 "Photo: N/A")
Editor:
Regarding the article, "Chancellor questions faculty's honesty" (The Ranger Feb. 26), I don't believe the chancellor is questioning the integrity of the full faculty but rather only those who authored the resolutions on which the vote of no confidence was based.
Based on my reading of these resolutions, Dr. (Bruce) Leslie is 100 percent correct in doing so. In reviewing these charges, the chancellor has apparently done everything but steal Christmas, trap the Easter bunny and shoot Bambi. Taking the assertions at face value, I would have voted "no confidence" also.
One small problem though, the "facts" aren't quite factual. Upon a thorough review, the resolutions amounted to a fine piece of fiction which misled the full faculty and now serves only to stigmatize its authors.
The chancellor consistently states that the faculty of the Alamo Colleges do a remarkable job. The data I collect reflects this – course completion rates, student success rates, student satisfaction and student engagement are all on the rise throughout this district. And while the full faculty are incredible, the Super Senate struggles with credibility.
The chancellor outlined many of the assertions made against him with facts (and supporting documentation) in his clarification correspondence. This district is not "on the brink of financial insolvency", the chancellor has not broken any personnel policies, we are in complete compliance with the standards set by our accreditors, the chancellor has effectively "jump started" the Banner initiative, student engagement is not being "negatively influenced," and on and on and on.
When I asked some the faculty super senators about these issues, they responded that, "this is what we were told." Well, Mark Sanford (governor of South Carolina) told his wife and constituents that he was hiking in the Appalachians. We all saw how that turned out – discredited and divorced.
I also wrote these same individuals regarding their assertions that the district purchased "$800 VOIP phones" and spent "$60,000 on NLC's accreditation application," querying the source documentation. The response – silence.
It would have been nice if the resolution authors actually took the time to do their homework, research these issues and get their facts straight. Isn't this what they require of their students?
Failing to do so diminishes their authenticity and effectiveness as a governing group. While I refuse to believe that these authors intentionally fabricated their claims, research has uncovered that their assertions were far more fiction than fact. For anyone who is in disagreement, please ask the authors to produce their documentation and evidence of veracity of these charges.
Just don't hold your breath while waiting for a response.
By not doing their homework, this small cadre of authors have misrepresented the truth to their colleagues and constituents. Their formula of too much rhetoric combined with too little research has now effectively undermined their credibility and muted their voice.
While it did result in great theater, we are now well beyond the shelf-life of this propaganda. In the end, as always, the truth emerges.
The Alamo Colleges is a great district. We have exceptional faculty and staff who are dedicated and genuinely care about serving students. We have metrics that show we are having a positive influence on our community.
It is just so disheartening to have to deal with artificially created friction when we have so many real issues to attend to. My vote is for more productive communication and less posturing, more talking with each other rather than past each other and moving forward as a family rather than as factions.
Dr. Thomas Cleary
Vice Chancellor of Planning, Performance and Information Systems
San Antonio College Faculty Senate Resolution
St. Philip's College Faculty Senate Resolution
is a member of the 
21 comments
Please provide the documentation to back up your claim of Dr. Cleary's wonderful leadership.
Let's have a debate in McAllister auditorium, invite students, faculty, administration, and the media. Leslie himself can debate the issues, or he can send one of his vice chancellors to represent him (Cleary). I think that all of us have a right to know what the truth really is and who is misleading the rest of us on the sidelines. If the administration really wants to create positive lines of communication I would think they would jump at this opportunity. It's easy to throw bricks from the cheap seats. Is anyone willing to put up or shut up? "Ranger" are you willing to get the two sides together and monitor the debate?