Faculty unrest continues to roil Oakland University. Professors staged a weeklong strike there early this fall, and won concessions from the university. Now a group of senior faculty members are pushing for a no-confidence vote against the institution's president, Gary D. Russi.
A "bill of particulars" from the group says Mr. Russi does not support shared governance and has made it difficult for professors to contact the university's Board of Trustees, and charges that the president is "increasingly isolated and distant from campus life."
Shea Howell, a professor of communication who is part of the dissatisfied group, wrote in an e-mail message that the plan is for a vote to take place by Thanksgiving. She also said that Mr. Russi had agreed to participate in an open discussion with faculty members, but a date for that meeting has not yet been set.
In the last week or so, the university has issued two news releases in which members of the Board of Trustees express confidence in Mr. Russi's leadership. He became president at Oakland in 1996, and is under a contract that ends in 2014.
Comments
1. mal1000 - November 13, 2009 at 12:21 am
It is clear from the effusion of emails from the Board of Trustees and Russi that both know that this initiative will not go away. It was first brought to the attention of OU faculty through the work of two very highly considered full professor department chairs. Since the initial announcement, a further email has been sent to faculty signed by a larger group of respected faculty and organizing a series of upcoming meetings for faculty.
In his most recent email sent earlier today, Russi writes:
"I know the success of this university depends on how effectively we work together, and that open communication is critical to that
process." [This was the first email in which Russi mentioned meeting faculty - in his prior email, open communication Russi-style was limited to planned conversations with deans (please no laughing in the back, deans regularly initiate votes of no confidence in their presidents) and chairs.]
Hearing Mr. Russi (he went through a phase of not wanting his senior administrators use their academic titles a few years ago) extolling the virtues of "open communication" would likely cause a considerable ripple of laughter at Oakland University if the principle of "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior" did not apply to Mr. Russi. Oakland University faculty have been seen numerous announcements indicating that "Senior Administrator XYZ has decided to rejoin the faculty" and meandered through Oakland's "Who's provost this year?" period some years back.
Russi runs a _very effective_ PR outfit and I expect that we will hear more from him and the Board of Trustees as the reality sets in that this motion of no confidence is not going to disappear. But nobody should doubt that Russi will put the full force of Oakland's (i.e. Russi's) PR resources into action to hold on to his position.
Thank goodness OU now uses Google as its email provider - I expect the amount of open communication from the president will increase rather significantly over the next few weeks.
2. willynilly - November 13, 2009 at 09:48 am
I usually comment on all of these periodic "no confidence votes or threatened no confidence votes in presidents". My starting point is always skepticism of the employee group waging the "no confidence" action. What is their motive? Are there real substantive institution-wide issues involved, or is this an effort by a single employee group to gain greater control over the operation of the institution, so as to provide greater security, protection and comfort to the discontended group. I am a strict constructionist in matters of this sort. Complete control of the institution must be maintained, at all times, by the Trustee Board and its selected President of the College/University. Shared involvement, open communication and collaboration all have a place in the governance system - but not in the final decision making process. That is solely the domain of the Trustees and President. It must be protected and secured at all times from assults and invasions by employee groups - of which the use of votes of no confidence is often the first level of action taken against the legally granted authority of the Trustees and President. It is always important to note if the discontended employee group is unionized. I don't know the answer to that question at Oakland U. If yes, that is cause for even greater skepticism. The use of votes of no confidence are well tested and used tactics by unions to force Trustee Boards and Presidents to yield greater levels of their legal accountability, to the employee group. Once that is allowed to begin, it never ends. If, on the other hand Oakland is not unionized, then their action merits a closer look to determine its true motive and whether concessions can be granted without impacting students in any way or forfeiting one iota of Trustee/ Presidential authority.
3. lpettit - November 13, 2009 at 10:08 am
Wow! Willynilly is right on every count. Nothing more need be said.
4. chguk - November 13, 2009 at 10:26 am
Willynilly - my starting assumption is always that the employee group has a genuine grievance. Note that I have exactly as much justification for my assumption as you have for yours.
As with all these things, it comes down to which side you pick: bosses or workers?
5. cwinton - November 13, 2009 at 01:59 pm
The OU faculty apparently are represented by a 600 member union, which has already engaged in a strike action, resolved by court ordered return to the bargaining table. However, I don't think unions regard a vote of confidence to be much of a tactic unless coupled with bargaining, which in this case is already been concluded. Note that in the article, there is no indication that the vote of confidence is a union action, but rather is from a group of senior faculty, who I assume may or may not belong to the union. Absent a union motive, the usual purpose of a no confidence vote is to get the attention of the governing authority, which may well be operating in a vacuum regarding administrator performance issues. If the vote is strongly negative, it should lead the governing authority to initiate an independent review to determine if behavior changes or replacement are in order for the administrator in question. It would be helpful to know the extent to which the union is involved in this action.