I came to Illinois State University in 1965 as an Assistant Professor. I have spent my entire career here, except for occasions as a visiting Fellow at the University of Chicago and a Visiting Professor at the University of Illinois (Urbana) and Purdue University. During the past 33 years I have served under 8 presidents and 9 provosts. I have been active in university affairs and had occasion to know these 17 top administrators. My experiences in shared governance are in sharp contrast to some of the empirical claims and value judgements found in the Fisher Report.
In the Fisher Report frequent references are made to shared governance as a failed system that has imposed hardship on the top administrators. Let me cite a few quotes from the Report: ".it is true that the institution has experienced a series of dysfunctional internal governance episodes in recent decades." "We wonder just how much better Illinois State could be now and in the future if there were less contention. It is perhaps not fair to describe Illinois State as a "graveyard for presidents" but it comes close." "In turn, most, if not all, members of the Board of Trustees are cognizant of the University's recent history and the tradition that has developed of actual or threatened votes of "no confidence" in senior administrators. Whether or not these votes and threats were merited, a consensus exists on the Board that this has resulted in a series of ineffectual, even intimidated presidents, and a certain degree of anarchy." It is my position that these quotes and other statements in the Fisher report give a misleading impression of the history of shared governance at Illinois State University.
I believe the historical record and a study of the evidence do not support the frequent assertions by Fisher that strong faculty involvement at Illinois State University has been dysfunctional to governance. Let us look at the record. During the past 33 years there have been two votes of no confidence and two resignations after some faculty members expressed concerns about critical questions of leadership. Seventeen top administrators have served the University and four of them faced circumstances of disagreement with some faculty members. The other 13 top administrators did not face similar circumstances of disagreement. What is known about the four episodes of disagreement? I want to go on record with my understanding of what actually happened.
President David Berlo David Berlo was a highly controversial President who attempted to make numerous radical changes at Illinois State University. He built and maintained a president's home that raised serious questions about excessive costs. Professor Dale Vetter (English), Irwin Spector (Music) and I wrote a letter to the Executive Director of the Board of Regents (Frank Matsler) about our concerns for the welfare of the University. Dr. Matsler called us and asked that we come to Springfield to his office with a delegation of faculty members who shared our concerns. A small group of faculty members conferred with Dr. Matsler. He encouraged us to take whatever action we deemed appropriate to resolve the campus situation. The faculty group drafted a resolution for consideration at a regular meeting of the Academic Senate. Prior to the Senate meeting Dr. Berlo resigned. The resolution was never distributed or discussed.
President Lloyd Watkins President Watkins had served the University for many years. He gave a presidential address on the "State of the University" that raised serious questions for many faculty members. Two members of the faculty, Arlan Richardson (Chemistry) and Charles Thompson (Biology) took exception to President Watkins' assessment of the state of affairs at Illinois State University. They published an open letter to the faculty spelling out their disagreements. This open discussion of campus affairs led to the retirement of Lloyd Watkins as President. He remained on campus as a faculty member in the Department of Communication.
President Thomas Wallace The local newspaper (Pantagraph) published a detailed account of special secret funds from the ISU Foundation that had been distributed to President Wallace and other top administrators. This disclosure led to campus discussion among the faculty. Professor Lanny Morreau (Specialized Educational Development) and I circulated a petition to hold a faculty meeting. At that faculty meeting I distributed a two page statement that included a proposed resolution to form a special committee to investigate the conduct of the President. The President of the Academic Senate appointed a special committee that was chaired by Roger Tarr (English). The Committee submitted a report to the University and at a second faculty meeting, the faculty voted to conduct a vote of confidence by secret ballot. After the vote of confidence, the Board of Regents worked out retirement arrangements with President Wallace.
Provost John Urice A group of faculty members on the Academic Senate met with President David Strand to discuss a list of specific grievances regarding the work of Provost Urice which they believed the President should take under serious consideration. Faculty members were critical of specific issues about the manner in which John Urice conducted the affairs of his office. President Strand informed the Senators that one course of action open to them was a meeting with the faculty. A faculty meeting was held and an open discussion was dedicated to the leadership of Provost Urice. The faculty voted to conduct a vote of confidence through a campus wide referendum. Prior to the referendum Provost Urice made at least two public appearances to make his case to the faculty. The first occasion occurred in an open meeting of the faculty in the College of Education. The second occasion was a general meeting which was open to the entire university community. After these public meetings, a faculty vote of confidence was taken.
The four cases occurred over a period of several decades. While each case is unique in many respects, they have at least four things in common
I have dedicated my career to Illinois State University and during the past three decades I have taught thousands of students. I now meet my former students all over the state of Illinois and it is a great joy to share the moments we have in common as members of the ISU community. This has been my primary work.
I have also participated in four episodes of shared governance in which some faculty members were in disagreement with top administrators. I would have preferred that the developments that led to each of these critical episodes would have never occurred, but they did. And that is our history. I am proud to have been part of a faculty that responded to each crisis with a sense of dignity and authentic concern for the welfare of Illinois State University. I am concerned that the Fisher Report may have given the wrong impression about our past. Illinois State University is a free and ordered space where persons of goodwill have worked together in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is in this spirit that I hope we can move forward to important challenges which lie ahead.
Back to list
