By Greg Grisolano

ggrisolano@joplinglobe.com

Although the faces changed, and the locations changed, the general theme of questions from faculty to MSSU President Bruce Speck remained the same.

Over the course of a week, and through separate “listening” meetings at the university’s four colleges, faculty members repeatedly asked Speck to articulate his position on key issues, including the fate of Southern’s international mission, the hiring of tenure-track faculty, the tightening of the budget, and a long-range vision for the university.

“I think the global theme that came out is ‘Where are we headed?’” Speck said following Friday’s meeting with about 30 faculty members from the College of Arts and Sciences.

A faculty senate ad hoc committee recommended the no-confidence vote also filed a list of 23 complaints against Speck. The panel characterized the complaints overall as having to do with “failures of leadership, management, shared governance and judgment.” The group also said Speck’s actions had been a cause of public embarrassment for MSSU.

Two-hour session

The final listening session lasted more than two hours, as the faculty in attendance questioned Speck about his vision of Missouri Southern. The sessions were initiated by Speck in response to a Board of Governors directive that he “improve relations” with faculty, and came together a week before a full-faculty vote of no-confidence in his leadership. The no-confidence vote is slated for Monday. About 237 faculty members are eligible to participate in the no-confidence vote.

When asked by faculty what are some mistakes he’s made, Speck said he probably tried to initiate some changes on campus without having a clear understanding about the lack of shared governance and a strategic plan. The previous president, Julio Leon, was criticized for those issues in an accreditation report from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools — the accrediting body for MSSU.

“I think I have come into a culture and some assumptions about how it operates that weren’t correct,” Speck said during the meeting. “I probably tried to move some things along faster than they could have at that point.”

Apology

Stephen Smith, a social sciences professor, also asked Speck if he was willing to apologize for remarks made during a television interview that criticized the scholarship of the faculty members involved in the release of the ad hoc committee report in September.

“When you said what disturbs me most is we’re talking about scholars,” Smith said. “Was that a mistake you are willing to apologize for and are you willing to apologize now?”

Speck did apologize, and said his remark was meant to illustrate concerns he had with the documentation of the report.

“I was not attempting to attack the faculty,” he said. “I’m sorry that came across that way. I was not trying to impinge the reputations of the faculty.”