Senate Leadership Response to HLC Ac4on Le5er Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 Vote of No Confidence: Timeline and Framing
• June: The $20 MM email: Senate mee(ng discussion prompts forma(on of a VnC exploratory commiHee • July: Preliminary report to Senate on findings • August: Inservice Day Senate mee(ng vote to move forward. On third Inservice Day decision announced to the Faculty Assembly • September: Faculty forums and vote September 10th (189 – 53). BoT no(fied September 18th. • Silence Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 Vote of No Confidence: Substan4ve Issues: spending
•  Misuse of the referendum money and consequences ($20 MM email) •  Unnecessary revamp of the 2008 FMP carpark/bioswales ($16 MM) •  Excessive tree plan(ng program and aHendant costs of maintenance ($100 K water bill in summer 2012) •  Contempt for sustainability in landscaping and use of resources (elimina(on of community educa(on farm) •  Appearances over educa(on in elimina(ng the east side prairie ($9 MM in 2012) •  Vanity projects (Waterleaf) instead of instruc(onal space •  The chronology wall and presiden(al suite (over $200 K) •  Execu(ve changing room in PE Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 Vote of No Confidence: Substan4ve Issues: coercive not collabora4ve
•  Diversion of educa(onal funds to build unnecessary balance fund (underspending of all educa(onal budgets) •  Inappropriate conduct and statements (Shucking and Jiving directed towards the Village of Glen Ellyn) •  History of diminishing the faculty (quoted as saying he would replace FT by PT faculty and save money) •  Obstruc(ve bargaining and use of College resources against the faculty •  Sharing confiden(al nego(a(on details with the press •  Climate of fear – in(mida(on and marginalizing, censuring those that dare ask a ques(on •  Retribu(on against the Courier advisor •  Coercive workplace iden(fied in the PACE Survey 2014 Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 PACE Survey Results: Four coercive responses
Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 HLC Ac4on Le5er: SLEA and CE issues
•  HLC examiners were primarily concerned with absence of faculty involvement in the SLEA credit determina(on process •  Work within established faculty-­‐led curriculum processes (Senate, Instruc(on, Degree Requirements, DCCs, CCC, and individual programs). •  No cross-­‐walking between academic areas and CE without full-­‐(me faculty approval and full curriculum process review. Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 HLC Ac4on Le5er: Issues and Recommenda4ons
•  Criterion Two, Core Component 2.A •  The administra(on should demonstrate ethical prac(ces by: •  (1) addressing issues with integrity and fairness such as responding to grievances in a meaningful way •  (2) follow through on nego(a(ng the MOUs agreed to nego(ate in October 2015 •  (3) honor, respect and use exis(ng college structures and faculty-­‐led commiHees. •  Administra(on/HR alone should not be in charge of ethics training. •  Implement a new Administrator evalua(on process modelled on the process used for faculty. Administrators cannot con(nue to select their evaluators. Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 HLC Ac4on Le5er: Issues and Recommenda4ons
•  Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B •  Full par(cipa(on in shared governance (acknowledge notable improvement since May 2015) •  Bargain an objec(ve matrix for fair coordina(on loads. •  Implement faculty chairs where needed; •  Ins(tute Faculty Directors for instruc(onal programs like Honors, Learning Communi(es, Service Learning, etc. •  Reorganize the upper administra(on and redistribute work to faculty chairs (recommended by PACE survey commiHee). No reorganiza(on implemented un(l new president is installed. Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 HLC Ac4on Le5er: Issues and Recommenda4ons
•  Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B •  Develop and provide training for academic administrators that will also be aHended by faculty, especially on the IELRA, contract interpreta(on, and collec(ve bargaining maHers. •  Re-­‐implement the Administrator Recruitment program •  Evaluate academic administrators for their abili(es to teach in the modern classroom and provide training as needed. •  Charge the Counseling faculty to conduct a thorough evalua(on of RESET / ESEIP and present their recommenda(ons to their administra(on and to the Board Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 HLC Ac4on Le5er: Issues and Recommenda4ons
•  Criterion Three, Core Component 3.A •  Develop an administra(ve model that clearly defines and delineates the Con(nuing Educa(on program as dis(nct from the academic program. •  The Board Academic CommiHee should have a role in establishing dis(nc(ons between academic and CE programs to ensure there is no overlap and confusion. •  Develop a Con(nuing Educa(on Advisory CommiHee that would report to the President and to the Board Academic CommiHee. This commiHee should include all cons(tuency groups, including administrators and faculty from programs affected by CE’s program development ac(vi(es (e.g. Criminal Jus(ce, Allied Health, Office Technology, and Culinary Arts). The commiHee should be able to make decisions about Con(nuing Educa(on topics, classes, programs, credits, etc. Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016 Conclusions
• Evalua(on • Responsibility • Accountability • Ac(on Presenta(on to the Board of Trustees February 25, 2016