Looking back at Roger Chelf’s historic year and the (in)famous ‘no confidence’ vote

Roger Chelf received a round of applause Monday when he officially ended his Faculty Senate President term. Many Faculty Senators said he stepped into a trying and difficult year. One called him a hero.
Chelf, Faculty Senate president since May 2009, does not consider himself a hero.
In the past year under Chelf's leadership, 21 out of 26 Faculty Senators voted "no confidence" in University President Bruce Speck's leadership. A University-wide vote the next month showed that 76 percent of faculty also did not have confidence.
However, with no response from the Board of Governors yet on the matter, Chelf feels he has accomplished "almost nothing."

The history of the ‘no confidence' vote
Talks of a vote of no confidence in Speck surfaced in Spring 2009. Chelf and then-Faculty Senate President Carla Walter thought a vote was premature at the time. They decided to sit on the idea over the Summer.
"It's typical for issues to mellow out over the summer," Chelf said. "They did not."
The controversy surrounding Dr. Jack Oakes' appointment to Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs was last straw. Oakes left the position after 18 days last July.
An email sent to Speck from Oakes last year said Speck suggested using threats to force Director of Admissions Derek Skaggs to accept an unfair salary. Oakes had several other criticisms of Speck's management style, and his decision to leave his position so quickly agitated the senators.
"I decided, probably shortly after Jack Oakes left office, that if the Faculty Senate had not died down [by August], I would be willing to carry out a ‘no confidence' vote," Chelf said. "I thought the best way to solve the problem would be to expose what faculty viewed as a problem."
As soon as Faculty came back to school in August, a group from the Business department and the American Association of University Professors contacted Chelf about a vote. Individual faculty members came to Chelf's office requesting the formation of a committee to investigate Speck's activities.
On Sept. 2, the Senate voted to create an ad hoc committee for that purpose. A few weeks later, it finished compiling a list of 23 grievances against the president and delivered them to the Board of Governors.
The report cited "failures of leadership," "failures of management, "failures of shared governance" and "failures of judgment and public embarrassment."
"If the Speck administration is allowed to continue, there can only be further negative publicity and likely damage to the reputation of MSSU that will take years to repair," the report concluded.
October's Faculty Senate meeting saw the 21-5 vote of "no confidence" in Speck. The Board directed Speck to improve Faculty relations. However, 140 Faculty still voted "no confidence" in Speck in November, while 44 voted said they do have confidence and 53 did not vote.
"In general, we feel he is a failed leader," Chelf told The Chart in November. "I have tried to get his through as quickly as I could. It's a very emotional scene. Dragging it out is harmful."

Faculty opinion today
Chelf said he thinks if a no confidence vote were to be taken again today, it would follow a similar pattern to last time.
"People are scared. If there was assured anonymity [in the vote], it would certainly not improve any," Chelf said. "Speck is not particularly liked yet; his decisions are still within the area of grey that led us here in the first place."
Chelf said a leading body that Faculty might be more upset with than Speck is the Board of Governors. Board Chairman Rod Anderson said last year the no confidence vote would be discussed at the Board's annual retreat in February. However, Speck was only asked to report how he has improved relations with faculty since October 2009.
"I think there's a lot more people now who would like to see ‘no confidence' in the Board rather than necessarily the president," Chelf said. He added that people on campus are very "miffed" at the Board's "lack of action," "lack of statements," "votes" and "ignoring problems."
However, relations between the Faculty and administration are strained.
"We're at a point now where neither party will listen to the other," Chelf said. "It's to the part [where] it's very hard to reconcile."

Future hopes for the Senate
There are more than a couple changes Chelf hopes to see at Southern in the next year.
He would like changes made to the controversial nondiscrimination policy, which does not include sexual orientation at this time. Also, he would like more faculty input in big decisions and for the recently enforced media policy to be lifted.
"The policy on not talking to the press is disastrous," he said. "It is damaging. It's intent has always been- and always will be- to silence people."
He also feels it is a "shame" so much money has been spent on the medical school plan when Southern administrators apparently knew in February that Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences would back out. He said administrators have only been giving positive reports on the project.
"I think we've been lied to, or at least been less-than-honest to," Chelf said. "I don't know if, when you go through the financial squeeze that we're going through, that you spend that kind of money on a hope."
However, the Senate will at least spend the next year without Chelf's help. Though he will remain active on the executive committee, he will not be a voting Senator.
"I seem to have a strong personality on it [the Senate]; it may be best to just separate that and let a whole new tone take over," Chelf said.