Good evening. I’m Glenn Hansen, president of CODFA and Faculty Senate.

It is good to read that that some of you paid attention to the Faculty’s Vote of No Confidence in Dr. Breuder’s leadership. But, it’s distressing that you paid as little attention to the details as you did to the phantom contract extensions for Dr. Breuder. Since we have never met to discuss the VNC, I will read for you what you would have received last month.

We have released the details of our Vote of No Confidence. We would have liked to have shared them with you first in an effort to solve a major problem, one that you seemed inclined to dive into. The Vote of No Confidence is a compilation of issues and opinions raised by members of the COD full-time faculty. It is not an exhaustive list of complaints, but one that has been compiled through open forums and direct input from individual faculty members during July 2014. No faculty member spoke in defense of the president at any venue, some spoke against the Vote of No Confidence as a viable action. Many raised the concern that the Board of Trustees would ignore the results and the opinion of the full-time faculty.

This was written prior to our awareness of issues raised in the last 6 months. We are confident that the new issues raised and the lack of explanation for many would have led to a larger margin of no confidence in the leadership of President Breuder.

In August 2014, this document was approved unanimously by the Faculty Senate, who then asked for faculty members to vote yes or no on their confidence in President Breuder’s leadership at a Sept. 10th election. Multiple forums and discussions were held prior to the vote. The results were 189-53 supporting the vote of no confidence.

As stated many times, the Vote of No Confidence is not a reaction to one single event, but a response to a pattern of behavior and actions over a 6-year period. It should be noted that many faculty members may have voted yes or no for personal reasons not raised by others.

The Vote of No Confidence should be seen as the result of an unacceptable academic environment. Further evidence of the quality of the work environment is that in 2014 there were 11 official grievance filings, numerous pre-grievance meetings, 5 cases sent to arbitration, and 7 FARB appeals disputing administrative decisions. One grievance has been filed in 2015. These are high numbers and should not be acceptable to anyone. Since the day Dr. Breuder was hired, he has described this as the most toxic work environment he has seen. After 6 years, the faculty opinion is that it is now worse and unacceptable. A change in leadership is necessary, NOW. It is time to end the culture of “No” to one of “we understand, let’s solve the problem.”