A Summary of Concerns: Actions Undercutting Faith in President Bruce Blanding’s Leadership April 20", 2016 Inits April 6", 2016 meeting, the ISCC Faculty Council objected formally to President Bruce Blanding’s March decisions to end athletic scholarships and suspend administrator evaluations, The Council determined that Dr, Blanding neglected to engage appropriate stakeholders in these decisions! and, as a result, these decisions were poorly-considered. In both cases, Dr. Blanding’s approach to decision-making seemed to the Council “autocratic, isolated, and disengaged from college perspective.” His decision-making “fail[ed]to meet faculty expectations for careful analysis, reasonable judgement, and for the participatory approach to college and student success planning so integral to Achieving the Dream institutions.” * The Council determined that such presidential choices fit “a pattern” of Dr, Blanding’s “. .. impulsive and unilateral decision-making which does not assist JSCC’s progress to reassess and refine its programs and its approaches to doing business.” ‘This pattern has involved preferences for “announcing” key policy, program, or operational changes rather than “discussing” them appropriately with significant stakeholders, This pattern has threatened both the terms and the spirit of TBR Policy 1:03:10:00. Dr. Blanding’s reluctance to share school governance meaningfully and productively has been traced by faculty also in his hostility to tenure, In the words of former Chancellor John Morgan, “the Board of Regents is ‘stalwart on our [tenure] policy, ... committed to our policy... [with] ‘no interest in modifying that." Dr. Blanding, however, has not acted “stalwartly” in support of this keyTBR policy.’ His attacks on the concept of tenure and his representations to 2014-15 tenure candidates about tenure—its processes, its criteria, its alternatives, and fuuture—provoked sharp reactions from the ISCC Faculty Council and the TBR Faculty Sub-couneil in late 2014 and early 2015, Ultimately, JSCC’s Faculty Council drafted a Position Statement on Tenure that was distributed through the TBR Vice Chancellor's office to all TBR sub-councils. It reasserted the importance of tenure in community colleges. It reaffirmed TBR’s commitment to tenure, and "TBR Polley 1:03:10:00 (Student and Faculty Participation in Development of Campus Policies and Programs) establishes that community college governance will value and enable participation in decisions and actions impacting the “general welfare” of the institution: “.,. students and faculty are vital components of the campus community which mast cffectively contribute to the progress and general welfare of the institutions governed by the Board” (Item I-A). Item I-C. states that“, . each institution shall establish effective means whereby students and faculty can participate in and make recommendations concerning the formation of policies and programs relating to student and academic affairs.” ys Faculty Council. “Statement of Objection: Defunded Athletic Scholarships.” 6 Apr. 2016. 1 5SCC Faculty Council. “Statement of Objection: Postponed Administrators Assessment.” 6 Apr. 2016.3. Morgan, John, Tennessee Board of Regents. Genesco Building, Nashville, TN. 17 Jul, 2015, Address to TBR Faculty Sub-councit, Qld, in “Report on the TBR Faculty Sub-couneil Meeting.” Mark Walls. JSCC Faculty Council. 18 Aug. 2015. Asked... whether TBR valued tenure, Morgan replied ‘Yeah, we do. It's our policy. We've attempted to xoaffirm that tenure is important’? (Report), SDBR Policy 5:01:03:70 (Academic Tenure for Community Colleges). Item I-D in the policy acknowledges a findamental principle: “{i]he quality ofthe faculty of any community college is maintained primarily through the appraisal, by acully and administrative offices, of each candidate for tenure.”condemned efforts, like Dr. Blanding’s, to marginalize it, which he did in 2014-15 by maintaining, stridently, his personal disaffection with tenure, by ignoring TBR and JSCC criteria and processes for tenure decisions, and by promoting potential “end-runs” around tenure through the controversial new “rolling temporary” contract. ‘These and other actions by Dr. Blanding over the last two years combine with earlier actions to form a consistent pattem of hostility toward faculty expectations for inclusion and participation in appropriate college decision-making. Summaries of these actions follow. I. Intercollegiate Athletic Scholarships—Dr. Blanding’s Defunding in March, 2016 Dr. Blanding announced in his March cabinet meeting that he would de-fund the $126,000 athletic scholarship budget at JSCC. The Faculty Council’s executive committee interviewed Dr. Blanding about his decision and leamed it was made without formal planning. No legitimate assessment was made for the decision’s impact on JSCC’s intercollegiate athletics program, on student athletes’ needs, ot on what undermining or losing the athletic program could mean for college strategic planning and performance funding. Likewise, Dr. Blanding’s vision for alternative, broader use of the scholarship expense for “club sports” was not fully, objectively assessed by all stakeholders, ‘The decision to end scholarships and reapportion that cost seemed based on preliminary thinking rather than any studied assessment by appropriate college advisors and personnel, ‘Additionally, when Dr, Blanding determined to convert JSCC athletic teams to what he termed “functionally D-III” teams playing in a D-I league, no formalized plan existed among TCCAA institutions for cteating a viable D-III league in which JSCC appropriately could compete ISCC’s Athletic Director emphasized to Dr. Blanding that sustained intercollegiate athletic ‘competition between a “functionally D-III” team and D-I teams is neither realistic nor ethieal and ‘would effectively “kill” the athletic program. If intercollegiate athletics ends at JSC, the college will experience significant negative consequences for meeting its strategic goals and for improving its already weak performance on key state outcomes-based funding formula criteria.” Sin October 2014 meetings withthe president, JSCC tenure applicants were surprised when he stressed that TBR had approved a new contract type for community colleges (a non-tenured three-yeat renewable, or rolling, “instructional” position). Tenure candidates understood this new contract was an option recently approved by TBR and that it might be fvailable for them if they were denied tenure, Even tenured faculty, he had explained, might prefer the new contract, since it could offer & pay increase over tenured contracts. Many questions about this contract emerged following these October meetings with President Blanding, JSCC’s Faculty Sub-Couneil representative and Faculty Council chair expressed no knowledge of the contract. After somehow acquiring an intemal Council email irom her about these ‘questions, President Blanding attempted to explain the contract in @ 10-13-14 response to all faculty and his eabinet. He ddeseribed the contract as an *,. alternative to the stark decision of being granted tenure or being torminated from employment.” Teor specific discussions of the impact on performance funding and JSCC’s strategic plan goals, see the JSCC Faculty Council's “Statement of Objection: De-Funded Athletic Scholarships.” 6 Apr. 20163 After discussing this matter with Dr. Blanding, the JSCC Faculty Council released a Statement of Objection regarding the defunded scholarships. Dr. Blanding responded by attacking the statement as “filled with innuendo, accusations, half-truths, distortions, and some simple misunderstandings.”™ But significantly, after the Couneil’s objection, Dr. Blanding then announced he would now use an “altemative plan” to create a “data-driven report” providing an “ objective cosvbenefit analysis of our ahletics program ... not later than November 30, 2016.” Of course, faculty would have assumed such a plan from the beginning. | | IK. Administrator Evaluations—Dr. Blanding’s Postponement of Process in March, 2016 In its April 6", 2016 meeting, ‘The Faculty Council questioned the basis for Dr. Blanding’s choice to suspend the 2015-16 evaluation of administrators, The Couneil also expressed concer about his unilateral approach to suspending it."° In brief, one week before the scheduled administrators assessment, VPSSIE Bobby Smith engaged with the Assessment of ‘Administrators Committee against protocol excluding administrator involvement with the committee processes. Smith then officially proposed policy issues to President Blanding “on behalf of” the committee. While he should not have engaged with the committee, the policy issues he proposed (committee structure and ex officio membership) did not affect the evaluation tool already finalized and approved for use. Neither did these issues affect the tool’s implementation, When a faculty representative on the committee wrote the VPSSIE and objected to his involvement in the affairs of the committee, Dr. Blanding announced that he was “postponing the assessment of administrators un(il the next academic year” because the faculty member had “aised some issues regarding the protocol for conducting the assessment . . ..” Dr. Blanding suggested the representative's concern required more time “for thorough discussion . .. development of recommendations, review . .. and finalizing of the process of implementation of the assessment.” Dr. Blanding suggested that this would provide for an “orderly process for conducting the survey next year.” * Blanding, Dr. Bruce. "Re: Faculty Couneil Issues.” Message to All Exchange Users (Iackson State Community College). 15 Apr. 2016, E-mail. Blanding, Dr, Bruce, “Re: Athletic Programs.” Message to All Exchange Users (Jackson State Community College). 15 Apr. 2016 por the specific circumstances of this decision, see the JSCC Faculty council's “Statement of Objection: Postponed Administrators Assessment” 6 Apr. 2016 Mpianding, Dr. Bruce. “Blanding, Bruce. "Re: FW-~Assessment of Administrators Items." Message to All Exchange Users (Jackson State Community College). 18 Mar. 2016, E-mail. The email reads 2s follows: «has raised some issues regarding the protocol for conducting the assessment of administrators, In oder to allow adequate time for thorough discussion of these issues, development of recommendations, review of those recommendations and finalizing of the process of implementation of the assessment, I am postponing the assessment of administrators until the next academic year. Hopefully, these and any other potential issues n be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and we can then proceed with an orderly process for conducting this survey next year.”‘The Faculty Council objected to Dr. Blanding’s rationale for this decision, asserting the ‘VPSSIE"s committee involvement (his proposals “on behalf of” the committee) did not warrant a total suspension of the evaluation process. After this objection, Dr. Blanding wrote that the faculty representative had problems interacting with other committee members, and proposed that he would “modify [his] decision to require that the Faculty Council replace [this representative] with someone willing to work with and to be respectful of the other two chairs. ‘At that point,” he wrote, “the committce will continue their work.”!? For the Council’s leadership, Dr. Blanding’s decision to postpone evaluations for concerns about interpersonal relationships in committee meetings seems odd. ‘The Council’s position is that the assessment tool is ready, approved, and should be used. JSCC’s regular processes of assessment should not be contingent upon personal conflicts or perceptions of conflict. Certainly, the Council should not be asked to dismiss a properly-clected faculty representative in order to implement administrator evaluations, The suspension of evaluations until “next year,” as Dr. Blanding states, is an unnecessary abrogation of an effective shared governance process at JSCC. Stakeholders worked, in good faith, diligently and carefully as a team, identified problems, and then addressed them, Dr. Blanding’s decision seems poorly considered. II. Vice Presidential Appointments—Dr. Blanding’s Creation and Appointment of the VPSSIE Position, July, 2015 On September 2, 2015, the SCC Faculty Council heard a summary of faculty concems for how President Blanding developed and staffed a new VP-level position, the Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success. ‘These concems included views that President Blanding often had appointed vice presidents without competitive searches or had installed “long-term interim” vice presidents. For all but three and a half years of the president's cleven-year administration, an appointed or interim “inhouse” VPAA has served. For JSC, it was argued, this approach had shut off benefits that come through the formal selection process with candidate interviews. It was felt that this had limited access to the deepest and most varied experience, the most specialized insight, and the most unique skill sets that a range of applicants might reveal to the scrutiny of a diverse campus hiring committee, “ ‘Stn gormation about this item is adapted from the 9-02-15 and 10-07-15 “Faculty Co ##4 and #3, respectively in these minutes, il Meeting Minutes.” See items sn this regard, the Council considered the college’s shifting terms of operation: the new funding formula’s paradigm of student success; the centrality of documenting, intspreting, and applying institutional data toward student success, school ‘accreditation, and TBR’s outcomes-based assessments the rising dependence on donor and tuition money for support as ‘state funding dipped to 47% of the school’s budget; and the challenges to hiring full-time staff and faculty in areas key to student completion and early progress, It was stressed that JSCC must seck the best fit available for leadership roles crucial to the colloge’s shifting requirements, Some emphasized that a search process with competitive interviewing ‘would assure the best fit for crtieal positions, especially atthe VP level, and that greatcr transparency and engagement ‘among stakeholders seemed appropriate as division resources contract and college planning adjustsIn the Fall of 2015, this pattem continued with Dr. Blanding’s appointment for the new ‘VPSSIE position, Bobby Smith, Smith had been similarly appointed to VP positions two times previously. The Council expressed great concern that by appointing senior level administrators from among current mid-level staff and faculty, Dr. Blanding was not assuring the best qualified skill sets for the school’s needs,'® ‘The Council’s position was that Dr, Blanding’s convenient in-house appointments of View Presidents reveals a comfort with administrative parochialism. Decisions to staff these offices with in-house staff and faculty assure the school’s leadership defers to the president, but also assures the school will never realize the benefits of alternative thinking or the most diverse capacities or experience. IV. Tenure—Dr. Blanding’s Marginalization of TBR’s Policy In 2014-15, JSCC’s Faculty Council heard and addressed much concern about the integrity of ISCC’s tenuring practices. ‘This concern involved (A) the president’s attitude toward tenure, (B) his rejection of tenure eriteria and processes, (C) his representations of what he called TBR’s new contract “alternative” to tenure, and (D) his restrictions of tenure for vague fiscal uncertainty. A, Dr, Blanding’s Attitude Toward Tenure In meetings with JSCC’s ten candidates for tenure in 2014-15, Dr. Blanding regularly expressed his disaffection with tenure in principle, yet he functioned then as now, of course, as the final arbiter of college tenure recommendations. Section III (“Consideration for ‘Tenure”) of ISCC’s Faculty Tenure Policy stipulates that “[nJo faculty member shall be entitled to or acquire any interest in a tenure appointment at JSCC without a recommendation for tenure by the president of the college . ..” and that “[n]o other person shall have any authority to make any representation conceming tenure to any faculty member . ..° (SCC Faculty Handbook, 53). The Council at that time was troubled that the president held and expressed convictions about tenure that are at odds with the values of TBR and JSCC tenure policies, The Council was especially concerned that the president maintained these views while exercising final and sole authority to deny faculty tenure recommendations to TBR. The president’s personal beliefs regarding community college tenure suggested a conflict of, interest with the foundational ideals of official tenure policies for TBR and JSCC; the faculty thas no reason to believe the presicent’s views have changed. Faculty remain concerned that the president’s past decisions on faculty tenure denials to TBR_ may have reflected his antipathy for the concept of community college tenure. Faculty lack "The Faculty Council Executive Committee spoke with Dr. Blanding about these coneems. He responded by noting a sudden need in the summer of 2015 to create and staff this position due to the upcoming SACS acre review and the school’s weakness in the area of Institutional Effectiveness. A new senior-level position just for IE, he felt, would help the review, but timing prevented a standard search process. After learning of Dr. Blanding's explanation, the Coumeil observed that gaps in the sehoo!'s IE capacities were understood early inthe fall of 2014. Also, hiring an IEE Director well ahead of the March, 2015 SACS Compliance Certification would have helped demonstrate integrated, ‘ongoing institutional research and might have addressed some of the non-compliances identified from that report (atleast 50% of which were IB-related).confidence that future decisions can be objective. His disaffection for tenure, they fear, will trump any objective consideration of TBR’s and JSCC’s defined *, .. criteria for tenure [that] relate to the college’s three traditional and often inter-related missions: teaching, service/outreach, and scholarship/ereative activities/research” (TBR Policy 5:02:03:70, “Academic Tenure for Community Colleges,” Item IIL.A.2 and ISCC Faculty Handbook, 56). B, Dr. Blanding’s Rejection of Tenure Criteria and Processes In discussions with JSCC’s president, applicants for tenure in 2015 leamed that, as the final arbiter of tenure recommendations, Dr. Blanding’ interest decidedly is not in TBR’s and JSCC’s defined criteria of“... service/ outreach, and scholarship/creative activitics/research.” He told tenure candidates he respected only the single criterion of “teaching.” In meetings with the president, faculty learned that attention to community service in the tenure portfolio is “nonsense” and that he also will not judge tenure applicants on the basis of scholarship or research, Which he has indicated portfolios should document only for university faculty. Student retention, grades, and evaluations, he has explained, are the criteria he uses to determine tenure recommendations, He asserted to candidates that he can get all he needs to know for recommending faculty tenure or not from student evaluations, As recently as March 23, 2016, in a meeting with the Faculty Council Executive Committee, Dr. Blanding dismissed tenure portfolios as pointless and said he did not Jook at them and did not need them because he “knew who was doing a good job.” Our faculty object to Dr. Blanding’s disdain for TBR tenure criteria, Faculty proceeding toward their tenure applications in good faith for five probationary years carefully manage their careers and activities at JSCC in light of the criteria for tenure considerations detailed in the JSCC Faculty Handbook. In dismissing the role and value of @ tenure portfolio that addresses “the college's three traditional and often interrelated missions: teaching, service/outreach, and scholarship/creative activities/research,” the president has shifted from published policy. This directly subverts faculty planning and work to establish and document their college careers in a comprehensive portfolio, According to policy, “[t)his packet [or portfolio] will comprise the major input and documentation for tenure consideration (and will] |, be reviewed and assessed by all levels involved in the decision making process as outlined in policy” (Raculty Handbook, 56). Such inconsistency between policy and practice confuses faculty expectations for the tenure process, inappropriately complicates faculty progress toward tenure, and signals problems with the integrity of JSCC’s tenuring system, C. Dr. Blanding’s Enthusiasm for the “Rolling” Temporary Contract In October 2014 meetings with the president, JSCC tenure applicants were surprised when he announced TBR had approved a new contract type for community colleges (a non-tenured three-year renewable, of “rolling,” temporary position), Dr. Blanding told tenure candidates this new contract was an option recently approved by TBR and that it might be available for them if they were denied tenure, Even tenured faculty, he had explained, might prefer the new contract since it could offer a pay increase over tenured contracts. Many questions about this contract followed these October meetings with President Blanding. In an October 13%, 2014 email to all faculty and his administrative cabinet, President Blanding described the contract as an“. ,. alternative to the stark decision of being granted tenure or being terminated from employment.”Minutes of the May 20", 2014, Quarterly TBR Presidents Meeting show that President Blanding, himself, suggested this new contract policy. He proposed that policy changes for instructional faculty contracts originally “geared toward university faculty” be “introduced for the community colleges,” as well, the minutes state. Faculty fear that such a contract in an administrative context as averse to tenure as JSCC’s would likely pre-empt appropriate tenure- track appointments as well as tenure recommendations. In light of President Blanding’s hostility toward the idea of tenure for community college faculty, the president’s cagemess to promote and implement such a contract in community colleges seems especially ominous. Such a contract would give an administration aiming to disable tenure one very easy option to keep faculty in more vulnerable, insecure career positions rather than to consider legitimately “the merit of a faculty member .. . [and whether] ... he/she would meet the long-term staffing needs of the department or academic program unit and the college” as stipulated by item I-B in the ‘Tennessee Board of Regents Policy 5:02:03:70 (Academie Tenure for Community Colleges). D, Dr. Blanding’s Restrictions of Tenure for Vague Fiscal Uncertainty If tenure-track faculty meet the criteria of their institutions’ tenure policies AND institutions foresee “a long-term staffing need” for any tenure-track position, both the terms and the spirit of TBR’s mandate for tenure suggest that tenure be awarded. Neither TBR’s nor JSCC’s tenure policy adds a caveat that uncertain finances tramp recommendations for tenure. However, at ISCC the president has suggested that financial imperatives do influence his decisions not to recommend tenure. Certainly, fiscal conditions must influence decisions on whether to ereate or maintain full-time teaching positions , in the first place, Financial concems might influence choices to staff positions with “on-call” part- time adjunets paid cheap by-the-course rates rather than full-time salaries with benefits. However, if (a) the institution has maintained full-time positions as tenure-track over long- term periods of probationary employment and (b) the college will not eliminate these positions as full-time for financial retrenchment, then denying tenure recommendations for “financial uncertainty” contradicts the spirit and the terms of TBR and JSCC tenure policies. Such denials have occurred at Jackson State Community College. Neither is it appropriate to convert such full-time tenure-track positions to full-time non- tenure-track temporary or term contracts, TBR Policy 5:02:07:00 (Faculty Appointments at Community Colleges) limits temporary appointments to instances where a “continued need for the position has not been established.” Policy specifies that term appointments be made “only when . , .@ projected [staffing] need is more than temporary but less than long term; [applies to] programs projected to phase out ... ;” or when a staffing need will exceed the three-year temporary contract limitation yet will not be “of sufficient length to warrant a tenure track or tenured appointment.” Undoubtedly, TBR’s policy on faculty staffing here presumes that long-term, continued staffing needs will be met with faculty who proceed through the probationary period to become tenured. The policy's language does not support staffing continuing, long-term positions with untenured faculty Key stipulations in both TBR’s and JSCC tenure policies are that (1) faculty applicants merit the award of tenure and (2) their positions require staffing “long-term.” It is an error fe institutions to use vague “funding uncertainty” as a basis for denying what is a recognition of earned merit and a matter of staffing need (not cost). Institutions not needing to staff positions defined as tenure-track should cut them. But if institutions cannot genuinely affordto maintain a faculty position and must cut it for immediate costs, the position should disappear. Dr. Blanding has terminated faculty from tenure-track positions and then refilled the positions with contingent contingent faculty for the position or reclassify the position as term or temporary, If faculty positions clearly require “long-term” staffing, they should not be designated temporary ot term for years on end to avoid adding another tenured personality to the faculty Itis a sad condition that JSCC has denied tenure or avoided tenure-track assignments through the rationale of reduced funding. Justifying end-runs around tenure this way is a disingenuous tactic to defeat TBR’s insistence that tenure is critical to“... the quality of the faculty of any community college.” At JSC, it has been an employee management approach, contrary to the spirit and terms of TBR policy, for replacing temured faculty with vulnerable, voiceless contingent faculty, Faculty Council Constitution—Dr. Blanding’s Abrogation of the Constitution (April, 2010) On February 10" 2010, the JSCC Faculty Council approved a revised Council Constitution that a ‘Council sub-committee had developed from September, 2009 through February, 2010"*. ‘The sub- committee met regularly through this period to redesign equitable representation for the faculty’s primary shared-governance body after JSCC administration’ s reorganized faculty and academic units in August, 2009. On February 24", 2010, the ISCC faculty ratified its new Constitution and By-laws, Council meeting minutes document the sub-committee’s seven-month process to propose a new Council Constitution, present it for faculty review, revise it in light of faculty input, and, ultimately, secure a faculty vote of approval."” In the process of review and revision, JSCC faculty affirmed their support for one existing article particularly: that representatives serve a two- year term with the possibility of election to a second, consecutive two-year term before rolling off ‘the Council for a two-year period of ineligibility. ‘The faculty expressed its convietion that this article enabled appropriate consistency among representatives and maintained experience, perspective, and institutional memory. The week after JSCC’s faculty approved its Council constitution, President Bruce Blanding informed the Council Chair that he would require changes: (1) a reduction in representatives from 17 to 11, (2) a four-year period of ineligibility for Council service following one two-year term, and (3) the administrative appointment of one assistant dean to the Couneil membership. ‘The chair reported Dr. Blanding’s requirements in the March 17" Faculty Council Meeting."* The Council asked her to clarify with President Blanding whether he was suggesting or requiring these changes, Camp was also asked to reiterate her explanation to him of the Councils and faculty's ‘views about the benefits of the new Constitution as approved by the faculty and to stress faculty ‘views about the inappropriateness of his intervention and unilateral changes to the structure and composition of the faculty's shared-governance body. In a subsequent email to the Council and faculty, the Council chair announced a special called Council meeting to address Dr, Blanding’s response. In this meeting, she reported that Dr. Blanding had proposed a “deal”: that ifthe Council would formally agree to accept a six-year period of ineligibility following a single two- year term of service for representatives, Dr. Blanding would allow the new Constitution's full 17representatives and would not require an assistant dean be appointed to the Council as an administrative agent. As noted in the March 31°, 2010 Council Called Meeting Minutes,” the faculty asked Camp to deliver the following response to Dr. Blanding ‘The Jackson State Community College Faculty Council is bound by its Constitution and Bylaws and is governed by the will of the faculty it represents. The defined process for changing the Constitution and Bylaws has been followed. The entire faculty discussed and voted to ratify the new Constitution and Bylaws. ‘The Faculty Council is bound by the process and the faculty vote The Council chair subsequently reported that Dr. Blanding regarded the Constitution as, “negotiable” and, since faculty had rejected the “deal” he had proposed, he would now institute his original alterations to the Couneil Constitution and By-Laws and direct his -VPAA, Mr. Frank Dodson, to amend the Constitution and post it on the eampus homepage. ‘The 2009 reorganization of academic units created a sudden disenfranchisement of faculty. In varying degtees since August, 2009, individual faculty and faculty units had yielded their discipline authority, perspective, and voice to the newly streamlined, unilateral decision- | making of the President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and his two deans and three assistant deans, This reorganization dismantled the disciplinary focus of formal departments, climinated the advocacy and leadership of department chairs, and generally by-passed faculty input by consolidating department-level decision-making within a new level of administration. ‘The reorganization, in short, was regarded by many faculty as a mechanism for insulating the administration and its decisions from the attention, perspective, and reaction of faculty. President Blanding’s March, 2010 alterations of the legitimately-ratified Council Constitution ‘and By-laws further disabled the continuity of faculty perspective, experience, and memory. It is was unembarrassed move to marginalize faculty, to disrupt and deprive adequate, coherent faculty representation, and to stifle free faculty discussion through the presence of an administrative agent, an immediate supervisor of numerous Couneil representatives. sce Item # 2, 02-10-10 JSCC Faculty Council Meeting Minutes fa, each Council meeting through the 2009-2010 year, progress toward drafting the new Council Constitution and Bylaws ‘was reviewed. Incredibly, when Dr, Blanding objected to the terms the newly-ratified Constitution, he told Council Chair Mochel Camp that he had not been aware of peading changes to the Constitution; Dr. Blanding received emailed copies of teach Council meeting minutes. (See the following Faculty Council Minute items: #3, 8-25.09; #3, 9-16-09: #8, 10-14-09; #4, 11-11-09; #5, 12-12-09; #2-B, 1-13-10; #2, 2-10-10; #2-B, 3-17-10; #2, 3-31-10; and #4, 4-14-10, sce Item # 2-b, 03-17-2010 JSCC Faculty Council Meeting Minutes, sce Tem # 2, 03-31-2010 JSCC Faculty Council Meeting Minutes. 2p three years the so- called Blanding Faculty Couneil Constitution and By-laws remained unratified by faculty. In the spring of 2013, with ISCC’s SACS accreditation looming, the Faculty Council organized a vote to approve the constitution ‘The council fet that approving the constitution would be a show of good faith toward the administration and would project a10 VI. Failed Vote to Seck Redress—Dr. Blanding’s Choice to Create a Climate of Fear Inits April, 2010 meeting, the Faculty Council discussed President Blanding's imposition of new terms for the Couneil’s composition and structure through his version of a Council constitution, Council representatives unanimously were angered and amazed that the president would impose such restrictions upon the faculty’s chief agency for enabling shared governance. Faculty questioned whether the Council, was, in fact, any longer a legitimate shared-governance body as. its Constitution had been designed to ensure. Some on the Couneil argued that, the President's disdain for faculty and their expectations of engagement necessitated a meeting with TBR’s Vice- Chancellor Dr. Paula Short, Such conference with TBR leadership had occurred in October, 2006 when Dr. Blanding had insisted that TBR thought JSCC faculty were “renegades.””" Council representatives felt Dr, Blanding’s actions now warranted such a meeting, Other council representatives argued that such a meeting would anger the president and that he would respond harshly against faculty who resisted his requirements and the faculty body generally. One view ‘expressed was that accepting the president’s clearly inappropriate limitations on the Couneil was simply a pragmatic approach. An opposing view was that it was the obligation of faculty committed to roles of shared governance to defend it against attacks all faculty regarded to be absurd. A secret ballot vote was called for on the motion of taking the case to the TBR Vice-Chancellor and failed 7 votes to 4, Clearly the vote against seeking redress at the TBR showed that faculty generally and the Faculty Council, particularly, had lost the confidence and conviction present when, in 2006, they challenged President Blanding’s dismissive regard for faculty and for faculty engagement in decisions that impacted them, Many faculty feared retaliation by an administrative organization that had dislodged effective advocacy and leadership within discipline units in 2009 by eliminating discipline departments. Most believed that honest, good-faith efforts to work for change were futile at the institution; they cited the infamous Lea Report as a “case-closed” example.” All were dispirited, paranoid, and felt unsupported against an administration that had been hostile to faculty interests in shared govemance. Shared governance at JSCC, once an important component of faculty identity and pride, no longer existed genuinely at the institution. desire to bury old hatchets, Most ftculty Many faculty refused to participate in the vote, but the Council announced that 2/3, of the faculty who had gathered to vote had approved it and that it had been duly ratified. Ironically, though, a March, col6 analysis ofthis constitation’s terms showed that to approve constitutional changes (such as these comprised by the “Blanding” constitution itself), a vote of 23 of the foral faculty body was required, not just 2/3 of any one group of faculty gathered in any meeting, ‘The so-called “Blanding Faculty Council Constitution, then, remains unratified, actually. phe October, 2006, meeting between JSCC"s Faculty Council chair, two ex-Couneil chaits, Dr. Kay Clark, and Dr. Paula Short informed TBR of Dr. Blanding’s claims that TBR was contemptuous of JSC faculty, generally. Drs. Clark and Short confirmed that in their offices they knew of no such perspective. The affirmed their respect for the JSCC faculty and offered their support in helping the faculty negotiate its concerns with Dr. Blanding. In August of 2007, this support came ‘when Dr. Charles Lea was dispatched to JSC to help analyze concems about communication and relations with the administration, ‘The so-called Lea Report, published in the Spring of 2008, offered five recommendations for improving the climate of hostility and frustration at ISCC. ‘The fifth recommendation in this report was to enable and strengthen more authentic shared-governance structures, Regrettably, the Lea Report was never authentically addressed by Dr. Blanding, In subsequent semesters when the report’s recommendations were invoked by faculty in meetings or in minutes or reports, it was reported by faculty that Dr. Blanding “had heard all he wanted to hear about that report.u VIL. Faculty Evaluation Plan—Administrative Neglect of Shared Governance and Hostility In September, 2009, faculty were directed by their assistant deans by email to prepare their annual faculty evaluation plans. The email provided an attached evaluation plan document. This document omitted a key element of the JSCC Faculty Evaluation Plan that had been produced by the Faculty Evaluation Committee working from January through April of 2007 at the direction of President Bruce Blanding. Earlier work on a revised Evaluation Plan had begun in 2005 following changes in the Tennessee Board of Regents general tenure and promotion policy.”* Ultimately, SSCC’s revised Faculty Evaluation Plan had been approved by the Faculty Couneil in its March, 2007 Council meeting” ‘The evaluation element omitted from this plan in the 2009 plan document was an objective, empirical detailing of faculty activities, and it had been mandated in the 2007 revision work by many untenured JSCC faculty. These faculty felt an altemative objective evaluation format would permit a stronger representation of their work and serviee, Several 2010 tenure candidates saw the 2009 changes to the evaluation plan as harmful to their tenure documentation efforts. ‘They considered these changes to be unauthorized adjustments to their expectations for tenure protocol. Generally, faculty considered the unilateral, unannounced changes of evaluation policy to have deprived them of appropriate shared governance roles in determining policy impacting their work. The JSCC Faculty Council’s Executive Committee discussed the unilateral change with VPAA, Frank Dodson. He explained that he simply believed the 2007 Faculty Evaluation Plan would be hard for new assistant deans to use, so he changed it. In response to the VPA.A's curious insensitivity to faculty expectations for shared governance, the Faculty Couneil produced the following Statement of Concern and Motion:** Statement of Concern ‘The administration's decision to change the terms of JSCC’s Faculty Evaluation Plan isa significant concer for the JSCC Faculty Council. The evaluation instrument’s design, approved by the Faculty Council in April, 2007, ‘was a product of shared governance at JSCC, involving broad faculty and administrative representation, cooperative work, careful vetting, and ultimately, Council and administrative review and approval. However, important components of this plan have been changed or suspended without consulting faculty representatives or notifying faculty of the change. Such unilateral action about a matter of critical faculty interest reflects insensitivity for the faculty's expectation of engagement in decisions that impact the terms, conditions, and outcomes of their work and their service. Decision-making that neglects faculty participation in such matters reveals a misunderstanding of both the content and the spirit of the important mandate fore shared governance expressed in Item five of the 2008 “Recommendations for Strengthening Campus Relationships,” produced by Dr. Charles Lea and JSCC's Ad Hoe Consulting Committee.2 Motion: ‘The Council therefore respectfully (1) re-emphasizes its commitment to genuinely shared decision-making on matters that impact faculty interests and (2) asks that JSCC’s administration express its commitment to shared governance and to involving, the Faculty Evaluation Committee in developing all faculty evaluation documents. | During his November, 2009 President's Cabinet Meeting, President Blanding attacked the Faculty Council, its chair and its secretary in what was described by some attendees and witnesses in adjoining offices as an abusive, violent tirade against what he perceived to be a negative tone and direction in the Faculty Couneil minutes and in the Council's Statement of Concern and motion, above. Though in a subsequent meeting with the Council chair President Blanding did acknowledge that VPAA Dodson should not have changed the evaluation plan, Blanding’ initial | attack on the Council and its officers” respectful defense of shared governance protocols reflected | {at best) the dismissive, and (at worst) the hostile attitude in 2009 among administrative leaders toward faculty concems for engagement in decisions affecting their professional interests. See Tem # 11-09-2005 Council Meeting Minutes, ce Item #4, 03-14-2007 Council Meeting Minutes. *Sse¢ Item # 1, 11-11-2009 Council Meeting MinutesStatement of Objection: De-funded Athletic Scholarships JSCC Faculty Council April 6", 2016 Background: In his March cabinet meeting, President Bruce Blanding announced the college will no longer award, scholarships to athletes participating on JSCC’s intercollegiate basketball, baseball, and softball teams, In a meeting with the Executive Committee of the JSCC Faculty Council, he clarified a three- part rationale: (1) the college’s $27,000,000 budget is stressed and the $126,600 scholarship cost, apparently, is a good ent to make; (2) if kept in the budget, the $126,600 could fund intranural-like “club sports” and serve students more broadly than it would by funding athletic scholarships for the school’s 86 athletes; and (3) to be Title IX compliant, JSCC must hire another full-time women’s coach which the scholarship costs could fund ‘ouncil Perspective: On April 6", 2016, the SCC Faculty Council found that Dr. Blanding’s decision to eliminate athletic scholarships was poorly-considered. Given the college’s emerging culture of data-driven decisions by engaged staleholders, his unilateral directive seems unstudied. For his higher-ed colleagues at JSCC, Dr. Blanding’s action is autocratic and disengaged from the college’s strategic goal-setting. His decision fails to meet faculty expectations for careful analysis, reasonable judgement, and for the participatory approach to college and student success planning so integral to Achieving the Dream institutions." The Faculty Council objects to Dr. Blanding’ indeliberate choice for JSCC intercollegiate athletics. The Council requests that he rescind his decision and open the issue to more appropriate and thorough analysis by a team of personnel representing athletics, student services, college finance, institutional effectiveness, faculty, and ATD. Discussion’ In his rationale for the decision, Dr. Blanding offered little objective, methodological accounting of reasons for eliminating this $126,600 item in JSCC’s budget. He gave no formal assessment of budgeting alternatives, just sweeping claims that directions in state funding would eventually force choices like large faculty layoffs (as at SWTCC) or terminated or reduced athletic programs (as—in effect—at JSCC). He never assessed his decision’s impact on JSCC’s intercollegiate athletics program or appeared to consider the program’s key role in the college’s 2015-2020 Strategic Plan? Dr, Blanding also provided no studied proposal to transition ISCC athletics to a legitimate D-III community college league (the closest is in Minois), and talked only vaguely about uncertain possibilities for intercollegiate play when—or if-~TCCAA (DI) splits into a D-I and D-III league. 'D-LTCCAA intercollegiate athletics is a core part of ISCC’s student programming. It impacts “key student success measures” (2015 ATD Cohort Implementation Plan-Jackson State Community College 3) the college has reviewed as evidence in implementing an ATTD “Student Success Vision.” JSCC’s ATD effort presumes college stakeholders in student success will be “involved in data analysis, ongoing plenning, and strategy development” (7). *Undercutting JSCC athletics will significantly impact JSCC’s performance to Strategic Plan goals, but there seems 10 be no accounting for this in President Blanding’s decision-making, Access Goal 1.1's benchmark (2075-2020 JSCC2 No planning for a legitimate and ethical future for JSC intercollegiate athletic competition exists, ‘No plans have been considered for changing the school’s status with the NICAA or TCCAA or for scheduling appropriate competition or for budgeting as a “functionally D-IIP” institution.’ At best, the decision to terminate JSCC’s “function” as a D-1 institution seems to have been just casually considered by Dr. Blanding and, apparently, two other college presidents. The decision does not appear to have been based on any authentic investigation of this change’s implications for athletes themselves, for their recruitment or retention, for their interests in completion at JSC or for their aims to transfer as university student athletes.* Dr. Blanding’s vision of reapportioning the scholarship expense more equitably among students through “club sports” has no more analysis behind it than a casual discussion with local college presidents at their quarterly coffee klatsch.> Dr, Blanding did not acknowledge consulting Strategic Plan 13) states that JSCC annually will “increase 2% in headcount and FTE for fall and spring semesters” and will achieve a 10% increase by 2020. The 86 intercollegiate athletes on campus comprise 1.75% of the fall baseline headcount and 2.81% of that baseline FTE. Alienating this important stulent cohort with extraordinarily high graduation ‘and transfer rates compared to the ISCC general population strikes faculty as reckless. Lose these students and SCC must achieve 3.75% headcount growth and 4.81% FTE growth in fall semesters to meet its strategic goal. Headcount ‘and FTE loss—not growth-—is moro significant forthe spring headcount and FTE baseline if ISCC alienates its student- athlete cohort. For Access Goal 1.2’s hope to grow “targeted subpopulations” (e.g. Mele and Underrepresented Minorities) by 2% annually and 10% by 2020 (2015-2020 JSCC Strategic Plan 14), the damage from dismantling JSCC’s athletic program would be catastrophic. The 47 male student athletes comprise 3.74% of the fall baseline Male headcount and 5.32% of Male FTE. They comprise 4.3% of the spring baseline Male headcount and 6.1% of Male FTE, For this strategic goal of 2% headcount and FTE growth, the 32 Underrepresented Minorities on JSCC teams comprise 4.0% of the fall headcount baseline and 5.7% of FTE (4.6% of the spring baseline for headcount and 6.6% of FTE). 3 JSCC's Athletic Director acknowledges that JSCC teams would “flourish” in an exclusively D-II league, but that it ‘would be unethical to force a “functionally” D-II team to play D-{ competition. Consensus is that Dr. Blanding’s plan to do so will kill ISCC’s intercollegiate athletic program. ‘The significance of the student-athlete cohort to ISCC’s Outcomes-Based Funding Formula should be noted. Inthe 2015-16 weighted outcomes point calculation toward funding, JSCC was fourth out of 13 community colleges, due largely to weak performance in five outcomes criteria for completion—third from last in “students accumulating 36, 24, and 12 hours”; third from last in “associates degrees awarded”; third from last in “transfers out with 12 hours” (HEC, Outcomes Based Funding Formula Resources, www. govAhee!topi/funding-formuls-resources). ‘Compared to ISCC students, generally, whose 2003-2007 graduation rate was 24.56% USCC 2014 Factbook 50), JSCC's athletes graduated at arate of 39.73% from 2012 to 2015 (Jackson State Community College Homepage: “Athletic Consumer Information”). ‘The transfer rate for JSCC's sophomore athletes in 2014-15 was 100% (softball), 87% (women’s basketball), 83% men's (basketball), and 70% (baseball) for a total 83% completion rate of at least 24 hhours—but likely more—AND progression (transfer) rate, The 2015 graduating athletes at ISCC represent 2.7% of the 2015-2016 benchmark for tho Strategic Plan's Completion Gosl I.1, which specifies an annual 3.75% growth in the award of associate degrees by the college for a cumulative 20% improvement by 2020 (2015-2020 JSCC Strategie Plan 24). In terms of mecting strategic goals for completion (critial for JSCC state appropriations), the intercollegiate athlete cohort at JSCC is essential. Dp. Blanding stated the idea of “club sport” competition at JSCC and among local colleges emerged from quarterly meetings between local higher-ed presidents (Dub Oliver, Niles Reddick, Logan Hampton and himself). When asked about a needs analysis or viability study, Dr. Blanding acknowledged only that a limited student interest survey had ‘ocourred but thatthe results were “mixed.” As a key rationale for de-funding athletic scholarships and applying that money more broadly among JSC students, the idea’s full logistics, funding, and student appeal deserve more legitimate, objective study. Such a study would require a careful cooperative assessment of costs, facilities, appeal, and logistics by ll local colleges. Itis troubling that no formal needs analysis, viability study, or authentic proposalmeaningfully with appropriate college advisors or assessing—with any other stakeholders—the effects of de-funded scholarships on student athletes or on how athletes would view playing D-1 teams (recruiting with scholarships) on a “functionally” D-III team (recruiting with no scholarships). Conelusios The decision to stop offering athletic scholarships at ISCC appears to have been made without formal planning and adequate assessment of its impact on ISCC’s intercollegiate athleties program, on student athletes’ needs, or on the impact that undermining or losing the athletic program could have on college strategie planning and performance funding, Likewise, alternative, broader use of the $126,600 scholarship expense for “club sports” has not been fully, objectively assessed by all stakeholders, The decision to end scholarships and reapportion that cost seems based on preliminary thinking rather than studied assessment by all appropriate college advisors and personnel. Among TCCAA institutions at present, no formalized plan exists for creating a viable D-III league in which ISCC appropriately could compete. Sustained intercollegiate athletic competition between a “functionally D-II team and D-I teams is neither realistic nor ethical. If intercollegiate athletics ends at JSCC, the college will experience significant negative consequences for meeting its strategic goals and for improving its already weak performance on key state outcomes-based funding formula criteria hhas been sought or offered for the concept of “club sports” or intramural competition among local colleges. As ‘currently conceived, “club sports” is a premature and inappropriate basis for justifying such a fundamental change in JSCC’s athletes program as the de-funded athletie scholarships Dr, Blanding also emphasized that athletes recruited from ISCC’s service area could seek Tennessee Promise scholarships and that gaps in that coverage (like books) could be covered by the college, possibly through Foundation awards. It is worth noting that students with Tennessee Promise or other scholarships also are free to work part-time jobs; student-athletes training, practicing, and playing intercollegiate schedules, however, are unable to supplement ‘any scholarship with part-time work. In any case, Dr. Blanding knew of no proposals or planning for supplementing the financial needs of athletes getting Tennessee Promise money, He stated that he was unaware of any preliminary discussions by the Foundation to provide such support.