Document 1

Introduction:

The current administration began at I.S.U. with universal enthusiasm that the conflicts that marked the end of the previous administration were now over and a new era of co-operation was beginning under the guidance of a popular and sympathetic president. That enthusiasm has now yielded to profound disillusionment.

Now a clear majority of the faculty feel alienated from the administration, which they perceive as high-handed, arbitrary, obsessed with purposeless centralization of authority, inefficient, and aggressively hostile to shared governance. Even the faculty members most supportive of the administration grumble about policies that they feel stem from a model of corporate organization inappropriate to an institution of higher learning. Those less supportive argue that little seems related to any modern concept of efficient corporate management, that in practice the administrative model seems little different from simple autocracy. One may take issue with the accuracy of either or both of these perceptions, but the essential point remains: these perceptions are widely held among faculty, staff, and even students. This in itself in a serious matter, incapable of facile resolution, and a clear manifestation of a lack of confidence in the way the provost is managing I.S.U. internally.

It must be emphasized that in no way is the lack of confidence of faculty, staff, and students in the Provost dependent upon or essentially connected to the Provost’s criticism of Senator White. The two are merely temporally coincidental. That contretemps is but one illustration of the Provost’s tendency to treat differing views contemptuously. If it had not happened, we would all still be here today expressing the same lack of confidence in the Provost’s administration of I.S.U.

We hope our actions today will be seen not as an attack on the administration but as a desperate attempt to save a situation that is going terribly wrong. If action is not taken now to correct an intolerable situation, problems will continue to arise and will grow worse until inevitably there will be the sort of confrontation that can only damage the entire I.S.U. community.

Areas of no confidence:

I. Poor working relationship with faculty

A. The Provost is often dismissive and contemptuous toward other view points.

B. The Provost is often perceived as intimidating.

C. The Provost often fails to share information, enter into meaningful dialogue, consider alternative stances.

1. Specific example: the Provost’s remarks about the AARP representative.

2. Specific example: the Provost’s remarks about negative faculty opinions in his

3. Specific example: The Provost’s remarks about Senator White.

4. Specific example: The Provost failed to share information with the Senate about tenure and promotion decisions. Questions are now before a number of university committees whether the Provost has acted within university guidelines and even within state regulations in regard to matters of tenure and promotion. Several lawsuits are threatened.

II. Antagonism to shared governance

A. The Provost makes unilateral decisions even in the face of overwhelming opposition, which is usually either dismissed summarily or not even acknowledged.

1. Specific example: The change of status of department chairs from faculty to A.P. status.

2. Specific example: The Provost has taken control of a substantial portion of

the annual salary money and distributes it according to his own criteria.

3. Specific example: The Provost’s hostility to shared governance is manifest in the struggle of the Rules Committee of the Senate and of the Senate to draft a new constitution, in the face of administration claims that the shared governance in the previous constitution and in the constitutions of the other Illinois universities is somehow illegal in the case of I.S.U.

4. Specific example: The Provost has transferred decision making and resource control and management in many areas away from departments and colleges to his direct administration, thus disregarding and denigrating the expertise and competence of other administrators and levels of administration.

3. The Provost has misrepresented positions of the Board and faculty/senate/rules committee to one another.

1. Specific example: representations to the board about the origins of the early date set for the presentation of the constitution..

4. The Provost has not bargained effectively with clerical workers.

5. The Provost seems dedicated to a centralization of authority, which is resulting in less rather than more efficiency. Decision makers are farther removed from the realities of the situations, often lacking in appropriate expertise, and are apparently over-burdened, which leads to long delays and often incomprehensible decisions.

1. Specific example: last year a new centralized scheme for management of department budgets was announced, with glowing promises of greater efficiency and responsiveness. It proved just the opposite. Highly detailed department budgets were required by 24 November, although it is obviously impossible for a department to project accurately all of its needs up to a year and a half in advance. Then came a long silence. Departments did not receive any information about their budget proposals until late in July! As a result of the new budget initiative, departments are required to send in more specific, more long-range, and necessarily less accurate projections at an much earlier date than before while the administration takes longer than before to act upon them.