Suffolk president and board of trustees chair face faculty vote of no confidence – The Suffolk Journal

(Left to right) Board of Trustees Robert Lamb and Suffolk President Marisa Kelly during a March 26 forum on arming the SUPD. The faculty votes on whether or not to censure the university administration.

Faculty members from Suffolk University’s College of Arts and Sciences and Sawyer Business School voted to censure President Marisa Kelly and Board of Trustees Chairman Robert Lamb. After the CAS votes on Tuesday, the results await a vote by the law school faculty, scheduled for next week.

If condemned, it would be a formal reprimand of Kelly and Lamb’s leadership and represents a “significant and rare symbolic vote of disapproval from the faculty” and signifies that the faculty “does not trust the leadership of the President and Board Chair, but this.” “I remain willing to work with you to resolve these issues,” said the draft resolution, obtained by the Suffolk Journal.

According to the resolution, the decision to issue a vote of no confidence is a response to the lack of faculty participation in decision-making processes that directly impact faculty members. Faculty members believe in “common and transparent governance” arrangements set forth in the Faculty Handbook they were violated and they were not properly included in the discussions before the final decision was made.

“The resolution of the faculty vote of no confidence was brought because the top administration does not follow the principles of shared governance and transparency as agreed in our university faculty handbook. We question a number of policies the president and chief executive have made in recent years and believe they were made in part because faculty did not have a say in these decisions,” said Robert Rosenthal, chair of the Faculty Senate and the advertising, public relations and social media department.

In an exclusive interview with The Suffolk Journal Tuesday afternoon, Kelly said that while it is ideal for decisions to please all community members, sometimes difficult decisions must be made to ensure the institution’s core goals are maintained.

“I am committed to and stand by the decisions we have made,” Kelly said.

The resolution cites a recent decision by the administration to reduce university contributions to retirement plans and reduce contributions to health insurance plans from 9% to 6%. According to the resolution, these decisions, which directly impact the faculty, were made without an opportunity for comment or advance notice.

Suffolk participated in the 2022 Mercer Benchmark Study, an independent review of faculty salaries and their alignment with national trends for comparable positions. It found that “faculty salaries at Suffolk lag significantly behind those of our peer institutions,” according to the resolution.

As faculty members became dismissed In recent years, Kelly earned $953,003 and an additional $51,882, according to 2022 data from the university Form 990 filing.

The Closure of Suffolk’s Madrid campus and the decision to enter into a strategic partnership with Curry College are also discussed in the resolution, which says the lack of transparency and solicitation of input from faculty and staff “represents a breach of trust that holds our university community together.”

Kelly described the collapse of shared governance. According to Kelly, faculty enjoy academic freedom in the way their subject matter is taught, playing a central role in this area of ​​decision-making, for example, while other areas such as benefits and budgets fall under the administration’s control.

The gray area in which both faculty and administrators are involved in decision-making is a frequently discussed area in universities.

“I think there are things that should undoubtedly be completely the responsibility of the faculty, and other things that are the responsibility of administrators, and then we discuss the things in the middle,” Kelly said.

Rosenthal said this definition ignores the shared governance component that faculty should be included in conversations about decisions that directly impact them and Suffolk students.

“We are not asking to make decisions, but rather to be included in the decision-making so that we can bring our voice to the table,” Rosenthal said. “Obviously we’re concerned about our health care and our retirement plans and how things are budgeted to make sure that an appropriate amount of the budget goes toward the classroom experiences and not other experiences.”

Kelly said several of the concerns raised in the resolution will be discussed by relevant bodies, such as the Budget Advisory Committee. Overall, Kelly said she and the administration will continue to have conversations with community members about the concerns raised in the vote if the no-confidence resolution passes.

“We connect, we engage, we talk about it, sometimes we move forward together and make changes or resolve something, and sometimes we agree to disagree,” Kelly said.

According to Kelly, two years ago the university compared salaries of all employees with similar institutions, starting with faculty members, with the goal of adjusting salaries to more closely reflect market rates. Kelly said this began a routine of benchmarking positions every four years, with another round of raises planned for next year.

Kelly said that moving forward, the Budget Advisory Committee will be included in the annual review process before making changes to employee health insurance.

As faculty members continue their conversations surrounding the no-confidence vote, they hope to bring about change in the way decisions are made that impact their lives both in and out of the classroom.

“We want the administration to be better informed by including faculty in their decision-making processes,” Rosenthal said.

Read the draft resolution voted on by faculty from the university’s three faculties below.