Confidence wavers

In what would be a serious expression of dissatisfaction with Chico State’s leadership, the Academic Senate may soon deliver a vote of no confidence in three of the university’s top executives—longtime President Paul Zingg; his second-in-command, Interim Provost Susan Elrod; and Lorraine Hoffman, vice president for business and finance. The vote is set for today (Dec. 10) at the senate’s regular meeting.

The proposed resolution cites a host of grievances. “The failure of senior executives to make timely decisions and maintain working relationships has resulted in uncertainty and unpredictability; faculty, staff, and student stress; increased workload; deterioration of morale; loss of jobs; and very high turnover rates in administrative positions campus-wide.”

Some on campus, such as English lecturer Anna Moore, believe a formal rebuke of upper-tier administration has been a long time coming. “I feel like it’s been so frustrating for faculty and staff to do their jobs here for such a long time,” she said during a phone interview. “I hope the no confidence vote is passed—absolutely. It’s long overdue.”

But it’s no slam-dunk decision. A petition signed by 26 members of Hoffman’s management team in the Division of Business and Finance urges the senate to reject the resolution. “These actions will negatively affect the students we are here to serve and tarnish this great institution’s reputation,” the petition reads, “and to what end?”

In any case, the senate’s debate comes amid recent turmoil. As the CN&R reported last week (see “Classes dismissed?” Newslines), instructors were informed just prior to Thanksgiving break that, due to cuts to the Academic Affairs budget, some classes that students are already enrolled in for next semester may be canceled. Then it emerged that individual departments across campus—including Meriam Library—are unexpectedly short on funding heading into next semester.

But why, exactly? After all, in June, Gov. Jerry Brown approved a state budget that includes an additional $97 million for the entire California State University system, and Chico State’s Office of the Provost reported in an email to the Academic Senate on Dec. 2 that the spring budget had actually increased by $5.1 million compared with last year.

At the senate’s regular meeting on Thursday (Dec. 3), Elrod explained “why people are feeling squeezed.” While it’s true that the Academic Affairs budget increased by about 8 percent, to a total of $78.3 million, personnel costs—salary increases, benefits and new hires—increased even more, she said. Acknowledging that long-term budget planning was lacking in years past, Elrod said those hiring processes were put in motion before she became interim provost a little more than a year ago, which she likened to “coming on board a moving train.”

“Essentially, for the past two years, Academic Affairs has not had the management expertise or the process for budgeting that would enable us to have a clearer and earlier understanding of the situation,” she said. “At the divisional level, we haven’t really had a budget plan.”

Elrod said her office’s next steps include providing funding from reserves to meet student demand for classes next semester, providing a preliminary budget estimate for the 2016-17 academic year in February and forming an ad-hoc budget task force to develop a new model for the Academic Affairs budget.

Though Elrod’s presentation appeared well-received by members of the senate, some mistrust lingers among faculty. With both Zingg and Elrod looking on, the senate voted 32-0 to agendize deliberation on the vote of no confidence for its next meeting.

For his part, Zingg says that heading into next semester, his last before retirement, with a vote of no confidence would make it more difficult for the university to attract his successor.

In a four-page letter delivered to members of the senate on Wednesday (Dec. 9), he writes that “supporting a resolution that lacks clarity, specificity and accuracy would have a chilling effect on the strength of the pool and the interest of the candidates.” Zingg is defensive at times throughout the statement, but adds that “it is sad and deeply troubling to me personally that individuals have reached a point of frustration, anxiety and/or anger that compels such a resolution.”

Much of the debate has centered on the appointment of the university’s top positions. At the beginning of this semester the local chapter of the California Faculty Association said Zingg “violated the spirit of shared governance” when, on Aug. 21, he announced in a campus-wide email that Elrod had been appointed as permanent provost—without consulting faculty and staff. Then, just four days later, Zingg sent a follow-up email announcing that Elrod had declined the permanent provost position, but would continue serving as interim through the end of the academic year.

Not appointing Elrod as permanent provost “upon listening to the university faculty and others,” Zingg argues in his Dec. 9 letter, demonstrates his willingness to hear out faculty and staff.

Similar scenarios have played out elsewhere in the CSU system. Rollin Richmond, former president of Humboldt State University, came under fire in 2009 for foregoing a national search and appointing Interim Provost Robert Synder to a permanent position, according to the Eureka Times-Standard. The university’s faculty association delivered a vote of no confidence and asked Richmond to retire within two years; he stepped down in 2013. (Coincidentally, while Zingg recuperated from heart surgery last spring, Richmond came out of retirement to serve as his temporary replacement.)

Chico State’s Academic Senate has considered a no confidence vote in Zingg at least once before.

In October of last year, the body of faculty members spoke publicly about campus-wide dysfunction and requested the CSU Chancellor’s Office appoint an independent consultant to evaluate problems on campus and offer solutions.

The Chancellor’s Office ultimately did not honor the request, leaving the university to sort out its own problems, and the senate did not deliver a vote of no confidence at that time.