In a presentation during the Faculty Senate meeting on Feb. 4, Department of Anthropology and Museum Studies Associate Professor Hope Amason and Department of Sociology Professor Griff Tester presented three strategies that Wohlpart has used that have allegedly impeded shared governance.
Centralized Authority
At the meeting, Amason summarized the petition’s claim that there has been a creation of structures by Wohlpart that bypass the basic principles of shared governance to “centralize authority.”
“Whether the topic is scheduling or advising, faculty is not meaningfully consulted with,” Amason added.
Amason also detailed the claim that when Wohlpart was asked by the Senate’s Executive Committee what needed to be revised in the Faculty Code, he expressed he wanted to get rid of the president evaluation. Erdman said the announcement came as a shock to many in the Senate.
“It looks to me like a step in the wrong direction,” Erdman commented via email. “Accountability at all levels is absolutely crucial to shared governance and democratic processes.”
Executive Committee Chair and Associate Professor of Theatre Arts Natashia Lindsey explained in an interview that the evaluation is more feedback for the president rather than a true evaluation, though the president has been trying to get rid of the faculty feedback system. “We don’t have the authority to evaluate the president, only the Board of Trustees,” Lindsey told The Observer. “We, at least on the executive committee, have known for a while that President Wohlpart doesn’t like the faculty version of those [evaluations] and really wants the Board of Trustees to be the ones that solely evaluate him.”
Weakening Participation
The petitioners at the Feb. 4 meeting argued that Wohlpart and his administration have consistently been separating themselves from the Faculty Senate along with weakening its position. In the fall of 2025, Wohlpart announced to the Senate that he would no longer be attending the monthly Faculty Senate meetings to go on the road more, raising more money from the legislature. Following recent actions from Wohlpart, however, some senators stated that they began to doubt that rationale. Along with Wohlpart’s decision to step away from Faculty Senate meetings, Amason mentioned the sacrifices the Faculty Senate has had to make in the name of collective scarcity. Amason brought up the fact that the Faculty Senate has gone without a full-time administrative assistant for two years and has given administration control of faculty-centered spaces on campus.
“Faculty Senate has made sacrifices,” Amason said. “But a representative body cannot withstand further cuts to its resources and remain a healthy shared governance partner.”
According to Amason, Wohlpart and the BOT have plans that more cuts will come, resulting in a smaller Faculty Senate with fewer standing committees, taking more power from the Faculty Senate.
Performative Consultation
Amason and the petitioners said they lost confidence in Wohlpart’s ability to successfully run the university due to the lack of transparency with faculty about the shared governance document’s role at CWU and the way it was produced outside of the shared governance process. In order to create the new shared governance article, faculty were appointed to a group. That group would meet over the course of a few years to discuss the new article and to create an understanding. According to Amason, when faculty were allowed to ask Wohlpart questions on Jan. 23 he “failed in communicating with faculty who were appointed to the shared governance working group.”
“He never mentioned to [the faculty] his intention of the shared governance document to supersede faculty code,” Amason said.
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator