UPDATE: Multiple sources confirm that Oakland University President Gary Russi will be meeting with the faculty Thursday, Nov. 19 in a so-called “open forum.” The Oakland Post will be covering this forum, however despite its name, it seems as if the forum is closed to the general public.

An anonymous group of faculty put its negative opinion of Oakland University’s leadership in writing, prompting two professors to come forward and organize a vote of no confidence. The vote, which holds no official weight, is used in university settings to push a president out of office.

“It’s an extreme measure people only come to when they feel they’ve exhausted all opportunities,” said Shea Howell, communication professor and chair of the Communication and Journalism Department. Howell and David Garfinkle, professor of physics, signed an e-mail sent to faculty last week pledging to organize the vote.

“Traditionally a vote of no confidence in the president of the university is a statement by the faculty (saying) the university is broken,” Garfinkle said. The professor said the desired outcome of the no confidence vote would be for Russi to leave office by the request of the board of trustees that appointed him or by resignation.

However, OU’s board has shown an outpouring of support for Russi in two meetings in the past week (see page 7 for story).

Student liaison to the board Tawnee Milko said in her time as a student, the board has always been supportive of Russi and the administration, and Russi has always seemed to truly care about the student body.

Howell thinks the board’s opinions may be able to be swayed, as more information is uncovered.

“The board spoke without any knowledge,” Howell said. “This isn’t about whether (Russi’s) nice to talk to. This is about how do you decide the direction of the university and what kind of atmosphere you create … The heart of the university are the things (the board) can’t see unless they talk to students, faculty and clerical. Hopefully once they hear some of that they’ll change.”

To educate the public and the board, this anonymous group of faculty (which is currently of unknown size) has outlined in a “bill of particulars” grievances with the president and the administration.

“The first step is to go ahead and articulate what the case is,” Garfinkle said. Howell said there were more than a dozen faculty members adding to the list in an e-mail chain, and nobody made a peep at last week’s faculty union meeting of about 50 where the list was presented.

An “adversarial atmosphere,” preventing direct contact between faculty and the board of trustees, and failure to provide information about the medical school are among the grievances cited in the bill.

However, some of the “particulars” are not solely the president’s responsibility.

For example, Russi is cited as failing to provide information regarding the medical school, but releasing that information is up to the general counsel’s office (OU’s legal office).

“The president doesn’t handle every day-to-day concern,” said Dave Groves, OU’s assistant director of media relations. “That’s why he has a cabinet and that’s why they have deans and chairs and the rest.”

“None of it seems to really add up to really specific, tangible gripes,” said OU media relations Director Ted Montgomery. “They seem to be talking almost in philosophical terms rather than tangible terms.”

Although it was ultimately resolved in the recent contract negotiations, governance is the topic of another document being passed around.

“The past few years have seen persistent and continuing assaults on shared governance, open communication and the eroding of trust between the faculty and Gary Russi,” the document states.

WHERE IT’S BEEN DONE

A vote of no confidence has been used at other universities, like Harvard and University of California, and does not carry any certain consequences.

“I’m not sure that we know that we would need a plan of action,” said Groves, on what would happen if there was a majority vote. “If you look at what’s happening at other universities, there are presidents serving who’ve had no confidence votes against them who continue to serve. The bigger question is, regardless of a vote, how do you address the root of the problem? And I think that’s what Dr. Russi and the administration are trying to do.”

UNION INVOLVEMENT

While the professors’ union is serving as a platform for the effort, the union is not officially involved.

“We would not instruct our members one way or the other. We do not have any official position in either endorsing or refuting it,” said Karen Miller, vice president of OU’s AAUP chapter.

An article published on the AAUP’s national website actually recommends “if your campus can avoid a no-confidence vote, do so.”

The article suggests an alternate problem-solving method that includes an investigation of the problems.

Miller said that based on her personal interactions with professors, the opinions are mixed.

“I have talked to 30-40 faculty and there are a few who very much oppose it and more than a few who very much support it and a fairly substantial bunch in the middle … considering the ideas put on the table,” she said.

TAKING ACTION

Russi is taking a proactive approach to the criticism and responded to the documents by sending an e-mail to the OU staff list on Friday, Oct. 6.

“I see this as a call to open broader communication not only on these particular concerns, but also any issues important to successful governance of the university,” he wrote.

“In this spirit, I am planning to meet with authors of the letter as soon as possible. I am also planning to meet with the academic deans and department chairs to learn what measures we might take to improve communication and the shared governance process.”

Russi did reach out to the only two names publicly associated with this action.

Garfinkle has a meeting scheduled with Russi on Wednesday and Howell met with Russi on Tuesday.

“Both Shea Howell and I made it clear to him we are not authors, leaders or sole forces behind this,” Garfinkle said.

OU media relations also said Russi has already met with several department chairs to look for solutions to the items listed in the bill of particulars.

“He’s soliciting their advice on how better to do this, how to make clear channels of communication,” Montgomery said.

Howell said she requested Russi call an open forum with the entire faculty.

Montgomery pointed out that the board meetings are always open to the public and that faculty should attend those because that’s where the university carries out most of its business.

“This is going to be a process of discovery through which he gets the input from campus leaders on how best to do this. You don’t solve it overnight and you don’t solve it in a forum in one afternoon,” Montgomery said.

The vote is planned to be done online, confidential, and possibly before December 1.