Before making any comments about the "Fisher" report, let me first thank Chairperson Sulaski and the Board for the wide and timely dissemination of this report. Clearly the interest of the Board in communicating effectively with the campus is evident by these actions.
The report presents valuable insights from an off-campus perspective. These observations, made by the visiting team from their reading of campus documents and talking with individuals and groups on-campus, capture a good picture of the campus, or at least parts of it. There are some significant units, notably Athletics and academic and student support units, and large groups of personnel, Civil Service and Administrative Professional, which do not seem to be included or mentioned in this report. This is unfortunate because the people and units omitted are valued on campus and are important to presenting a more complete view of the campus.
The focus of my remarks will be broad and will not deal with each recommendation. It is hoped that there can be subsequent collaborative discussions, both between on-campus constituencies and with the Board, that will lead to some sharing and perhaps agreement on the meaning and importance of the recommendations. It is hoped that the Board will receive detailed responses and have some additional dialog beyond today's meeting, before it selects the recommendations with which to move forward.
In a break from the usual Campus Communication Committee presentation, several of the Committee members will make comments to the Board at this point in the agenda. The speakers will represent the constituency from which they come. Those speaking after me will be Sandi Krumtinger and Sharon Quiram speaking about the report from the perspective of civil service employees, Dr. Barbara Kurtz from a faculty perspective, and a student speaking for Heather Brown presenting from a student perspective. Other members of the Committee, Paul Borg and Jane Reggio, will speak later during this meeting during the time that has been set aside for those who have requested to speak to the Board. Speakers beyond the Committee may very well make presentations about specific recommendations.
The report and the recommendations are comprehensive for those things with which they deal. It is important to remember that this report presents the observations and opinions of one group, a competent group who has done an extraordinary job of compiling and interpreting a huge amount of data from the campus. We feel strongly that there is other information that is important for the Board to know related to some of the issues and recommendations. There needs to be a balance between the visiting team's report and reactions from the campus on several key issues. We hope that some mechanism can be devised to engage in a fuller dialog than can be done at this meeting, so that the messages that will be sent to the presidential candidates, and ultimately to the new president, are known across the campus. When the directions in which the president will lead are known, then all on the campus can be helpful. The CCC representing each of the on-campus constituencies, feels that it might serve well in the role of discussing the details of the recommendations with the members of the Board.
As one way to start the discussion, I would like to make comments about three general ideas from the report that deal with several of the recommendations. These three ideas are seeking excellence, shared governance and the amount of intrusiveness of the recommendations.
Illinois State University does strive for excellence and the idea of becoming a "Public Ivy" presents an interesting approach. The philosophy of this approach certainly would have to be defined rather carefully so that the extent of the ramifications are fully understood before any decisions are made. Careful discussion lead by the President and especially the Provost would be key to any such change in the direction for the campus. A focus on excellence, while reviewing all academic programs, is the important attitude. Excellence in programs that are part of the statewide mission of our campus must be sought. The larger issue, of course, is a conscious attempt to change the image and atmosphere of the campus to fit a "niche" that must be selected for the campus.
The topic of shared governance has been much talked about during the last year. There has been conflict, and this conflict must be resolved as quickly as possible as indicated in the report. There are two committees on campus, as you know, which are formulating opinions and positions related to how shared governance might function. It is most probable that these groups will present reports that will be different from the flavor of shared governance presented by the Fisher team. We certainly hope that the Board will review these reports carefully when they come to the Board and facilitate the resolution of the conflict as much as possible.
Some of the recommendations made in this report are very intrusive into operation of the campus. They present specific actions that might be taken which should be the result of campus deliberation; such as, the review of the General Education Program (which is only in the first semester of operation and which does have assessment processes in place), the suggestion of a specific requirement of a foreign language for all baccalaureate programs, and specifying a potential reorganization of departments and colleges. The areas suggested by these recommendations are appropriate for the campus to investigate, but the purposeful involvement of the campus stakeholders in these kinds of discussion is of primary importance.
As with most large undertakings such as presented in this report, there are some errors in fact and perception that must be carefully observed. A clear example is the recommendation regarding optional retirement systems; we do already have in place the recommendation that is included.
A final comment relates to the tone expressed in parts of the report. At times a tone which is condescending appears and at other points the tone is offensive to many. This could be the result of more than one author being involved. But the tone does present some irritation and perhaps leads the reader to conclusions that may not be warranted. Specifically, the tone related to long term employees (the graying of the campus) and conclusions about their desire, usefulness and value has been seen as obnoxious and inappropriate by many. While the real point being made is valuable, the tone sometimes gets in the way of understanding.
This report has real value to the Board, the Presidential Search Committee and all of the campus as a starting point for dialog. It is comprehensive in scope and therefore can include all of the stakeholder groups in the dialog. This meeting today is a good beginning.
It is the intention of the Board to have a structured discussion at the conclusion of the statements made today. To do this in an orderly fashion, the CCC will facilitate the discussion by transmitting written questions or ideas from any member of the University community. If any one would like to have any particular idea discussed or has a question that they would like to have asked in the discussion, they should give a written copy to any member of the CCC. This process should help the discussion move freely . Thank you.
Back to list
