Retrospective: The Search for a Provost

“Choosing a provost will be the most important decision we make this year.”

I agree. And from those who engaged in the search in one way or another, I infer this agreement is widespread. With gratitude to all who participated, and in an effort to “pull back the veil,” I offer this retrospective as we await a final decision. You’ll find three sections below:

  1. Perspectives on informing and reacting to decisions
  2. The search process, including actions following the campus visits
  3. In appreciation

Perspectives on informing and reacting to decisions

In one telling of the “Blind Men and the Elephant” parable, the seer who resolves the dispute says “All of you are right. The reason each of you is telling it differently is because each of you touched a different part of the elephant…”

My touch on this elephant is from the perspective of the faculty member elected by senators to represent them this year and, as a result, asked by the president to chair this search committee. In both roles, I greatly appreciate what academics do. We assess, analyze, investigate, criticize, raise concerns, and argue. We seek evidence to inform our thinking; we recognize when our perspectives are limited; we listen and seek additional evidence and perspectives. It has been gratifying to see all this from my faculty colleagues – indeed, from the entire university community – throughout this year and this search.

CSU Channel Islands is an institution to which individuals are deeply committed. We care about the future of the institution and its ability to serve students: accordingly, we are anxious about the choice of our next provost. Yet we know how our university community best arrives at important decisions, and how we react. We assume best intentions from those engaged in decision making, delegate when appropriate, engage and provide feedback, and finally, accept decisions. We acknowledge that no choice of provost will please everyone. We recognize when we are touching only a piece of the elephant. Finally, we act in good faith. We support whomever is chosen, as we know the success of our next provost will play a large role in the success of Academic Affairs and of CI in continuing to make this institution one that truly serves its students, its future students, and the region.

The process

The search committee was formed in August and September, 2016, in accord with Senate Policy SP14-12. The committee comprised a student (Marlene Pelayo, Student Government Vice-President), staff (Alison Potter), a non-Academic Affairs administrator (Carrick DeHart), three faculty who self-nominated and were selected by Senate Exec and the president (Geoff Buhl, Dennis Downey, and Marie Francois), an administrator in Academic Affairs (Beth Hartung, Asst. Provost), the Chief of Staff (Genevieve Evans Taylor), and the Academic Senate Chair as chair of the search committee (Cindy Wyels). The search consultant firm, Academic Search, Inc., was chosen through a process of competitive bids from firms and interviews with those who’d worked with them: we specifically appreciated the work of senior consultant Ann Hasselmo, a former president and provost with a track record of developing academic leadership potential and cultivating diverse applicant pools.

Every person on the search committee reviewed well over one hundred cover letters and CVs – letters ranging in length from three densely packed pages to over twenty and CVs containing up to thirty pages of detailed accomplishments in some cases — as well as letters of nomination and recommendation. Over 50 candidates received at least one “let’s consider” vote during the paper stages of the process. Extensive in-person discussions resulted in a list of semi-finalists, all of whom participated in a thorough airport interview by the full committee, a separate video conference with President Beck, and a video conference with Cabinet. The search committee had full confidence that all five applicants invited to campus were exemplary candidates. Prior to the visits each finalist underwent a deep background and reference check, the latter consisting of 8 – 10 interviews of individuals on and off their reference lists. The campus visits were 14-hour days that included small group meetings with the Cabinet, the Provost’s Council, the search committee, Student Government leaders, Senate Exec, the Provost’s Office staff, and Foundation Board members. Candidates made presentations in an all-faculty setting and a campus and community open forum, and took questions. They also met one-on-one with members of Cabinet and with President Beck.

Following the campus visits, the search committee, search consultants, and President Beck reviewed the campus feedback thoroughly and consulted with many who interacted with candidates during the visits. This step led to extensive follow-up: additional phone interviews with references, more conversations with candidates, etc. Questions raised from campus feedback were investigated as thoroughly as possible. When feedback indicated that staff were concerned about particular candidates’ modus operandi, we explored relationships with staff at their current and past institutions. When faculty-faculty networks left negative impressions, we further investigated candidates’ reputations at their institutions – and the reasons behind them. We dug deeper into changes in positions. Essentially, we took our collective unknowns and concerns and sought to resolve what we could. The result? Multiple outstanding candidates, each with a proven track record of moving his/ her piece of one or more institutions forward.

The next provost has a daunting task before him/ her. We knew that when we crafted the campus profile early in Fall ’16. (See p. 10 – 12 for a summation of what we sought in a provost.) We’ll soon learn who will be our next provost; I’m confident we’re ready to support that individual in the work of continuing to build our university.

In appreciation

I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the entire search committee for their commitment and hundreds of hours of work each on this search. Their dedication, their preparation and critical discussion were simply amazing. Our search consultants, Ann Hasselmo and Andrea Cowsert, were a huge help in every way, from logistics and extensive reference reports to providing guidance as we sorted through our thoughts. President Beck was a true collaborator, seeking and incorporating the views of the search committee at every step of the process. A large proportion of the campus community stepped up to inform the profile and shape the search, then to engage with the final five candidates and provide feedback. And while many people, some unknown to me, supported this search from behind the scenes, Mary McDonnell is due special thanks for outstanding support, always done graciously and with a smile, even in times of stress.

Spring ’17 Senate Deadlines

Faculty and others working hard on policy proposals, resolutions, and other Senate business… Please keep in mind the deadlines necessary for Senate to consider your items in an informed and deliberative process!

Remaining Senate meetings: March 28; April 18; May 9.

Preceding Senate Exec meetings: March 14, April 11, May 2.

Deadlines for proposals to be considered by Senate Exec prior to the subsequent Senate meeting (all by noon):

  • March 9 (for 3rd-to-last Senate meeting)
  • April 6 (for 2nd-to-last Senate meeting)
  • April 27 (for last Senate meeting)

Please keep in mind that items requiring a vote of Senate go through two readings (barring extraordinary measures), and that not all items are passed through by Senate Exec on their first perusal.

 

Academic Senate Newsletter AY16-17 #7 (for Feb. 28, 2017)

Agenda Overview

Low preparation commitment needed for this meeting! We’ll take up a proposed revision of SP14-12, Policy on Assigned Time for Exceptional Service to Students, with the goal of better aligning our policy and outcomes with the CBA. We’re still anticipating the end-of-year flood of policy proposals currently in committees. Expect lots of news and updates in the reports. As you consider which committees you may want to serve on in the future, informing yourself as to the nature of the work can be valuable. (Reminder: skim the minutes from the last meeting to stay up-to-date.) And please consider taking full advantage of the opportunities to engage with candidates for Provost, faculty (past), School of Ed Dean (future): the conversations and the outcomes of hiring both reflect and shape our institutional culture and values. Link to the materials

Faculty Engagement with Provost Candidates

You received meeting requests for five All Faculty Meeting​s, each from 11 am – noon, during the next two weeks. A second option each day is the Campus and Community Open Forum, 4 – 5 pm. The CV links for each candidate will be “live” 48 hours before his/her visit through 24 hours after; the feedback links are available through 5 pm on March 8. Please provide feedback, even if you’re only able to peruse the CV for any particular candidate! The more engagement, and the more nuanced feedback provided, the better.

If our Feb. 28 Senate Meeting requires the full two hours (2:30 – 4:30), it will overlap with the 4 p.m. Campus and Community Open Forum that day. Faculty unable to attend the earlier All Faculty Meeting – and those who wish to attend multiple sessions – may have to choose between the last part of Senate and the first part of the open session. Those who attended the All Faculty Meeting can safely skip the first 15 minutes of the Campus and Community Open Forum, unless they expect the candidate will change his/ her presentation.​

Lecturer Representatives to Senate for AY17-18

Many thanks to all the Lecturers who volunteered to serve our university through service as Lecturer Representatives to Senate​. Welcome back to the five AY17-18 Senators elected by their peers: John Yudelson, Brittnee Veldman, Kim Vose, Christina Salazar, and James Martinez.

Election Timeline

The election of Lecturer Representatives to Senate was the first step in a multi-month process of identifying the membership and officers of the Senate as well as membership of Senate and Advisory committees. The timeline is below: the Committee on Committees will be managing the various pieces of the process.

  1. Week of Feb 7: call for lecturer nominations
  2. Lecturer elections to Academic Senate Tues Feb 14-21 (reminder out on Monday, feb 13th)
  3. Call out for Senate Officer positions March 6th
  4. Nominee Platform Statements for senate Officer positions due Week of March 27—public forum that week ( after spring break)
  5. Senate Officer elections Week of April 3
  6. Call for nominations for Senate/Advisory committees April 10-21
  7. Elections held Tuesday April 25- Tuesday May 2

Clarification: President’s Award for Innovations in Teaching and Learning

As stated in the email you received Feb. 13, all faculty are eligible to apply for the 2017 President’s Award for Innovations in Teaching and Learning. A second email will come out early next week with revisions to the memo broadening aspects pertaining to teaching of undergraduate students to teaching of [all] students.

Senate Chair Beverage/ Office Hour

No formal office hour on March 7: I’ll be happy to talk to you in the margins of our provost candidate visit! And I’m always available for mutually convenient appointments.

Newsletter #7: last word

“I don’t think anybody anywhere can talk about the future of their people or of an organization without talking about education. Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.”

Wilma Mankiller

Mankiller image
Wilma Mankiller, who was chief of the Cherokee from 1985 to 1995, put much of her focus on education, health and housing. Credit J. Pat Carter

Academic Senate Newsletter AY16-17 #6 (for Feb. 7, 2017)

Agenda Overview

This may be the best of all possible agendas: low on preparation needed; high potential for an interesting and informative meeting! Lots of reports to catch us up on developments since we last met and preview efforts underway now and going forward. Only one item up for a vote: the internship policy. Agenda and materials via this link.

Themes for S’17

A brief review of some things on my mind that I shared during our S’17 All Faculty Meeting on January 19:

Themes for S’17

CI is now and will always be in the midst of change, both internally and in the regional, national, and international contexts. How well we predict, plan for, and adapt to change depends at least partly on how well we carry out the other four themes. We’ve gone from an institution so small that, in some sense, everyone did everything, to a size in which this simply isn’t possible. And arguably we haven’t yet developed the structures and practices that allow us to distribute the “everything” well among the “everyone,” while still facilitating informed representation and communication. I’m awed that faculty — both tenure-track and lecturer — continue to step up to serve; I also recognize the pitfalls in not carefully analyzing and re-thinking what we’re doing. Meanwhile, I encourage all to recognize their roles as representatives when engaging in committee, task force, advisory board, etc. roles.

take in world; engage; share
The ideal model: represent by taking in everything, engaging, sharing out everything… iterate.

Some News

New(ish) Resources Supporting our Students

Information and Resources for DACA & Undocumented Students: Martha Zavala Perez has taken the Multicultural Dream Center hand-off from Sergio Juarez (both faculty colleagues) and is running hard. Contact Martha to receive a biweekly email with updates, planned events, and resources to share with students. Sample DREAMer Update #1 here.

The CI Food Pantry is now open in Ojai 1978, 10 am – 4 pm, Mon., Tues., Thurs., and Fri. Donations welcome: drop off non-perishable items and small unopened toiletries during open hours. Kudos to all involved in getting this going!

food pantry picture
Alexis Marquez, Community Engagement Ambassador/ Food Pantry Coordinator and Tiffany Martinez, Community Ambassador, check out the food pantry supplies
Staff Council Award

Did you know that CI has a Staff Council, as of this academic year? And they’ve already done the groundwork to establish an award to recognize exemplary work by a CI staff member. One faculty member is needed to help review nominations — this short-term, light-load service opportunity is likely to be of the “feel good” type. If interested, please contact Staff Council President Rosario Cuevas directly.

Senate Chair Beverage/ Office Hour

Tuesday, Feb. 14, 1:30 – 2:30 pm, SUB, outdoors if weather good; inside if not! Every third Tuesday I’ll spend at least an hour available for conversation about anything on your minds. Times and locations shift in an attempt to accommodate different schedules. All faculty welcome!

Academic Senate Newsletter AY16-17 #5 (for Dec. 6, 2016)

Along with the usual Agenda Overview, a Senate Chair Coffee/ Office Hour announcement and the Last Word, this newsletter contains sections titled Freedom of Speech and Civil Discourse and Exercising Our Rights.

Agenda Overview

Four things to preview prior to our meeting (find all here):

  1. Our Academic Master Plan: no changes since this was approved by Senate last year. A robust semester of careful consideration and planning is planned for S’17! (Yes, we’re planning to plan.)
  2. A proposed Policy on Course Numbering — short and sweet! — up for second reading this time
  3. A proposed Tenure Density Resolution — it asks that at least half of any 2025 Graduation Initiative funds coming to campus be used to hire tenure-track faculty. — up for second reading this time
  4. A proposed Internship Policy: Old-timers will remember an earlier iteration: this one aligns responsibilities appropriately (in the view of SAPP and Senate Exec).

We’ll also hear an extended announcement on several topics from RTP practices to SRTs and beyond from the Faculty Affairs Committee. And the always popular reports! All faculty are encourage to browse the minutes to keep up-to-date on what’s being reported in Senate.

Community Time at 2 pm — we know you have lots to talk about! Take a break with your colleagues.

Freedom of Speech and Civil Discourse

Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution titled “Commitment to Equity, Inclusion, and Civil Discourse within our Diverse Campus Community” at our last meeting. CI faculty clearly endorse the philosophy that “learning is best facilitated through the creating of an environment in which faculty, students, and guests engage in informed discourse and express a diversity of opinions freely and in a civil manner while respecting all individuals, particularly their sense of safety…”

In this vein, I note one local and one national item:

Local: Chris Fowler, CSU Legal Counsel, will offer an informative, interactive presentation on Free Speech & Expression on Campus, Wednesday, December 7, 2016 from 1:00-3:00pm in Broome Library 2325.  No RSVP is necessary. All faculty are highly encouraged to attend. A repeat workshop will be offered in the spring for those unable to attend this coming Wednesday.

National: The newly created Professor Watchlist seeks “to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” (Professor Watchlist, About Us) No question: our campus values explicitly reject discrimination against students, indeed, against anyone. Yet establishment of websites encouraging people to anonymously make allegations that may be unfounded directly counters our stated values of civil and informed discourse respecting the rights and safety of all. (paraphrase of Senate resolution) Of course, attempts to curtail particular kinds of speech have a long history in the U.S. A 1985 AAUP statement against such activity is still pertinent: “External monitoring of in-class statements not only presents the prospect that the words uttered will be distorted or taken out of context; it is also likely to have a chilling effect and result in self-censorship. … The monitoring of classrooms for an outside organization which arrogates to itself the prerogative of determining accuracy from what is reported to it … can only inhibit the process through which higher learning occurs and knowledge is advanced.” (Quote taken from an Inside Higher Ed article that also summarizes some contested information found on the list.)

Exercising our Rights

Academic Senate put out a call for faculty volunteers for several roles, including four tenured faculty to serve on the Administrator Review Committee. The next day I was at a meeting of the CSU Senate Chairs: one discussion topic was processes for faculty to influence administrative practices short of the “nuclear option” recently deployed on one campus: a divisive, behind-the-scenes vote of ‘no confidence’ in a dean that several characterized as “bullying” and that led to a resignation as well as concerns that replacement would be challenging given the back story. As a few other chairs spoke about their campus processes and whether faculty input was meaningful in these processes, I reflected on CI’s history of positive admin-faculty collaboration. WASC noted this and encouraged us to work towards making future collaboration less dependent on personal philosophy and more on official campus policy. We’ve made progress: we’ve enshrined faculty participation on administrator search committees (SP14-15) and in administrator reviews (SP11-04).

I’ve blogged previously about the overabundance of service roles, particularly for tenured faculty. Yet I also believe that our faculty still have a strong desire for a significant role in shared governance, for being in the room when weighty decisions are considered, and for providing input and perspectives at all levels and across divisions (proposed senate values). How about it, tenured colleagues? Can we fulfill this particular role, and in so doing maintain our right to do so? Non-tenured colleagues, can you offer support to your tenured colleagues and encourage some to volunteer?

Next Senate Chair Coffee/ Office Hour

Fifth iteration: Tuesday, Dec. 13, 1 – 2 pm, Library coffee shop. Outdoors if weather good; inside if not! Join me for coffee (or EABs) every third Tuesday as your time permits. Shifting times and locations are posted in each newsletter. Ideally: you talk and I listen.

Newsletter #5: last word

“Free expression is the base of human rights, the root of human nature and the mother of truth. To kill free speech is to insult human rights, to stifle human nature and to suppress truth.”

Liu Xiaobo

SR 16-02: Commitment to Equity, Inclusion, and Civil Discourse within our Diverse Campus Community

CSU Channel Islands

Academic Senate Resolution

Commitment to Equity, Inclusion, and Civil Discourse within our Diverse Campus Community

Resolution #: SR 16-02

 Approval Date: November 15, 2016

Purpose:

A resolution on faculty commitment to equity, inclusion, and civil discourse within our diverse campus community.

Resolution:

Whereas, the results of the 2016 national elections have left many with strong emotions, and

Whereas, reports of incivility and aggression have been reported nationally, regionally, and on the CSU Channel Islands campus, and

Whereas, CSU Channel Islands is committed to the values of social justice and equity, and

Whereas, in the words of President Beck to the campus community on November 9, 2016, “At CI, we embrace the fundamental values of equity and inclusion and commit to diversity as a source of renewal, vitality and strength. Our work is critical to the future of our country as we continue to serve a diverse, multicultural student body.” And

Whereas, in the words of Chancellor White and CSSA President Lopez on November 9, 2016, “The California State University embraces its diversity and the way in which our students, faculty and staff achieve excellence through inclusion. We are unequivocally committed to supporting all members of our community.” And

Whereas, the mission of CSU Channel Islands holds multiculturalism and internationalism as two of its four mission pillars, and

Whereas, a fundamental role of the faculty is to facilitate learning, and

Whereas, learning is best facilitated through the creating of an environment in which faculty, students, and guests engage in informed discourse and express a diversity of opinions freely and in a civil manner while respecting all individuals, particularly their sense of safety; therefore, be it

Resolved, that the faculty of CSU Channel Islands reaffirm their embrace of equity and inclusion; their commitment to diversity as a source of renewal, vitality, strength, and enhanced collective intellectual capacity; their commitment to facilitating learning in the classroom, on campus, and in the community; and their roles in securing a safe learning environment for all our students.

Faculty statement regarding equity, inclusion, diversity, and civility

This post contains the text of the email with the same title, sent to CI faculty the afternoon of Monday, Nov. 14, 2016.

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

 Given the reports of classroom disruptions and campus incivility at CI in the aftermath of the national election, and given that the learning environment is the purview of the faculty, the Senate Executive Board has authored the statement below. We encourage all faculty to both speak up and to model for our students the expected standards of behavior needed to create a learning environment for all our students. Feel free to adapt as desired.

Yours in education,

The Executive Committee of the CI Academic Senate

 Statement for optional use by faculty on Blackboard, in class, etc.

 In light of recent incidents of harassment and aggression reported at CI and beyond[1], we reaffirm our commitment to creating a learning environment in which students engage in informed discourse and express a diversity of opinions freely and in a civil manner while respecting all individuals, particularly their sense of safety. We also endorse President Beck’s admonition to the campus community on November 9, 2016: “At CI, we embrace the fundamental values of equity and inclusion and commit to diversity as a source of renewal, vitality and strength. Our work is critical to the future of our country as we continue to serve a diverse, multicultural, [and international] student body.”

 Everyone on the CI campus must adhere to the standards of our community; faculty are stewards of these standards in the classroom. Anyone failing to adhere to these standards in the classroom may be asked to leave. Students, faculty, or staff experiencing behavior on campus that fails to adhere to community standards should report it to the CARE Team and/or the Title IX and Inclusion Office, or the University Police (Public Safety).

 [1] E.g., Washington Post; LA Times; New York Times

Academic Senate Newsletter AY16-17 #4 (for Nov. 15, 2016)

Updates, 11/14/16

Amid reports of classroom disruptions and campus incivility at CI following the recent national election, and recognizing an impaired sense of safety felt by our students and community members, the Executive Board of the Academic Senate has taken two actions since this newsletter was first posted.

  1. We drafted and distributed a statement that faculty may choose to use to address their students, either in person, electronically, or via some other means. The goal is to support faculty in affirming our campus’ values and proactively laying out expected behaviors necessary for a positive learning environment in the classroom and on campus.
  2. We authored a resolution titled “Commitment to Equity, Inclusion, and Civil Discourse within our Diverse Campus Community” that will be introduced at Senate on Tuesday.

I am more proud than ever to be part of the CSU, an institution that “embraces diversity” and in which “students, faculty and staff achieve excellence through inclusion” — recognizing this as “a core strength and part of our DNA.” Joint Statement of the CSU and the CSSA

 

Original Newsletter (published 11/10/16)

Like many of you, since Tuesday I’ve spent hours in conversation with students, friends, and colleagues, reading, and thinking about the election results and the future. Meanwhile, reports of classroom actions that damage our students’ ability to learn are reaching my ears. The Senate Executive Board met Tuesday; the Senate agenda for Nov. 15 was determined by 4:30 p.m. — this is the agenda posted and for which you have an overview below. However, it may be amended on the floor Tuesday to include one or more resolutions. I encourage you, more than ever, to attend and to engage together to accomplish one of the goals I proposed for us at Convocation: Model and promote a culture of informed critical and civil debate, reasoning, and decision-making.

Agenda Overview

Four things to read and ponder (and discuss with others as desired) to be fully informed and ready for our meeting (find all here):

  1. A proposed Add Policy — text clarified and revised to cover academic terms of varying lengths. Expect a vote on this.
  2. A proposed Policy on Course Numbering — short and sweet!
  3. A proposed Tenure Density Resolution — it asks that at least half of any 2025 Graduation Initiative funds coming to campus be used to hire tenure-track faculty.
  4. A statement from the ASCSU supporting the CSU Board of Trustees’ budget request to the CA Legislature (provided as background for the proposed Tenure Density Resolution)

Community Time at 2 pm: not only caffeine and sugar, but a chance to relax with colleagues, talk over some innovative ideas with like-minded people, or…

 

Next Senate Chair Coffee/ Office Hour

Fourth iteration: Tuesday, Nov. 22, 3 – 4 pm, SUB courtyard. Join me for coffee (or EABs) every third Tuesday as your time permits. Shifting times and locations are posted in each newsletter. Ideally: you talk and I listen.

Newsletter #4: last word

barack-obama
President Barack Obama

“That’s what the country needs — a sense of unity, a sense of inclusion, a respect for our institutions, our way of life, rule of law, and respect for each other.”

Nov. 9, 2016

Faculty Values at CSU Channel Islands

At F’16 Convocation, I made a claim regarding CI faculty values. The context of this claim: examining the number of tenure-track faculty as well as the structure of the tenure-track faculty (weighted towards junior faculty) vis-à-vis the service opportunities and expectations at our university. Here they are again, for reflection and comment.

  • First, our faculty value engagement in service opportunities. We have a strong desire for a significant role in shared governance, for being in the room when weighty decisions are considered, and for providing input and perspectives at all levels and across divisions.
  • Second, we value our students. Many service opportunities support student success either behind the scenes or directly.
  • Third, we value our junior faculty and we want them to thrive long-term. We often talk about “protecting” our faculty, both from taking on too much service too early, and from taking on roles best left to senior faculty.
  • Fourth, we value our lecturers. We respect that they have no contractual obligation to service and that in spite of very high teaching loads, many are engaged both in service as well as in learning about and implementing high impact teaching practices.
  • Finally, we say we honor a work-life balance for all our CI community.

Other values? Issues with the above?

Academic Senate Newsletter AY16-17 #3 (for Oct. 25, 2016)

We’re past the midpoint of the semester, leaves are turning, temperatures are falling… tempoct20

Or not! Regardless, our third Senate meeting approaches.

Agenda Overview

Will you be prepared for flipped presentations in Senate?

Reports, reports, reports: Interim Provost Dan Wakelee expects to share information about the 2025 Graduation Initiative (G.I.); we welcome Chair Chris Miller of the Academic Senate of the CSU; and of course Simone Aloisio (ASCSU Senator), John Griffin (CFA CI Chapter Prez) and I will have things to share.

IRPE (Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness) is providing a wealth of information relevant to our campus’ 2025 G.I. targets and how we can use data to more effectively understand what we’re doing. Yes, it’s the new paradigm: prepare for the meeting and bring questions to ask after a shorter overview is presented. (Slides via Senate Materials page.)

Reports are trickling up to the Senate Executive Board about pending policies, etc. – SAPP is first to the finish with a revision of our Add Policy.

Fiscal Policies is working hard to ensure that faculty voices are engaged in our campus’ budget process. The Co-Chairs will provide an extended announcement; preview info via the Senate materials page (or via this link).

Finally, we welcome Nichole Ipach, VP for Advancement, for a session focused on how faculty and Advancement can be effective partners in moving our institution forward. Again, long version in the materials; short version to be presented, followed by Q&A.

Community Time at 2: come meet ASCSU Chair Chris Miller, enjoy some snacks, and hobnob with your colleagues!

Chair “Office Hour”

Third iteration: Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2 – 3 pm, SUB courtyard (Why? There are more perspectives, questions, thoughts to ponder, and great ideas out there than our Community (Half) Hours, Senate meeting times, and campus email processes could ever capture. I invite you to join me for coffee (or EABs) on non-Senate/ non-Senate Exec-Tuesdays as your schedules and time permit. I’ll announce a (shifting) time and location each time I post a newsletter. Ideally you’ll do most of the talking and I’ll listen.)

Newsletter #3: last word

“We cannot do democracy without a heavy dose of civility.”  Mike Pence

(I’m not making these up!)