I address this to the CMU community. It appears that the CMU Board of Trustees still is not getting the message. It is time for the CMU Academic Senate to introduce and approve a vote of no confidence against the CMU Board of Trustees.

The CMU community will experience “healing” only if radical change at the very highest levels of this institution occurs. The very serious issue of our dysfunctional board of trustees and administration devolves on the inherent injustice of about two dozen people claiming for themselves the right to dictate terms to the other 28,000 good and decent people who make up the CMU community. This is intolerable and should not stand.

So, you ask, if the CMU Academic Senate authorized the formation of the Ad Hoc Shared Governance committee at its last meeting, why then do we need a separate board of trustees no confidence vote? In the balance of this letter, I present points of fact that provide justification for the need to do so. These points are as follows:

1. The board of trustees (BoT) has not addressed the vote of no confidence against President Ross and Provost Shapiro passed by the Academic Senate on Dec. 6, 2011. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Academic Senate e-board in meeting with the BoT at its Feb. 8, 2012, meeting. Through its abject failure to address the no confidence vote, the board of trustees serves as enablers of a dysfunctional administration that has long been openly contemptuous of shared governance at CMU.

2. Dr. Sam Kottamasu’s serving as chairman of the BoT constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Kottamasu has been CMED’s chief proponent from its beginning. As a doctor, it stands to reason that Kottamasu will benefit both financially and professionally from CMED. It is likely not coincidental that CMED’s East Campus will be sited in Saginaw, where Kottamasu has his practice. A failure to recuse himself from CMED deliberations during BoT meetings constitutes a clear conflict of interest. If a Michigan municipality allowed a similar conflict of interest during a public meeting, that municipality would be hauled into court and sued. At the Dec. 6, 2011, meeting during which he assumed the chairmanship, Kottamasu did not recuse himself during discussion and deliberation of CMED agenda items. I know: I was there because I spoke at the end of that meeting about the no confidence vote against Ross and Shapiro. Additionally, even if Dr. Kottamasu is more responsible about recusing himself from future deliberations and votes pertaining to CMED, his continuing to serve as the BoT chairman gives to any thinking person the appearance of a conflict of interest. If it quacks like a conflict of interest, then it probably is.

3. Serious questions regarding the fiscal management of CMED persist. Concerns over possible malfeasance regarding CMED fiscal details center on a PowerPoint presentation given by Dr. Ernest Yoder before the Academic Senate on Dec. 6, 2011. In this presentation, Dr. Yoder included a slide that was entitled “CMED Financial Uncertainties.” One of the points included under this header was the troubling subheader “CMED East Campus.” The message of this slide basically was “Hey, we have no idea how much the CMED East Campus is going to cost.”

Thus, while the purpose of Dr. Yoder’s presentation was to shed light on and alleviate concerns regarding CMED’s financial viability, this presentation had for me and many others the exact opposite effect.

In the meantime, the CMED capital campaign continues to be stalled at the halfway mark about two years after its inauguration. If this lame bird quacks like a duck that can’t fly, it most probably is.

4. Finally, the vote of no confidence should be taken because these officers are appointed and not elected. The vote of no confidence should be taken because it will help send the message that the CMU community grows weary of listening to the dictates and mandates of a dictatorial oligarchy that the real CMU community had no hand in appointed to their positions. It will send a message that the time has come to provide the mechanism that will ensure the election of duly qualified people to the CMU Board of Trustees. Ideally, future candidates will have long-term and diverse experience in the education field.

For the several reasons adduced above, the time has come for the Academic Senate, acting as proxy for the CMU community, to draft and approve a vote of no confidence against the board of trustees. Given their seeming intransigence and continued refusal to embrace meaningful change, it is time for the CMU community to contemplate and countenance the possibility of the entire board’s removal. The CMU community is eager for appropriate change in CMU governance. A vote of no confidence against the board of trustees represents a felicitous means by which the CMU community can register its just demand for what is best and right.

The time of reckoning for CMU’s dysfunctional board of trustees and administration has come.

Respectfully yours, Chris Benison Mount Pleasant Senior