Both the DE and the Southern carried stories on the recent shake-up in the Board of Trustees, in which Roger Herrin was voted out as chair by a vote of 5-2 (really 5-3, as Herrin abstained), to be replaced by John Simmons. The DE also has a video of Herrin's brief statement at the outset of the meeting, and the vote itself. The same 5-3 margins led to re-election of Ed Hightower as Vice-Chairman and selection of Mark Henrichs as Secretary; the three offices form the Executive Committee of the board. Herrin and trustee Donna Manering turned down appointments for lesser posts on the board; Herrin at any rate made it clear that he did so because he regarded the downgrade as one to a menial position.
Herrin explicitly said that he believed that there were times when saying less meant saying more, and hence did not say very much about the reasons for his ouster. But the very fact of multiple, public contested elections on a seven person board shows that there is a very deep disagreement here. I did not attend the meeting, nor do I have particularly good sources on the BOT, but this all strikes me as a pretty big deal.
Herrin presented his removal as one orchestrated by the university administration, and cited John Paul Jones in vowing that he and "those trustees I know" would continue the good fight--presumably by continuing their efforts to make the board a more independent voice. Simmons would only say that "we needed a change". Trustee Ed Hightower, who supported the ouster of Herrin and will continue to serve as vice-chair of the Board, was more forthcoming, if not particularly articulate (at least as quoted by the Southern):
“When we get to a point of not being able to understand our role and move away from our becoming impediment in the day-to-day operation of the university system — and I want to be clear as far as our role,” Hightower said. “We’re policy makers. We hire quality individuals to run the day-to-day. When trustees begin to get involved in the day-to-day, it causes problems we should not have to encounter.”Herrin's ouster is presumably payback for his temerity in publicly criticizing the administration's leaving the board out of the loop re the new logo, which was one of the difficult issues he briefly alluded to in his opening remarks at the meeting. With a new executive committee in place, it would appear that this board prefers to be left out of the loop.
As trustee Don Lowery noted, the new executive committee also lacks any representatives from Southern Illinois rather than the metro East area. Presumably the board trusts Poshard, with his Southern Illinois roots, to look after the needs of the Carbondale campus--and as they are delegating more power to him, it doesn't really matter who serves on the executive committee, so long as they don't cause problems.
The selection of Donna Manering, whose extensive educational experience includes serving on both sides of negotiations between K-12 IEA locals and local school districts, and retired federal judge Don Lowery, had led me to hope that the board would be a more serious independent voice. Roger Herrin, for his part, is a M.D. with deep roots in Southern Illinois. Our new BOT chair has the thinnest resume of the current members of the Board, at least judging from the blurb about him on the BOT website, which lists no professional accomplishments, after his law degree, other than service on various university boards. While I'd heard scuttlebutt that Glen Poshard, who certainly has sometimes seemed weary of his duties in recent years, might be on his way out, from this vantage point it certainly looks like he has skillfully re-asserted his control over SIU.
This is a key example of Poshard Tammany Hall style politics since the affected members were those who criticized higher administrative decisions. They want Board members who will follow their decisions not those who will question them. The "culture of corruption of southern Illinois" wins again.
ReplyDeleteI concur with Anonymous' analysis. Sad.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure I agree. I don’t remember individual board members at my past institutions being particularly outspoken or seeking a public “voice”, and it seems strange to me that a board member would think that *publically* criticizing administrators could lead to anything positive—particularly over something as inconsequential as the new logo design. Yeah, I like the older one too, but who cares? It seems to me that if the board is not happy with something an administrator does, it should be handled behind closed doors—even fire them or ask them to resign, if needed. But imagine if one of us called out one of our students publically, or if a chair called out a faculty member in the same way (particularly over something dumb). So, assuming I understand Mr. Hightower correctly, I think I agree more with him about the role of board members. And if someone like a board member goes to the press enraged, claiming to be “personally offended” that they weren’t consulted on something as minor as a logo (and then, when ousted, sees parallels between their situation and that of John Paul Jones)—well, maybe they need to get over themselves (just a wee bit).
ReplyDeleteAccording to President Plagiarist's recent interview on Morning Edition. he believes that the campus is 99% in good condition. Who is he fooling? Also, he virtually admitted that he had problems with certain Board members who were critical of administrative decisions such as the logo and actions that led to the strike. Is that not what a Board of Trustees is supposed to do rather than rubber stamp the decisions of the administration like obedient servants? Any Board and its members have the right to criticize the actions of administrators and even fire a University President especially one who has no experience of higher education and who is running this university into the ground by his "ggod 'ol boy" style of politics. Quite obviously, we could al be teaching DL by now or fired on the spot if he and Cheng had his way. The situation can not be dealt with "behind closes doors." That is "business as usual" and any similar praticises will only increase the contempt SIUC employees and the local community have for this institution. The only way forward is to fire Cheng and Poshard and hire people who really know what they are doing. Poshard's recent actions make this highly unlikely so just expect the worse scenario to enroll over the next few months by a President who is using the economic problems of the State to scare people for his own advantage.
ReplyDeleteQuite obviously, beezer wants complicit stooges in the BOT. The rest of us want something different to change things before it is too late. Also, the new logo was not "inconsequential". It was poorly designed by an outside firm Cheng had dealings with in the past. Any new logo could have been designed at less expense by Art and Design had input from the SIUC community been requested. As a result, more money will be wasted on outside consultiant and Commencement speakers whose fees will be another colossal waste of money on this campus.
Yes, thank you -- you've got me exactly -- I was just thinking to myself: "Man, what I want, more than anything in this world, would be to have some uh, *complicit stooges* on the SIU Board of Trustees. That would be the *key* step towards realizing my master plan." But, before I could splash that bit of wisdom across this blog, you did it for me first, so I'm in your debt.
Delete"the rest of us..." Who is that, exactly? What body do you claim to represent, that apparently (uniformly?) wants board members to each take on a highly visible, public role spouting off their opinions about every little thing that the university or administration does? To be "critics in chief"? What university board does that? More generally, what board does that? No. Good. Can. Come. From. It. My feeling: Essentially, the board chose Cheng to run SIUC. If they don't like something that she does and/or want to advise or influence her, they can and should do that--as a group--or individually--behind closed doors--or at least, in an official setting. If the board were truly unhappy with a chancellor, then they should invite that chancellor to rediscover their love of teaching. However, having board members throwing execs under the bus in the press is bush league. I think you like it just because you happen to agree with it. I'm not addressing either the content of the complaint or its validity--I'm addressing process. There are right ways and wrong ways to do things.
I half agree about the logo -- it was poorly designed (to me, compared to the last one) AND the issue is inconsequential compared to the real problems our University is facing. How does one preclude the other again?
It is very interesting that when Poshard was chair of the board, not president, he had no problem giving instruction to the administrators on the campuses. Heck, didn't he even fire the chancellor?
ReplyDeleteSure he did and now things have changed once he is in control.
ReplyDelete@ Patrick and Anon 201:
ReplyDeleteI may not have been here as long as you have, and Poshard may have his faults, but I don't remember him calling out administrators in public the way that we are talking about here in this case (or melodramatically invoking the immortal words of any revolutionary war heroes, for that matter). However, if I'm wrong and Poshard had a history of speaking out of turn as a board member (and now decries it as an administrator) that would indeed be hypocritical. But on the other hand, firing a chancellor is certainly part of the job of the board, so what's your point there?
There are at least two problems here, the public vs. private problem and the issue of "policy making" versus implementation of policy. Reasonable people can disagree about both without being stooges or nutcases.
ReplyDeleteWhile beezer is, as always, temperate and rational, I have my doubts about saying that the board's actions should mainly be done in private. There are obvious transparency issues here, and as the body supposedly insuring that the public interest is met by the university secrecy is a hard sell. I'm more on board with beezer about limiting board actions to "official actions". On the radio today Poshard said that a couple of members of the board were habitually coming to him as individuals and telling him how to do his job. If that's an accurate characterization, it sounds like a problem.
The problem with Hightower's definition of the board's role is that "policy making" could be regarded as so vague as to be meaningless. If the BOT's only job is to draft mission statements and the like, why bother? Sure, they get to hire and fire the system president, but they routinely accept his recommendations about other personnel matters, so their hiring authority could be pretty limited as well. Where do we draw the line between policy and implementation of policy? "Increase enrollment" is policy. Is "spend more on marketing" something the BOT needs to worry itself about, or just implementation of the policy to increase enrollment? Are they then allowed to ask about how that money is being spent? Say, on a new logo? I'd think so--and as a matter of fact there's no disagreement that the board needs to improve major financial decisions to implement policy.
The most troubling specific thing I've heard about the BOT majority is their lack of interest in learning much about what's going on on campus other than through the administration. We can't expect them to routinely do independent research, and the admin obviously is going to provide them, as the rest of us, with the facts and figures. But if the BOT isn't willing, at the very least, to ask hard questions about the administration's reports about what's going on, then they aren't doing their job. Hard questions may end up looking divisive--but that's democratic oversight for you.
Well, I will say this, based on what's in the paper today:
ReplyDelete1) I can't tell which side of the he-said/he-said is more likely to contain a majority of truth (so it is hard to know who or what to root for);
2) It's a mess regardless.
I agree with Dave that one should hope that board members should have some healthy curiosity about how things are going on campus (and perhaps should even be invited to come down and meet faculty, find out what they are doing, etc., at least more often than they do [disclaimer: I actually have no idea if any of them ever do that.]. But that would still be in an official capacity. I can also imagine a whole host of other 'data streams' that a board member *might* find interesting and useful if they should want insight into the state of affairs at SIUC that didn't come straight from administrators' mouths (outcomes of program reviews, rankings, alumni interviews, on and on...).
Of course – whether the board feels it wants to do these things or not – it is well within the rights (and duties) to question administrators on their ‘presentations’. But if the allegations that Poshard makes are true, I think meddling in the small day-to-day things on campus – or holding university business hostage – would go above and beyond those duties. Who knows if that actually happened, however. Some say it did, some say it didn’t…
Leaving aside the current brouhaha, it is interesting how "SIU problems are really SIUC problems while SIUE is ever on the rise. The shift of students to SIUE has been going on since I arrived here in 1995. Poshard is head of both campuses so is his job performance in terms of enrollment based on SIUC or SIUC-SIUE enrollment?
ReplyDeleteSIUE hit a new "record high" (again):
http://www.theintelligencer.com/local_news/article_ed47adc2-db06-11e0-a95e-001cc4c03286.html
I think there is a lot of resentment of down-downstate vis a vis our Edwardsville-East St. Louis corridor friends. Notice that the the BOT members opposed to Herrin-Lowery are from Edwardsville country.
Just saying. . .
Yeah, I noticed that too. Ok then, since all the dirty laundry is coming out anyway, perhaps I would feel better about what Herrin was doing if I knew what (SIUC-favoring?) principles he was supposedly standing for (I bet not though).
DeleteOther split is between Blago appointees and Quinn appointees, I think, with the Blago era appointees backing Poshard. Getting appointed by Blago doesn't necessarily mean you are a bad apple, but Poshard's having Blago's folks on his side isn't the strongest possible position to be in, and not only because those appointees will be coming up for reappointment (or replacement) sooner rather than later.
DeleteThis all blew up today (3/27) with Poshard's news conference, which deserves a second post, but as I've yet to be able to find video or a transcript of that (any leads would be welcome--I found someone online claiming to have seen video, but couldn't find it myself), I'll wait till I get more info. As beezer notes, some of this is in the realm of he said/he said, so difficult for an outsider to judge. But while my impression was that Poshard effectively reasserted his power during the BOT meeting (whether for the ill or the good folks may disagree), it's hard to see how his angry news conference today (that's how it was described) can do much good, at least for the institution. If he managed to defeat lobbying from the governor's office, that was a pretty impressive achievement in purely political terms, but I don't see why he needed to go public with it: his public airing of grievances is precisely what some criticized about Herrin et al. Plus, by going public about the governor's involvement, he raises the stakes. If the governor doesn't go ahead and hand pick new trustees to oust Poshard in January, the governor will now look weak (not exactly a new development for Quinn, of course--at least Poshard isn't squabbling with Mike Madigan!). I suppose Poshard could be betting that making the feud public could send the signal that he won't go quietly (any more than Herrin will), so warn the governor to back off. But while that may help Glenn Poshard defeat the governor in this battle, it surely doesn't help SIUC.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Poshard claimed in his news conference, according to press accounts, was that the BOT meddled during the faculty strike. That certainly wasn't apparent to any in the FA, I think I can safely say. If some on the BOT were asking questions behind the scenes, then more power to them: certainly they made no public statements undermining the administration during the strike. Perhaps some on the board pressured Poshard behind the scenes, but one would expect any responsible board to get involved in an issue of that magnitude. There is no evidence whatsoever that the board as a whole inserted itself into negotiations, for better or for worse.
The obvious loser in all of this is, as usual, SIUC. Poshard has now been president for 10 years. I don't know whether he's more sinned against or sinning in the current controversy, frankly, but as one of the major reasons for hiring him was his political connections, his decision today to burn bridges with the governor's office is a pretty serious affair. Heaven knows, he's weathered some pretty serious crises--plagiarism, his granddaughter's scholarship, the strike--so perhaps he'll manage to weather this one too. But it is all getting to be a bit much. If Poshard is on the outs with the governor, he's lost his major qualification for the job, his political connections (heaven knows, it wasn't his academic qualifications).
When members of the BOT micromanage and try to run the day to day operations of administrators beneath them, it is time to oust them as leaders. When the Chancellor micromanages all offices beneath her and surrounds herself with insulating yes-men and yes-women, it is "business as usual." No, President Poshard, the administrative leadership at SIUC is not doing "Great" nor are things 99% good.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if BOT members were asking questions about the Provost's office which, rumor has it, is running hundreds of thousands of dollars in the red despite austerity measures and the micromanaging of an accountant Chancellor.
@ Dave, has it really been 10 years?? Wow. In any case, I can't really disagree with any of that.
ReplyDeleteAt Anon, No, I agree -- the micromanaging charge goes both ways... (although, is it possible, in retrospect, that one begat the other?) For example, getting even the most transient, lowly contract through requires (what seems to me) an inordinate amount of time and effort (and why any upper administrator wouldn't want to just delegate such things is beyond me--they are really punishing *themselves* by interjecting themselves into so much mindless and inconsequential paperwork). However, there was a time in the recent past when such things were not just an inordinate pain, but also seemed mysteriously *impossible*. Perhaps that's just perception, but one wonders what was going on then...
Beezer,
DeleteIt hasn't been ten years. "Poshard was named President of SIU in late 2005." Prior to that, Poshard was President of the Board of Trustees.
Whether you want to count his years on the Board as time leading SIU depends, in part, on how much he was meddling in the day-to-day affairs of the university as Board President....err....making sure the policies were implemented when the President of SIU was unable due to health problems.
Oops--my bad re the math. It's been seven rather than 10 years. But paranoid is obviously right that we may need to consider his years as BOT chair as well.
DeleteSeems like everyone wants to makeover SIU in their own image:
ReplyDeleteRoger Herrin
Don Lowery
The Board of Trustees
President Poshard
The SIUC Faculty Association
Seems like the Chancellor and Lipman Hearne are missing from that list. Arguably, the latter is the "image" consultant for the former, but when mid-level admins have to report directly to a consulting firm, they might as well be acknowledged as de facto administrators, if in pay-grade only.
DeleteIsn't it now time for a petition to be circulated amongst faculty, students, staff, and the local community demanding Poshard's resignation? A copy should also go to the Governor's Office as well as the Board of Trustees since we know the latter group will do absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeletePOSHARD MUST GO (Cheng and the Provost also).
Ano 6:57AM MUST GO!
DeleteThe same can be said about Poshard supporters like Anon. 8:04 who are also responsible for the "silent majority" slavish attitudes and do not speak out against a situation they have suppirted and now has gone out of control.
ReplyDeleteThat you don't like Poshard doesn't mean he did wrong in this matter. Let fact speak!
DeleteThe fact is that, despite being around in a controlling position for over 7 years, he has been an absolute disaster for this campus. How can we attract good students here when the President is a plagiarist?
ReplyDeleteThis is your opinion, NOT the fact. As a professional, you even can not distinguish between FACT and Opinion. You are either a plagiarist for yourPh.D. thesis or your advisor has very low standard.
Delete