The CFA lobbied and received many millions of dollars for two years in the running (2018/2019 and 2019/2020) to increase tenure density. Many campuses, SFSU very much included, tried to use that money for other purposes. The CFA created a “where’s the money?” campaign to look into this. Through that effort, the chapter discovered after six months of gaslighting that the administration was not spending the money on increasing tenure density (well over one million dollars for our campus). Upon being told that this was akin to embezzlement, the administration changed the story and now stated that it was using the money for issues related to but not including tenure hires such as interviews and hotels, etc. This flimsy excuse for redirecting money for other purposes remains the administration’s explanation to this day.
The following year, we asked for a full accounting of the next set of money (even more money than the year before) which was never given to us. We were still waiting for that explanation when the covid epidemic hit making the whole issue moot (but mind you we asked for that information in September and still didn't have it in March when the pandemic hit us). The bottom line is that the administration gaslighted and prevaricated and ultimately did what it wanted with money that the CFA actually and independently obtained from the state legislature.
Very often, the administration consults with working groups, but the power and effect of these groups are extremely limited. The President of the CFA-SFSU chapter was on two working groups in the past few years which in each case either opposed to or was hamstrung on a decision that the administration favored. In both cases, compromises were attempted by the working groups, but the administration eventually did what they wanted, creating "facts on the ground" by their announcements of policies. In one of those cases, a committee largely composed of faculty that was commissioned to work on workload issues was effectively bypassed by the provost's issuance of the directive memo itself.
As another example, a conversation was started about whether the campus President should continue to be involved in tenure decisions or whether that matter should rest solely with the Provost. At the meeting, there was a clear consensus among the faculty who were being polled that the president should indeed remain the head of this decision making process. Yet at the end of the day, the decision was nonetheless made to eliminate the president from tenure decisions.
This is not consultation. This is phony representation. A really consultative process would involve faculty getting to have input in who was on these committees and would have equal weight to the administration in actual decisions.
Whenever the union asks for more access to financial questions, we are invariably directed to the University Budget Committee (UBC). It has long been clear that the UBC is not where real budget decisions are made. The UBC gives lots of information which presupposes the budget priorities that the university has already decided on. The budget does not account for the unprecedented growth in the size of the administration (it has grown the fastest at SFSU than any other campus in the CSU). It does not account for various pet projects and new technological platforms. Nor are the huge salaries of the administration ever put into question (this goes beyond SFSU; the new chancellor got almost a half a million dollar raise over his predecessor: this during a time when many staff and lecturer faculty have lost their jobs and their health insurance in the middle of a pandemic).
The administration is happy to listen to concerns brought by the CFA chapter, various department reps and other faculty but it is less interested in doing anything about it, especially when it comes to intractable issues like institutional racism. Extremely explicit concerns that have been vocalized about problems of institutional racism on our campus, racist bullying, the status of the College of Ethnic Studies, and problematic administrators have led to no changes whatsoever. Furthermore many and frequent complaints about the politicization of the Title IX office which handles discrimination cases have fallen on deaf ears. The Title IX office has been marked in one case by an investigator being fired when they did not come up with the answer the administration was looking for and a general atmosphere that certain outcomes are expected in terms of investigations. This reinforces the problem with racial insensitivity because when complaints about racist practices are made the Title IX office often does nothing or at other times makes matters worse.
Similarly, the union raised many times the issue that the omsbudsman’s office should not itself be inside the Title IX office insofar as that office is itself often the target of complaints by faculty. Yet, it appears that in their newest administrative hire (which not incidentally is being done while there is a general hiring freeze/chill for most other positions) that position will remain ensconced in that problematical unit.
Another example of this kind of unwillingness to address critical questions of the disparate impact of race and racism on our campus can be seen in terms of the Exceptional Levels of Service to Students award which is for recognizing issues of cultural taxation among BIPOC faculty. This clause is in the contract so not up to the administration to decide if they want to award it or not. Last year, the administration initially said that they were going to fund zero of these awards but were reminded that this was mandatory and contracted. As a result they "found" the money for half of the mandated money, still neglecting to approve half of these very important service awards.