The petition repeatedly makes reference to instances in which Wohlpart worked against shared governance in the process of attempting to change the Faculty Code, whether through direct or indirect action. These actions, the faculty claim, “are enacted without clear rationale or justification, other than the consolidation of his power and authority.”
“Condescending, defensive and closed to feedback”
The petition also describes various concerns and alleged instances in which Wohlpart has promoted a culture of fear, defensiveness and limited communication.
In their justifications, the FSEC describes how the agenda for their upcoming quarterly meeting with the BOT has been pre-set, and in a breaking of historical precedent, all room for questions or concerns has been removed. Instead, they claim, “The FSEC has been directed to talk about AI within the curriculum, streamlining program curricula and eliminating low-enrolled programs. An agenda that does not allocate any time for FSEC concerns is unprecedented.”
Faculty describe a leadership climate created by Wohlpart wherein “disagreement is met with intimidation, personal grievance, and retaliatory behavior, creating a chilling effect on open communication.”
The faculty claim that while they have attempted to raise their concerns with Wohlpart, they have consistently been met with interactions that are “condescending, defensive and closed to feedback” and that no meaningful engagement has been possible.
Claims in the document go on to allege that faculty are “especially concerned about his interactions with women and faculty of color.”
Statements about lack of transparency and communication can be found throughout the document. The faculty allege that some of the stagnation in communication has been part of an active effort by Wohlpart to separate administration from the Faculty Senate and limit direct communication. “President Wohlpart has also isolated himself from faculty voices and perspectives,” the petition claims. “He no longer attends Faculty Senate meetings to share reports and answer faculty questions. Faculty leaders have consistently encouraged him to hold office hours or open forums to listen to faculty concerns and he refuses to.”
The FSEC provided justifications for much of the language in the faculty-backed petition, sharing specific examples in which Wohlpart’s limited communication efforts were perceived by the FSEC.
One example provided was the elimination of regular one-on-one meetings between the Senate Chair and Wohlpart. The document asserts that due to this change, opportunities for direct communication with Wohlpart were further limited. Another example detailed in the FSEC’s justifications describes recent concerns surrounding communications within shared governance. “These concerns focus on clarity, consistency and shared understanding in how information related to governance processes has been conveyed.”
The concerns, they allege, follow assertions made by Wohlpart that during summer 2025 the Senate Chairs “agreed to a Faculty Code rewrite outside of the established Senate process.”
“These assertions are inconsistent with the experiences of the Senate Chairs and their notes from the summer conversations,” the FSEC write in their justifications. “They are also inconsistent with Chair [Natashia] Lindsey’s official Senate reports given throughout the fall, as well as the FSEC’s repeated requests to meet with BOT members to express concern and seek clarity.”
“Funding Constraints”
The FSEC also repeatedly acknowledged the broader economic strain being put on the University due to lower state budgets and various other factors, but stated that limited transparency about university budgets “make it difficult to assess how funding constraints have been distributed across areas of the institution.”
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator