Response to "Save South Central College Individual Concerns"

In my view, there are some legitimate concerns expressed in the articles on the "Save South Central College" site. However, there are also numerous errors and misconceptions which need to be corrected. As a faculty member and Department Chair at SCC, I'd like to offer my perspective.

No Support for Immigrant Students

I know that there has been little to no support with this administration in working with the growing immigrant community and in helping them be prepared for college unless it is to train them for manufacturing jobs … Now the classes supporting these classes have been cut with no other option available.
This is greatly overstated. There are numerous immigrant students enrolled at SCC in readiness classes, liberal arts courses and technical programs. Although it's true that two EAP (English for Academic Purposes) courses were canceled this semester due to low enrollment, it doesn't follow that SCC provides “little to no support” for immigrant students. Also, the claim that “the only employees protected ... are those who support the administration without question” is simply false. I've criticized the administration very explicitly in the past, as have several other faculty members whose jobs are not in jeopardy.

Fear and Intimidation through Job Terminations

Of the 40 or so individuals included in the list of employees who were “fired or forced to leave or who have left because of deplorable conditions,” at least eight are still teaching at the college. One was not retained because of credentialing issues, and three others retired. Four of the staff members listed are still working at SCC, and five left for better positions elsewhere. Four were let go because they were deemed ineffective at their job (a view which was widely held). Although I'm not familiar with the circumstances regarding several of the others, I'm only aware of actual controversy surrounding the exit of three individuals—7.5% of the total. This hardly seem scandalous.

South Central College and Accreditation: Storms on the Horizon?

Who is doing it now? You want the short and long answer? A consultant living in West Virginia is doing our reporting to HLC for us. 
This “consultant” has worked at SCC for many years and was/is a valued employee. She agreed to continue part time in that position after moving with her family.

We had an administrator who was an HLC Peer Reviewer. This means that he traveled around the country reviewing other colleges accreditation efforts. He was an invaluable resource that Annette Parker chose to ostracize, misuse, and ultimately terminate for no reason. Well, other than the fact that Jay hated him. Historians. What can you do? 
Although I have concerns about how and why Dean Fors was let go, he and the administration had serious differences of opinion which made if difficult for him to continue in his position. The claim that he was terminated because “Jay hated him” is flatly false. For the record, it's common for new college presidents to get rid of all administrators and start fresh. Dr. Fors was retained for a year and a half because of his impressive record and support from many of the faculty members he supervised.

Hiring Issues

Only the President will make all hiring decisions from now on – from the janitors, to the faulty to the Deans and Vice Presidents. The hiring committees can only recommend three candidates and if she doesn’t like those three she will go through the pool of applicants and choose her own or fail the search. It has been made very clear that no one has the authority but her. 
The college President has *always* possessed this authority—it's in the contract. He or she decides what role (if any) hiring committees will play in the process, and procedures vary greatly among MNSCU institutions.  That said, SCC recently hired the Math instructor who was recommended by the search committee.

Leadership Lacking Ability

Low enrollment, programs offering certifications in fields you don't need them in, money poured into Faribault campus that's non-existent …. 
Enrollment at SCC is down 3% compared to last Spring, which is less than the drop at almost every other college in the system. If we are in fact offering certifications in fields that don't require them, I doubt we'll do so very long—students won't pay certifications they don't need! The money spent on Faribault was dictated by a bonding bill submitted by the previous President, Keith Stover. Dr. Parker has proposed a comparable investment in the North Mankato campus.

Reflections from the Cellblock

History dictates that the easiest way to overcome an enemy is to divide and conquer. Well, we are divided, and we may be conquered because of it.

 If this is true, it's because of personal attacks like those launched by “Georgia Fayne” and unfounded accusations leveled against the union. I find it quite ironic that she (or he) claims to be “the quiet one on the row” and proceeds to criticize me, Jay and Peter for discussing our coworkers “in belittling and disparaging fashions.” What, exactly, is “Georgia” doing? At least I have the courage to state my position forthrightly instead of posting anonymous and inaccurate rants.

Jay spent a good amount of our fall union meetings defending Annette Parker and her administration’s actions at union meetings … Annette also gave him power (or a feeling of power) by 'including' him on some decisions, such as which administrative personnel had to go.
As explained in my comments at the bottom of this page, the union has repeatedly and successfully challenged the administration. Should faculty representatives *not* be included in decisions? Were we better off under the previous administration, when faculty requests (like the reinstatement of Department Chairs) were routinely ignored? If the majority of the faculty are dissatisfied with Jay and Darci's leadership, they can be removed with a two-thirds vote of union members. If she (or he) is confident that most faculty agree with her, I'd encourage “Georgia” to pursue this course of action and stand for President herself (or himself). Will faculty be better served by an intransigent representative who assumes the worst about Dr. Parker's motivations and regards her as the enemy? I sincerely doubt it.

Jay, who was rarely on campus before, was suddenly on campus every day and was actively talking to members, preaching the religion of Annette. 
As union President, Jay walks around campus speaking to the faculty members he represents. Should he remain in his office instead? Should he actively disparage Dr. Parker because a small number of faculty hold very negative opinions of her? Again, if “Georgia” is convinced that the “disgruntled minority” (in my terms, the “radical fringe”) actually constitute the majority, I encourage her (or him) to step up and lead instead of sniping from the sidelines. Please, have the courage of your convictions and stand behind your statements.

One last thing to discuss, which again was something I silently took umbrage to, was our grievance rep’s statement at our last meeting regarding the need to work together and get along with administration. That is fine, until you become a union rep. Your job is not to 'get along' as this can lead to compromises that should not be reached. Your job is to represent faculty members in the manner befitting the contract and the union member’s wishes ... Why haven’t grievances been filed?  Because the rank and file membership feels you are too 'chummy' with administrators and would not be a strong advocate on their behalf. 
This misrepresents what Diann (the grievance rep) actually said: she was encouraging unity among the faculty. Grievances have, in fact, been filed. Moreover, faculty only have themselves to blame if the administration violated the contract in ways which affect them and they've failed to approach Diann because they assume she's too “chummy” with administrators. Many faculty members have, in fact, gone to Diann for assistance and feel that she was very supportive.

Student Concern:

For any potential students considering attending SCC . . . save your money, time and a lot of headaches and find another secondary education institution ... The campus is rife with misinformation, poor planning and program accreditation questions. Zero leadership and plenty of lies. Walk the halls, talk to people if you can find them, and you will discover why nobody's around. 
Although I respect this student's opinion, I think it's been influenced far more by the rhetoric of the “radical fringe” than the reality of what's happening at SCC. We have real problems, which I summarize in my comments below. But SCC remains a strong institution with faculty, staff and administrators who are committed to the success of students.

Response to “More Thoughts from the Cellblock”

We have seen an erosion in class offerings on both campuses. Why? Enrollment is down.

In terms of credits, enrollment is down 3% compared to last Spring. The number of students has declined more significantly but they are (on average) taking more credits. Enrollment at almost every other MSNCU institutions has decreased

It could be due to simple mismanagement in the class scheduling process by a grossly inexperienced [interim] dean.

I (and the other Department Chairs) have worked directly with Dr. Wruck on course schedules. He's been doing an exemplary job.

It could be part of a bigger agenda to erode the liberal arts at SCC to shape us into a business training center.

This suggestion reflects a “Charting the Future” conspiracy theory for which there's no evidence whatseover.

We also have seen faculty who were granted tenure having their tenure revoked willy-nilly and being told they are back on probation.

This hasn't happened—it can't happen under the contract. Once an unlimited faculty member is off probation his or her “tenure” (which is an inaccurate term) cannot be revoked.

Why? The doom and gloomer in me says this is a tool to cut faculty ranks even further. And where is our so-called union when this is going on?

No LAS faculty have been laid off since Dr. Parker became President; to the contrary, three FTU faculty are being hired this academic year. The union has, in fact, pushed back against credit reductions for temporary faculty.

Think about it this way: if we offer classes, we might get more students to enroll! Do I want my children to attend a college that does not support liberal arts and where those offerings are slim?

The LAS offerings are hardly “slim.” In the past we've offered too many classes, including courses in disciplines which are not taught by FTU faculty. As a consequence, enrollment in many classes (including some of mine) have been unsustainably low. I agree that we should offer a variety of different courses which appeal to student interests—which is exactly what we're doing. I spent several hours with our Dean and Department Chairs today making sure we have a balanced schedule which covers all the MNTC goal areas.

The biggest problem I see with diversity at SCC is this: diversity is more than skin color and gender! We also cannot be fallacious in assuming that one’s skin color denotes experience and knowledge regarding diversity ... What of diversity relating to religion, sexual preference, or other ways that humans are inherently different from each other? … [W]e need to look at diversity as being one component of many. We cannot and should not be hiring people based solely upon their meeting a diverse status.

Do you have evidence that we've done this, or are you making assumptions based on incomplete information?

What of diversity of thought? Academic freedom has been assaulted through attacks on faculty. We were all warned that any email critical or questioning of the administration would be construed as a violation of MNSCU computer rules and regulations, with consequences.

I was warned about sending critical emails, and our state union rep informed Diann that the administration's position is correct. Academic freedom refers to what's said and taught in the classroom, not what's communicated using the state e-mail system.

I would argue that it is patently unethical to violate state laws at your whim. To spend gross amounts of the college’s limited money recklessly and without regard for the long term health of the environment.

Do you have evidence that state laws have been violated? MNSCU has audited SCC's budget and apparently disagrees. It's common for college presidents to receive generous relocation expenses. If you disagree with with this policy (as I do), your issue is with the Chancellor rather than Dr. Parker.

And now, Jay, it is your turn. In my opinion, it is unethical to be the leader of the union when so much of your time is spent politicking for the administration and defending their practices in our meetings. Step down, as you have lost any power you had and you are running the union into extinction.

Jay does not spend his time “politicking” for the administration. He has a good working relationship with Dr. Parker, mostly because she's been far more reasonable in accomodating faculty requests than the previous administration. If you want Jay to step down, you should step up by calling for his removal and running for the office yourself. If the majority of the faculty share your opinion (as you've repeatedly implied), why not pursue this course of action?

Other union leadership is as bad; choosing to maintain your friendly status with administrators rather than doing your job and confronting them is highly unethical. Either be a grievance rep or step down and be Anade’s buddy. You cannot have it both ways.

Have you been present at the numerous meetings Diann has had with faculty and/or members of the administration? I assume not, because they're confidential. Therefore you don't know what you're talking about and are basing your opinion on prejudicial assumptions.

I suppose some, such as Kurt, will espouse that I am unethical by blindly writing.

For once, we agree.

[Kurt's] attacks upon others speaking in dissent of Annette Parker and her cronies is, I feel unethical to the highest degree. Kurt went from being the voice of the people, speaking up when others dared not, to being a supporter of the administration. Why? He realized that tenure would not protect him. Free speech was stifled and a livelihood threatened, and he responded accordingly.

I deeply resent your characterization of my actions and motivations. I've changed my mind because I realized that the attacks on our union representatives and the administration were unfounded and counterproductive. However, I am not an uncritical supporter of the administration (nor is Jay or Diann). I still believe that there are problems at SCC which need to be addressed. In my view, they can only be addressed if the faculty are unified and act through the union. The situation is made far worse by wild accusations, rumor mongering, uncharitable assumptions and personal attacks.

The problem is that now he speaks out against those who now dare to write what he once wrote. Maybe we should pity him. He rails against those who rail against the system.

I appreciate the offer, but I don't need your pity. I'm criticizing the “radical fringe” because I think you're wrong and your tactics are harming the college—not because I'm afraid for my job. I'm “railing against” what I regard as irresponsible and inaccurate claims. My perspective has changed, but not my values or my ultimate goal. Unlike you, I've always been open and honest in arguing for my positions instead of remaining anonymous, even when I was highly critical of the administration. I encourage you to stand behind your bold claims and provide the evidence to back them up. Do your duty to your school.

Classifying SCC Faculty - Another Perspective

I'd like to take "Georgia Fayne" up on her (or his) offer and provide my perspective on SCC faculty. I'll use my actual name instead of posting anonymously because I think transparency is extremely important. In the interest of free and open dialogue, I hope my comment will be posted to this blog instead of being censored.

(1) The radical fringe. A small number of faculty members believe that Dr. Parker was sent here by the Chancellor to destroy SCC as part of a conspiracy theory involving Charting the Future. Despite the fact that SCC has recently hired three new full-time LAS faculty, they're convinced that the AA is going to be abolished and SCC will become an exclusively technical college. (In my view, this is extraordinarily unlikely.) These faculty members are very uncharitable, attributing the worst possible motivations to everyone with whom they disagree. They rely on unverified rumors, unwarranted assumptions, misguided misunderstandings and vicious personal attacks to make their case. Claiming to want what's best for the college, they actually make our situation worse by unfairly dismissing the union and undermining faculty unity. Moreover, they discredit legitimate concerns by including them alongside preposterous conspiratorial claims and obstruct constructive dialogue by demonizing union leaders and members of the administration.

(2) The concerned majority. Most faculty members recognize that there are problems at SCC—as there always have been and always will be. However, they (we) think that the concerns should be addressed via open, honest and respectful communication, not by anonymous (and venomous) blog posts which spread unsubstantiated rumors. We believe that the union has represented us effectively and bring our concerns to our union leaders instead of assuming that they've been co-opted by the administration. Because we actually communicate with Jay instead of attacking his character, we recognize that the union has challenged the administration when necessary and faculty have benefited as a result. Since Dr. Parker became President of SCC, two Deans who were widely disliked by faculty have been replaced by Barb Embacher; Department Chairs have been restored with equal compensation on both sides of the contract (something Keith Stover refused to do); a steamlined faculty evaluation process has been adopted (instead of the cumbersome approach which Nancy Genelin advocated); three new FTU LAS faculty and two (I think) technical faculty have been hired; SCC has experienced far fewer layoffs and non-renewals than most other MNSCU institutions; and the Marketing Committee has been reconstituted after a long absence. Is everything perfect? Of course not! We've had minimal advertising for the past year and a half, which probably contributed to our 3% decline in enrollment compared to last Spring; many staff members feel dissatisfied and some excellent employees have decided to leave SCC; temporary instructors who taught full-time schedules in the past will be limited to eight credits starting in the Fall; etc. Overall, however, full-time unlimited (tenured) faculty have fared rather well in the past year and a half. The fact that we don't agree with the assertions or the approach of the “radical fringe” doesn't mean we're “yes-men and -women” who don't care about the future of the college. Instead, we believe that the problems which SCC faces are manageable, not catastrophic, and are willing to work with the union and the administration to find constructive solutions. Admittedly, some of us have been more vocal than others in expressing our concerns due to perceived intimidation and the fear (justified or not) of reprisals.

(3) The indifferent remainder. The rest of the faculty are focused on their teaching and aren't terribly concerned with what's going on in the rest of the college. They're not sure what to believe, but know that their jobs have not been directly affected and would rather focus on their students than become embroiled in this controversy. I respect their position and would not accuse them of being “self-serving,” as Georgia Fayne does. Unfortunately, they may have fewer students to teach in the future due to the harm inflicted on SCC's reputation by the radical fringe's vitriolic campaign.