I hope every reader notices how these senseless faculty actions multiply. We will now have a long rash of them. This is the third now in the last ten days - all reported prominently by "The Chronicle". Trustee Boards hold the key to this "seasonal nonsense", but some play right into these predictable faculty schemes by responding in the name of "campus peace and tranquility". Because the Montgomery Trustee Board (Maryland) responded to this well known faculty ploy, by suspending their CEO, faculty across the country, who are not having everyone of their personal whims fully met, conclude it's time to see if they can get their way through a "No Confidence" vote. Seasoned and reasoned boards slap this farce down quickly. The board should just release a public expression of confidence in their CEO and tell the faculty to work out their issues through the internal systems created for that purpose - or more simply yet, suggest that they move on in they are disgruntled. Better yet, whenever a Trustee Board gets a vote of "No Confidence" from a faculty group, faculty senate, Union or other campus employee structure, publicly declare the Boards confidence in the CEO and immediately extend his/her contract for several years. Then sit back and watch how fast this self-centered and institutional distracting game is settled.

Willy/nilly...
No, "willy/nilly...you are direct and right on target in addressing this issue that appears to be rearing its head after many years of being low on the totem in the faculty "strategies" for influencing the decision making processes of their employers. The reasoning goes to the heart of the governance system where the authorized Governing Boards have unfortunately become politicized and subject to such influence. Such "positioning" violates the very essence of the Board's role as the ultimate decision maker in the life of the institution and its responsibility to the taxpayer and student body.

Willynilly appears to be just that. The Board and Chancellor, to which willy refers to, has failed to consider reasonable requests by students, community members, staff, and faculty. The Chancellor has created a vacuum between the Board and those the Board serves, through new dictates of District policy. The Chancellor has created an unprecedented number of high paid administrative positions, while reducing faculty and staff positions. The result of this action has been larger classes, less student support services, and an overall reduced quality of education available.
Willynilly appears to have overlooked the bottom line in education, which is the student. The Board is an elected guardian of students and the educational process. When students aren't being served, the Board is failing in their elected duty. To blindly follow an overpaid CEO has led to many a business collapses, while the CEO gets bonuses.
We taxpayers (community, staff, students, and faculty) care enough to ask for accountability; and, when not offered, we demand change...not bankruptsy.

The top two comments above show an amazing lack of knowledge of how colleges operate (& should) and why they are different than for-profit corporations. A college, by definition, is a collection of highly educated experts in various disciplines. A public college is funded by the taxpayers. And the value of a college's product doesn't become evident till years later when a graduate is successful in life. All of this brings an extraordinary level of appropriate accountability. While considered 'outmoded' by some, particularly in this economic downturn, shared and at the very least participatory governance is essential to a a thriving college. If anything, boards need to study practices and pay more attention to their local voices.

eidgahy is to be commended for an intellectually well thought out analysis of what a college should be and even how it should operate in the ideal world. Yes, well conceived. Unfortunately, in the real world of collective bargaining, reality sets in. As a former member of the NEA and a state affiliate, I can attest that reality is that faculty bargaining teams are routinely trained in the "art" of discrediting the administration and its bargaining positions via published "strategies" that cite as a primary and first goal...the absolute need to drive a wedge between the Governing Body and its administrative team. The most common tactic being a "confidence vote." Of course, once that is accomplished, the board then becomes subject to an active telephone bank of "desperate"calls and/or threats of using the electoral process to rid the Board of "objectable" trustees. Yes, that is the reality of what happens once a board surrenders to such obvious, political tactics. This is not the opinion of one former union member, but documented in numerous publications and workshops organized with the very specific purpose of achieving the union's ends with no regard for participatory governance OR the interests of the college's students.

Yes, governing boards definitely need to study these practices and pay very close attention to the goals of such groups calling for their president's head...sometimes, there just might be another agenda operating.