Shared Governance at Texas A&M University-Kingsville
The Texas Council
of Faculty Senates
Austin, Texas
October 21, 2005
Marilyn vos Savant was in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the world’s highest recorded I.Q. She has a column in the Sunday Parade Magazine called “Ask Marilyn,” where she answers readers’ questions and solves puzzles and riddles.
My favorite answer of hers was to a question about what she thought about the Pentagon purchasing $5,000 hammers with taxpayer money. She said she didn’t think much of it because she knew that, in outrageous stories like that, key information was always missing, and there was always another side to the story.
The $5,000 hammer story I plan to talk about tonight is the story of Dr. Rumaldo Juárez, the President of Texas A&M University-Kingsville and the Kingsville Faculty Senate.
The popular version of the story goes something like this: Dr. Juárez arbitrarily turned down some recommendations for faculty promotions (but approved recommendations for tenure) early in his presidency, which caused a ruckus and prompted the Kingsville faculty to vote no confidence in him. Now, with the complicity of The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents, and the chancellor, he has retaliated by disbanding the Faculty Senate and “killing shared governance at A&M-Kingsville.”
I understand that on the basis of this account you will be asked to pass a resolution or take some action supporting the beleaguered Faculty Senate and condemning the rest of us. Those asking you to do this are, of course, insulting the intelligence of President Juárez, myself, and nine members of the Board of Regents, three of whom are attorneys, including the chairman and the vice chairman, one of whom is a former tenured faculty member at Texas A&M, and all of whom are experienced enough to appreciate the dangers of rash actions. They are asking you to believe that all of us are as dumb as nails, or one of those $5,000 hammers. But, more to the point tonight, they are insulting your intelligence as well.
How many good presidents are we supposed to lose to this small group hiding behind and abusing their tenure before we do something about it?
One possibility is that we didn’t understand the seriousness of the action. Another possibility is that we understood, but just didn’t care. Another possibility, which I hope you will consider because it happens to be the truth, is that we understood, we cared, but we were left with no choice.
This bed was on fire before I got in it, but I’ve had our legal department and others researching it—including the rest of the story. The so-called vote of no confidence by the faculty occurred a couple of months before I arrived. (More about that later.)
But the problem dates back several years, well before President Juárez arrived. This is not about the faculty at Kingsville. It’s not even about the Faculty Senate. It’s about a few members—not all, but just a few members—of the executive committee of the Faculty Senate who have been tormenting presidents for years. How many good presidents are we supposed to lose to this small group hiding behind and abusing their tenure before we do something about it?
I called Rumaldo’s predecessor the other day and asked him to confirm what I’d been told—that he gave up the presidency because he couldn’t tolerate the abuse and antics of this group any more. He said that was true. I asked him if he minded if I said that publicly. He said he didn’t mind. This was no timid soul. He is a former army general.
He added one other element: He said he would probably still be there if he had received the support from his chancellor that Rumaldo is now receiving from me. I ask you again: how many good presidents do we have to lose before something is done?
A few facts:
Rumaldo, at the end of his rope, asked the interim chancellor last year to appoint an external review committee to come down and investigate the situation in Kingsville and make an assessment and make recommendations.
He did not ask that the committee include a regent, a chancellor, or any administrative person.
Under the guidance of our vice chancellor for academic and student affairs, I appointed a committee of three Faculty Senate leaders from three A&M System universities, all of which had been speaker of their respective faculty senates.
The chairman of that committee was Bob Strawser, professor of accounting at Texas A&M University. He is here tonight to answer any detailed questions you may have about his committee’s investigation and recommendations.
Just before handing in their report, Dr. Strawser gave me a verbal account of some of their findings and some of their experiences during their Kingsville visit.
Frankly, their written report is a much muted or polite version that does not fully convey the flavor of the abusive tactics of a small group of agitators, even in the presence of the committee.
Just a couple of examples: To get to Kingsville, you fly into the Corpus airport and get a ride to Kingsville. The first major crisis of their visit was vociferous objections to the university offering to pick up the committee members at the airport and give them a ride to Kingsville because it would give the administration an opportunity to unduly influence the committee.
The committee wanted to meet separately with different groups of faculty so they could talk frankly. The rumor was, many were intimidated and afraid to talk publicly. A few agitators crashed the meetings they were asked not to attend.
In a meeting of the Faculty Senate with the External Review Committee, a woman senator was silenced by her senate colleagues when she tried to speak. They literally would not let her speak and asked her to leave the room, which she did, crying. I’m not making this up.
I understand that it was common for the Faculty Senate, at the instigation of its few agitators, to pass extreme resolutions designed primarily to put the president on the spot in dealing with them.
When officials of the university attended Faculty Senate meetings, they were not allowed to speak, even when they had information pertinent to the topic at hand. Not allowed to speak. It is interesting to note that the administration includes the Faculty Senate speaker in the provost’s council meetings.
At the beginning of this semester, the president called a faculty meeting or gathering, as usual, but called the meeting by a different name than usual—Faculty Convocation.
This was strongly objected to on the grounds that such a name was not to be found in the faculty handbook. What was found was “General Faculty Meeting.”
An underlying problem was the structure of the Faculty Senate itself. It was not representative of the faculty. Some colleges and departments had multiple representatives, and some had none.
This was caused in part by almost half of the members—15 of 33—being elected at large, leading to domination by certain larger units, with the same clique of executive committee members perpetuating themselves. This clique dominated not because of apathy among the other faculty, but because of its deliberate manipulating that prevented others from legitimately becoming involved—the use of intimidation.
You see, the executive committee was also the nominating committee. They could nominate themselves into the executive committee once elected to the Faculty Senate.
In short, the executive committee was not representative of the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Senate was not representative of the faculty at large.
This brings me to the vote of no confidence, which was widely advertised as a vote of no confidence by a majority of the faculty.
Only about a third of the total faculty voted no confidence.
30 percent of the faculty didn’t vote.
Of those that voted, 48 percent voted no confidence, 45 percent voted positively.
17 faculty members, or 7 percent, returned ballots, but abstained from voting.
That 7 percent of abstentions—I repeat, abstentions—were added to the 48 percent of the no confidence vote to get the advertised total of (and I quote) “55 percent who did not express confidence in President Juárez.” (Very artfully put.)
The other side of the story is the support Rumaldo received from the Regents Professors, Endowed Professor Chairs, Alumni Association Board of Directors, the Kingsville Area Industrial Development Foundation, King Ranch and the Staff Council, which was sent to the A&M System Board of Regents.
The fundamental problem, as we already knew, and as the committee of Faculty Senate leaders confirmed, is that years ago the Kingsville Faculty Senate wrote itself a set of rules in the constitution, bylaws and the faculty handbook that went way beyond any others in the A&M system and far beyond the policies of the A&M System.
Apparently, they came to view their role in governance, not as advisory, but as co-equal with the president’s role. That is they acted as if they had veto power over any of his actions or decisions.
Somewhere early on a weak president apparently gave in to them too often in order to keep the peace, which confirmed their predominance in their own minds.
Subsequently, any future president who had the temerity to try to raise faculty standards would have to pay the price—including, if they got their way, their jobs.
Do I think the actions of a small group of power-hungry agitators on the Executive Committee of the Kingsville Faculty Senate have been advancing the cause of shared governance? No.
Let me answer a few questions for you:
Do I believe in academic freedom? Yes.
Do I think tenure has a role to play in assuring academic freedom? Yes.
Do I think the majority of the faculty at Kingsville, and even a majority of the Faculty Senates, are responsible members of the academy? Yes.
Do my regents agree with me on these points? As far as I know, Yes.
Do I think the actions of a small group of power-hungry agitators on the Executive Committee of the Kingsville Faculty Senate have been advancing the cause of shared governance?
No. They are the ones giving shared governance, tenure, and even Faculty Senates a bad name.
They are not your friends.
What President Juárez has being trying to do in raising the standards at Kingsville he has been trying to do in the true spirit of shared governance.
He is the true friend of your cause. Not those asking for your support by misrepresenting the Faculty Senate and faculty shared governance and telling you about $5,000 hammers. And insulting your intelligence.
Our regents did not do what they did lightly. They have been patient. And, when they finally acted, they merely followed the recommendations of the committee of experienced Faculty Senate leaders.
Which was not to abolish the Kingsville Faculty Senate, but to enlist the faculty in reconstituting it to be more representative of the faculty.
With the “constitutional committee” chosen by and from each department.
As Rumaldo carried out the action he made any faculty member eligible for this “constitutional convention” except the few who precipitated the crisis, as was recommended by the investigative committee.
I think it is reasonable not put the foxes in charge of reorganizing the henhouse.
Rumaldo could have excluded THE ENTIRE FACULTY SENATE as he followed the committee’s recommendation, but he didn’t.
His action was less than was recommended to him, not more.
But there is a false rumor going around.
The rumor is that those on the executive committee won’t be eligible to serve on the newly reorganized Faculty Senate.
That’s not true. They are eligible.
The missing piece for me until yesterday was who has the incentive to keep stirring all this mess up. Who keeps preventing the healing? Who keeps picking at the scabs of old wounds?
Who keeps agitating a situation that can only hurt the reputation and standing of A&M-Kingsville and all its faculty and students?
Who indeed?
Then yesterday I saw a flyer. It was a call to action.
It asked you and other faculty members of the state to “send a powerful message to President Juárez, Chancellor McTeer, and the Board.”
By joining their organization, of course.
An application blank was attached to the flyer.
This organization wants you to believe that this process was conducted in secrecy and that only the people in this organization know what was really going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Committee’s Report and what our Board of Regents actually did may be found on our System website.
The whole package is there for all to see. I have also brought a few copies with me, if anybody is interested.
But here is the key passage for me: (And I quote)
“The Board of Regents unanimously approved a Minute Order stating:
The chancellor of The Texas A&M University System is authorized to provide any support necessary to the president of Texas A&M University-Kingsville in reconstituting the Faculty Senate in order to enhance communication and to broaden representation so as to properly encourage the faculty in its advisory capacity to the president, as set out in the policy of The Texas A&M University System.”
That’s what I’ve tried to do here tonight:
To provide support to a good man, being beaten down while trying to do the best he can for his university and all its faculty and students under impossible circumstances.
Rumaldo is a good man.
He has my support.
He deserves yours too.
Now, I’d like to ask Dr. Strawser to say a few words about his committee’s work, its experiences in Kingsville, and its recommendations.
More About Texas A&M-Kingsville
Rumor versus the Truth at Texas A&M University-Kingsville