DuPage United does not
endorse or support candidates. Our focus is on issues.
And we’re here today to talk about a very big issue.
Radical steps taken by COD’s Board of Trustees, under
the leadership of Chairman Micheal McKinnon and
Vice-Chairman Mark Nowak, are changing the very nature
of the college.
Most of us have a financial stake in College of DuPage.
We contribute seventy million dollars through our
property taxes. This accounts for more than half of
COD’s annual budget. COD is a major contributor to our
local economy – both in the number of people it employs
and in the number of people it prepares for employment.
It offers quality, low-cost education and an excellent
menu of cultural events. This college belongs to the
people of DuPage, and we have lots of reasons to be
proud of it.
However, in recent months COD’s Board of Trustees has
been the target of a great deal of criticism by
faculty, students, and interested citizens. The Board
has developed a habit of making decisions – even
extremely important ones – hastily, and without
meaningful input from key campus constituencies. This
is the polar opposite of shared governance. It directly
violates accepted standards of most of the colleges and
universities in the United States. Two examples to
illustrate the trend:
The first example is the process used in the selection
of the new President, Dr. Robert Breuder. Dr. Breuder
is an experienced and able leader. But the process of
choosing him was deeply flawed. The long-standing
custom at COD, and at most American institutions of
higher learning, is to have a formal presidential
search committee that is comprised of all the key
campus constituencies. Instead, the Board chose only
three people – all of them Board members -- to vet all
the candidates and pick the finalists. DuPage United
and other citizens, as well as campus constituencies,
attended Board meetings and repeatedly insisted that
the Board broaden the search committee. It didn’t
happen. Instead, the Board appointed an ad hoc advisory
group which had no real voice in the selection, and in
fact was sworn to secrecy to the point where they
weren’t even allowed to say whether they thought the
selection process was fair. Thus the new President of
College of DuPage took office with no meaningful input
from anyone other than the Board.
My second example is a far greater violation of shared
governance – and this one is an egregious violation of
the rules of the College. The Board, acting
unilaterally, thoroughly revised the College of DuPage
Policy Manual.
This is a jaw-dropper. The Policy Manual sets forth all
of COD’s rules – rules that govern the Board, the
President, the faculty, the administration, the staff,
and the students – basically everyone.
The Manual they revised had been adopted in 1967. It
had been continuously updated to meet new needs. It
included specific rules governing the process of
changing COD policies. A principal requirement of the
revision process was review and feedback on each
proposed policy change. This was to be done by the
College of DuPage Leadership Council. The Leadership
Council was a model of collaboration. It included the
elected leaders from each employee group as well as the
administrative leaders and the President. But last
October, Trustees Kory Atkinson and David Carlin
rewrote the entire policy book -- adding, revising, or
dropping numerous policies – and thereby directly
violating COD’s rules for changing college policies.
Again, faculty, students, and other interested parties,
including DuPage United, spoke out at several Board
meetings. And again it was because of a failure to
include other college constituencies. We also objected
to the New Manual’s centralization of power in the
Board. During this period President Breuder re-wrote
the proposed Policy Manual twice. He also dissolved the
Leadership Council – the major instrument of shared
governance and policy change.And just three days ago,
this new Policy Manual – a product of unilateral
decision- making – a product that effectively changes
what COD is about, what it stands for, and how it will
be run -- was voted into effect by our Board of
Trustees.
Approval of some of the more controversial policies was
postponed until after the April 7 election of Trustees.
Many of the postponed changes had been widely condemned
in the academic world – for example, as one association
put it, this is “an extraordinary attack on academic
freedom, shared governance, and intellectual liberty.”
A word about ethics in the run-up to this election.
Chairman Micheal McKinnon chaired one of the electoral
boards that decided who would be allowed to run -even
though he is running, too. Clearly unethical.
During one of the electoral hearings, the appointed
Secretary of the Board of Trustees -- not a Trustee
herself, but an employee who had held this post for 20
years – voted to keep a particular candidate on the
ballot against the Chairman’s wishes. Within weeks, she
was stripped of her office – two months before her term
was due to end. Responsible leaders would avoid not
only unethical conduct, but the appearance of it.
These matters – along with the efforts to gather power
into the hands of a few – should concern us all. On
April 7th voters will fill four seats on the COD Board
of Trustees. That means we’re voting on a majority of
the seven seats. Usually only two seats are on the
ballot, but this time we also have to fill the seats of
two Trustees who resigned.
Four seats instead of two. So this election is a
one-time shot – the only opportunity for the owners of
the college – us – to pick the majority of the Board
and save the democratic governance, the freedom, and
reputation of this prized institution.
It’s our college. It’s our call.
Close Menu