Cal Maritime Shared Governance Report Final

SHARED GOVERNANCE AT CAL MARITIME: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS March 2019 Gary W. Reichard, Executive Vice Chancellor Emeritus, CSU

INTRODUCTION This report is based on a review of a number of documents related to shared governance at Cal Maritime that were made available to me by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Provost prior to my visit to the campus during the week of January 22-25, 2019, as well as on my conversations with faculty and student leaders and members of the upper administration, and comments made in open forums with both faculty and students. Approximately forty faculty were present for the faculty forum, and over fifty students participated in the student forum. I also received private communications from approximately ten members of the campus community, whose input I have also incorporated.

As agreed in advance, the purposes of this report and recommendations are to provide an objective analysis of communication and governance issues that have adversely affected relations across campus and have impeded shared governance, and to offer recommendations for potential improvements in communication, trust, and governance going forward. Specifically, the scope of work called for me to review and make recommendations concerning:         

The structure and function of the Academic Senate The role of faculty in decision-making Faculty-administrative interactions Faculty engagement in shared governance Providing a supportive environment for faculty, and particularly junior faculty Procedures and practices for establishing budgets Faculty engagement with the development and delivery of the Edwards Leadership Development Program The role of students in shared governance; and The distinct roles of the Academic Senate and the California Faculty Association.

In the course of my interactions with all constituencies during my visit, I made an effort to address all of these areas, with a focus on communication and governance issues. In addition, I attempted to get a general sense of overall “campus climate,” as a context for offering specific recommendations.

CAMPUS CLIMATE: ISSUES AND PROBLEMS Despite good intentions on all sides and the existence of formal structures designed to ensure open communication and effective shared governance at Cal Maritime, events of the past few years—and particularly 2017-2018-- have seen a breakdown in communication among faculty, administration, and 1

student leadership and a consequent erosion of trust across campus. These dysfunctions are both cause and effect of shortcomings in shared governance practices and structures that warrant attention in the immediate future.

The catalyst for an open break between students and faculty, on the one hand, and the administration on the other grew out of the administration’s decision, early in the 2017-2018 academic year, to lease the former Motel Six as temporary housing for students who would be displaced during the planned demolition and replacement of the Lower Residence Hall (LRH), as well as for those who might possibly be displaced by a necessary drydock period following the summer cruise. The intent and reason for the plan were not intentionally kept secret, but the information was not well disseminated. During the course of the lease negotiations for the property, in the interest of budgetary efficiency, the decision was made to try to purchase rather than lease the property. This change in direction was held in confidence so as not to reduce the institution’s leverage in purchase negotiations. The problem in keeping the change confidential was that the initially stated rationale for the decision to rent was no longer entirely accurate. The Motel facility was now conceived of not simply as temporary relief housing, but rather as additional permanent housing to return more students to campus, which in turn would reduce costs to students for the new construction to replace LRH. This complicated situation was not well communicated to the campus.

When the decision to purchase rather than lease became public in spring 2018, large numbers of students expressed surprise and opposition-- not only because it had been “secret,” but because initial communications suggested that off-campus lodging might no longer be permitted at all. The “relief valve” rationale initially provided by the administration now seemed to students to have been a ruse designed to obfuscate a policy change about which there had been no consultation. Consequently, student complaints swiftly enlisted faculty support, including from Academic Senate leaders. A Town Hall called by Student Affairs, Housing, and Administration and Finance proved ineffective in calming the environment.

A compounding problem at the time of the housing controversy was the sudden resignation of the Dean of Leadership, who had been at Cal Maritime only since the beginning of Fall 2017, originally as part of the Commandant’s Office (but soon thereafter elevated to the newly-created Dean position to oversee the ELDP). The Dean’s unexpected, intemperate letter of resignation--which he copied to several parties-- further inflamed concern across the campus about “top-down” administration, as well as about lack of transparency. The resignation also raised further questions about the future of the ELDP. Moreover, the Commandant’s Office, in theory the best conduit for expression of student concerns to the administration, now seemed completely broken, since there had been repeated turnover in this important office—including in the position of Commandant itself--during the preceding two or three years. In an effort to ameliorate the situation, a well-regarded member of the Commandant’s staff was appointed to a new position, Associate Dean for Student Engagement, with responsibility for “establishing and maintaining positive relationships and lines of communication with faculty, staff, and students.” An additional disruptive factor, however, was the subsequent resignation of the longtime Vice President for Student Affairs, to whom the departed Dean had reported.

These converging events produced a student petition to the Academic Senate (March 20), which resulted in two Senate meetings—one to hear the students’ concerns directly and a second to decide on a Senate response. The latter meeting produced a letter from the Senate to the President (April 12) 2

expressing “overwhelming support” for the students’ petition and urging him “to consider systemic changes to . . . policies and managerial approaches to address these concerns.” At the same time, the Senate decided to draft a second letter to the President specifically addressing shared governance.

The Senate’s second letter to the President, sent on May 1 after having been circulated for signatures (it was ultimately signed by forty-one faculty), reiterated support for the “student petition describing concerns and frustrations about their living and learning experiences at Cal Maritime,” and raised a number of faculty concerns, some of which mirrored those of the students, but mostly focused on a breakdown in shared governance rooted in “an unfortunate, profound misunderstanding regarding the nature of academia” and “a profound deterioration of our campus climate.” The letter concluded with a strong statement holding the President “accountable for the [low] morale on our campus,” describing him as “absent and aloof,” and a formal request that a “mediator” be engaged in fall 2018 “to hear from both sides regarding these concerns” and to offer “a report of recommendations to move forward.”

This letter was copied to the Cabinet, the then-Academic Dean, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Library Dean. It was not formally shared with student leaders.

At this point, communications between the Senate and upper-level administration became increasingly complicated. On April 26, while the Senate letter on shared governance was being circulated among Senators for signature, President Cropper had written to the Senate Chair, copying the rest of the Executive Committee, in response to the Senate’s initial letter supporting the student petition. In his April 26 letter, the President outlined ways in which he believed the Senate had failed to show good faith in seeking communication with the administration, citing especially the Executive Committee’s decision not to include him, the Provost, or other administrators in Senate meetings and the regular exclusion of all administrators from the faculty forums following those meetings. This letter was not shared beyond the Executive Committee.

On May 14, President Cropper responded to the Senate’s May 1 letter on shared governance in an email to all faculty, expressing “disappointment” that his earlier (April 26) response had not been acknowledged, but also stating a commitment to “shared governance and sound campus decisionmaking [based] on trust” and to “working together . . . to resolve concerns, address misunderstandings, and explore opportunities.”

In early June, the President, Provost, Senate Chair, and Senate Vice Chair met and agreed to engage an outside consultant, whose findings and recommendations might help “to clarify and improve shared governance expectations and processes and to build trust.” The parties also agreed that full implementation of the new three-School structure (scheduled to be put in place under three new Deans in fall 2018) would provide “an opportunity for a reset of many relationships as well as the renewal of a shared commitment to a collegial campus culture.”

As stated above, this sequence of events in Spring 2018, served as a catalyst, igniting tensions that had been simmering over other issues for which the administration had come under fire (mostly from faculty, but also from students, in some cases) for its seeming top-down leadership, lack of transparency, and unresponsiveness to concerns that had been brought forward.

One such issue, more important to faculty than to students, had been the creation of the three-school model. While this model had been under discussion for several years, a number of faculty contend that the “whether” of such a reorganization had never truly been discussed in a consultative way; rather, 3

that the faculty had been invited in 2015-2016 to offer input only on the “how” question—i.e., how the three schools would be organized. It would serve no purpose in this report to try to decide who is right about the way this decision process unfolded. What is important is that the disagreement serves as an example of how administration and faculty leadership see things differently where shared governance is concerned.

A second example of these differing perceptions about process and transparency is the development of Cal Maritime’s Strategic Plan in 2015-2016. While the administration sees the Strategic Plan as the result of an open, consultative process, many faculty (as reflected in the Fall 2016 Senate Poll responses) tend to view it more as an imposed vision, despite the trappings of consultative meetings. Both students and faculty leadership are generally inclined to credit President Cropper for his vision for the future, but there is strong sentiment that the boldness of the vision of a “Maritime University” called for greater genuine consultation and engagement of all constituencies than marked its planning and rollout.

A third background issue causing concern among both students and faculty was the administration’s decision to change the traditional two-cruise calendar to a single cruise, effective summer 2019. While there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, once again—perhaps because of the climate of general distrust of the administration that has developed—there is a feeling among both students and faculty that the administration “used” a task force to implement a foreordained plan to change to a single cruise. This issue is of particular importance at the moment, since MARAD’s recent decision that the Golden Bear must be made available to Texas A&M for a “second cruise” in Summer 2019 has led many to believe that the original decision in this matter should be revisited.

Yet another controversy that erupted in the past several months concerned a small number of faculty who had been housed on the Golden Bear. When the upper administration became aware that three or four faculty had for at least a few years been provided housing on the training ship without charge, and confirmed that it was illegal to provide housing to employees unless it was treated as compensation, the affected faculty were notified that their free housing would be discontinued. The upshot was the retirement of at least one very popular longtime faculty member and further student and faculty angst.

A final additional destabilizing factor, as already mentioned, has been the frequent turnover within the Commandant’s office over the past few years. This flux has created disruption and confusion in Cadet ranks, as students don’t understand the reasons for it and are uncertain of what the overall directions and emphases are within the Corps. Concerns have been intensified by the perception, shared by students and faculty alike, that the selection process for Commandants is non-transparent and controlled by the President. Related to this issue is disillusionment among students with the ELDP, for which the Commandant and Student Affairs (and for several months in 2017-2018, the Dean of Leadership) have provided leadership to this point. As on other issues, some students and faculty see the ELDP as an administration plan that was “imposed” without wide consultation and campus buy-in.

OVERVIEW: CURRENT CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT My interactions with individual faculty, student leaders, and members of the administration during my visit to campus confirmed for me that it was timely and prudent for the Senate and administration to 4

engage an external consultant on issues of governance, communication, openness, and trust. While it is clear that all parties seek an open, transparent, and more collegial atmosphere, trust is at a low level across campus. Despite well-intentioned efforts by the President and Provost to be available to those who object to specific administration decisions or actions, numerous faculty stated that they refrain from making their objections known because they fear retaliation. Moreover, top-level administrators are often perceived by faculty, as well as students, as reacting defensively when criticisms or complaints are raised. In addition, there is a sentiment within the faculty that the administration does not engage in sufficient consultation in the case of many administration searches and sometimes disregards faculty recommendations without providing justification (examples of both administration and faculty searches were described to me). It has been reported to me that communication is so poor that sometimes final decisions by the President and/or Cabinet-level administrators are not even communicated to the faculty and/or students. It does not help that there has been considerable turnover in student-facing offices across campus. Additionally—and perhaps more importantly--many students also perceive staff in these offices as not being student-friendly—or, in some cases, even competent to address concerns in a timely way. The Housing Office is especially strongly criticized in this regard.

It was neither possible nor necessary for me during the course of such a brief visit to arrive at an independent judgment of the validity of all these claims. In the case of “campus climate,” perceptions are reality. The pervasiveness and intensity of these sentiments expressed in personal communications and the open forums and individual meetings in which I participated have led me to emphasize in this report these general matters of “climate,” in addition to addressing the specific questions above.

In the following section, I offer specific recommendations to address various aspects of the general malaise (more than one individual used the term “toxic environment”) that has prevailed on campus around these issues.

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Faculty-Administration Issues Faculty view upper administration as often non-responsive to faculty input and/or criticisms.

Recommendation: Both the President and Provost should re-commit to affording meaningful opportunities for faculty and staff to engage with them individually in informal circumstances (such as coffee hours and/or small group lunches), without the presence of additional administrators and without planned agendas. The Academic Senate should move as rapidly as possible to implement the new Policy on Review of Academic Administrators.

Faculty feel there has sometimes been insufficient consultation in searches for administrators, as well as occasional disregard for faculty input and recommendations without prior explanation.

Recommendation: Searches for all senior-level administrators (including non-academic administrators) should be open and fully transparent, involving search committees with appropriate faculty representation. In cases of searches where the ultimate hiring decision differs from search committee recommendations, there should ideally be consultation with the search committee (and in the case of faculty searches, department chair) prior to the final 5

decision. Faculty and administration should collaborate in developing clear protocols for conduct of searches, and should together design training for search committee members on such matters as confidentiality and diversity in the recruitment process.

Although a three-school structure had been included in planning documents for several years, some faculty remain unhappy about a perceived lack of consultation in deciding on its implementation and remain critical of the reorganization, despite the fact that it is now firmly in place. Department chairs, in particular, object to Deans’ exercising close oversight of department budgets, and see a need for clarification of the roles and responsibilities of Deans and chairs, respectively.

Recommendation: The President and Provost should continue to explain and demonstrate the advantages of the three-school structure, as well as engage ongoing discussion of the roles of Deans and department chairs, respectively. The Academic Senate should consider revising the Policy on Selection and Review of Department Chairs to ensure that results of the evaluation of department chairs are shared with the appropriate Dean (with appropriate protections of confidentiality). In addition, Deans and department chairs should work together, in their respective Schools, to establish responsible and orderly budget/expenditure processes and oversight. Past practices such as use of personal credit cards/accounts for equipment and materials purchases and retroactive approvals of expenditures without identified source of funds should be curtailed insofar as possible. Similarly, effective oversight should be established over approval of travel requests. (In general, faculty and staff need to recognize that Cal Maritime cannot be an “independent operator” as a university within the Cal State System.)

Faculty feel that there is insufficient consultation on budget matters, while senior administrators believe there are abundant opportunities for faculty to understand and have input in the budget development process (e.g., open budget workshops, faculty representation on Budget Advisory Committee).

Recommendation: While open budget workshops should be continued, the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) should begin its work at the beginning of each academic year to allow for input to budget planning, as opposed to its being limited to reacting to the proposed Divisional budgets in spring. Consideration should be given to increasing faculty membership on the BAC to at least three (one from each School).

There is a perception among faculty that turnover of newer faculty is high due to unreasonable expectations for research in the context of an increasing workload, and a generally “unsupportive” environment. (The 2016 Senate Poll showed that a significant number of faculty also believe that the administration does not value and encourage their professional work.)

Recommendation: Although some junior faculty have left for other institutions over the past few years, data do not support the contention that faculty turnover at Cal Maritime is unusually high. Nor, in the context of the CSU, does faculty workload seem to be high. Still, the administration and faculty together should consider reviewing RTP standards and practices to ascertain together whether research expectations for faculty are realistic and whether they are in fact increasing. The administration should also ensure that support for faculty who seek to develop grant proposals is as facilitative and non-bureaucratic as possible. The administration and Senate might also review together current practices concerning reassigned time for

6

research to determine whether it might be appropriate in some circumstances to grant reassigned time for non-sponsored research.

Some feel that campus planning processes and the detailed justifications that are required for decisionmaking can create rigidity in cases where flexibility may be needed and/or where revisiting an original decision might be in order. Additionally, the multiple levels of approval required for some decisions can impede mid-level administrators in efforts to handle local problems in a timely way.

Recommendation: Recognizing that this is a nuanced issue because planning is necessary, now that three new Deans are in place, it might be productive for the President and Provost to review the level of autonomy appropriate for middle levels of administration. In any case, it will be important to ensure that the Deans are part of the information and consultation leading to policy decisions that will affect the campus.

There seem to be varying views across the institution as to what constitutes appropriate service by faculty. In some cases, faculty have traditionally received reassigned time for service that might be considered normal within faculty workload. In addition, there seems to be a feeling on the part of some faculty that expectations for scholarship and research are unrealistic in the context of the mission of some departments, at least.

Recommendation: Article 20 of the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement states that “The professional responsibilities of instructional faculty members are: teaching, research, scholarship, creative activity, and service to the University, profession and to the community.”

In cases where reassigned time is provided for specific service contributions, such contributions should be considered in that context in RTP evaluations. Given the differing views that exist about the appropriateness of expectations for service (just as for scholarship and research, as noted above), it would be useful for the institution to review its RTP criteria in these areas. Even if no revisions result from such a reconsideration, the process could defuse concerns that seem to have grown up among faculty about service and workload, generally.

Understandably, given the diversity of missions across departments, some junior faculty are not clear about expectations that must be met for tenure and promotion.

Recommendation: A possible innovation that could address this problem would be to institute the practice of probationary period development plans, which junior faculty, department chair, and Dean could develop together. While not a “contract” that would guarantee tenure and/or promotion, such a document could serve as a helpful guide for the junior faculty member, and the conversations that would occur around it would be constructive for the department. It might also be helpful to conduct annual RTP workshops for both candidates and committee members, in which expectations and process can be clarified and standardized. This is a model that is in place in some other CSU institutions.

Shared Governance For more than a year, administrators (including the President and Provost) were reportedly excluded from Senate meetings and largely from Executive Committee meetings, leaving them feeling that they 7

were blocked from having meaningful interaction in shared governance. Although the interactions have apparently improved this year, there is a need for clarification of administration participation in the Senate.

Recommendation: Cabinet-level administrators should be welcome to attend all Senate meetings (with or without vote, as may be determined in the upcoming revision of Senate Bylaws). The Senate should discontinue its practice of holding faculty-only forums immediately after its meetings, which create suspicion on the part of administrators that such forums are where the faculty conducts its “real” business, as well as encourage conflation of collective bargaining issues with shared governance. Minutes of all Senate meetings should be available campus-wide in a timely way. Consideration should be given to including appropriate administrators on at least some Senate Committees (at least as non-voting members), to facilitate collaboration in policy development. In order to make it more likely that the President can attend and participate in Senate meetings, it would be helpful to move the meeting day from Tuesday to Thursday.

The Senate and Senate Executive Committee feel that their views are not sufficiently sought and/or are often disregarded by the administration.

Recommendation: The Senate should reorganize its meetings in such a way as to ensure that resolutions can be fully considered, and when adopted, forwarded to the administration. In matters of great importance to the faculty, such resolutions could include an explicit request for administration response. Administration responses to Senate/faculty resolutions should be timely.

Many faculty see Senate discussions as non-productive, especially because it is often difficult even to assure a quorum to conduct business. Consequently, many—especially senior—faculty have “checked out” of shared governance.

Recommendation: The Bylaws should be revised to establish a representative Senate, with members elected to represent specific constituencies (e.g., Schools), in order to increase the level of commitment of Senators to attend and participate in Senate meetings. A ratio of one Senator for each five faculty members might be appropriate. The revised Bylaws might also provide for one to three Senators from Student Support areas (including the Commandant’s office), and an increase in student membership (perhaps to three, which would ensure more regular student presence in the meetings). The agenda for each meeting should be publicly posted at least three days in advance. The Senate should follow Robert’s Rules of Order, and business should not be conducted in the absence of a quorum. Minutes of every meeting should be kept and distributed campus-wide in a timely fashion. Senate Committees should be expected to report regularly to the Senate/Senate Executive Committee, including drafting resolutions where appropriate to their charge. The chairs of all Senate committees should be Senators, although non-Senators should also be eligible for committee membership.

There is a widespread sentiment that the work of the RTP Committee is too burdensome. This perception, coupled with the requirement that only Full Professors are eligible to serve, makes it increasingly hard to find faculty willing to stand for election to the committee.

8

Recommendation: It might make sense to have two Senate RTP committees—one to consider promotions to Full Professor (the members of which would have to be Full Professors) and a second that would consider cases of retention, tenure, and promotion to Associate Professor (for which both Associate Professors and Full Professors would be eligible). Although the workload of the latter committee would be nearly as high as that of the current single RTP committee, many more faculty would be eligible to serve.

The roles of Deans and the Provost in the RTP process are not totally clear, and do not represent distinct levels of evaluation. The Provost, in particular, is theoretically limited only to commenting on fairness of process, which is not typical of RTP processes in other institutions.

As the Senate Executive Committee already seems to be considering, the Dean’s review/evaluation should be prior to the Senate RTP committee’s review, rather than simultaneous with it, and the language in the current RTP policy that limits the Provost’s review to procedural issues only should be deleted. The latter change would have the effect of mandating a substantive evaluation by the Provost, to go to the President.

Student Issues In the student forum, several students raised specific concerns about the Housing Office, including particularly the lack of timeliness in responding to formal applications for permission to reside offcampus.

Recommendation: The Housing Office webpage should include detailed information about processes and timetable for student applications to reside off-campus. The Housing Office should adhere to those timelines, including a reasonable period for response/decision.

The “Maritime University” vision still lacks clarity for many students, causing them to feel a disconnect, if not a direct tension, between their accountability to Corps requirements/expectations and academic requirements.

Recommendation: The upper administration and the Academic Senate should work collaboratively with the Commandant’s office to improve students’ access to shared governance and to bridge the gap students perceive between Corps-related and academic expectations. The Commandant should continue his efforts to bring greater clarity and consistency to Corps expectations through development of clear policies (e.g., the projected policy on watchstanding).

Students appreciate that some of the concerns expressed in the Town Hall were acted on, but are concerned that since the representatives of the administration who received their input and made commitments at that meeting are no longer on campus or in their previous roles, there will be no further follow-up.

Recommendation: The administration should revisit the commitments made at the spring 2018 Town Hall meeting and provide students with an update on actions taken or intended as a result.

9

General Campus Climate Issues All constituencies express concern about the lack of clear and timely communication across the campus.

For faculty and students, this dysfunction serves to reinforce suspicions of non-transparency on the part of the administration.

Recommendation: The internal communications task force recently established by the President’s Office should work closely with the Academic Senate and the Triad to design an effective, uniform communication strategy that will ensure both timeliness and coordination in the flow of information across all constituency groups. More specifically, the President’s Office should be proactive in making faculty, staff, and students aware when changes are being considered that will have direct impact on them.

A number of faculty and staff have organized informally to raise concerns and bring about improvements related to Gender Equity matters on campus (including safety and sexual harassment), and are concerned that these issues are not being taken seriously enough by administration.

Recommendation: The President’s office, in concert with the new Title IX Coordinator, should reach out directly to the Gender Equity Group and the Senate Executive Committee to develop a campus plan to address such issues and to ensure coordination of campus-wide educational and training efforts related to Gender Equity issues. The administration should do all it can to ensure that students have confidence in the Title IX process on campus.

Students feel that they cannot have their concerns and complaints heard and/or addressed unless external pressures are brought to bear, such as from parents.

Recommendation: The Commandant’s Office should be recognized by both faculty and administration as the appropriate office, together with Student Affairs, to bring forward student concerns and to get them addressed. Whether or not the Commandant continues to report to the President, the individual holding that position should report regularly on student issues in Cabinet and should also be invited to give periodic reports to the Senate. In addition, the President should consider holding regular, periodic Town Halls for students (without pre-set agendas) in which they can bring their concerns forward.

Edwards Leadership Development Program (ELDP) Originally envisioned as a signature program that would ensure outstanding co-curricular leadership development for all Cal Maritime students, the ELDP has foundered since its creation. The intended “reset” of the program in 2017 did not succeed in refocusing it, and its purposes do not seem to be understood by either students or faculty. There has been insufficient engagement of students and faculty in defining the program’s goals and requirements.

Recommendation: The President should use the consultant’s report on the ELDP to engage a broad campus discussion of the purposes and possible improvements of the program. Students should be strongly involved in this reconsideration. Such discussion should include formal 10

consideration by the Senate of how to integrate the program more closely with academic programs. The question of whether or not the program should be mandatory should also be reopened. The redesign of the program should include clear learning objectives and ongoing assessment of those outcomes.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS President Cropper, Provost Opp, and the faculty leadership of Cal Maritime are to be commended for proactively seeking out external review and recommendations concerning shared governance and overall campus climate at the institution. During my visit to campus, all parties communicated openly with me and I was afforded access to any and all documents I requested. Additionally, no constraints were placed on me as to what might be discussed in this final report. It is my hope that at least some of the recommendations I have offered will prove helpful in strengthening communication and governance practices across the institution, as well as enhancing trust and collegiality among faculty, staff, and students. Given the demonstrable good will and devotion to Cal Maritime that I observed on all sides during my visit, I feel certain that this exercise will prove productive.

11