Sen. Gordon Issues Statement About the CSCU and Board of Regents Leadership Crisis

HARTFORD, CT – State Sen. Jeff Gordon (R-Woodstock) issued the following statement about the continuing leadership and oversight crisis within the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) system and the Board of Regents:

The ongoing failures and alleged misconduct within the leadership of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) highlight not just a serious problem, but a continuing series of serious problems.

I have read through the 74-page compliance review report that CSCU commissioned, using taxpayer money, more on that below, to review “alleged misconduct and CSCU’s institutional response to the disclosure of alleged misconduct.”

I am not surprised by what I read. This information had been known, yet meaningful action did not occur until public, political, and media pressure was brought to bear on CSCU.
Even then, when I met with CSCU leadership, the focus presented to me was on moving forward. I understand the need to move forward. But one cannot move forward without first uncovering what happened and, in this case, what did not happen. One cannot move forward without public accountability. What occurred cannot simply be swept under the rug for the sake of convenience.
As a State Senator, one of my roles is to provide government oversight. I read auditor reports and other reports concerning state government and quasi-public agencies. I write letters seeking answers to important questions. I request meetings. My constituents readily understand that if they are expected to follow the law, and suffer the consequences when they do not, then state government must follow the rules as well. That is common sense.

The report about CSCU is notable for what is expressly stated on Page 1 of the Executive Summary:

“There was an overall failure on the part of multiple individuals to initiate and follow established policies and procedures for reporting, responding to, and addressing reports of sexual harassment, and in particular, reports of sexual harassment involving an interim System Chancellor.”

“The then-Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board of Regents and key administrators within CSCU failed to report sexual harassment to the Systemwide Title IX Coordinator, acted outside of CSCU policy, and in one instance, acted in place of the Systemwide Title IX Coordinator.”

“the then-Chair and Vice-Chair failed to recognize that the information they had received regarding policies and processes would need to be applied evenly to all members of the CSCU community, including reports of misconduct by the Interim Chancellor.”

“a failed response lacking in timeliness, safeguards, supportive measures, and appropriate communications, among other failings.”

“there was a general lack of understanding of reporting options” for employees who experienced sexual harassment and a “lack of trust in reporting processes, in part due to concerns about how confidential information had been handled and potentially shared in the past.”

“the Board’s vetting process for the Interim Chancellor position lacked industry-standard hiring practices, and as a result, critical information was not solicited or considered by those members of the Board with responsibility for the vetting process.”

These are damning findings.

People reported experiencing sexual harassment. The report describes failures in how those reports were handled, including failures involving reporting procedures, safeguards, supportive measures, and communications.

There are also serious questions about how the Board of Regents handled the appointment of former Interim Chancellor John Maduko to a position paying $425,000. He subsequently resigned.
Former General Counsel Karen Buffkin, who also served as Interim Chancellor, was placed on administrative leave. Questions remain about her employment status and compensation.
Former Board Chairman Martin Guay resigned amid scrutiny of the Board of Regents’ handling of misconduct allegations involving Maduko.

Central Connecticut State University President Zulma Toro suddenly resigned amid allegations of misconduct. And CSCU leadership says that an investigation is “not necessary.” This is blatantly sweeping a serious issue under the rug. Unacceptable!

These events demonstrate leadership failures at multiple levels.

They also follow the reassignment of former Chancellor Terrence Cheng to a Strategic Advisor position with compensation of $442,000. He produced a 207-page report, at a cost of approximately $220 per page to taxpayers, that outside sources have alleged relied heavily on artificial intelligence. Questions have also been raised about his participation in Board meetings while serving as Strategic Advisor.

When I asked current CSCU leadership whether there would be an investigation into the use of AI in producing that report, I did not receive an answer.

Again, there are serious questions about leadership and accountability.

I have consistently said that CSCU’s focus must be on what it can do for the education of its students and for the faculty and staff providing that education.
The focus of CSCU leadership and the Board of Regents cannot be on protecting the institution or its leadership from scrutiny. It must be on serving students, respecting employees, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.

While calls for action have grown louder recently, these problems did not suddenly emerge. I have previously raised concerns and called for accountability, and I will continue to do so.
This situation requires substantial institutional reform:

A stem-to-stern, top-to-bottom review and reform of CSCU leadership and its governance structure.

A serious review of whether the Board of Regents, in its current form, should continue to exist and whether a different governance structure would better serve students and taxpayers.
Consideration of a comprehensive change in Board membership. Those who served on the Board during the period in which these failures occurred should be subject to scrutiny regarding the oversight they provided and whether continued service is appropriate.

Clear and public accountability regarding what is being done to address the failures identified in the compliance review, the sexual harassment allegations, and weaknesses in policies, procedures, training, reporting, and oversight. There should be defined timelines, measurable outcomes, and regular public status updates.

A full accounting of taxpayer dollars associated with executive compensation, consulting or advisory positions, outside reviews, and other expenditures connected with these controversies.
Public hearings by the appropriate legislative committees, including Government Oversight and Higher Education, to examine both what went wrong and whether CSCU’s existing governance structure remains capable of providing effective oversight.

Recent resignations and the findings of the compliance review should not be treated as the end of this matter. They raise a broader and more fundamental question: Is the CSCU system being governed effectively?

The Board of Regents exists to provide oversight. When serious failures occur over an extended period, lawmakers and the public have an obligation to examine not merely the actions of individual officials, but whether the governing structure itself has failed.

That examination should include the service of Board members who were in place while these problems developed. This is not about singling out one person. It is about determining whether the institution has the leadership, independence, accountability, and credibility necessary to move forward.

It also means asking a question that should not be considered off-limits: Do we still need the Board of Regents in its current form?

If the Board failed to provide adequate oversight, failed to protect students and employees, and failed to safeguard taxpayer interests, then simply changing titles at the top will not be enough. Connecticut should examine whether a clean sweep in governance is necessary and whether the current Board structure should be reformed, replaced, or fundamentally reorganized.

The goal cannot be institutional self-preservation. The goal must be an effective higher-education system that serves students, supports the faculty and staff who educate them, and respects the taxpayers who fund it.

I have seen firsthand, including during my many visits to Eastern Connecticut State University, the good work being done on our campuses. The failures of leadership should not overshadow the students, faculty, and staff who work hard every day.

They deserve better leadership. Taxpayers deserve better accountability. And Connecticut should accept nothing less.