Here are a couple of stories / editorials about the discord at our sister campus, which I just discovered lurking in my open browser tabs:
http://www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20170522/csusb-rocked-by-allegations-of-racism-during-leadership-fight
Editorial (from a CSUSB philosopher):
http://www.sbsun.com/opinion/20170605/former-csu-trustee-owes-apology-for-violation-of-confidentiality-guest-commentary
From an email sent to the CSUSB campus by the Faculty Senate Elections Committee:
Subject: [Campus] Results for the campus-wide referendum on the Faculty Senate’s May 9th resolution of no confidence in President Morales
Dear Campus,
In my capacity as the Chair of the Faculty Senate Elections Committee and in accordance with the resolution passed by the Faculty Senate on May 9th, I am announcing the results from the faculty referendum by today’s deadline of May 26th, 2017. The results are below, followed by an outline of the process that was followed this afternoon to count the votes.
A total of 299 ballots were received. 2 of the ballots were deemed invalid by the committee for lacking a signature. Thus, a total of 297 valid votes were received. The results were:
Yes, I support the resolution of no confidence: 181 votes
No, I do not support the resolution of no confidence: 113 votes
Official abstentions (blank ballot received): 3 votes
Total Votes: 297 total valid votes
At 1pm today the Elections Committee of the Faculty Senate began collecting all of the referendum ballots from the locked boxes in the 5 college offices. The ballots were then brought to the Faculty Senate conference room where they were first verified as eligible voting faculty according to the Senate By-Laws. The outer envelopes were then opened and the inner envelopes were separated. These inner envelopes were then counted to ensure the numbers matched the verified voting totals. The inner envelopes were opened and the actual ballots were separated and counted. The votes were then counted again to ensure that the totals once again matched the verified voting totals. Upon completion of this process the elections committee then certified the results above.
The Chancellor’s Office’s daily news clippings highlight another round of public defenses of their President and attacks on the CSU San Bernardino Academic Senate (from 15 May).
Exceptional Leadership Under Pressure
Voice
As a second-generation alumna of California State University, San Bernardino who started my teaching career and gained my early experiences in community leadership on that campus, I have been enthusiastic and supportive of President Tómas Morales’ leadership and stewardship of one of our region’s most important assets. He has proven to truly be the multidimensional leader needed to lead a 21st century university who is accountable to the myriad of stakeholders that make-up the complex constituencies of a modern institution of higher education: from students, faculty, staff and the board of trustees to alumni, donors, legislators, and community and business leaders. He has been an advocate for the predominately first generation ethnically diverse student population, a regional collaborator, and responsive to the surrounding community’s needs.
No confidence in the CSUSB Faculty Senate vote of no confidence: Guest commentary
The Sun
Hell hath no fury like a faculty senate scorned. A faculty “vote of no confidence” often expresses the sense and sensibilities of the faculty on the state of leadership on vital issues affecting the mission of a university. On May 9, 2017, that vote (21-15) became “V” for vendetta and “C” for an attempted coup d’état at Cal State San Bernardino.
Valley Voice: Higher education is essential for our valley
Desert Sun
The Palm Desert Campus of California State University on Cook Street has an increasingly important role in building excellence in our economy.
A couple of days ago, the CSU San Bernardino academic senate was poised to consider a resolution expressing their lack of confidence the CSUSB President Tomas Morales.
Here’s the resolution they eventually passed:
Shortly afterwards, Chancellor White responded:
Definitely not good times at our sister campus. They have our sympathies as they work through these difficult issues.
Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten to the crazy part yet…..
On the morning of the 8th, before the senate considered this resolution, the immediate past Chair of the Board of Trustees and an influential community member took to the local newspapers to help President Morales avoid bad PR in the community by smearing the academic senate in advance of the vote.
http://www.sbsun.com/opinion/20170508/academic-senates-need-more-transparency-guest-commentary
Pretty much the same article also appeared on the 10th in the Press Enterprise, with the slightly more aggressive title “Time to expose academic senate for who they are” (presumably the editor’s choice).
http://www.pe.com/2017/05/09/time-to-expose-academic-senate-for-who-they-are/
In both cases, the title and link to the op-ed was circulated by the Chancellors’ Office in their ‘Daily Clips’ compendium of news items.
Christine Miller, Chair of the statewide senate (ASCSU) and my personal role model, responded with professionalism and commitment to shared governance in this letter to the CSUSB campus senate
May 9, 2017
To My Senate Colleagues at CSU San Bernardino:
As Chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University, I wish to express my sorrow regarding the aspersions cast on you specifically, and academic senates generally, by Paul Granillo and Lou Monville, alumni of your fine institution.
Mr. Granillo, as a community member, might be forgiven his lack of knowledge about the ways a senate functions in the institutional enterprise; Mr. Monville, however, should know better: as former Chair of the CSU Board of Trustees, he should have a firm grasp on the notion of “shared governance,” as instantiated in law (the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) and in the joint agreement expressed by the Association of Governing Boards and the American Association of University Professors in the “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.” Indeed, the CSU Board itself issued a report on “Governance, Collegiality and Responsibility” which clearly states, “collegial governance allows the academic community to work together to find the best answers to issues facing the university.”
Sadly, there was nothing at all collegial in the vitriol jointly penned by Granillo and Monville in the San Bernardino Sun, under the thinly veiled guise of support for a piece of legislation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the sweeping indictments they level against senates generally, and yours in particular. The editorial contained a shocking series of ad hominem attacks lacking any evidentiary support. Indeed, the tone and substance of their litany of unsupported claims has the same force of effect as the very bullying they decry. It’s not just ironic, it’s disturbing.
Please note that I take no position on the gut-wrenching decision that you face on your campus regarding confidence in the leadership of your president. I’m certain there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the question you are considering. I do take a position, however, on matters relating to how senates and faculty representatives function in the shared governance process. To that end, I believe it is essential to point out that the “two current CSUSB Academic Senate Executive Committee members,” as well as the “former CSUSB provost, who also now serves on the Academic Senate Executive Committee,” while not mentioned in the editorial by name, are clearly identifiable by the virtue of the transparent processes that Granillo and Monville allege are absent. Once again, it’s not just ironic, it’s disturbing.
Most critically, it’s important to acknowledge that the three individuals “outed” by Granillo and Monville never publicly breached the confidentiality of the presidential search process, which constrained (until now) everyone on the search committee–including the editorialists. I find it unconscionable that Granillo and Monville, who agreed to the same terms and conditions of confidentiality as everyone else, now find it politically expedient to disregard those strictures and violate the confidentiality of an executive personnel process. It’s doubly egregious coming from the former Board Chair, since it is the Board’s own policy which establishes the process as confidential! This transcends irony, and isn’t simply disturbing. It’s shameful.
It’s regrettable that your deliberations are now clouded by the defamatory claims in this editorial. Nonetheless, deliberate you must. Publicly. Rationally. Transparently. I wish you the best in your deliberations, today and in the future.
Best regards,
Dr. Christine M. Miller
Chair, Academic Senate of the California State University
This has not escaped the notice of the American Association of University Professors:
I plan update this post as information becomes available. That will probably include a formal response from the ASCSU at our May 17-19 plenary.
