The major official event during the meeting I can mark at this distance was the two no votes for a package of pay raises for various administrative types (details on those raises here: the largest by far was for Nicklow's promotion to provost). The Southern notes that this move was roundly supported by the union members in attendance. This *could* be an important sign that two BOT members, Don Lowery and Donna Manering, aren't in lock-step with the administration's hard line toward unions. Manering taught elementary school, was a school principal, and was active in the IEA. Lowery, who seems to have led the opposition to this move, is a retired circuit judge, so is used to making up his own mind. (Bios of the BOT are available here.)
The 40 people who appeared in black with their signs must have made a big impact on the board and administrators. Here's a neat photo I've stolen from the Southern.
I applaud two BOT members for standing up for the right thing. Nicklow’s salary increased 340% (yes, 3.4 times) in the last 5 years. Do you know of any, I mean any, faculty member who has received this kind of salary increase? I don’t think faculty members (even the supper super stars) get this kind of increase in their entire career. He did not even compete at the national level to get this position but got 40% increase. This guy is shameless. He should have refused the salary increase. Cheng and Poshard are out their minds.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I don't think you understand university ranks very well. No one starts as a provost. If you studied the salary history of any provost you would find a large increase. John Nicklow has moved through the ranks faster than most, but his increase (and salary) are hardly unusual in higher education. Calling him shameless behind the mask of anonymity must be very hard for you.
ReplyDeleteTo the Last Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou are also defending the actions of this administration under the mask of anonymity. BTY there are many individuals in this university who have much better academic record, have a lot more administrative experience, and advanced through ranks much faster than Nicklow.
To be clear, I'm not defending all of the actions of this administration. I don't agree with everything that Rita Cheng has done. However, I do think that a promotion to provost should be accompanied by a substantive salary increase. Perhaps the graduate student and civil service unions should start complaining about those faculty salary increases associated with tenure and promotion!
ReplyDeleteAt a time of economic recession, when people earning less that $20,000 p.a. where forced to take furloughs in the "School for Scandal" (the latest example being the Athletics Controversy) it is entirely shameful for the administration to award pay increases to the very people responsible for falling enrollment. That Nicklow did not have the conscience to refuse this raise while others are struggling financially says much for his character as well as Cheng and Poshard.
ReplyDeleteTo the previous anonymous - It is certainly a stretch to blame any part of the falling enrollment on John Nicklow. Not only was the enrollment trend in place before he had anything to do with enrollment management, he held that position for a very short time. Are you really that desperate for someone to blame? One could easily argue (although I am certainly not) that the faculty and administration share responsibility for the falling enrollment.
ReplyDeletePrevious enrollment management person was fired because she was blamed for falling enrollment whereas Nicklow was promoted even though enrollment is still in bad shape. Double standard? Looks like he has connections with Cheng and Poshard (remember, he is Cheng’s neighbor). Cheng and Poshard did not even wait to see his performance with enrollment management for a few years before giving him more than 50 percent raise (don’t forget that he got 10% raise from an associate dean to interim assistant provost in 2010 and then 40.79 now). I read on this blog that he has received over 340% raise in last 5 years. This is ridiculous at best. Only Cheng’s puppy would defend this kind of absurd behavior.
ReplyDeleteNicklow has never competed for any position at the national level. He was given the engineering associate dean position without any search, he was given assistant provost position without any search, and he competed only internally for the provost position. I know of many excellent administrators and faculty members who did not apply for the job because it was quite obvious that he is going to get the position. It was not a fair search. There is absolutely no reason to give him the same salary as the previous provost. Let him prove himself worthy of this kind of salary.
Don’t blame faculty for falling enrollment. Even a dog won’t wave his tail if you treat him poorly. Faculty at this campus has no respect. Morale is at the lowest level I have even seen on this campus. Don’t expect faculty to support those who cannot even speak truth.
Bravo, to the previous "Anonymous." We should also remember that last December the Chair of Journalism refused to take a raise to protect the position of certain faculty members threatened with termination. Also, Faculty are not to blame for low enrollment. The administration is totally responsible for this. By creating an atmosphere of low morale and job insecurity while they award themselves massive salary increases, despite the perilous situation of this University, they are really answerable for a situation where enrollments increase in other universities except this one. Also, despite not receiving full state appropriations, Illinois State University is giving its faculty a 3% pay increase awarded by a President who has more honesty and integrity that this wretched, ex-politician plagiarist who holds the office and is a great encouragement for increasing enrollment.
ReplyDeleteIn my estimation, the primary factor hurting enrollment at SIUC is the constant bickering between the FA and the administration. No one posting here is going to admit that the FA shares the blame, but every time the paper has a quote from one of you about how messed up SIUC is, a parent somewhere is reading it and deciding not to send their kid here. It would be nice for a change to see something in the paper about good scholarship rather than constant complaining from the FA. One previous anonymous blames Nicklow for being promoted and goes on to say that other qualified individuals chose not to apply! Are we supposed to move forward without a provost?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately (for you!), a University is supposed to promote critical thinking and not engage in publicity and promotion more suited to an advertising firm looking for "customers", the very term used by higher administrators. Poshard & Co are already doing a fine job messing up SIUC without any input by the faculty. Criticism is meant to change things for the better and we can not do this while Poshard and Cheng are in charge and unqualified people promoted with huge salary increase4s while the library still has books to be put on its shelves and the morale of everyone needs to be raised. No, we can't move forward without a provost but this does not mean that the individual concerned gets a 340% pay raise and the rest of us say nothing about it. Good scholarship can not thrive in an environment where the emphasis is on sports and administrative pet projects that take money away from education.
ReplyDeleteUniversities are not supposed to engage in publicity and promotion? What planet do you live on? Good scholarship is alive and well at SIUC. No one is talking about it because they are too busy pointing out that the person appointed to be provost got a pay raise! The FA is more concerned about getting a picture of a few people with signs in the Southern Illinoisan than they are in publicizing the accomplishments of our faculty. If Nicklow's salary were excessive relative to our peer institutions, I would be concerned. I can also understand and share the frustration about the emphasis on sports and share that frustration. Pick your battles folks - the upcoming negotiations will require a genuine interest in compromise.
ReplyDeleteLast anonymous! You finally hit it right “the upcoming negotiations will require a genuine interest in compromise.” I hope you mean genuine interest from both sides. At this time, administration does not seem interested.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to give comparable salary to our provost, the provost must have comparable qualifications and leadership qualities. Our provost has nothing, I mean nothing, to deserve this position unless you count being Cheng’s pet a primary qualification for this position. If a person could not even make the first cut for the dean position just a year ago, what did he do special in one year which made him the top candidate for the provost position? People are laughing at us, not because of what faculty is doing but because of our administration’s actions. We have made to Chronicle with negative news a lot more in the last one year than we did in the past five years. The faculty has not changed, so cannot be blamed for negativity. We should thank Cheng and Poshard for taking SIUC’s name to Chronicle.
I really hope that parents are reading this blog before sending their kids to SIUC. They should let the administration know why they decided not to send their kids here. They need to know that faculty morale is low at SIUC because of the way they are being treated and how administration is taking massive salary increases while staff is forced to take pay cuts. It is shameful for Cheng to tell a staff making 20K per year to take a pay cut at the same time when she gave $80K ($79,700 to be precise) PER YEAR raise to Nicklow in last one year. It is disgraceful for Poshard to take this to the BOT and it is reprehensible for the BOT to approve it.
To Anonymous, "We have made to Chronicle with negative news a lot more in the last one year than we did in the past five years."
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. The plagiarism story received a lot more attention in the Chronicle and in the Chicago newspapers than anything this year.
My, this has proven a fertile thread. An additional two cents from me: salaries for top administrators are far more important symbolically than substantively. We should, in normal circumstances, pay our provost and chancellor the going rate, which will be plenty. And as a commentator noted, faculty who have been promoted are getting their raises, too. But in tough financial times, a smart leader would do things like volunteering six furlough days, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into making this small sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteI'm not terribly happy to see someone openly saying that s/he hopes this blog will lead students to think twice before coming to SIUC. That's certainly not my goal, and I'd like to hope, perhaps quixotically, that any parent or student who manages to find this blog would be well-informed enough to find it also providing evidence for a healthy concern for shared governance on campus. Perhaps, if we get through the current crisis, this blog can be more positive (but, given the way of the world, if it turns more positive it will likely be less read).
On the other hand, those who damn all dissent can't be right, either. Do you criticize those on the BOT for voting against the pay raises--or indeed for opposing anything? If you think faculty and staff--and indeed citizens--should have some "say" in how SIUC functions, would you deny them the opportunity to dissent as well?
Finally, as to the FA responsibility for promoting good news stories about faculty scholarship and the like. I'd like to see the FA find a way to be a positive influence on campus, and indeed an influence at all other than in the (crucial) areas of contract negotiations and grievances. But do keep in mind that the FA is an entirely volunteer organization. And SIUC has paid employees whose job is to promote positive stories about SIUC. Check out the Saluki News, for example, which is included among the links up on the left column above.
Publicity and Promotion should be aimed at good scholarship not administrative puff-stories nor regarding students as "customers" in the sense of a manipulative corporation. That was the whole point of my critique (ignored as usual by Ken). How can we really promote good scholarship with a plagiarist President? Nobody will believe that any achievement has been gained honestly or that it is not a reward to one of Cheng's pets.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we do have a problem of junior and senior students leaving the institution since they have seen the problems for themselves, look at the lack of books and journals in the library, and listen to their peers who have gone to better universities and tell them the difference. Enrollments have declined since Poshard took charge. This is an undeniable fact. A University should not have a President who plagiarized his dissertation in control. This is why SIUC is a laughing stock and Cheng's dictatorial actions will only make matters much worse if she continues.
Fortunately, not all of us are obedient lap dogs who think the problem is going to be solved if nothing is said about it. Students and their parents are not as stupid as SIUC's famous "silent majority". They know what is going on and already deciding to choose other universities.