EDITOR'S NOTE: This article has updated information at the bottom added on May 14, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.
With looks of despair on their faces, HSU's faculty reached a breaking point in their confidence in Rollin Richmond as president of HSU.
At an emergency meeting on May 12, faculty members gathered to discuss the building tensions between the president and the faculty. The vote of no confidence against Richmond passed with 128 votes. They are requesting he step down from his position as president within two months.
The decision to pass the vote of no confidence came after Richmond appointed Interim Provost Bob Snyder as the permanent provost effective July 1, without conducting a national search.
"I was one of the people who thought the idea of no confidence would not help us work collectively," said Cindy Moyer, a professor in the music department. "At this point, I've personally given up."
Faculty members expressed that their issues with the decision to appoint Snyder are not about his abilities, but more about Richmond's disregard for the process and his failure to take into account faculty considerations. An interview with Snyder was scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, but was canceled by his office to be scheduled at a later time.
Richmond initially asked for input from the faculty in the decision. On April 21, the Academic Senate unanimously voted Richmond not appoint Snyder as provost and called for a national search.
In the May 5 Senate meeting, Richmond said nothing of his decision to appoint Snyder to permanent provost. The day after - during the most crucial weeks of the semester and only hours after the final issue of the Lumberjack hit stands around the campus and community - Richmond sent out an e-mail to faculty and students informing them of his decision.
The president cited a few reasons why he chose to promote Snyder. He noted in his e-mail to the campus that two consulting groups brought in after the WASC (Western Accreditation of Schools and Colleges, the governing body of student accreditation) review, recommended that Snyder be appointed permanent provost. He also wrote "searches for several deans positions are in process or will soon be underway, and the best candidates for these positions will be more likely to accept an appointment if we have a permanent provost in place."
The Lumberjack called for comment, but was directed to HSU spokesperson Paul Mann by president's office.
Math and Computing Science professor Martin Flashman, said the president promised the faculty that there would be a national search. "There was a promise broken."
Saeed Mortizavi, chair of the Academic Senate agreed. "If the president does not listen [to faculty and students] then it will basically be the administration running the campus."
Dan Faulk, former Associated Students president and lecturer in the politics department, is concerned the president no longer cares about the voices of others, especially when it comes to students. "There is a pattern of complete disregard to student input," said Faulk. "[Students] have learned the lesson that participating is not rewarded."
The issues between the president and faculty have been looming for quite some time now. What is important to know is the faculty created a list of grievances known as the Bill of Particulars in the Fall '07 semester and began to think about moving for a vote of no confidence in Richmond.
The Bill of Particulars boiled down to four basic points: shared governance (governing the school equally with the faculty), managing budget, communication, and articulating a vision.
Since the WASC and Keeling (firm HSU hired for $65,000 to figure out what the problem is) reports, touched on all of the issues in the Bill of Particulars, the faculty decided to move forward this past February and postpone the lack of confidence for the good of the university.
Yet, with this new move by the president, it seems like the issues are continuing to persist. "How many mistakes must we tolerate?" Mortizavi asked the room full of faculty members on Tuesday. The answer, faculty is hoping, is no more.
Now that the vote of no confidence has passed, the vote will go to the CSU Chancellors office for review. John Powell, General Faculty Association president, said under the CSU Academic Policy, when the chancellor receives word of a vote of no confidence, the Chancellors office must investigate and report back to the CSU academic senate.
But Powell is unsure whether Richmond will take the faculty seriously, or just laugh it off like he has their other concerns. "The president and the chancellor of the CSU system seem to be illiterate when it comes to a vote of no confidence," said Powell. "It means we are asking them to resign."
Update-
Mann released a statement on behalf of President Richmond stating, "President Rollin Richmond has reiterated his strong support for Provost Robert Snyder and his commitment to serving as the University’s president."
The e-mail stated that Richmond said the group’s vote was unfortunate.
Richmond noted the high cost of doing a national search that is part of the formal hiring process of a campus executive. Such a search was expected to cost $50,000 or more.
“I’m disappointed that they took this approach," wrote Richmond. "Mainly it’s a distraction from the many good things happening at Humboldt State and the many serious issues that we need to face together."
Clair Knox, chair of the Nursing department, spoke on this issue Thursday morning. "This is a hard time," she said. "One of the challenges that we are facing is that their needs to be leadership that will foster a collaboration."
If the vote of no confidence was just about Snyder the faculty would not be asking Richmond to step down, Knox added.
In the statement released by HSU, California State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed articulated his support for Richmond and his decision to appoint Snyder.
”In the face of many years of declining budgets," said Reed, "President Richmond has brought about remarkable improvements to the campus, such as new academic buildings, record levels of demand from prospective students, increased diversity and growing alumni support."
Mann later said in his statement that a vote of no confidence is a symbolic expression of disagreement, but does not require a particular action or response within CSU policy.
"I think all of us were aware that this tactic was gonna be a of it," said Knox. "There needs to be a fundamental effort to build understanding. If we want a university this is a community building university, then we need to listen to the community."
Faculty expressed this concern at the emergency meeting on Tuesday. One of the members said the administration will probably laugh it off like the Bill of Particulars, a list of grievances the faculty brought to the president president in the Fall '07 semester. One of the complaints being a lack of communication, which was also addressed in the WASC report.
So, where does a third of the faculty turn to when the president thinks that their call for him to step down in two months is a symbolic expression?
Like many of the faculty, Knox doesn't know. She knows that the rest of the faculty regards it as a serious issue. "This is a hard time of the year," said Knox. "People are busy. I'm hoping that this just doesn't fall off the earth."
The Lumberjack will continue to follow this story and provide more in depth coverage as it becomes available.
14 comments
"Since the WASC and Keeling (firm HSU hired for $65,000 to figure out what the problem is) reports, touched on all of the issues in the Bill of Particulars, the faculty decided to move forward this past February and postpone the lack of confidence for the good of the university."
The Academic Senate Tabled discussion and action that might have lead to a vote of no confidence earlier this Spring. There was no reason attached to this vote- attributing reasons to the vote from comments made before the vote is not an accurate report of the action. All that can be said about action is that it ended further discussion by the Academic Senate related to the Bill of Particulars, the President's response relating to his understanding of the meaning of "shared governance," and earlier Senate actions suggesting consideration of holding a vote of no confidence.