Board of Trustees Votes Unanimously to Increase Tuition

By Shawmaf Zane Khubba

On July 26, 2012, the Board of Trustees of Montclair State University unanimously voted to increase tuition (including the “elected” Student Trustee Alex Bychkov) by 3.9%, making tuition over $11,000, and increasing the trend of making education a privilege of the wealthy and not a right of citizens of a democracy.

This decision would have passed over in silence—as intended by the administration, who barred students from speaking at their meetings—were it not for members of the student activist group on campus, Students for a Democratic Society, and several of their allies, who voiced their opposition. The activists showed up at the meeting with dissenting picket signs in their hands and black duct tape over their mouths, in accordance with the no speaking rule. They waited as each of the trustees voted until Alex Bychkov, the student trustee, showed his loyalty to the administration by voting in favor of the tuition increase. At this point, the dissenting students, outraged (but not surprised), began to shout: “SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!”. They shouted until the board members adjourned the meeting early and slithered out of the room. Susan Cole, the President of MSU, left the quickest, before any light was cast on her extravagant salary and benefits, which have been increasing just as steadily as our tuition. On her contract for the year of 2011, a $125,000 bonus was justified as an “incentive” for her to stay. Apparently the incentives of our educators are of no comparable import, as their salaries and benefits have stagnated, despite inflation.

About a week following the meeting, several members of SDS, some of whom were not even at the meeting, received a letter from Dr. Karen L. Pennington, rebuking them for their protest and admonishing them that further such actions would result in “disciplinary action”. Moreover, in a comment infused with irony, Pennington informed them that their actions constituted censorship of the board members. Apparently it is not censorship to squelch the voice of students at meetings addressing matters which concern them directly, like where their tuition money is going to be spent.

Letter from the Administration About the Action Against Tuition Hikes

The informal "NOTES" are by SDS member Aldo Guerrero


 Dear [Insert Name Here]
During the course of the past year you and other members of the student body have shown an interest in University issues, and it is perfectly appropriate to seek to understand and to express views about matters that have an impact on your life. Until this last Thursday, you and a small group of others often identified as SDS, have with few exceptions expressed your views in a manner that was reasonably consistent with University policy, and the University has been accepting and accomodating *(NOTE#1) of your chosen form of expression. However, on Thursday, July 26, 2012, your actions crossed a line and were in clear violation of University policy because they disrupted an important University activity, the meeting of the Board of Trustees, and because they deprived other members of the University community of their rights.


Differences of view and expression of differing views in a University community are completely acceptable. However, it is never permissable to shout down others when they are speaking in order to prevent them from being heard because that action does not constitute the exercise of free and open expression of views, it constitutes censorship *(NOTE#2). Quite simply you do not have the right to prevent the duly elected representative of the students from performing his role in speaking as a member of the Board of Trustees *(NOTE #3), or to prevent any other member of the Board from participation in his or her responsiblities *(NOTE #4). As Winston Churchill said, "Everyone is in favor of free speech *(NOTE #5). Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."


I encourage you to take the time to familiarize yourself with the University' "Policy and Procedures Concerning Demonstrations and Aseemblies," *(NOTE #6) and if you have any questions about that policy, you are welcome to contact the Office of the Dean of Students to discuss those questions. Please note that any further violation of the University policy will make you subject to disciplinary action.Sincerely, Karen Pennington Pc: Rose Mary Howell *(NOTE #7)


 *1 Yes, they helped us by bureacratizing the process to have the occupation, threatened us with phony security fees, gave us only half of the quad, and refuse to let students speak at BoT meetings


 *2 Because not letting students speak at BoT meetings totally constitutes "the exercise of free and open expression of views." I bet it's also not "censorship."


*3 This guy voted FOR the tuition increase and did not speak out against it.


*4 I don't quite understand how we PREVENTED anyone from participating in "his or her responsibilites." This is the third time we do such an action and they blatantly ignored us to continue their bureaucratic responsiblities. They also blocked 3 students from participating in the tuition hearings.


 *5 Here we go, administrators pretending to be EXPERTS on free speech. Do they expect us to not be "outraged" by the fact that they undemocratically raise tuition every damn year without having students voice out their concerns in every board meeting? What about raising it over a conference call last year without the full board or even the "elected" student trustees being present?


*6 Perhaps in our response, SDS should encourage them to read a book about democracy or something along the lines of "Who Rules the University." lol


 *7 Dean Howell hasn't had enough of us since the "Town Meeting" and SGA elections huh. lol

SDS Protests against Tuition Hikes

On July 26, the Board of Trustees of Montclair State University unanimously voted to raise tuition (including the so-called "elected" Student Trustee Alex Bychkov) by 3.9%... but not without a fight.


The video includes AFT Union President Richard Wolfson speaking against tuition hikes unless the administration considers "managerial cuts" in the administration aka "Chopping from the Top." This is something that SDS has been advocating the entire year in light of Susan Cole's bonus along with other perks (free housing, free car, free housekeeing, free driver, free credit card, extra compensation after her resignation etc.) The FULL contract can be found here.

SDS members along with supporters shouted "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" repeatedly to express their disapproval. And as is standard practice with this Board of Trustees, they completely ignored the students and continued with their bureaucratic meeting.

Dis-Orientation Guide

If text doesn't appear, click here

Occupy MSU / Tent State University

From Monday April 16 to Friday April 20, Montclair State University's chapter of Students for a Democratic Society hosted a week-long occupation on their Student Center Quad.

The setup began Sunday evening as SDS members put up their first tents preparing themselves for a entire week of activism to raise awareness of real issues that affect higher education: tuition hikes, student loan debt, lack of state funding, lack of administrative transparency, student rights on campus etc.

Day 1 of the encampment

The setup of the occupation sparked the curiosity of the general public. Tents, signs, and banners were prominently displayed on the quad as students, faculty, and staff workers came up to the SDS table to receive free food, informational literature, button pins, and student debt stickers (HELLO, MY NAME IS ALDO AND I AM $10,000 IN DEBT). Students were also encouraged to call their state legislators to advocate for two Tuition Cap bills that are currently on the floor of the NJ State Assembly (A2464) and the NJ State Senate (S1569).

As SDS and other students camped out over night, the University Police Department (UPD) patrolled the area every night before midnight.  This was due to the administration’s pathetic little attempt to restrict the ability of the students to protest. Rules were imposed on the occupation such as only being allowed to occupy half of the quad and not allowing anyone to sleep inside tents. SDS and company slept outside of the tents instead, a hilarious loophole that was continuously exposed. Thankfully, the warm weather was on the side of activism.

Despite the restrictions on Freedom of Speech, Occupy MSU received positive media coverage for its protest: (Click)

-NorthJersey.com - Montclair State students join protest of education costs

-NorthJersey.com - Montclair State set for further expansion

-BaristaNet- Occupy Movement Reaches MSU

-BaristaNet - The Occupation Ends at MSU

-The Gadfly - Protesting the cost of higher education

-Montclair Patch - Occupy Movement Hits MSU Campus Today

-The Montclarion - SDS Occupies Quad in Tuition Protest

-The Montclarion Opinion Section - There's a Reason SDS is Occupying the Quad 

-SDS member Aldo Guerrero appeared on camera in News 12 New Jersey. Although it aired on TV, the footage is not readily available for online viewing.

-WMBC also showed up

-And finally, various student journalists and photographers came to observe as well.

Professor Samuels talking about MSU's Student Government

Throughout the week, teach-ins of various subjects were hosted by guest speakers. Here is a list of some teach-ins that took place:

-The Problems of MSU's Student Government by Professor Jack Samuels

-History of American Student Activism by CUNY Professor Angus Johnston

-Marginalized Groups in Progressive Movements by Femvolution President and SDS Member Leah Stone

-Fairness in the Economy by U.S. Senate Candidate for the Socialist Party Greg Pason

-Discrimination in American Law by S.P.E.C.T.R.U.M.S President Alan Akins

-Black Family Discussion by SDS Member Carlo Rossi

-NATO, War, & Imperialism by SDS Member Justin Wooten & Professor Grover Furr

-Animal Welfare 101 by Animal Rights Activist Constance Li

-Meditation & Non-Violent Resistance by Professor Maughn Gregory

-Progressive Music performed by Rutgers Student Christian McFarland

Leah Stone about to begin her teach-in about marginalized groups in progressive movements

The idea of Tent State University originated from Rutgers University who recently hosted their 10th Annual Tent State. Montclair State SDS, Rutgers, and Rowan University agreed to encamp in solidarity in an attempt to create a unified and powerful statewide voice that addresses the issues of higher education. It is time for the state of New Jersey and for the United States to treat higher education as a serious issue.

SDS was satisfied with Occupy MSU / Tent State University. Hopefully this will be an annual event that will serve to fight for a more just and accessible system of higher education.

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing - Aldo Guerrero Statement

To the Board,

            My name is Aldo Guerrero and I am a sophomore majoring in Political Science.

My decision to attend this institution was based entirely on its supposed affordability. SUPPOSED “affordability.”  Now, it is getting pretty difficult to use that as a justification for coming here.  May I remind everyone that this institution has increased tuition over 150% for over the past 10 years?  In fact, tuition overall has increased higher than the rate of inflation.  How can anyone in good conscience call that “affordable?”  Any claim that states that this institution is “affordable” has little to no legitimacy whatsoever no matter what the administration wants the students to think, no matter how much you blame the state for your own financial failings.

I can understand the frustration towards the state of New Jersey for not adequately funding higher education, particularly this institution.  But what YOU have to understand is that it is TWICE as frustrating for the student body since we have to 1) deal with a state that no longer cares about higher education AND  2) deal with an administration that advises its Board of Trustees to raise tuition every single year.  All year long, this Board manages to get away with executing the President’s expensive non-transparent and non-democratic agenda with absolutely no meaningful discussion or dialogue in the face of the public.  When this is all set and done, the students are then asked to foot the bill in the form of tuition hikes near the end of the school year.  How is any of this even fair? 

How is it fair that the students get their tuition raised, the faculty works without a contract, but the president manages to self-enrich herself with a $125,000 longevity bonus which she has outright REFUSED to give back on the grounds that she actually NEEDS this extra compensation?  I can pull up the YouTube video where she blatantly refused to donate it in any shape or form despite the fact that Rutgers President Richard McCormick has donated his bonuses.  How could the President NEED extra compensation if the President’s contract is filled with other lucrative bonuses such as a free house with a free housekeeper, a free car with a free driver, and an American Express Corporate Card all paid for with University funds which can include tuition.  In addition, she is a tenured member of the English Department when she clearly does not teach and there is a clause in her contract that entitles her to an entire year’s worth of a paid sabbatical with full presidential salary should she decide to actually teach.  Even if she decides to not teach, she is STILL entitled to a monetary performance bonus that cannot be less than her current salary ($350,000).  Clearly, she does NOT need a longevity bonus.  I don’t care if these perks are considered a standard.  How can I believe that there is a budget crisis if the President accepts gifts like these and the Board approves of them?  How can I believe that the University needs more money by raising tuition if there is obviously enough money to go around to fund these lucrative, higher privileged perks?  If tuition goes up, I really hope that my money is not being used for self-enrichment purposes.  University money should be money for education and NOT administration.

Thank You,

Aldo Guerrero

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing -- Lisa Grab Statement

4-5-12

Dear Board Members,

At last year’s tuition hearing, I spoke about my personal story. Apparently that did not have that much of an impact because you decided the tuition increase over a conference call last summer (without the student trustees present), you continue to silence and dismiss students at the board meetings, and you continue shift 100% of the responsibility to the state. 

As you can see, I’ve rallied up some more students. You are no longer going to get away with these silly decisions that end up costing individual students thousands of dollars, that end up adding more and more fees to our bills. 

Asking for lower tuition is not synonymous with cutting faculty salaries; it is not synonymous with asking for lower quality education; and it is not synonymous with hoping the state will give us more money. (Trust me, I am giving the state just as much of a hard time as I am giving you all, so don’t say I am misguided).

I find it outright insulting that you are trying to justify the tuition increase by showing how MSU is one of the cheapest schools in New Jersey. Although we are one of the cheapest schools, we had one of the largest tuition increases last year. So it is not going to be the cheapest much longer. Stop blaming others and take responsibility. If you do want to continue blaming the state, then you need to be doing more to hold the state accountable.

Additionally, while it is true that the state is partially to blame and that our governor selfishly strives to squeeze the poor for more and more money while giving the wealthy individuals and corporations tax breaks, there is still some frivolous spending going on at MSU because of the administrations’ lack of transparency. 

We can save money here at MSU by chopping from the top. Some things we could have saved money on are our presidents’ $125,000 bonus (most presidents donate their bonuses to scholarships), the ill and nontransparent decision making, and the privatization of services on campus that are hidden inside added fees. 

Pedestrian Promenade:

Two great examples of the administrations’ lack of transparency and disregard for student input can be found in today’s agenda. The first is the Pedestrian Promenade. I asked around about this for quite some time before I discovered what it is. For those of you who don’t know, the pedestrian promenade is a walkway that they plan on building along the ridge parallel to Valley Road so that they can take prospective tours along a scenic route overlooking the NYC skyline. To bring in more “students” (or should I say sources of revenue). This fancy walkway is going to cost the university around 2.5 million dollars. 

Let’s stop and think for a second. We have sidewalks deteriorating all over campus. It is getting more and more difficult for students--especially those who need wheelchairs and assistance getting around—to walk on the preexisting sidewalks. 

[The administration interrupts me right here and tries to cut me off, but I continue.]

Or we can think about it this way. 2.5 million dollars can do a lot for students. It can give each student of the 18,000 students $138 dollars for textbooks or another fee. It can give 100 students free tuition for their entire 4 years at MSU. 2.5 million dollars can do a lot of things and should not be given over so easily to a project so useless as the pedestrian promenade.

If the administration really cares about student input they wouldn’t stop at consulting the BOT student representatives or the SGA committees. They would call for a referendum and see if the students at MSU really want a fancy walkway that is going to cost them 2.5 million dollars. 

The Overlook at Great Notch:

Another great example is the overlook at the great notch, where we are planning on putting the School of Business. Two years ago, the university paid a company 2 million to design a new school of business building that would have gone on the tennis courts. Now the university changes its mind with the argument that we can’t afford an entire new building. So they wasted 2 million on the designs and are now asking for another million to redesign the overlook building. This brings the total cost of designs to 3 million dollars. 

It gets worse. We will be renting the overlook with a long-term lease of 21 years for the initial term. At what price? It is not listed. This will be left to the discretion of the president. However, I decided to do my own research. 

A quick search on the internet says that at the rate of $28/SQ FT, the 151,000 square feet that MSU will be renting at the cost of 4 million a year. Over the span of 21 years, this will cost the university over 88 million. This far exceeds the 35 million being proposed for the building of the Media and Communications building. 

So, in the long term, we will not be saving money. Especially when you start consider the additional shuttle services that will be driving students to and from the overlook. 

Conclusion

The final message that I leave you all with—-trustee members, students, and faculty—-is that we need to hold the decision makers accountable at this university. These people rule the university. And they are appointed by the governor. Many of them have their own agendas. Some of them do not have the students’ best interests in mind. They all need to be told by the students how WE want OUR university to be run—democratically and fairly.  If our tuition and fees continue to rise, our intolerance for the actions and decisions being made here will increase 10 times that amount. 

Thank you.

Board of Trustees Tuition Hearing -- Mark Ludas Statement

Board of Trustees speech

4-5-12

The Greek philosopher, Plato, and his pupil, Aristotle, did not see eye to eye on many things, but there was at least one thing upon which they agreed, as did all notable philosophers: Everything that exists is made of parts. Add or subtract one or another part and the thing may cease functioning, or it may become another thing entirely. All the parts are necessary, they all add up, they are all essential, and while the thing itself created the need for them, they make the thing what it is.

Tuition is just one part in the “thing” called education. It serves two purposes. The first is to provide the student with her education. The second is to compensate the school for that education, such that it can continue giving it to others. Hence without tuition, the school would not prosper or improve in quality of materials or faculty, and the students would have no manner of purchasing education in a society that requires it be purchased like any other commodity.

Hence, we have proven that tuition is necessary in our society as it is now. We have also pointed out that the students are another part of education, as is the school itself. But what is the nature of this relationship? The students attend the school, and in so doing, sustain it. The school provides the students with education, which increases their value in the job market, for, as my economics professor once told me in 2005, each year spent in higher education will increase one’s lifetime income by a million dollars.

So the student’s presence at the school is required for the school to make money, and the school’s presence on the student’s degree is required for the student to make money. And both of these outcomes are made possible by tuition.

Money is the arbiter of humanity’s endeavors, not humanity. This isn’t idealistic speechifying, this is the world as it actually is, and I do not contest that. Rather, I would ask you another question, a question that addresses the reality I just described, and that is the cardinal question today.

What happens when tuition is raised? Answering this question depends upon the recognition of newly discovered “parts” of what we think is education. The “tuition hike,” occurs as the result of another part, the “board of trustees,” acting under the influence, direct or indirect, of yet another part, “the state.” What is the relationship between these three parts? How do their proper function maintain that of the entire “thing” called education?

The state decides to cut funding to higher education. The board of trustees responds, by deciding to raise tuition. The tuition hike does three things. First, it makes state school less accessible to new students. Second, it makes paying for state school less manageable to current students. Third, it reduces the value of the education for graduate students when you consider that tuition increased 8.4% at public universities while increasing only 4% at private universities in 2011.

The graduated students won’t make as much money because their degrees will be worth less, and they will be saddled with exorbitant student debt. Therefore, the school can’t make as much money because fewer students can actively afford it. Logically, if the students can’t attend the school, the thing known as “education” is missing one of its key components, and should break down entirely. But the school can counter this, and does in spades, building shiny dorms and facilities, privatizing parts of the school like food, housing, and parking, accepting innumerable outside dollars, publicizing its land more than its curriculum, and relying solely on a student’s willingness to pay for whatever the school wants her to, once she’s signed her acceptance letter and her parent or guardian has cosigned the loans.

So, students continue to attend, and “education” retains its necessary parts. But what has the tuition hike done? The part of education called the “students” will struggle with jobs and loans to pay their bills while they take their courses during the day and into the night. A crushing yoke of debt will rest upon their shoulders for much of their journey into adulthood. And the degree they obtain will have all the applicability of an expired coupon in our current job market. Perhaps twenty years ago, this degree or that one would have been enough for a substantial job. Now, bachelors, masters, and doctors are often equally disenfranchised.

The parts of a thing make up the whole of it, and as I said, add or subtract one or another part and the thing may cease functioning, or it may become another thing entirely. Students, tuition, school, board of trustees…these are the active parts of education that are necessary in the world in which we live. Add the part called “tuition hike” and you endanger the whole of education. There will be no students, there will be no tuition, there will be no school, there will be no board of trustees. There will only be a corrupted circle of these, of cynically complacent bystanders—student, professor, staffmember, trustee—a merry-go-round spun round and round by The State, its inhabitants grasping for dead leaves that once grew on a tree of dreams.

Career, opportunity, ideas, stability, confidence, wisdom…These are the parts of another thing, a thing in which education itself is a part, without which it cannot exist, and to deny it is the ultimate crime of an adult. I am speaking, of course, of freedom. A tuition hike is an attack on education, and on the freedom of those who seek it. Since you have entered the field of education in any capacity, I believe that means you work for it. So attack freedom, and you attack yourselves.

Thank you.

Board of Trustees Flyer

Karina Rozo Board of Trustees Letter

Dear Montclair State Board Members,

 Here is a common picture that occurs often in my late classes: It is 10pm. I pack my things from my long day of classes that involve my book bag, guitar, and purse. As I do so, the rest of the graduates bustle to get out in a hurry to go to their warm houses in the winter’s night to do some paper writing. I take my belongings and walk from Chaplin Hall to make my way to Car Parc Diem, to which this is the only parking space I can afford. As I make my way through the poorly lit University, I notice a figure that has been loitering. This male body has been loitering for quite some time. I take heed and maintain in an alert state. I see a friend walking along the same path and ask him to walk me to my car. This figure leaves.

This is a common occurrence for many women on campus. In fact these common occurrences are never reported due to the fact many young women have the mentality that they may be paranoid or overreacting. This mentality has proved costly. In fact these unreported crimes and suspicious activity has been reviewed in a 2002 CBS news show. But what is even more alarming is this statistic: 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. This statistic is provided by RAINN, an organization against sexual violence. And with the recent reports in the Montclarion of these assaults as well as some emails, I am wondering how much is being done to assure the safety of the student body beyond alerting of sexual assaults.

I am a bit concerned as to why this state institution has not provided adequate education and safety measures to the student body on issues of rape and sexual abuse. I have not received any emails facing this issue head on to the student body, specifically new incoming freshman or new professionals learning how to becoming respectable and educated adults within society. It is often assumed that a place of continuous education and improvement of professional skills would be a safe haven for students to be able to travel around campus. Unfortunately, this is not the case. I believe that it is an irresponsible decision to not take into consideration the recent events at the Board of Trusties meeting and not taking swift action on evaluating the current status of safety procedures and tools. Waiting for a much more severe attack to occur does not do well to Montclair’s reputation and to the well-being of the entire student body who expects to pay for high quality of instruction to extend the potentially great legacy that this University could possibly offer.

Please consider the grievances of the students as well as the possible many unheard voices of the victims of these malicious sexual assaults and rapes. Do not shame them into thinking that there is nothing that they can do. Instead, show them the resources that are their beyond orientation, take action in improving the quality of safety around campus, and embrace the mentality of giving these women and men a voice of a survivor, rather than to victimize them into passive silence.

It is mentioned in Montclair’s mission statement that “The University will ensure that all students develop an understanding of global issues and of their responsibilities as citizens of the world.” Show by example how to be responsible with issues foreign or domestic such as this. Please consider taking the appropriate measures on educating the students on rapes and sexual abuse of all kinds to uphold the high standards that Montclair State University could offer to the current student body and the future incoming students.

Sincerely,

 Karina Rozo

Aldo Guerrero: "Hostile" Letter to the Board of Trustees

• To Whom It May Concern:

  
  

  As a student at Montclair State, I am writing this letter to express my concerns on a couple of issues that I have on how these Board meetings are conducted: 1) Despite being called a “public session,” public input is not allowed. 2) The Board does not provide any significant dialogue during these meetings. Rather, there is only a brief general discussions followed by motions that are all unanimously passed. Everyone goes home after that.

  What exactly is the point of holding public meetings if every single motion is unanimously passed with absolutely no dialogue in front of the public?  What does the public gain from merely observing all of this?  I am confident that the public would want to hear more specifics and actual dialogue about these motions and strategic plans. Instead, the public gets to hear the President consistently blame the state for not meeting its financial obligations and then she received a bonus.  How does one receive a contractual bonus along with other perks for blaming the state, freezing faculty pay, raising tuition on students every year, and using money to build a bunch of “pretty” buildings for eye candy purposes and bragging rights?  Did the public have a say on any of her contractual perks? Of course they did not because they are not allowed to speak in public in front of the Board.

  Another thing: The President called one of my friends “hostile” and accused her of trying to “make enemies” with this Board after sending a letter expressing her disgust of how these vague meetings are conducted.  I truly do not understand how asking for more publicity and specifics on the Board agenda is considered “hostile.”  The perceived “hostility” was actually legitimate frustration on how unclear the Board agenda is.  To merely play her letter off as “hostile” and proceeding to not properly address her is by no means productive.  Perhaps there would be less “hostile” letters if the Board would have actual PUBLIC dialogue about these motions and allow the PUBLIC to speak on the issues that concern them.

  I expect to receive a response saying that I should express my concerns to the student trustees.  However, writing a letter to the student trustee is not the same as speaking in public.  I will have you know that the Student Report in the last Board meeting failed to address the record number of sexual harassments and assaults on campus.  Every student on campus is aware about this problem and there was no reason for Mr. Aronoff (a student himself) to exclude that from his report.  Instead, the Board heard about the successes of Homecoming and the school’s soccer team.  Why is it that only the positives are fed to the Board members?  That makes them believe that everything is quite good here at Montclair State.  Also, the SGA President has been absent in the last few meetings.  No substitute was sent in (not even to observe).  Are you starting to see now how there is lack of student representation in the Board?  Are you starting to see now why the public should be allowed to speak in these meetings?  If the Board is going to continue unanimously passing motion after motion after talking about them behind closed doors, then there should be no reason as to why the public should not be able to provide their input.  Out of all the members on the board (which includes the student “representatives”), only the public is well-informed about the issues that concern Montclair State University. And only the public can best inform the Board of Trustees about those issues.  Thank you for your time.

  
  

  Sincerely,

  Aldo A. Guerrero

Gregory Tuttle Letter to the BOT

January 26, 2012

Dear Montclair State Board Members,

            I attended the last board meeting of the Fall ’11 semester in December, and it bothered me that many pressing issues on campus were ignored while minor events were praised. I believe it is a good thing to congratulate our Men’s Soccer Team’s success last semester, but it is imperative that pressing issues concerning the safety of Montclair State University students be resolved as soon as possible. It is unacceptable for the minimal response of the administration to this campus-wide problem. The “Community Watch Program” is not going to prevent further violence on campus. The Board of Trustees must recognize sexual assault as a major safety concern, and preventative measures must be issued to combat the increase in incidents. With over two dozen incidents of sexual assault in the Fall ’11 semester actions must be taken to guarantee the safety of MSU students.

Some preventative measures that can be taken by Montclair State include:

1)      Rape Education as part of the Freshmen Seminar Class

2)      More Blue Light Emergency phones around campus

3)      An Outreach Program for victims of Sexual Assault

Please take this letter into consideration during the next Board of Trustees meeting.

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Tuttle

AFT President Rich Wolfson's Statement to the Board of Trustees

February 2, 2012 

Statement to the Board Of Trustees  

Given by Rich Wolfson, President of AFT Local 1904 

Tonight I would like to address the elephant in the room, or, actually, the elephant in 

the State. It’s the Governor’s proposal to restructure New Jersey’s University system, 

breaking up the state’s medical University and creating a major new public research 

campus at Rowan.  

You’ve all been appointed by this governor or one of his predecessors. You have 

access, and may find yourself in a forum where you have input. So, I’d like you to 

consider my perspective, which in some cases is consistent with the Montclair State 

University administrations, and in others, diametrically opposed. 

The first thing that came to mind when I heard the proposal was something the great 

philosopher Ross Perot said during his White House run in 1992, about the “giant 

sucking sound” of jobs heading south. I’m hearing that sound now. 

The previous two times State University restructuring was on the table, it stalled 

because of the costs. This time is different, as it not only has the full support of 

Governor Christie, but from a political perspective, it’s in the best interests of his 

good friend George Norcross so just like health care reform, it is going to happen this 

time. 

If the State were really interested in higher education, there would be a proposal to 

reorganize of the entire system based on a proven model like the University of 

California, and not leave Montclair to fend for itself. But that would not fit their 

political agenda.  I believe we agree on this issue.  

Make no mistake: the costs connected to this restructuring will be staggering. One 

estimate places it at $1.3 billion. That money can come only from our already meager, 

and ever-dwindling, State allocations. Of course, it can’t all come from us here at 

Montclair. The rest will come from the remaining seven State colleges and universities 

in our sector, state workers, and our students, who will endure double-digit tuition 

inflation as this process unfolds.  

   2

   

Another issue is that current talks seem to suggest that Rowan will not only eclipse us 

here at Montclair State University, as it becomes the State’s second “public 

comprehensive research University,” but that it will compete with us for faculty and, 

more importantly, grant and research dollars. While competition is good, it seems 

that Rowan will be the favored child, also getting the facilities necessary to attract 

those dollars and staff, while our proposed Science Building and School of Business 

sites remain parking lots.  

Of course, this reorganization may mean that we get the State Higher Education bond 

issue that we desperately need. But if the bulk of the bond issue resources go to 

Rowan and Rutgers, and much of the rest goes to UMDNJ, the real issue is whether 

there will be enough left for our for new construction and the considerable deferred 

maintenance that continues to pile up. We don’t have a politically connected 

advocate like George Norcross or Chris Christie, or even one like Ray Lesniack at Kean. 

We have you and we need you to help make sure that Montclair is protected in the 

upcoming maelstrom.  

Now, an area where we may disagree. You are undoubtedly aware that we are in the 

midst of difficult, protracted contract negotiations. Professional Staff, and Librarians 

and Faculty have been without a contract since July 1 and there are some significant 

differences in these negotiations from those in the past. The non-economic work-rule- 

related proposals from the presidents limiting grievance rights and due process for 

Professional Staff are unprecedented. I say “the presidents,” because I sincerely 

doubt that the Governor cares one bit about the non-economic work rules of 

University personnel other than to highlight his desire to show the country that, as a 

good Republican, his agenda is to “break the unions” and disenfranchise workers any 

way he can.  

Locally, our administration has chosen to suspend all contractual programs that are 

currently under negotiations, including sabbatical leaves and career development. 

The State wants to take them out of the Master Agreement and put them on the table 

for local negotiations. In my experience, that can take years, and it is particularly 

galling to our members to see their sabbaticals suspended, while sabbaticals for 

administrators are no problem. Other institutions have chosen not to suspend these 

programs. The decision to suspend these programs at Montclair was a local one. 

Dr. Cole and the President’s Council have repeatedly supported the breakup of the 

College Council, bringing local bargaining to each campus on issues that have in the 

past been state-wide. It is clear to us that this proposed reorganization would renew 

the push to make that a reality, as Rowan would clearly want to be like Rutgers, with 

complete autonomy. Dr. Cole and the other Presidents who so badly want autonomy 

and reduced oversight might just be thrown this bone in an otherwise dismal set of 

reorganization circumstances. Clearly our star here at Montclair is dimming, because 

otherwise we would be hosting NJN rather than its residing across the river in what 

was a bad deal for our students and the citizens of New Jersey and only a good one 

for the power brokers that negotiated it. 

2/2/12--MSU Board of Trustees Gets Mic Checked

The Spring semester's first Board of Trustees Meeting quickly changed from boring to interesting when students from the audience yelled "mic check" and relayed a communique to the Board members.

Alan Akins, the President of SPECTRUMS--the LGBT organization at MSU-- led the speaking, as members of the audience repeated his words that exposed the undemocratic practices and greed-driven motives of the administration.

The board members completely ignored the mic check and proceeded with their meeting, although no one could hear what they were saying. About half way though the video, you can see Susan Cole pointing to the student trustee, gesturing for him to give his address and not wait for the mic check to end. By the end of the mic check, board members got up to leave the room. The student trustee approached the students and gave his support, explaining that he wanted to wait until we were finished but was pressured to continue.

The action was the result of several incidents involving the administration's disregard for students. The administration's disregard is summarized in their rules against allowing students to speak during the board meetings. Students wrote numerous letters to the board members on this issue, and they were mostly ignored. The one instance where their concerns were not ignored is when Cole wrote back to a student, dismissing her criticism as "hostile," yet ignoring her question. 

The second incident involves recent attacks against the LGBT community at MSU. Cole waited several days before making a statement of condemnation to the student body. She only did so after the incident gained attention amongst the students. Cole's actions imply that she is was more concerned about covering up the story protect the university's reputation than she was about protecting her own students. Not only did Cole wait too long to respond to the hate speech, but she also did not show up to the meeting set up by the administration to show solidarity with SPECTRUMS and the LGBT community. Cole recently hosted a meeting about vandalism in the residence halls, yet she could not make time to meet with a community of students who received death threats because of their sexuality.

Click here to open the mic check video in Youtube.

Students Denied the Right to Speak at the Board of Trustees Meetings

For Immediate Release:

Students Denied the Right to Speak at the Board of Trustees Meetings

Several members of Students for a Democratic Society—the radical activist group that brought Bill Ayers to campus last year and occupied University President Susan Cole’s office last fall--attended the Board of Trustees meetings during the fall semester to demand transparency and accountability from the administration. The Board of Trustees is an appointed decision making body at MSU.

SDS attended meeting in October with the intention of protesting a rule that denies students the right to speak. Interestingly, the student trustees approached the SDS members and assured them that they are allowed to speak at the meetings and can speak at the next meeting if they write a letter 24 hours in advance.

Although SDS was suspicious of these claims, one student—Lisa Grab--followed the student trustees’ advice and sent a letter criticizing the structure and lack dialogue at the Board meetings. Her letter was met with opposition, and she was not granted permission to speak at the next Board meeting. Student trustee, Alex Bychkov responded to Lisa:

“Jon and I made a mistake in relaying the wrong information to you, unfortunately.  And for that, on behalf of Jon and myself - I apologize.  Students are not allowed to speak during the BoT public session, unless it is a special session - i.e. the tuition hearing this past April. What you can do is send your letter to Jon and I, and we will be sure to bring up those topics in the Student Report to the Board.  Your voice can and will be heard.”

Although Alex says he will do what he can in his power to make sure the members of SDS’s voice are heard, SDS is unsure how effective this method will be.

Lisa Grab’s reaction to Alex’s response is skeptical:

“I am not criticizing the student trustees as individuals at all. They have been supportive and polite and offered their help. They made a mistake and gave SDS the wrong information, and that is not a problem. What is a problem is how the board meetings are structured so that everything passes unanimously without discussion and without the public having a clue what is going on. Yes, the student trustees might be able to mention our concerns at a meeting, but is that the same as allowing students to have their individual voices heard? Is that the same as being able to engage in dialogue with the board members? I am skeptical. Students cannot speak at these meetings, and I don’t know why. That’s a problem. Students are allowed to speak at Rutgers Board meetings.”

At the most recent BoT meeting on December 15th, the SDS sat in the first row of the University Hall Conference Center. Several of them chose to duct tape dollar bills over their mouths to symbolize how they are reduced to a source of money for the school and how their voice does not matter. In his address to the board members, AFT President Wolfson said:

“It’s nice to see members of both the faculty and the student body here tonight to observe this meeting. I say ‘observe’ because that’s all they can do … They are being denied what is, in my opinion, a basic right to be heard at a public meeting of a public university. Rutgers allows public participation, and many of the institutions in our sector allow public input. I think the time is overdue for Montclair to allow public input as well … No trustee ever asks a question in public, and there is never any dialog. There are only general, and positive, comments during the President’s report about this sports team or some new residence hall. There is no substantive information presented at these meetings.”

While SDS and the rest of the audience applauded President Wolfson, the board members sat in silence without commenting before moving on to the next item on the agenda.

The next Board of Trustee meeting is scheduled for February 2^nd at 4:30pm. As always, the location and agenda have not been announced yet. For more information, please see the BoT Correspondence.

Written by: Lisa Grab