February 24, 2014

Dr. Leslie Di Mare:

I am writing concerning the deterioration of the relationship between the Faculty and the

Provost. I am concerned for the future of this university under his leadership. A Provostshould have the respect and the trust of the Faculty he leads. From what I can see, this

Provost has neither. Granted it is difficult to come from outside because no trust has

 been established, so the task facing Dr. Wright when he came here would have been toearn the trust, and then the respect, of the Faculty. In my opinion, he has made no

discernible attempt to do either.

Dr. Wright is completely out of touch with the Faculty perspective. Rather than go aboutlearning who the Faculty are, not necessarily individually but collectively, and then

seeking input from the Faculty regarding setting goals and determining needs, he has

dictated several “initiatives”, some in conflict with the Faculty Handbook, and none as Iunderstand it involving prior consultation with Faculty Senate nor, perhaps, with you.

Dr. Wright, in his fall speech to Faculty, made us aware that he came to higher education

as an “escape” from an onerous job that kept him on the road and away from family for80 hours per week. He found, through his initial experience with a “weekend college”

teaching position, that he had much more free time to spend with his family. Not

knowing his duties or schedule when he first became a tenure-track faculty member, I canonly surmise from what he told us during his speech: that he believes faculty have “the

 best paying three-day-a-week job you can get”.  When questioned on his “three days”

assertion, Dr. Wright did not back down, or inquire if he might be mistaken, but rather

allowed gratuitously that “I know you get your 40 hours in” and went on to say thatfaculty time is “flexible”. Perhaps true in his former position and, for all I know, perhaps

true for  some at this University, but by no means do most, or even a large minority, of

members of the Faculty of CSU-Pueblo work “three-days-a-week”. In some of thedepartments within this University, I know of faculty who put in six or even seven days a

week for long stretches during and between semesters. Granted, we may work shorter

days on weekends and during semester breaks, but most of us get in far more than our“40 hours”. 

In my opinion, Dr. Wright has forgotten or does not understand the mindset of a teacher.

Perhaps he believes that we all came to teaching, like he did, as an escape from sometedious job. Perhaps he believes that we, as did he, found that teaching gave us a lot of

“free time”. This could not be further from the truth for most members of this Faculty.

Most of us came to teaching because of our passion for our discipline and for advancing

our discipline among the younger generations through teaching and research. We are passionate about our teaching and our research and, as noted above, put in far more than

Dr. Wright’s “three-days-a-week”. In fact, most of us knew in advance that we would be

committing far more than “40 hours” to our work and we willingly and eagerly acceptedthe position.

 

 

However, no teacher has unlimited time to devote to new “initiatives” dreamed up by the

Provost and imposed upon us, or set to be imposed, without any oversight by the FacultySenate or the CAP Board. A reliable source has communicated that when Dr. Wright

was informed of widespread discontent among the Faculty and that, directly attributable

to his attitude and actions, many are actively looking for positions elsewhere, he

remarked “let them leave –  we’ll build from the ground up”. This callous attitude seemstypical of Dr. Wright’s approach to the Faculty. He has demonstrated his disregard for

our viewpoints and has rejected our expertise. During the CSM Convocation meeting, an

experienced and productive biological researcher and scientist tried to explain to Dr.Wright that scientific research requires a significant commitment of time and resources

that is not consistent with an increase in credit hour teaching load. At some point, the

available time will be insufficient to maintain commitments and something will have to

 be cut. Either our commitment to our students will have to be curtailed in order to leavetime for research, or research productivity will diminish markedly. In his response to this

scientist, the Provost simply asserted repeatedly that “I think you can do it” offering as

 justification that he had managed to maintain his research in business with a 12 creditteaching load. This mindset is revealing: Dr. Wright equates “research” in business with

“research” in science; apparently believing “research” in all disciplines requires the same

time commitment. This is ludicrous and Dr. Wright should be  seeking guidance from

those with expertise in fields where he is lacking. But Dr. Wright’s approach so far has been to assert that he knows best and that we are going to have to do whatever he says. I

am certain that this University will lose faculty under a Provost with this attitude. And I

do not believe it will be easy (possible?) to recruit new faculty under his leadership.

I wish Dr. Wright was a good Provost. I wish he was a great Provost. I would reluctantly

settle for him being a mediocre Provost. And I and others would work to help him if he

showed any genuine desire to gain some understanding of us and our needs, our goals,and our limitations. This University, with our current budgetary and enrollment situation,

certainly needs a capable and competent leader in that position. But Dr. Wright is,

 perhaps, the worst Provost this University has had during my time here. I believe hewould have to try in order to be worse at his job than he is. In my opinion, any genuine

 show of willingness to learn from and cooperate with the Faculty  would be an

improvement, but I fear it is too late, and Dr. Wright unwilling, to turn this around.

I believe a Provost should come from within the University community. He/she should

 be someone the Faculty knows, trusts, and respects. An outsider is at a disadvantage in

this. Ideally, in my opinion, a Provost should be selected from among the Deans. TheDeans, themselves, unless they are well-known and respected in their field, should also

come from within, since having the trust and respect of the Faculty is also critical for

them. Unlike your own position, where a proven leader from outside can quickly earn

the respect of the Faculty, the Provost has a harder job to earn that respect. And when the person occupying that office fails to demonstrate concern for, understanding of, and

respect for  the Faculty, he will never earn respect or trust from the Faculty.

 

I believe this University can be a good university. Some of our departments are

exceptional within the state. A Provost needs to discover these and work with their

faculty to ensure no loss in quality. CSU-Pueblo is, I believe, capable of being the“university of first choice” at least for our local and southern Colorado regional students -

a goal I have worked toward in my own area since coming here. The faculty make upthe

most critical element in that choice. Without students, there is no need   for faculty;

without faculty, a university cannot have students. A Provost needs to be aware of thisrelationship. And finally, a Provost must appreciate what faculty do in order to

accurately represent us to you and to the Board of Governors. I believe that Dr. Wright

cannot possibly appreciate what we do because he is completely unaware of what we do.

Sincerely,

David Dillon