Several departments on campus have endorsed the Dec. 6 vote of no confidence against University President George Ross and Provost Gary Shapiro, and three more can be added to that list.

The Biology Department voted to support Academic Senate’s vote of no confidence last Tuesday, and the Department of Journalism and the Department of Teacher Education and Professional Development voted last Friday. This makes a total of eight departments that have endorsed the vote.

The Department of Journalism also voted against the Faculty Association’s decision to withhold vote totals after their Jan. 12 contract ratification.

“In a separate vote, the department’s personnel committee — tenured and tenure-track faculty — unanimously objected to FA’s refusal to release the vote totals on the recent contract,” said Associate Professor of Journalism Tim Boudreau in an email.

In addition to a unanimous vote of support, the Department of Teacher Education and Professional Development passed a resolution.

Faculty member Norma Bailey said the resolution was outlined in an email to Central Michigan Life on Friday.

“We direct our chairperson to forward the resolution to the Board of Trustees with our call that its concerns be addressed,” the resolution states. “We also give the authority to our chair to support such a measure when this matter is discussed and/or voted on at the Council of Chairs.”

Biology Department Chairman Stephen Roberts said the department endorsed the motion to support the vote of no confidence after being introduced by Phil Hertzler at a recent staff meeting.

The motion read as follows: “The faculty members of the Department of Biology support the Senate’s motion of no confidence and call upon the Board of Trustees to address the concerns expressed therein,” Roberts said in an email.

Boudreau said with numerous departments expressing unhappiness with the campus leadership, he hopes action will be taken soon.

“I’d like the board of trustees to sit up and take notice of the widespread dissatisfaction with campus leadership,” he wrote in an email Sunday afternoon. “This is more than just a few disgruntled faculty members. I think that dissatisfaction is why almost 90 percent of the journalism faculty joined with colleagues across campus in endorsing this vote of no confidence.”

William Wandless, chairperson for the department of English, said a vote regarding the endorsement of the vote of no confidence would occur by ballot at a staff meeting scheduled for Friday.

Five other departments, including sociology, anthropology and social work; philosophy and religion; political science; foreign language, literatures and cultures have since endorsed the December vote. The Department of Mathematics voted to support the vote on Thursday.

Though no specific solution has been suggested by any department, faculty members continue to watch for action to be taken.

“I’ll let the Board of Trustees decide what the next step should be, but acknowledging the problem would be a good start,” Boudreau said.

The department of foreign language, literatures and cultures endorsed the resolution during its departmental staff meeting on Friday. The endorsement marks the fourth academic department to agree with the Academic Senate’s vote, which was held on Dec. 7 and passed by a 52-percent majority.

Other departments are expected to discuss the matter at future meetings, including the department of psychology, department of chemistry, department of English and school of accounting.

Some departments have no intentions of discussing the matter at all, including the department of management.

Christi Brookes, the foreign language, literatures and cultures department chairwoman, said the department expressed similar concerns to those that have already endorsed the resolution. Academic Prioritization, shared governance and academic transformation were among department members’ worries. While no one opposed the vote of endorsement, four people abstained — choosing not to vote on the matter.

“(The concerns) are more or less what other departments have expressed as well,” Brookes said. ”Budget cuts that have happened with a very uneven hand across the colleges depending on which college you are in.”

Brookes said the department’s endorsement may only be a symbolic act, but multiple departments could make an impacting statement to administration. She said the act is a way to show administration that many faculty members are not happy.

“It’s making a statement about what we hope CMU is going to be, which is to say a place where all different faculty voices from fixed-term to tenured are heard,” Brookes said.

Other departments will discuss the A-Senate’s resolution in future meetings, including the department of English.

Department Chairman William Wandless said the department will decide on the matter Friday, promising they have quorum to make the decision.

“A motion to endorse the Academic Senate’s vote of no confidence against President Ross and Provost Shapiro will appear on the agenda of this week’s English department meeting,” Wandless said in an email.

Multiple other departments could not yet comment, as discussions about the A-Senate’s vote have not begun.

The sociology, anthropology and social work and philosophy and religion departments were the first to endorse the no confidence vote earlier this month, paving the way for other departments to follow suit. Last week, the political science department endorsed the vote, with David Jesuit, associate professor and interim department chairman, calling for a return to shared governance.

“I’ve been here since 2003, and I think in the past it seems that there was more dialogue and discussion,” Jesuit told Central Michigan Life. “The administration seemed to be more in touch.”

The vote, which was passed by a 52-percent majority at the Academic Senate’s Dec. 7 meeting, addressed issues of academic prioritization, shared governance and information sharing among other concerns expressed by the CMU community.

Associate Professor David Jesuit, interim chairman for the department, said the endorsement, voted on at a department meeting Thursday, stems from concerns regarding shared governance, which encompasses a significant amount of the university’s decision-making process.

“We would like to return to this notion of shared governance where we have a community that works together,” Jesuit said.

Earlier this month, the sociology, anthropology and social work and philosophy and religion departments endorsed the Dec. 7 vote. Robert Noggle, chairman of the philosophy and religion department, told Central Michigan Life that the endorsement stemmed from a lack of shared governance, development of the College of Medicine and Academic Prioritization.

In the past at CMU, Jesuit said the administration had better included faculty members in decisions made regarding academic programs.

“I’ve been here since 2003 and I think that in the past, it seems that there was more dialogue and discussion,” Jesuit said. “The administration seemed to be more in touch.”

Department Chairman Orlando Perez is on sabbatical leave for the spring semester, but was a member of the Academic Senate when the vote of no confidence was held. Perez said along with shared governance, the Academic Prioritization of the CMU College of Medicine has been a concern for department members.

“I think one of the things that perhaps concerns the faculty the most is that the administration is yet to assure the university that money from existing programs will not be diverted to the College of Medicine,” Perez said.

Perez said department members can understand the administration categorizing CMED as a Priority 1 program, but they need to be honest about the absence of data for the developing school. He said political science programs classified as high priority require significant amounts of data and reports for the Academic Prioritization system.

“Don’t try to fool the university community by saying, ‘Well, the program has been evaluated the same way as any other program’,” Perez said. “Here’s a program where there is no data and it’s ranked at the level of programs where we do have data.”

There was no opposition to the endorsement among the department’s members, Perez said.

Faculty Association President Laura Frey

After months of admonishing the administration for secrecy, Faculty Association leadership seems to have become what they hate.

Following the Thursday announcement that a three-quarters vote of FA members was in favor of a contract agreement with Central Michigan University, FA President Laura Frey refused to give details of the voting to media outlets and, more importantly, to FA members.

As tensions erupted between administrators and FA members following a strike on the first day of fall classes, Frey rightfully spoke out against the university for its lack of transparency.

Too often information has been hidden from the public eye until an outside organization forces the university’s hand. The perfect example is in documents related to the College of Medicine, which weren’t released until Central Michigan Life, the Academic Senate and the FA all requested the information be made available through the Freedom of Information Act.

And as the old adage goes, one must practice what they preach. Refusing to release numbers and reveal potential division with the FA’s ranks to its own members makes the leadership lose its transparent righteousness, and instead the union looks just like another organization out to serve its own ends.

While the FA isn’t required make the numbers public, deciding not to release them to union members could cause unnecessary tension by not knowing how close or far from consensus they ultimately came.

Had the members been informed of the count on Thursday, it’s unlikely there would have been much, if any, conflict. Granted, the information would have almost assuredly leaked to the media, but that’s just a reality of maintaining a large organization.

How much does the FA really benefit by keeping tight control of these figures?

After all, voters would have been none too pleased if the 2008 election was boiled down to a simple “Yep, Obama won!” from the polling places instead of an actual breakdown of where the nation’s choices were made and why.

The sociology, anthropology and social work department and the philosophy and religion department, both in the College of Humanities and Social & Behavioral Sciences, voted to endorse the move this month.

The Academic Senate passed the initiative by a 52-percent majority on Dec. 7, and faced an abrupt rejection from Board of Trustees Chairwoman Sarah Opperman.

University President George Ross

Robert Noggle, chairman of the philosophy and religion department, said no members of the department opposed the endorsement at the first meeting of the semester last Friday. Noggle said the department has attempted to call upon Central Michigan University’s Board of Trustees to answer to some of the issues in the Senate resolution.

“A vote of no confidence is a pretty serious matter and if the board has confidence in the administration, that’s fine,” he said. “But the fact that the board paid no real attention to the concerns in the senate resolution shows a lot about the character of the board.”

The endorsement does not stem from the bargaining and contract issues, but rather from how the administration has handled shared governance, the development of the College of Medicine and academic prioritization, Noggle said.

“The problems raised in the senate motion are issues that really have nothing to do with the bargaining situation,” he said. “The reason behind this really has much more to do with shared governance.”

Brigitte Bechtold, chairwoman of the sociology, anthropology and social work department, said her department’s endorsement stems from a lack of joint governance throughout the university. Of the 45 department members present at the first meeting of the semester, Bechtold said the endorsement was unanimous.

Provost Gary Shapiro

“Central to all of these (endorsements) is the issue that the administration has disregarded and ignored the principle of joint governance that underlies everything we do at CMU and in fact underlies the accreditation of many of our programs,” Bechtold said.

The responsibility lies with the board of trustees to acknowledge the different departments’ concerns, she said.

“The board of trustees has basically reaffirmed support of the president and provost,” Bechtold said. “But the question now is, how many more departments now have to express these same sentiments before the board will realize that there is a serious problem?”

I am writing as a student to express my grave concern over Central Michigan University’s future. I am also writing to revisit the CMU Academic Senate’s no confidence vote against University President George Ross and Provost Gary Shapiro. I also question whether CMED in its current form should be a part of that future.

The no confidence resolution against Ross and Shapiro was introduced before the CMU A-Senate and was passed on Dec. 6, 2011. Bear in mind that: (1) the resolution remains in force; and (2) the vote shows that CMU faculty and students have no faith in Ross and Shapiro. Allowing them to continue at CMU undermines shared governance and will further erode morale within the CMU community. The no confidence vote also serves as a referendum on the CMU Board of Trustees.

I addressed you at your Dec. 8, 2011 meeting, reminding you of your fiduciary and legal responsibility to CMU. I urged you to deal with this no confidence vote with the seriousness it deserves. To my dismay, the board did not discuss this issue. Instead, Chairwoman Sarah Opperman swept the matter aside, expressing hope that CMU would experience “healing” after the difficult events of 2011. Such a view is a fundamental misapprehension of the situation. “Healing” at CMU will begin only when President Ross and Provost Shapiro are removed because of incompetence with regard to CMED and their inveterate disregard for shared governance.

I would like now to illustrate how the board of trustees has failed in its fiduciary responsibility to the CMU community. This failure relates directly to the current CMED initiative. According to Dean Ernest Yoder’s own PowerPoint presentation before the A-Senate on Dec. 6, 2011, the CMED initiative entails many more fiscal uncertainties than certainties. According to Yoder, the overall cost of CMED’s East Campus at Saginaw is a complete unknown. That the projected cost of the CMED East Campus is a complete unknown is but one example of the financial uncertainty that surrounds CMED. As CMU trustees who have a fiduciary duty to oversee CMU’s financial affairs, how is this acceptable? In my view, this is not acceptable.

The CMED initiative should be terminated because funding it means diverting resources from proven departments and programs, many of which have attained national prominence. Continuing with this ill-conceived plan jeopardizes the ideal of excellence at CMU. Because of their continued support of CMED, Ross and  Shapiro should be removed. Do you really want the failure of CMU, and the failure that Ross and Shapiro are enabling, to be part of your legacy? I would hope not. Please recognize that now is the time for a course correction at CMU. Please do the right thing.

Yours in good faith,

Christopher J. Benison

Central Michigan University class of 2013

About 50 percent of an initial $25 million has been raised thus far, said Kathy Wilbur, Vice President of Development and External Relations, at the CMED Board of Trustees committee meeting in early December.

Provost Gary Shapiro said in an email to the campus community on Nov. 11 that CMU estimates the startup cost for CMED is “likely to exceed $30 million.” The university initially set aside $25 million over five years to fund CMED startup.

The initial vision for CMED emphasized only teaching issues, rather than research, Shapiro said. The estimates now include preparing excellent physicians, as well as engaging in high-quality research and clinical opportunities, he said.

The university also anticipates the need for an additional $3 million in continuing annual support for the medical program, he said in the release.

In October, the Academic Senate voted to halt further development of CMED curriculum, although it was uncertain if the vote was symbolic or if the A-Senate had the authority to do so.

The A-Senate’s concerns regarded the university’s lack of detailed account about the feasibility of CMED to the A-Senate, faculty and students. The main complaint of the motion was the university’s lack of public communication and low participation with faculty and students.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education visited campus Nov. 13 through 16 to decide if CMED would move toward earning academic accreditation.

About 40 faculty members formed a silent protest against CMED in Rowe Hall hoping to be spotted by LCME members. Four faculty members met with the LCME members later that week to discuss their concerns.

The LCME will vote in February whether to grant CMED preliminary accreditation, and the CMED committee should receive a letter regarding the results in March.

Shapiro said CMU does not tag dollars, so he does not know how much money from tuition has gone toward funding CMED. He said, however, tuition has not been increased because of CMED.

“Although we don’t tag dollars, we have not raised tuition to pay for the College of Medicine,” he said.

Of the 30 foundation scientists who CMED intends to hire, Founding Dean Ernest Yoder said the school currently has about 14. The medical school will also employ 80 clinicians, and about 40 to 45 have committed.

Yoder said the school is expecting to receive provisional accreditation from LCME in 2015, and full accreditation in 2017. CMED expects its first class to begin in the summer of 2013.

George Ross sits in the Academic Senate meeting Nov. 1. (Charlotte Bodak/Staff Photographer)

Some campus leaders hope for more action while others remain neutral following the December vote of no confidence against University President George Ross and Provost Gary Shapiro.

A student-led initiative presented by student Senators Christopher Benison and Michelle Campbell at an Academic Senate meeting on Dec. 7 was passed by a 52-percent majority.

The symbolic motion was met with an immediate response from Central Michigan University, and the board of trustees supported the leadership of Ross and Shapiro.

“The board remains confident in the leadership of Drs. Ross and Shapiro and their commitment to the academic, personal and professional success for our students,” said Sarah Opperman, former chairwoman of the board.

Student Government Association President Vincent Cavataio said the support of the board is a major component when deciding what should be done next.

“Since the board acknowledged their support, I don’t see (the vote) impacting students in any way,” the Shelby Township senior said. “I don’t see anything else being done with this.”

Provost Gary Shapiro sits in a September 2010 meeting in his office at Warriner Hall. (File Photo by Leah Sefton)

Dean Pybus, graduate coordinator of the Department of Recreation, Parks and Leisure Services, fully supports the vote against the Central Michigan University president and provost.

“I was pleased to hear it was student-initiated,” he said. “I hope there is a faculty and staff-initiated motion to follow.”

Cavataio said that although he saw the motion coming, he disagrees with the vote and does not believe it will solve any of the pressing problems between the faculty and administration.

“I fully expected the motion. When people are that unhappy, you can see something like this coming,” Cavataio said. “However, I don’t believe it was warranted and I don’t see it solving anything now or in the future.”

Pybus said the A-Senate made the right decision based on Ross’ and Shapiro’s actions during the semester.

“Ross, Shapiro and the board of trustees, through their actions, suggest that they value hoarding money for the proposed College of Medicine,” Plybus said. “This has been shown not only in their dealings with faculty, but with other employee groups on campus.”

Cavataio said the attitude of the university as a whole needs to improve before anything can change.

“We’ve taken some huge hits this year,” he said. “The administration, faculty and students will have to work together to improve morale on campus.”

Opperman said after the vote the CMU Board of Trustees and seven academic deans stood behind the president and provost, minimizing any campus-wide support behind the vote.

“I think it’s a small part of the university, from what I see, that is feeling very uncomfortable,” Opperman said in a previously published report. “In 2012, we start with being productive and building trust. Let’s begin to heal as a university.”

The vote is non-binding and does not directly affect the job status of Ross or Shapiro. However, Ross is not the first president to have received a vote of no confidence. In 1991, amidst collective bargaining disagreements, then-President Edward B. Jakubauskas faced a no-confidence vote by the Student Government Association and A-Senate. Two months later, on Nov. 8, 2001, Jakubauskas announced his resignation as president, saying it was not because of the vote or clash with faculty.

It’s easy to tell when reading through quotes from Central Michigan University’s leadership.

In a media meeting following the Dec. 8 board of trustees meeting, I was among several meeting with University President George Ross, former-Chairwoman Sarah Opperman and Chairman Sam Kottamasu.

But in the meeting one thing was clear — A-Senate needs to continue questioning what is going on at CMU.

During several questions regarding the College of Medicine, I asked Ross how he felt about the A-Senate approving the halt of “all work by, toward, and on behalf of the College of Medicine pertaining to curriculum, non-curricular policies and procedures, and faculty recruitment be suspended until such time as the above concerns have been addressed by and to the satisfaction of the Academic Senate,” in early November.

I asked if the motion was still on the table following a dispute about how the vote was taken between Provost Gary Shapiro and A-Senate Chairman Jim McDonald. Ross said he hadn’t heard of it being nullified, so the follow-up question was how he felt about the possibility of any halt of CMED. For the sake of clarity, readers should know this is only several days after the A-Senate took a vote against Ross and Shapiro.

“I am concerned a group of senators would act outside of the senate process,” Ross responded.

Before another question could be asked, I quickly said how I understand that but asked directly how he felt about CMED.

“I am concerned a group of senators would act outside of the senate process,” he responded again.

I explained how I understood the frustration, but asked how he felt about CMED.

“I am concerned a group of senators would act outside of the senate process,” he responded yet again, garnering a few laughs from other journalists in the room as they looked at me.

The non-answer answer wasn’t surprising, but it does need to be pointed out. I know Ross and other officials know the need for good “public relations,” but this isn’t the time for that. This is the time for answers, not denial of problems.

But that wasn’t the only thing to stick out from that meeting.

Opperman told reporters she thinks it’s a minority of people who are angry with the current state of affairs at CMU.

Both seemed unconcerned with any problems, which left me thinking.

So far A-Senate has demanded answers in regard to the lack of leadership and issues with CMED, and it’s about time.

If Ross is unsure what these moves mean, that leaves the ball in A-Senate’s court to stand up and demand more answers, both on the financial and academic structures of CMU.

Senators need to realize now, more than ever, is the time to ask questions and demand answers.

University President George Ross

“The Board remains confident in the leadership of Drs. Ross and Shapiro and their commitment to the academic, personal and professional success for our students,” said Sarah Opperman, chairwoman of the board. “Likewise, the Board is firmly committed to the College of Medicine, which will improve access to care and increase the supply of physicians in underserved areas, with a specific focus on training physicians who will practice in central and northern Michigan.”

The trustees will meet in a regular session Thursday morning.

The A-Senate had approved a motion by a 52 percent majority in a hasty vote at the end of Tuesday’s session against the two.

“Dr. Ross’s and Dr. Shapiro’s refusal to abide by the Academic Senate’s resolution on the CMED initiative is evidence of their disregard for the principles of shared governance at CMU,” stated the fourth point of the motion.

Student Senators Christopher Benison and Michelle Campbell presented the motion in the last 10 minutes of the meeting.

Benison read the motion and A-Senate Chairman Jim McDonald opened the floor to discussion.

Campbell said in an email the next step after the vote is for the Central Michigan University Board of Trustees to “examine the leadership of President Ross and Provost Shapiro.”

The board of trustees need to look at the issues brought up in the motion, she said.

“I and Senator Benison felt it was appropriate to present this at the meeting today because the evidence was overwhelming that the President and Provost have ignored shared governance and the voices of the CMU community to the detriment of CMU’s students, faculty, and staff,” she said. “I hope that the board of trustees takes the vote of no confidence seriously and reacts in an appropriate manner that will satisfy the concerns and grievances of students, faculty and staff on this important issue.”

The motion was approved against Ross and Shapiro in less than a minute.

Student Government Association President Vincent Cavataio said the wording in the motion regarding the “Resolution for the Proposed Central Michigan University College of Medicine” is inaccurate.

The motion states “Dr. Ross and Dr. Shapiro have ignored the results of a vote taken by the Academic Senate on Nov. 1, 2011, to support a motion entitled “Resolution for the Proposed Central Michigan University College of Medicine.”

“The motion in question was introduced as an incidental resolution. That means that no discussion can take place,” Cavataio said. “No one had a choice in the matter even if they wanted to.”

During the presentation and discussion of the motion, Ross remained silent and Shapiro appeared to shake his head, chuckle and talk to surrounding senators.

Ross and Shapiro left immediately following the vote.

McDonald opened the floor to more discussion but with one minute left in the allotted meeting time, George Ronan, a senator and professor of psychology, said there was “not enough time to make any decisions.”

Sarah Opperman, chairwoman of the board of trustees, sent her emailed statement through Steve Smith, director of public relations, to Central Michigan Life.

Ross and Shapiro were unavailable for comment and Smith said the university was “standing by the statement” made by Opperman.