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.”

Positive session

Several faculty interviewed at previous meetings and after Friday’s session said they felt like the listening meetings were a positive forum, but opinions were mixed as to whether they could resolve the conflict with Speck.

“It’s changed my sense of collegiality with the faculty,” said Josie Mai, an assistant professor of art who attended Friday’s meeting. “It doesn’t change what I think about the president’s role. I came in hoping it would; it hasn’t.”

Conrad Gubera, a longtime professor in social sciences, also said he thought the sessions were positive.

“I appreciate Dr. Speck taking this initiative,” he said. “If he had done it the first year he was here, in retrospect, things would probably be different.”

Gubera also said he believes the no-confidence vote is a good procedure for the university, and for Speck to grow as a leader.

“Personally, I’d like to have a president who is an academian who will put arts and sciences first,” he said. “(The faculty) are like kids here, and the presidents have been our father-figures. And all our presidents have been pretty heavy-handed.”

After the meeting, Speck said he believes he will have to provide more opportunities for faculty to meet with him, regardless of the outcome of Monday’s vote.

“Clearly I need to continue listening and providing forums,” he said. “I think we need to continue to do something, but I’m not sure what the format will be. I feel like the faculty have been very forthcoming.”



Vote procedures

The vote of no-confidence will be carried out from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday in Room 341 of the Billingsley Student Center. About 237 people who are designated as full-time faculty by human resources will be eligible to participate. The vote will not be open to part-time, adjunct instructors or to support staff.