Serious Play was the latest in a series of bi-annual conferences hosted by Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, around the theme ‘Stories from the Source.’ It is part of an initiative from the top brass to position Art Center as a forward thinking school in competition with schools like Carnegie Mellon, Stanford D and others, equipping students with cross-disciplinary tool kits for the world of tomorrow.
As stated by Richard Koshalek, President of Art Center, Serious Play is an important event that strategically places Art Center within the global community of design and education. And as he quoted Erica Clark (the other person responsible for the ‘Stories from the Source’ Series), “isolation breeds irrelevance.”
Well, as a student of Art Center, and as a participant in the conference, I have a story, from the source. Art Center is in danger of becoming highly irrelevant to the very world it is trying to influence. This conference, along with Art Center’s ‘Sustainability Summit,’ is an example of Art Center continuing to present two separate faces to the world. While touting its desire to be a leader that prepares students for the world tomorrow, Art Center lacks any understanding of what that world will be. Or at least, lacks the legs to walk the path it loves to talk about.
Anyone who attended the Sustainability Summit was lucky enough to drink from glass cups and eat off ceramic plates for the dinners and snacks provided throughout. They also had the option of some recycling bins to place recyclable trash accumulated over the few days. Unfortunately, the people attending the three-day summit had more options to recycle and be responsible than the students who attend Art Center on a daily basis. The Art Center Cafeteria still uses Styrofoam plates, in spite of numerous efforts by select faculty and students for two years to change this. We know how to change this. We also know how to reduce the amount of waste we generate. And we know how to substantially improve our recycling rate beyond the standard 50%. Money has been cited as the limiting factor to this, but I can respect that only so much.
Student tuition has been raised 5% consistently over these past two years so that Art Center can “remain competitive,” or so the little letter I receive in the mail states. Well, I’m glad someone in Art Center was able to find the $385,068 in 2005 to pay Gehry Partners to design our new “advanced technical center.” A facility that has yet to break ground, and will not be finished before any attending student graduates. With a net loss of $128,955 reported in 2005, it’s not surprising that the 2008 Car Classic got cancelled. For that much money, we could hire an entry level Senior Officer who advises solely on Sustainability, and one-day work their way up to our President’s $439,950 2005 compensation. I haven’t seen the latest Form 990 from Art Center I’ll be naively optimistic and hope that these prices have been adjusted to remain “competitive.”
I’m not saying that it is as simple as cutting our president’s salary in half. I respect that he was worked hard to get where he is, and this is his earned compensation. I could simply not pay my tuition, as the popular thing to do now is “vote with my wallet.” That would take me out of their conversation completely (though one in which I feel I am already ignored to a serious degree). That option is comparable to walking away from the negotiation table before everyone has been invited. We have to affect change in our immediate spheres of influence. We have to be willing to make an effort. And I would very much like a return on my investment so far.
I want a degree, I want it to come from a place I respect, and will continue to respect in the future. I fell in love with Art Center before knowing its problems. The face that I fell in love with still exists, there’s just a bit more to her than I first realized. True to that love, I want to help out, if only my partner would admit to the problem and make an effort her self. Art Center is infamous for being demanding and destroying the relationships of its student body, but I think this is one relationship I can do something about. I just need a little help myself figuring out how to do so. And then maybe together walk the talk, hand in hand.
Information from:
Art Center Waste Stream Analysis 2007
Art Center 2005 Tax Form 990
Art Center Tuition Raise Information Letter
1,352 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1352 Newer› Newest»"are we really arguing that we wish this campus didn't exist? i'm confused now."
No. But the construction of Lida Street came with a steep price. And you know what? It sounds like they really needed their own custom building for once. 1977 is when ACCD went from being a boot-camp-esque school that focused on the education, to a fancy-schmancy afficianado of fine architecture and fine tastes.
The interesting thing is that Art Center had the opportunity to build on what is now known as Pepperdine University in Malibu. They may have already owned the land. But don Kubly lived down the street on Linda Vista and did not want the commute. I think the Malibu land was worth so much, it afforded them the huge acreage they have on Lida street. Probably a good trade.
"Hijacking implies that I am furthering my opinion at the expense of yours. I thin you owe us alumni an apology. Fight fair."
i apologize. i am not talking about ALL alumni. and nobody is fighting here (well, at least i'm not) so i also apologize if my comment came off kind of hostile.
it just seems really fishy to me that the loudest voices of protest here are coming from alumni and not current students. almuni who may not all be as informed with the happenings at art center as you seem to be. how many of the alumni that have signed the "education first" petition have the same connection? how many of them haven't even set foot on campus in the last several years?
"Are you in belief that your "future" diploma matters more than my existing one? If the school falls apart, we'll both feel the effects."
i am in agreement 100% with you on this one. what happens here at art center affects us all in the future. that's why i think this long term plan is important.
i know that i won't immediately benefit from the master plan, or the drc, etc. i'll be gone before they're even built. but i am supportive of it. why? because it's not about me here right now. it's about the future students, the ones who will be here 5-10 years from now, and beyond.
"Be thankful that (finally) some of us alumni give a damn about what's going on back on campus."
yes, thank you. it is great to see that alumni are concerned.
however, don't be so quick as to think that the opinions expressed on this blog are representative of the whole student body.
and i like cookies too ;)
4:31
Perhaps "plundered" is a harsh term.
"Depleated" is a better one. The fact is that an endowment existed, and they seriously dipped-in to it to give us Lida Street.
I actually LOVE Lida Street. I'm just saying that Art Center dipped into their kid's piggy bank to help build it.
Sadly, Art Center leadership and the board has gotten far too wrapped around the architecture and "coolness factor" and far away from making the school somewhat fiscally accessible yet the most desired school for anyone in the US to attend.
4:39:
but if most of us agree that we like/needed this campus, even though it took some money...
Can you guys stop spamming with this "cookie" nonsense? More people are likely to be interested in this blog after the press it has been getting (with the link on the petition website). How would visitors feel if they happened upon these juvenile comments about cookies? This blog is already filled with enough childish comments without your help.
4:39 pm -
from what i understand, kubly set a budget for the building and didn't want to exceed it, so that's why various things were cut. the board will set a budget for all the future buildings.
the college owns 175 acres on lida. perhaps accd should sell some and raise some money for endowment...
Few will debate you on the need for a new "real campus" in 1977. Art Center had previously existed for 47 years in hand-me-down facilities not created for their needs. It was time.
I'm just letting you know that paying for it was a big struggle. The money that was not supposed to be touched, was indeed "touched".
Unfortunately, by the early 1980s, barely 5 years after "finally" getting their new home, people were already saying that it was not enough for us to be in Pasadena. We needed some weird "global expansion". AC (Europe) was the disaster that followed. And you almost got an Art Center (Japan) in the 1990s.
Leadership forgot about what happened within the walls, and focused instead on redefining what "walls" should be (and where they should sit).
"the college owns 175 acres on lida. perhaps accd should sell some and raise some money for endowment..."
Now that is some "out of the box" thinking. And you could, hmm, get, what, $100MM for it? Now THAT is an endowment!
Sad that an idea so simple is so hostile to the leadership team.
"the college owns 175 acres on lida. perhaps accd should sell some and raise some money for endowment..."
yeah, that's a good idea. sell it to developers so they can denude the hillside and build some mcmansions there.
that's sustainable, right?
you know that the neighbors would fight that every step of the way! NIMBYs!
ya now there is an idea lets sell all of our "excess" land to developers who in return could build alot of new houses, which we dont need, and destroy all of the untouched land on the hillside. now there is some real sustainability thinking.
the neighbors would appreciate mcmansions, for sure.
and who cares about architecture, anyway? it's only for egotists! but design, well, that's for the people. and art, that's another story...
Just read the signature comments from the pro- building petition.
Clearly, some people think that they are signing the anti-building petition or are signing it as a farce. Check #'s 225, 239, 240, 214.
And it looks like someone called their numbers from the MOCA rolodex.
"I think a really nice looking building would look really nice. It would make Pasadena look nice and then people would think Pasadena was a nice place, and if I ever leave the East Coast, which I never need to do because it's the only place where culture is, I would think I could find Pasadena on the map and it would look really nice because it has architecture designed by people I am told do nice architecture. ...Oh, and I forgot to say Mr. Koshalek was always a nice guy when we had cocktails before the show..."
let's sell the whole hillside campus and move to downtown pasadena! that's far more sustainable. or better yet, let's merge with calarts or otis and move to valencia or the westside...
Mr sustainable:
Economics is having its way with Art Center. Students are having to borrow so much to attend the school that they'd need a loan payment of at least $1800/month just to cover tuition (no food, no rent). They'd need a $27,000 gross salary JUST TO COVER THE LOAN PAYMENT (assuming loans of $135k at 6% interest).
Simply put, they can't afford not to sell that land. It's like having soldiers sit on bags of flour while the local population starves around them.
If ACCD gave a damn about preserving nature, they'd have put some nature trails up there to foster a love of the surrounding environment. Bambi still shows up every so often, ok?
"and destroy all of the untouched land on the hillside. now there is some real sustainability thinking."
Shortage of land contributes to the high COST of land upon which to build housing. Some would argue that having a roof over your head is contributing to the sustainability of one's life. Damn, I really hate buzz-words like "sustainability". It's almost as bad as "green".
Trust me, the neighbors surrounding the school would much rather have more neighbors to boost their own home values. They really hate our speeding down Lida and wrapping our Scions around the telephone pole after pulling an all nighter.
i thought the whole point of sustainability and land use was to increase density. perhaps accd should
move the entire campus to the south campus and be close to mass transit. we can build a big parking structure next to the power plant. and leave bambi alone.
Please check this out:
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
Why is the administration trying to cherry pick persons to sign their 'Honesty First' (that is so insulting to anyone who might disagree with the direction of the college and who may disagree with it's priorities) petition off of an architecture website!? This argument is NOT about architecture, it's about educational priorities. The way the post on the Archinect website is framed, indicates that individuals should try to save what would be an architecturally significant building from not being built. This misses the point all together and may speak to the real priorities of Art Center's administration. Since we don't have an architecture educational program, is there any other way to interpret this effort than as a way to simply add names to the petition even if they are not invested in the educational program of Art Center (students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, parents, or even simply a friend of the college)? Where is the integrity in all of this? This whole argument needs to be framed about educational priorities, not architecture, since that is what the current controversy is all about. It's about our students and future students. Stay focused everyone.
I would submit that the endowment was not blown on the Lida campus. Maybe it was back in the '70's, but it was probably dissipated again by Brown and the Europe thing, and then his parading around trying to start a Japan campus.
His behavior was exactly why alumni from the 50's thru the 90's don't give. They saw good kids getting the best in education in spite of miss-spending by Admin. They started to see an honesty return with guys like Nate Young. That's why the uproar. They wanted to come back, and were starting to when this crap started again.
Dear all,
I believe that there are caring people on all sides. From the alumni, students, faculty to the administration. The more we demonize the other, the further we are from humanity.
If we can put away our own agendas, and do what is best now for ACCD we can hopefully proceed. Each side of this debate needs to step back and let go of this defensive stance.
When can we sit down and talk? Can we talk without the propaganda getting in the way?
What is our ultimate goal here?
To make ACCD the best design college for the students there now and for the ones coming in.
How do we do that?
It's going to hurt, but we need to look at our spending. We are not the only ones that have to cut back.
I can look outside and count the companies shrinking. ACCD is not immune.
My interests is with the students.
Because they are my legacy.
Ophelia Chong
New LA Weekly story on Art Center
http://www.laweekly.com/art+books/art/is-art-center-gehry-rigged-richard-koshalek-says-no/19093/
"Koshalek adds: “It’s an adventurous path we’re taking, one that will face some opposition — but we knew that going in.”
Is there anything that can stop this new building?
“No. Not unless the world and technology suddenly change so these things become unnecessary.
“Or,” he adds, “if we can’t raise the money.” - LA WEEKLY JUNE 12.08
http://www.laweekly.com/art+books/art/is-art-center-gehry-rigged-richard-koshalek-says-no/19093/
Dear Students,
Art Center Student Government (ACSG) thanks all of you that attended our question and answer session with the college president and his senior staff this past Tuesday. As promised, the administration has posted an Art Center sponsored online forum in and effort to promote transparency. Please visit
http://www.artcenter.edu/forum
In listening to the student voice and after expressing our concerns to the administration, we’ve concluded that in order to move our agenda further we need to gain an audience at the upcoming board of trustees meeting on Thursday, June 19 at the South Campus. When we asked for contact information to put our request to the board, we were referred to an administrator who promised to forward our desire to the appropriate board member. This email was forwarded yesterday, and we are planning to wait until Friday at 3pm for response from the aforementioned trustee before we decide our next course of action.
We rely on your support and your voice, so we are hosting a student and alumni only meeting outside in the Sculpture Garden at the Hillside Campus near Sinclaire Pavilion this Friday, June 13 at 3:00 pm. On Friday, depending upon whether or not we have received a response with regards to our sending a representative to the upcoming board meeting, we will discuss the next steps together. If we are allowed to attend the upcoming meeting, we’d like to nail down what we should say, as representatives of the student body. If we are not allowed or do not receive a response, we will brainstorm and discuss further action.
Please join us in this ongoing effort, by attending this Friday’s meeting.
Also, if you’d like some one on one time with our ACSG president, he is holding office hours in the cafeteria each Monday and Wednesday from 2:30 - 4:00pm.
Thank you,
Art Center Student Government
“This building is going to be the critical factor for the college to distinguish itself in the global marketplace — to attract the best students, faculty and corporate partners. Involving a name like Gehry will be essential for fund-raising — not just for the building itself but to ensure the studios continue to be upgraded with the latest technology. And it’s a simple fact that great architecture inspires great work."
RK 2008
"Don't mind that average work on the walls did you see our beautiful ceiling joists" RK 2020
check out this link:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/architecture/index.php?id=2188&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
this link works
http://chronicle.com/blogs/architecture/index.php
Discovolante posted
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
For those of you that have not followed the link, It’s a contemporary architecture website that is recruiting the general LA architecture community to support the master plan and Richard.
Got that?
Koshalek’s leadership team, who are arguing AGAINST the Education First position, and say they aren’t all about architecture, are promoting their cause on an ARCHITECTURE SITE with outreach to the general, non-Art Center Community.
And they’re calling it the “Put Honesty First Petition”.
Check it out yourself
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first
There are some faculty and staff signing here for sure. But mostly it appears to be general members of the art and architecture community.
Here’s the “Education First” petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
The undersigned: students, faculty, staff and alums that have a durable stake in the school. LOTS of us here
Read the letter for each. Then, if you are affiliated with the school, please consider placing your name on whichever one really, soberly, makes the most sense to you
No communications task force yet...?
Incredible!
Also no transportation representation on the educational task force.
??? Last I checked that's what Art Center was a leader in.
I didn't mean to sound cynical but COMMUNICATIONS have severely broken down.
First, I refuse to sign in as anonymous. My name is Kelvin Mak, a proud alumni - Advt Class of 2000. I was also one of the pioneering member of the ACSG, so I've been through the same wars and suffered the same scars as the ones laid onto current ACCD students. We keep saying that the school is spending money on pointless buildings, throwing social snob parties while ignoring the fundamentals of how to run a school properly. The same mess existed during the David Brown era, and it's still the same now. The mentality of the school is "Who cares about the students as long as they pay up on time" have been around since god knows when. I was a victim of such ABUSE. Yes, I call it abuse because ACCD has consistently lied, tricked and misguided the students even before they enrolled. I've worked as a school tour guide and I've been told to say certain positive things about how great the job placements will be for ACCD graduates. I've also worked as a Telemarketer for the school during their fund-raising efforts, and again, I was instructed to spew propaganda. I did all these because I was initially naive and trusting of the school's directions. However, when comes the time that I was in need of financial help, guess what - I was ignored, misdirected and was even suggested by the administration to "Take time off." And do what? Work at McDonald's and save up for tuition? It was then that I realized that ACCD, if you take away its original legacy plus the great teachers, is simply a BIG CON! Do you really think you can continue to get away with such arrogance and plain display of greed and personal indulgence? Do you think the students, the alumni and the faculty won't stand up and cry foul? Koshalek - you said our competition are schools like MIT and Stanford. With the way you're allowing the dumbing down of entry requirements plus the dramatic cutting down of fundamental art classes, I tell you that ACCD might end up no better than a vocational school. And you know why I can say this? That's because as a advertising company owner/creative director in both the US and China, I've had seen my share of books from recent ACCD grads...and I have to say they always end up in my trash can. It is mostly junk that are irrelevant and formulaic. I do blame the students to some level. But perhaps it is because they have been misdirected, misguided and mistreated. Most of them can't even DRAW! The most basic requirement for an artist no matter what major you belong to. The voices are getting louder and stronger. ACCD admin, Koshalek and the Board...these are the voices of the BACKBONE of the Art Center Spirit. Don't you dare forget it. Don't you dare tarnish it. Don't you dare misuse this privilege. YOUR SALARY COMES FROM THE STUDENTS, PAST AND PRESENT. KNOW YOUR TRUE "OWNERS" AND THEY ARE US. WITHOUT US, YOU ARE SIMPLY NOTHING BUT WORKERS WITH A BLOATED SALARY AND A CUSHY WINDOW OFFICE. WITHOUT US, THERE IS NO ART CENTER COLLEGE OF DESIGN!
A $75 million new building? You must be joking-how about a few thousand dollars to make the senior transportation studio a safe and healthy place to build models and work? This is the crown jewel of the school for visitors and ironically a toxic place for aspiring design students. Shameful.
To respond to Patricia Oliver's desparate plea to anyone and everyone to sign their petition, let's have our parents that are giving us their hard earned income to support our educations sign our petition. They clearly have a stake in our futures and don't want any distractions from our educations. Significant others also apply.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/educationfirst
I am glad to see that Nathan has take out the option of Anonymous on the comments. If we are to put forth our proposals, we need to have a name with the voice. And it will also stop the comments that are coming in that derail the purpose of this blog.
Ophelia
Artcenter.edu/forum
I put up a comment in Discussion at 9:04am today, and it's still waiting for a moderator to approve.
If ACCD wants anyone to use it, they need to follow up with approving comments and not deleting others.
Ophelia
Thanks Nathan for removing the Anonymous option.
What do you think of this letter, comments, concerns?
I was going to give it to student government President Today.
Dear Board of Trustees,
To predict the future of Art Center I asked my fellow student, faculty, chairs and alumni everyone to contribute their thoughts on how we might create it!
Disclaimer: I would appreciate if this could be thought of as a brainstorming set of notes. I probably has some assumptions wrong and I am not in anyway trying to disrespect anyone just throw out some thoughts and hope that other continue doing the same.
Historically divided communities find unity and healing with a change of leadership.
-Communication has proven to be the single largest fundamental problem. The causes range from faculty lacking tenure, chair being asked to sign letters of support in private meetings by their boss all the way down to students not wanting to risk their grades or limited scholarship by speaking up. Something needs to be done to absolve the fear of retribution. This dirty laundry published widely online now may not have come to fruition had there been open lines of communication and the trust that speaking up would nit cost you your job or rightfully earned merits. Trust is at an all time low as you can see from the news articles and blogs. This is destroying our educational environment today and perhaps our credibility is at stake which will take time to repair.
-Facilities seem to have been confused with new architecture. Yes we need facilities and a the DRC is a noble cause although w operate as aDesign Research center already bringing in sponsored projects and now Art Center Pro .
“Administration officials admit the South Campus has acoustic problems and is running at roughly 50 percent capacity.” LAWeekly June 12th, 2008
Quality Standards should be addressed.
“The administration is letting in kids who aren’t qualified,” says one faculty member, who wished to remain anonymous. “We have students who can’t even speak English.”
LAWeekly June 12th, 2008
“It’s true we’re letting in 4s,” says Mark Breitenberg, dean of Humanities and Design Sciences. LAWeekly June 12th, 2008
Art Center admissions rate portfolios on a scale of 1-10.
The schools listed were selected by the administration to chart Art Center’s performance on the community forum website designed to provide transparency at the students’ request. We’ve added the Cal Arts data since almost 60% of our student population are from the state of California, obviously they would be a significant competitor.
ACCD [71% of only 543 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $70,000]
RISD [33% of 2,557 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $22,500]
CalArts [31% of 2,776 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $30,051]
OTIS [56% of 921 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $44,706]
Pratt [42% of 4,326 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates Not reported]
AIC [84% of 1,354 applicants were admitted]
[Average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $26,011]
SVA [69% of 2,530 applicants were admitted]
[average Indebtedness of 2006 Graduates $30,600]
All the above information was provided by www.collegedata.com
Disclosure: The students have requested specific number with no avail. We believe outside audit is in order with a full disclosure of financial affairs including breakdowns of all education expenses.
Is it true that 58 cents out of every tuition dollar in 2002 was spent on education and in 2007 only 44 cents was spent on education? If so Why? And where does that money go?
A financial standard must be put into place with a set of metrics that does not allow for tuition dollars to continue to be diverted from education.
Next steps in the plan will be to publish for the Art Center community periodic updates A online progress report might of prevented the current situation from erupting.
Moving Forward
-There should be a unified mission statement in which all top level decisions can be measured against. For example, “Cultivating future leaders through uncompromising excellence in design education." Maybe even a good slogan that is infectious I like the old one, "no teachers, just teaching professionals" (that are leaders!) which was our edge for years. What should it be for the 21st Century? Has it changed? What are your thoughts? It is easy to agree with Richards’s words but his actions do not reinforce his mantra?
-More fundraising efforts should be directed toward building the endowment and bringing in sponsors projects fuel the education. We fully support Orrin Shively's statements in the LA Times article on using donors money and fund raising effort to support the students. (Who knows how many opportunities we may have missed by focusing on expansion projects when our foundation of resources is so low. Even if the building was "FREE" we would still need to pour in new student to maintain it and continue other expansion efforts.
-There should exist a New Revenue "advisory board" but require approval through the CAO. (Part of this might be leveraging the real estate using it to generate revenue by leasing our properties to developers. The ArtCenter housing plans seem quite small in scale when considering the value of the land it sits on. Is it really the wisest investment at this stage?
-One way to generate revenue might be a Professional Design Immersion (Executive Education) with in the South Campus. Educate not Just Professional Designers but business people who are seeing greater value in design led innovation. This would motivate design leader to come and teach at ACCD. We have partnerships in place and building capacity to accomplish this.
-The financial burden students’ face today is greater than ever, some offices need to be super-charged with new resources to meet them. Career services and financial aid are doing an excellent job with the limited resources available to them, although we should create initiatives to empower and incentivize our staff and faculty who have to power to send us into the world ready to shape it rather than letting it shape us. Art Center Experience regarding finances has become a huge burden to carry!
-Our professional offices such as graphic design office, the dot ad agency and the architecture offices need to be made know of their existence and efforts. It's truly a mystery what they do. What are they producing? There needs to be more student involvement, if they are doing great things than we should hear about it and be apart of it.
-Marketing and Communications of the school fall short of promoting student work to the fullest. There is more press about the greatness of our president rather than results of his greatness.
-Only 1400 Students. The size of the administration is concerning. (I think we have one administrator for every 7 students. Is this normal?) (While our student teacher ratio is at least twice that)
My final point is that there is an immediate need for ACCD to look to the future and plan. Every time I hear 21st century ACCD it's immediately followed by architecture developments. The 21st Century plan should be an educational initiative. I think that the South Campus and surrounding area could be that place in the distant future with it's accessible transportation and new (GREEN) housing the Art Center learning experience would be concentrated into a single buzzing atmosphere. (like in the old days when all classes stopped for a break and you could walk room to room seeing the talent of your peers and learning from them) I actually like the idea of coming off the hill, the future is about collaboration in the community. We apparently need to work on that quite a bit though.
Thanks for reading.
It's just some thoughts, dreams and visions of a future institution that I care about.
Jason Nicholas Hill
PLEASE BUILD ON IT
Yeah I know the grammar and spelling. I'm just trying to rush back to my mountain of homework!
copy and pass on to media and contacts:
*** PRESS RELEASE ***
Two Petitions Illustrate Need for New Leadership
at Famous College
Two competing petitions, one launched last week by students dissatisfied with dwindling educational priorities, and a counter-petition supporting administration policies, show the deep and continuing divisions at Art Center College of Design. The counter petition, sponsored by "Friends and Family of Art Center College of Design," gives an appearance of having originated spontaneously, but is in essence an administration-engineered response to the earlier student petition.
Symbolizing a growing dysfunction within the college community and the administration's mounting struggle to manage an ongoing crisis, the petition "Honesty First," was launched June 6 and borrows its title from the student petition, "Education First." Arm-wrestling with its own student body, college officials have initiated a war of perception over the past two weeks. Students counter that management-by-perception is itself the core problem they are protesting, and that school officials need to deal instead with substance.
Meters attached to monitor signatures to each petition illustrate hour-by-hour the growing divisions within the college, and point to the need for new leadership that can once again unite the college.
The administration petition was created after adverse publicity in numerous newspapers exposed Art Center president Richard Koshalek's nine-year record of pursuing architectural projects and special events at the expense of educational needs.
As an independent emerging issue, Art Center's current chaos threatens college stability, and calls into question the current administration's ability to overcome discord within the college community.
Trustees of the college will meet next week to consider a request by Koshalek to extend his contract for another four years. Student, faculty, and alumni are opposed to the contract extension, stating that Art Center's deep divisions, confirmed by the growing number of signatures to the two contradictory petitions, reveal institutional wounds that are beyond Koshalek's ability to heal.
"The two petitions are not really involved in a contest of numbers," one Art Center insider said, "no matter the numbers, they are saying the same thing -- Art Center is broken and will continue to be broken even if the Board re-enlists Koshalek. At this point, only new leadership can fix it."
By begining a search for a new president to reunite the college in common purpose, sources say, the trustees will be taking the first step toward reconcilliation of fractured segments of the institution's population. It is not known if trustrees are willing to listen to representatives of students, faculty, and alumni at their June 19 meeting. The location of the meeting is apparently being kept secret.
I have been modeling for Art Center for over 15 years and I agree that the school has taken a turn for the worst. You used to have a lot of great full time teachers that loved and cared about their work and the students. Now it seems like there are more part time then full time. The teachers and students are all worried. I also work at a lot of other schools and there is talk everywhere about the bad changes at Art Center. The dropping of Foundation classes is one of the most talked about. Art Center used to be the top paying, the school everyone looked up to for policies and pay rates for models. Now they may become the lowest paying school this year.
-- IMPORTANT --
Please check this out. This chart shows how Art Center's education budget has declined even as the college's revenue, tuition, and enrollment have increased.
Exactly as Nate Young said.
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?3454700ddf.jpg
Perfect Storm
So if Nate was over budget, that means it should've been a required drop from $29M (2006) to $26M (2007), and not the $27.3 that it was. Incredible.
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?3454700ddf.jpg
Perfect Storm -
More info is needed. Please cite your sources.
I saw that Troy posted this link earlier and i just wanted to repost it. Basically, administration is appealing to architecture junkies in support of their pro Gehry petition. Read not only the little blog BUT ALSO read the comments, and then leave one and show the architecture-ly inclined community what we think!
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
I just posted this on the LA Weekly blog, but it has to wait to be approved so I thought I would keep posting.
***************************
I have seen the master plan and I like it. What I DON'T like is the innate feeling of being overlooked. I want an excellent education. I chose Art Center for that. I can take my $$$$$ elsewhere. I don't like learning from unhappy faculty in crowded classes! They say enrollment is down but told our incoming class that we were the largest they have ever had.
I have had (and most of the students attest to this) classes where we have to have timed critiques (sometimes 5 minutes -no exaggeration) and some take more than one class period to finish. That doesn't allow us to really learn from what we have done. AND/OR our teachers have to cut back on assignments to accommodate for the time needed for feedback because there are so many students in one class. When we only meet 14 times per term, every day is precious. I didn't apply to any other school. I only wanted Art Center. I agree with a comment Koshalek made about great architecture instilling the desire for excellence. That makes sense to me. We'll just tell everyone to drop out and come back when the master plan is completed. The master plan is intended to benefit the education of the students. I won't be at Art Center when that comes to completion and why should I forfeit? I gave only one example that is upsetting us. There are tons. Why can't our administration look at the student/faculty experience instead of reciting statistics to us? We want to feel good about the school we have chosen to attend. If things don't change with our current direction of education, the 'soul' reason to attend Art Center will be gone.
The pro – master plan petition people have been posting disruptive messages on the Education First petition site.
Here is an example that has since been removed:
# 1,214:6:00 am PDT, Jun 14, Name not displayed, California DON'T COUNT MY VOTE IN THIS MISINFORMED PETITION! Most alumni don't know the facts and continue to demonstrate how ignorant they are by signing. This is really a right-wing witch hunt on Koshalek. Please don't join the misinformed bandwagon. GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU MAKE A MISTAKE. As both a liberal and Art Center alumni with close ties to Art Center, please read the opposing petition before taking a side. As in life, it is important to make informed decisions by looking at other positions...unless you're afraid of the truth. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first
There is another one at # 1,219: 9:05 am PDT, Jun 14, Julie Lazar, California.
These petition sites are not discussion boards. Ms Lazar is entitled to her opinion. But since she signed the petition we WILL count her on record as opposed to the Master Plan. That’s how petitions work.
We have a couple of messages for whatever admin person is running the “Honesty First” campaign:
1) Per the # 1,214 post above: We’re not afraid of the truth. Please post your FACTS so that we can read them. Your petition letter is marketing and promises not facts so we can’t get facts there. We welcome fresh facts. We welcome any facts from you.
You claim: NO TUTTION OR SCHOLARSHIP MONEY IS BEING DIVERTED AWAY FROM STUDENTS
Does that include debt service on the South Campus? Fundraising expenses for the capital campaign for the Master Plan? Personnel and direct expenses for marketing these projects? Overhead cost of running a 5 person architecture office? Planning and EPA report costs? Architectural design costs for Mr Gehry? Once the building is built will the heating, cooling and maintenance be free?
Since we’ve raised these issues dozens of times and they have never been answered we’ll assume for the moment that your claim is not yet a fact.
2) Immediately stop your “Honesty First” constituents from disruptive posting on the Education First petition. We have been respecting your rights to you own petition. But we are certainly capable of playing by your rules. Apparently you don’t get that there is a large (1200 and counting), disgruntled, and digitally savvy opposition to the Master Plan. We’re still being well behaved.
While you are at it you have just a bit more time to give us facts on these other petition claims
(in your own writing at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first) :
The Design Research Center is something to get excited and proud about. Why? Here are the facts: It will...
Provide access to global research information for faculty, students, and graduates
- How does this particular building do that? Is this done in a way that is different or better than what any networked facility could do?
Positively transform and improve the education experience for students and faculty alike
- If the current planning phase for the DRC is any indication, this particular “fact” isn’t working out so well. Could you elaborate on how this facility is addressing the concerns that so many recent students and grads have expressed in writing as essential to a quality education?
Equipped with the most advance technologies evolved and developed by global companies -it will build new collaborations between private enterprise and Art Center's creative education.
- Are our collaborations with global companies at risk because of facilities or technology? Or something else?
Provide new seminar and meeting spaces
- Does this mean we can have Design Conferences more often? Will students be able to come? Are our current auditorium spaces limiting us from serving students?
These are nice promises. Not facts. How can promises about what something *will be* be facts. It may be factual that these things are your intentions. We now have almost enough good intentions to pave the proverbial “road to hell”.
RIP -- nice post, great questions. I look forward to an admin coming over here and providing some answers, when hell freezes over. A LOT of stuff's gonna be revealed on that day...
Or, you could post it on their kiddie site, the official Community Forum. Right under the handy "Discussion" tab -- be sure to read the rules, now. And don't be impatient for the censo... er, moderator, to screen your questions first. I'm sure you'll get your answers in a couple days, because (like the US Post office) the answerer works hard 8:30 to 4:30 and needs weekends off, and is juggling quite a workload -- 18 whole posts so far....
Boy, for all their talk about being jockeys of the future, these guys really don't get the internet.
Nate Young - finally you stopped being scared of your own shadow.
Richard Koshalek (former President) - you need to get a job in SCI-ARC and don't forget to take Patricia with you. You guys will get to create buildings with Gerry and put David Geffen's name on the wall. This will definitely help you get the recognition you need in the Architecture world. Because it will give you a great opportunity to solve their parking situation and allow you to keep Little Tokyo authentic.
Hint* Check the problems that occurred during the construction of Disney Hall - Frank Gehry, and Richard Koshalek were part of it. The whole project caused so much aggravation; it bled money like there was no tomorrow; big political turmoil.
Patricia Belton Oliver - Senior Vice President, Architectural Planning And Special Projects (former Environmental Design Chair)
She is the catalyst for all this. She should be fired. She was the one who brought Richard Koshalek, and combined classes together and commissioned SCI ARC for the silly extension cords, and work tables. On top of that she opened up her own Architectural Planning studio with the school's money. She is the one who initiated the idea for students to work on cool things so they could put "cool things" in the gallery that high school kids would like. So, they could recruit more students ???
Now, Ms. Oliver explained that no one will give money to build a parking structure. She needs to go to SCI ARC with Koshalek. Because SCI ARC also have parking lot problems, and they build the concrete buildings. She will be happy over there.
One more on the hit list...
Jean Mitsunaga - Director, Career Services
She is so out of touch. She can't even do an average job of "job-placement". The 2006 catalog claims "Average job-placement rate one year after graduation: 94%" This number comes with a disclaimer “Based on alumni-survey responses” Ehm! in what kind of jobs and organizations - please itemize ~ In any case, she shouldn’t take credit for this. She has nothing to do with this number.
Any alumni that worked with her, will realize that she is incompetent beyond belief. she has been there too long. I was shocked by the way she was handling the recruitment interviews during the graduation. And after a few years, when I was working on a 90+ million dollar project, she was giving me guidance on who to pick, how to pick. She didn’t even ask me what the objective of the project was... nor did she allow me to see other students' work. Are you kidding me?
=
When I donated $2500 modeling foam from a major movie production. The studio paid for the shipment, and other expenses. They didn’t even ask for a tax right of, which wouldn’t be much for the studio to begin with... They thought, "it would be neat for students to use."
I specifically wrote a letter to Michael Plesh to distribute the modeling foam free of charge to students. I have never heard from anyone. Two weeks later, Head of Production asked me if they were surprised regarding the modeling foam. I said "I haven’t heard from them. I am going to stop by the school and checked what happened there." We never received "Thank you letter" nor confirmation letter that they have received it. Even though, we knew they received it from the tracking number. Not even a phone call.
When I asked Michael Plesh what happened, I added that I haven’t heard from them at all. He said "Oh, that big chunk of foam. Yeah, we got it. I guess UPS guys ram into it with a fork lift"... I specifically asked if it was distributed to the students, his reaction was. No, we just put it with the rest of the foam. I said I have included a letter with the shipment for the foam to be distributed free of charge. There was dead silence. I was furious.
When I started the school, David Brown was a president. He one day showed up at his office finding students jumping up and down on his desk. He was trying to address the students, but he couldn’t even get into his own office with ease. Back then the school didn’t have a student government.
Students were annoyed and pist for the last minute tuition raise for the next term. Supposedly, David Brown needed money for the next term budget, and decided to raise tuition without any warning on the whim $500 a pop.
Unfortunately, the protest never made it to LA Times but David was let go after the scandal. Tuition raise was postponed for the upcoming term. The school was embarrassed how students burst out with the chaotic boycott, and decided to form a student government. The idea was to create a bureaucracy so by the time a student or group is able to make a change, most of them would already have graduated.
I know my alma matter will rank higher if I donate money to its endowment. I should be able to... I should want to 'pay it forward' - I rather keep my wallet in my pocket. Thank you, but no thank you. Especially, under these circumstances, I will wait until Richard Koshalek, Patricia Belton Oliver, and Jean Mitsunaga are gone and the rest of the administration decide to continue student, and design objectives clear and transparent without any hidden agenda.
Richard Koshalek Patricia Belton Oliver
Jean Mitsunaga
Dear Ms Julie Lazar,
Since we mentioned we were going to count your vote, vou’ve now posted the same propaganda for the Master Plan and RK on both the “Education First” petition …
(# 1,219: 9:05 am PDT, Jun 14, Julie Lazar, California
…and now twice on the “Honesty First” petition
# 307: 3:13 pm PDT, Jun 14, Julie Lazar, California
# 306: 2:56 pm PDT, Jun 14, Julie Lazar, California
My guess is that you double posted on “Honesty First” so that you could cancel out your propaganda vote on our “Education First” petition. But of course, you still left your propaganda over at our place. Democracy in action! I’m sure somehow in your head that’s fully rationalized.
You guys are really having trouble with this “Honesty First” concept aren’t you?
Real “honesty” definitely needs more support over at that Master Plan petition so we’ll let Ms Lazar count twice for you.
Julie Lazar is an old cohort of Koshalek's. I guess his secretary, Sheila, has reached "L" on his rolodex. They think it's all about numbers.
To paraphrase from my earlier post:
The real impact of the two petitions will not be based on which one had the most numbers. The real impact is the very fact that there are two opposing petitions. Together they are saying Art Center is broken and will continue to be broken until the trustees take action to fix it!
If the Board re-enlists Koshalek, it will set in place the deep divisions this process has exposed. At this point, ONLY NEW LEADERSHIP can fix Art Center.
I’m drilling deep to understand who these people are that are signing the two petitions. Because I really want to know who the stakeholders are and what are their desires. This is valuable data for the school to use for strategic planning as it moves forward. We should respond to our stakeholders as a way to get out of this mess!
It’s clear that the “education First” petition is dominated by students, alums, faculty/staff, potential attendees and parents of students.
I’ve been puzzled about who is signing the “Honesty First” petition. I’ve come across a very simple mechanism that allows me to find about half, but not all, of these people. Go to Google
Type into search box : AIA “x”
copy and paste any “Honesty First” petitioners name from the petition site over the x (leaving the quotes)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first
About half of the people will come up with tightly constrained hits. Why? Because AIA is the American Institute of Architects. About half of all petitioners for “Honesty First” are registered architects. Some of them have a stake in seeing project built or have been on the payroll for past projects like the Sinclair Pavilion or South Campus.
Where a hit does not come up try changing AIA to law
- What do these people have to do with Art Center?
- What do these people know about the needs of our students?
- What stake do these stakeholders have in Art Center’s future?
- What is the chance that these people have read any of the blog, seen the “Education First” petition, or understand any of the issues other than the fate of a Frank Gehry building?
- Would the Art Center admin like to tell us one more time that this is “honestly” about the future of us students and NOT about architecture or big money commercial development?
After thinking about the issues and a long hike listening to an amazing and highly regarded ACCD student, I have condensed it down to what I find most important to me:
1. ACCD has to find it's footing again by supporting the present faculty. Bring the education budget back up to support this.
2. Finish the south campus. Build the Media center (headed by Anne Burdick) now. It was promised in the Fall, but now it's not happening till the Spring.
3. Teach students how to think, not just design techniques. You can pump out students that can draw, but until you teach them how to intellectualize, they are nothing more than drones.
4. What is ACCD without top students? Bring up the level of acceptance to a minimum of 7/10, not the present 4/10. Don't accept mediocre students just to fill the coffers. By accepting lower standards you bring the quality of graduates down and with it ACCD's reputation. Pennywise, pound foolish.
5. Why are you cutting back on faculty? They are the foundation of this school. Why is administration so heavy? Are they there to
help the students or to fundraise for a building that will never be built? Building costs are going to rise even more in the next few months,
and the fundraising will not be able to catch up to that.
6. International Initiatives. If we keep slashing education budgets we will be nothing more than an Emperor with no clothes. Why attract
international notice to a school with nothing to show?
7. What is your end goal? A building to attract top students? By accepting lower standards now you are only building a reputation
for a school that will take students with pocketbooks not portfolios. That reputation will outlast any present and future building.
8. And lastly, the Culture of Arrogance. The student is the client. Here's an analogy everyone can understand.
If my car broke down, I would bring it back to the dealer. The dealer will then fix it.If I hear that they can't fix it because the money to pay the mechanic is being spent on building the garage. So once the garage is built, my car will then be fixed. So I am stuck with a broken down car until then. My only choice woudl be is to sell the heap and find a dealer that puts me the client first. End of analogy.
Ophelia Chong
Thank you Ophelia. Always the voice of reason. I can only once again send out a plea for solutions, especially from the faculty and staff who are closer to the infrastructure and so might be able to see more specific things that can be fixed. We the students can ask for better education but it is the teachers who know how to implement it. Please listen to them!
~Ashley
This from the Stafford mandatory financial orientation thing that the federal law mandates before taking loans:
----------------------------------
Question:
How much salary do I need to support my student loan debt?
Answer:
Based on student loan debt of $130,000.00 to be repaid over 15 years at 6.8 percent interest, my estimated monthly payment is $1,153.99.
To support repayment of the debt, I should earn at least:
# $83.22 Hourly
# $14,424.86 Monthly
# $173,098.36 Annually
-------------------
How many people who go into these fields make $173K a year withing 5 years of graduating?
This is seriously, a LOT of money...
Just a food for thought... forgive me for ranting as well..
On Richard's comment that we NEED a Frank Gerry building to inspire the students and faculty... and that it would draw people to Art Center.. and make Art Center known...
Richard...
1. Have you heard of Gnomon? Yeah its that trade school in LA for entertainment designers....
2. Have you visited their campus?
It's a beat down Television Campus...
Gnomon is a great example of a school that puts education first .
The seminars they hold are accessable to EVERYONE even students. I just attended one this past weekend for a whopping 125.00 (175 if your not a student). I have seen more speakers that I have cared for there then any art center talk. And they even gave us a free Gnomon DVD. I would have loved to attend some of the art center seminars.. but at 300+ my budget goes to my tuition (a higher priority)...
They care about the education The students get really top notch instructors for the fraction of the cost I pay at art center. They've had teachers like Feng Zhu, and many more wonderful instructors. Some that teach at art center even... (and they don't teach their classes any differently)
graduation
Although Gnomon students are only achieving a trade deploma, they don't have the debt most of us at Art Center have.
At graduation (and I know some gnomon grads) they get a large collection of the Gnomon DVDs... (something I would find useful as a review of things I've learned) art center students get a pad of paper, a plastic business card holder that breaks after a week, a pen, and a mug if their lucky. (the mug alternates per term it seems). one word "WOW..."
But okay I'll give Art Center the benefit of the doubt We get a peice of paper thats worth 120,000$ in a nice Neon red-orange cover that can change the color of any white wall in the bathroom. A peice of paper that will never see the light of day or more eyes than those that visit my humble home..
People in my industry NEVER ask to see deplomas... what they ask to see is A BOOK... a book that suprisingly contains MY WORK.
Work that shows the KNOWLEDGE that I have RECIEVED, WORKED HARD FOR, APPLIED to, and PAID FOR for during my time at art center
So please don't tell me your CUTTING GOOD TEACHERS, that I NEED in order to get the job I need. A job i need to pay back my loans that I've acquired during my time to seek the best education i can get. (loans that get higher every term)
Please don't tell me this, all because you think a building MIGHT inspire me...
To be quite honest I've only liked one design of Frank Gerry...(the Guggenheim Museum) and its not the one that sits in the room at art center..
That one looks like a mess to me... And the only people this will inspire is the environment design students... because the rest of us are ID, Illustration, and Film... buildings to us are an after thought...
Most of us create in hole in the wall places every night when security kicks us out of the studios...
I would rather a Cintiq then a building. A Cintiq would inspire me more....
Oh and one more thing about Gnomon And from my experiences...
It is actually more known across the world more then Art Center. And I highly doubt their President has held expensive banquets on the students behalf all over the world Instead they advertise over the internet. I have co-workers that have come from Europe and they know Gnomon, but they don't know Art Center.
There’s some strange activity over at the ole “Honesty First” petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/vote-for-art-centers-future-put-honesty-first
Suddenly there’s a big spike in activity (still not likely they’ll hit their target numbers). Starting at #315 and through #356 there is a lot of batching by state/region separated by 2-3 minutes
On the first page times are shown as well as dates. What’s weird is that there will be a series of 3-5 signatures all from the same area, all separated by a few minutes. Are people in offices all being told to sign at once? Are people all getting an email at the same time and jumping right onto the petition? Are signatures being batched in some other way?
Who are these people? VERY few have anything to do with Art Center. Well, #341 Craig Hodgetts, California admits he designed the Sinclair pavillion
Could some other people look into this batching thing? This is not a random pattern.
BTW: if you’re looking for the petition to put Education First! go to www.accdpetition.com
(you won’t see any weird signature batching there either)
Oliver and gang are looking pretty desperate in the face of this. Compare the comments on each petition site. The "education first" petition is filled with familliar names and usually with heartfelt comments from current students, former students instructors, administrators and parents.
Oliver's petition is mostly padded with the names of people who want nothing more than to see more Gehry architecture get produced. There are certainly some names of people close to the ACCD community on the list as well, but they are in the overwhelming majority.
Ms Oliver: it'll take you 2 more months to get your 1,000 signatures at this pace, and from the looks of things, you're soliciting a lot of "seat meat" to help pad the rolls. Sad, really.
Pat, joining us will not mean that you can't find relevance at Art Center. You're acting as if Art Center's future depends on Mr Gehry's design.
minority, not majority (sorry)
RIP,
About the signature batching on the Honesty First petition. You asked - "Could some other people look into this batching thing? This is not a random pattern."
There are some people working the phones and their rolodexes. In some cases the signatures may be “by proxy” meaning that if the person grants permission then someone fills out the online petition for them. Still pretty fast for them to get permission and make a new call in 3 minutes.
Paige Rhobshaw writes on the "honesty first" petition:
"There is no tuition money being diverted from students for a new library!"
Incorrect, Paige. Tuition money is being focused on a large fundraising staff that has the new DRC building as its goal. If Koshalek wants to fund the "fundraising" effort with donations, then fine, but this is not the case. No one is being "smeared". Smearing infers information is not factual.
If you would like to contend that we do not have our facts straight, then supply us with the raw data
that refutes our claims. Art Center refuses to provide non-convoluted answers to simple fiscal questions.
If Pat Oliver is on the phone doing lobbying work to get people to sign her idiotic petition, then I'm even more angry. A complete waste of resources.
WallsHaveEyes,
F**k me! The “Honsty First” ARCHITECTURE supporters should at least care enough about the cause to get online themselves and sign their own petition!
One more great example of the kind of absolute bull these people are capable of. They are going to try to fix the vote and they STILL won’t make their target numbers
Thank God that Dr. Vernon Bohr signed Pat Oliver's petition (#353). How can we distrust the opinion of a completely random PSYCHIATRIST who probably has nothing to do with Art Center?
Don't forget his wife, Marsha. Both members of the Pasadena Arts Council.
Get this:
I actually signed the "honesty first" petition, just so I could comment. They accepted the signature (for their total numbers) but did not display my number or comment. In other words, they moderated me. You can only comment if your words support your vote. Ain't that rich!
Adding to the (ir)relevance of Pat's petition:
DAVID SEFTON, Director of UCLA Performing Arts.
Looks like the Rolodex is indeed being worked.
Hey David, do you make it out to Art Center very often? The traffic on I-10 can be a bitch.
An update on "Education First"
4:53 pm PDT, Jun 16, Scott Robertson, California
Art Center Alum, Trans '90, Faculty and current Chair of Entertainment Design...EDUCATION FIRST!
Woo-hoo!
The point is, other members of the Southern California community care about Art Center. David Sefton is a national figure and does amazing cultural programming at UCLA.
Wasn't that the point of getting city-wide press?
What happened to “the Future of Art Center” blog?
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
Did the owner drop out?
Get hypmotized?
We need you people
Bambi -- slow down. Your enthusiasm is great, but you're casting a pretty wide net.
Vern and Marsha Bohr are friends and donors to Art Center. They're good people. I wish they were on our side, and maybe they will be when more of the facts come out.
We should all take a deep breath. Intelligent people can disagree, and not everyone who chooses the other side is a sleeze.
Marsha is a member of the Pasadena Art Alliance -- not Arts Council. That group has provided scholarship money to Art Center for many years.
To RIP: Yeah, a little dazed, but The Future of Art Center blog is still active, listening, and thinking. Sorry for being less involved, but we've been interested in seeing how the administration has reacted, as well as the rest of the community. Now we're evaluating what the next steps are.
Some initial thoughts: the focus really has to be on influencing, pardon the phrase, the Future of Art Center - The fund raising, the education plan, the leadership, sustainability, etc. Koshalek's contract may or may not get renewed, but either way I think most of us believe that things simply cannot continue in the direction they have been.
Art Center has a great past, and an amazing potential for the future. But now is a critical time, and this outburst of dissatisfaction is not caused by some "misinformed bloggers" (really, could he be more condescending?) It's a canary in the coal mine and if Koshalek and crew are so blind as to not see that and adapt, then the community will have to force the issue through continued speaking out and actions.
The Board of Trustees meeting is Thursday. Once we hear what they have to say, or even if they have nothing to say, the next steps will become more clear. It's likely to be a long process though.
A couple comments on the discussion. The personal attacks really don't help the cause, and in fact hurt in the overall picture. We're all angry about the situation, but slamming individuals just takes the focus off the issues and harms the credibility of everyone. Please just stop it.
Second, the problems at Art Center are deep rooted, and everyone is culpable to some degree. Certainly the Board and Koshalek have a lot to account for, but Nate was not perfect, the faculty are not perfect, the chairs are not perfect, and the students are not perfect. The school got off track and we all have to reevaluate and make some changes. So now we have to concentrate on the future.
How do we move forward from here?
There’s “not perfect” and then there’s “a long way from perfect”. We shouldn’t work on final glazing and highlights when the underlying perspective is just wrong.
I appreciate that you want to start work on what comes next but there are two days until the board meeting and from what I hear many of the board members are just waking up. We move forward by making sure the board knows these issues can’t be ignored. The next steps after the board meeting are largely determined by that outcome.
You were doing a pretty great job of documenting the admin practices under your “verified facts” but you disappeared. Please come back! I don’t know who you are but you have a talent for organization and communication and we need you.
Since you checked out:
There has been a lot of important questions asked. At the top of that list is to explain how the building won’t compromise tuition money
The claim: NO TUTTION OR SCHOLARSHIP MONEY IS BEING DIVERTED AWAY FROM STUDENTS
The questions: Does that include debt service on the South Campus? Fundraising expenses for the capital campaign for the Master Plan? Personnel and direct expenses for marketing these projects? Overhead cost of running a 5 person architecture office? Planning and EPA report costs? Architectural design costs for Mr Gehry? Once the building is built will the heating, cooling and maintenance be free?
The admin’s practices of building their petition constituency: Promoting the honesty first site on an architecture blog:
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
- Batching of signatures
- recruiting people who are not students, staff, or alums to determine the fate of the school
Or how about this little financial gem that Perfect Storm posted. Doesn’t this say it all?
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?3454700ddf.jpg
I’m sure you are reading all the posts and we appreciate the work you’ve done to date. You’ve got the site. Help us pull it all together.
FOAC,
I second you on the "slamming individuals", that distracts from the discussion and then it just becomes a platform for personal attacks. If you have a beef with someone, settle it amongst yourselves.
Onward.
:O)Ophelia
Thanks to this blog and the petition, I have decided to decline my acceptance to the Advertising Design program. With that way the information is presented here, versus the manner in which the administration is handling damage control leads me hard pressed to find the value in spending $120,000+ with Art Center. I simply cannot find the value of the degree that has such a shaky foundation and poor handling of their most valuable asset, the students.
I received a call last week from Elena Salij, who is the new Ad department chair. While I appreciated the personal call, it seemed to me afterward as more of a sales pitch to make sure I was still coming. I mentioned the cost and she said "some additional scholarship funding might be available...". This makes me wonder if scholarship money is given to the favorites based on politics more than accomplishment. She also promised to send me some more information by email and have been waiting to receive it.
I looked at my financial award and did the calculations and realized that my return on my investment here is way out of whack. I cannot justify the cost when I can find the almost the same education elsewhere for much less money, and without a fancy Frank Gehry building and expensive entourage. This reeks of arrogance.
Alienating the students and the best of the faculty in order to implement a master plan is just plain reckless. I recognize a few names on the education first petition site and that is what made my decision. The fact that they said the books from recent students have been terrible says it all. One person in particular is the same name that introduced me to Art Center in the first place. It ain't what it used to be.
I also am not happy about the lowering of admission standards. If it took a 7/10 before and now down to 4/10, how do I know my work isn't one of the 4/10's? I already feel the eroding of my education before I even get there. I can find plenty of 4/10 schools that are much cheaper.
So, sorry Art Center. It was a great dream, but I will have to pass and spend my money and time elsewhere.
Dylan Diomede
Dear Dylan,
I am sorry to hear that. There are amazing and wonderful students and faculty (and admin) at ACCD. Those are the people who are there fighting to get you and others the education you deserve. If ACCD did not mean as much as it does to us, we would not be putting ourselves and our time to work for you and other future students. Our passion is ACCD. And the fact that we care shows how much the school has given us.
Keep an eye on ACCD, we are going to make the changes needed.
:O) Ophelia
Ophelia,
I am sure there are some awesome and talented people at ACCD. That is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the admins do not seem to listen to or have much regard to these passionate students. Judging by the spin from the sit downs with Koshalek and that forum on the ACCD site and the dismissal of some long term, decidacated employees makes me worry.
I look at this as an investment. Much like buying a stock, I would NEVER buy a stock that had management problems such as these. I feel the same way about Art Center.
I do notice the passion from the dedicated students, but at the same time these talented people are dissappointed. That's sad.
I would be giving up my family, Chicago, friends and someone very close to me to go here and not jus the money. Art Center has not proved worth the sacrifice.
Dylan
The buck stops with the Board of Trustees.
Dear Dylan,
When a ship veers off course, you right it. We are going to do that.
All the best on your search for your place in the world. You will find it and you will make your mark. :O)
Ophelia
The buck DOES stop with the board of trustees. The board is the group that set the goals that resulted in the recruiting of Richard Koshalek. Richard is getting them a building because the board HIRED him to inspire them via the building of buildings.
Our problem is not Koshalek. Our problem is our board. Our board is filled with several people who do not share the vision of what it means to be part of Art Center.
I think we should have an all-alumni (or at least some former respected faculty) board. That board should set the vision and then HIRE THE BEST to help execute that vision.
Who knows? Perhaps Koshalek (given the right strategic direction) could actually make a great president. But with a "rubber stamp" board of trustees like the one we've got, we're all sunk.
I also firmly believe that our school's president/CEO should NOT be a voting member of the board. He should not have the ability to secure a "power-block" of votes.
There needs to be a healthy "distance" between our school's president and the board that oversees our school's future.
For the record: I did have a great conversation with Elena Salij last week and do realize that scholarship money can be a convoluted process that doesn't start or end with her. She is taking over for Mikio and was doing her best to put everything in a positive light, despite the current happenings. She does sound like someone i would love to learn under, but the captains of the ship need to change first. It is hard to walk into a minefield like this one and speak highly of it.
Since I am the one who has to live with the debt load afterward, that is my decision maker.
No disrespect to Elena Salij is given.
Ophelia wrote:
"When a ship veers off course, you right it. We are going to do that."
This is the sad part. How can we expect Dylan to have to enter Art Center and then be immediately faced with having to "get it fixed". Especially when a situation exists where the sitting administration is so OPENLY hostile to constructive criticism?
I can't (in good conscience) urge Dylan to change his mind, but I can use his sentiments to help inspire me to push harder for the change that absolutely needs to happen (and fast).
The consistent thing I see inb the petition and in the comments here is that when we go through Art Center, we inheret the "soul" of the Art Center experience. It stays with us.
And I think that most of us know that the soul of Art Center does not reside in a Craig Ellwood building, nor in a Frank Gehry building. Certainly not in that student lounge 'thingy' of a building.
The soul of being an Art center alum resides within the memories of your personal experiences with the education itself. The teachers, the critiques, the fellow students, the parties, the late nights at Kinkos, etc. Perhaps a few "Uncle George" parties (if they still have them), whatever.
I get the feeling that we're standing in a room in Birmingham Alabama in the early 1960's and contemplating starting a transportation strike the next day, and there are many voices in the room saying "what will a strike solve?"
Of course, they did strike, and if they had not, we just might still be calling African-Americans "Negroes".
I know I'll get blasted for this. I expect it. But any worthy cause (and this qualifies) needs to be backed by actions, not words.
My fellow alumni and current students: Do not be afraid to do what is neccessary. The school needs to be taken back and set back on track.
Bambi-
The most important product of Art Center is an alumni's portfolio. The only people who care about where you got your degree in this business are the people who went to your school.
On the other hand, If an creative director or an agency head sees a stream of mediocre or bad books from a particular school, my work is already discounted because I come from the same vein as the last few people they said no to.
"Art Center must be a crap school because their products sure are".
Lower standards shadows even the best students. I wanted to go there knowing the work from people ahead of me is better, not the same or worse. This gives me little to learn from.
I might as well buy a bunch of books from Amazon, stay home and teach myself. Sure is a helluva lot cheaper...
I have noticed that design seems to be locked in this certain formulaic state right now. That infamous video of Roland Young hit the nail on the head. In my last few classes at my communuty college, which by the way was just accredited by NASD and is one of 27 schools Adobe Certified for its Ad design program, I saw no function, no story, no reasing or thought.
Teacher: "How did you come up with this? What is the story? The tie in?"
Student: "Um, i don't know. I just thought it looks cool."
Sorry kids, but MTV is not a style leader. Using radials, those swirly things, cut and pasted slop is not design.
Another "Honesty First" petition observation:
I have googled the names of numerous "honesty first" (Pat Oliver) petition signers. And guess what their hobbies are? That's right, signing petitions from "the petition site".
I found it funny at first. These people never seem to add any supportive comments, and an overwhelming majority of them come from outside California (unlike the "education first" petition). Not to say that you have to still LIVE in California, but wouldn't you expect the basic demographics of each to be somewhat similar?
People are getting emails from "The petition site", seeing a petition that has no relation to their life and saying "hey, sounds great!" and signing.
They are finding much of their support in the "online petition" community, not in the Art Center community. Sad.twrcvac
Dear Dylan,
I could've taught myself through books, but where else could I have heard the voices of:
1989
Mike Kelley
Patti Podesta
Lita Albuquerque
Dwight Harmon
Sabina Ott
Judy Crook
Tony Zepeda
Harry Carmean
Richard Bunkle
Paul Jasmin
Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe
Joseph Farrer
and many more.
The present faculty is outstanding (some listed above are still teaching there). We are here to support them and in turn it supports the students.
:O)
ophelia
Dylan/Thirdgen,
Sadly, that video of Roland Young shows the 1% of the time that he did very "unprofessional" things during critiques. That video being perhaps the most extreme thing I ever saw him do. 99% of the time he was 1000% brilliant. And the brilliance rubbed-off onto others.
But in that video, you can see a small part of Art Center's inherent past dysfunction. A teacher or staff member could do things that (in any other "company") would get them fired immediately, but at Art Center, that kind of behavior might be tolerated for decades. Often at the expense of students. But talk to some of the teachers or staff members who have been run out of the place for having the audacity to think supportively of certain student/alumni issues. It's a clear dysfunction, and it needs to change.
Ophelia,
I understand what you are saying. That is the toughest thing about declining. You never know where the people you graduate with will wind up and the valuable connections that can be made.
Unfortunately, it would take an average of $173,000 a year of income to realistically pay back my school loans in 15 years at 6.5%interest. i just cannot see financing an education for 30 years. I would be 66 years old before it was paid off if I made monthly payments.
On the other hand, it could be that one project that takes off and earns a big payday.
I can't take the gamble. Not when money is being wasted on vanity projects instead of investing in new equipment and updating what they have now.
Please email if you wish:
formul89@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Dylan
Dylan,
One more thing. Art Center is still a great school, but it does not have a "lock" on great design work. If you feel you must go somewhere else, it's not the destruction of your dream. Not by any stretch. Especially not in the "ad" world.
As one who has often either hired or been part of the decision process, I wish I'd seen more Art Center books come across my desk. But it was quite rare. I did find myself amazed at the HIGH design quality I saw come out of either other design programs, or (doth I say it) public universities (argh!). Times have changed, and the playing field has been sriously leveled. Probably not for industrial design or illustration, but as far as ad and graphics, there are a million places you can go to and do quite well. The key thing is that you need lots of mileage. Go to a place that will push you to work hard and work often.
Bambi-
Roland's class mooning, while symbolic, did cross the line and deserved disciplinary action. (even worse is having it caught on video...) What he said up to that point made perfect sense.
I was really dissapointed to hear he was fired (and why) after reading about him in CMYK magazine.
And another thing... I guess sometimes in order to have such a high percentage of "industry greats" as your teachers, you have to perhaps get comfortable that a lot of them have rather "extreme" personalities and behavior traits.
At Art Center, my instructors were not the standard group of rule followers you'd find in a public university. Many of them were total mavericks.
Perhaps it is not such a coincidence that the following logo was among the last identity projects designed by Paul Rand:
http://media.ef.com/_imgs/ly/08/ef-logo.png
Thanks Paul!
My friends, students and staff,
I applaud the tone that Ophelia and FOAC have to solve the meaningful long term problems. This week however, RK and staff intend to win their near term objective: renew Mr. Koshalek’s contract and keep the Master Plan on track. They are meeting with board members one on one, preparing their well crafted messages, presenting their internal letters of support signed by some of the chairs, they will have their counter petition signed by their friends. They will show the progress they have made with student outreach with their student government meetings and their online forum. After the board meeting, they have a plan to call alumni who have signed the petition to win them back in support of the Master Plan. You see they aren’t taking your feedback or 1300 signatures and halting the Master Plan. Your feedback is one more heroic challenge for them to overcome on the way to achieving their stated goals. They truly believe. They truly think you are misinformed. They think this resistance will blow over. They are diffusing you.
Just last week Richard was quoted in the LA Weekly
http://www.laweekly.com/art+books/art/is-art-center-gehry-rigged-richard-koshalek-says-no/19093/?page=3
LAWEEKLY - Is there anything that can stop this new building?
KOSHALEK- “No. Not unless the world and technology suddenly change so these things become unnecessary. “Or,” he adds, “if we can’t raise the money.”
You notice Richard didn’t say “we’ll stop if the students and alumni don’t want it”. They aren’t going to stop their plan unless you all make a huge impression on the board this week.
The years have given me some perspective here. I saw the millions spent on Art Center Europe and Art Center Japan long before Mr. Koshalek showed up and declared that Art Center should be more open to the world. We have been through this before. How much more fabulous would Art Center be now if we had not wasted all those dollars and years? So Ophelia and FOAC and others this time you have a digital network and you are all using it masterfully. But if you want to win your stated objectives in the petition you can’t start planning for what comes after Thursday. This is hard core politics that you are getting schooled in. There is only one winner in this kind of election. You all are closer to winning than you may think. Get focused.
new, albeit incredibly short, article.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2008/6/16/controversy-over-art-centers-gehry-expansion.html
I want to address this.
I may take a more rebellious tone than Opelia an FOAC, but only because I know how criticism is handled on the bridge. It is almost universally dismissed, especially if the criticism involves issues such as long-term strategy.
This is why I am so strong on wanting to take serious, direct action. The administration always stalls. They have seen protest after protest, year after year almost always with the same core issues. The board already knows about the "education first" petition, as it was mentioned in the press numerous times. What did "they" do? They "managed downward" and enacted their own petition to help "muddy" the waters.
Right now, your tuition dollars are being squandered on lofty, expensive tastes. Millions of dollars are spent in the vague pursuit of "fundraising", yet the actual education gets ignored. The findraising efforts are more concentrated on new buildings than on recognizing our great legacy and trying to help further it based on our own merits.
Take action. If there is to be protest tomorrow, make it a noisy one, not a silent one. Do you think you need permission to be heard? Why be silent? Are we artists or monks?
thewallshaveeyes-
You're right on! Richard does plan on WINNING and has met one on one with the board; Tim Kobe has signed their petition.
# 205:
Jun 12, 2008, Tim Kobe, California
This is VERY DISTURBING that a trustee has endorsed a position without having heard all the problems and concerns from both sides. More evidence that this process is a SHAM!
We need to voice our concerns to Mr. Kobe!
kobe@eightinc.com
They will stop at nothing to WIN.
In case you didn't see it, Clement Mok left this comment on the LA Weekly article:
The issue at Art Center is not buildings. The issue is priorities. I believe Art Center's priority should be -- must be -- providing the very finest art and design education anywhere. Sadly, the college has veered sharply off course. Under Richard Koshalek's leadership, Art Center has undertaken two massive building projects and is on its way to a third. Richard is well-known for raising funds for buildings and working with celebrity architects. That's what he's good at; that is his passion. When we hired Richard, we hoped he was also passionate about art and design education. Today we have little evidence of that. Early board meetings were often devoted to lengthy architectural presentations. Education initiatives were treated perfunctorily as an operational matter and not a strategic topic for discussion. Programming for the new buildings was shoddy and did not respond to core educational needs. The buildings are deeply disliked by students and staff and significantly under-used. The price is startling: a 20,000 sq ft library and a 20,000 sq ft. studio space for $50 million. That's $1250/sq ft. While building proceeds at a fast pace, little attention has been paid to educational quality. Enrollment is down. Less qualified students are being accepted. And the college has suffered significant deficits each of the last 3 quarters (now $1.1 million). Indeed, the college's very survival is now threatened. The board needs to ask the president to drop his building plans and refocus on meeting his financial management responsibilities and rebuilding the quality of the Art Center education.
Alumnus and former Board Member
Posted on Sunday, June 15, at 3:03 pm by Clement Mok
Just to be clear, FOAC is not discouraging protest. Definitely make your voices heard, make posters, write/email to the board, talk to everyone you know. Just avoid the personal attacks which don't really help, and often make it harder to get your point heard by those in power.
If you are a student, staff, faculty, alumni or have a significant connection to Art Center and you have not yet signed the Education First! petition please consider doing that TODAY.
It would be nice to hit the 1500 signature goal number by the board meeting Thursday am.
Read the letter and sign if you agree. Remind your colleagues!
www.accdpetition.com
I wish I could thank Clement Mok in person for his valuable support and eloquent words. It is not easy for someone in his position to come out of the woodwork and say these kinds of things publicly. Guys like him typically help build their success by avoiding negativity and conflicts such as these.
I have seen a large number of prestigious (and not-so-well-known) alumni lend their names to this cause, in addition to two department chairs, numerous present and past faculty
Current students: Take advantage of this kind of support. Don't blow it. You are the ones who are "front and center" and the literal "face" of the Art Center community. In Art Center's 78 year history, nothing like this has ever been accomplished before. Do not lose steam.
You have a chance to truly be heard tomorrow. Speak up! DO NOT BE SHY. Show your emotions!
Alumni and those close to the ACCD community, please sign the petition and lend your words to this discussion. They ignored us when we were in school. Don't let them ignore us now.
On behalf of Rachael Tiede and myself we would like to thank the Art Center Community for the out pouring of support for our family. We have received numerous emails and telephone calls from many of our friends and colleagues over the past 3 weeks, we truly appreciate your kind words and encouragement during this period of transition in our lives. We respectfully urge the board of trustees to restore education as the top priority at Art Center.
Sincerely, Cameron Tiede (alumni Illustration 2001 and Faculty member)
Art Center's financial sustainability is clearly in doubt, this is what Richard Haluschak is telegraphing to us. This is not hyperbole. AC demise, in it's current state is imminent. Anyone out there with a couple of extra bucks, donate them to the "Endowment Only"--on the memo line. Whether you are happy with AC or not, it is imperative. When money is donated to the "Endowment Only" it is very difficult for the administration to use the funds for anything else. Legally, the board bears the fiduciary responsibility for the people they appoint--that is, they are on the hook for any screw ups their administration might commit--in other words, it comes out of their pockets. The Endowment is the safe place to send money.
The interesting thing about merging with another school, that has a stronger endowment, is that ACCD would possibly be in a position to get both the new building and jettison Richard Koshalek. Interesting, very interesting.
Someone was pointing out to me yesterday, that if Koshalek is so good at getting buildings done, why isn't he the head of planning instead of the president of the place. Shouldn't a school president be more concerned with education?
Cameron:
Kudos to you for resisting the urge to cower in the face of some real intimidation. How could they make it MORE personal in your case? They fired your wife, and that is unacceptable. For far too long, we in the Art Center community have watched them tear-down those that raise an oppositional voice. This must end.
Distant Thunder:
While I most certainly do happen to support the idea of reaching out and exploring the idea of merging with another school with a more stable footing, I know that this talk is quite radical considering the Art Center community took years to get together and sign a petition such as this. I'm willing to accept the smaller victories as they come.
As far as "fiscal doom", I really think the bleeding can be stopped with some good, old fashioned "get back to basics" spending management. A new CEO could get right back to basics and start culling the "dead-weight" staff that does not contribute to the core idea of educational excellence, or the core idea of strengthening our financial position.
There are enough costs that could be cut that might result in the considerable lowering of tuition rates, even today. The basic problem is that the bridge at Art Center is so laden with "non-mission-critical" staff that the school must rely upon a very overburdened student tuition rate. The bridge is so heavy, it could collapse us all.
As designers, one of the things we quickly learn in the "real world" is that the economy is directky tied to our jobs. A lost account or a downturn in spending can, and often will lead to our unemployment. It is the very rare designer that dodges these economic realities, and it usually does not matter how "good" you are.
Contrast this economic reality with Art Center's hiring practices of administrative staff members. No matter what the state of the economy, and no matter how high the price of student tuition might have to rise, the list of staff members at Art Center continues to climb and climb.
The sad lesson being taught is that Art Center is a recession-proof institution. Costs are simply passed on to students in the form of astounding tuition hikes.
If we are going to do these young people any justice, we should be an institution that is a reflection of the economic world we actually will have to eventually live in. Art Center, like any "healthy" business of today, must manage its costs, and be a fluid enterprise that is willing to adapt to its true needs.
All I have seen as an observer is that Art Center has become a bloated machine that seriously needs to have its credit card taken away and its spending curbed. The students are a not an endless source of blank checks.
I guess it’s about time to tally up the votes.
The Master Plan people ran their petition as did the Education First people.
As of 7pm PST its 390 for Master Plan, 1390 AGAINST
Here is a URL to a graphic to commemorate the occasion:
The Vote Is In CHART
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/e5ec1edc60.gif
You all are free to use this image in whatever way serves your needs
I would like to first remind all of us involved with the education first petition and protest that our fight is not over, but be aware we have and are making a difference. Although the email I am about to share with you does not outline how it's goals are to be achieved, it is a step, and in my opinion a pretty large one. Our faculty is now speaking up, let us stand with them;
ART CENTER FACULTY COUNCIL POSITION STATEMENT
Events over the last several weeks have initiated open, rigorous dialogue within our community, unprec-
edented in the history of Art Center College of Design. As the various factions of concerned administra-
tion, faculty, students and alumni polarize around any number of issues, the Faculty Council clearly sees
our role as clarifying the issues and keeping the focus on the issues.
The Council believes that it is crucial to support the needs of the faculty yet remain objective so that we
can work effectively with President Koshalek, administrators, the department chairs and the student gov-
ernment alike. We have been working feverishly to gather facts and information about current and future
plans related to expansion, education, technological support, scholarship, enrollment, faculty salaries
and transparency. We have met in frank conversations with the president and members of his staff, with
our department chairs, and with representatives of the student government. All faculty perspectives and
the support needed to do our jobs are being addressed.
President Koshalek affirmed that the Council remains autonomous, and until there is a new Chief Aca-
demic Officer, we communicate both faculty and educational concerns directly with him. In the past year
the Faculty Council has been assuming a responsible role in the governance of the college. It's represen-
tative's sit on executive committees, report to the Education Committee of the Board of Trustees, both
researches and proposes academic policy on the Academic Affairs committees, and will be seated on the
President's interim task forces.
At this time, the Faculty Council believes that the college is moving towards a unified community. It is
a time for all voices to be heard and we urge each of you to constructively communicate through your
representatives any questions, concerns or suggestions either by email, attending our meetings, the sug-
gestion box, or in private discussions.
These are some of the projects, concerns and issues that we have been addressing over the last several
weeks:
- Attention needs to be focused on all matters of education
- Preparing a report to the Education Committee of the Board of Trustees
- Faculty salaries and "the grid" originally conceived as advancement for merit
- The Council supports building plans for the future. It is prudent that our facilities be cutting edge
in the decades to come. It is important not to limit our president's ability to partner with industry
nor weaken his ability to attract new revenues.
- The Council believes that comparative scholarship support is woefully low and suggests that for
every dollar given to building, a dollar should be matched for scholarship. We are losing too many
students to other schools.
- Technologies and support in classrooms, labs, and shops
- Evaluation of materials and equipment department-by-department to assure that our students are
prepared for competitive markets
- Implementation of the proposed grievance policy so that faculty has an avenue through which to
redress issues of personal concern.
- The "at-will culture" must end. Faculty must be able to comment and provide feedback into any
aspect of college operations without fear of reprisal.
- The Council encourages support and funding for faculty development to assure professional
teaching; stipends and enrichment grants to cultivate depth; support for publishing, exhibition, and
presenting papers; and faculty access to grants for projects and research.
Our minutes, notices, documents of interest, and other information are being posted on the faculty page
of Inside Art Center and in our display case outside the faculty lounge. The Council is also providing in-
put for two new features, Spotlight on Faculty and Teaching Tips. Finally, the Faculty Council will email
the faculty directly with updates on the progress on the issues as we have outlined here.
Your ACFC representatives:
Mary Matyseck*
Foundation
Steve LaVoie*
Photography & Imaging
Jim Wojtowicz
Advertising
Gerard Brown
Design Research and Sciences
James Meraz
Environmental
Howard Heard
Film
Jean Rasenberger
Fine Art
Annette Weisser
Graduate Studies
Christine Nasser
Illustration
Wendee Lee
Product
Richard Peitruska
Transportation
* co-chairs
One final statement: The current council stands on the shoulders of past faculty council members who
have struggled for the last 15 years to gain for faculty a responsible voice in the governance of the
school. This past year has seen a remarkable shift as the faculty has finally been recognized and allowed
such participation. In the face of recent events we have chosen not to respond to anonymous blogs and
petitions, rumors and "end of Art Center" rhetoric. The Faculty Council has an obligation to act con-
structively and responsibly, to be informed and work as a positive force in the ever-evolving culture of
this extraordinary institution. We hope in the coming days the fruits of our efforts will become evident to
all who have questioned our willingness to act.
Bambi, Regrettably, humans have difficulty with the concept of time. They believe they can, save time, make time, and give someone more time; most humans have a hard time looking down the road more than five years. The simple question is how long do you expect Art Center to last? Plato's Academy was almost a thousand years old when it closed. From this frame of reference, the idea of Art Center merging with a financially stronger school is not radical at all, it is a rational imperative.
GET THE FINAL VOTE CHART!!!
It looks like my link is broken this morning to the final vote count chart. I hop no one is messin’ with RIP.
For you convenience here are two new links. Both have the same .jpg of the chart
Picasa
http://picasaweb.google.com/RIPmasterplan/EducationFirst
Free Image Hosting
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/efe041a273.jpg
"- Implementation of the proposed grievance policy so that faculty has an avenue through which to
redress issues of personal concern."
Uh, that's great for faculty, but what about students? Why is it that we should have to tolerate a student (such as Nathan) being subjected to harassment and intimidation for the mere act of asking a question (and then posting it on his blog).
When will students have recourse? What is to prevent them from suffering harssment at the hands of faculty and staff for expressing THEIR views?
"The Council believes that it is crucial to support the needs of the faculty yet remain objective so that we can work effectively with President Koshalek, administrators, the department chairs and the student government alike"
Richard Peitruska is a member of your council, yet lost objectivity by signing the "honesty first" petition created and advanced by members of the campus administration. How are we to trust that the other members of your group are as "objective" as Mr. Peitruska?
Hey Bambi, for what its worth you can see I'm a strong supporter of Education First, and I'm kind of an activist, but I also support Richard Peitruska's or any faculty and staff desire to express support for the Master Plan.
Its OK that we don't agree. In this case I STRONGLY disagree but Peitruska has delivered many years of service to the school, I believe he's a great teacher. He's certainly entitles to his postion.
I LIKE that some faculty and satff showed their support for either side. I don't like all the outsiders that were brought in.
Just my opinion
Richard Peitruska was in instructor of mine. He was quite "apolitical" and I respected his committment to the work at hand.
And I support his right to take whatever side he wishes to take. I seriously do. He is no "traitor" (I need to clarify that).
But the members of the Faculty Council should not issue a public statement decrying participation in these petitions unless they are all committed to remaining neutral. Richard Peitruska is not neutral on the matter. If they wish to remain credible, they must be honest.
Bambi,
You and I can agree that Richard Peitruska is a fine teacher.
Despite our differences in how to bring ACCD forward, our goal is the same. Giving the students the best education possible.
I commend Richard Koshalek in his efforts to be available to the students, faculty and his staff to talk about the future of ACCD.
Thank you for opening the door to your office.
Today at the silent sit in, I looked around at the students who got up early and braved the heat to give a face to the issues for the Board of Trustees and I was proud. Proud of the students, of the faculty, of everyone. Proud of ACCD.
Now we can start the hard work that needs to be done.
Ophelia,
Is there information available yet on the Board's decision? Also is there somewhere students have posted about their experiences at the demonstration today?
Another Caring Faculty Member
Ophelia
While we’re waiting to hear the results of the meeting:
Could you please post any update you have of your set of top issues. You previously listed 8 items on JUNE 15, 2008 11:29 AM
In particular I am curious how you might integrate some of the issues raised by Faculty Council – or not.
I lef this on the archinect hard to swllow post: this is my point also it won't tell much more than already known. Thanks Ophelia for your work and moderated opinions.
“
There is no need to support architecture at Art Center. Art Center HAS an iconic building.
The so called "Master plan" is a megalomaniac plan in its name and in its roots up to its goal.
Megalomaniac acts have historically been the downside aspect of artcenter that projected shame on all the community, while the art center community itself is its pride. This community is now threatened. Please do not defend buildings against people and education.
Art Center HAS an iconic building, and has no vocation to produce another one. It has vocation to produce the best designers, and for that atract both the most talented Faculty, and the most talented young persons. Faculty is treated with disrespect and cut budget (when revenue increased). Students are accepted even when they don't speak english and have no ability to draw. Tuition is so high tlented people turn to other schools. BOth professionals and other schools dont even look at art center as a reference any more. Art center still has a potential, in its ALUMNI and its FUTURE TALENTS. what links them and makes it possible is EDUCATION given by one to the other.
please allow the Art Center community being able to deliver amazing talents and craft to the world.
EDUCATION FIRST !!!
”
From here...Clement this is what I see.
The men and women of the Board of Trustees attained their careers not through luck or happenstance, they are there through hard work and due diligence. If they apply that knowledge to the issues at hand at ACCD, they will see a strong student body, a fractured staff, a splintered faculty that
has never had a full member meeting ever in the last two years , the very active neighborhood that is now launching a campaign against the building and now the skyrocketing cost of steel, cement and fuel will add another 25% to the budget to the Gehry building. Every board member is responsible for their vote and we will hold them to it.
With all this in mind, where do we start?
Bring the faculty together offsite to meet one another. Unity is built through handshakes not email.
Students need smaller class sizes. Maintenance on the existing buildings. There's nothing more irritating than a lawsuit for a trip and fall on broken tile that a student gave administration notice on during a video taped open forum.
Cut the International Initiatives budget and give back to the Educational budget. At this point a few trips to Spain would pay a new teacher's salary. Two staff people going to Milan would pay a part time teacher's salary. What good is a conference in Barcelona to a student when no one views the website? And when can a student afford $345 to attend their own sponsored Serious Play conference?
Isn't the whole mission of that conference is to bring the world to ACCD? How can you do that by excluding your own faculty and students by charging them to attend?
Let the left hand know what the right hand is doing. Staff is constantly getting caught off guard
on directives that were known to Administration for days or weeks.
Take a few positions from Communications and Marketing to Student Scholarship.
Twenty two in C +M compared to five in Scholarship. Where's our priorities?
I will be working with the site "future of art center" to bring a positive side to the issues at ACCD. Now that we have aired our laundry, it's time to bring the passion that we all feel about ACCD back into a positive light. I will be interviewing students and showing their work on that site. We are a great college, lets show it.
And Richard keep your door open, there's a line forming.
Ophelia
The board decisions were locked-up weeks ago, and Ricahrd Koshalek knew this. They DO talk amongst themselves outside of the meetings. The physical meetings are mere formalities used to record the votes and conduct official business, just like on any corporate board might do.
Richard is "in" and the Gehry project WILL proceed as planned. Don't await a board memo, because they never communicate anything. They count on the president of the college to communicate such matters.
Everything that happens from now on (at least according to the plan) involves getting everyone else (meaning us) on-board again. Hence these task forces, blogs, "interview" meetings, and the like. The whole plan is set.
Wait for the news first before assuming anything.
You don't understand. You assume that they think they owe you anything (news included). Have you ever heard anything from them or anyone else since yesterday? Did they acknowledge your presence yesterday? Did they ever reply to any of your emails?
Do you not think that some of them are reading this right here? Numerous artciles link to this blog. They know about the discussion.
They're laughing at us. They do what they want to do anyway, and we protest "silently"
I was there and here are my thoughts. This turn out was a bit disappointing but expected, talk to any student and they are just tired of all this political junk and by in large concerned that Art Center's reputation is at stake as well as the quality of their education. There Bottom line is that they came here to learn and get a job and this is a distraction that will have little effect of them, had this been on the hillside the numbers would have been greater once again because of "accessibility."
I think the faculty council should have provided two separate statements. That would have been the most accurate representation of the faculty. We understand the necessity to proceed with caution and we thank you for your support of our concerns.
Students who stayed till the end of the meeting with Richard and the trustees were commended. The trustees came outside and congratulated the students on their efforts. (They can see what is happening: Richard decided block participation of two deans who supported us, It was a clear statement that he is unwilling to work with people who do not agree with him. However, the board have allowed ACCD to invest in Koshalek's vision which is well documented in the press, changing course even in the slightest is going to require a massive effort on behalf of everyone.
Students showed their numbers the best they could given the circumstances. (ie: midterms and apathy towards the problems of Art Center they've felt hopeless about for some time now)
On a side note: I would like to congratulate the ACSG. In my opinion the letter that the students gave to the chairman of the board which he promised to read at the meeting was articulate, concise with detailed information and a list of reasonable demands. The trustees were treated with kindness and respect because of that we have much greater chances of being heard at the next decision.
We have the attention of our leadership it is our responsibility to not squander it. Richard likes visions of the future, we should provide that, In fact this should be a TDS class. (July 1st)
Regarding what we should do next.
We have 1434 signatures stating to shelve the master plan for the time being.
What we need now is new ideas for the 21st century design education. Also very important is the focus on not only fund raising but finding ways for ACCD to generate revenue beyond tuition dollars. (Much of this work had already begun with Nate's designing our future video available on the ACCD Server and the work of the ArtCenterPro, CMTEL, and Mobility Summits as well as The research projects in the graduate departments which have the framework to generate revenue.)
I would like to again urge bloggers to focus on the 10 ways to move forward comment thread, Not to agree with it fully but to treat as a place to propose visions of a future ACCD leading in the 21st Century. Design professionals and particularly the Alumni because of their understanding of Art Center culture to post what a 21st Century educational initiative could be.
Thanks again for reading,
Jason Nicholas Hill
jason.n.hill@gmail.com
Dear Bambi,
I was there yesterday. I am here today, and I will be there tomorrow; in name and in body.
Pessimism is not my bag, I am an optimist.
And my name is Ophelia Chong.
It's not about pessimism or optimism, It's about assertivism.
Serious wrongs have already been committed by the administration in the process of questioning and free speech. It will require a group effort to hold them accountable for those wrongs. I'm sorry, but Rachael Tiede's termination came and went, and she went to bat for everyone by speaking the truth about what was going on. She exposed that honesty is not Koshalek's policy.
Let me ask you this:
Do you find Rachael's termination to be acceptable? Do you feel that the Art Center community deserves some accountability for that retaliation?
Now, I'll assume the best possible outcomes for the future, but I would like to ask you if you'd ever be willing to "step-up" your activism? What would it take to get you to DEMAND something instead of simply asking for it? What would they have to do to rile you in such a way? Is it possible?
Hey FOAC!
Nice updates to your blog! Thanks for that
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
BTW. I’m patiently waiting to hear the board’s response to our petition. Here’s the checklist for what we asked (I just copied and pasted from the Education First petition) Not expecting all of these things to be resolved overnight but I am interesting in knowing where these things are now headed.
Item1: put an immediate halt to the current Art Center Master Development Plan which includes the Gehry designed DRC
Item2: make education the school's top investment priority resulting in tangible and immediate improvements for students, classes, facilities, and teachers
Item3: dramatically reduce non-educational administrative expenses
Item4: fund raising efforts place the highest priorities on scholarships and endowments which directly benefit current and future students
Item5: greater alumni representation on the college's senior leadership team
Item6: request the opportunity for one or more of our Community delegates to formally address the Board
Hey Board Members! Let us know what you think!
Bambi, RIP is standing by to step it up
RIP,
You've got spunk. Let that petition serve as the "fenceposts" of your follow-up action.
Now put some very FOCUSED follow-up efforts into action to hold the administration accountable for delivery. Pick one. For example:
"Item3: dramatically reduce non-educational administrative expenses"
Great. So choose a target. How about the 22 member "communications" staff? Or how about the FIVE full-time architects?
The petition is an excellent strategy document. Now it is up to us to break it down into tactics and turn the ship around.
DO NOT WAIT FOR THEM TO TURN THE WHEEL.
And as for Rachel's dismissal, I have seen that happen in other institutions and businesses, not that it makes it fair; but I am too busy to right every wrong. If that is a sticking point that needs to be addressed first before the others, then you go for it. I am going for the other items on the list first.
Ophelia
Sorry, but I can not. I would be taking financial risk in order to do so, and too many count on me. It may sound spineless, but we all risk what we can risk.
If I were to do what Rachael did, I'd suffer her fate. I've had the benefit of being around a bit longer than her, so I long knew that such risks could not be taken by staff members. The fact that they terminated her employment so suddenly was not a message for her or the students, but rather for the staff members and those who conduct confidential business with the school.
Well,perhaps we can agree to disagree. It would be my hope that you folks not tolerate any kind of reprisals. They happen with regularity at Art Center. The culture of fear is real among the faculty members who have been around. Have a good weekend.
Ophelia,
What if they were to terminate Andy Ogden? Would you advocate taking action?
Maybe we'll see Rachael back here some day soon. Who knows?
I think Bambi's restless outrage should be bottled and passed out for free in the cafeteria! But, for the next few days, we should wait to see what comes from the trustees.
I find hopeful the reports that trustees met in executive session for several hours yesterday (meaning no staff/Koshalek-entourage present). If renewal of his contract or business-as-usual were where they were headed, we'd have already seen the prepared email blast that Marketing and Communications had waiting in the wings.
Let's give them a chance -- there is reason for cautious optimism (emphasis on cautious). And if the trustees are just going through the motions and end up rolling over , then we Bambi-ize them big time!
By the way, I heard the Tuesday Koshalek/Hafermaas Q&A meeting has been cancelled -- is that correct?
No one has heard anything because the ground is still moving and shifting.
On the Community Forum, Erica Clark said:
June 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
"The call to Nathan was meant to be a personal outreach to understand why he chose to post a blog instead of coming to anyone directly with his concerns. Nathan is one of our best and most accomplished students, and has participated in a number of Art Center’s special projects and programs. We were especially taken aback because he had just been an important member of the volunteer team at the Design Conference, working closely for three days with all of the College’s leadership with plenty of opportunities to bring up his concerns about sustainability. We were also surprised at the amount of misinformation and mixing of issues in his post, but never in any way suggested that his scholarship or internship were in jeopardy. We understand that Nathan later updated his post, stating his feeling that this misunderstanding has been resolved and that he’s comfortable moving forward together in the spirit of open and direct communication. We couldn’t agree more."
"Personal outreach" sounds like a euphemism for intimidation, Ms. Clark. Why did Nathan owe you an explanation for his opinion on the conference?
A blog, Web-Log, is a personal diary on the Internet, a place where individuals express their thoughts on subjects of concern to an audience of interested parties. Why should Nathan have thought of "coming to someone directly" with his observations on the conference, instead of posting them on his blog? This was a critique, not a complaint to the police. Posting as he did openend a broad dialogue regarding sustainability on campus. Why wasn't your reaction one of applause, of engagement?
You had, as you say, "plenty of opportunities" to refute what you characterize as Nathan's misinformation, by posting appropriately to his blog -- the place where he chose to speak out, and where comments are invited. Your explanation above implies you would prefer to have kept Nathan's opinions quiet, the old-school way. Please explain here why you did not respond to him on his blog, in the spirit of open and direct communication?
Good Morning.
After a real night's sleep I am feeling better about addressing Bambi's questions. Yesterday I was exhausted from the week's events and from my clients' projects. So I deleted a few choice comments because I needed to rethink them.
I only speak for myself. The students are doing a great job of representing their needs to the administration.
As for this comment "You don't understand. You assume..." and "we protest silently". I disagree. I have talked to everybody at the school about these issues, and that means everybody. I do not protest "silently", I have used my name since Day One on this blog. I don't protest for anyone but myself. I am not your mouthpiece.
And as for the "group effort" you are pushing for, Hell, it is. I was with faculty, students and alumni out there on Thursday. And if it's a group effort you are pushing for, then join. I see that you are saying you can't because you are supporting a family. That's understandable, but don't tell me to do more than I already have. I don't like to be pushed by other people's agendas; you are back there behind a wall with a 10 foot pole poking my back. All I can say is do it yourself.
Nuff said.
Ophelia
In this morning's L.A. Times (Calendar, pg 10), Mark Breitenberg and other chairs/deans said:
"We strongly reject the ... implication that educational standards have fallen at Art Center..."
An in the L.A.Weekly article Breitenberg was quoted thus:
"It's true, we're letting in 4's..."
So, Chairs, which is it?
Interesting article this morning in the Pasadena Star News
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/rds_search/ci_9661295?
The team at the Future of Art Center site have posted an open letter to the Art Center Board of Trustees. Please take a look and forward to as many influential people as you know.
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
thank you wallshaveeyes :O)
Contract of high-profile art center president won't be renewed
By Janette Williams, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 06/21/2008 11:58:17 PM PDT
PASADENA — Richard Koshalek, the high-profile, hard-driving president of Art Center College of Design since 1999, will not have his contract renewed when it expires in 18 months.
John Puerner, chairman of the college's 16-member Board of Trustees, speaking from his home in Santa Fe on Saturday, said the college was in the process of "crafting a communication to deliver to the Art Center community" in the next few days.
"We will provide communication ... using a new forum created by Art Center, a new on-line forum created to speak to students and faculty," Puerner said while declining to comment until Art Center staff and students are informed of the board's action.
Puerner later said he was not confirming Koshalek's contract would not be renewed.
Koshalek was out of town and could not be reached for comment Saturday.
Iris Gelt, Art Center's vice president of marketing, said Saturday she had not been told of any board decision and college officials would have no comment.
Criticism of Koshalek, formerly the 20-year director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, has intensified in recent months.
Months of buzz on the Internet, with students and alumni weighing in on the college's $150 million expansion plans, had a consistent theme: students' education and college standards have suffered because the focus has been on expansions of the South Raymond Avenue and Linda Vista campuses.
An "Education
Advertisement
First" student/alumni petition with more than 700 digital signatures was scheduled to go to the board before Wednesday's meeting.
It asked the administration to restore priority to the 1,200 students' education and drop the expansion plans, including the $50 million Design Research Center designed by Frank Gehry.
Another petition supporting the plans was started about two weeks ago.
The on-line debate also cited concern over the sudden departures of several high-level faculty within the last two years, including Nate Young, the popular chief academic officer who resigned after five years.
Some also complained that major events on campus, such as the recent "Serious Play" conference, were costly exercises in self-promotion with little value for students.
Koshalek defended his vision for the college in front of about 200 students and faculty at a two-hour campus forum on June 10.
He later said the expansion was not ego-driven, but vital to the college's and students' future place in the global economy.
Some of the on-line criticism has been "very painful," Koshalek said after the June forum. But, he added, Art Center must change and become more sophisticated to maintain its status as "not just a trade school."
"The marketplace is unforgiving," he said. "We must innovate to be a leader."
A third of the college's $150 million capital campaign fund — which now has raised close to $80 million — is set aside for scholarships, a third for the college endowment and a third for the campus development, officials said.
No student tuition — up to $117,376 for an undergraduate degree — goes to the fund.
Art Center's much-revised 25-year master plan for its hilltop campus at 1700 Lida Street — which would keep 145 acres as open space — has begun through the city planning process.
And in a complex agreement with the city in February, the college agreed to lease the historic Glenarm Power Plant for $1 a year, with plans to transform it into a graduate research campus at the city's southern gateway.
Several years ago, the college converted a nearby wind tunnel for its south campus.
janette.williams@sgvn.com
(626) 578-6300, Ext. 4482
Now is the time to rebuild and to bring the passion that brought us all together and focus on ACCD.
Take time to reflect on what issues are foremost on this hot Sunday.
Ophelia
Ophelia,
On this hot Sunday I'm still reflecting on this list from the petition. If the above news is true it still doesn't directly answer these issues. How about we still consider these foremost since they have 1450 signatures?
Item1: put an immediate halt to the current Art Center Master Development Plan which includes the Gehry designed DRC
Item2: make education the school's top investment priority resulting in tangible and immediate improvements for students, classes, facilities, and teachers
Item3: dramatically reduce non-educational administrative expenses
Item4: fund raising efforts place the highest priorities on scholarships and endowments which directly benefit current and future students
Item5: greater alumni representation on the college's senior leadership team
Item6: request the opportunity for one or more of our Community delegates to formally address the Board (I guess this got done to a degree right?)
This is great news for Art Center! And it confirms speculation that was cirulating in the wake of Thursday's Board meeting.
Why Koshalek's non-renewal was leaked early to the press will be a cause for continuing speculation, but the point is that the Board listened, they took the information provided them seriously, and they acted. Now, the future opens up.
As Ophelia suggests, it is time to switch gears and look to shaping Art Center's future with education as the top priority.
Koshalek's departure represents an incredible opportunity for students, ACSG, Future of Art Center, Faculty Council, and Departmet Chairs to step in and influence the process of change in a positive and constructive way. That doesn't mean the path ahead will be simple or easy, but now that major obstacles have been removed, it will be possible to move forward.
Congratulations to all who stood up for students and Art Center's continued leadership in the world of design education. These last few weeks will never be forgotten -- you students, faculty, alums and staff have made Art Center history. It may not seem real yet -- but, you did it!
I am not sure if celebration is the most appropriate behavior for any of this, especially since nothing is confirmed. I also find it a grim thing to get excited over 'dancing on someone's epitaph'.
I understand the frustration that many of us have felt of how Rachel, Nate and others were treated. If it is indeed a true article, be respectful of the president by showing him merciful compassion. When he arrived here at Art Center, he did many things to change the school and improve the faculty. While many of us see something completely different, we need to look beyond this and move forward. There is much work now that sits before us to address in earnest and an intense, scrutinized financial audit of our books may need to occur.
We need to come together with a concise agenda of issues in priority of greatest to least that need to be handled and we need to mend the fences between the students, faculty and administration.
Thankyou,
Lee Bolton
Dear WLee
Well said.
Ophelia
Lee,
Let’s not forget the all volunteer Board of Trustees. I think you all should give the Board a few days to sort things out before you move on to another agenda, list of demands or draw any major conclusions. You’ve already provided a lot of material for them to consider. Perhaps you should permit them the time to announce their plans and communicate THEIR priorities.
Did anyone notice that the other petition just happened to stop at 10:56 on June 19th. I wonder if that is when they realized that their weakly organized and far from honest campaign was over.....
Lee -- nobody is suggesting a celebration of disrespect, but this debate was very much about Richard Koshalek's priorities for Art Center and there's no avoiding that fact. Now it appears the trustees will not embrace the continuation of his agenda.
I quote one of the early posts to this blog -- from May 16, which seems like an eternity ago:
You students don't realize how much power you have, if united. Get together, and you can make change.
While you refocus your attention on the next phase, stop for a moment and appreciate your achievement. It's not about disrespecting Koshalek or about discounting the hard work yet to be done -- it's about having come together to create a chorus for positive change out of the ragged noise of conflict. This is something you students will remember all your professional lives, and embedded in it are lessons upon which you can draw over and over again. Take a moment to savor what has occurred here -- then get back to work.
Good Morning All.
As this week's events unfurl, we should refrain from any ill mannered comments, slander, rumors, or any comment that would tarnish the work we have done. We have come this far with just a modicum of the aforementioned.
Please keep your comments civil and respectful.
Thank you,
Ophelia
Why NOT keep the pressure up? That Star News article is mere conjecture. Puerner goes out of his way to say that he is NOT confirming anything.
The board was not convening to vote on student/alumni issues brought before it. The chairman may have met with one ACSG member, but had no obligation to inform anyone of anything. As far as I know, the meeting's agenda was not public information.
Without even so much as "sources" indicated (very poor journalism), you can't assume that Koshalek is headed anywhere.
And in my view, making Koshalek the sole "fall guy" is not productive either. It's the board that we should be focusing on. Koshalek has merely been hired to do what he does in life. He raises funds and builds things. He has actually done both.
People should hold the BOARD accountable for making ITSELF transparent.
We are keeping the pressure up - FOAC published the open letter to the board. The point is that speculating doesn't do much good, and there is not much benefit in criticizing the board until we know what their decisions are. And if there are big changes, a lot of people will be affected and it is respectful to consider the impact on them and theirs. As in any political situation, when the results are in, you focus on moving forward, not on putting down the people who lost.
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com
From Kit Baron's post to the Art Center info blog:
http://blogs.artcenter.edu/communityforum/2008/06/23/admissions-standards/#more-22
Applications for 2007: 1304
Accepted students: 904
Enrolled new students: 612
Another way to look at it:
~70% of people who have worked hard to get themselves to a level to attend Art Center have been told that they've got what it takes.
~47% of the people find themselves able to go. Of that 47%, only 78% succeed.
So, the net of it all is that only 482, or 37% of motivated students who set their sights on Art Center actually get an Art Center diploma. Considering that the applicant pool has a high rate of competence and talent, almost 2/3 of them find Art Center unattainable.
And the main reason for this lack of attainability is simply due to cost.
I applaud Kit Baron's sharing of the raw statistics with us. It makes us look good from an admissions angle, but makes us look horrible from an affordability angle.
Kit, thanks for the data and transparency
"Lisa" wrote on the tuition section of the Art Center info blog the following:
http://blogs.artcenter.edu/communityforum/2008/06/16/where-does-my-tuition-go/
In a nutshell, she asks why the school is paying for scholarships by using general tuition dollars. In other words, taking from the masses and awarding it to a few.
And for Lisa, I have these thoughts as she awaits Art Center's response:
Lisa, you might think that the money is awarded to a "few", but I think you'd be surprised to learn just how many of your peers happen to have scholarships. With an "older" student population at ACCD, many of your peers are considered "independent" from a financial aid point of view. Some might have wealthy $ support bases, but on paper, they look quite poor. Art Center is a school where 90% of the students look like they come from abject poverty (even though most do not).
Another thought is that by helping so many students to GET a scholarship (even a small one), you breed an atmosphere of satisfaction. The happy "chosen few" students are far less apt to "rebel" and complain. If you have a $2000 per term scholarship, you probably feel quite honored. But what if the actual "cost" of attending ACCD was $4000 lower than the current rate of tuition? You'd feel pretty gipped, right?
I'm willing to bet that the student protest organizers have met more than a few students who were not interested in "joining the effort" because of fears over their scholarships. Nathan here was even quoted in the press as having had the issue of his scholarship mentioned in the phone call ACCD staffers made to him. Why would they do THAT? (wink, wink).
Here are two questions that Art Center should have no trouble answering, but will probably be hesitant to answer:
How many current ACCD students are currently receiving scholarship, fellowship or "tuition waiver" support?
Of those dollars being given (or discounted), how many of the dollars come from tuition-funded sources -vs- donations or endowment funds? IE, how much is being supported with tuition cash?
It all started with this blog. It's not all over yet, but this is a start, and hopefully the students and alumni will have their school back.
http://www.artcenter.edu/forum/announcements.php
The skill of "listening" came out of this, and we must not loose that by pushing our own agendas, we must be able to listen to everyone and accept open dialogue and work together.
Lets use the next 18 months to lay down a proper foundation for the next president by taking this momentum and pushing forward to create the environment we have been asking for in this blog.
Ophelia
Robert,
Obviously something big was stewing under the surface for a long time. If a few blogged questions about the source of architecture funding and styrofoam cups can collapse a presidency, it means something must have been ready to break on its own.
Nathan, do not feel bad about this. And to everyone else, not only do we really have to keep communicating, we have to make sure the board didn't just have Richard take an honorary bullet for them. Now we must look to them and hold them accountable for getting the train back on track.
Ophelia wrote:
"The skill of "listening" came out of this"
Not so fast, Ophelia. It MAY be a sign of listening. It might also be a sign of them being frustrated that he was not able to sway US into THEIR way of thinking. I'm interested in seeing how the board's strategic direction has been affected by this effort (if at all).
Puerner's statement was quite vague and did not address what specific things led them to determine that new leadership was warranted.
In other words, focus, focus, focus.
Alumni: Come out of the woodwork. Students: Get involved.
Faculty: Pull your heads out of the sand.
Participate. Make your opinion heard.
Robert, you are right. This is just the first step. Now the sooner the next steps are announced the better. Having the same guy that lead Art Center into this mess, stick around, will only slow down the rebuilding. The sooner that RK can hit the architectural highway, the better. I am not aware of any situation where an ousted leader(clear vote of no-confidence) is allowed to stick around for very long. Just can't be helpful. He wasn't a positive influence in full power, how can he be helpful and a positive re-building force as a wounded duck.
The sooner the Board can get on with their plans of making Education a priority, the better. Nathan Young laid out a plan that they all approved, and which was all about education/students/faculty. Bringing Mr. Young back would be the fastest way forward. This would allow the school to heal without fear and recover as soon as possible.(without losing 18 months) As the school comes back together, under more involved Board level supervision, the Board could then conduct an open and fair search for the best possible long term president inviting as much input as possible.
Mr.Perspective
I am on the side of starting new. And bringing back Nate Young would be a divisive move at this point.
Ophelia Chong
Ophelia, thank you for your thought, and all your open dialogue over the last month.
I am very curious to learn why you would see it as divisive. Removing RK and his counter productive leadership style from the picture, what characteristics about Mr. Young did you see that would make him or his process divisive? The endorsed new board endorsed organization plan was never really fully rolled out much less had any time to take hold and prove itself one way or another. I would say a good place to start would be to actually let the current plan have a chance. He seemed to have built a good relationship with students and regular faculty, FC etc.(Much more than RK for sure). It may not be a perfect starting point or clean sheet of paper, considering all that has been said in the last month.
A new president will also bring risk. Will he/she get it? Have their own secret agenda? Play favorites? How long do we stay in a holding pattern? How much damage will occur during a period of interim/minimal leadership? Waiting 18 months also has its negative side. But none the less, this is an open forum. Please share your thoughts.
This was posted on the Art Center Community Forum but has not appeared as a question yet nor has anyone responded. I'd like for people to provide input on the various sites with regard to the following inquiry: I work at Art Center and have serious doubts about the “proven expertise, creative capacities, inclusive and collaborative records, and demonstrated leadership to date” of the aforementioned Task Force members. Why is Rich Haluschak, the Chief Financial Officer, on three of the 5 task forces? That does not seem representative of the “various campus constituencies” as pointed out in Richard’s thinking behind chosing these teams. This appears more like cronyism than an actual appropriate fit. Also, Jean Ford is the head of Human Resources. It would seem to most people, as is the word around campus, that her involvement in such a task force is a conflict of interest. To be representative of the Art Center population, it would seem better suited to have someone who is not in her position as the head of HR be the leader of such a group. Secondly, isn’t there already a Chief Technology Officer at the school? If so, why is that person not the head of the Technology task force vs. Rich Haluschak? Mr. Haluschak is the Chief Financial Officer not a technology person. This seems quite odd. Does this mean that your CTO is going to leave their position and Mr. Hauschak will also be the CTO? What are the credentials for the positions held by people such as your CFO? Lastly, why is one of the members of the Communications Task Force the Eco-Council? Will this include involvement with Student Life who oversees the on campus student groups? Or is this just the students who belong to the Eco-Council asking to be involved? These task forces indicate a very obvious inner circle approach to having influence and making decisions at Art Center. From everything that has evolved over the last month, Iris Gelt, Jean Ford, Rich Haluschak, Mark Breitenberg and Nik Hafermaas have been staunch supports of the Presidents so called “vision” for the school. In light of all the opposition to this vision from not only students but also staff, faculty and alumni, it seems unfortunate that this level of cronyism still exists after everything that has been said about the way the school is managed. Have those at the top not heard anything? These questions have also been posted on the student blog so please do not refrain from answering or more specifically, posting this inquiry. Respectfully, an Art Center employee
Is bringing back Nate a divisive move? Gradtuated with distinction suceeded in industry, returned to advocate for the core Art Center student experience, and resigned in protest when he saw it being copromised.
Ophelia this is the first time I've disagreed with you. Getting along is actually not my goal. Its restoring the school's standards and proven practices. If not a guy like Nate then who meets your standards?
I am willing to listen RIP, and its only my personal opinion based on what I have listened to the past month.
I trust that the Chairs and Deans will decide what is best for the school, and I will abide by what they decide.
And I am still listening.
Ophelia
RIP
I have the utmost respect for Nate Young. It is not his resume or the fact he is alumni that is in question. I believe that there has to be a consensus on his returning.
Ophelia
RIP
You have the right question there.
"If not a guy like Nate then who meets your standards?"
We should ask that question to who we want for the next President. What standards should we have? Who would fit the bill?
RIP you are on the right track with who would we want to lead ACCD?
Ophelia
Chomper
You are right. The task force needs to be rethought. Its a tight circle and now is the time for it to open.
We need Mr.Koshalek to build trust amongst the students, faculty, staff and alumni by asking us how we want to begin work the three issues put forth to the Board by the students:
Improving the liaison between the Board and students
Increasing the funding available for tuition assistance
Improving the facilities that support education at the College.
I suggest the task forces be reconfigured to tackle these issues with the right people. Not only will it show that Mr. Koshalek is willing to work with us over the next 18 months, it will also leave a solid foundation for the next President.
Ophelia
Nate may be considered divisive among those who feel threatened by being held accountable for meeting performance standards necessary to return the school to its prime. If someone opposes Nate it is becasue they have their own agenda, not the Art Center agenda. He is the best candidate to restore order in a humane way. But he will be uncompromising about meeting school standards. Consensus is impossible in the current situation by any leader.
Ophelia said:
Lets use the next 18 months to lay down a proper foundation for the next president by taking this momentum and pushing forward to create the environment we have been asking for in this blog.
This next 18 months should, indeed, be utilized to forge a change in direction that puts students and education first.
It is very unlikely, however, that this process can proceed with Richard Koshalek in residence as a lame-duck president. His agenda will be very different, relating to his own personal endgame, than the agenda for positive change we have all been discussing.
Koshalek will not suffer, if forced to leave now. He will walk away with a sweet package, and plenty of opportunites. For us to move forward, it is important that he be gone as soon as possible. This 18-more-months thing is bad news.
In his absence, interim leadership is needed. Nate Young, in a different role than provost, is the natural choice as someone who understands the issues and can assist in unifying the disparate voices that now exist, even those critical of his earlier direction.
Nate is smart, he understands Art Center, and he's passionate about education first. I wouldn't worry about divisiveness -- he'll know that his new job, while the board conducts their search, is to bring all parties to the table and to shape a new vision.
Has anyone asked Nate?
Ophelia
thewallshaveeyes
"If someone opposes Nate it is becasue they have their own agenda, not the Art Center agenda. "
That is a divisive comment. So if a Chair opposes it, we should question their intentions? If they don't oppose then we don't question them?
This would make a great round table discussion with all sides sitting down. Because until we have everyone weighing in, we can't form an objective opinion, and I am willing to hear all sides.
And you all have the advantage over me, because I don't know who any of you are, yet you know who I am, what I do, and what I have put my name to.
Ophelia
Considering all the finger pointing, skepticism, self preservationist paranoia, getting everyone behind one candidate will be impossible. Being practical, just how probable is it that another person would be available and do a better job than Mr. Young? We need to move forward now. 18 more months of chaotic leadership will force Art Center to slide further behind. We do not have 18 months to play house and pretty up the place with minor superficial changes. We need to take serious action quickly. We need leadership that puts Art Center first, and helps all of us move forward, now.
Ophelia,
You should question whoever you want. When you do, I think you'll have a lot of subjective opinions, not an objective one.
I don't think I have an advantage over you Ophelia, I don't know you. But I admire your work on this blog.
Ophelia Chong said...
"I trust that the Chairs and Deans will decide what is best for the school, and I will abide by what they decide."
Sorry for not sharing your confidence, Ophelia, but while you and other alums and the student leaders were moving this whole process forward, the chairs and deans were falling asleep in meetings, or wringing their hands over trying to determine the politically correct thing to do.
As individuals, a few made their position known, and a few took a stand, but as a group they were ducking and weaving and were entirely ineffective in helping to bring us to where we are now.
If it had been left to the chairs as a group, Koshalek's contract would have been renewed and we'd be looking at five more years of BS instead of the new opportunities student/alum protests have earned for us.
I'd rather trust FOAC to "determine what is best for the school" than the chairs and deans.
Here's why bringing Nate back would be divisive. Richard is still the president of the college and they had a major disagreement. How could that possibly work? In addition, the structure Nate put in place last year was simply not working well for the department chairs.
Where we need to spend our energy now is creating an educational environment that is attractive to a new president. I.e. we need to get our house in order and the only way that will happen is through the full participation of the faculty and chairs. If there remains an underlying dissatisfaction in the chairs and faculty, not to mention the staff, the school will not move forward. To dispel that dissatisfaction there needs to be a full buy-in from the entire community, not a top down imposition of performance metrics.
thewallshaveeyes,
Is there such a thing as pure Objectivism? You are right I would be subjective in part, because of what I have listened to, seen, etc. But if I could I would like to ask Nate, why did you leave? And would you come back?
No one should prevent anyone from applying for the job.
We all have a lot of work to do. I respect your views and that you post them here. We need to be able to have this discourse and to talk openly.To give everyone the multiple sides of the story. Like the film Rashomon, we each see the same scene differently.
Ophelia
Future of Art Center said:
Here's why bringing Nate back would be divisive. Richard is still the president of the college and they had a major disagreement. How could that possibly work?
The way it works is that the trustees buy out Richard's contract now, then bring in intermim leadership. If not Nate, someone else. Either way, interim leadership with RK gone, is preferable to 18 lame-duck months with him here and fighting against the change we all seek.
Alternate Energy
Lets not assume that RK wants to subvert every move for change. The Board has given an mandate. And I am optimistic that together we can make those changes.
I hear you and what you are saying. And the culture is what we need to change first. The culture of roadblocks. We need Mr.Koshalek to show us that he is ready to carry out the following:
Improving the liaison between the Board and students
Increasing the funding available for tuition assistance
Improving the facilities that support education at the College.
Whoever takes over the CAO position will have to unite the factions. And be a bridge between the students, staff, and faculty.
Ophelia
The Beginning of a Process
First, the Future of Art Center team would like to acknowledge the incredible outpouring of passion and interest in the school from every corner of the globe and every part of the extended community - students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, donors, employers, artists, members of the art & design communities, and many others. It’s clear that this great educational institution has a significant place in the hearts and minds of many people, and that there is sincere concern for its future. The ACCD Board of Trustee’s announcement today indicates that your concerns have been heard. You have had a direct impact on the future of Art Center College of Design.
To read more please click on the link below:
Please go to:
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
FOAC has written a new post. I quoted the first paragraph above.
http://futureofartcenter.blogspot.com/
FoAC's statement said:
In this spirit of collaboration, Richard Koshalek has already reached out to us, and we look forward to a collegial relationship with him...
It is almost difficult to respond to this without appearing to violate FoAC's prohibition on personal attacks, so I can only advise extreme caution, and please don't forget past lessons as you move forward in your "collegial relationship."
It is not, however, an attack on anything to cite Richard Koshalek's own words, and the unique manner in which he attempts to influence perceptions. At 12 minutes into Segment 8 of the myspace video documenting the meeting between Koshalek and ACSG, he says:
"It's very interesting, the Board actually approved a new contract at the last Board meeting... it's an extension, basically... at the last Board meeting in February, they approved it unanimously, the extension."
http://xrl.us/segment8
.
18 months is a long time. Our competition is moving forward at full speed. Our potential new students are now happily considering other schools. Our corporate and other support is still waiting for a strong plan, and proof it will get implemented.(meanwhile they go elsewhere.)
Reaching out to the employee that has just been symbolically walked to the door is risky. The fact that his ego has let him stay is amazing. As with most of his past ways, there is a sneaky, self driven reason behind the story spun on the surface.
We need to make some quick intelligent assessments and go. No one out there will put their decisions on hold for too long. Life moves very quickly.
Styrofoam cups were merely the butterflies wings that lead to all of this.
Never underestimate the power of the internet.
Chomper:
A bit of background on Rich Haluschak...
During the early 1990s, Mr Haluschak served as ACCD's controller (head accoutnant). He was the guy who spun the numbers into those neat charts to make them look more positive. He was also openly hostile to students who would ask him specific financially based follow-up questions. He was a classic "black hat" in the game. When a group of students walked up to his office and asked to see the 990 forms, he actually refused to release the data for almost 2 weeks (even though US law mandated that they be presented upon request).
I suspect he is part of the task forces because he embodies the "old way" of dealing with student unrest.
I'm very glad that you raised this question about his involvement. It means that you are thinking.
Alternate Energy quoted Richard Koshalek:
"It's very interesting, the Board actually approved a new contract at the last Board meeting... it's an extension, basically... at the last Board meeting in February, they approved it unanimously, the extension."
Alternate Energy:
My personal belief is that the board had probably given him their unanimous "word" that his contract WOULD be approved, but I'm guessing that they were still negotiating the final details (pay increases, bonsues, etc). Thursday's meeting was probably the actual "vote". I have a feeling that the board probably came unglued when his CAO (Nate Young) departed, and they fell apart after they started reading articles in the L.A. Times.
I think they either were extremely upset that Richard alienated Nate in such a way that he left... or they decided to just affix sole blame for all this latest unrest on Richard (make hin the "fall guy").
I think that this is a very crucial time to INCREASE the voice we have and make the board well aware that we EXPECT them to take our expectations to heart.
I do not think that Ricahrd's departure is a sign of ANYTHING gettting better (yet). I think it is more likely a sandbag that has been tossed overboard so that the board's baloon can get back up in the air again.
We need to step-up the discussion about the future of Art Center. What it means to have gone to Art Center, and what it should mean to go there (and what it should NOT mean). This is the time to act. THIS is the opportunity.
Mr Perspective wrote:
"Our competition is moving forward at full speed."
It's not a contest. Art Center has a mission (or at least it should) and we should all just forget the others and stick to what we do. If we do it well, all will work out just fine.
Opheila wrote:
(and I'm not attacking you, Ophelia, just disagreeing)
"The ACCD Board of Trustee’s announcement today indicates that your concerns have been heard. You have had a direct impact on the future of Art Center College of Design."
Let us not read too far into anything (yet). The board decided to seek another president. While I'm sure this recent "unrest" probably did not help his case, it may have been far more related to his inability to get along with Nate Young. It may have been due to missing his financial targets.
Getting back to transparency, the board has not shared its true unified feeling about what the hell is going on right now. I'm not saying "storm the castle", but I'm also not singing "Ding dong the witch is dead" (because she isn't).
I've said it before and will continue to say it: The disconnect about the essence of Art Center is rooted within the membership of the board.
Puerner was absolutely right. They really DO need to start getting better at communicating and interacting with the ACCD community. This "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" method of managing is clearly not working anymore. We need transparency now.
If there is one thing I would put as "highest" priority in a demand to the board, is that they overhaul themselves and get far more alumni representation. Not just "Famous" alumni, but those whom we can respect as visionaries of the institution itself. Perhaps even include us in the nomination process.
Hey Futur of Art Center:
You said:
Here's why bringing Nate back would be divisive. Richard is still the president of the college and they had a major disagreement. How could that possibly work? In addition, the structure Nate put in place last year was simply not working well for the department chairs.
Yeah He had a major disagreement with Richard like the rest of us and the board. So Richard is on the way out.
Nate must have known for a long time and did all he could do given the circumstances. Nate understands the structure and would be able to lead at least in the interim. Nate's a smart guy and honorable. i'm sure he is capable in hearing all the parties involved. It works because Richard holds the title of "president" in only concept. Keep in mind, the Board voted him out.
As for the chairs, is it all about the comfort zones for the chairs. They all seemed to be o.k. with the way Richard was steering the ship.
Post a Comment