Faculty Trust and Fresno State's Media Spin on Tree Cutting

I have had three moments of acute clarification about Fresno State over the last year. All of them have to do with trust. 

The first came on December 15, 2011, when Bill Covino published the following email:

Dear Colleagues,

I have asked that the recently published anonymous email comments about Budget Task Force recommendations be taken down from the Senate web page, after receiving several strong complaints from faculty and staff about the offensive tone and content of some of the comments.  I initially authorized their publication, but will have to reconsider this.

Bill

William A. Covino
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
California State University, Fresno
http://www.csufresno.edu/academics/offices/provost

This occurred in a context of several frustrating attempts by the faculty to get budget information from the university, and it's slow and incomplete provision, all with the survival of two schools hanging in the balance. At this point I thought that censorship had not only come to Fresno State, but that the necessary information faculty needed to rationally discuss budget issues was being deliberately withheld. Although the next day, the Provost announced (after a flood of outraged email) that he would not censor the Senate website, the shock didn't go away. The evening the Provost's email was sent, I considered trying to organize a hunger strike: "Starving for Information." I still think something along those lines might be necessary. 


The second came after the trees went down last week. I really thought that after this year, and all of the senate discussions and resolutions about lack of consultation on the budget, cohort hiring, and the logo, some attempt at reconciliation would be on the way, that at fall semester's academic assembly, surely President Welty would say something to try to mend fences. But when I saw the trees coming down last Wednesday evening and Thursday, I realized that Fresno State had a darker, uglier side to it than I'd ever imagined.


The third came when I watched Amy Armstrong on TV and read the stiff and emotionless responses of President Welty and Cynthia Matson to the campus and the media. But it was Amy Armstrong, on TV, who carried the administration's message to the public at large, and it is worth watching, once again, both Channel 26 and Channel 30's coverage of her statement:


KMPH Coverage of Parking Lot Devastation

Channel 30 Coverage of Tree Cutting

These interviews of Amy Armstrong, conducted at different times, are quite similar, showing that she stays on script very well. Here are her main points:

1. The parking lot was full of potholes;

2. The ponding basins were taking up unused space

3. "Several" of the trees in the lot were diseased and dying

4. Information was shared at various groups and committee meetings, so the implication is, consultation occurred.

Let's take these one by one:

1. Parking lots with potholes can be repaired without destroying the trees. See Magda Gilewicz's picture of Fresno City College, currently repairing its lots:

2. "The ponding basins were taking up unused space." OK. There were no trees in the ponding basins. Fill them in, pave them over, and get a lot of extra parking without cutting the trees.

3. "Several" of the trees in the lot were diseased and dying. According to John Constable and John Bushoven, plant biologists, only 2 of the 160 trees taken down had any disease at all and even those could have been saved. Anyone who walked through the lot knew the trees were flourishing. They were mature enough that their roots had gone into the water table--they didn't even need to be irrigated.

4. "Information was shared." Rhetorical points for deceptive use of the passive voice. Shared by whom and what information and exactly to whom? This is extremely deceptive because apparently NO ONE on the faculty knew this was coming, but the public has been given the impression that consultation did occur

I don't especially blame Amy Armstrong for delivering the script. It's her job, though she might think twice about how long she'll feel good about herself if she sticks with it.

And this brings me to my third moment of clarification: We all know, because we are closer to the facts than the public at large, how deceptive that statement was. Most of the time, we read newspapers with skepticism, but it is unusual to be close enough to the facts to see a lie as it forms, a lie by a government entity to the public.

I keep saying that I have no confidence in the administration of this university. There are actually many people in this university's administration who I admire--who care about students and go the extra mile in trying to help them. But I have lost trust in President Welty and Provost Covino because this year they have given me an education in deception, manipulation, and bureaucratic intransigence. 

To have a working relationship with people you have to have a certain level of trust. Amy Armstrong's message to the media sums up why I no longer have that trust in Fresno State's administration. No confidence, senators. It's now or never.

[May 31. In the comments section I've added an email from Manuel Pena to Helene Joseph-Weil about the use of present parking at Fresno State. It adds some interesting facts to the case.]