CSU Chancellor In the Hot Seat at Legislative Hearing
by Caitlin Emma | May 26, 2010 3:26pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Education, State Capitol
Members of the legislature’s Higher Education Committee questioned Connecticut State University officials Wednesday about President Cheryl Norton’s controversial dismissal from Southern Connecticut State University. They received few answers.
CSU Chancellor David Carter, who recommended Norton’s dismissal and oversees all four CSU campuses, stayed mum on many of the committee’s questions and relied heavily on the advice of his attorney, R. Bartley Halloran of Farmington.
Carter recommended Norton’s dismissal in February just weeks after CSU’s Board of Trustees implemented a policy granting him authority to dismiss presidents with no reason or explanation. He also does not need a vote of the full board.
The legislative committee focused questions on the process and policy behind Norton’s dismissal. No questions could be asked about the reasons behind the dismissal because a settlement between CSU and Norton prohibits both from commenting on the matter.
CSU Board of Trustees member John R. Sholtis, Jr. filled in for Chairman Karl J. Krapek and often tried to help Carter answer questions. The committee asked Sholtis several times to let Carter provide the answers.
“I did not dismiss anyone,” Carter stressed. He said reasons prompt dismissals or terminations, whereas a “non-continuation” requires no reason or cause. He also said the ultimate authority lies in CSU’s Board of Trustees.
Carter and Sholtis stressed that personnel matters should remain private and in the hands of the Board. They also addressed the change in policy earlier this year granting Carter’s authority to dismiss presidents.
“The change in procedure is just that, a change in procedure,” Carter said. “Consistent with every other change in procedure.”
CSU Board of Trustees member Gail H. Williams said Carter recommended the change in policy. She said the legislation probably would not have been brought to the Board if he had not introduced it.
Williams also said she felt a separation of power in the Board, describing an “A Team” comprised of the executive committee and a “B Team” of “others.”
“I don’t feel like I’m a part of either side, but I feel it’s my duty to question changes or policies that I’m not comfortable with,” she said.
Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, asked Carter if CSU’s Board of Trustees ever took a full vote on Norton’s non-continuation. Minutes obtained from Board meetings indicated the issue had been introduced, but did not indicate if a full vote had taken place.
Reading from a statement written by his attorney, Carter said, “There was no hearing on non-renewal.”
“You need your lawyer to write out answers for you?” Meyer asked
“Well I also understand lawsuits,” Carter said.
“I consider this to be a ducking and evasion of the actual facts,” Meyer said.
Higher Education Committee Co-Chairwoman Rep. Roberta Willis felt CSU’s Board of Trustees needed to discuss the change in policy that granted Carter’s new authority and reconsider it in terms of its consequences.
“This is an extremely alarming process to me. They didn’t violate any rules because they didn’t have to take a vote,” she said. “We can take legislative action to change this. The power should rest ultimately with the board of trustees.”
(11) Comments
posted by: City Hall Watch | May 26, 2010 9:32pm
David Carter brings his attorney - are we the taxpayers paying for that too? Carter should be given his own non-continuation papers. His “leadership” is a joke. We’re stupid to allow this puffed up piece of academic hubris one more day in office. The entire board of trustees should be wiped out and start over. And what was so damn important the enabler on the board, Krapek couldn’t attend? Enough already. This is the kind of stuff that makes the blood of taxpayers boil. The lack of specificity and honesty in Carter’s evasive answers is shocking.
posted by: CT Jim | May 27, 2010 6:36am
I believe the Chancellor was in the right bringing an Attorney, not only to protect himself but to also protect the state from a privacy lawsuit.
This forum was every increasingly pushing that envelope before Cam Staples and Toni Walker stepped in to remind everyone that the privacy issues they were pushing could be extremely costly.
The next time they want to go on a witch hunt like this wouldn’t it have been easier to get the so-called victim here to disclose the private papers they are looking for?
My guess is that it held info that wouldv’e cut both ways. This was a hearing or forum that never should have happened.
posted by: City Hall Watch | May 27, 2010 10:19am
CT Jim: As usual, your defense of the indefensible is remarkable. Just keep your head in the sand some more and your backside in the air. The policy of vesting so much power in one blowhard who never answers his phone, never responds to the public or to legislators and shows up at a public hearing lawyered up like a defendant, is the real issue. The second issue is how he spends our money and how well the CSU board of trustees dispatches its duties. This policy change should have been fully disclosed, vetted, studied and voted on by the full board after an exhaustive discussion. It was not. It seems this is yet another fine example of a board who has gotten too damn cozy with the guy they’re supposed to be governing. With the tax take in this state second only to New Jersey, we certainly deserve the best money can buy. We’re damn sure paying for it.
posted by: JL01 | May 27, 2010 10:39am
The “puffed up pieces of academic hubris” were the teaching faculty sitting in the audience. This is really simple: Their friend got whacked and now they’re out for revenge. Unfortunately the people who’ll pay the price are the students and other staff who’ll wind up on the sharp end when the Repub’s and the rest use this as an opportunity to cut funding for CSU. Carter’s body of work (essentially a rebuilt Eastern Ct St U and pushing the rest of CSU into the modern age by forcing them to do the same for their campuses)far exceeds that of any of the faculty gasbags in the peanut gallery. Unfortunately some legislators used it as an opportunity to grandstand. Who knows what’s in Norton’s jacket but ask this: If the end of her service was improper where’s the lawsuit? One sad irony: If no one knew she was out as President every campus in the country will know now. Courtesy of her faculty “friends.”
PS: As to the “rightful arbiters of our higher education system?” You’d find more sense and much less arrogance in the first 500 people in the telephone book.
posted by: cascadenyc | May 27, 2010 11:00am
Let’s review the use of the word DISMISS…Carter wanted the right to dismiss but states he did NOT dismiss…so which is it?
posted by: Martha H | May 27, 2010 11:37am
JLO1,
So you didn’t get tenure.
Anywhere.
Ever.
That was more than 20 years ago.
Time to move on???
posted by: CT Jim | May 28, 2010 6:34am
City I was only stating the obvious and that was as this forum went on some members of the committee (the ones with law experience) noted that the committe was dangerously close to opening the state up to a LARGE lawsuit.
They also made it abundantly clear that the aggreaved person here could voluntarily open their records to the public and if it comes out like some would like you think then the Chancellor would have no place to hide.
But to indicate my head is in the sand with my back side up in the air is a little comical.
posted by: rusty | May 28, 2010 10:34am
The BoT has appointed leaders and elected students (4… one from each campus). Perhaps if oversight of the system is deemed a good thing, then the BoT should have elected faculty/staff representation on the board as well as the elected students and appointed Bot members (who more often than not are appointed due to connections that have little to due with higher education). Many BoT members have corporate experience… perhaps that doesn’t translate into serving the public good. The fiscal conservativeness might shows in the classroom but not in their own boardroom… I’m betting a more diversified BoT could do things better. Cut the patronage by reducing the ex-CEOs on the board and keep the elected students and a few elected non-confidential faculty/staff with term limits.
posted by: frankfgsr | May 28, 2010 9:27pm
This is only one the reasons why the state of Ct. is BROKE all huge amounts of money paid out to these BUM’S!!
posted by: svs | May 31, 2010 2:24am
Everyone in that meeting was driven by their own personal interests. Obviously when a man is questioned by a room full of people who don’t care about the facts or probably don’t know the facts, he is at a disadvantage. His lawyer was there to make sure the questions did not get rediculously out of line.
posted by: Martha H | May 26, 2010 3:57pm
Question: Exactly when did we create this arrogant, overpaid class of “professional university administrators,” who clearly believe that THEY, NOT the professors who actually TEACH, are the rightful arbiters of our higher education system??