July 9, 2001
"A Response to the Board of Trustees
Evaluation of Chancellor Charles B. Reed"
Dear Mr. Gould and Ms. Myers:
Please convey to members of the Board of
Trustees the faculty's deep disappointment with your recent evaluation of
Chancellor Reed. The unqualified praise for the Chancellor expressed in your
letter has generated a sense of betrayal among faculty who took the evaluation process
quite seriously and addressed their concerns to you. Faculty members are
dismayed that your letter ignored their input, attributed faculty achievements
to actions of the Chancellor, and obscured the reality of Mr. Reed's relations
with CSU faculty.
Chancellor Reed's evaluation ignores stacks
of letters and strings of email messages written in response to your calls for
faculty input and copied to CFA. It is inconceivable that a careful reading of
these thoughtful, thorough reviews could leave a Board dedicated to the future of
the CSU unaffected. It is certainly inconceivable that such detailed and
extensive solicited assessment of performance would be ignored in any legitimate
faculty review.
It is especially disturbing to see Chancellor
Reed given sole credit for projects conceptualized, initiated, and implemented
by the faculty. Our analysis and objections led to the termination of CETI,
teacher preparation has long been one of the CSU's highest priorities, and partnerships
with K-12 education reflect faculty commitment not administrative zeal. The
Chancellor oversaw the addition of tens of thousands of students without
committing resources to hire sufficient tenure-track faculty to teach them. As
a result, working conditions for all faculty have deteriorated. Similarly, the
Chancellor committed the University to year-round operations without adequate
funding, leaving faculty to sort out many of the details. It is telling that
while the system's budget has increased, the percentage of the budget devoted
to instruction has steadily decreased.
At the end of your letter, you provide a list
of the Board's goals for Mr. Reed to pursue over the next three years. Faculty
- the intellectual center of the University - rank last! Asking Chancellor Reed
to "enhance communications and consultation with faculty" lacks the
specificity expected in even the most cursory of reviews. Requiring that he
"plan effectively for anticipated faculty hirings" is similarly vague
and akin to asking one to begin repairs on the dam after flooding has begun. A wise
Chancellor would plan for faculty first. A concerned Board would acknowledge
the faculty input in preparing such an evaluation.
It saddens us to send this letter, but we
have felt it necessary to communicate with you as honestly as the faculty who
participated in the review process did. It is our belief that such
communication is essential for the trustees, administrators, and faculty to
have a relationship that is good for the CSU.
Sincerely,
Susan Meisenhelder, President
Lillian Taiz, Vice President
Patricia Evridge Hill, Secretary
James H. May, Treasurer
Mark O. Sekelick, Associate Vice President,
North
G. Nanjundappa, Associate Vice President,
South
Elizabeth Hoffman, Associate Vice President,
Lecturers