Faculty votes 'no confidence' in CSUS chief
Sacramento Bee 4/28/07
About 600 of roughly 900 eligible faculty members cast ballots in the no-confidence referendum, which lasted two weeks, faculty announced Friday. The final tally wasn't close: 464, or 77 percent, voted against Gonzalez; 134, or 23 percent, voted in his favor. Two instructors officially abstained.
The results are not binding -- they don't mean Gonzalez is forced to resign or do anything else. But, said Michael Fitzgerald, chair of the CSUS Faculty Senate, Gonzalez would be wise to take the election seriously, particularly when it comes to cutting the budget for academic affairs -- the bread-and-butter of the university that includes things like instruction.
"The message that I think it should send is the faculty really want the president to pay close attention to the academic budget," Fitzgerald said.
CSU administration spokeswoman Claudia Keith said the system's leaders stand behind Gonzalez.
"The trustees and the chancellor support the president," Keith said. "He provides strong leadership to the campus."
In a written response to the vote that he sent to faculty, Gonzalez struck a conciliatory tone.
"Much more needs to be done, and it must involve everyone on campus" Gonzalez wrote Friday. "In the coming weeks and continuing into the next academic year, I will seek your input and develop a number of concrete actions to address these issues."
The letter had a different tone from the one he sent to the faculty a few weeks ago toward the start of the election. In that letter, he accused some faculty members of "mean-spiritedness" and "outright distortion," referring at one point to the push for a no-confidence vote as "reminiscent of a witch hunt."
Those charges by Gonzalez ring hollow in the face of the vote results, Fitzgerald said Friday.
"The president ... inferred a very small number of faculty were opposed to his policies," Fitzgerald said. "The vote shows that small number isn't so small."
The resolution expresses anger about Gonzalez's handling of university finances and frustration about the $6.5 million structural deficit the school faces this year. It also questions his priorities, accusing him of putting more money into student recruitment and campus promotion while academic affairs funding lagged.
Gonzalez responded that the faculty members were being fed misleading facts and blamed the deficit on rising costs and failure to meet enrollment targets. He also noted that he will listen to a new committee of faculty, staff, administrators and students in deciding how to deal with financial troubles.
Asked a few weeks ago if he would resign should the no-confidence vote go against him, Gonzalez said he would not, adding that he serves at the pleasure of the CSU chancellor and board of trustees, not the faculty.
His response Friday mentioned moving forward and that he is "committed to bringing people together so that we can help our campus reach its full potential."
Kevin Wehr, an assistant professor of sociology, said he hopes Gonzalez's accommodating words are followed up by action.
"I think that is about as close to humble pie as he gets," Wehr said.
A no-confidence vote at a CSU campus is not unprecedented, but it is rare. In 1998, faculty at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, cast a clear no-confidence vote in then-President Bob Suzuki. Suzuki survived the crisis and retired in 2003. Former San Diego State President Thomas Day survived a no-confidence vote in 1992 and led the university a few more years.
Fitzgerald said he could not recall a no-confidence referendum at CSUS any time during the last 20 years.
A bit of sparring occurred Friday over the roughly 300 faculty eligible to vote who did not cast ballots. Gonzalez's spokesman, Frank Whitlatch, noted that their silence meant that just over 50 percent of faculty voted against Gonzalez.
"The faculty are split," Whitlatch said.
Wehr called that interpretation ridiculous. He said some eligible faculty weren't on campus during voting. Also, he said, close to 70 percent turnout is good for any election.
"It sends a clear message of dissatisfaction," Wehr said.