In their justification for proposing a vote of no confidence against President Jim Wohlpart, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC) has alleged in a detailed 35-page document that Wohlpart “has adopted an authoritarian rather than collaborative leadership approach, violating the spirit of shared governance and the established processes for meaningful faculty consultation.”

The document, signed by 49 faculty members, details five areas of problematic actions, from claims of unilateral decision-making and consolidated personal authority, to mismanagement, obstructed communications and a climate of intimidation.

“A recent illustration of this pattern occurred when President Wohlpart proposed removing the Faculty Code from Senate authority and replacing it with administrator-controlled guidelines,” the petition states. “This is particularly problematic since eliminating this decades-old, faculty-governed document would consolidate unprecedented authority in the President’s Office and position CWU as an outlier among public institutions.”

“Consolidating his personal power”

In the document, the faculty allege that Wohlpart “prioritizes consolidating his personal power and authority rather than focusing on student success or the long-term sustainability of the institution.”

They go on to describe that Wohlpart has consistently worked in the interest of reducing “meaningful faculty participation in the governance of the institution.” The FSEC cites an example of this type of action in Wohlpart’s “severe” limitation of the Faculty Senate’s ability to communicate with the Board of Trustees (BOT), having enforced a policy that requires all faculty leadership communication with the BOT to include “administrative involvement.”

The faculty petition reports that Wohlpart “has also made a unilateral decision to move the Faculty Senate out of his division and substantially reduced the Senate budget, without clear rationale or explanation.”

Despite claims of limited communication, the faculty petition emphasizes that even when communications do occur with Wohlpart, he “regularly emphasizes his unilateral authority to make decisions. While he does have authority over most areas of the University, his focus on his own power and authority undermines trust and relationship building.”

The petition repeatedly makes reference to instances in which Wohlpart worked against shared governance in the process of attempting to change the Faculty Code, whether through direct or indirect action. These actions, the faculty claim, “are enacted without clear rationale or justification, other than the consolidation of his power and authority.”

“Condescending, defensive and closed to feedback”

The petition also describes various concerns and alleged instances in which Wohlpart has promoted a culture of fear, defensiveness and limited communication.

In their justifications, the FSEC describes how the agenda for their upcoming quarterly meeting with the BOT has been pre-set, and in a breaking of historical precedent, all room for questions or concerns has been removed. Instead, they claim, “The FSEC has been directed to talk about AI within the curriculum, streamlining program curricula and eliminating low-enrolled programs. An agenda that does not allocate any time for FSEC concerns is unprecedented.”

Faculty describe a leadership climate created by Wohlpart wherein “disagreement is met with intimidation, personal grievance, and retaliatory behavior, creating a chilling effect on open communication.”

The faculty claim that while they have attempted to raise their concerns with Wohlpart, they have consistently been met with interactions that are “condescending, defensive and closed to feedback” and that no meaningful engagement has been possible.

Claims in the document go on to allege that faculty are “especially concerned about his interactions with women and faculty of color.”

Statements about lack of transparency and communication can be found throughout the document. The faculty allege that some of the stagnation in communication has been part of an active effort by Wohlpart to separate administration from the Faculty Senate and limit direct communication.

“President Wohlpart has also isolated himself from faculty voices and perspectives,” the petition claims. “He no longer attends Faculty Senate meetings to share reports and answer faculty questions. Faculty leaders have consistently encouraged him to hold office hours or open forums to listen to faculty concerns and he refuses to.”

The FSEC provided justifications for much of the language in the faculty-backed petition, sharing specific examples in which Wohlpart’s limited communication efforts were perceived by the FSEC.

One example provided was the elimination of regular one-on-one meetings between the Senate Chair and Wohlpart. The document asserts that due to this change, opportunities for direct communication with Wohlpart were further limited.

Another example detailed in the FSEC’s justifications describes recent concerns surrounding communications within shared governance. “These concerns focus on clarity, consistency and shared understanding in how information related to governance processes has been conveyed.”

The concerns, they allege, follow assertions made by Wohlpart that during summer 2025 the Senate Chairs “agreed to a Faculty Code rewrite outside of the established Senate process.”

“These assertions are inconsistent with the experiences of the Senate Chairs and their notes from the summer conversations,” the FSEC write in their justifications. “They are also inconsistent with Chair [Natashia] Lindsey’s official Senate reports given throughout the fall, as well as the FSEC’s repeated requests to meet with BOT members to express concern and seek clarity.”

“Funding Constraints”

The FSEC also repeatedly acknowledged the broader economic strain being put on the University due to lower state budgets and various other factors, but stated that limited transparency about university budgets “make it difficult to assess how funding constraints have been distributed across areas of the institution.”

They go on to describe how limited transparency in communication has affected staff members at the university as well. “The FSEC notes ongoing faculty concerns related to academic staffing and administrative support and emphasizes the importance of clear communication and transparency regarding how budget decisions align with institutional priorities and shared governance principles.”

“CWU’s fundraising shortfalls and high administrator, staff and faculty turnover suggest the consequences of this leadership approach are already occurring,” the faculty petition states. “By contrast under previous presidents, most recently President Jim Gaudino, faculty and administration collaborated on major initiatives, faculty were included early in decision-making through clear and regular partnership with Faculty Senate and the university was stronger both fiscally and in overall morale.”

Wohlpart’s Response

Wohlpart responded to some of the many allegations shared within the faculty petition in an email response that was sent to all CWU faculty this past Tuesday. The email primarily focused on “illustrating” various “inaccuracies” that Wohlpart alleged were contained within the petition.

“The petition references my ‘unilateral changes to the University’s mission and vision statement in early 2025 …’ as an example of my authoritarian nature. The only entity that has the authority to approve vision and mission statements is the Board of Trustees; they did so at their May 2025 meeting (this information is public and is included in their meeting minutes),” Wohlpart stated in the email. “The committee that worked through the changes to the vision and mission was comprised of all our shared governance groups, including the Faculty Senate Chair, who were responsible for communicating with and gathering feedback from their constituencies.”

His email continued to assert that the Faculty Senate “does not have the authority to approve a document like the shared governance document” but that the Faculty Senate was consulted with for their feedback regardless. He also stated that their feedback “was then incorporated into the final document.”

“This consultation took place at a Senate meeting and can be found in the Faculty Senate minutes,” he stated.