her original review of the literature. The following table offers a page-by-page breakdown of the plagiarism in Henderson’s dissertation. I believe it speaks for itself:
As the table demonstrates, on those 42 pages, Henderson’s dissertation includes 77 references to works that are not included in her bibliography. In Henderson’s bibliography are 111 references to literary works. Only 66 of these (60 percent) appear in her text. Thus, Henderson’s bibliography and in-text references are highly suspect.
Almost all of the administrative rhetoric regarding this situation has been circulated in a back-handed way, often through the use of innuendo. In fact, Angela Henderson is not a victim in this situation. She submitted a doctoral dissertation rife with plagiarism and other examples of academic fraud. The University of Illinois at Chicago conferred upon her a degree she does not deserve, that she did not earn and now Wayne Watson seems poised to reward her for her perfidy. Just one look at the C.V.’s of the other candidates for the Provost’s job reveals Henderson’s unfitness for the position—plagiarism aside. However, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wayne Watson would bring to Chicago State someone with academic and administrative credentials surpassing his meager achievements. This seems to leave only one option.
There has been no affirmative defense of Henderson’s academic dishonesty. Excuses abound: she only forgot a few citations; she had her FERPA rights violated; the charges are nothing more than “allegations.” Also in response, the Chicago State administration has reportedly “gotten” copies of other faculty dissertations, including mine and Phil Beverly’s—obviously to examine those works for possible plagiarism. According to one administrator, the administration is currently looking at C.V.’s of past Provosts to determine how Henderson’s qualifications stack up against those persons. Of course, none of this addresses the issue of her cheating. In fact, she does not deserve to hold a position at this or any other university. She has not earned that privilege and she did not earn her Ph.D.
In order to support my contentions, I have quantified Henderson’s cheating. First, there a number of irregularities in her dissertation: obviously plagiarized sentences and passages, a “padded” bibliography and textual references. Although the PDF of the dissertation runs 149 pages, the majority of its textual material appears on pages 1-49. Since pages 4-10 are devoted to a discussion of the purpose of the study, the articulation of several hypotheses, a list of definitions and diagrams describing the study’s “conceptual model,” that leaves pages 1-3 and 11-49 (a total of 42 pages) as written text that includes a discussion of literature relevant to the study. An overview of the dissertation reveals that irregularities appear on 36 (85.7 percent) of those pages.
When I began looking at Henderson’s dissertation on December 14, 2013, I quickly realized that it was extensively plagiarized. Obviously, perfection is not the scholarly standard in any discipline although writers should take pains to insure that borrowed material and ideas are properly cited and that material appearing in the text should also appear in the bibliography. If I had found two or three passages that were incorrectly cited or one or two references that did not appear in the bibliography, I would have considered those to be simple mistakes—sloppy but not dishonest. However, what I found was a consistent and repeated pattern of sentences and passages that were obviously taken verbatim from other textual sources, without either quotations or page numbers. This pattern included obviously plagiarized material that I found on 28 of the 42 pages (66.7 percent) I referenced earlier.
In total, there are 45 full sentences and an additional 39 passages, some lengthy, plagiarized on those 42 pages. Henderson’s plagiarism ranges from simply failing to put exact language into quotation marks and referencing appropriate pages to the more serious offense of lifting whole passages from works that are ultimately not cited and presenting that material as her original review of the literature. The following table offers a page-by-page breakdown of the plagiarism in Henderson’s dissertation. I believe it speaks for itself:
As the table demonstrates, on those 42 pages, Henderson’s dissertation includes 77 references to works that are not included in her bibliography. In Henderson’s bibliography are 111 references to literary works. Only 66 of these (60 percent) appear in her text. Thus, Henderson’s bibliography and in-text references are highly suspect.
Almost all of the administrative rhetoric regarding this situation has been circulated in a back-handed way, often through the use of innuendo. In fact, Angela Henderson is not a victim in this situation. She submitted a doctoral dissertation rife with plagiarism and other examples of academic fraud. The University of Illinois at Chicago conferred upon her a degree she does not deserve, that she did not earn and now Wayne Watson seems poised to reward her for her perfidy. Just one look at the C.V.’s of the other candidates for the Provost’s job reveals Henderson’s unfitness for the position—plagiarism aside. However, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wayne Watson would bring to Chicago State someone with academic and administrative credentials surpassing his meager achievements. This seems to leave only one option.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Suckering the Illinois State Legislature: Wayne Watson Puts Lipstick on a Pig, Fooling the Rubes
As most regular readers know, this forum has given considerable attention to the enrollment decreases that have plagued Chicago State since the beginning of the Watson administration. The numbers are familiar: from a peak of 7362 in fall 2010 (the beginning of Watson’s first full year as president), enrollment dropped to 5701 in fall 2013 (fall numbers are the official enrollment numbers reported to IBHE and IPEDS). This decline represents a 22.6 percent downward trend. Since I have presented these numbers as aggregate totals, the time seems propitious for a more detailed analysis of where the enrollment problems exist at Chicago State. All of the material that follows is drawn from either the Chicago State 2013 Factbook, or the 2015 ISL Forms, both available on the Chicago State website.
Graduate enrollment has declined from 1687 students in fall 2010 to 1361 graduate students in Fall 2013, a drop of 19.3 percent. Undergraduate enrollment dropped during the same period from 5675 to 4340 students, a 23.5 percent decrease. Demographically, almost the entire drop of 1661 students between 2010 and 2013 is attributable to a dramatic decrease in the number of Black students (1633 total) in the last three years. All other demographic groups combined decreased by 28 students over that three-year period. Thus, the decline in Black enrollment at Chicago State since 2010 stands at 28 percent, the decline in the enrollment for all other demographic groups is 1.8 percent.
As far as enrollments in the individual colleges are concerned, every one lost students, except for the College of Pharmacy, a relatively new program in 2010. The College of Arts and Sciences declined from 2549 to 2350 (7.8 percent); the College of Business from 714 to 626 (12.3 percent); the College of Education from 1391 to 804 (42.2 percent); Special Programs like the now defunct Board of Governors degree program dropped from 1112 to 447 (59.8 percent); the College of Health Sciences decreased from 1023 to 955 (6.6 percent); the College of Pharmacy grew from 266 to 358 (a 34.6 percent increase); and Unclassified students dropped from 307 to 161 (52.4 percent). Primarily because of the severe enrollment declines in the College of Education and Special Programs, the College of Arts and Sciences saw its share of the university’s population grow from 34.6 percent to 41.2 percent from 2010 to 2013.
You would not know any of this if you read the university’s 2015 Fiscal Year report to the Illinois State Legislature. In a memorandum from the President’s Office, Chicago State's administration provides “a few examples of how Chicago State University continues to improve school readiness and success.” A laundry list of endeavors follows. The memorandum extolls the university’s “significant increase in its fall to fall retention rate,” using the fall 2011 and fall 2012 entering Freshmen classes as data for its assertion. The memorandum goes on to claim “Increased enrollment of students in its new programs Masters of Science in Public Health and Masters of Science in Nursing in Fall 2013,” and provides “Enrollment Metrics” as a gauge for measuring the success of its enrollment, retention and graduation goals. Any legislators reading this rosy analysis would think things were going well at Chicago State. However, a look at the actual figures demonstrates the emptiness of Watson’s claims. They seem to fool the rubes in Springfield, however.
Looking at the figures for retention rates reveals that the university experienced a drop in First-time full-time Freshman enrollment of 169 (432 to 263 or 39.1 percent) students between fall 2011 and fall 2012. This number dropped further, to 225 in fall 2013. Thus, the modest increase in retention is offset by the drop in the total number of full-time Freshmen. Altogether, enrollment of first-time Freshmen has decreased from 523 to 225 from 2010 to 2013, a drop of 57 percent. As far as the Master’s programs cited by Watson, the 2013 Factbook does not even record any enrollments for the Master of Science in Nursing, while the Master of Public Health increased from 4 students in 2011 to 17 in 2013, hardly offsetting the aggregate drop of 241 graduate students during a similar time period. Finally, Watson uses the nonsensical “metric” of admissions to assure the Illinois legislature that all is well with Chicago State's enrollment. The memorandum attributes the school's success in this area to “a newly established outreach department and their efforts to rebuild, reengage, expand and introduce partnerships to the Chicago community.” Unfortunately, despite sharp increases in applications and admissions, students are not attending Chicago State. A glance at the 2013 Factbook demonstrates that clearly: while admissions are up, enrollments are down.
While readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of this data, I suggest that two things stand out: 1) predictably, Watson is putting the best light possible on disastrous enrollment trends. This includes cherry-picking data to make ridiculously attenuated claims of success. 2) the constituency most affected by the Chicago State’s problems of the last three years are Black students, who are simply providing their assessment of Watson’s effectiveness by leaving the university in droves. As I have stressed in previous posts, the enrollment decline at this school is potentially catastrophic. Does anyone believe that our current administration will be able to staunch the bleeding?
Graduate enrollment has declined from 1687 students in fall 2010 to 1361 graduate students in Fall 2013, a drop of 19.3 percent. Undergraduate enrollment dropped during the same period from 5675 to 4340 students, a 23.5 percent decrease. Demographically, almost the entire drop of 1661 students between 2010 and 2013 is attributable to a dramatic decrease in the number of Black students (1633 total) in the last three years. All other demographic groups combined decreased by 28 students over that three-year period. Thus, the decline in Black enrollment at Chicago State since 2010 stands at 28 percent, the decline in the enrollment for all other demographic groups is 1.8 percent.
As far as enrollments in the individual colleges are concerned, every one lost students, except for the College of Pharmacy, a relatively new program in 2010. The College of Arts and Sciences declined from 2549 to 2350 (7.8 percent); the College of Business from 714 to 626 (12.3 percent); the College of Education from 1391 to 804 (42.2 percent); Special Programs like the now defunct Board of Governors degree program dropped from 1112 to 447 (59.8 percent); the College of Health Sciences decreased from 1023 to 955 (6.6 percent); the College of Pharmacy grew from 266 to 358 (a 34.6 percent increase); and Unclassified students dropped from 307 to 161 (52.4 percent). Primarily because of the severe enrollment declines in the College of Education and Special Programs, the College of Arts and Sciences saw its share of the university’s population grow from 34.6 percent to 41.2 percent from 2010 to 2013.
You would not know any of this if you read the university’s 2015 Fiscal Year report to the Illinois State Legislature. In a memorandum from the President’s Office, Chicago State's administration provides “a few examples of how Chicago State University continues to improve school readiness and success.” A laundry list of endeavors follows. The memorandum extolls the university’s “significant increase in its fall to fall retention rate,” using the fall 2011 and fall 2012 entering Freshmen classes as data for its assertion. The memorandum goes on to claim “Increased enrollment of students in its new programs Masters of Science in Public Health and Masters of Science in Nursing in Fall 2013,” and provides “Enrollment Metrics” as a gauge for measuring the success of its enrollment, retention and graduation goals. Any legislators reading this rosy analysis would think things were going well at Chicago State. However, a look at the actual figures demonstrates the emptiness of Watson’s claims. They seem to fool the rubes in Springfield, however.
Looking at the figures for retention rates reveals that the university experienced a drop in First-time full-time Freshman enrollment of 169 (432 to 263 or 39.1 percent) students between fall 2011 and fall 2012. This number dropped further, to 225 in fall 2013. Thus, the modest increase in retention is offset by the drop in the total number of full-time Freshmen. Altogether, enrollment of first-time Freshmen has decreased from 523 to 225 from 2010 to 2013, a drop of 57 percent. As far as the Master’s programs cited by Watson, the 2013 Factbook does not even record any enrollments for the Master of Science in Nursing, while the Master of Public Health increased from 4 students in 2011 to 17 in 2013, hardly offsetting the aggregate drop of 241 graduate students during a similar time period. Finally, Watson uses the nonsensical “metric” of admissions to assure the Illinois legislature that all is well with Chicago State's enrollment. The memorandum attributes the school's success in this area to “a newly established outreach department and their efforts to rebuild, reengage, expand and introduce partnerships to the Chicago community.” Unfortunately, despite sharp increases in applications and admissions, students are not attending Chicago State. A glance at the 2013 Factbook demonstrates that clearly: while admissions are up, enrollments are down.
While readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of this data, I suggest that two things stand out: 1) predictably, Watson is putting the best light possible on disastrous enrollment trends. This includes cherry-picking data to make ridiculously attenuated claims of success. 2) the constituency most affected by the Chicago State’s problems of the last three years are Black students, who are simply providing their assessment of Watson’s effectiveness by leaving the university in droves. As I have stressed in previous posts, the enrollment decline at this school is potentially catastrophic. Does anyone believe that our current administration will be able to staunch the bleeding?
Friday, June 20, 2014
How We Safeguard the Public Trust: Budget Magic at Chicago State
As a continuation of my earlier posts on the budget sleight-of-hand here at Chicago State, I offer a look at the past three fiscal years. Public budgets are designed to be transparent. Monetary amounts are attached to specific budget lines which have been approved by public bodies. These monetary amounts, or appropriations, provide the observer with a detailed description of how a public entity spends public funds. Or at least, that should be the case.
Here at Chicago State, our budget is a little more opaque. In fact, for the past three years, our administration has spent over $5 million to pay administrative and faculty salaries for positions that the university has never requested from the Illinois State Legislature. As I noted in my previous post, the administration is able to do this by moving money from a variety of accounts to fund these salaries. Altogether, in the past three years, Wayne Watson and his administration have hired at least 29 persons into positions which have apparently never been approved by the Board of Trustees or requested from the state. At the beginning of fiscal 2014, 21 individuals still occupied these unrequested positions. Here is the breakdown of expenditures by fiscal year:
The average salary of these positions year-by-year comes to around $100,000. The following table illustrates:
What do these figures demonstrate? In my estimation, the use of temporary funding for what are essentially permanent positions is designed to obscure the way the university’s administration spends tax dollars. This administration is and has been committed to the growth of its ranks and these budget shell games make that possible without the scrutiny of either the Board or the state. The fact that the Chicago State administration is able to come up with $5.3 million dollars for unappropriated administrative salaries seems to render dubious its claims of fiscal distress.
One of the documents I recently received through FOIA requests demonstrates how the administration creates positions then moves money around to serve other purposes. In this case, the administration created a position for an Associate Internal Auditor, moved money into that position (at this point from an unknown account), then decided the money was better spent on another lawyer for the university.
Obviously, at Chicago State, there is quite a bit of money. Particularly to increase our bloated administrative ranks.
Here at Chicago State, our budget is a little more opaque. In fact, for the past three years, our administration has spent over $5 million to pay administrative and faculty salaries for positions that the university has never requested from the Illinois State Legislature. As I noted in my previous post, the administration is able to do this by moving money from a variety of accounts to fund these salaries. Altogether, in the past three years, Wayne Watson and his administration have hired at least 29 persons into positions which have apparently never been approved by the Board of Trustees or requested from the state. At the beginning of fiscal 2014, 21 individuals still occupied these unrequested positions. Here is the breakdown of expenditures by fiscal year:
The average salary of these positions year-by-year comes to around $100,000. The following table illustrates:
What do these figures demonstrate? In my estimation, the use of temporary funding for what are essentially permanent positions is designed to obscure the way the university’s administration spends tax dollars. This administration is and has been committed to the growth of its ranks and these budget shell games make that possible without the scrutiny of either the Board or the state. The fact that the Chicago State administration is able to come up with $5.3 million dollars for unappropriated administrative salaries seems to render dubious its claims of fiscal distress.
One of the documents I recently received through FOIA requests demonstrates how the administration creates positions then moves money around to serve other purposes. In this case, the administration created a position for an Associate Internal Auditor, moved money into that position (at this point from an unknown account), then decided the money was better spent on another lawyer for the university.
Obviously, at Chicago State, there is quite a bit of money. Particularly to increase our bloated administrative ranks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)