Sunday, October 11, 2009

Globe still hasn't answered the major questions on MSSU and Bruce Speck

While the Joplin Globe has finally realized that there is a major news story going on at Missouri Southern State University, it is never going to be able to put the situation into perspective until it answers these questions:

-Why was Julio Leon pushed out?

-Why was Bruce Speck the only person interviewed for the position?

-How did the Search Committee arrive at Speck as one of the finalists?

-How big of a role did Dwight Douglas play in selection of Speck?

While each new development needs to be followed and the Globe appears to be on top of that part of the story, the simple fact remains that until those questions are answered, we will never have a clear view of what is happening at Missouri Southern State University.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Randy,

It's not just that the questions haven't been answered -- it's that they haven't even been posed. The Globe is not an investigative newspaper, that's clear. They mostly function as a conduit for wide circulation of press releases.

The best we've gotten out of the Globe is the posting of some of the material gleaned from the emails they received. Even then, though, there was no investigation at all. They posted the emails, and then dutifully reported what they were told to report by the powers that be. Zero actual investigation.

In fact, I found their framing of the Oakes story/emails distressing. Instead of focusing on that actual conflicts in managerial approach -- many of which highlighted petty abusive behavior on the part of Speck -- the Globe instead spent the majority of the story talking about the salary dispute, which had the (intentional?) effect of making the whole dispute seem to be centered around that.

Why would the Globe frame it in this way? I don't know. Perhaps this is because salary disputes are easier to write about and doesn't require actually thinking through the situation to figure out what's behind it all. The abuses of management accusations, which were far more relevant to the majority of the dispute in the actual emails if you read them, required asking questions and doing some legitimate digging into the BS at MSSU.

I don't think the Globe sees this sort of work as its job, unfortunately. Either that or the Globe is intentionally framing the story to benefit the administration. I don't know which it is.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Randy, would you consider activating the "recent comments" widget for your blog? It's a pain to have to scroll through many pages of posts trying to figure out which have new comments and which don't.

Anonymous said...

Randy - what about the Globe asking some of these questions of the faculty?

1. Why do think you should run the school and select administrators?

2. Why do you think the school is about you - not about students being educated?

3.Why do you think you should get free privileges that students must pay for?

4. Why do you think the "international mission," which provides more benefits to faculty than students, is more important than any other mission of the school when it serves far fewer people than many other programs?

5. When just about everyone in America is facing job losses, pay cuts, and more responsibility for the same money, why shouldn't the faculty do the same and climb down out of their ivory towers.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:13 (Dwight, perhaps?), let me try to answer your questions in spite of their inaccuracies and the petty and condescending tone:

1. Why do think you should run the school and select administrators?

The faculty don't believe they should run the school and such a statement indicates your ignorance. Speck is the President and he reports to the Board which has ultimate responsibility for running the institution. Everybody knows that and Speck makes it clear every chance he gets. As for selecting administrators, shared governance (about which I assume you are also ignorant) means that faculty should have primary responsibility in academic programs which includes significant input in the selection of the chief academic officer (two of which have resigned at MSSU in the last few months).

2. Why do you think the school is about you - not about students being educated?

Again, your ignorance shows. Of all people, faculty understand that the university is about educating students. That's what they do! Everyone else on the campus supports that teaching mission. Some might say the faculty are pretty important, though Speck does go out of his way to make sure faculty understand their place as just replaceable employees who should shut up and be thankful they have a job (or he'll send them to Cambodia ;-).

3.Why do you think you should get free privileges that students must pay for?

The recent story in the Globe on the rec center was about the administration ADDING fees to facilities that were FREE in the past. Go here (http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_281175458.html) and read Howie Lindeman's response, which says in part: "I find it inappropriate...no, I find it disgusting, that the faculty would not be offered access to the facility as a meager benefit offering." But the faculty themselves never complained about the fee for the rec center. They complained about having to pay for the pool and racquetball facilities that were free in the past. Get your story straight.

4. Why do you think the "international mission," which provides more benefits to faculty than students, is more important than any other mission of the school when it serves far fewer people than many other programs?

First, the mission does not benefit faculty more than students and to make such a statement shows your ignorance again. As for serving far fewer people than other programs, can you offer any evidence for that? I didn't think so.

5. When just about everyone in America is facing job losses, pay cuts, and more responsibility for the same money, why shouldn't the faculty do the same and climb down out of their ivory towers.

Okay, you've got to be Bruce or Dwight or one of their flunkies because you have the talking points down. Let me repeat: It's not about money. There is NOTHING about "job losses, pay cuts, and more responsibility for the same money" in the ad hoc report. NOTHING. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Nice try, though. You did get in an attack on the "elitist" faculty but you did forget to note that Speck is "challenging an entrenched culture" (the generic defense).

Did that answer your questions? Now please try getting your facts straight before you spew any further nonsense.

Anonymous said...

I think the above questions are just so on the money.

1. Why do think you should run the school and select administrators?

A: It's called faculty governance. The school was cited by the last accreditation board visit for having poor faculty governance. Perhaps Speck has done nothing to improve things in this way, which leaves the faculty - in fighting for the school - to make the charge. Or perhaps the school should just have its accreditation yanked. What the hell.

2. Why do you think the school is about you - not about students being educated?

A: That would depend on why you think that the above in #1 makes it "about the faculty" and not about the students. Unless a well run university does nothing for its students.

3.Why do you think you should get free privileges that students must pay for?

A: What does this have to do with what's going on? Any other red herrings you want to toss in while you are here? Maybe the dispute is really about parking spaces too. Is there some faculty member you could get such a quote from, so that you could claim it's really all about those damn lazy faculty wanting to park next to their buildings?

4. Why do you think the "international mission," which provides more benefits to faculty than students, is more important than any other mission of the school when it serves far fewer people than many other programs?

A: The state mandated this mission. I have a question for you: why should the administration be allowed to keep 100% of the money earmarked for the international mission when it has no intention of spending the money in that way? Is that dishonesty? Or is that "creative accounting"?

5. When just about everyone in America is facing job losses, pay cuts, and more responsibility for the same money, why shouldn't the faculty do the same and climb down out of their ivory towers.

A: First, this dispute is not about money, must as you'd love it to be about money (along with Speck and Douglas, who have clearly poured the Kool Aid down your throat -- well, assuming that you aren't Dwight yourself).

Second, Did Bruce Speck do this? Did he step up to the plate while I sneezed, and I missed it?

I must have missed the memo in all the hubbub. Last time I recall, he made 180K a year, had a 40K housing allowance, gets 16K deposited into his retirement account every year, has a free car, and many, many, many other perks. Can you direct me to the memo where Dr. Speck, like a true leader, took the hit first on his own salary, before asking everyone else to do so? Please post the link to where Dear Leader walked the walk, instead of talking the talk, so I can read it.

Third, I must have missed the stories about all the people in the community who have voluntarily signed up for pay cuts, longer hours, etc. etc., so that they could "do their part". I didn't realize that this was the new rage in Joplin.

Pulease.

Anonymous said...

And 3:11 hits it out of the park!

Anonymous said...

Why was Julio Leon pushed out? Two reasons, mainly. Dwight Douglas wanted to run MSSU, and could not do so with Dr. Leon as president. The two clashed for three years before finally convinced enough other board members to vote Leon out. The other reason is that some felt that twenty-five years was too long for one man to serve as president. There was a desire for change, just for change's sake. In hindsight, it has turned out to be a disastrous decision for the Board of Governors. Douglas's hiring of Speck has severely damaged Douglas's own reputation and when his term on the board finally ends, he will remembered as someone who did a great disservice to MSSU.

Anonymous said...

Boy, you guys have your talking points all down pat....it's still about control and money...and that's what some of the faculty want..for all their 20 hours a week on campus, they think they need to run the whole show...they need a dose of reality...and whether this costs Dr. Speck his job or not, the faculty will fail in the long run...and then maybe the school can get back to education.

Anonymous said...

20 hours? Let me tell you what it is like to teach full time at MSSU: First, arrive at work for office hours, two or three hours before first class. After dealing with students, still have to do certain paperwork so stay after classes to finish those tasks, write reports, grade papers, etc. Minimum day so far, 8-9 hours including classes. Then, go home with a briefcase full of preparation and planning for classes, maybe some grading, and some reading that I'm doing for next semester's classes; or, if I'm a tenured professor who publishes, work four hours that evening on my next article for publication, or a paper I plan to give at a conference. Of course, with travel not sanctioned, I have to first beg to have the two days off for the conference, then either drive or pay for a ticket myself and the hotel and food for the conference, which is interesting to me, but far from a vacation.
As for the international travel, if I'm taking a class abroad, I begin preparing the grant work and designing the course the summer before I plan to teach it. Then I have to recruit the class, get everyone's information, attend a lot of extra meetings, and prepare the students to go abroad.
It's a lot of work, but I do it because I know the students will get a great deal from the experience, and hey, I like students.
Maybe I would rather be hiking the Appalachian Trail, or lounging in the Bahamas, but no, I'm taking students to Rome, or Greece, or Paris to study. And while I'm there, I have to pay most of my own expenses, because the travel allowance I've been granted only pays so much of those expenses. I think I'm allowed $15 for lunch, $35 for dinner; With the Euro worth twice what the dollar is, I end up paying for my own food most of the time or going to the store to buy food and eat in my room. But the rules state that groceries aren't reimbursed, so I'm out that expense, as well.
Now, as for my wonderful trip to Rome, Greece or Paris, I have 15 or 20 students with me who are in various stages of excitement, dread, or whatever. I have to babysit them and make sure they go to the classes and everyone gets back from the trip to the museum. At night, I have to worry if one them will end up getting drunk at a bar and not make it back to the hotel, so I do a lot of agonizing and carping until I feel like a fishwife.
When I finally get them all home safely, after helping some of them make it through the trip by giving them money I know I'll never get back, paying for medical expenses when they fall down and hurt themselves, etc., I need a vacation.
But I love it.
And I'm so darn lucky that I get to do this. Wow. I have to pinch myself to make sure it isn't a dream.

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling that if I took Bruce Speck, Dwight Douglas and some others on the board to a trip overseas, they would be more trouble than the students. For example, I'd love to see them settle into the Hotel Malar or Hotel Serre in Paris, in a shabby room with old furniture and a window with no screens or air conditioning, walking up six flights of stairs with their own luggage; They would want a hot shower, but the shower is so tiny that neither Dwight nor Bruce would fit well in it. They would want a nap, but the bed is hard, and the pillow is tiny and flat. When getting around town, I hope they brought comfortable shoes. If they aren't careful, on the Metro train they may lose their wallets to pickpockets. Eating out is very stressful, because the menus are in a language they don't know and prices are so high they are afraid to order anything. I wonder how many of them would end up going home early or sneaking out and getting a room at the Ritz?

Anonymous said...

And, of course, you are the only people in Southwest Missouri who had a "burden" of traveling abroad and staying in hotels or hostels that aren't even up to Best Western standards. Isn't that what travel is about-learning how much we have in this country and how high our standard of living is compared to even highly developed and modern societies. These are the lessons to be learned so we have a better understanding of other people in other cultures. After all, I would think these junkets are for learning, not for living the high life and finding all the Hard Rock cafes aboard.
And, as for those teachers who have to lower their living standard, I say if it's that tough on you,just stay home and save taxpayers some money.

Anonymous said...

YOU KIDDING? Randy the Globe never asks any questions, that's why I'm here reading you!

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the anti-faculty whiners just move from one talking point to the next. It doesn't matter how many get slapped down. All they need is one, and if it means cycling through a thousand to get to one, that's fine with them. Good lord! Anything but "maybe the faculty have a legitimate point?"

The latest is that the international mission must be saved, faculty say, because they really secretly want to save those trips abroad. If it were true that a vast majority of faculty actually put those trips together, at least the point might make sense to pose (not that that would prove it, of course).

But the truth of the matter is that about 10% of MOSO faculty take (or have taken, or plan to take) students abroad. It's a tiny percentage, as it is on most campuses. You'd think from the "outrage" of the community whiners that it was upwards of 90%.

Now why oh why would the entire faculty be up in arms about protecting a program, if it were true that it was really just a way to get a trip abroad, when only 10% ever take (or intend on taking) advantage?

Let me see...hmmm...maybe it's because most faculty -- who never intend on taking students anywhere, not even to Webb City or to BooksaMillion -- see the value in this kind of program. As have, oh, I don't know -- just about every major university worth anything in the United States today.

Rationales for international programs are complicated, but come down to to partly this: for an ambitious person to be successful in today's world requires exposure to a larger world than Joplin, which for all its charm is not terribly worldly. That said, and given the fact that educational institutions should aim to meet the needs of their most ambitious students, international missions are essential. If your kid aims to be a server at Pizza By Stout, the international mission isn't necessary (at least for his/her career goals), but as I said colleges should aim to serve the needs of the ambitious, not drop to merely serving the needs of the mediocre.

Anonymous said...

Speck has a very interesting technique - if there is something that he doesn't like he establishes a special committee or task force. For example, he cuts the international mission and then establishes a task force. After all, he wouldn't want facts to disrupt his decision, it's much better to get information after the decision.
He cites that progrms must benefit all students on campus and that pograms must break even or make a profit (remember, we are now a business). That's a great idea. How about a task force on athletics, does football break even or pay for itself ? How about a task force on all the new administrative positions? Do they break even or pay for themselves?
Speck needs to discover a couple of concepts: honest, consistency and logic. They would serve him better than the duplicity, arrogance and misrepresentation he uses now.
The issues with faculty have nothing to do with money, either in the form of faculty pay, benefits or cuts/increases to programs. It has to do with the fact that Speck is disrespectful, does not include faculty (actually a required activity to maintain accreditation) and is simply arrogant. Did you enjoy working for the boss you had like that?