The results are in, and the Great Divide continues.

A month after faculty, staff, administrators and Board of Governors members participated in a shared governance survey, the numbers say what many already knew.

There is a Great Divide between faculty at Missouri Southern and the administration and governing Board.

Among the results: 100 percent of Governors surveyed agreed that Southern fosters shared governance, and 82 percent of administrators  agreed.

Just 25 percent of surveyed faculty believe that to be true, however, with 65 percent saying the statement was either more false than true or false with rare exception.

On the topic of faculty and staff being able to express dissenting views without fear of reprisal, 100 percent of Governors believed that to be the case, and 82 percent of administrators.

But when faculty were polled, just 37 percent found that to be the case, and 52 percent found the statement to be false.

The Divide goes on.

100 percent of Governors said it was true that relationships between staff, faculty, administrators, University President Bruce Speck and the Board are cooperative, and 91 percent of administrators agreed.

But an overwhelming 72 percent of faculty said that was false.

100 percent of Governors and 82 percent of administrators said that negotiations and communication between faculty, staff, administrators, Speck and Governors are carried out in good faith. Among faculty, 55 percent disagreed.

Lastly, a great example of the Divide.

82 percent of administrators said they felt faculty and staff were satisfied with their role in shared governance, but 70 percent of faculty said they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Just more than a year since an overwhelming vote of no confidence in Speck’s leadership at Southern, and only months away from an accreditation focus visit this spring, it’s clear there are still major issues at this University.

It seems to us that the administrators and Governors have spent more time trying to convince themselves and others the problems that led to the no-confidence vote have been resolved than they have spent actually trying to resolve those issues.

Where do we go from here?  How can these two groups bridge the Great Divide?

Shared governance was a major issue cited during a Higher Learning Commission focus visit two years ago, and one of many reasons the faculty voted no confidence.

With the exception of the Board — which seems to be 100 percent sure nothing is wrong here, the numbers from spring 2009 are, in many of these categories, going in different directions.

The administration — based on these numbers — thinks things are getting better. The faculty numbers show they think the Great Divide continues to erode into a larger canyon.

Perhaps these numbers will serve as a wake-up call for the Board when it convenes next — likely in 2011.  And we hope Speck is hearing it at his listening meeting today.

The HLC focus team visits this spring and will want to see progress.

The results show anything but.

[Editor’s note: Participation rates for each group varied from year to year. One hundred percent of administration participated in 2009 and 85 percent participated in 2010. The Board participation rate was 29 and 50 percent respectively and faculty rates were 56 and 80 percent.]