It's summer and things may be heating up!

It's summertime and the living is supposed to be easy, but we expect some BOT members will be going into overdrive when they think no one is watching.  Keep your eyes on the following:

1.  Discussion of the strategic plan is on the agenda for June 25.  We are hopeful it will be approved in its entirety but look out for ways that some trustees will try to continue to delay discussion or come up with creative ways to undermine it.   Rendleman, Brewer and Kilquist will try to hold on to what little power they have left and be looking for an "escape" clause on any implementation they don't like.

2.  Also on the agenda is planning for a board retreat.  Although Illinois Open Meeting Act permits boards to go into closed session for the purpose of "self-evaluations, practices and procedures of professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member," we question the board's ability to stick to this purpose.  Going back to 2008, retreats have been linked with special meetings and have been business as usual.  If the board is truly interested in self-evaluation, then have a retreat but keep the other business items off the agenda.   Don't use the "retreat/special meeting" title as an excuse to go off campus and have dinner first and then closed discussions.

Let's keep some things in mind from past retreats/special meetings:

It was in August 2008 when this happened:

Trustee Jake Rendleman expressed his feeling that the position of Director of Personnel should be looked at for possible advancement, due to the fact that the responsibilities of that office have grown considerably. Legal Counsel John Huffman agreed that the additional procedures and requirements established by the work of the Hiring Committee have increased the load of the Personnel Office, and added that the Director of Personnel has grown so much in this position…Trustee O'Keefe stated that he feelsthe office needs more people, and suggested this be looked into by the administration. Mr. Rendleman stressed that he feels the position of Director of Personnel should be elevated to Executive Director of Personnel.

It was suggested that this topic be continued in closed session.  (Of course!)

In June 2011, note these comments from the minutes:

Trustee Sanders commented that most boards are not as involved in the hiring process as the JALC Board.  He saidthat in talking with trustees across the nation, most boards just act on the recommendation brought to them, with the exception of hiring vice presidents and presidents.  After further discussion, Board Chair Mike Hopkins suggested that the Board should only address items in closed session that they have been previously informed of.  It was the consensus of the Board  that they would appreciate being aware of any items that will be brought up in closed session so they can be better prepared to discuss in a timely manner and make good decisions.  (But then Brewer and Kilquist couldn't use their intimidation tactics.)

And from September 2012:

Board Chair Mike Hopkins stated it was desirable to hold a closed session to discuss the appointment,employment, and compensation of specific individuals; and to meet with a representative of the Illinois Community College Trustees Association for thepurpose of self evaluation, practices and procedures.

Jim Snider and John O'Keefe moved and seconded that the special meeting/retreat of the John A. Logan

College Board of Trustees be declared in closed session.

Upon roll call, all members voted yes with the exception of Trustee John Sanders who voted no. (This is the only recent no vote against a closed session – wonder what was going on?)

3.  As the anonymous replier with the ellipsis fetish and hatred of faculty keeps reminding us, there are two dean positions open – Dean for Academic Affairs and Dean for Career & Technical Education.  As stated before, we are not privy to any inside info on these positions.  Our criticism of hiring has primarily focused on the hiring/promotion of BOT and administrators' children and friends.  So we can only speculate that there must be some favorite sons looking for advancement.  Perhaps it's Barry Hancock .  We've been pleased with Aunt Jackie Hancock's recent actions on the board, but we have to question if her vote could be bought on other issues with the promise of a new job for Barry.  And we shouldn't have to remind readers of this blog that Clay Brewer is the filter for all hiring. 

Stay tuned – the heat this summer could be one for the record books!

Help us out, Anonymous...

Clearly, Anonymous, you believe you have some inside knowledge about one or more current searches for positions at JAL. We wish you would clarify what you believe has happened or is happening. No one at Muddy Williamson is privy to this information, so we wish you would be specific.

 

This blog exists solely to shed light on unethical actions on the part of anyone employed by or elected to represent this taxpayer-funded institution in which we all have a stake as southern Illinoisans.

 

We never intended to be (and have never claimed to be) investigators, but we do seem to be attracting some attention. If you post your allegations directly rather than using some kind of cryptic innuendo, maybe they will be read by someone in a position to address the situation.

 

Hoping to hear from you.

Hiring is a Red Herring, Watch Closed Sessions

        During the accreditation review in 2005 (and a return visit in 2007), staff, NTPs and faculty made their views known about the unethical hiring practices of the BOT. In retaliation, the Board created and adopted a draconian hiring policy.  Anti-nepotism rules exist to prevent unfair hiring, promotion, and/or benefits such as salary increases. Faculty play only a minor role in the hiring process, and staff play no role at all, so preventing the college from hiring spouses or children—who would never supervise each other—is absurd.

                It is a strict policy, but as we've seen repeatedly, it is easily skirted, so as it applies to the board, it is meaningless.

                At this point, further talk about hiring and promotion is also meaningless. Clay Brewer has been granted unparalleled control of the entire process and nothing but further board action will change that—and who thinks THAT is likely to happen? Whether the college is hiring a dean or a maintenance worker, there are loopholes in the "policy" you can drive a truck through.

                The person who keeps trying to swing discussion on this blog to hiring, seeming to blame instructional administration for shady dealings in the current search for a dean of instruction, is trying to distract readers from the Next Big Thing, so no one will notice when discussion of the strategic plan takes place entirely within closed session.

                The strategic plan, approved repeatedly by the board during extensive planning and data collection stages, is tied directly to the college's continued accreditation. Without accreditation, the students don't get jobs, or transfer to universities. The "old guard" on the board seem more concerned with protecting their turf and willing to sacrifice accreditation to do so.

The current plan, compiled from mountains of data, is logical, global, and the components are interconnected. If all eyes are on the easily-manipulated hiring process, the strategic plan is likely to be dismantled in closed session, and therefore weakened, perhaps fatally.

It will be up to those board members who genuinely have the best interests of JALC at heart to protect its integrity by preserving it as ONE plan and voting to approve it, in open session.

 

Logan’s Rogue Board Members

Three rogue Board members are perhaps the most perplexing issue confronting John A. Logan College as it begins the process to gain another 10 years of accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).  The three rogue board members are Don Brewer, William Kilquist, & Jacob "Jake" Rendleman.  These three rogue Board members just don't seem to understand that their individual and collective behavior as Board members jeopardizes John A. Logan College's efforts to gain accreditation in 2017.

These three Board members don't seem to get that the institutional goals of providing a high quality affordable education and student success are more important than each of their own personal agendas to micromanage the day to day operations at the college in order to skew the hiring process.  It is difficult to understand the obtuseness of these three individuals since the HLC put the Board on notice for micromanaging and creating a climate of fear at the college during the last accreditation process in 2007!

In 2007 John A. Logan College was reaccredited for another 10 years, but the HLC Evaluation Team recommended that there be a Commission follow-up with respect to the Core Component 1d (The organization's governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission) and Core Component 1e (The organization upholds and protects its integrity).

The Evaluation Team found " that not all policies have been followed in a consistent manner….evidence where the blurring of boundaries between the procedural and operational duties of the College Administration and the policy making duties of the Board of Trustees …appear to have caused continuing tensions within the college community.  The inconsistent application of college policies and the Board of Trustees tendency to micromanage has created a climate of mistrust and fear."  The Evaluation Team also notes that Board of Trustees received low scores on a question dealing with the integrity and ethical and honest behavior of Board members. 

Further, the Evaluation Team recommended that John A. Logan College (1) implement a new strategic planning initiative, and (2) review its hiring practices to add more diversity to its search/screening committees. So, what does this have anything to do with the current business at the College?

At the May 2013 Board of Trustees' meeting it was the rogue Board members that stood in the way of adopting a new strategic plan, the type of plan that is needed for reaccreditation! 

Guess what? Brewer, Kilquist, and Rendleman were Logan Board members during the 2007 accreditation process!  Don Brewer, in fact, was the President of the Board at the time.  Again, in 2013 these same three rogue Board members forge on with their personal agendas resulting in a climate of mistrust and fear at John A. Logan College!  

Fab 4: It’s Time for “The Nuclear Option”

While we at Muddy Williamson disagree with many of our president's recent actions, we heartily applaud Obama's decision to launch three judicial nominees at the Senate (dubbed "the nuclear option"). He said the ridiculous actions of Senate Repubs in postponing judicial appointments has moved far beyond "principled opposition and into political obstructionism."

How is this related to the JALC board? Easy. The recent decision to postpone discussion of the Strategic Plan until the June 25 meeting. Delay, delay, delay till no one is looking, then dismantle it, discarding the parts some members of the board will find disagreeable, specifically the ones dealing with hiring and promotion, and other ethical issues, and/or designed to improve morale by increasing participation.

Patient readers may have read the plan, or waded through graph after graph of survey results. In a nutshell, for the less-patient, here are some of the more striking findings:

·         Asked to rate JALC's effectivenesss in the area of "fair & ethical hiring practices," 54% of full-time faculty and department chairs, 59% of full-time staff, and 63% of non-teaching professionals rated the college "ineffective" or "very ineffective."

·         Asked to respond to the statement "I am a part of the decision-making process at JALC," only 20% of the full-time faculty, 29% of the non-teaching professional staff, and 9% of the staff selected "agree" or "strongly agree." NINE percent.

·         Specifically addressing problems with the board itself, in response to the statement "the BOT displays behavior that reflects integrity and is ethical and honest," the survey results are displayed along with results from 2005 and 2009 (when the accreditation report itself reflected concerns about morale and required a rare follow-up visit). In 2012 66% of faculty, 67% of non-teaching professionals, and 74% of the staff responded with "neutral" (fear of recrimination) or "disagree/strongly disagree." These results were consistent with the 2005 results.

So, to Ms. Hancock (who deserves HUGE recognition for her role in eliminating the buyout clause from Dreith's contract at the April meeting), Mr. Sanders, Mr. Hopkins & Ms. Graff, time to stand up to shadowy back-room dealing, time to bring board actions out into the sunshine, time to exercise your nuclear option.

At the June 25 meeting, move immediately to adopt the entire Strategic Plan. It is comprehensive.  Brewer or Kilquist will probably try to require that each individual part get separate board approval. This will only allow the board members bent on protecting their own turf and/or offspring to defeat those programs they don't like. Make those board members state, in open session, WHY they want to dismantle the plan.

The Strategic Plan can function as effectively as the strategic financial plan, which has protected most College operations despite the state funding crisis. But only if it is adopted in its entirety.

Go nuclear.