We met with the President, Provost, and the President's Chief of Staff on December 7th. During that meeting we discussed the following:
We asked:
The resolution on Corey Holmes. Given the receptiveness shown to the resolution at the last CC meeting and articles such as https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/us/prosecutors-investigating-police-killings.html?searchResultPosition=1, the CC XC would like to discuss that the administration be proactive as regards an investigation into the death on campus 10 years ago.
We were told that the president felt "There is no advantage for the college to ask for the investigation, but it would do us great harm" as "On the simplist level simplist level you are asking one state agency to demand accountability from another state agency, and that has tremendous political implications and I have to protect the reputation and the funding stream of the campus."
We were told that over the years quiet enquiries had been made.
It was suggested that many things had changed since the death; that cases are being reopened; that this was something all stakeholders of the campus could align on.
We asked:
Over the years, the College Council Executive Committee has expressed concerns about the athletics program, and recently were apprised of several specific complaints about harassment, bullying, and intimidation throughout the female athletics program. The accusers expressed an inability to have their message heard. We would like to discuss the reporting structures here to see where improvements can be made. At a minimum, the need for an Ombudsperson again is made.
We were told several things mostly speculation, as it was apparent that the complaints had not reached the president or the president was unable to comment that they had. It was suggested that perhaps Catherine Ferrara would be the right person to contact and that all such complaints needed to be signed. It was our belief that the individuals raising the complaints had already done so, and had contacted the prior person to hold Ms. Ferrara's position. We were told that the president was known not to tolerate bullying; however, it was unclear how then these complaints were not acted on.
As for the discussion of an ombudsperson, the president did not seem to like this idea, though the provost said he was familiar with the benefits of the position due to his experiences in California and thought there was merit. The College Council Executive Committee will bring the request to the new interim president.
We asked:
The status of 1N and 2N is again of concern to faculty and staff. We hope to dscuss any updates to the timeline for bringing them on line and the state of the exteriors
We were told essentially the same thing as at the prior meeting. The first and second floors will very likely be open by January, the elevators may be fixed by then. That the basements were still in a demolition phase.
We asked about mold issues that had been reported. We were told that department chairpersons have been made aware as to the proper procedures to report such issues.
We asked:
The College Council Executive Committee members have been alerted to issues ranging from supervision to serious concerns about the college's ability to pay its obligations in a timely and efficient manner. We would like to discuss these areas of concern.
We explained that the issue many people have is failing to be reimbursed. It wasn't a specific complaint about there being no monies allocated; just the flow of allocated money.
We asked:
The college is in a transition period without any indication of who will be in the leadership position on an interim basis. Are there any additional details that can be shared.
At the time no news was available. Now we know that Timothy Lynch has been appointed by the Chancellor as an interim president effective 1/1/2022. The Chancellor also said we will learn more about a search for a permanent president in the spring.
We did not get time to discuss our enrollment, which as of writing was off by 13% from last spring (now ~12%).