Some questions and answers about the crisis unfolding at the College of Staten Island (CSI) are found below. For a more detailed chronicle of the crisis, see Prof. John Verzani's tracking of events here.
Update (Oct 4th): The results of the required referendum are in: 87.3% of the instructional staff at the College of Staten Island voted against President Fritz's plan. The college's bylaws dictate that the proposal can therefore not be presented to CUNY's Board of Trustees for their consideration. However, the president's statement to the college today included no acknowledgement of this, and no suggestion that he will engage the institution's Bylaws Committee in the proper and collegial manner. Faculty, staff and students at CSI are committed to enforcing the bylaws, condemning any attempt by President William J. Fritz to submit his plan to CUNY's Board of Trustees.
What's happening at CSI?
CSI, a college in the City University of New York (CUNY) system, is in the middle of one of the most serious crises in its history, with implications for higher education nationally. The college's president, William J. Fritz, has unilaterally put forward a new governance plan that sidelines faculty, staff and students in decision-making at the college, and -- most alarming of all -- has declined to abide by the college's Bylaws regarding the process for submitting his plan to CUNY's Board of Trustees. The move, the first in the college's history of orderly and inclusive governance plan revisions, is widely perceived as a retaliatory response to the recent vote of no confidence handed down to President Fritz by CSI's Faculty Senate -- the second vote of no confidence Fritz has received since coming to CSI almost 15 years ago.
What is "shared governance"?
The idea of shared governance is foundational to the modern American institution of higher education, and the basic idea is that decision-making power in many matters should be shared by faculty and administration. Thus, while faculty carry out what the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) calls "primary responsibilities" -- namely, activities like teaching and research -- they share with the administration a set of secondary responsibilities related to admissions policies, budgetary matters, the use of technology, tenure and promotion of faculty, and especially the development of academic programs and curricula. Sharing of these secondary responsibilities ensures that decision-making is not completely concentrated in the hands of administration, who serve as managers and who, at public colleges and universities, generally report directly to a politically-appointed Board of Trustees (or a Board of Regents).
A governance plan is a document that lays out for faculty and administration which responsibilities are shared, and how to implement power and decision-making related to them. At many institutions this document describes practical matters such as which committees exist, what work they carry out, and how their memberships is decided. At CSI, as in many institutions, the governance plan establishes a body of faculty called the Faculty Senate, which is composed of faculty, but also representatives from the administration, the student body and also other stakeholders who are employees of the institution.
CSI's current governance plan is a highly inclusive and democratic document that calls for, among other things, two faculty-led bodies: the Faculty Senate and the College Council. Membership in these bodies draws from the campus community. The Faculty Senate, perhaps the most important decision-making body, includes representatives from the faculty, the staff, and from the student body, in addition to members of the administration. A faculty-led body like a Faculty Senate is perhaps the most common for institutions of higher education nationally, and is understood as a bedrock of the shared governance system. Wikipedia has a reasonably helpful (as of 9/28/2021) page on governance in American higher education here.
What's wrong with the president's proposed governance plan? How does it violate shared governance?
President's Fritz's proposal is not a revision of CSI's governance plan, but rather a complete and total replacement of it. Moreover, it calls for a breathtaking decrease in the role that faculty, staff and students play in governing the institution, including in matters of curriculum -- long held in academia to be the primary responsibility of faculty. Among its many destructive provisions, it completely abolishes the college's two main faculty-led governing bodies, the Faculty Senate and College Council, and replaces them instead with one single body led by the President. Faculty's decision-making power is diluted in a variety of ways across a variety of lower-level sub-committees as well. The responsibility for curricular matters -- long held to be a clear responsibility of the faculty -- is considerably diminished.
Can CSI's president do this?
Although President Fritz's move breaks with tradition, and reflects a stunningly uncollegial posture towards the college's elected leaders, CSI's current governance plan (and CSI's Bylaws) allow for the president to put forward his own governance plan for referendum by the college community (where "college community" in this case means "instructional staff"). However, if the president chooses to do this, CSI's Bylaws state that the proposal is not to be considered by CUNY's Board of Trustees unless the proposal is approved by referendum. However, on multiple occasions, President Fritz has declined to abide by this provision in our Bylaws -- triggering a crisis without precedent at the institution.
Has the referendum been orderly and legitimate?
On September 27th, and to the shock of the college community, faculty and staff at CSI received the ballot for the referendum, embedded in an email supporting the President's proposed governance plan. We take it for granted that fair and legitimate elections do not involve ballots that contain biased and misleading information directly in them. Moreover, the email containing the ballot for the referendum also linked to a version of the president's proposed governance plan with changes (affecting the adjunct faculty) that had not been disseminated previously. And while voting on the president's proposed replacement of CSI's current governance plan ended on October 1st, some members of the adjunct faculty reported not receiving the ballot email. Finally, the results of the referendum were announced by the president on October 4th, with 87.3% of the instructional staff voting against it. Notably, the mere 85 votes in favor fell far short of the minimum of 210 votes required of any proposal.
What are the implications of what's happening at CSI?
The shared governance framework is the bedrock of the American higher education system, not least of all because it helps to insulate public education from political influence. And if the president of one public institution of higher education can unilaterally replace its governance plan -- and do so in a way that violates not just tradition, but the institution's Bylaws -- then similar attempts by college and university administrators at other institutions are likely to follow.
Update (Oct 4th): The results of the required referendum are in: 87.3% of the instructional staff at the College of Staten Island voted against President Fritz's plan. The college's bylaws dictate that the proposal can therefore not be presented to CUNY's Board of Trustees for their consideration. However, the president's statement to the college today included no acknowledgement of this, and no suggestion that he will engage the institution's Bylaws Committee in the proper and collegial manner. Faculty, staff and students at CSI are committed to enforcing the bylaws, condemning any attempt by President William J. Fritz to submit his plan to CUNY's Board of Trustees.
What's happening at CSI?
CSI, a college in the City University of New York (CUNY) system, is in the middle of one of the most serious crises in its history, with implications for higher education nationally. The college's president, William J. Fritz, has unilaterally put forward a new governance plan that sidelines faculty, staff and students in decision-making at the college, and -- most alarming of all -- has declined to abide by the college's Bylaws regarding the process for submitting his plan to CUNY's Board of Trustees. The move, the first in the college's history of orderly and inclusive governance plan revisions, is widely perceived as a retaliatory response to the recent vote of no confidence handed down to President Fritz by CSI's Faculty Senate -- the second vote of no confidence Fritz has received since coming to CSI almost 15 years ago.
What is "shared governance"?
The idea of shared governance is foundational to the modern American institution of higher education, and the basic idea is that decision-making power in many matters should be shared by faculty and administration. Thus, while faculty carry out what the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) calls "primary responsibilities" -- namely, activities like teaching and research -- they share with the administration a set of secondary responsibilities related to admissions policies, budgetary matters, the use of technology, tenure and promotion of faculty, and especially the development of academic programs and curricula. Sharing of these secondary responsibilities ensures that decision-making is not completely concentrated in the hands of administration, who serve as managers and who, at public colleges and universities, generally report directly to a politically-appointed Board of Trustees (or a Board of Regents).
A governance plan is a document that lays out for faculty and administration which responsibilities are shared, and how to implement power and decision-making related to them. At many institutions this document describes practical matters such as which committees exist, what work they carry out, and how their memberships is decided. At CSI, as in many institutions, the governance plan establishes a body of faculty called the Faculty Senate, which is composed of faculty, but also representatives from the administration, the student body and also other stakeholders who are employees of the institution.
CSI's current governance plan is a highly inclusive and democratic document that calls for, among other things, two faculty-led bodies: the Faculty Senate and the College Council. Membership in these bodies draws from the campus community. The Faculty Senate, perhaps the most important decision-making body, includes representatives from the faculty, the staff, and from the student body, in addition to members of the administration. A faculty-led body like a Faculty Senate is perhaps the most common for institutions of higher education nationally, and is understood as a bedrock of the shared governance system. Wikipedia has a reasonably helpful (as of 9/28/2021) page on governance in American higher education here.
What's wrong with the president's proposed governance plan? How does it violate shared governance?
President's Fritz's proposal is not a revision of CSI's governance plan, but rather a complete and total replacement of it. Moreover, it calls for a breathtaking decrease in the role that faculty, staff and students play in governing the institution, including in matters of curriculum -- long held in academia to be the primary responsibility of faculty. Among its many destructive provisions, it completely abolishes the college's two main faculty-led governing bodies, the Faculty Senate and College Council, and replaces them instead with one single body led by the President. Faculty's decision-making power is diluted in a variety of ways across a variety of lower-level sub-committees as well. The responsibility for curricular matters -- long held to be a clear responsibility of the faculty -- is considerably diminished.
Can CSI's president do this?
Although President Fritz's move breaks with tradition, and reflects a stunningly uncollegial posture towards the college's elected leaders, CSI's current governance plan (and CSI's Bylaws) allow for the president to put forward his own governance plan for referendum by the college community (where "college community" in this case means "instructional staff"). However, if the president chooses to do this, CSI's Bylaws state that the proposal is not to be considered by CUNY's Board of Trustees unless the proposal is approved by referendum. However, on multiple occasions, President Fritz has declined to abide by this provision in our Bylaws -- triggering a crisis without precedent at the institution.
Has the referendum been orderly and legitimate?
On September 27th, and to the shock of the college community, faculty and staff at CSI received the ballot for the referendum, embedded in an email supporting the President's proposed governance plan. We take it for granted that fair and legitimate elections do not involve ballots that contain biased and misleading information directly in them. Moreover, the email containing the ballot for the referendum also linked to a version of the president's proposed governance plan with changes (affecting the adjunct faculty) that had not been disseminated previously. And while voting on the president's proposed replacement of CSI's current governance plan ended on October 1st, some members of the adjunct faculty reported not receiving the ballot email. Finally, the results of the referendum were announced by the president on October 4th, with 87.3% of the instructional staff voting against it. Notably, the mere 85 votes in favor fell far short of the minimum of 210 votes required of any proposal.
What are the implications of what's happening at CSI?
The shared governance framework is the bedrock of the American higher education system, not least of all because it helps to insulate public education from political influence. And if the president of one public institution of higher education can unilaterally replace its governance plan -- and do so in a way that violates not just tradition, but the institution's Bylaws -- then similar attempts by college and university administrators at other institutions are likely to follow.