Cover Page
Extraordinary Review Committee Report 


Dr. George R. Garrison, Chair 
Department of Pan-African Studies 

May 5, 1998 

Page 1

On December 16, 1996, four members of the Department of Pan-African Studies faculty sub- mitted a letter to Dr. Joseph H. Danks, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) which called for the extraordinary review of Dr. George R. Garrison as Chair of said department (Appendix 2). Those who signed the letter cited several grievances which led to the call for the review. Among these grievances were, in abbreviated form, 

  1. Failure to adequately consult with faculty and staff before making decisions on matters of department wide concern and usurpation of FAC's role in such matters as the asses- sment and recommendation of new and part-time faculty consistent with the academic quality of the subject matter.
  2. Inadequate performance of basic management tasks including informing faculty of uni- versity-wide development opportunities, and meeting deadlines for routine administrative matters such as scheduling of classes. 
  3. diminution of departmental competitiveness and input to College of Arts and Sciences and University deliberations as a result of consistently late reports.
  4. Absence of open and professional dialogue with the faculty as to the faculty's role and participation in determining the direction and academic quality of the Department of Pan African Studies.
Between December 16, 1996 and December 11, 1997, a number of decisions were made and a number of steps were taken which had a bearing on the progress of the extraordinary review (Appendix 2, Appendix 9). On December 11, 1997 Dean Danks convened the Chairperson Review Committee. Committee membership included the following members of the Depart- ment of Pan African Studies: Professor Diedre Badejo, Professor Alene Barnes, Professor Ronald Brown, Professor Francis Dorsey, Professor E. Timothy Moore, Professor Kwame Nantambu, Professor Jacqueline Rowser, Professor M.L. Nambuo Temu. Non-DPAS faculty appointed to the Committee were Professor Anita P. Jackson of the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services and Professor Linda L. Walker of the School of Music. Pro- fessor John J. Gargan of the Department of Political Science was appointed Chair of the Review Committee. 

At the December 11 meeting Dean Danks gave the Committee its charge (Appendix 3) and distributed and discussed the nineteen point list which comprises the College of Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENTAL CHAIRPERSON REVIEW PROCEDURE (Appendix 4). The pro- cedure specifies the steps to be followed in the review, including seeking information from faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community members. Additionally, regarding the results to be generated, the procedure requires (Item 14) that "The Review Committee shall submit a written report of its findings, including recommendations, to the Dean for his or her actions." 

At the completion of the Dean's comments, Chairperson Gargan lead a discussion as to how the Committee should proceed with its work. Given the lateness of the initial Committee meet- ing (Thursday of the last week of Fall Semester classes), it was decided that relatively little could be accomplished before the end of the semester. Therefore, it was agreed that in the period leading up to Spring Semester steps would be taken to gather and distribute informa- tion sought by the Committee, to ascertain the procedures followed and techniques used (questionnaires, surveys, etc.) by other departments undertaking reviews of the chairperson, and to arrange a schedule for meeting and receiving comments from interested 

Page 2

It was also agreed by the Committee that, after January 1, 1998, requests for information would be sent to Chairperson Gargan and that every effort would be made to prioritize the information requests. It was also agreed that while information requests would be. submitted by individual Committee members to the Committee Chairperson they would be viewed as Committee requests. Further, as information was received, it was to be distributed to Commit- tee members. 

During the intersemester period, Chairperson Gargan obtained information requested by Com- mittee members and organized Committee work for the Spring Semester. Among the informa- tion processed for distribution to the Committee were responses to the faculty survey of the Chairs performance. The responses included quantitative ratings on each of ten survey items and faculty substantive comments on the ten items (Appendix 5, Appendix 6). 

Early in Spring Semester it was determined that the only time during the week when nearly all Committee members could meet was on Wednesday, 2:00 4:00 p.m. The Committee met weekly from January 28 to April 1, except for Spring Break. Professor Ronald Brown of the Ashtabula Campus was the only Committee member unable to meet at the assigned time due to teaching commitments. Committee minutes, memos, and copies of all materials distributed to Committee members were sent to Professor Brown throughout the semester. He has not responded to any correspondence. 

At the February 4, 1998 meeting, Committee members approved a letter to be sent to indivi- duals and organizations inviting statements and testimony on the Chair's performance. State- ments and testimony could take three forms: 

     I.   Submission of a written statement to the Committee; 

    II.   Submission of a written statement to the Committee and an appearance before the Committee to discuss the statement; and  

   III.   An appearance before the Committee to make a statement. Committee members pro- vided Chairperson Gargan with the names and addresses of individuals and organizations to whom/which the letter was to be sent. These included:  

  • Individuals outside the university nominated by Committee members; 
  • Individuals outside the university nominated by Committee members;
  • Individuals and organizations within the university (departmental stakeholders) nominated by Committee members;
  • Non-CBA DPAS faculty; and Graduate assistants assigned to DPAS.
Letters were sent to all individuals and organizations proposed by Committee members. A limited number of responses to the letters were received. Letters commenting on Chairperson Garrison's performance were also received from individuals, primarily members of the univer- sity community, not contacted by Chairperson Gargan (Appendix 8). 

The Committee engaged in extended discussion of the chairperson review procedures and Committee members reviewed basic documents, including Chairperson Garrison's SELF STUDY (Appendix 8) which was submitted to the Committee on February 10. Committee members decided at the February 18 Committee meeting to focus on three major themes which, it was agreed, incorporated the primary responsibilities of the Departmental Chair. The three themes were: MANAGEMENT/ADMlNISTRATION, STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS, VISION-STRATEGIC DIRECTION. These three 

Page 3
themes provided a framework for discussion of the data collected by the Review Committee on the Chairperson's performance in managing the Department, meeting the needs of depart- mental constituencies, and planning for the Department's future. The themes, framework, and discussion relate to performance criteria more general than, but inclusive of, the faculty grievances which led to the extraordinary review. 

Each of the three themes was addressed at a separate Committee meeting; a fourth meeting was devoted to hearing comments by individuals who had expressed an interest in appearing before the Committee. During the meetings, discussion of the themes was structured around Chairperson strengths, Chairperson weaknesses, departmental opportunities for action, departmental threats if action was not taken. Further, Committee members were urged to identify additional points regarding strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and share these insights with the Committee. All four Committee sessions were taped. The work schedule, the themes addressed, and the primary information sources used were as follows, 



  •   Information focus on:
    •   DPAS faculty survey items 2, 6, and 1. 
    •   Relevant sections of:
      •   Chair's self study
      •   Annual reports
      •   Fiscal data.


  •   Information focus on:
    •   DPAS faculty survey items 3, 5, 6, 7 
    •   Relevant sections of:
      •   Chair's self study
      •   Annual reports.


  •   Information focus on:
    •   DPAS faculty survey items 4, 8, 9
    •   Relevant sections of:
      •   Chair's self study
      •   Annual reports
Page 4
  •   Information focus on: 
    •   Letters 
    •   Comments 
    •   Personal testimony 
    •   Other documentation. 
Upon completion of these meetings, Chairperson Gargan proposed that a first draft of the committee's report be written by a subcommittee, given the volume of material collected by the Committee. At its April 1, meeting a three-person subcommittee, with the assistance of the Committee Chairperson, was authorized to develop a first draft of the Committee's final report. It was also proposed at the April 1 meeting that an initial first draft of the final report be distributed to the full Committee by April 10. The April l 0 date proved unduly optimistic and a first draft was submitted to the full Committee by the subcommittee on April 21 for considera- tion at the Apri! 22 meeting. After reviewing comments on the first draft, the subcommittee wrote a second draft of the final report. The second draft was distributed to Committee mem- bers on May 4 and was discussed at the May 6 meeting of the full Committee. 

In its work, the Committee utilized a variety of data sources. A primary source was the infor- mation derived from the numeric ratings and written commentary provided by DPAS faculty to the Ten-Item questionaire administered by the Dean's office. Also important was the Chair's self study. Documents such as annual reports provided basic data on developtnents and trends within the Department. Letters to the Committee and comments of those individuals who appeared before the Committee at the March l 8 meeting provided insights by individuals affected by departmental developments, including faculty, administrators, and past and current students. 

Pursuant to the Dean's charge, the draft writing subcommittee and the full Committee have made every effort to produce an objective and accurate report. The report is data-based, and the data have been used to assess and review the performance of the Chair. 
One point regarding data presentation needs to be noted. In the discussion below, Items from the ten item questionnaire are cited. Eight members of the Department completed the ques- tionnaire. Reported here for Items l through 9 (Item 10 was an open ended question) are the numbers of respondents ranking items with scores of l and 2 (extremely unfavorable and unfa- vorable ) and 5 and 6 (favorable and extremely favorable). Some respondents rated an item 3 (somewhat unfavorable) or 4 (somewhat favorable), though these ratings are not reported below. Two respondents on Item number 3 and one respondent on Item number 4 ranked the respective Items 0 (no opinion) so the number of rankings on Item 3 is six and on Item 4 is seven rather than eight. Though Item 4 was not formally included in the list of items to be con- sidered in the Committee meeting on VISION-STRATEGIC DIRECTION, it is included here as a part of the discussions of that theme. Pursuant to the charge, the Committee has made ef- fort to use data in an objective assessment. 
Functioning at the interface of faculy and students and College and University administration, the Departmental Chair works an intricate job as chief administrative officer who is formally responsible for a range of departmental matters. The heavy administrative nature of the Chair's responsibilities is illustrated in the wording of Chairperson Garrison's contract letter of appoint- ment, as cited in his self-study: 

Page 5
"As the administrator in charge of the department, you will have responsibility for and carry full authority over such matters as the development and supervision of the program budget recommendations regarding the appointrnent and retention of all personnel; interpreting the needs of the program to the deparlment, college and university, and the needs of the department, college and university to the program; recommending and implementing program and course offerings; esta- blishing course assignments and work loads; assisting in the administration of the Universitys personnel and affirmative action policies; and enforcing all Uni- versity regulations, policies and procedures." 
Areas of consideration for the evaluation of management-administration include a summary of faculty survey and the identified strengths and weaknesses, discussion of other gathered infor- mation, and a summary of the Chair's management and administration performance including commonalities and discrepancies. 

A.      Summary of high/low percentages from faculty survey relative to management–administration.  

Items 1, 2, & 6. 
     ITEM 1      Appraise your Chairperson 's administrative skills in matters of Departmental    operation. For example, how well does the Chairperson manage non-academic personnel, operating budgets, and the assignment of teaching and administrative responsibilities? 
     ITEM 2      Indicate your estimate of the Chairperson's administrative capabilities in appro- priately delegating authority and responsibility. 
     ITEM 6      Has the Chairperson demonstrated educational leadership in the department through activities such as providing for curricular initiatives, effective advising systems, or special programs for students? 
As can be seen in the numbers in the two columns, general pattern of responses to the MANAGEMENT-ADMINISTRATION theme demonstrates that Chairperson Garrison is per- ceived more unfavorably than favorably as an administrator and manager. On management related items (Item 1), 4 of 8 responding faculty gave the Chair unfavorable or extremely unfa- vorable ratings. Two (2 of 8) gave favorable or extremely favorable ratings. With regard to the ability to delegate authority and responsibility (Item 2) and demonstrate educational leadership (Item 6) on particular topics, 5 of 8 respondents gave ratings on both items as unfavorable or extremely unfavorable and 2 of the 8 gave ratings favorable or extremely favorable. Items 1 and 2 speak specifically to the daily operation of an organized body of individuals and are critical to understanding within department functioning. Item 6 involves elements of all three themes: management/administration, stakeholder relations, and vision-strategic direction. 

Page 6
B.      Summary of Chair's strengths and weaknesses.  

    ITEM                                                                      RATINGS 

5 & 6
1 & 2
Unfavorable/Extremely Unfavorable
Based on the faculty survey, annual planning reports, and self-study, the Review Committee identified a number of strengths of the Chair. They noted extensive commentary which stated that the Chair has enhanced the relationship of DPAS with other departments across the cam- pus and community, increased the Departmental budget ($17,487 - $27,487), generated fund- ing, secured computers for faculty, advocated for faculty salaries, tenure and promotion, and is promoting the implementation of a graduate program. 
With respect to weaknesses, these documents noted untimely communication and feedback, untimely submission of reports and other paperwork, lack of communication and collaboration with faculty, and lack of demonstrated respect for some faculty and staff expertise. In refer- ence to the delegation of authority and responsibility, it was commented that, "the Chair takes on responsibilities that could be delegated to others thus, relieving some of his burdens and establishing trust and confidence in his faculty." Comments were also made that in reference to the Chair's failure to delegate sufficient workload for non-academic personnel. "He fails to work collaboratively with his staff in the day-to-day operation of the Department;" (. . .) "non- academic personnel are not optimally utilized and are sometimes disrespected in terms of their capabilities and responsibilities;" "unaware of where non-academic personnel are or what they are doing (. . .) office and phones may not be covered." 
Some faculty commentary noted that due to lack of communication with faculty, the Chair knows little of the activities of some faculty. In the Chair's self-study, he noted that there is "very little scholarly activity, very little interdepartmental collaboration, and very little partici- pation in national professional organizations". Nevertheless, faculty noted their production of scholarly and creative works (Badejo, Dorsey, Nantambu, and Okantah) and participation in interdepartmental collaboration (Center for International and Comparative Programs, Honors College, Wick Poetry Series, University Research Council, English Department, Theater Department, Geology Department, History Department, Anthropology Department ) and national professional organizations (National Council for Black Studies, African Studies Asso- ciation, Association for the Study of African American Life and History). This is an example of the Chair not being fully aware of the professional and pedagogical activities of all of his facul- ty. 

With regard to opportunities and threats, comments suggested that the Chair be encouraged to change his communication style such as using fewer memos and more direct contact and that the Chair be especially aware that his faculty and staff desire to be kept informed in mat- ters that directly impact the Department. The communication difficulties were viewed as a serious obstacle to the achievement of positive goals in the Department.  

Page 7
C.      Discussion of A & B above with respect to gathered information.  
          Item 1      Administrative Skills 
To persons representing several units, departments and organizations across the campus and in the surrounding community (Honors College, Alumni & Community Relations, Department of Geology, Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Associate Vice President of Enrollment Services, Vice Provost for Educational Equity), the Chair's management/admini- strative performance and capabilities are viewed positively. These individuals and groups view the Chair as one who has enhanced relationships between DPAS and other units, has gener- ated funds and acquired faculty for the enhancement of the DPAS, has increased enrollment, and has expanded the physical space and improved the appearance of DPAS. Others have noted that the furniture and computer systems have been upgraded. As one external com- mentator stated, "Dr. Garrison defends and promotes the interests and standards of the DPAS on the basis of broad, generally applicable principles, which recognize the special mis- sions of all departments." This type of engagement requires the expertise of a skilled admini- strator. Another comment stated: 
"Dr. Garrison has proven to be an efficient manager. He has apparently managed the budget for DPAS and its three sub-units well enough to keep them up and running, maintain graduate assistants, and improve appearance." 
Also one part-time instructor spoke highly of the Chairperson's administrative skills. "At no time have I had a more nurturing or supporting relationship with a department chair than I now enjoy with Dr. Garrison. He has demonstrated scholarly behavior and administrative skills and unwavering loyalty." A different perspective was held by some DPAS faculty members. Regarding the particular administrative function of strategic planning, a reading of DPAS annual reports reveals attentiveness to developments affecting the future of the Department. In sections of the reports dealing with the Department as a whole and appendices dealing with the Center of Pan-African Culture, Institute for African American Affairs, and Communication Skills and Arts Program department and unit goals are clearly stated and well defined and relevant objectives are specified. Nonetheless, these faculty members pointed out that on matters of strategy formulation and implementation, the Chair has neither consulted with them nor sought their advice on action steps to achieve the stated goals and objectives. 
Although Dr. Garrison's administrative achievements are worthy and positively viewed by those units that are external to DPAS, his administrative/management style is not viewed positively by some with whom he is most intimately involved (faculty, staff, students within DPAS). Information provided by students indicated that the Chair did not manage well the handling of the Black Community Development Class (grievance letter by one student on behalf of the class). Students also complain that the Chair does not maintain office hours and is not acces- sible to them. The Black United Students (BUS) also submitted a letter of concern relative to his administrative and management of the Center of Pan-African Culture as well as the relationship between BUS and the Center of Pan-African Culture. Other commentary related to his administrative style noted that the Chair does not work collaboratively with non-academic personnel to facilitate daily departmental operations. 

          Item 2      Delegate authority and responsibility 
The majority of comments relative to Item 2 come from faculty members within DPAS. One letter submitted by a faculty member was quite positive stating that the Chair "delegates duties and responsibilities (e.g. tells secretary his whereabouts; delegates responsibilities to the Assistant [to the] Chair; sends Assistant [to the] Chair to represent him when he is unable to attend)." However, other faculty claimed that the Chair does not delegate responsibility. Students also complained and submitted letters regarding their diminished role in the function- ing of the Department: "we, graduate students, are no longer invited to departmental meet- ings." 

Page 8
Students also note that he does not have a good working relationship with BUS. On the other hand, the Black Graduate Student Association, which serves to represent all Pan-African graduate students, was consulted by the Chair regarding the reduced numbers of graduate students in departmental meetings. They have maintained a good position in these meetings. (Students who had concerns were invited by BGSA to discuss them, but failed to do so). 
          Item 6      Educational leadership 
Dr. Garrison is described by, among others, the Honors College, Dept. Of Geology, and Career Services as an active advocate of African American interests on campus (support of students, staff hiring, fairness in screening process on search Committee, obtaining scholar- ship support for under-represented students, co-sponsoring of Karamu Ya Wahitirnu). The Committee received a letter from the Director of Student Activities at Youngstown State Uni- versity, in which he referred to Dr. Garrison's "demonstrated scholarly behavior, exemplary administrative skills and unwavering loyalty to students." The Vice Provost for Educational Equity at Penn State spoke highly of Dr. Garrison's introduction of a curriculum instruction design based on a model promoted by the National Council for Black Studies which contri- buted to a significant increase in student enrollment at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. More currently, Career Services spoke well of his efforts to increase student/alumni atten- dance at the Diversity in the Workplace Career Fair and his Department's co-sponsorship of the Fair. The Director of Athletics wrote positively of Dr. Garrison's involvement in developing a diversity plan for the Intercollegiate Athletic Department. It was also noted that Dr. Garrison defends the rights of non-Blacks too. One letter noted: 
"l want to just respond to an outcome as I know it and as it relates to using an example. One of the things that he has done in working with outside groups is to increase the respect for DPAS, which was sorely lacking before he came across campus. I have spent a lot of time in interaction with a lot of faculty members both black and white and other, and I know that the work he has done across campus has increased respect. It's opened doors for others who want to work with DPAS." 
At the same time, Dr. Garrison has been criticized for not acknowledging the success and activities of students. One student in addressing the Review Committee pointed out that he does not attend Award Ceremonies or write letters of congratulations. It was noted by BUS that Dr. Garrison did not attend the African American Heritage and Awareness activities (1998) and that he has not attended student activities within DPAS or BUS, nor outside activities sponsored by DPAS or BUS. 
Of most concern is that strained relations exist between BUS and the Chair, some of the graduate assistants and the Chair, staff and the Chair, and faculty and the Chair. These strained relationships center around issues of timely communication, reporting of processes and decisions, delegation of responsibilities, and respect for the expertise of others. 

D.      Summary of the Chair's management and administration performance including commonalties and discrepancies.  
In summary, the Chair's administrative/mangement performance is viewed both favorably and unfavorably. Those constituents who have a positive view are, in general, external to DPAS. In fact, all of the commentary and documents submitted support the fact that the Chair has strengths relative to enhanced perceptions of the Department and positive relationships external to DPAS. For those who function within DPAS, discrepant views exist. Some faculty provide a positive view of the Chair's administrative/ management performance. However, those who share leadership responsibilities in the operation of the Department (Directors, Committee Chairs) voice the most concern. Thus, while the Chair's administrative/ management achievements have been significant, his administrative/management 

Page 9
style has brought concern and caused divisiveness within the Pan-African community. Evi- dence seems to support the idea that the Chair fails to adequately share authority with inter- nal units and departmental stakeholders, and that his positive goals are hampered by the lack of timely communication and interpersonal contact with those with whom he is expected to be most directly involved. The findings concur with the first item in the grievance pertaining to "failure to adequately consult with faculty and staff before making decisions on matters of department wide concern." Furthermore, findings concur with Items 2 & 4 of the grievance with respect to meeting deadlines for routine administrative matters and absence of open and pro- fessional dialogue. 

A.      Summary of high/low percentages from faculty survey relative to stakeholders. 
ITEMS 3, 5, 6 & 7 
STAKEHOLDERS are those individuals, organizations, and constituencies who can affect the performance of the Department or are affected by the performance of the Department. Acade- mic departments are generally viewed as having internal stakeholders (students, faculty, staff) and external stakeholders (College of Arts & Sciences, the wider university, external commun- ity). 
The following questions were asked in the Ten Item survey administered to voting faculty to extract comments relative to the chairperson's effectiveness in demonstrating organizational leadership within the Department. Item 6, which was previously discussed under Theme I – Management–Administration, appears again. 

           ITEM 3      How well has your Chairperson maintained an appropriate balance of emphasis among the various units of the Department? 

          ITEM 5      Has the Chairperson contributed as much as possible to the development of scholarship among department faculty through recruitment, retention policies and support? 

          ITEM 6      Has the Chairperson demonstrated educational leadership in the Depart- ment through activities such as providing for curricular initiatives, effective advising systems, or special programs for students? 
          ITEM 7      Has the Chairperson been skillful hi dealing with issues of morale within the Department? 
With regard to the four stakeholder relations items, Chairperson Garrison receives somewhat fewer low ratings (1 and 2) than for management-administration. Three of eight respondents gave the Chair unfavorable ratings for Item 3. Half of respondents, 4 of 8, gave the Chair favor- able ratings (5 and 6) on Item 5. Item 5 is one of two items in the entire survey on which the Chair received (4 of 8) favorable and extremely favorable ratings. As mentioned under the theme of management–administration, the Chair is assessed negatively on Item 6 with 5 of 8 respondents giving ratings of as unfavorable or extremely unfavorable. More respondents rated the Chair negatively than positively on Item 7 as well. 

Page 10
B.      Summary of Chair's strengths and weaknesses  
    ITEM                                                                      RATINGS 
5 & 6
Favorable/Extremely Favorable
1 & 2
Unfavorable/Extremely Unfavorable
Affirming the numeric ratings above, the comments as presented in the surveys and discus- sions clearly reveal a schism in opinions among internal stakeholders with regard to Chairper- son's strengths and weaknesses. While the Chair's strengths are articulated by some as being supportive of students and the promotional development of his faculty, as well as having the ability to recognize budgeting restrictions that hinder the Department's ability to hire much needed staff assistance, these same items appear under Chairperson weaknesses with some indication that they have not been sufficiently addressed. And while the Chair shows strength in establishing relationships with the external community, much of his weak- ness is related to a lack of communication and weak relationships with the Department's internal stake- holders. The lack of communication and weak relationships are seen as having contributed to much of DPAS's internal strife. 

Although the Chair works very diligently to establish on paper and in theory an expanding department, recognized by some both within and outside of the Department, commentary indicates a definite concern among the faculty and staff with regards to the Chair's lack of direct involvement with the Department's units or directors of such units. This view is also held with regard to the subject of consultation with DPAS's Committee heads on major decisions made within the Department affecting its members and the community. The Department's internal cohesiveness is discerned as being affected. 

Long established organizations that formed an integral and complementary role in the func- tioning and enhancement of DPAS are for the first time divided among the ranks (i.e. BUS and PAFSA). While some feel that the Chair is a Pan-African leader, others are not convinced that he can move the discipline forward constructively within the Department or external to it. How- ever, it should also be noted that the Chair received much support in the letters, both solicited and unsolicited by the Review Committee, from persons external to the Department and in administrative capacities. There was no such documentation of positive support from stu- dents. 

C.      Discussion of A & B with respect to information gathered 

          ITEM 3      Balance among department units 

Except in some places where the Chair has mentioned things like "building bridges between DPAS and other departments in CAS—History, Philosophy, Political Science, etc." and has given a description of "the structure of DPAS with its two units and another multi-disciplinary component," there appears to be no indication either in the Chair's Statement or DPAS's Niche Report that the Chair has made tangible contributions to the development of an ongoing working relationship among the various units of the Department. 

Page 11
Among the written comments contained in the faculty survey is one that expresses "the Chair demonstrates no substantive interest in the research mission of the IAAA or the Theatre and cultural activities of the CPAC" and that Dr. Garrison has not attended any of the lectures or programs produced by these units. Another faculty member noted that "there is no recognition of any sub-disciplines or divisions in the Department by Dr. Garrison. Even though the Depart- ment houses social sciences, art, humanities, and language arts, along with the [IAAA], the [CPAC], and a Community Theatre, Dr. Garrison addresses them all the same, with very little attention." On the other hand, it was noted that "Our Chair is always working with the admini- stration in order to maintain an appropriate balance of emphasis among the various sub-disci- plines of the Department. A few of my peers blame the Chair for working too closely with the administration. This is unfair." 
          ITEM 5      Contribution to Faculty Scholarly Development 
Where favorable ratings were given in faculty surveys, comments revealed that "He has made commendable efforts in my opinion in the short time he has been here. New faculty have come on board under his tenure." Another surmised that "the Chair has always, at least ver- bally, encouraged scholarship and professional advancement among faculty. He is also responsible for the negotiation of two positions (faculty) within the Department. One of them is a senior level position." 

On the unfavorable end, one faculty member reported: "It appears that little time is devoted to faculty growth and development in the area of scholarship. More work is placed on faculty and the Chair has little regard for the majority of the faculty. He informs only a select few of the faculty of opportunities, or provides them with the technology that they need to improve." Another expressed, "It seems that he uses teaching assignments as punishment for disagree- ing with him or his positions. Support, encouragement, or opportunities for professional deve- lopment are consistently lacking . . . At times, Dr. Garrison's attitude toward faculty produc- tivity is petty and mean-spirited." 

          ITEM 6      Educational leadership 
Five out of eight faculty survey responses were unfavorable or extremely unfavorable on this item. One respondent reported, "The Chairperson has not initiated any new or innovative pro- grams for students either educational or informational. To my knowledge, he has never met with DPAS majors and minors as a collective for the purpose of advising or otherwise." Another wrote, "The Department's sub-units historically have provided co-curricular activities and initiatives. However, Dr. Garrison does not support or endorse these programs or units." In addition, another reported that "Dr. Garrison has approved new courses and faculty to teach them without any consultation with the Curriculum Committee or FAC. Faculty learned of one new course and its instructor when we read about the course in the Kent Stater." Favorable comments cited the Chair's initiatives and support. According to one faculty member, "The chairperson has undertaken steps to revise the curriculum so as to achieve these goals." And another stated that "The chairperson has continued to support the curricular initiatives and effective advising system he found in this Department." 

          ITEM 7      Department Morale 
ln response to the question on Chair's skillfulness in dealing with issues of morale, the figures show a slightly higher number of negative responses than favorable. In one case, it was acknowledged that "there is too much tension here for morale to exist. Some of it preceded his arrival . . . Some are personality based while others are group based." Another said, "Because his administrative style has not been compatible with a number of his faculty, the morale within the Department has taken a nosedive." However, one comment expressed that "the Chair has done what is in his power to do in dealing with morale issues in the Depart- ment." 

Page 12
D.      Sectional summary including commonalties and discrepancies  
In assessing performance, it is important to appreciate the multifaceted nature of the Chairper- son's role in DPAS. It is a complex role involving the administration and oversight of, and accountability for, an academic program, a cultural center, and a research institute. Further, there is a set of expectations, perhaps a tradition, regarding the DPAS Chair's responsibilities, though not contractually stated, to a broad community. As articulated by Chairperson Garrison, 
"The position of Chair of Pan African Studies is unlike any other similar position at the University. Because of the nature of the job, this person has the obligation to be a leader on campus, and in the larger community, when it is necessary. Consequently, it becomes part of the list of duties of the Chair of this Depart- ment to become integrally involved with the work of the University, helping it to change and evolve." 
As seen throughout this report with regard to other matters there is a lack of consensus within the larger community as to how successful Chairperson Garrison has been in meeting the expectations. The Committee received a copy of a letter to the Dean (Appendix 7), signed by ten individuals, which noted, in part 
"There are, . . . , members of the Pan African Faculty and Staff Association who are committed to the values of excellence, community, academic integrity, and collaboration that are promoted by Dr. Garrison. . . . We thought it important for you, the Kent State University administration and members of the Review Com- mittee to know that there is broad-based faculty perception of Dr. Garrison that is different from those Pan African faculty who have called for the extraordinary review." 
An alternative perspective was provided on the Chair's ability to meet expectations in a resolu- tion by members of the executive board of the Pan-African Faculty and Staff Association (PAFSA, Appendix 7) requesting that "Dr. Garrison's immediate step down as Chair of the Department of Pan-African Studies." As one university administrator active in the PAFSA stated: 
"I also believe very strongly that whoever becomes the Chair of that department must have a role, significant role, in the leadership of Pan-African people and whoever does not. . . . have the ability to do that can not succeed as the Chair. I strongly believe that George cannot and will not be able to pull the community together and therefore cannot be successful." 
Similarly, in an address entitled, 'Ethnicity And Class Issues at Kent,' Dr. Garrison was "sup- posed to address class issues at Kent State University." The address was given at Residence Services and, according to a report and the interview submitted to the Committee, Dr. Garrison, 
"personally attacked the staff of Residence Services for what he perceived as [their] shortcomings in this area. He was verbally argumentative with participants who challenged his accusations to the point that one staff chose to get up and depart the session. What should have been a lecture with questions and answers turned into our hot bed of anger and frustration." 
According to this report, the three hundred plus people who were present left the training ses- sion "angry and frustrated." Another faculty member in the Department was asked to follow behind what was "the disaster" and "rectify the situation as best as possible." As indicated, Dr. Garrison's presentation was perceived as a way to "build a bridge between Residence Ser- vices and Pan-African Studies." 

As with external stakeholders, the comments and opinions of internal stakeholders also reveal a distinct dichotomy under the theme of stakeholder relations. However, the numeric ratings show a slightly higher leaning toward more unfavorable/extremely unfavorable responses to the faculty survey in three of four items discussed in this category (refer to Item 3, balance among sub-divisions; Item 6, educational leadership; and Item 7, departmental morale).

Page 13
Consistent with the original petition formulated and forwarded to Dean Danks on December 16, 1996, and briefly summarized in the Introduction of this report, the aforementioned Items do reflect specific references to some of the grievances outlined from a cross-section of respon- dents. Many of the same concerns were also highlighted under a condensed list of 'Chairper-  son's Weaknesses.' In addition, in letters and appearances by some individuals considered Internal Stakeholders (i.e., staff and students), many of those grievances are addressed. For example, one student appearing before the Committee stated: 
"In academics, there is no acknowledgment of success and by that I mean that I have made the President's list three times in a row. I received letters from President Cartwright acknowledging my success in academics. I have received letters from the Dean of the [College] of Education acknowledging my success in academics. As a minor in the Department of Pan-African Studies, I would expect to receive a letter from the Chair of the department acknowledging [my academic success]. I was also given several awards in the Department of Pan- African Studies. One is the Crosby Service Award, the W.E.B. DuBois Award for academics. As I recall, at each of the ceremonies, I saw various professors within the department as well as administrators outside of the Department. However, I did not see Dr. Garrison there nor were there any comments made as to my success in that area. No acknowledgment of departmental or other scholarships." 
In a letter submitted by a faculty member, it was noted that "Faculty and staff hires have been made by the Chair without first conferring with the FAC. The DPAS Faculty Handbook and the CB agreement clearly state that the Faculty have the primary responsibility for suggesting to the Chair candidates who meet established DPAS hiring criteria. Garrison refuses to follow these policies." It was further mentioned that "Full-time faculty have been assigned to teach classes that they are not qualified to teach. When they [Curriculum Committee and Faculty] protest, Garrison ignores their protestations." 

On the other hand, where opinions were favorable/extremely favorable on the same Items (3, 6, and 7), some discrepancies were disclosed. One respondent simply said, "The Chair has performed a very unique balancing act between the sub-sets of the Department." Additionally, another faculty member stated, "(. . .) Our Chair is always working with the administration in order to maintain an appropriate balance of emphasis among the various sub-disciplines of the Department." One faculty attempted to explain this difference in assessments by remarking: 

"The relationship between the three major divisions, in my estimation of the Chair's view of things, is that they are sub-divisions under the department because of his administrative approach to this. Our understanding has always been that they were coexistent operations of equal strength to a greater degree and the Chair's perception differs from that. And so that is why I'm saying it is hard to speak of positive strengths when I know that his perceptions differ from other people's views and subsequently that has not lead to any major produc- tivity on any great level." 
Those students who did communicate with the Review Committee also had unfavorable opinions of their relations with Chairperson Garrison. On the other hand, DPAS faculty members were divided in their judgments about relationships with the Chair. 

Further evidence of divergent perspectives came from external stakeholders on issues of stu- dent support. One person observed that "On the advisory board for the Academic STARS Pro- gram, George has taken an active interest in the programming for the students but also in trying to secure more scholarship support for them during the academic year. He has a lively sense of what students need to succeed and has shown a deep concern for retention of Afri- can-American students in particular. He has also shown initiative in community outreach and recruitment." Still another recognized that "Professor Garrison and the whole Department of Pan-African Studies have been very helpful to us in recruiting effective staff, coaches, and student athletes." 

Page 14
Summarily, the same division is recognized in the discussion of Item 5. While the original petition expresses grievances related to the Chair's non-development of scholarship among departmental faculty, the numeric ratings report this as a slightly less than majority opinion. Again, Item 5 is one of the two items in the entire survey in which the Chair received a major- ity of favorable/extremely favorable ratings. The other is on item 9 under Theme III – Vision– 
Strategic Direction. 


A.      Summary of High/Low percentages from faculty survey relative to vision–strategic direction  
This section considers the Chairperson's ability to articulate, strategically plan, and execute an academic and scholarly vision for the Department. It also considers how well the Chair communicates that vision through demonstrable departmental enhancement initiatives and infrastructural support; through encouragement and support of faculty research and dissemin- ation of research; through his/her own teaching, publications, research, and service to the field. The Chair's vita, self-study, course evaluations, letters from and interviews with students, faculty, and staff, as well as faculty surveys and related materials are considered herein. 

Items 4, 8, & 9 

          ITEM 4      How would you evaluate the quality, of teaching and scholarly contributions of your Chairperson? 

          ITEM 8      Under the Chairperson's leadership, has the Department developed clear  
objectives for progress, both relative to the institution and to the profession in general?  

          ITEM 9      Give your estimate of the Chairperson's effectiveness in representing the Department relations with other Departments the regional campuses, the higher administra- tion, and the profession in general. 

The general pattern of responses to the VISION–STRATEGIC DIRECTION theme is similar to the patterns for the other two themes. That is, ratings of Item 4 (Chair's teaching and scholar- ship) and Item 8 (departmental objectives) are like those of other items, the number of favor- able and extremely favorable ratings are equaled or exceeded by the number of unfavorable or extremely unfavorable ratings. The exception to the general pattern, and Chairperson Garri- son's most favorable rating in the entire questionnaire (4 ratings of favorable and extremely favorable and only 2 unfavorable extremely unfavorable) is Item 9. Item 9 relates to the Chair's effectiveness in dealing with organizations and interests outside the Department, an item involving both strategic direction and stakeholder elements. 

It is instructive, given the summary of the faculty surveys, to review Item 8 and Item 9 which referred to both the Chair's leadership and to his effectiveness in representing the Department. Specifically, Item 8 refers to the Chairperson's leadership, "has the Department developed clear objectives of progress, both relative to the institution and to the profession in general?" Item 9 asks "Give your estimate of the Chairperson's effectiveness in representing the Depart- ment in relationships with other departments, the regional campuses, the higher administra- tion, and the profession in general." These two areas are critically important to the under- standing this assessment of Dr. Garrison as Chair. They will be further elaborated below. 

Page 15
B.      Summary of Chair's strengths and weaknesses  

    ITEM                                                                      RATINGS 

5 & 6
Favorable/Extremely Favorable
1 & 2
Unfavorable/Extremely Unfavorable
With respect to Theme III, Vision–Strategic Direction, the following strengths and weak- nesses are summarized. Some of the commentary received indicated that the Chair has worked diligently to prepare the Department technologically for the new millennium. In teens of strengths, several people indicated that the Chair has expressed a strong desire to develop a graduate program, and that he is presently working on it. Some also felt that this work with outsiders or other units and departments were helpful in keeping open relationships for the future. 
However, with respect to weaknesses, others pointed out that he allows incompetent people to teach courses in the curriculum which threaten the Department's integrity. Others empha- sized that he has provided no model for either undergraduate or the proposed graduate studies curriculum, nor has he clearly presented an outline of programs to include the recruitment and retention of black students within the Department, although he does so actively outside of the Department. To this is added that he does not include his faculty in his ideas and plans and that he moves quickly on actions single-handedly as in the preparation of the Niche Reports; Annual Reports; etc., and most recently, changes in the curriculum. It was also noted that he does not work closely with either his division heads or his Committee Chairs in the Depart- ment or with black student organizations on campus. 
In noting departmental opportunities and threats, the comments suggested that the Chair "begin to make it a regular practice to inform, include, and share with his faculty his visions and strategies for achieving those visions for the Department." It also noted that he should take input from this faculty seriously and whatever his plans, the outcome should reflect a collaborative effort on the part of the Department, its members, students. It was noted that if the Chair does not learn to include his faculty in vision and strategic planning, that it may translate into a lack of trust and cooperation among colleagues. In a letter submitted by an adjunct English faculty member, 

"The English Faculty used to be invited — and expected — to attend departmental meetings. We were treated as valuable and contributing members of the unit and were encouraged to get involved in various activities. Now it seems that we are simply expected to come teach our classes and leave. And I have recently become aware of the fact that Dr. Garrison doesn't even know who some of the six English Faculty Members are." 

C.      Discussion of a & b above with respect to information gathered.   
          Item 4      Teaching and Scholarship 
According to his self study, Dr. Garrison joined the KSU faculty in 1995 as Chair and profes- sor of the Department of Pan-African Studies. He has taught eight classes including: Ancient African Civilizations; 

Page 16
Philosophy of Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey; Philosophy and Theology of M.L.K., Jr. and Malcolm X; Black Community in America; Black Social and Politi- cal Thought I and II; Research Methods; and Senior Colloquium. There are six instructor reports available from these classes. According to the evaluations, Dr. Garrison's strength lies in his African American Philosophy course and, to a lesser degree, his Social and Political Thought–1750-1900. Both Social and Political Thought–1900 to Present and The Black Experience II show less competence and a wider range of student responses. Research Methods and Senior Colloquium are presently being taught. All but one student in the Black Community in America dropped the course following a complaint from students in that class. 
According to the interviews with students during the review process and the document submit- ted by one student, regarding the Black Community in America course, Garrison "has been chronically late, not to mention rude and inconsiderate of the students in the class." The stu- dents who dropped the course were reimbursed by the Dean. With respect to Departmental Curriculum Committee policies and the handbook, the Chair continues to prepare and teach classes without submitting proper syllabi or course data sheets to the Curriculum Committee along with other courses. One faculty member noted that, 
"the faculty has not had access to any materials or documentation that would help in determining the quality of teaching or scholarly contributions of Dr. Garrison, e.g. teaching evaluations, vitae, reports to the College, etc. lf Dr. Garrison has any publications, or has given any national presentations, then I am unaware of them." 
However, Garrison's lectures that are external to his courses elicit mixed reviews as reflected in the Stakeholders section on page 12 with respect to his lecture given in Residence Ser- vices. One faculty person, for example, notes that Dr. Garrison gives a lecture on The African Influence on Hispanic culture in her class every semester. She says 
"My students have voiced appreciation for this lecture, felt comfortable asking Dr. Garrison questions, which he in turn encouraged and let the students know he was available to them for discussion." 
With specific respect to scholarship, the Chair's self-study indicates presentations at many community organizations such as the NAACP; campus events such as the KSU Celebration of Scholarship Program and the Ashtabula Campus lecture series, churches and community centers. He lists professional presentations at three scholarly conferences since 1995 to the present including: The Annual Southern Conference on Afro-American Studies in 1995 and 1996; and the 76d, Annual Meeting of the American Society of Learned Societies in 1995. He has published one article in "The Electronic Journal of Africana Studies (1995)," and one con- ference proceeding in the "ACLS Occasional Papers Series, #31 (1995)." Some faculty stated that "he is an impressive orator," while another remarked that "he has presented excellent papers in a number of educational conferences, and some of his papers have also been pub- lished in refereed journals." Another faculty member raised questions regarding the quality of the Chair's scholarly record and further stated that "most of the [. . .] listed articles refer to trade and non-refereed journals." It was also noted that his citation method is unconventional and inconsistent. That is, several citations lack specifics such as page numbers, publication information such as volume, issue, publisher, and place. The format is unrecognizable. 

          Item 8      Departmental Objectives 
To meet objectives requires vision, planning, and action. In his self-study, Dr. Garrison indicates that: 

"My vision for this department is the natural outcome of its dual mission. I envi- sion a Department of both a graduate major and minor, and graduate degree (MA, MFA, and Ph.D.) granting program, as well. As I mentioned in the annual reports, we get enquiries [sic] about a graduate program 
Page 17
continuously. There are very few in the nation, and since the PAS is one of the strongest undergraduate departments in this country, in the field of Black Studies (BLST), it is proper, fitting and logical that a graduate program in PAS take root at this institution." 
He also stated that he envisioned "foreign exchange programs for DPAS students and faculty, department and universities throughout the continent of Africa, parts of Central and South America, the Caribbean and other places where American and Neo-Afiican culture and life exist and/or is being studied." 

One faculty member stated in the survey that, 

"The Chairperson is continuing to carry out and implement the objectives for development and progress of this department and the profession as a whole. His leadership contribution in this department and the university has been signifi- cant, especially in the area of diversity, student retention, minority faculty recruitment and retention."
Another member states that while the objectives have been clear, "The means and strategies for carrying out those objectives have not been clearly outlined (i.e., creating a graduate pro- gram in the PAS)." On the other hand, other faculty members have stated that the Department "already has clear objectives." The statement admits that these need 'to be upgraded. It con- tinues, "Garrison has failed to understand the objectives and mission of the Department of PAS and its component parts." With respect to the graduate program, another faculty remarked that Dr. Garrison "has written the objectives for progress [sic] for the Department both relative to the institution and to the profession." The Chair says that he understands these matters from "discussions in faculty meetings so he can do all of the planning and writ- ing himself without any faculty consultation. Although faculty had requested to be involved in the preparation of the Niche Report and given it was supposed to represent the future direction for the Department, we were not involved or invited to become involved." Finally, one faculty member also states "if there are clear objectives for progress both relative to the institution and to the profession in general for the DPAS then they represent the future according to Dr. Garrison only." 

Several Review Committee members view the proposed graduate degree program as a strength. Although one faculty member indicated that the Chair has "set short term and long term goals for the Department," these are not indicated in his self study either. In fact, the Niche Report does not clearly state a set of objectives but rather reiterates the vision for a graduate program without clearly defined objectives or plans to accomplish it. There also are no external letters which evidence his planning and active follow through on his visions. Although there is an articulated vision, there is no documentation to suggest that the Chair has developed a strategy for its achievement. 

          Item 9      Chair's Effectiveness 

The documentation suggests that the Chair's effectiveness lies outside of the unit for which he is responsible. Comments from the faculty include:  

"it is my understanding that the Chair has established an ongoing working relationship with offices and departments outside of DPAS. He has also represented the Department on Regional campuses with respect to encouraging avenues for teaching PAS courses [there]." 
One comment stated that "The Chair should not attempt to move [his] vision forward by him- self." However, the Chair has not, in most instances, supported the recommendations of his faculty in decisions relative to the hiring of qualified people to teach departmental courses. He has not always shared with his faculty, his motives and objectives for forging initiatives with other departments." 

Most of the faculty concur that representing the Department "outside of the Department"(. . .) "is his strongest point." Indeed, Dr. Garrison sees himself facing a set of internal obstacles in achieving his 

Page 18
vision, including "Lack of cooperation on the part of some faculty members," and "An unrelent- ing campaign on the part of some faculty, . . . , to destabilize and undermine my administra- tion of this department." One non-DPAS member comments "However, a DPAS faculty per- son stated that "When the faculty in DPAS have personally contacted other departments, some of them have been informed about meetings that Dr. Garrison has had on behalf of DPAS. [. . .] Dr. Garrison had labeled the faculty as a group with a 'history of isolation and self-imposed collegial segregation/separation, who simply lack experience' because they have 'spent most of their careers at KSU. This is the Chair's way of representing DPAS faculty. What else has he written that we have not been exposed to?"' One faculty member states that "he tells us how hard he works for us but we do not know what he is working for or on at any given time." Clearly, the external and internal perspectives and experiences differ with regards to the Chair's effectiveness and administrative persona. 

D.      Summary of Commonalties and Discrepancies 

The faculty surveys, Committee surveys, and interviews concur that the Chair's greatest strength lies outside of the Department. With respect to vision-strategic direction, the findings concur with the first item in the grievance where internal matters impacting departmental facul- ty and staff are concerned. Although it would seem that the Chair has performed admirably outside of the Department, his public relations work is hampered by his lack of consistency with respect to his internal performance with the DPAS faculty, students, and staff as a whole. Where he has been helpful to African-American students outside of DPAS, his relationship with those most directly affected by the Chair are less positive with respect to his interest in their well-being. While he does garner some faculty and student support, his absence from important DPAS student directed and faculty coordinated programming exacerbates the per- spective that the Chair is distant and 'singularly unaware' of the activities and people who sup- port DPAS and its mission. As one long-time part-time instructor writes: 

"I do expect, regardless of wherever I happen to be an instructor, to have input into departmental affairs, some consideration of my opinion, and the opportunity to provide that input. These things I have not had under Dr. Garrison's leader- ship. I question the survivability and longevity of this department under his tenure. [. . .] Kent State University is unique in that it is one of the few univer- sities where one can major and minor in Pan-African Studies at the Bachelor's level. The strength in my department lies in its inclusion of all aspects of the teaching faculty in the maintenance of the Department. Unfortunately, I feel we do not have that level of inclusion under the administration of Dr. Garrison " 
It is difficult to implement a vision or devise a strategic plan without the input and participation of the faculty members, support staff, and students who must execute that vision and those plans. Statements such as this from internal stakeholders indicate that Dr. Garrison has not utilized or included the very faculty, staff, and students which his vision-strategic planning are most likely to effect. While he may indeed have a vision, from these materials gathered during the review process, the fabric, design, and utility of such a vision lacks substance and tangi- ble faculty, staff, and student plans for execution. 
Page 19

Functioning at the interface of faculty and students and College and University administration, departmental chairs have a complex job as chief administrative officers responsible for their departmental matters. The full scope of formal responsibilities and duties of chairs are detailed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, university regulations, and departmental handbooks. 

While chairs should be free, within limits of rules and regulations, to adopt approaches to management that most effectively fit personality, skill level, and the decision-making environ- ment, there are elemental realities that must be attended to, regardless of management style. 

The conduct of a chair's duties and responsibilities takes place within a context of student, faculty, and staff expectations and traditions. Administrative success depends upon the strik- ing of a balance acceptable to both chair and faculty, between the formal rules and regula- tions, demands of the context, and fresh initiatives which chairs promote to move departments forward. It was the perceived failure of Chairperson Garrison to achieve this balance, in the judgment of some DPAS faculty, that resulted in the call for an extraordinary review. 

On this matter, the work of the PAN-AFRICAN STUDIES CHAIRPERSON REVIEW COMMIT- TEE has consumed the greater part of a semester. Committee members have devoted consi- derable time to reviewing documents, studying survey results, engaging in dialogue' and hear- ing the views of students, faculty, administrators, and alumni. Given the critical importance of the mission of the Department of Pan-African Studies and the strength of the views of indivi- dual Committee members, exchanges within in the Review Committee were on occasion heated. 

Reflecting the strongly held views, it can be po ted out that, as the Committee completes its work, there is not general consensus on the effectiveness of Dr. George Garrison's perform- ance as Chairperson of the Department of Pan-African Studies nor on some of the grievance which gave rise to the review. Nonetheless, there is general agreement that, regardless of who serves as departmental Chair, several steps must be taken to maintain the viability of the Department of Pan-African Studies as an academic unit. The most basic of these steps involve administrative-management practices, strategy formulation and implementation for the achievement of departmental goals and objectives, and the reestablishment of a civic culture supportive of the intellectual enterprise. 

A. Communication Patterns Within the Department  

From commentary by faculty and students, it is apparent to the Committee that one factor contributing to recent departmental problems has been Dr. Garrison's approach to manage- ment and the reaction of some DPAS faculty to that approach. Several of the negative com- ments centered on the ways in which Dr. Garrison has managed the department in its routine day-to-day operations, communicated with colleagues, and related to students and staff. 

No administrator can hope to maintain positive relations with all stakeholders on all issues all of the time. Nevertheless, it is the wise chair who consults with a faculty widely and frequent- ly, individually and collectively, on matters affecting professional and personal lives, indepen- dently of formal requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, university regulations, or departmental handbooks. Failure to engage in such consultation can lead to disenchantment with departmental leadership and produce discrepancies among departmental stakeholders. If sufficiently severe and prolonged, the disenchantment with departmental leadership will make it extremely difficult to sustain 

Page 20
uniform support for departmental operations. The Committee concludes that it is imperative that the Pan-African Studies Chairperson and Faculty begin immediately to establish and to maintain a pattern of communication and consultation on all facets of departmental work and life. Central to this objective will be: 

      IV.  Recognition that professional stature, knowledge, and experience bases of the aca- demic faculty enable them to provide good council on matters affecting their professional and personal lives. 

      V.  Reexamination and clear definition in the departmental handbook of the nature of the relationships between and among the departmental Chair and the program units within and Committees within the department. 

     VI.  Initiation of weekly or bi-weekly meetings of the Department's Faculty Advisory Com- mittee with an agenda distributed to the faculty before meetings and minutes distributed as soon as feasible after the meeting. 

    VII.  Scheduling of regular meetings of all departmental major standing Committees with 
attendance at and participation in meeting deliberations by the departmental chair as an 
ex-officio member. 

   VllI.  Circulation of all major documents – annual reports, Niche documents, curriculum reports and proposals, etc, that represent departmental positions, to departmental faculty with sufficient time for review and comment. 

    IX.  Statement regarding the faculty's position for continuation of the Chair's major role as 
spokesperson for DPAS to departmental stakeholders in the College of Arts and             Sciences, the University, and the broader community. 

B. Strategy Formulation and Implementation 

At the present time, the faculty of the Department of Pan-African Studies is limited in number and teaching and service demands on faculty are many. Barring substantial budgetary growth, any program expansion will be done primarily with existing personnel. Building capacity entails the careful marshaling and targeting of personnel and other resources through a strategic planning process. 

A point made in the review process by some DPAS faculty, including those most responsible for unit programs, was that while central to the accomplishment of a unit's mission, articula- tion of goals and objectives is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of effective strategic planning. Goals and objectives are achieved through the formulation and implementation of concrete strategies and action steps. These faculty members claimed that, on matters of strategy formulation and implementation, the Chair has not adequately consulted with them nor sought their advice on developing action steps to achieve the stated goals and objectives. The Committee strongly urges DPAS Chairperson and Faculty to give early and sustained attention to the formulation and implementation of strategies and action plans. Assisting this will be: 

     X.  Development of a strategic agenda which delineates the priority of already specified 
goals and objectives and pressing issues that must be addressed because of their potential impact on departmental development. 

    Xl.  Commitment of the Chair to support strategic planning as a Process Champion and 
assignment of individual faculty responsibility for the formulation of long term 

Page 21
(five to ten year) strategies and short term (one to three year) action plans. Among the high priority Items for both the short and long term should be the joint and coordinated action by the Chair and Faculty to recruit to and retain African American students at Kent State Univer- sity. 

   XII.  Encouragement of and provision of staff support for the gaining of University and exter- nal grants and support for basic and applied research and publication in the Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences. 

  XIII.  Special attention be given by the Chair and Faculty for the strategic study of the under- graduate curriculum for purposes of its possible revision as well as for the opportunity provided to review relevant conceptual frameworks to support graduate program curriculum. 

C. Civic Culture Renewal within DPAS  

Assessment of Chairperson George Garrison relative to the call for an extraordinary review has been the central concern of this report, given the charge for the extraordinary review. Acknowl- edging that fact, the Committee does also recognize a major is-sue confronting the Depart- ment of Pan-African Studies. However the Chairperson's status is resolved, departmental faculty face a fundamental problem of internal divisions. If progress is to be made towards departmental goals and objectives, it will be necessary to create or recreate a culture of mutual respect and a renewed commitment to the departmental mission of teaching, scholar- ship, and service The Committee strongly recommends that a concerted effort be made to create and to maintain a departmental culture in which dignity and mutual respect for stu- dents, faculty, and staff are paramount. To foster such a culture, the Committee urges that concrete steps be taken: 

     I.  Mutual commitment by the Chair and faculty to treat each other and departmental staff 
with courtesy and professional respect. 

    II.  Development of innovative means to ensure that each DPAS faculty member has an an- nual opportunity to participate in some recognized formal professional development. 

   III.  Over the next three years the Chairperson and faculty members should make a habit of' 
recognizing excellence within DPAS and of publicizing the accomplishments of DPAS, and 
of publicizing the accomplishments of DPAS faculty, staff, and students. 

  IV.  Departmental sponsored cultural events, intellectual presentations, and student award 
ceremonies should be viewed as opportunities for community celebration and to which atten- dance is strongly encouraged. 

  V.  Continued efforts should be made to improve the physical plant of Oscar Ritchie Hall, to 
update and expand library holdings, to complete the upgrading of the departmental computer facilities, and to increase staffing and facilitate access to the holdings and 
facilities within DPAS. 

Page 22