CMU made a $10 million donation to the project, despite Director of Athletics Dave Heeke’s statement in a 2008 Central Michigan Life article saying, “We’re committed to raise all $21.5 million privately. We’re going to go out and ask alumni, friends and others to contribute to the project.”

Kathy Wilbur, vice president of Developmental and External Relations, said Tuesday the university donated $10 million to the project. When asked if the money would be paid back, she said, “Who would pay that money back? Where would the money be paid?”

What began as a $21.5 million project in December 2007 became a $23 million project when the CMU Board of Trustees allocated an additional $1.5 million to the facility, following the discovery of “unforeseen conditions, design errors and omissions” in the building, according to a September 2010 Central Michigan Life article.

According to the Events Center website, the university would not contribute to the funding of the Events Center because of “declining state appropriations,” and the “the university did not have the cash reserves or operating budget to fund a project of this magnitude, and only academic buildings are funded by the state of Michigan.”

Wilbur said $8 million has been raised privately, and she is unsure when the rest of the funds will be raised.

“The Events Center is a very high priority for the university,” she said. “We keep working with donors and hope to eventually raise a total of $11 million through fundraising.”

A fundraiser sponsored by the Chippewa Athletic Fund honoring sportscaster Dick Enberg is scheduled for Feb. 18 in the Dick Parfitt Gymnasium inside the Events Center. All money raised will help support the Events Center. Enberg is also scheduled to speak at a conference Feb. 17-18, sponsored by the Sports Management Association, inside the Education and Human Services Building.

Board member Marilyn Hubbard did not know anything about the donation when contacted.

Heeke, chairman Sam Kottamasu, vice chairs Sarah Opperman and Brian Fannon and Vice President of Administrative Services Dave Burdette did not return calls for comment.

The new building, approved by the board of trustees in December, will be located between the Combined Services Building and the Engineering and Technology Building, said Roger Rehm, vice president for Information Technology. The cost is not to exceed $5.4 million.

“The current space is not designed to be a data center,” Rehm said. “It is poorly designed for both electrical and climate control systems and has too much vulnerability to water damage.”

The data center is expected to be completed by June of 2013. The selection of the contractor should happen sometime in July, said Steve Lawrence, vice president of Facilities Management.

The current location is in Foust Hall and “evolved” into a data center shortly after the hall’s opening, Rehm said.

“The new facility will be better, because it is designed from the ground up to serve as a data center,” he said.

One of its main purposes will be to store the equipment with space for more to be added in the future.

“As such, it will be situated at a higher elevation than the present facility,” Rehm said. “And it is designed to provide better and highly flexible power and climate control systems.”

The data center is expected to hold servers and contain a large electrical service room with a backup generator.

“It’s really just a utility building; people will only go there for maintenance,” said Steve Lawrence, vice president of Facilities Management.

Most of the time, the building is expected to be empty. As of now, the only thing finished is the design. When the rest of the design is done, a contractor will be found, Lawrence said.

The location for the new data center was chosen in case an addition was needed, along with any extra equipment.

“It’s good to plan ahead,” Lawrence said. “Plus, it’s a good location.”

Construction is planned to commence in August, after the design is finished, Lawrence said.

“We (just) want a more secure and reliable place,” Lawrence said.

In December 2008, the CMU Board of Trustees adopted the policy, which requires employees seeking or holding political office to achieve administrative approval.

Under the policy, employees who seek or hold a political position in any federal, state, county or local office, part-time or full-time, paid or unpaid, are required to present a statement from his or her supervisor and the vice president, provost or president of CMU. The statement must attest that “appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that their candidacy in no way will interfere with the full performance of their university work and that their candidacy will pose no conflict with professional standards or ethics.”

If the employee is found to violate this, then “an alternate relationship with the university must be arranged.”

“The Faculty Association believed the policy was too vague and subject to the whims of a future administration which may selectively try to discourage some candidacies while passing on others,” said James Hill, professor of political science.

The FA asked to renegotiate the policy, but the administration denied.

CMU and the FA agreed to the political candidacy policy during bargaining for the 2008-11 contract, said Matt Serra, director of faculty employee relations.

“The administration refused to negotiate the policy, arguing that we silently agreed to it when we ratified the old contract,” Hill said.

The administration then allowed the FA to bargain the procedures that would be used to implement the policy. A special faculty team was created to do so, chaired by Hill.

The team drafted a procedure, which included criteria for administration to use. It stated decisions could not be made based on an employee’s political party, likelihood to win and their office sought or appointed to.

It also included an appeals process, details of application deadlines and clarified between a conflict of interest and a conflict of commitment.

The administration and FA tentatively agreed on the procedure at the beginning of the fall 2010 semester, Serra said. But the procedure has still not been implemented, because two university unions have yet to approve.

Opposition

In Dec. 2009, about a year after the board adopted the policy, CMU’s office professionals union (UAW) filed a lawsuit claiming the policy was unlawful.

The university filed its answer on Jan. 25, 2010, and both parties filed motions for summary disposition.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Isabella County Trial Court granted the motion for summary disposition and dismissed the lawsuit filed by the UAW. The court sided with the university in that the policy is consistent with Michigan law. The UAW’s appeal to this decision was argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 2, 2011. Both parties are awaiting a decision.

UAW President Karen Bellingar and UAW International Service Representative Brian Bosak both declined comment, citing pending litigation.

The supervisory technical union has also not approved the procedure, said Kevin Smart, director of employee relations.

Gary Peters

Gary Peters, a democrat from Bloomfield Hills, was a professor of political science at CMU and a Griffin Endowed Chair and left CMU in 2008 after winning a primary election for the House of Representatives. The advocacy policy was passed immediately after.

Hill said Peters’ campaign did not hinder his ability to serve as a professor at CMU.

“Mr. Peters was an excellent chair who spent the same amount of effort as every other chair who succeeded him,” he said. “I am quite proud to say that a former Griffin chair went on to become a member of Congress, and unsuccessful efforts to try to force him to leave earlier than the primary were short-sighted politically and strategically.”

Peters serves the 9th congressional district, including Macomb County. After his district was eliminated, Peters announced he will run in the 14th district against Rep. Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit.

“U.S. Rep. Peters is proud of his work at CMU and thinks that everyone has a Constitutional right to run for public office,” said Jared Smith, communications director for Peters.

The policy is difficult to swallow for some political science faculty, especially since public service is part of CMU’s vision statement.

“I find it curious that the board [of trustees] and the administration want us to be service-oriented but then adopt a policy that makes it more difficult for faculty to run for office than it does for them to make money in the private sector,” Hill said. “It is particularly frustrating for those of us in political science who believe running for office is not just a right but a responsibility of all citizens who care about our democracy and want to have a role in influencing our democratic process.”

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

“They’re already under construction,” said Stephen Lawrence, vice president of Facilities Management. “They’re doing underground utility right now.”

The Christman Company of Lansing has been hired to contract out the work, expected to be completed by March 2013 — later than the expected target of fall. The project, along with the introduction of a new biosciences building schematic design, was approved by the CMU Board of Trustees in December.

A design for the biosciences building, to be located between the Education and Human Services and Combined Services buildings, was submitted on Nov. 1. The design includes a plan for research and support labs and instruction and office space. It is awaiting approval from the state in March. Upon approval, construction is estimated to take 28 months.

Anspach Hall renovations

At the beginning of the 2012 summer, the university will begin renovating the first floor of Anspach Hall, along with the west side entrance.

The hall will be worked on over the course of the summer and into the fall and winter of next year, ending in March of 2013. It is the first formal renovation to Anspach Hall since its construction in 1966.

The university will replace ceiling tiles, floors, update the fire alarm system, install new lights and update bathrooms to American Disability Association standards, Lawrence said.

In addition, the roof of the office wing will be renovated and a student lounge will be added.

“The student lounge will be well-received among students, and the entrance will be scheduled for completion in 2013,” Lawrence said.

The lounge itself, along with the west side entrance, also won’t be started until 2013.

“The student lounge will be a small building addition,” Lawrence said. “And it will not take up any classroom space.”

There was extra space where the student lounge will be added on, which allowed the university to build it in the first place, Lawrence said.

The approval for renovation came from the board of trustees during a December board meeting. The total cost of the renovation is estimated to be $14,075,000, funded primarily through university reserves and maintenance funds.

“We are in the process of awarding Clark Construction the contract,” Lawrence said. “They have done work on campus before.”

Clark Construction Company, based in Lansing, helped construct the CMU Events Center last year and updated Brooks Hall and its DIY water system, Lawrence said.

One of the rooms that will be focused on in Anspach is lecture hall 162. Two students who have a class in the room have noticed some areas of the room that could use work.

“It seems too crowded — some of the seats are too close together,” said Taylor sophomore Kaitlyn McCombe. “There should be an aisle between the seats.”

Gross Pointe freshman Alexa Materna noticed damage to some of the seats.

“I noticed a couple of the seats and desks are broken,” Materna said. “It isn’t in the best shape.”

University President George Ross

The Academic Senate’s vote of no confidence against President George Ross and Provost Gary Shapiro at its final fall semester meeting had a mixed reception.

“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 Central Michigan University Board of Trustees Chairwoman. “Likewise, the board is firmly committed to the College of Medicine, which will improve access to care and increase the supply of physicians in under-served areas, with a specific focus on training physicians who will practice in central and northern Michigan.”

Student senators Christopher Benison and Michelle Campbell, founders of the registered student organization Students for Faculty, presented the motion in the last 10 minutes of the A-Senate meeting; it was approved in less than a minute by 52 percent.

“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.

Provost Gary Shapiro

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

Student Government Association President Vince Cavataio did not support the motion.

Later that week at the regular Board of Trustees meeting, all seven college deans also rejected the motion in a similar signed statement.

“Any effort to undermine their leadership at CMU is detrimental to this institution,” said Charles Crespy, dean of the College of Business Administration.

Campbell and Benison attended the board meeting that week to urge the Trustees to take the motion seriously.

“We expect the CMU Board of Trustees to address this no confidence vote with the seriousness it deserves,” Benison said. “Once again, as student representatives of the Academic Senate, we will hold this board accountable for its response to this no confidence vote.”

The Board of Trustees listened to the public comments, but did not respond directly.

“There are certain roles as chair. One of those is not saying something when you’d really like to. But that has been the policy,” Opperman said. “I will try to not directly respond to comments made other than to thank all of those that have.”

Trustee Sam Kottamasu will be appointed as the Board’s chairman next year; Opperman will become a vice chair.

“In 2012, we start with being productive and building trust,” Opperman said. “Let’s begin to heal as a university.”

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.

Vice President of Finance and Administration David Burdette, right, and Trustee William Kanine, center, listen during the Board of Trustees meeting in the President's Conference Room in the Bovee University Center. A bill introduced in September would create a centralized governing board to oversee the Board of Trustees. (Adam Niemi/Staff Photographer)

House Bill 5000, proposed by State Rep. Bob Genetski, would create an 11-member commission to evaluate the current state of public university governance. The proposed legislation would affect the 13 government-funded universities throughout Michigan, including Central Michigan University.

Genetski, R-Saugatuck, said the bill is not designed to promote a centralized governing board, but rather observe and report on the universities’ current governments.

“House Bill 5000 merely initiates a discussion and forms a commission to take a look at the governance system,” Genetski said. “It doesn’t necessarily advocate for or against a centralized government system.”

The commission would be limited to providing recommendations after evaluating the universities, and will not be given the power to determine the future of university governance.

Genetski said after the drastic hikes in tuition at Michigan’s public universities over recent years, examining university governance could help. However, Genetski said the legislation is not designed to promote any particular government system for the universities.

“I don’t know if one centralized board or government for all public universities is a good idea,” Genetski said. “But I think we have to take a look at it.”

Kathy Wilbur, CMU’s Vice President of Development and External Relations, said Genetski has an appropriate concern about tuition levels for Michigan universities.

“I think (Rep. Genetski) wanted to be able to look at that and explore if boards are engaged to make decisions about tuition as people hope. I know the CMU board is extremely engaged with the process of consideration and debate when it comes to tuition decisions,” Wilbur said. “I do think that there is an interest on his part in considering how other states are organized in higher education.”

Wilbur said even if a committee was assembled to report on the current state of Michigan’s public universities, a significant amount of legislation would still be needed to make any changes to university governance.

“It would no doubt take a state constitutional amendment to bring about a change in the governance of the state’s higher education,” she said.

A centralized board for all 13 of Michigan’s public institutions is nothing new to the rest of the country. According to a recent Detroit Free Press report, about half the states have a central board that at least shares power with individual university trustee or regents. Most central boards approve major decisions.

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.