October 9, 2007
Dear Friends of Principia,
This report contains:
(1) Announcement of a new publication policy
(2) Letter to the Editor: Peanuts Memo of December 8, 2006
(3) The "Peanuts" memo of December 8, 2006
(4) December 8, 2006—Jenkins “Peanuts” Memo to Board regarding Moffett
and AQIP
(5) May 2, 2007—AQIP letter from Stephen Spangehl
Announcement of a New Publication Policy
It has been my practice since February to share a variety of documents [letters, e-mails, reports etc] that I had procured relating to events at Principia. They were carefully attributed to whoever authored them. Private documents were reprinted with the author’s permission. Many were offered to me for distribution. Often I have added verbiage putting the documents into context.
Lately, I have had to reconsider my policy of always attributing authorship to a named person. I believe it is critical for all of us to make judgments based upon the actors own words and deeds. If we were all free to speak without fear of retribution there would be no need to change policies. However, the rules appear to have changed. An August 16th, 2007 memo from HR Director Katherine Milner titled "Fair Resolution/Dismissal Processes at Principia" describes "gossip" among the community standards issues qualifying as misconduct (along with alcohol/drug concerns, extramarital relations and moral turpitude). That misconduct can qualify an employee for immediate dismissal raises concern that gossip, lacking a clearer definition, could encompass the sharing of honest but controversial information. Also, in its July 16, 2007 open letter the Board of Trustees said, in part, “Some members of our community may not agree with the choices represented by the Trustees’ decisions and will turn to growth opportunities elsewhere. Others may welcome the challenges of continuous improvement at Principia and move themselves and our school forward.”
Many current Prin employees have no interest in leaving their jobs. Instead they seek a return to principled and loving leadership. The Board of Trustees wrote in their July 16th letter “Stuart Jenkins has fulfilled the duties of his office with great courage and directness and has contributed to necessary changes at Principia. The changes made during the past four years have been implemented with the full knowledge, encouragement, and support of the Board of Trustees.” It is hard to square this view with the tortured stories that continue to be bravely told about the many unchristian things Stuart has said and done since he became CEO and Chairman. How can the Trustees continue to maintain that his leadership represents Policy 17 […every post shall be filled with the most effective individual available]? Principia has never before suffered from the dual evils: cult of personality and leadership by intimidation. Where are either considered an acceptable standard for Christian Scientists?
Starting with FOP #19 I will publish documents whose author’s identity I will withhold upon their request when they are fearful of reprisals, as long as I have verified the identity of the writer, have their permission to share it and reasonably believe it is authentic. Such a piece will be attributed to {Name withheld at author’s request].
The Letter to the Editor which follows satisfies these conditions. The December 8, 2006 memo by Stuart Jenkins, known as the "Popcorn" or "Peanuts" memo, was provided by a group of individuals along with their editorial comments on its importance. The names are being withheld at the authors' request.
Letter to the Editor: Peanuts Memo of December 8, 2006
Former trustee Traci Bliss is forthright in a letter she wrote on September 4, 2007, apologizing to Dr. Moffett for her "regrettable role in the profound injustice done to [him]." Her conclusion is one of "inexpressible sorrow over Principia's loss of George Moffett," and she details the tactics and strategies used by Chairman and CEO Stuart Jenkins that led to Moffett's departure. Bliss accepts responsibility for her own failure to grasp the context of all that was going on that led to his leaving. Her letter to Moffett, as summarized in a letter to the editor of the Pilot (September 28, 2007)1 adds significant perspective to the ever growing body of evidence concerning the behind the scenes behavior and modus operandi of the CEO. Earlier letters from Ralph Copper and David Andrews likewise have cited examples of Jenkins's behavior and punitive treatment of Principia employees, especially anyone who dares stand up to his personal sense of authority.
In discussing her own role in Moffett's departure, Bliss has not released any documents but quotes from key documents from that time frame. They elucidate what appears to be questionable behavior on the part of a CEO/Chairman of Principia. Given the CEO/Chairman's recent emphasis on the need for "Christian courtesy" (EAP, p.68), one document with no such courtesy deserves particular attention: the "Peanuts" memo of December 8, 2006, authored by Jenkins. The existence of this memo first came to light in January, 2007 when former employee Lynda Sleight publicly mentioned it to illuminate the treatment Moffett received from Jenkins. And although she was assured otherwise by Jenkins, for her act of revealing the Chairman/CEO's behavior behind the scenes, Sleight was fired. The error in this is not merely what most would find alarmingly un-Christian behavior; its handmaid here seems to be hypocrisy. Therefore, the "Peanuts" memo, which has been in limited circulation since its May exposure, is now made available in full (below) to all. It will be contrasted with Jenkins's public statements concerning Moffett in the January 19, 2007, Pilot and the Fall/Winter 2006 Principia Purpose. By his own words, Chairman and CEO Jenkins illustrates the gulf between his private behavior and public persona in the management and leadership of Principia.
The "Peanuts" memo of December 8, 2006
The context for the "Peanuts" memo involves differing views on the implications of the AQIP Accreditation report.2 Merlin Lewis, the inside expert at Principia responsible for the AQIP process, had presented his very concerned views of AQIP on November 3rd, 2006, citing AQIP as a major problem. On December 5, Chairman and CEO Jenkins had written to Moffett and others about the "substantial work ahead" and then warned that if the picture were true and "if it became known, recruiting students would be nearly impossible." On December 6, however, Moffett wrote to Jenkins assuring him that, on the basis of Moffett's direct contact with Stephen Spangehl, the Director of AQIP's parent organization, Principia was in "the top 40 percent of AQIP schools" and there were "no accreditation concerns regarding Principia."3 In short, Moffett tried to clear up the misinformation and misunderstanding under which Jenkins was apparently laboring, and Moffett also explained several of the progressive steps being taken at the college that were essentially building on what had been learned from AQIP.
Jenkins's reaction to the favorable report about Principia was neither celebratory nor supportive. In this memo Jenkins expressed no sense of relief that Principia's accreditation was not in jeopardy. Instead, in the "Peanuts" memo, Jenkins appears to ridicule Moffett's news, incorrectly portrays Moffett as unsupportive in addressing AQIP issues and presents a picture of Moffett as virtually irrelevant at Principia. This picture of Moffett was given to the Trustees at exactly the time when there was an outpouring of concern from the field over Moffett's departure.
Stuart begins the memo with "Grab some peanuts, the circus is in town!" This discourteous and unprofessional beginning by the Chairman and CEO is followed by bulleted items citing many positive conclusions about Principia taken directly from Moffett's conversation with Spangehl.4 Jenkins, however, presents the bulleted items sarcastically - a mocking tone is thus set, coloring the rest of the letter. Rather than a reasoned examination of the facts, Jenkins sets the stage to disregard them. Rather than vigorously trying to understand the discrepancy between his own sense of AQIP implications and the College President's, the CEO/Chairman seems to go on the attack.
Stuart writes, [George's statement from his conversation with Spangehl] "was a direct slap at me and the team now knows that George does not value the AQIP report or its findings." To the contrary, as we know, even Merlin Lewis acknowledged Dr. Moffett's steadfast support for AQIP. (See Merlin Lewis Memorandum to Friends of the Principia Community, August 2, 2007). Yet despite Moffett's support for AQIP and his attempts to correct Stuart's limited understanding, Stuart additionally writes: "George's behavior is an egregious end run around the AQIP process, the AQIP leader and my office. George just sent a huge message to the College team that AQIP does not matter. It is outrageous that the leader of our College has totally undermined a 7-year process which included the work of 62 faculty and staff members."
Stuart resumes his dismissive tone and illustrates his lack of genuine interest in understanding the situation, "I have not and will not even bother to dignify George's conduct with a response as it would only make the division more apparent and seem more real." Stuart's decision here to ignore a division, whether perceived or real, made it quite certain that resolution and healing on this issue would not occur any time soon. An appropriate level of unbiased commitment to determine the truth would have led to some valuable fact-finding with the AQIP representatives. On an issue that the CEO/Chairman and Trustees perceived to be of such importance that it contributed to Dr. Moffett's dismissal, why wouldn't Stuart want the greatest degree of clarity?
Continuing with Jenkins's memo, one sees evidence of the behavior that "[v]irtually all of the [Reeves] respondents report[ed:] that Stuart has a 'brash,' 'aggressive' style," and that "he often failed to listen, would interrupt people, and got angry." The desire to simply plow ahead without due consideration of a perspective other than his own is on display when Stuart writes, "My plan is to ignore [George's memo] and push the College forward using the AQIP process." Ignore and push. Why not engage and lead? Rather than endeavoring to lead the College forward, Jenkins sees his task as pushing it. As noted by educator Erskine Dottin, "Leadership by compulsion has no moral standing."5 Jenkins's approach is antithetical to the collaborative inquiry of academic institutions. It is antithetical to inspired, insightful leadership, as required by Mrs. Morgan: "[I]t is the function of the leader to inspire, to guide, to correct and to criticize constructively...." EAP, p.84)
When concluding his thoughts about George, Stuart writes, "Given George's behavior on AQIP, I think it is unlikely to expect that anything productive will happen by trying to forge a 'transition' team with his help." Stuart makes it clear in the "Peanuts" memo that he is not going to respond to George, that he will ignore George's memo, and that he will forego any help George could give on transition. On what basis has Jenkins arrived at these definitive conclusions? Was it because Moffett asked Spangehl, the authority on AQIP, to provide Principia with needed clarification?6 Jenkins's conclusions seem to underscore a view of Moffett as irrelevant, if not an obstruction, to Jenkins's plans.7
Jenkins' words are particularly demeaning and disrespectful when compared to his public pronouncements about Dr. Moffett's departure. Here is an excerpt from what Jenkins said in the Fall/Winter 2006 Principia Purpose:
George's monumental abilities and contributions to Principia are deeply appreciated and greatly valued by every member of the community -- none more than me. We cannot replace George. We can only take the baton he hands us and seek to carry on the work, knowing we have been blessed to have had George Moffett as president of Principia College.
In the January 19, 2007, issue of the Pilot, Jenkins is quoted as saying that the job of the President is "...very demanding. Some people say we're looking for someone who's Jesus Christ with a Ph.D." Furthermore, Jenkins had also pronounced that he had "spent hours talking to George," trying to convince him to stay at Principia and that no one knew better than Jenkins how "hard it would be to replace George Moffett as College President."
Did Jenkins believe these accolades since they are a direct contradiction to what he stated behind Moffett's back in the "Peanuts" memo to Trustees? We can only wonder how Moffett must have felt being essentially ostracized by Jenkins while hearing it said that Jenkins was stating that they had spent hours together, with Jenkins trying to convince him to remain at Principia. Is this behavior not in stark contrast to the man of integrity standard which our Leader emphasizes? "In all his pursuits, he knows no path but the fair, open, and direct one, and would much rather fail of success than attain it by reproachable means. He never shows us a smiling countenance while he meditates evil against us in his heart. We shall never find one part of his character at variance with another." (Misc. 147:28).
[Names withheld at authors' request]
Endnotes
[1] The Pilot published an abbreviated version of Dr. Bliss's letter to George Moffett, and offered that anyone wishing to see the full version contact her directly at blistrac@gmail.com.
[2] Merlin Lewis has supplied a full explanation of the AQIP tool, and his letter is on the trustee's web site.
[3] This was later confirmed by Merlin Lewis when he wrote in his August 2, 2007 letter to the Principia community: "The fact is, in agreement with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), it is not possible for any AQIP institution to lose its accreditation."
[4] The substance of the bullets was later confirmed by Spangehl in a letter to Moffett, a copy of which is also included below. Spangehl's letter, among many other positive points, stated that "...the Systems Appraisal team singled out Principia for praise in several areas - alignment of instruction with its faith-based mission, success in tracking measures of student learning, effective leadership and collegial communication, understanding of and focus on meeting student needs, support from alumni and other funding sources - that place it in a position most colleges would envy."
[5] Erskine Dottin, "A Deweyan Approach to the Development of Moral Dispositions..." Teacher Dispositions: Building a Teacher Education Framework of Moral Standards, ed. Hugh Socket, AACTE, Washington, D.C. 2006
[6] It is not clear why this clarification would have been needed, which leads to a question about why Jenkins wrote the "Peanuts" memo. Merlin Lewis wrote in his August 2, 2007, letter to the community: "The fact is, in agreement with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), it is not possible for any AQIP institution to lose its accreditation. Only institutions already considered "strong" can be admitted to the AQIP program. I believe that, in the fall of 2006, everyone in Principia's administration, the CEO, and the Board of Trustees understood this. Because I was aware of the rumor [that accreditation was at risk], I took every opportunity to clarify this point to those who genuinely wanted to know what the situation was." If what Merlin says was true, which Jenkins should have known at the time, what was the reason for the "Peanuts" memo?
[7] It is important to note that the second half of the "Peanuts" memo takes up Jenkins's plans for Peter Stevens and Judith Felch to assume new roles at the college, information presumably never shared with faculty or Dr. Moffett until Sleight called Jenkins's hand.
December 8, 2006 - Jenkins "Peanuts" Memo to Board Regarding Moffett and AQIP
From: Stuart Jenkins
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:35 PM
To: Andy; Bill; Chairman's Office, Principia; Chris; Helen; Katharine; Maggi; Michael; Stuart; Traci; Tuck; Willard
Subject: FW: Update: Dec 8, 2006
Friends,
Grab some peanuts, the circus is in town! George and Faith, unbeknownst to Merlin and without him being present called the head of North Central, which is the association that sponsors AQIP. The reason given was that they wanted an "independent assessment of our standing with North Central". The conversation apparently centered on the meaning and importance of Principia's AQIP feedback report. As a result of that call George reported to the CEC:
- We are in top 40% of AQIP colleges - thus in the upper range so we should not be concerned with the feedback report.
- We are right on track and if we follow the goals set forth in the "current planning process" (yellow book) we will be just fine.
- Principia is not in bad shape at all
- There are no accreditation concerns
- Few schools have been as honest as Principia
- It is not helpful to count "O" and "S" to assess our school or compare it with other schools.
- The main concern of AQIP is that Principia focus on issues we believe are most central to our progress.
- So everything is great in Elsah! Stay the course!
‘
Unfortunately Traci's "glasses" chart is still accurate and we still have two glasses which are at zero. Nobody can be behind Principia College in two areas since there are no numbers below zero.
George's statement to the CEC came a day after I had asked the team to make AQIP feedback report the center of our planning and improvement process. This was a direct slap at me and the team now knows that George does not value the AQIP report or its findings. George's timing could not have made it more clear to the leadership team that he is at odds with the Chairman and Trustees over AQIP. I trust that you have not forgotten that you asked me to ask the College leadership team to use AQIP as our improvement framework. Over the last month I have been reinforcing that message but only now in this public way has George indicated that he is not in support of that process.
George's behavior is an egregious end run around the AQIP process, the AQIP leader and my office. George just sent a huge message to the College team that AQIP does not matter. It is outrageous that the leader of our College has totally undermined a 7-year process which included the work of 62 faculty and staff members.
If we are not going to use the AQIP process as an improvement tool, what process are we going to use? If we don't use the feedback report to get better then why do the report? If you can score 60 points out of a possible 500, while scoring a zero in the category of student learning and still be a top 40% institution and be satisfied then what's your goal. If we don't have AQIP and value the formal process of AQIP I do not know how to lead the College to higher ground. To date, I have not heard one person who has read the AQIP report say, "no, this report does not reflect the environment at Principia College today". On the contrary everyone seems to agree that the feedback report does in fact reflect our current institution. Are we going to use it to get better or say, "Everything is fine" and ignore it?
The folks at North Central take a very dim view of receiving these kinds of calls. They want schools to follow the self improvement process of AQIP while being focused on improvement not spend time searching around for ways to "spin" the issues to look good. By making this call our President has highlighted for North Central the contents of our feedback report and shown a disregard for the AQIP process which will draw the kind of attention we don't need.
How will the College leadership team respond? I have no idea, but clearly they will be confused. I have not and will not even bother to dignify George's conduct with a response as it would only make the division more apparent and seem more real. My plan is to ignore the memo and push the College forward using the AQIP process.
In the aftermath, I have acceded to Merlin's request to delay attending the "AQIP Conference" planned for January in Chicago. Why take a team to Chicago where two members of the team are trying to prove the feedback report is invalid and where the rest of the team is trying to use the feedback report to identify ways to get better? It would be a goat rodeo. Instead we are going to go to Chicago in the summer with a team 100% committed to the process. George and Faith will not like this decision. But it is going to be hard for them to argue that everything is "fine" and on the other hand that it is "urgent" we go to Chicago!
A Plan: A Plan is emerging for the College. Unless things change dramatically, this is likely going to come back to you in a few weeks in the form of a recommendation.
Given George's behavior on AQIP, I think it is unlikely to expect that anything productive will happen by trying to forge a "transition" team with his help. Thus we will need to think about how we can lay the groundwork for the College to advance after his departure while getting as much in place as we can over the next six months.
- The current Academic Dean will be told that she will not be the Dean in the future. She will be invited to remain as a faculty member in the history department, but the next Dean will be appointed by the new President.
- An interim *Provost (or Dean of the College) is appointed by the CEO and Trustees. The AQIP report will be used as the framework for College improvement with a set of deliverables established through negotiations with the CEO. The Dean of the College will lead other essential academic functions. The Provost (Dean of College) reports to the CEO. This Dean would have the authority of the Academic Dean. I am not sure which title is best Provost or Dean of College. Traci can likely give us advice on that. We just want to make sure whatever title we choose and role we assign to the office gives us maximum flexibility in hiring for the President both in terms of skill and stature.
- The Rationale is as follows:
- This removes the issue of the Academic Dean being appointed even temporarily by the CEO.
- This person will have a PhD thus taking the wind out of the sails of the "barbarians are at the gate" hysteria that would be generated if either Stuart or Peter showed up in the lead position at the College. This will be a huge protection to Peter as he gradually assumes oversight responsibilities in Elsah.
- The Academic Dean slot could stay empty until a new president is hired. This is a process the faculty would understand....maybe not happily, but process is not overridden. (President appoints Academic Dean after search for President and search for Dean).
- This quickly lets the College community know what the short term future looks like.
- The College is organized for progress even if Presidential search process takes a year.
- The College is positioned to make progress on key and even hard decisions like number of sports and majors in the short term.
- A functioning administration is demonstrated which will quickly engender confidence.
- By the shear naming of this appointment, even if effective date is June 6, will take all the wind out of the cockamamie schemes and plans being currently run as "rock drills" at the College.
- This restructure could be a temporary fix or a permanent decision depending on the position description of a new President, i.e. involved in daily affairs or a recruitment, PR, vision person.
- This structure avoids the Chief Operations title which might be seen as overshadowing the President's title and too "business office" top heavy for a little school.
- Report Status: To the CEO. However when the Dean of College position becomes effective, Peter will rejoin the Office of the Chairman in his old role of Executive Officer. Thus Peter will come into this role of overseeing the Dean first jointly with me and then I will quickly fade away. When the new President is in place this person would report to the President.
- This gives us time to solidify activities in St. Louis.
- Provides the CEO's title and office as support for new interim Dean of the College.
- Does not allow the stirring which would come if Peter were injected as the new face, new office and new position in charge.
*Provost/Dean of the College position should be defined as academic officer exclusively in charge of educational affairs which at Principia includes staff offices, athletics, and student life. I would not go as far as facilities, capital, dining services, or fundraising.
Who? So far only one candidate has emerged and I would like to find more but they are not exactly falling off trees in Elsah right now.
- The best candidate thus far is Judith Felch
- She is leaving Principia thus we would not be weakening the faculty and student classroom experience at the College by placing her in this role.
- She is one of our strongest AQIP leaders. She knows the process and is committed to using it for progress.
- She knows the issues
- She is tough and willing to address challenging issues and make really hard choices such as:
- Number of majors
- Number of sports
- Underperforming faculty members
- Meaningful evaluations
- She has a PhD.
- She has tought [sic] 3000 Principia graduates so she personally knows and is known by more then 20% of our Alums.
- She is respected and to some degree feared by her colleagues as a no-nonsense advocate for accountability and performance.
- She will need to be softened at times.
- Peter would make a very good team with Judith as they have complimentary styles.
- Don't be fooled: This appointment will not be universally hailed with cheers at the College, however much of the staff will be thrilled.
Advancement: After 14 months at the helm, Jeff's team is rolling along very nicely but a few members of the team have decided that it is not the place for them. The bottom line is that five members will leave or have left the team. In every case we are losing folks that really are not cutting it. This will provide an immediate improvement opportunity. In most cases the work load combined with the accountability has brought these folks to the realization that this is not their spot.
Old Watson - New Wine? The Old Watson space has been redone and is absolutely beautiful. The CIS department has moved in and now has the best office space on campus. I guess they deserve this after spending two decades in the basement of the School of Government. Be sure to walk through when you are next on campus
Crafton Athletic Center: We are down to the end and now falling a little behind. It looks like we will open after spring break rather than the hoped for February 1, target.
Hay Field House: The demolition process is well underway at Hay and will take about 90 days. The Athletic Department has moved to their temporary headquarters in the basement of the School of Government.
Non-Christian Scientists: The latest rumors coming from Houston and Canada are that your Chairman has decided to open the school to non-Christian Scientists. The College Dean asked the Athletic Director if it was true that the Chairman told her to recruit non-Christian Scientists. The rumor in Houston is that the football coach is recruiting non-Christian Scientists.
Next week: We'll see what comes. I leave for Florida on Friday where I'll spend time with the family and work on the talk for the Joint Faculty/Staff meeting in February.
May 2, 2007 - AQIP Letter from Stephen Spangehl
May 2, 2007
Dr. George Moffett
President
Principia College
1 Maybeck Place
Elsah, IL 62028
Dear President Moffett:
Thank you for your letter of April 30, 2007 about AQIP's survey to discover how effective it is in helping member institutions achieve their goals and improve their performance. I appreciate your support in this effort.
In turn, you asked me to comment on Principia College's progress in the Academic Quality Improvement Program. Principia joined AQIP on June 27, 2002, and has been one of our most enthusiastic and successful participants. It participated in a Strategy Forum soon after admission, has been diligent in formulating and following through on Action project, and submitted its Systems Portfolio for review during the 2005-06 academic year, in May 2006. We constituted a Systems Appraisal team to review this Portfolio, and sent the institution a Systems Appraisal Feedback Report on September 7, 2006.
Although the Systems Appraisal process does not assign numerical scores to institutions (and, if I estimated its rank in our December 2006 conversation, it was impressionistic, not mathematical), I can attest that Principia College's review was a highly complimentary one. The team confirmed that the College presented evidence that it continues to meet the Higher Learning Commission's five Criteria for Accreditation, a distinction that places the College well above the 30-40% of institutions for which teams discover gaps in the record of evidence documenting compliance with the Criteria.
Moreover, the Systems Appraisal team singled out Principia for praise in several areas - alignment of instruction with its faith-based mission, success in tracking measures of student learning, effective leadership and collegial communication, understanding of and focus on meeting student needs, support from alumni and other funding sources - that place it in a position most colleges would envy. The team also identified challenges and opportunities for improvement - particularly the need to develop more robust processes for planning, for student assessment, and for the collection and analysis of evaluative evidence that will support data-based decision-making - but these are challenges Principia shares with most of the 170+ colleges and universities participating in the AQIP program. As with all AQIP Appraisals, the team provided constructive advice and suggestions about where Principia could profitably invest its energies for improvement in the future. But these suggestions should in no way detract from the pride that Principia College should feel about its accomplishments and achievements. AQIP's philosophy is that even the best higher education institution has opportunities for growth and improvement, but Principia is an institution that, in spite of its opportunities for further development, embodies ideals that many colleges and universities are striving to achieve.
AQIP will conduct a "Quality Checkup" site visit to Principia during the 2007-08 academic year. Unlike many of the other Quality Checkups that AQIP conducts, our visit to Principia will be focused almost exclusively on the energy and commitment the college is putting into its efforts for continuous improvement. There are no holdover issues concerning the college's fulfillment of accreditation requirements, since the Systems Appraisal documented effectively that the College meets those requirements. We therefore anticipate that the Quality Checkup team and the college's faculty and staff will engage in a constructive and rewarding series of conversations on how the college is using AQIP to increase its already admirable performance in the areas it has chosen for focus.
In short, we are proud to have Principia as a participant in AQIP, and cite it regularly as an outstanding example, one others should emulate.
Sincerely,
Stephen Spangehl
Director, Academic Quality Improvement Program
updated 10/8/07
