| PRO | CON |
Sick and Tired Summary by Birch Moonwomon- rtf download Entire Sick and Tired Study by Birch Moonwomon - rtf download The Workload Crisis, A State Of Affairs Resulting From The Failure To Align Resources To Misson At SSU- rtf download Report from Academic Senate Workload Committee 2/22/07 - rtf download Senate Budget Committee Report Spring 2006 - rtf download Declaration of No Confidence in the President - Professor Noel Byrne, et al. NEA 2005-2006 Faculty Salary report- see page 8 (provided by Professor Susan Moulton) Powerpoint presentation on SSU organizational charts -Professor Noel Byrne (on Windows click mouse to advance slides, on MAC it will download ) Senate resolutions ignored by the President rtf doc - Birch Moonwomon Armiñana’s “Vision” and Academic Decline ©2005 by Philip H. Beard, Ph.D. Gentrification of Sonoma State - Originally Published: October 2000 by Peter Phillips, Ph.D Salary and Budget Analysis 2007 - rtf doc - Tim Wandling, Ph.D. FAACT Facts - rtf doc - submitted by Professor Susan Moulton Senate Budget Committee Synthesis - rtf doc - submitted by Susan Moulton In response to a letter sent to the academic senate by Lynne Trainor of Contracts and Procurement, regarding the vote of no confidence to be taken next week, I would like to point out that the Newsweek ranking she quotes about Sonoma State is incorrect. She states that Sonoma State is ranked 6th among universities of its size. That ranking is for graduate schools only. The undergraduate ranking can be found at www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings. SSU is ranked 32nd out of 61 schools. When I first started teaching at SSU as a lecturer in 2001, we were ranked 6th out of 61 undergraduate schools in our category. We were unofficially known as the "ivy league" school in the CSU. Six years of mismanagement, a bloated school bureaucracy, and money and time taken away from our core mission to build a music center of questionable value to education, much larger classes, fewer sections, and a significant number of fewer instructors have caused us to be judged as a "middle-of -the pack" school. Because of his arrogant, manipulative and non-inclusive management style, President Arminana can take full credit for this shameful situation. Kenneth Heinzel 4. In fulfilling their responsibility to their professional colleagues and (f) protect and defend the educational program against undesirable (SSU Academic Senate, Statement of Professional Responsibilities) Dear T.K., Although you and I disagree on this matter, I think you have framed issues Although I do not find the direction of management here to be always as I too have been a department chair. I have found the very best way to get Vision can be a collective force for change. In yesterday’s paper, the President was quoted as saying he will take the As to Senate leadership. We are in fact elected, either to one year terms Respectfully, Tim As I have watched this discussion unfold, I have seen several common themes from those who support Pres. Armiñana. I have rebutted them in several emails. I am pulling my comments together here. In her Press Democrat article Prof. Elizabeth C. Martinez's solution to campus problems is "...making leaders inside the campus responsible." One needs to ask who has taken those responsibilities away from campus leaders. She provides both good news and bad news. Credit is given to Pres. Armiñana for the good news, but others are blamed for the bad news. That simply is not a fair assessment of the President's performance. As the chief executive officer of campus, he is ultimately responsible for both the good and the bad. She provides an example where the Provost is reducing the budgets of four Schools in order to benefit the Business Department. The Provost serves at the pleasure of the President. Such a large budget change must be acceptable to the President. If not, he could easily override the Provost's decision. In other words, the President is ultimately responsible for any reduction in funding that other departments suffer. I do not agree with Prof. Martinez giving Pres. Armiñana full credit for improving the image of Sonoma State during his 15-year tenure. In fact, I am somewhat offended. During my twenty-one years at SSU I and the vast majority of my colleagues worked very hard to provide a good educational experience for our students. I believe that we did an excellent job. For example, many students from my department (Computer Science) actively participated in the expansion of the nearby telecom industry during the late 1990s. One was a co-founder of one of the companies. Their success attests to the excellent quality of education at SSU. They are now part of the community that has an improved image of SSU. All the faculty, staff, and students are very significant components of this improved image, not just the president. And we need to acknowledge that the image improvement began under the leadership of Dr. David Bensen, Pres. Armiñana's predecessor. Pres. Armiñana has often been described as a visionary. Those who agree with his vision group the rest of us as wishing to "turn back the wheel to the 'good old days'" in the words of Prof. Lynn Cominsky. She should know this is not true. For example, I was hired in 1983 to help grow the new Computer Science program and served as its first Chair when we separated from the Mathematics Department in 1986. Ironically, Prof. Cominsky herself was one of the faculty members who vehemently opposed the inclusion of CS 101 as an optional General Education class for SSU students. Let's face it, "good" visionary change depends upon one's perspective, which is often colored by one's self-interest. In academia, self-interest often means one's own academic discipline. True, some faculty wish to return to the "good old days" but the vast majority seek to improve the educational quality at SSU, and that means making changes. Many of us, though, would not have made the same changes that Pres. Armiñana has. We think he has made some bad choices that have severely impacted resources for existing programs on campus and that some of these (more traditional) programs are essential to a a high quality education. I personally believe that many of the new programs have spread our resources too thin. For example, although Prof. Cominsky states "...excellent Engineering Science program, healthily endowed by many local businesses," I know students who have dropped out of the program because they felt the program was of low quality. And I know that the program sought additional funds through the Academic Senate last year. Many have expressed concern that a no-confidence vote will injure SSU with respect to issues like: "...attracting higher quality students or faculty members [regardless of the outcome of the vote itself]"; "...be a better, more cohesive faculty because of this vote [or after it]"; "...apply for a President’s job where faculty vote no confidence." (Quotes taken from TK Clarke's posting.) When I first arrived at SSU Peter Diamandopoulos had just been ousted. There had been a vote of no-confidence by the faculty. We managed to attract David Benson as our next president and he did an excellent job. In the next few years, I served on the Academic Senate and as chair on the newly-formed Computer Science Department. I found the faculty to be a very cohesive group during those years. I have seen many excellent people hired as faculty and staff during my twenty-one years at SSU. I had many excellent students in my classes. And we have seen a great deal more money being donated to the University. We cannot know how this vote will affect the outside impression of SSU, but the evidence certainly does not suggest that it will cause injury. I believe that the entire campus community --- faculty, staff, students, and yes, President Arminana himself --- should take responsibility for what this vote tells us. The impact on the University depends on how the campus moves forward after the vote. I believe that the biggest mistake Pres. Armiñana has made is the Green Music Center. Nobody can deny that an enormous amount of human energy on campus has gone, and continues to go, into building that $100M complex. The beneficiaries of that complex will be a very small percentage of the community. It is impossible to know, but I believe that if the same amount of energy were spread across the entire campus it would have a much greater benefit for the true mission of SSU. Unfortunately, Pres. Armiñana was unable to see the problems when the GMC grew from a $10M gift to a $100M burden, mostly because he seems to not listen to opinions that differ from his. Finally, many writers urge us to ignore Pres. Armiñana's administrative style. I have had many jobs in my life, including several in industry and being self-employed. One of the things I have learned is that the person at the top sets the tone for the entire organization. People like to work at a place where they feel respected for their contributions. Unfortunately, this administration seems unable to do that, except for those who agree with the President. Although Pres. Armiñana has succeeded in presenting a good image of SSU to the outside community, I believe he has failed to provide an adequate work environment for the vast majority of the faculty. This is not the fault of the Chancellor's Office or the State. A good leader can make his "troops" feel good about fighting adversity. Robert G. Plantz, PhD Dear Colleagues: As you ponder how you might vote this week on the "no-confidence" measure It is based on my own long experience and knowledge of CIHS as well as on Sincerely, Bob Karlsrud A Brief History of the Rise and Fall of the California Institute on Human Services Colleagues and friends, As we move through this painful period I wanted to respond to those who expressed concern about the timing of the referendum, including the campus community in the discussion, and the impact of the referendum on the image of the institution. I hope that my colleagues will vote on the issue. Attendance at the Senate meetings, the general faculty meetings, department meetings, discussion with individual Senators and on the campus indicate that well over half the faculty as well as staff and many students on this campus have become personally engaged in debate over the substance of the referendum. This public discussion began well over a month ago as a grass roots effort. It reflects concerns and issues that have been simmering under the surface at SSU for some time and is an organic process independent of the union contract negotiations. At a recent general faculty meeting, in response to "Why now?" a number of people answered "Why not years ago?" We are in the midst of an academic financial and curricular crisis that needs more than triage and hyperbole. It needs immediate attention. As faculty members we touch the lives not just of our students and our campus community, but the family and friends of those people as well. At a recent Service Awards ceremony I commented to the President that in over 35 years of service a faculty member teaching 200 students a year comes into contact with more than 7000 students. What we do on campus has a profound impact on the community and reaches well beyond those we teach. As faculty we have a profound responsibility to protect this mission to which we have dedicated our lives. We have been increasingly concerned that students cannot get the classes they need to graduate and many have taught well in excess of their assignments. I am proud to be a part of a faculty that willingly works overload to provide majors and programs and to meet the needs of our students, who work for the lowest pay in the CSU and who daily attempt to do the impossible with ever dwindling campus resources because they care so passionately about their teaching. The debate about the referendum has brought forward information around key campus issues that should have been part of on-going debate and consultation process over the past 15 years. We have an administration that reports its actions to the campus after it has made key decisions, seeking approval, rather than truly consulting those of us who are affected by them. Planning which considers the impact of decisions on the campus, including cost and long-term implementation, and academic prioritization still does not occur on this campus. Both "access" and "excellence" are compromised by this failure at SSU because our academic mission is not our top priority. Informed debate and disagreement are healthy and ensure that checks and balances remain in place to protect the core mission of the university. WASC noted this as a key area for correction along with alignment of resources with mission and diversity. The senior faculty and emeriti who have had the courage to bring these issues into the light of day for public debate on campus have done so in the midst of a climate of fear and of retribution that is unprecedented here. They are to be commended for their dedication to Sonoma State and their focus on presenting factual information to guide the issues as well as their respect for those who disagree with them. This debate has brought the campus community--administration, current faculty, emeritus faculty, junior faculty, staff and students--together around issues that we care deeply about for real discussion. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, this process of airing information and views about the issues has created an esprit de corps that used to characterize SSU during its first 30+ years. It was a vital part of our campus identity as a small, caring liberal arts institution in which faculty, students and administration worked collaboratively. If realignments and balances can occur then this referendum has been successful. The referendum distribution indicates it wants outside review by the CSU system and people beyond to clarify our procedures and priorities in order to bring about this realignment. I applaud all of us who have engaged in democratic debate during these past weeks and hope it continues in the months ahead. Collaboration to achieve a shared vision and which prioritizes the core mission of this institution is a key goal of the supporters of the referendum. Please take part in this essential and democratic process and vote. Susan Moulton Hello. I am sending you a note as a fellow lecturer, urging you to vote in the referendum on No Confidence in the leadership of President Arminana this week. I ask you please to read all of it if you have not yet voted. I realize this takes time and it is a busy week. I voted as soon as I got the ballot in my mailbox. I voted Yes on No Confidence and walked the ballot right over to the Senate office. I do promote a Yes vote--but more important--really, truly, more important--is that faculty who are eligible to vote DO vote on this one. This referendum is a very, very serious thing for faculty to be doing. It has been a long time coming. There has been much information on SenateTalk and up on the Senate webpage--but as of the end of Tuesday, only about 1/5 of the eligible faculty voters have voted. The meeting at noon yesterday was mostly attended by the totally converted. So I'm sending out separate emails to all the eligible lecturer voters. I know who is on this list because I am one of the lecturers who sits on the Senate, so I have the names of constituents and their voting status--just so you know. Maybe you have already voted. Maybe you don't feel you know enough to decide how to vote. Maybe you have some apprehension that your vote will not be anonymous. Also, I suspect there is another fear factor: it is scary to deliberately displease Daddy. I have this fear—I know it is irrational, but that does not make it go away. But, frankly, it does not seem to have done any good to try NOT to displease Daddy. If you are worried about lack of anonymity, please believe me--it is very well protected. Many faculty, not just lecturers, seem to have some fear about this. The ballot goes inside a sealed envelope that then goes inside another sealed envelope. Your name is on the outside envelope. In the Senate office, Laurel Holmstrom (she works for the Senate--for us, the faculty) separates the ballot from the outer envelope and puts it in the ballot box. Then she crosses your name off a list--so no one can vote twice. The administration will not know how you have voted or even that you have noted. Because the decision was made to have this vote this spring, and late, there has not been very much time to get information out in a very orderly, systematic way and to let people think it over and talk it over. Maybe that was a mistake. There were pros and cons about doing it this spring—believe me, it was discussed severaltimes. But really, information has been accumulating for years, and frustration and now near desperation, and much anger, have been growing too. We are in dire straits. Yes, I really think this is true. I mean it when I say that casting a vote is itself a priority. But I won't pretend neutrality. Money keeps going away from instruction, several shell games are being played, quite inappropriate corporatization of the institution is taking place, with President Arminana's help, and he arrogantly (and actually illegally) refuses EVER to take the advice of faculty. The last two of these--corporatization and lack of consultation—strongly serve to make worse the loss of money for instruction and the hiding of what money is put where and when. Do not just take my word for it. There are a good many documents on the Senate page. http://www.sonoma.edu/Senate. Click on Current Information and then on "Information regarding..."and then on "Pro and Con arguments". Please. I am attaching just three of them here. But there are many others. PowerPoint presentation on SSU organizational charts. Professor Noel Byrne. FAACTfacts. Submitted by Professor Susan Moulton. Declaration of No Confidence in the President. Professor Noel Byrne. You'll see that on the Con side there are four document links (as of right now)—President Arminana's own responses, a letter from Alumni Association, and a statement from the Student Athlete Advisory Committee; and a lot of letters, mostly from administrators (including an MPA student who is an Assistant Risk Manager, but with two faculty letters as well. The Pro side has links to lots of documents but few letters--although many good letters have been emailed through SenateTalk from faculty in A&H, S&T, SS, Education; most of these are just not on the webpage at this time. The documents on the Pro side, listed above the letters, look daunting. This is a problem. But this is the real evidence, not the statements from President Arminana or the Alumni or any administration committees. Try reading two or three. They are not in a particularly logical order--just in the order in which they were submitted. Nutshell version: 1.FAILURE TO ALIGN RESOURCES TO MISSION (WASC's warning to us--they accredit the University--it is a very big deal that they do not think we spend money on the right things!). In short, financial mismanagement. President Arminana has not only failed to protect the university’s main mission by focusing on building (especially GMC) and administrative spending rather than learning, he has systematically and sometimes covertly taken money from academics to put into other projects (or into paying off debts incurred through bad management). The Senate Budget Committee reports that money has actually been removed from Academic Affairs--systematically--for the Green Music Center, for EMT, from equipment budgets, from money for Chair release time, from money for grants and contracts. And Steve Orlick reports that there is more than $37,000,000 in growth that has come to SSU over several years that is not accounted for! A number of these items involve shifting of funds--shell games of one kind or another. Tim Wandling's Salary and Budget Analysis also gives budget information, as does Noel Byrne's Declaration of No Confidence, FAACTfacts, and several other documents. Several documents report on the workload situation. Every 3 FTEF produce the work of 4. The workload crisis evidences a basic failure in spending money in the right way--on teaching and other academic work, which is, of course, done by us. We need more tenure-track hires and more lecturers working at full-time. In short, Arminana has chosen to put money into buildings and administrative bloat and take money from academics over a long period of time. For every 100 student gain in enrollment, we have lost 1 FTEF. SFR continues to rise, and if things go on this way, SFR will be 31 to 1 by 2010. This is way above the CSU average. 2. EXAGGERATION AND ELEVATION OF MANAGEMENT. This is a big part of the imposition of a corporate model on the university, although it is not all of it. There is also just a large gulf, and a widening one, between scholastic and administration notions of what this institution IS. But specifically... the management structure of SSU has grown hugely in Arminana's tenure. Noel Byrne's Powerpoint shows this. PERS Board member George Diehr reports that SSU now the most top-heavy structure in the CSU. The relative place of academics in this academic institution has shrunk alarmingly. Furthermore, the oversight of some activities has shifted from faculty oversight to administrative. And appointment of persons on committees or as heads of committees has shifted from being faculty decisions to becoming administrative decisions. 3. LACK OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION WITH FACULTY The distain Arminana shows for Senate members is an ongoing insult. But as a traceable pattern, there's the trail of ignored resolutions the Senate has passed in the last few years that urge Arminana to make prudent spending choices, attend to the needs of instruction, and respect faculty authority and prerogatives. See Senate resolutions ignored... The pattern is quite clear. By HEERA (Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) he must meaningfully share governance with faculty. He does not. And he has actually been deceptive about the debt for the GMC: he tried to hide from the Senate the fact that he had incurred an additional $13,000,000 of debt for the GMC construction at the end of last summer. We'll be paying it off for 30 years. There is really so much information it is overwhelming. I am afraid this will discourage voting, because it is hard to wrap the mind around it all. I can only say that I think this is a very, very important thing to participate in. Please vote. Thank you. Birch Moonwomon Reference is being made to the endorsement of President Armiñana's leadership by the WASC Accreditation Reaffirmation Visit of 1999. It should be noted that Sonoma State did not receive a full ten-year reaccreditation at that time. As a result of a Fifth-Year Special Visit in 2004, Ralph A. Wolff, Executive Director of WASC, in a letter to President Armiñana dated June 28, 2004, noted the five following areas where further improvement is needed: Alignment of Institutional Priorities with Mission Sonoma State is currently scheduled for a WASC Educational Effectiveness Review in the spring of 2009. The full text of Ralph Wolff's letter, along with other documents related to planning, are contained in a report "Alignment of Resources with Mission" on library reserve, call number RES 8689. --Art Warmoth, Chair, Academic Planning Committee Sacramento State's Faculty Chair Response to the Board of Trustees Support of Presidents - pdf
|
President's Cabinet Response to Referendum - rtf download President's Comments at the May 10th Senate meeting - rtf download To: Academic Senate Date: May 10, 2007 After reviewing the motion pending in the Academic Senate, I must admit that I was surprised by the allegations as stated. Where is the supporting evidence? The "Rationale" is vague and general. If there is proof of the allegations, bring it forward. Let's see the specifics. Why is the vote occurring without due diligence? My understanding of the state of our University is that we are positioned for success - currently and for the future. Our endowment level is at $150 million. We have the 2nd highest graduation rate. Newsweek ranked SSU in the top 6 universities in the Western United States. We have President Arminana to thank for that. As a former student and a current employee, President Arminana has my complete and unconditional support. Lynne Trainor, C.P.M. Buyer III Contracts and Procurement Sonoma State University Phone: 707.664.3239 Fax: 707.664.4183 If someone asked me what I thought of the SSU faculty’s call for a no-confidence vote for President Arminana, I would say that, on a positive note, the controversy has the ability to stimulate an individual in the SSU community to evaluate their own belief and value system. I am, personally, very willing to listen and be engaged by a thoughtful discourse in this institute of Higher Learning. But I can’t get past this poorly written document called the ‘Draft Ballot for Referendum’. I am offended by the inflammatory tone of the Resolution:
I can’t read this Resolution without being very disappointed in the faculty’s scholarly abilities. The SSU community deserves better from it’s teachers. As a member of ‘staff’ at this University, I will have no respect for any vote taken based on this Resolution. I think this is just a form of ‘yellow journalism’ (look it up!) Sincerely, Nora Hild, Project Manager I would like to comment on the very first statement of rationale in regards to the ludicrous claim against President Armiñana, which stated, “President Armiñana has failed to ensure appropriate levels of funding for support for the institutional mission of teaching and learning.” I was hoping to replace the letter that is currently posted with the letter below. I edited the third paragraph, but it is important to me that the change is made. It is not fair of me to make the claim that none of the SSU faculty members are inspirational. Thank you for allowing me to make this change. ~Kelley I would like to comment on the very first statement of rationale in regards to the ludicrous claim against President Armiñana, which stated, “President Armiñana has failed to ensure appropriate levels of funding for support for the institutional mission of teaching and learning.” As a student, I want to be inspired by my professors. Looking back at my years of education at this institution, as well as others, I remember a handful of teachers and professors who inspired me. It was their charisma and personal character that I remember most. What I don’t remember is the expensive software, fancy facilities or costly curriculums. Inspiration alone can carry an individual to make insightful choices, ask quizzical questions and aspire to be a better person. Knowledge, creativity and overall compassion are just a few components of the inspirational teachers I have come across. Currently, the faculty members in support of this referendum are not inspiring me. Inspiration doesn’t cost money. In contrast, the vision that President Armiñana has for the future of SSU inspires me. He has inspired me to obtain a master’s degree and to become a future leader at SSU. I encourage our professors to think back to a time when they were inspired and remember the qualities of the person who inspired them. Kelley C. Kaslar Why I support President Armiñana By Professor Lynn Cominsky, Chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department This is my 20th year on the Sonoma State faculty. When I first came to SSU as a lecturer in 1982, the campus was bitterly divided over the layoffs of tenured faculty by President Peter Diamandopoulos, and under censure by the AAUP. This was the culmination of a series of “no-confidence” votes by the Faculty, and eventually Diamandopoulos was forced out of SSU. Now, with the approval by the Academic Senate to go forward with a similar vote regarding the administration of President Armiñana, it would seem that some believe little has changed. However I totally disagree with this supposition as it is totally erroneous and I urge you to consider the following facts before deciding on how to vote. In my personal “top 10 list” below, I present evidence that the SSU of today is far better than the institution that I joined twenty years ago. For 15 of these years, Dr. Armiñana has been the SSU President. He has been steadfast in striving towards a vision of SSU that transcends our humble beginnings. I understand that not everyone on campus shares this same vision, and many would like to turn back the wheel to the “good old days.” However, I don’t recall that those old days were really all that good, and in any event, today’s students and times have changed dramatically. Since much of what we had back then is no longer that relevant to today’s changing educational landscape, I am hoping that a majority of the faculty will be able to appreciate the positive changes that have occurred at SSU since 1992, and will vote to support the President. Please consider these accomplishments of the Armiñana’s years:
So that’s my ten cents. I urge everyone to try to continue our campus discussions in a collegial fashion to try to solve our problems together without demonizing the Administration. Attacking others really doesn’t help us move forward and does a disservice to our students. Please vote to support President Armiñana. Dear Faculty Member: Your vote regarding our President, no doubt, is extremely critical in showing the campus community, alumni, and friends that you are a part of a rational assemblage of professional academics that want only the best for SSU. The rationale related to the resolution for a vote of no confidence presented by the Academic Senate on April 26, 2007 listed several items that were critical of President Armiñana and his cabinet. In listening to the complaints and talking to a number of individuals, it appears that the major issues are his leadership style and some of the financial decisions pertaining to the allocation of scarce resources. I know academic programs need much more funding to continue and improve the quality programs that we now have. But I believe that the financial decisions made by this President have been made only after much discussion and input from others on campus. Much of the pain is due to $1.2 million in permanent cuts we experienced between 2002-04. These cuts were made in Sacramento and clearly were not caused by our President or Chancellor Reed. The issues we face should be “Are the internal allocations appropriate, what was the process, and what can the President do about it to soften the impact on instruction?”. A review of the internal allocations indicates that we spend about the same as other small campuses in the CSU on instruction. We are definitely not out of line with regard to our internal allocations. It should be pointed out that our overhead costs are lower than most campuses. The CSU average is 12% while our rate is 10%. Regarding process, our President clearly must make the final decision when it comes to many issues our campus faces, including financial decisions. But he has received input from the President’s Budget Advisory Committee and the Cabinet. Our Provost obtains input from the VPBAC and the Academic Deans Council. And our Chief Financial Officer consults with the Campus Reengineering Committee and the PBAC. All of these groups include executive level administrators, deans, academic department heads, faculty, students and staff. Their recommendations flow to the President for consideration. I believe that in most cases he accepts their decisions. Therefore, his leadership style is inclusive and cannot be considered to be autocratic. Finally, what has the President done about our lack of adequate funding? Quite a bit. For example, several months ago, he committed $1million for academic technology and $1million for faculty development over a five-year period starting in 2007/08. Since he became President, this campus has raised $150 million in outside funding to support teaching and learning. We have obtained over $200 million from the CSU to create facilities that support teaching, learning, and student life. It should be noted that none of the above include money for construction of the Green Music Center. Our Academic Foundation endowment has grown from $3 million to about $32 million since 1992.. We rank 4th out of 24 in the California State University in terms of the endowment per FTES. And we distribute over $1million per year to academic programs and scholarships. Our President was a central figure in the acquisition of these funds. We are going through a rocky period, but in spite of meager resources, our academic programs have prospered. This can be attributed to the guidance from our President and the hard work and dedication on the part of our faculty, academic department heads, deans and the Provost. We have launched new programs in Chicano and Latino Studies, Computer and Engineering Science (M.A.), Engineering Science, Human Development, Hutchins Degree Completion Program, Liberal Studies M.A. and Women’s and Gender Studies. We rank among the top six public masters universities in the west by U.S. News & World Report, and we have the second highest six-year graduation rate of any CSU campus. I know this is an important decision that you are about to make regarding your vote. Please give our President a vote of confidence. Bill Ingels Re: Support of Dr. Armiñana's Presidency While attending a meeting of the academic Senate it appears again that much of this debate over a vote of no confidence of the president is motivated by money and control issues. Dr. Armiñana was hired to make sweeping changes at this University. He did that by bringing in the best possible people to do those jobs. He was hired to develop a strategic plan for the future of SSU, including growth, development, funding and many other tasks. Dr. Armiñana has excelled at turning this institution to the amazing place it is today. Everywhere you look on this property is evidence of the fruits of his labor. For those who have been here as long as Dr. Armiñana, that have stood up against him and are yelling the loudest, PLEASE show us a statement of your accomplishments! Additionally, I cannot believe that professional educators would actually say in an open public forum that they would be ok with seeing this entire institution go down in flames. And feel the need to say that any vote by the faculty should not be fair and democratic, but “whoever is heard the loudest wins”. The bottom line is that the facts of the resolution and Dr. Armiñana's rebuttal may differ. But there is a right way to proceed and then there is this way. Having come from a Facilities Services background I can personally understand what is meant by doing more with less, this department has been under staffed and under budgeted since well before my arrival, as have most departments. Our amazing management staff keeps this place running seamlessly. There is a cost of doing business. One amazing thing is how one sided people can portray the structural activities here at this institution. For example; I read one document that stated “Back then, SSU had two vice presidents. We now have five, plus six associate VP’s (at last count). A comparison of organizational charts then and now shows a bewildering rise in administrative complexity.[i] Since 1992, our student enrollments have grown by about 20% and our faculty by about 14%. But VP positions have swelled by over 150%.”( Armiñana’s “Vision” and Academic Decline ©2005 by Philip H. Beard, Ph.D.) But it failed to mention that many of those VP and AVP positions already existed here, they just changed the titles of the people doing the jobs. Or, that staff has also grown on both sides of the isle. And of course they need to be managed. The organizational “chart” has grown at SSU, so has this University! I personally believe this vote has been accelerated before the true facts can be publicized. I do not agree with this course of action and the Academic Senate does NOT express my feeling as a member of the SSU community. President Armiñana has my complete and unconditional support, also! Kevin Martin Project Manager Capital Planning Design and Construction Facilities Services Letter from the Alumni Association President - rtf download An Open Letter in Support of President Armiñana I have worked under four Department Chairs, two School Directors, seven Deans, four University Presidents, two police Chiefs, seven Sergeants, and too many ship Captains and Chief Mates to remember. I have seen autocrats and democrats, visionaries and servant leaders. I have seen successful leaders and not so successful leaders. I came to Sonoma State University over 20 years ago. Prior to SSU I was a tenured faculty member at another university. I have served on Senate and the Senate Executive at SSU. During this time I have had many disagreements with President Armiñana [and the Senate – they approved a research concentration without any requirement for statistics], everything from retention rates [I think it causes a dumbing down of education] to feral cats [we wasted money on this]. I believe I have made the President so angry he almost came across the table to throttle me. We do not agree on a wide array of issues. And I am embarrassed by this call for a vote of no confidence. I have found one, essential, trait necessary for a good leader. They must be willing to tell you where they stand at all times. They must be what I call a front stabber [many of my colleagues have preferred the back]. Someone who will tell you where they stand [even if it means they will try to thwart your desires] is as good as it gets. This is a quality I have always seen President Armiñana display. Most leaders do not. There is no question in my mind about the sincere desire of the President in regards to the future of SSU. While not always agreeing with his actions, I have never questioned either his motivations or his right to make decisions. The very nature of a University makes management of it a dicey proposition. There can be a strong tendency to try to say yes to everyone. This is the route to destruction. Resources are limited and not everyone can have their way. A person that says yes to all cannot deliver and has a yes that is meaningless. No one knows which yes means anything. One of God’s little jests is that saying no is necessary for the yes to mean anything and President Armiñana has been willing to do this. For this, we all get mad. Many seem unhappy that the President tells folks what he intends to do, and then does it. They confuse consultation with compliance with their wishes. They confuse consultation with authority. They want authority - generally without responsibility. We should consider a similar vote of confidence for the members of Senate as well. And, since the authors chose to model their petition on an important document, I wonder if they are willing to suffer the same fate should they fail? I have noticed a decided trend among many academics to feel that they may do or say anything and never feel that they must take any responsibility for their actions. Take this vote for instance. Has anyone stopped to think about the impact of this vote on attracting higher quality students or faculty members [regardless of the outcome of the vote itself]? Does anyone think that more money will now be donated to the University? Does anyone think we will be a better, more cohesive faculty because of this vote [or after it]? Does anyone think more quality people will apply for a President’s job where faculty vote no confidence? I have looked at the “Bill of Particulars” and thought, “where’s the beef?” Surely we are not doing ourselves such injury over this? I would be happy to talk with anyone about these issues. I urge you all to gain some space and think about the ramifications of this endeavor. I urge you to put aside personalities and leadership styles. Put away personal desires. I urge you to stop running on feelings and engage in critical thinking. If you do, I am confident you will not support this no confidence vote [I just love the double negatives]. TK Clarke STUDENT ATHLETE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCLAMATION - rtf format I am proud to have been a member of the SSU community since 1995 in roles as both a student (BA, Political Science, 1999; MA, Public Administration, 2006) and as a member of our staff. Since I came to SSU in 1995, Dr. Arminana's contributions have been constantly evident. His efforts, as well as those of the dedicated administration of this University, have led to the expansion of our residential community, the building and completion of the Schulz Information Center and many other projects that have greatly enhanced the experience of our students. President Arminana's current efforts involving community and fund development will only increase the resources that our students have available to them for years to come. Projects such as these do not materialize on the fuel of thoughts alone. It takes the vision of a leader and the hard work and commitment of a very dedicated campus community. Dr. Arminana has been the prevailing force in shaping the direction of this University and has my complete support and appreciation for his efforts and commitment. This resolution and subsequent vote has only led to increasingly negative relationships as accusations and personal attacks are launched. Material has been distributed in this process that states that "the administration" exploits and undervalues faculty work. Unsupported accusations such as these offend me personally, as a member of the administrative team. I work with hundreds of dedicated administrators who tirelessly work to support our educational mission. A solid administrative division is not a necessary evil; it is a tool to enhance our operations and maximize our success. The employees and leadership of the Division of Administration & Finance do not deserve these attacks. Our administration has grown in size and professionalism to respond to the ever growing demands of the University and of the State of California. President Arminana has protected the University and allowed it to flourish by recognizing this need. Can't we find a more constructive avenue to resolve disagreement than the destruction of our community standing and of our professional relationships? It is time to move on from the painful year of labor disputes that we have experienced and stop framing debate in an "us" versus "them" manner. We can accomplish more if we begin to work together towards common goals. I call upon all voting members of the faculty to seriously consider the statement you make in voting "yes" to this resolution. Consider the repercussions of such a statement to our students and our community. This is not a vote of no confidence in President Arminana, but in the University's abilities to fulfill our mission. Missy Wynes Manager of Parking Services To the Academic Senate: One of the charges against President Armiñana that is occurring this week is he has failed to respond diligently to documented concerns of our accreditation agency WASC, regarding alignment of resources with mission, campus diversity and attention to upper division course offerings. As an African-American and gay member of the University Community, I have worked closely with the President in matters related to diversity. My experience with Dr Armiñana is that he has been a constant supporter for racial diversity. President Armiñana is that he is not only very knowledgeable about what it takes to achieve diversity but has a personal and passionate commitment to equity. To the Campus community: As a science person, I do not see the logic, if there is any, in the statements of the resolution. As an employee of more than 16 years, and area resident of about 30 years, I have witnessed only marked improvements in the education and the facilities of this University. I have been impressed by the community support and the ability of the University to integrate into the local educational systems. The area people have changed their perception of the University's benefits to their community and local economies. The educational component is buttressed by the increase in admissions, retention and graduation rates. I support the President and the institution in these endeavors. I hope that others will see the positives and be able to compromise and work together to achieve a better system at this location. Thank you, Samuel Youney Facilities Management Director of Landscaping Sonoma State University To the Faculty: I have read your proposed resolution to express no confidence in President Ruben Armiñana’s abilities and have to wonder who is really going to benefit from your referendum? Historically the students have suffered due to the fighting that has always seem to be present between the faculty governance and the administration. When I was a student leader back in the early eighties there was another similar vote against then President Peter Diamandopoulos. When you choose to be a leader one would hope that you are serving as the visionary guiding light which should include having great foresight into the repercussions of your actions. You hold the trust of the public in your hands, trust to do the right thing considering all of the factors involved. There should not be any self-serving benefits from your actions rather they should be selfless. The goal should be the common good, and watching out for the students and the academic mission. We are all here for one purpose and should be working together to make SSU a place of enlightened minds. In your role of being the leaders you are suppose to represent the best that life has to offer. In the Faculty we have the most creative minds that can solve problems in constructive ways. You will make a point with your referendum but who truly will benefit? Will it be the students? Are you serving as a good role model by having to resort to such measures? Perhaps there is another way to solve the challenges that face this institution. Most of the issues that you address in your document are nothing new. We have always faced budget cuts and deficits. There has never seemed to be enough money to adequately fund the core academic mission of the University. The outside world will view this vote closely and they will not understand all of the reasons you have for your frustrations with the process. As a former student and current staff member of this University I do not support this approach. There must be a better way to solve your concerns. My appeal to the leaders of this institution is to work together to find solutions that will benefit the University. My concern is that the cost of making this point is too high. The students are not being supported by such an approach; after all, it is hardly the ingredients for a peaceful solution to our issues. Will it make our life better? Will it enhance the core academic mission of teaching and learning? How will this provide more support for the future? I can only hope that you can work together to solve these concerns rather than act as a divided front that shares no common ground. Remember what our mission truly is, we are here for the students first and foremost. As caretakers we need to make sure we are building a structure for the future not tearing apart what we currently have. Respectfully, Linnea Mullins An open letter to the faculty and community of SSU: IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT RUBEN ARMIÑANA The Academic Foundation of Sonoma State University supports President Ruben Armiñana, his leadership in the transformation of the university into one of the most respected academic institutions in the Western United States, and his stewardship of its resources for the benefit of the present and future generations of students. In arriving at this position, Academic Foundation Board members note the following points:
From WASC Reaffirmation Visit, 1999“The President has provided very effective leadership for the campus, especially during a period of budgetary constraint and enrollment uncertainty. He has been effective in raising private resources to support the campus mission and expand the University’s programs of instruction and service; private fund raising at SSU constitutes a larger percentage of the appropriated support than all but one of the CSU campuses. With the President’s leadership, SSU has fundamentally altered its image in the surrounding community, so that it is regarded with pride and admired for excellence. The President has developed a capable administrative team that works together effectively, and he has articulated a broad vision of the campus that guides their work.” “Sonoma State University, at the initiative of the administration, has achieved transparency in its financial affairs that is unusual among CSU campuses and, indeed, among institutions elsewhere. A combined budget showing the resources and the allocations of funds not only for the University’s general fund budget (appropriated funds and tuition revenues) but for all auxiliary enterprises is published; and discussion of all these revenues and expenditures are fully discussed with the President’s Budget Advisory Committee, which includes student and faculty representatives.” Campus Reengineering Committee The Campus Reengineering Committee of Sonoma State University supports the leadership, vision and unwavering commitment to education demonstrated by President Ruben Armiñana. He has been instrumental in increasing the status of and community support for SSU locally, regionally, state-wide and nationally, as well as within the CSU during his tenure as President. Under his leadership the university has demonstrated sound administrative practices, robust inflow of non-state financial support for the instructional programs and has consistently advanced the mission of SSU. Trustees Support of Presidents - rtf On the topic of Greenfarm: Having photographed this program for every year of its existence it might be nice if the faculty members who make blanket statements like only a “small percentage of the community” will benefit from the GMC please do your homework. Talk about a program that embraces people of all ages and skill levels, Greenfarm is that program. From the little children who can barely hold up the instruments to the silver haired members of the group it has benefits that reach far and wide. I have spent each summer with the participants and attended the Greenfarmfest where they showcase what they have learned. Amazing, energetic, beautiful they are creating music that uplifts the soul. Check out the website: See what the Dean has to say: A MESSAGE FROM THE DEAN It is my great pleasure to welcome you to Greenfarm, the Arts + Education program of the Green Music Center at Sonoma State University. Greenfarm Director, Professor of Music, Brian Wilson, along with distinguished faculty members from around the region and the nation, have prepared a rich and enjoyable summer fare of courses and programs for people of all ages. I have also created a one-page collage with a few samples of some of the participants. Hope you enjoy them as much as I do. Thank-you. Linnea Mullins As a professor emerita of Sonoma State University and a former Chair of the Faculty, I have watched from the sidelines the unfolding of current controversy on campus and the no confidence vote in progress. I have deliberately not contributed to conversations on campus because of my firm belief that the workings of the university now are for the university's present and future (of which I am not a part) and not the past (of which I am). I am compelled at this time, however, to speak not about my beliefs and opinions about confidence or no confidence in President Arminana, but rather about the vote itself. A no confidence vote is a parliamentary procedure intended as the initial step in the removal of a head of state/organization/body. It is always an ultimate action rather than a preliminary or continuing one; therefore, a no confidence vote is not part of a dialogue, not a "wake-up call," not a conversation, not a clearing of the air. It is almost always a negative action that diminishes—and often eliminates—the possibility of rapprochement. It is the final fracture between a body and its head. The decision to vote no confidence is thus a weighty one; I urge all faculty to consider carefully the full ramifications of no confidence votes before casting their ballots. Marty Ruddell To Whom It May Concern:
|
