"Ed Games"

"Ed Games", presumably a reference to the hit young adult book and movie Hunger Games, is the title of a series of articles the Southern Illinoisan is publishing on the power struggle between SIU President Poshard and trustees Lowery and Herrin. The first round of articles was published Sunday; another article appeared today.

I think the technical term for what we've got ourselves here is a pissing contest. The articles themselves strike me as fairly balanced, though as Poshard has more voices on his side (inasmuch as he still has more votes on the BOT), his charge of "micromanaging" gains a certain credence. But it is at least curious that Poshard sees unprofessional and unethical meddling whenever anyone challenges his authority--members of the BOT asking too many questions about SIU, the governor's office meddling by lobbying members of the BOT. While Herrin's insistence on asking questions seems eminently responsible and appropriate, his positive vision for SIU appears to devolve to that lowest common denominator of current political thought: "it ought to be run like a business".

Trustee Don Lowery on WSIU

I've finally found a working link to Don Lowery's "Morning Conversation" with Jennifer Fuller on WSIU from the 4th. Lowery's comments on the controversy between some on the board of trustees and President Poshard is unsurprisingly rather different than that in Poshard's news conference. I don't necessarily agree with everything Lowery said, but he certainly struck me as someone who's taking his job as trustee seriously, and feels it his responsibility to ask hard questions of the administration--something we need in the BOT. Lowery says that the administration has not been terribly forthcoming with answers to his questions.

Lowery's analysis of SIUC is decidedly more bleak than Poshard's claim that everything was peachy under his leadership. Lowery seemed to me to be a bit obsessed about tuition going up, in addition to the far more damning issue of enrollment going down (a factor Poshard did not mention in his hour long press conference). Our tuition needs to be looked at in comparison with our peers--it is likely that if everyone is raising tuition, there's some good reason for it (declining state support and rising costs come to mind). Of course this isn't to say that higher tuition is a good thing, or that Lowery is wrong to question administrative assurances that all possible cuts have been made. 

BOT shakeup

[President Poshard has now (3/26) discussed this issue with Jennifer Fuller on WSIU.]  

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.

For Your Friday Reading Enjoyment

Okay, time to kick this thing off, I guess.  Thanks to Dave for the "Tonight Show" introduction, but I promise not to do a monologue. However, I cannot promise that I won't render some Carnac the Magnificent schtick before all this labor negotiation is over.  Given how often I've been asked to look into a crystal ball to predict what the outcome of a strike will be, I think it only appropriate.

I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of pieces of news.  First, the ACsE has taken its strike deadline vote and has set the date: November 3.  Read more about it here.  If you've been following the other unions' negotiation reports, you'll note some similarities and differences in what seems to be happening with the FA.  The strike votes certainly seem to have motivated the discussions at the negotiation table for all, but they are not reaching much meaningful agreement on the sticking points.  The difference, though, is that while the pace and amount of negotiation has increased for the FA, it does not seem to have done so as much for the other unions.  More is the pity.  For the ACsE, particularly, there are some pretty low (or no!) cost proposals that a trusting Administration could pretty easily agree to but still will not. 

And then this bit of national news from the Washington Monthly.  Okay, maybe this is news for the rest of the nation, but I think this is so day-to-day here at SIUC that we've pretty much taken it for granted.  More disturbing than the excellent analysis of administrative bloat is the hopelessness of the bodies identified to correct the problem:

On any given campus, the only institution with the actual power to halt the onward march of the all-administrative university is the board of trustees or regents— which, as we’ve seen, tend to be unprepared or disinclined to make waves. But they need to do so if their institutions are to be saved from sinking into the expanding swamp of administrative mediocrity.

It is not within the purview of our current labor negotiations to limit or reverse the growth of our already top-heavy administration.  Still, I doubt too many of us will hold our breath waiting for the BOT to do anything about it.  Ah well, at least misery loves company -- and we are so not alone in this predicament.

Answer: Transparency, accountability, and shared governance
riiiip!
Question: Name three things you won't find in Anthony Hall.

Sudden BOT meeting

I know essentially nothing about the suddenly called BOT meeting yesterday other than what has already been reported in the Southern and DE.  Here is the announcement of the meeting, the closest thing to an agenda available, which Kristi linked to over at Unions United.

As the DE story made particularly clear, the chairman of the board was "insulted" not to be consulted about the marketing campaign--or at least the new logo. I wasn't there, but do hope that their questions go somewhat deeper than the logo. The DE story also notes that our outside marketing firm has received a $950,000 budget for this year. The private part of the meeting, closed to the public, may have been the most interesting from our perspective, as there the board wanted to discuss court proceedings against the board (which could allude to the unions' Unfair Labor Practice charge) and "collective negotiating matters".

As our current board has shown at least once before, at least some of its members have an independent streak. This could very well be a good thing.

BOT Meeting Coverage, 7/14

You should get your BOT coverage from someone more in the loop than I, Kristi Brownfield of at Unions United, who read a statement on GA health coverage (or the lack thereof) at the meeting, and now has a post summarizing the statements by Poshard and Cheng to the board.  My guess is that this is an event where pictures say more than words--Cheng and Poshard seemingly had little new to say, and the letter from the Union presidents didn't offer much new (though it did nicely combine the phrase "strike watch" with an appeal for returning to a more collaborative attitude).

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.