EDITORIAL: Questions the sub-committee on higher education should consider asking University President George Ross
On Wednesday, University President George Ross will be one of three university presidents to testify in front of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education in Lansing.
While the committee is free to ask any questions it might have about the university, there are several this Editorial Board feels need to be answered by Ross.
Can there be any justification for recent frivolous spending, and will there ever be a way to make up for it with fundraising?
With news that Central Michigan University spent $10 million in reserve funding for the Events Center without telling the public came another point that may have been missed.
“Look, if we fall short in our fundraising for the medical school, we will probably use university reserves, (too),” Ross said to the Academic Senate on Feb. 15.
That day, he also announced the biosciences building would be the biggest financial investment of the university, with the project slated to cost $95 million.
If it's clear that CMU can't make enough private fundraising money to pay for the Events Center, how on earth does it plan to make enough money to cover the College of Medicine, the biosciences building or any other future projects?
Will a shift toward more online classes really improve student learning or just make more money for the university?
There is an increased emphasis toward taking classes online, even for on-campus students. These classes appear to offer less direct instructional contact and collaborative learning, yet they cost no less to enroll in than those taught on campus.
Will further pushes toward online learning serve the best interests of students at CMU and colleges across the state, or are such programs merely designed to minimize expenses for the university?
Is the CMU Board of Trustees actually active in the decision-making process or rather just a group that meets to approve whatever administrators want? Would a state-wide central governing board be more useful than the current trustees?
As it stands, trustees rarely ask questions during their meetings on CMU's campus, and even more rarely pose hard questions to administrators.
A governing board of a university should have disagreements and not rubber-stamp everything sent its way. People who truly care about an institution often disagree about how best to run it.
Effective oversight sometimes requires less than cheery relations — a sacrifice our trustees seem unwilling to make.
Are the reserve funds being used correctly?
It's been well-documented that the university has had to dip into reserve funds to help fund various projects in the last few years, but is that an effective use of money often characterized as a "rainy day fund?" We venture that it is not, especially given the state's current economic condition.
Is CMU prepared to weather a significant decrease in enrollment? Would it be better prepared had its funds not been spent on such expansive new projects?
Why is there such a lack of transparency at CMU?
While the details were sent to the state about the funding of the Events Center, the true nature was never publicly disclosed; it had to be uncovered by CM Life.
When hard questions were asked in the Academic Senate about online promotional materials still referring to the complex as "fully privately funded," those references were scrubbed immediately, without making those recent alterations clear on the pages.
Was this the proper method of disclosure at a public institution?
Are the current projects the university is spending money on essential for the operation of CMU?
Does CMU really need a College of Medicine? Administrators would tell you the answer is yes, but the truth might not be so clear.
In fact, according to documents distributed by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education following an on-site assessment in November, CMED was lacking in six distinct areas necessary for a good program. Oakland University, which is also opening a college of medicine, was lacking in none.
This begs the question; is CMED the right call for CMU?
Will the shared governance committee actually matter?
The committee, approved by the Academic Senate, could be the answer to some leadership problems at the university. But it is difficult to see how an administration that has grown quite comfortable existing without oversight would respond to a system of shared governance.
Have the concerns brought up in several votes of no confidence against Ross or Provost Gary Shapiro been answered?
A wave of votes of no confidence against Ross and Shapiro first began at the A-Senate's Dec. 6, 2011 meeting. Since then, 17 academic departments along with the Council of Chairs and university librarians have followed suit.
Alone, the A-Senate vote was a bold move, but the number of units that have joined it clearly shows there are flaws with CMU's leadership — flaws that are not going unnoticed.
It's a hard question to ask, but a necessary one, especially because CMU gets nearly $70 million in state funding each year.
If there are so many clear issues with this administration, should Ross and the others be left accountable for all that money?
