June 2, 2007
Dear Friends of Principia #12,
This mailing focuses on two principle areas:
*the 6/1/2007 Pilot, the end of the school year, “graduation” issue
*the May 17 announcement by the Board of Trustees to develop/sell
175 acres (approximately ½ of the St. Louis campus) in order to raise
funds for the St. Louis campus.
You may also read about: The Resolution Committee has released three documents to the community: Minutes from its May 14 and May 21 meetings and Jim Reeve's interim status report. See www.truthatprincipia.edu to read these texts.
(1) Here are the Pilot articles (and related docs) attached for you to read:
*Three Weeks in Autumn: a documentary record of events leading to the resignation of President George Moffett by Elizabeth Pond
*President’s assistant provides perspective by Caitlin Carpenter
*Raises to given to half of Principia faculty over two years by Tyler Maltbie
*Reeves reports to Resolution Committee on June 4th by Becca Goodsell
*The Courage to Resign by Rushworth Kidder
*Memo from George Moffett re Pilot
*The sad drama continues from a reliable campus source
(2) Information about the development/sale of ½ the St. Louis campus.
*May 16 Interoffice memo from Stuart Jenkins dated 5/16/2007
*New Lesson Plan: The Principia opens campus to development
May 18, 2007 St. Louis Business Journal by Lisa Brown
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/05/21/story2.html
The Pilot’s first story provides a window into the words and actions of both Stuart Jenkins and Dr Moffett. We can each judge for ourselves their respective moral and Christian tone.
Linda Sleight fleshes out the activities that surrounded these e-mails as a witness to the events they describe or refer to. The validity of her words might be measured by her firing.
In reading about the proposed [sounds like a done deal] development …on the St. Louis campus consider…
· timing…The Trustees and CEO already face a widespread lack of confidence and have authorized a Resolution Committee and Jim Reeves to investigate complaints and allegations about personnel and administrative decisions and to make recommendations and findings AND formed a Governance Study Committee and hired a Washington DC
firm to help evaluate Principia’s organizational structure and
procedures in the context of best practices and at other educational institutions with appropriate consideration of best practices at other institutions.
* wisdom…When confidence in their respective governance is
at issue is it wise to begin by the far the biggest development
project in Prin’s history. At risk is ¼ of Prin’s largest finan-
asset…its land. Trustees have already resigned because they
were overtaxed. Maybe their present talents should be first
proved before they are multiplied exponentially.
· personal monument…Spending money is easy. Raising it is far more difficult. Governing is even more challenging.
Funding sources have dried up. There is a crisis of confidence in leadership. This makes no sense except as a desperate attempt to buy a legacy where one is not being created by example and leadership
· remember… when Stuart was reported to have responded to
the student question “what if the college faculty” go on strike? “I’ll just fire them” “The St. Louis campus would be very healthy on its own!” Is that what is happening?
Enough of this madness before nothing is left.
With gratitude,
Paul Schmidt JD, GRI
***************************************************************************
Three weeks in Autumn:
A documentary record of events leading to
the resignation of President George Moffett
By Elizabeth Pond
n the interest of transparency in the ongoing resolution process, the Pilot documents here the urgent issue that the Resolution Committee and Facilitator James Reeves have been asked to clarify by the end of spring quarter—the interaction between College President George Moffett and CEO/Trustee Chairman Stuart Jenkins that precipitated Moffett’s retirement announcement last November. Documents released in the resolution process now show that Moffett resigned because:
• He was accused by Jenkins of having made Principia “dysfunctional” and was given no chance by the Trustees to rebut the charge;
• Presidential powers were about to be substantially diminished;
• The president’s direct contact with the CEO had been reduced to a minimum, with the CEO’s information about the college coming increasingly from a few unhappy faculty members—and with the other Trustees’ information about the college coming exclusively from Jenkins.
The documents quoted here were not given to the Pilot by either Moffett or Jenkins. Both have said repeatedly that they wish to release the relevant documents, however, and none of the texts given here was marked confidential.
The background to the critical three weeks necessarily starts with the regular spring meeting of the Board of Trustees and President Moffett on April 21, 2006. Since then, the full Board has not again met with Moffett. Without notifying Moffett in advance, the Board cancelled the regular November meeting between the college president and the entire Board. Instead, a few Trustees simply met him at the college Guest House door when he arrived as scheduled on November 3, 2006, informed him that they were accepting his resignation, and sent him home after a few minutes, according to Administrative Assistant to the President Lynda Sleight (see “President’s Assistant,” pg. 1).
Jenkins told the trustees that the faculty so disliked Moffett that it would dump him with a vote of no confidence if the trustees did not dismiss him first, said former Trustee Gary Krisel at the question and answer session with the community on January 23. In September, Faculty Senate President John Williams sent a memo giving requested legal advice to Jenkins about the process that must be followed in “firing” both Moffett and Dean of Academic Affairs Faith Paul. The memo confirms reports by former Trustees Gary Krisel and Traci Bliss that Jenkins has long been telling others (though not yet Moffett himself) that he wants to depose Moffett.
September memo
Williams to Jenkins:
Continuing the conversation with more off the cuff thoughts...Hold off on getting rid of the President for now, and get a new dean first because
1. Legally you may still be able to handle this as an ‘unsuccessful hire’ as opposed to having to go through a ‘firing’. Typically an ‘unsuccessful hire’ is more like a mutual seperation than a firing but has to be done early in the employee’s employment. A firing is a much more formal process requiring an informal warning followed by time for the employee to make improvements, and if the improvements are not sufficieient, this is followed by a formal written warning and time for the employee to make improvements, followed by a second (and, depending on the desires of the manager, a final warning) and third warning both with time given for the employee to make improvements. It can be a nasty and drawn-out process.
2. You have a ready made replacement with Steve H.
3. Current dean [Paul] can easily be shifted over to the History dept.
If you replace the Pres now you will: 1. Have to go through a firing process similar to the one described above 2. Live with the current dean while the firing process goes on (I do not think we can have both positions empty), followed by the new pres getting up to speed, followed by the dean going through a firing process similar to the above 3. We have lived with him for this long, we can make it a little longer...plus a new dean like Steve H. may be able to actually help improve the current Pres’ performance
(John Williams’ name is wri tten just above the beginning line)
(original spelling in all documents is preserved here)
The critical three weeks begin with an October 13 letter from Jenkins to Moffett that strongly criticizes Moffett’s leadership and calls the college “dysfunctional.” [The Pilot was unable to obtain this document for publication.] On October 19 Jenkins makes a round-robin inquiry, asking who on the Principia Executives’ Committee (PEC) has leaked confidential information about a restructuring idea to Trustees, friends, or spouses. On October 26 Moffett expresses reservations to Jenkins about the CEO’s restructuring idea of establishing a new post of executive officer in the president’s office, with shrinkage of the president’s powers. Jenkins channels Moffett’s misgivings down to CEO’s subordinate, Legal Counsel Phil Riley.
Oct. 26 email
Moffett to Jenkins:
Stuart,
Re. our conversation yesterday, if it is deemed necessary to bring on an executive officer, I’m sure we can make it work. But I feel that a decision on this may be just a little premature, given that we’ve got traction now on the very issues the Trustees are focused on. If we do need to move forward let’s think it through clearly so lines of authority are clear. I don’t want to lose control over or participation in the very management issues I’m very engaged with now.
With the help of a consultant (Noel-Levitz), we’re going to look at some restructuring of the Admission Office. I think it would be helpful, using outside consultants and over time, to do program evaluations of selected College offices. The Registrar, for example, is very open to the idea. Before we make a move on the President’s Office perhaps we should consider having a consultant evaluate the operations of the senior administration.
George
Oct. 26 email
Jenkins to Moffett
George,
Thanks for the note and concept. Did you/would you share this idea with Phil?
I will give this some thought.
Thank You.
Stuart
The next day Jenkins again writes Moffett about restructuring. Moffett replies, and Jenkins responds, broaching a six-month “sabbatical” for Moffett and again channeling Moffett down a level to deal with Riley.
Oct. 27 email
Jenkins to Moffett:
George,
I still hope you will write up our joint document for presentation to the trustees. If you want to include this as a third option that is ok with me.
SJ
Oct. 27 email
Moffett to Jenkins:
Stuart,
I’m not completely sure what our “joint document” is. I’m probably forgetting something here. Can you help?
George
Oct. 27 email
Jenkins to Moffett:
G
From our meeting with Phil I thought you were going to write up on one paper your thoughts on organizational structure, stay the course, as defined by the booklet that has been sent to the Trustees, review in six months etc
In addition your understanding of my proposal: VP of administration, six month sabbatical, CS Movement, Focus on vision and out bound communication of vision. VP to focus on implementing vision at operational level. etc.
We would then give that documents to the Trustees to consider.
If you have forgotten then you might want to call Phil for a further prompt.
SJ
Oct. 27 email
Moffett to Jenkins:
Stuart,
Here are the two option I understand to be on the table regarding organizational structure.
1. One option is to move immediately with the creation of a new position in the College Administration—a Vice-President for Administration or Executive Officer.
2. The second option is to stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in, say, six months. My personal view is that an immediate decision would be premature, given the traction that’s been established with regard to various administrative initiatives. I think it’s important to weigh lines of authority carefully in any proposed new structure so that the President does not lose control over or participation in administrative affairs. One possible step would be to bring in a consultant to evaluate the operations of the senior administration—such as we are now doing with the Admissions Office—before any final decisions are made.
George
On October 29 Jenkins replies and specifies that in his proposal a new College VP would report “directly to the CEO” rather than to or through the president. Moffett would :“disengage from day to day administrative responsibilities,” turning these over to the new VP; continue “to receive current compensation and benefits through the academic year ending in June 2008;” and would “assist the Board of Trustees in identifying and recruiting the next President of the College.”
On October 30 Moffett sends a letter to all Trustees suggesting topics for the regular Board meeting scheduled with him for November 3.
Oct. 30 letter
Moffett to the Board
To the members of the Principia Board of Trustees:
Stuart has asked that Peter and I be in touch with you to suggest topics that might profitably be discussed during our individual meetings on Friday. Inescapably, our time together will include the [Oct. 13] letter Stuart has shared with you indicating his concerns about the management of the College.
Stuart and I have discussed several steps that we hope will lead to some needed changes in management. Accordingly—to choose three examples—the College administrative team is shifting its focus from inputs to outputs, from silo thinking to strategic planning, from loosely aligned programs and budgets to more tightly linked program and budget planning. I would be pleased to discuss these and related issues with the Trustees.
That said, I feel that the letter did not give an accurate picture of the current state of affairs at the College. Far from being dysfunctional, the College is progressing more rapidly on more issues of importance to the institution than at any time in recent memory. Let me give you just a few examples.
Faculty, staff, and administrators report that last August’s faculty-staff retreat at New Harmony, Indiana, produced the greatest sense of unity and enthusiasm that any could remember—and what the President of the Faculty Senate referred to as the first unified vision of the curriculum in his two decades of service at Principia. This unified vision, for the very first time in the College’s history that I am aware of, directly and unmistakably links the educational vision of the faculty and staff to Principia’s purpose, to serve the Cause of Christian Science. College-wide and departmental learning themes initially developed at New Harmony are now forming the basis for the first really serious effort at comprehensively measuring student-learning outcomes, and will provide the jumping-off point for an eventual major curricular revision.
Here are other examples:
• Working with Noel-Levitz, the Admissions Office is preparing a restructuring proposal and significantly expanding its arsenal of strategies to recruit and enroll new students. Our goal is to increase the size of our student body to 600 within three years.
• A broad new College-wide administrative structure has been put in place to focus on the issues of enrollment and retention. Under the direction of the President’s Office, it will bring together all parties in the institution—ranging from the Athletic Department in Elsah to the Director of Alumni and Field Activities in St. Louis—whose work bears on these two issues.
• At Stuart’s initiative, I have charged the Scholarship Committee to review our scholarship program and to create, in time for this year’s admissons cycle, a new “whole man” scholarship that, for the first time, will provide scholarship aid to students whose SATs and GPAs may not qualify them for Trustee-level aid but whose individual talents or character will make them valuable additions to the College community.
• Procedures for planning capital projects have been rationalized to provide timely recommendations to the Trustees that reflect a consensus view of all affected parties on the College campus.
• Planning for a new Teaching, Learning, and Research Center has been underway since 2004, with the goal of Fall Quarter 2007 implementation. I’m particularly pleased with this initiative since it addresses, among other things, one of the thorniest issues in higher education, namely, how to meet the needs of under-prepared and under-achieving students.
• The faculty is now revamping promotion criteria and implementing a test-run of the College’s first-ever comprehensive evaluation system, both subject to final presidential approval.
• Starting last spring, registration procedures have been scrutinized and changes mandated to eliminate registration bottlenecks. A faculty-academic staff committee is continuing to weigh long-term changes, including rearranging the daily academic schedule.
• As to the bodies that have authority over academic administration, all are operating with new energy and focus. The Curriculum Committee has been revamped. The Faculty Senate is working with more unity and coherence. Unit Heads are working more productively than ever before, taking on issues—hitherto deemed too controversial but in my view crucial to the strength of the academic program—such as grade inflation.
• The career advising staff has prepared recommendations for ways to universalize internship and “career camp” opportunities that currently implicate only 50% of our students.
• A structure has been put in place to oversee the process of meeting the re-accreditation requirements of the North Central Association. Several recommendations are already being implemented.
The list goes on.
Looking at the longer view, after ten years Principia is held in higher esteem in the field than any time in recent memory. Notwithstanding the creative tension between administration and faculty that will always exist in a dynamic collegiate environment, relations between the administration and faculty are stronger now than at any point in the past decade or more. And Principia students are in a different, infinitely better place. As our Assessment Office recently reported, ten years ago “it was not uncommon for many students to express open and bitter hostility towards the College in general. Articles in the Pilot regularly assailed administrators, often with bitter and gratuitous derision. By 2000 the intensity of the criticism began to diminish until today it has virtually disappeared, replaced by respect and cooperation.” Such are the fruits of the past decade, attributable to many faithful workers at the College.
In my judgment, the College is now on the verge of significant breakthroughs on issues that bear directly on Trustee goals. At the heart of issues related to recruitment and retention is the central matter of raising academic standards and upgrading the College’s reputation as a place of real educational excellence. This has been my foremost goal since taking over as President. For the first time since I have been President I feel that the pieces are in place to fulfill the great potential of this school academically. I think this would be one appropriate focus for our discussion on Friday. I look forward to seeing you then.
All best,
George Moffett
College President
On October 30 Jenkins again addresses the issue of leaks in an email to Moffett.
Oct. 30 email
Jenkins to Moffett
George,
You did not answer the question—yet again.
George, this is the third or fourth time I have had to ask you directly WHO YOU LEAKED this information to. I think it is about time I get a straight answer. The PEC, Trustees, and I want need to know.
Please do not make me ask again and don’t make me ask any follow-up questions to reveal the facts. Level with me—NOW!
I want the answers in writing and I want them today.
Stuart
On October 31 Moffett replies in an email and Jenkins responds.
Oct. 31 email
Moffett to Jenkins
Dear Stuart:
I am somewhat taken back by the tone the discourse has taken. I certainly intend to be cooperative, respectful and constructive. I have no intention to be insubordinate or to do anything that is not in the best interests of Principia.
I previously understood your inquiry and that of Phil Riley to be limited to discussions regarding some reorganization plan. (This is not semantics—if I understood you correctly, you were hearing from the field regarding a reorganization plan, and I knew that information did not come from me.) I now believe you to be asking for the names of anyone to whom I have mentioned any aspect of your letter of 13 October.
When I received the letter I was left with the strongest impression that there was a plan in place to remove me from this position to which I am devoted. This was not an unreasonable assumption at the time. Your letter called into serious question my accomplishments and my reputation. I don’t think you would disagree that this is a serious matter.
Deeply concerned and taken aback I consulted with a very limited number of friends and confidants regarding my future at Principia. I would expect that any individual in those circumstances would naturally seek reassurance and advice. I asked those with whom I spoke [names deleted] to maintain confidence. I am confident they have respected and will respect that request.
Each of those individuals understands that I have been under significant pressure; none know the details. To none of them did I show or read your letter. To none of them, as I say, did I speak of any restructuring plan.
To say the least, I am most distressed that my reaching out for reassurance and advice has become the thing of conspiracy or a vehicle for questioning my integrity. We can disagree in good faith on various issues. Despite disagreements I would not expect that my integrity or motives would be questioned.
Let me be as clear as I possibly can be, I have not been attempting to use your letter to create support for me in the field nor to disclose Principia secrets to people who might use them to undermine confidence in the Chairman or Trustees. Nothing could be further from the truth. If my calls were an overreaction—and that’s an arguable point—no harm was intended. I regret and am deeply saddened to know that after so many years of faithful service to Principia and to you personally that my motives have become the object of suspicion, concern and distrust.
George
Oct. 31 email
Jenkins to Moffett
G
I will respond in detail later.
The questionnaire I sent (October 19) regarding a breach of confidentiality at the PEC level asked questions about actions, not motives or integrity!
The three questions where straightforward, simple, and direct. There was no need to interpret the questions. If those questions had been answered in the first place this issue would be behind us long ago! Please review and read the questionnaire once again.
I regret I have had to keep asking these questions so persistently, but until everyone answered there was no closure on the issue.
S
On November 1 Moffett returns to the issue of reorganization:
Nov. 1 email
Moffett to Jenkins
Stuart,
Sorry for the delay in responding regarding the two options.
I think you know from our recent conversation that if yours [restructuring of the governance model] is adopted I will take that as my cue that it’s time to move on at the end of the year. The Trustees need to know that I would not be inerested in a presidency that is merely a figurehead position.
Regarding my option, I would reword it this way:
The second option is to stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in say, six months. An immediate decision would be premature given that management systems are now in place or being put in place and just as the deans are demonstrating strong management support. I think it would be best to test my - and the deans’ - confidence in our progress before making any final decisions regarding restructuring.
If eventually deemed necessary I think restructuring possibilities exist so long as (a) the President retains ultimate oversight of strategic planning, with staffing delegated to an administrative VP; (b) any appointment be the choice of both the President and Chairman; and (c) the VP report solely to the President. Generally, I could see this kind of division of labor:
• The President has responsibility for developing strategy (strategic plan and its implementation); for relationships with internal and external constituencies; and for overall campus growth including enrollment and management.
• The administrative VP would be responsible for the distribution of work and roles and for management effectiveness including reviewing assessments of people and programs; and working with the President to see that management carries out strategic plans.
I hope this helps. I would be grateful to receive a final copy of the options memo.
George
Jenkins then sends to the Trustees his and Moffett’s alternative restructuring options, but omits Moffett’s references to management systems being instituted, to the deans’ demonstration of strong management support, and to Moffett’s request that any new VP report only to the President and be chosen by both the President and Chairman.
On November 2 Moffett sends a memo to the Trustees outlining his talking points for his regular scheduled meeting with the Board of Trustees on November 3 at the Guest House. In it he contrasts the situation after a decade of his presidency with the situation when he took office and asks for an opportunity to talk privately with the Board, preferably with the CEO in recusal, and offers to resign only if he has lost the confidence of the Trustees.
Nov. 2 letter
Moffett to the Board:
Over this past weekend I prepared talking points for our meeting together on Friday. Given the scope of the issues involved, it occurs to me that it might be helpful for you, and an aid to making our limited time together more efficient, to see them in advance. Specifically, I wish to make five observations. I think it might be best to have our meeting together on Friday be private. Under the circumstances, it would seem appropriate for the Chairman to recuse himself.
Based on an extensive number of comments and letters I’ve received during my tenure here, I have come to realize more and more that Principia’s vision and clarity bring great strength to the Cause of Christian Science, to which this institution—at Mrs. Morgan’s direction—is so earnestly dedicated. The tiny school she founded 108 years ago—“inconspicuous though it is and ought to remain,” in her words—nevertheless does have unlimited potential—in her words again—to “occupy a frontline position in the present world conflict of ideals.” Principia has been a beacon of light and inspiration at a time of diminishing congregations and rising doubts about the future of the Christian Science movement. The school, its mission, and its vision have never been more important than they are today. This said, I have a number of concerns that bear on Principia’s present and future that I believe merit your consideration. By way of explanation, let me share these few miscellaneous thoughts.
(1) My letter of October 30th spoke to Stuart’s concern that the College is currently dysfunctional. Actually, “dysfunctional” is precisely the word that applied to the College when I arrived. Ten years ago the College was entirely faculty-driven, and the faculty who drove it had agendas that were deeply divisive and that called into question long-time community standards. A number of positions were filled by individuals whose performance was sub-standard and who had been allowed to remain at Principia. The Faculty Senate was not working. Curriculum revision efforts fell victim to deep divisions within the faculty. There was considerable opposition to what was perceived to be “top-down management” by the new administration. Such was the state of the community that only a few years ago efforts to launch a faculty/staff evaluation system failed entirely.
Ten years later, the College has made it through the most difficult of all possible transitions in an academic community. Today, there is a widespread sense of trust and respect between faculty and administration the significance of which is this: that the pieces are now in place for progress on the very issues we all recognize to be crucial to the success of the College. In short, this transition has established the preconditions for, among many other things, faculty and staff evaluation; re-visioning the curriculum so that we can make intelligent trim-to-grow decisions in the academic area; program evaluation; and assessment of student learning outcomes, which until now had been strongly opposed by many faculty.
Could this transition have been accomplished a year or two earlier? Perhaps, but I believe it would have been on a less certain footing. By being patient and not moving too precipitously, the trust and respect that had meek beginnings have now become sturdy, opening possibilities of great promise that might otherwise be out of reach.
(2) Notwithstanding the Chairman’s gracious words regarding my role as articulator of Principia’s vision, and legitimate points about the need for better management systems, large portions of his letter of October 13th are inaccurate. The Trustees need to be aware that statements regarding the performance of the deans, the alleged demotion of colleagues to “goat status,” disinterest in management, and lack of courage in dealing with personnel issues are all substantially wide of the mark. With regard to the last point, while there is no doubt that I could and should have moved more quickly with regard to one personnel case, this seems insufficient to warrant a general indictment. I would be happy to discuss any of these points further on Friday.
(3) While there is an appreciation in the College community for Stuart’s strong determination to make Principia a better place, for his deep interest in efficient administration, and for his impatience in wanting to move the institution forward, I am hearing—with increasing frequency and epitomized by three unsolicited calls from top, highly-valued Principia faculty and staff over the past two weeks alone—signals of deep distress about his management. From community members I hear concerns that his management style is to search for and magnify bad news, while rarely acknowledging accomplishments; that he does not listen well, has fixed opinions, and demonstrates little interest in alternative points of view; that he draws conclusions based on conversations with the most disaffected members of the community; that he has little interest in and understanding of collegiate academics and therefore does not understand the prerequisites to academic excellence. His frequent references to “getting people off the bus,” and his occasional scolding of subordinates, have produced an atmosphere characterized by a considerable degree of fear. Long-time workers at the College whom I believe the Trustees would not want to lose tell me that his style makes them feel inadequate and incompetent. Understaffed and overworked colleagues complain—in the words of one senior faculty member—that a “culture of poverty” has been created. From others I hear that an environment of constant pressure has taken the joy out of working at Principia, prompting thoughts of moving on from the College. These views appear to be held by a good number of highly-respected people at the College. There is growing concern in the community that a continuance of this management style will undermine the foundations of trust and good will that have been established and that are essential to the progress of this institution.
(4) During my first seven years as president I enjoyed a strong working relationship with Michael [Sharples, Jenkins’ predecessor as the Principia CEO until 2003], who continually demonstrated a deep interest in my work, with whom there was always warm, close, and frequent communication, who continually made clear that he wanted me to succeed, and with whom there was always a strong sense of partnership. I deeply regret that, notwithstanding my very warm personal feelings for Stuart, this has not characterized our professional relationship. It has been an open secret in the community, and I assume within the Board, that I have never enjoyed his confidence. It seems to be an open secret within the community that he has tested the interest of more than one person in taking the presidency of the College. Perhaps these inquiries were innocent enough but you can understand the demoralizing and undermining effect of hearing such reports and of knowing that these reports are circulating in the community. Combined with intrusive micro-management of the College’s affairs, all of this has created a strong undertow that has made my work over the past three years less productive and far less enjoyable. I do not believe things need to be this way. I do believe—and ardently wish—that a collaborative partnership could be established that would combine our complimentary strengths. But this will be difficult given Stuart’s apparent lack of confidence in my presidency and without demonstrating the desire to bring out the best in all the earnest folks who work here day by day. This, after all, is the purpose of our work together.
(5) Regarding my future, Martha’s and my intention has been to remain on the job for two more years. If we choose to stay in the St. Louis area after that, perhaps it would be possible to teach a course or two or, if helpful to the institution, give an occasional talk in the field as a former president who continues to love Principia.
I feel that the College is at a critical and promising juncture just now. The important pieces are in place to raise the academic standards of the College to new levels—a step absolutely crucial to increase recruitment and retention. The work of the faculty and staff at New Harmony in August has taken this from a goal to a work-in-progress and it is built on a strong working relationship among faculty and with faculty and administration. We have made great strides in our relations with the field, in restoring trust within the community, and gaining the support of the students. The last major piece I would like to help put in place is a more uniformly strong academic program.
With regard to a possible administrative restructuring at the College, I would reiterate that I would take any plan that would reduce the presidency to a figurehead position as my cue to move on. Likewise, any arrangement in which an administrative vice-president would not report solely to the president would be unacceptable since it would open the door to further intrusive micro-management from the chairman’s office. Delinking the president and a vice-president would pose substantial risks of a disconnect between my vision and the direction of the institution.
All of this said, please know that I have no interest in remaining at Principia if I have lost the confidence of the Trustees. Other options are available to me. I respect your position too much to wish, in any way, to interfere with your best sense of where the College should go from here. Whatever the Board decides, Martha and I have considered it the greatest privilege of our lives to be engaged with the work of Principia. Your confidence in our work to this point has been the source of great satisfaction to us.
I think it’s essential that the Trustees take advantage of their presence to meet privately with the deans and with representative faculty for the purpose of ensuring that the fullest understanding of the affairs of the College is attained before critical decisions are made. These meetings need to take place without the presence of the chairman or the president. I note in the minutes of a recent Faculty Senate meeting that there is a “strong sense from the faculty body that faculty need a direct dialogue with the Trustees, and not just presentations.”
When Moffett appears at the Guest House on November 3 for his regular hour-long fall meeting with the Trustees, the Board does not receive him at all. Instead, four Trustees inform him immediately that they accept his resignation and say goodbye within five minutes. The two reasons given are that Principia College is about to lose its accreditation because of the AQIP assessment and alleged lack of progress at the college (see “President’s Assistant,” pg. 1). The Board does not reply to Moffett’s October 30 and November 2 letters to them, does not grant Moffett a hearing or otherwise accord him the legally mandatory due process outlined in Williams’ October memo, does not ask him to join in finding some compromise that might enable him to finish out his remaining two years until retirement, and does not meet with him to thank him for his eleven years of service.
Trustee Helen Elswit, in an interview with Pilot Editor Caitlin Carpenter on May 29, said the trustees typically meet with the president of the college at their April and November meetings. She said the Board does not typically hear from the president directly except at those two times (the president usually reports through the CEO to the Board). She said she does not recall receiving a request from Moffett for an audience with the trustees at a time other than a regularly scheduled Board meeting. Nor is she aware of any individual members of the Board receiving a letter including such a request. She said the last time the full board met with Moffett was at their April 2006 meeting, though Moffett has met with smaller groups of trustees on two occasions in the past year, Elswit has met weekly with Moffett this quarter.
Elswit declined to comment on why the entire Board did not meet with Moffett at the November 2006 meeting or what happened at that meeting. She said, “I will leave that to the resolution committee,” of which she is one of two trustee representatives.
In spring 2007, several trustees pay one perfunctory visit to the Moffett residence. The Board does not schedule its regular spring meeting with the president, however, and does not otherwise meet as a Board with Moffett.
In the end-of-year Principia Purpose CEO Jenkins offers a tribute to outgoing President Moffett.
Message in the Purpose
Jenkins about Moffett
George’s greatest gift to the Principia community has been his remarkable ability to articulate the values and importance of Principia and express them more clearly perhaps than anyone has since Principia’s founder, Mary Kimball Morgan. George’s absolute conviction of the importance of Principia in the context of the world today has consistently inspired trust and confidence in students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, and friends.
George’s moral courage to confront community-standard issues is unparalleled and has raised the students’ awareness of the importance of Christian Science to our community and our world. He has produced an environment in which students value spiritual thinking and are willing to challenge themselves and others to use Christian Science more consistently. In a word, George made Christian Science cool at Principia College.
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.
Elizabeth Pond, a former Pilot editor and foreign correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, is the author of five books on Europe and a visiting professor at Principia College this quarter.
*********************************************************************************************
President’s assistant provides perspective
Lynda Sleight witnessed perplexing behavior from Board/CEO
By Caitlin Carpenter
ynda Sleight, as Dr. George Moffett’s administrative assistant since 1999, has first-hand knowledge of many of the issues that have perplexed the Principia community in the past few months. Her job brought her into close proximity with relevant information regarding the circumstances surrounding the CEO’s salary increase, the resignation of Moffett, and the College’s accreditation.
The Pilot recently sat down with Sleight to get her perspective on some lingering questions and issues.
These issues have challenged the College for at least two quarters. Why are you coming forward with this information now?
Let me say first that I have a lot of respect for Jim Reeves, for his professionalism and constructive approach. I also have deep appreciation for the commitment and dedication of each of the elected representatives to the Resolution Committee.
My decision to speak up now and to share what I know was motivated by a desire to support the resolution process and bring transparency to critical issues in a timely manner. Isn’t the resolution process all about bringing the truth to light by letting the facts speak for themselves?
As the administrative assistant to College President George Moffett, can you shed light on Dr. Moffett’s resignation in November?
In mid-October [October 13] Dr. Moffett received a letter from the CEO which disturbed him greatly. He did not show it to me then but, as I now know, it criticized his leadership in several areas and called the College “dysfunctional.” In messages to the Board on October 30 and November 2, Dr. Moffett defended his job performance and highlighted examples of progress at the College. In the November 2 memo, he stated he had intended to stay as president for two more years but would leave sooner if he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the Board. He was scheduled to meet with them the next day, Friday, November 3, to report on the state of the College.
I called Dr. Moffett that evening at home to see how the meeting had gone. He shared that he had been met at the door of the Guest House by four trustees. It was a five-minute meeting and they began by saying that his resignation would be accepted. The reasons given for requesting it were their concern that the College was in danger of losing its accreditation and that there was no evidence of progress at the College – neither of which is true.
There was no due process. Dr. Moffett was never given the opportunity to meet with the Board and to respond to the charges. This is significant because access to the Board had become increasingly restricted, and it was unclear what information they had relied upon, and from whom, in reaching their decision to ask him to leave. The last time Dr. Moffett had met with the full Board to report on the state of the College was in April 2006 – and that remains the last time to this day.
Was there any indication that Dr. Moffett’s departure was planned ahead of time?
Yes, there was, in my opinion. In September, I received a call from the CEO’s assistant asking to reserve the President’s Conference Room for a series of meetings the CEO wanted to hold with all College faculty and staff beginning in November – right after the Trustees scheduled visit. I was already suspicious that Dr. Moffett’s job was at risk so the timing of the meetings made me suspect they were not just simple get-togethers – especially when I found out that the CEO had not extended Dr. Moffett the courtesy of informing him of these meetings.
I was part of the second group invited to a 90-minute lunch with the CEO in November. Although the stated purpose of the meeting was for the CEO to get to know the staff better and to listen to our issues and concerns, he soon brought the conversation around to the need for greater trust, explaining that sometimes administrators have to make tough decisions. “The staff won’t always have all the facts,” he said, “so [we] need to trust the administration and not ask questions.” As far as I know, I was the only person in the room that day, except the CEO, who knew that the president had been asked to resign just five days earlier. Remember, the luncheon had been scheduled back in September.
The news of Dr. Moffett’s retirement was not made public until a week later, when students were focused on finals and the College was headed into a six-week break.
You have mentioned before that you saw a December email from Jenkins to the Board of Trustees discussing replacements for Moffett before the search process had begun.
In January I saw an email that the CEO had sent to the Board and others back in early December. The email began by mocking the efforts of the president and the academic dean in their attempt to demonstrate that the College was in no way at risk of losing its accreditation. The rest of the email appeared to be a roadmap of how the transition to a new president would be handled and what the results of the search process would be. This was before the position had even been posted or advertised and before the search committee or any of the promised advisory committees had been established. The email mentioned several individuals and positions, indicating that there would be other changes at the College as soon as Dr. Moffett was gone. The version I saw included reply comments from the head of the St. Louis campus, who would help with the transition and be a presence on the College campus during that time. The email went on to explain, as I recall, that the College would be so used to having him around by the time he was announced as the next president -- or some new title -- “there would be no fuss.”
This is one of the documents I described to Jim Reeves when I met with him briefly a couple of weeks ago. So far, Jim has only been able to confirm receipt of a copy of the original email, which does not include the reply comments.
The CEO’s April 2006 raise to a $250,000 salary, effective July 1st, which he explained to faculty in an email on January 2, 2007, is a controversial issue that still raises questions for many people in the Principia community. In that email to the faculty, Stuart also wrote that all salaries at Principia are gauged according to “the same outside benchmark” and that the new salary was selected to bring his salary “into line” with the full responsibilities of this benchmark. From what you know, how was this raise carried out?
On January 30, I overheard a conversation in which [Chief Counsel] Phil Riley admitted to a staff member that the Trustees had decided on the new salary first and then asked, “How can we make it work?” One of the Trustees had then gone to Katherine Milner [director of Human Resources] for assistance in finding a benchmark. The one eventually selected was for a much larger institution, as the staff member pointed out to Phil. He replied that the Trustees knew the benchmark was flawed but that they had felt $250,000 was the right amount.
The Trustees’ message to the Principia community on January 23 suggests a different sequence of events last Spring. It states that the Board had “consulted with staff members to determine, through the benchmarking process, the appropriate salary for the Chairman/CEO, and this was adopted,” implying that the benchmark was found first and then the appropriate salary was adopted.
Rumors have been circulating that the College, possibly because of Dr. Moffett’s performance as president, is in danger of losing its Academic Quality Improvement Program accreditation or at the very least was performing very poorly. Do you think there is truth to this rumor?
There isn’t the slightest bit of truth to it at all! Last December, Dr. Moffett and Dr. Faith Paul, the Dean of Academic Affairs, contacted Stephen Spangehl, the Director of the Academic Quality Improvement Program, and spoke at length. Thus, they were prepared when they received a message from the CEO the following day, questioning the College’s status with AQIP. [The email is reprinted in full below]
Team,
Attached is a presentation of the AQIP report presented graphically against a middle of the pack Midwest religious school in our benchmark group. Assuming this graph is an accurate picture of the current state of the College, it would seem hard to ignore that we have substantial work ahead and that the areas depicted should be our priorities. If this graph is not accurate, then we need to correct it or the underlying AQIP report from which it is derived.
I believe it goes without saying that sharing this graph with anyone outside of this team would be unwise. I would not want to see this on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch because if it is true and if it became public, recruiting students would be nearly impossible. If it is true, then it’s essential we fix these areas quickly.
How do we get focused and stay focused, as a team, on these fundamental issues?
Stuart
Dr. Moffett responded immediately and it was this response that the CEO was ridiculing in his December email to the Trustees.
Just a few weeks ago, Dr. Moffett responded to a survey by AQIP and in his response asked Mr. Spangehl to comment on Principia’s progress. His response was most encouraging and deserves to be shared. [The letter is reprinted in full below]
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
************************************************************************************
Raises to be given to half of Principia faculty over two years
New benchmark shows many faculty salaries are below peers’
By Tyler Maltbie
s of July 1, 2007, Principia will begin to issue pay raises to approximately half its college faculty. The salary increases will be issued over the next two years and come as a result of the College’s revised benchmarking criteria.
The College will now be comparing itself to a new cohort of private American colleges. The pay increases will ensure that all faculty members are at least within the median salary averages for their respective disciplines and rank.
“We felt we really needed to expand the cohort we compared ourselves to,” said Linda Cornell, business manager for the President’s Office.
In February, a salary study committee - a group comprised of representatives from different constituencies from the two campuses - made a proposal to the Board of Trustees to adjust Principia’s benchmarking standards. The Trustees approved shifting Principia’s standards of comparison from private, religious-based colleges with annual operating budgets between $20 and $40 million to similar institutions with slightly larger budgets, between $20 and $70 million.
Currently, about half of Principia’s faculty is within the new salary benchmark, says Cornell. “Our goal [for the next two years] is to have our faculty be making at least 100 percent of the median average pay rate [suggested by the new standards].” According to the memo released to affected faculty, the raises will be issued in two fifty percent increments.
Faculty responses to the shift are varied. Mass Communication professor George Cooke welcomes the change. “I am glad to hear it,” he said. “[Principia] is taking a good, hard look at its practices.”
Music professor John Near welcomes the pay adjustments as well. “This is really good news. [The faculty] are all grateful for this,” he said. Near did express concern, however, about the projected timeline for the change citing Stuart Jenkins’ immediate pay increase and Michael Sharples’ lumpsum retirement bonus. “I’m not greedy,” he said, “I just want fairness.”
Cornell cites the proposed two-year timeline to “budgeting” reasons. “It’s a lot of money,” she said.
Political Science professor Julie Blaise reacted slightly negatively to what she described as a “moderate” pay increase. To realize she was being paid less than what was appropriate for her work was off-putting, she said.
Cornell is a member of the salary study committee, researched the issue, compiled survey data, and kept records during the process.
Faculty working on the St. Louis campus will not be affected by this change.
**************************************************************************************
Reeves reports to Resolution Committee
On June 4, Jim Reeves will present his report to the committee for their evaluation and recommendations
By Becca Goodsell
he Resolution Committee will conduct an all-day meeting on June 4 to hear facilitator Jim Reeves’ report and to discuss the steps needed to move forward in the resolution process.
The report will be a summary of what Reeves has learned this quarter from documents and interviews and will include suggestions for how to move forward. The report will also include a list of names of people Reeves has talked with, except those who wish to remain anonymous. No names will be attributed to specific facts in order to maintain confidentiality.
Members of the Resolution Committee will receive a copy of the report a few days in advance so that they can be ready to discuss it at the meeting.
The committee has agreed to go where the evidence leads, said Faculty representative Greg Sandford, and will set their agenda for the meeting once Reeves gives his report.
Alice Stanley, a Resolution Committee representative from St. Louis, said the group has been preparing for the final meeting this quarter throughout the process by familiarizing themselves with the issues during prior meetings of the Resolution Committee, as well as by working metaphysically.
The Committee will focus mainly on addressing concerns about the circumstances surrounding George Moffett’s departure as well as the performance and compensation of Stuart Jenkins, as part of Phase One of the resolution process. Phase Two of the resolution process will begin in the fall and will “address governance issues to be determined,” as defined in Jim Reeves’ contract.
Sandford said, “the committee has no pretensions that the governance issues will be resolved at the June 4 meeting.”
The committee does expect to have some long- and short-term recommendations which could include how to proceed when the Resolution Committee reconvenes in the fall, said Stanley.
The Resolution Committee will retain as many committee members as possible, said student body representative Chrissie Sydness. Those who have to leave the committee will be replaced through elections within their constituencies. Sydness said the new student representatives will probably be elected from the Student Activities Board or Presidential Board, as it would be too difficult for the student body president and vice presidents to be involved with the Resolution Committee in addition to their other duties.
Reeves will continue working during the summer, according to the direction in which the committee chooses to proceed.
************************************************************************************
The courage to resign
By Rushworth M. Kidder
Editors’ Note: The ongoing debate over leadership and governance is not unique to Principia. Several Principia community members have suggested that the Pilot reprint this article by former Principia trustee Rushworth Kidder, who has spoken at Principia on the topic of ethics.
o one doubts that it takes real moral courage for leaders to hold firm under fire. Sometimes, however, it takes even greater courage to resign. Earlier this month both kinds of courage were in evidence. Here’s how the Washington Post for May 17 displayed the topic:
Lead story, page 1: U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales faces new revelations that as many as 26 of the nation’s 93 U.S. district attorneys were candidates for firings -- not eight, as Mr. Gonzales had testified earlier. He clings to his post.
Second lead, page 1: World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz insists that he will not leave unless the bank’s board exonerates him of some of the ethics charges against him. He clings to his post.
Bottom right, page 1: The controversial head of the Smithsonian Business Ventures, Gary Beers, comes under strong fire amid investigations into his expenses, management, and relations with a female subordinate. He resigns.
Lead story, Business section: Micah Green, the co-chief executive of Wall Street’s largest trade association, the Security Industry and Financial Markets Association, was subject to an internal investigation that revealed significant management failures on his watch. Several months ago he resigned.
Score: Two staying, two leaving -- though by day’s end Mr. Wolfowitz also had exited his post. And that was only one day in one newspaper. What do we learn from all of this?
It may sound odd to talk of moral courage in the face of deceptions, mismanagement, favoritism, and misappropriation of funds. But what if the charges are at worst trumped up, or at best overstated and miscast? When a leader stands firm in the face of unethical headwinds, we have no hesitation in applying the word moral to his or her fortitude.
The harder case is the obverse. Suppose the charges are accurate and the leader really is acting unethically. In that situation, some leaders stonewall to the bitter end, braving even impeachment rather than admitting their mistakes. Others bow out more quickly and gracefully. Of the two courses, which is more ethical? Surely the latter. It takes greater moral courage to admit mistakes and take the punishment than to cling to a lie out of vanity, self-deception, or the slender hope of getting off on a technicality. Sticking doggedly to deceit is stubbornness, not courage. Stepping aside, even when you’re in the wrong, shows a measure of selflessness. It suggests a willingness to put the good of the entire organization ahead of your own personal satisfaction. I’d call that a moral act any day, even when performed by an immoral actor.
But what happens when, as at the World Bank, the situation is murky? Was this really about the ethics of Mr. Wolfowitz’s promotion of Shaha Riza, the female World Bank executive who was his close companion? Or was it, as the after-the-fact reporting seems to indicate, a clashing of management styles so profound that he was unable to lead effectively? What if, as seems likely, the ethics charges were technically valid though not, in ordinary circumstances, terminable offenses? What if the real issue was a collapse of trust that rendered him ineffective and the institution leaderless?
When leaders go that far off course and lose that much trust, no amount of bluster, intimidation, or recrimination will swing the issue back to the moral side of the ledger. The leader who, fighting ever-mounting opposition from his or her constituents, bulls ahead without regard for the welfare of the organization may do far more long-term damage than the leader who is caring enough to put the organization first. At that point, the courageous leader steps aside -- even though the legal or ethical case remains ambiguous.
And at that point, courageous boards may have to compromise in order to help the leader resign. That, too, may sound odd. When a board has been handed an investigative report clearly concluding that the leader acted unethically, as was the case at the World Bank, is compromise an act of courage? Or is it mere capitulation? In this case, the World Bank board accepted Mr. Wolfowitz’s contention that his mistakes were made in good faith, despite investigative findings to the contrary. On that grace note, he departed.
Cynics may sneer that the board’s action rose no higher than a Machiavellian ends-justifies-the-means philosophy. In fact, it may be that this board found a way to turn its dilemma into a trilemma -- and had the wit to reach a compromise for the good of the whole organization. Boards, too, need to have the moral courage to surrender what they can’t always stubbornly demand.
Rushworth M. Kidder, President and Founder of the Institute for Global Ethics in Camden, Maine, is a former Feature Editor and columnist for The Christian Science Monitor and a former trustee of The Principia.
This article originally appeared in the May 21, 2007 issue of Ethics Newsline®, a free weekly newsletter from the Institute for Global Ethics. Used by permission. Copyright © 2007 by the Institute for Global Ethics.
************************************************************************************
From: Principia Distribution System
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Els-Faculty; Els-Staff
Subject: From: College President: Pilot
Please do not reply to this e-mail as it has been sent from an unattended mail box. Any questions should be referred to the sender.
****************************************************************************
To: College Faculty, Staff, and Students
From: George Moffett, College President
Date: May 31, 2007
Re. Pilot
As you know, the Pilot has run an article and printed documents regarding the circumstances of my imminent departure. I would like to make clear that I was completely unaware that this material was being published, that I did not authorize or encourage it, and that I did not release the documents beyond the Resolution Committee. I have made a commitment to the resolution process, which I have sought to honor and in which I am participating.
I learned of the contents of the Pilot on Thursday evening, by which time the paper had already been printed and copies in limited circulation. Concerned that it might disrupt the resolution process and create an unwelcome controversy going into our Commencement weekend, I considered asking the Faculty Advisor and editors not to distribute the paper this morning. But since the information was already in the public domain, and out of respect for the rights of a free press, I discarded this option.
This being Commencement weekend, our focus needs to be on our students and their significant achievements. I urge us all to keep our thought centered on this joyous event.
************************************************************************************
The sad drama continues:
A friend wrote:
Lynda Sleight has been suspended and not allowed on campus. This is somewhat of a laugh as there is so much to be done - right down to small details - for graduation, etc. But this I know, Lynda is in wonderful spirits. She is getting a lot of support and love and that will only increase as this news gets around.
___________
Wonder if this is known on campus yet? I guess her Pilot interview was what gave them this opportunity.
************************************************************************************
The Principia
Interoffice Correspondence
To: The Principia Community
Fm: Stuart Jenkins, CEO
Today I met with the faculty and staff in St. Louis to announce an important initiative coming out of the April meeting of the Board of Trustees. I wanted to make sure you received this information as well.
The Trustees recognize the need to rejuvenate existing buildings, construct new facilities, improve pay for faculty and staff, and close our annual budget gap while meeting the current needs of our educational programs. Thus, the Board is tasked with raising funds necessary for achieving these goals.
The highest facility priorities on the St. Louis campus are extensive renovation of the current Middle School and the construction of a new Early Childhood building. These are strong, growing programs that are in need of updated facilities.
The Board has asked Head of School Peter Stevens to proceed with the review and development of architectural plans for the construction of a new Early Childhood building. When the plans are finalized, the Board looks forward to reviewing them and intends to move forward with construction. This work will build on the efforts made several years ago to begin planning for a new Pre-School building.
We also look forward to enhancing the Middle School experience through major renovation of that facility. Design and planning is underway, and the funds are largely in hand.
As we move through this process, let’s remember Mrs. Morgan’s words: “There is a plan for the progress of Principia – God’s plan. It is ours to see and understand, so that we may be in harmony with it. In demonstrating Principia we have tried to see what God’s plan is for Principia. For many years we have taken each step under His guidance. May we now see the further unfolding of God’s plan.” (Education at the Principia, p. 108)
While Principia is daily seeking financial support from a broad range of alumni and friends in the Christian Science community, it seems wise to ask, as Elisha did of the widow woman, “What hast thou in the house?” (II Kings 4:2)
For the last 25 years, the Board of Trustees has periodically reviewed the opportunity to develop a portion of the unused land in St. Louis. On each occasion, the Board rejected that step for a variety of reasons. The time now appears right to revisit the question. Therefore, the Board of Trustees has asked the mayor and other elected officials of Town & Country to join Principia in engaging the local citizenry and our Principia community in discussions about appropriate development of a portion of our unused land.
On Monday, we notified the mayor of Town & Country about our plans to begin this discussion. In a letter the mayor responded, “On behalf of the City of Town & Country, I wish you and the entire Principia community all the best in this effort. Moreover, I applaud The Principia’s commitment to engage all stakeholders in this very significant project through positive and productive communications. Keeping the public informed and soliciting their early and open participation will undoubtedly help The Principia achieve the highest quality revitalization and reutilization of the school grounds.”
Mayor Dalton intends to appoint a task force comprised of members of the Board of Aldermen and area residents as a means of facilitating efficient communication between the school and city.
Drawing on the tradition established by Frederic Morgan and Bernard Maybeck when the College campus was designed in the 1930s, we will seek the input of all community members through invitations to public design charrettes. The term “la charrette” originated in Paris where Maybeck was educated. “Charrette” refers to the carts that architectural students wheeled through the streets of Paris with drawings for presentation to their design professors.
You won’t be seeing any charrettes on the campus road, but we will start the process of listening to the community right away by holding these meetings and inviting your input.
The Trustees have begun to establish a few parameters:
- We would not want to change the look and feel of the campus when you drive the campus road.
- Whatever is built will be top quality so that it reflects well on Principia.
- We will maintain a buffer-zone for the campus and preserve our outdoor classroom. The Board understands how important this is to programs from Pre-School through Upper School.
In our discussions, let's imagine what we can do together to make our community better while making our school better. That must be our goal. Imagine if we could provide increased and improved faculty housing. Imagine if we could help build a community sense in the heart of Town & Country. Imagine if we could help provide more nearby, affordable housing for families moving to Principia. Imagine if we could add purchasing power to our endowment while revitalizing our campus and dramatically reducing our annual budget deficits.
As Mrs. Morgan asked in 1932 during the building of the College, “… have we sufficiently realized that our College is being built out of the materials furnished by each Principian in his daily thinking?” She went further to say, “The great Architect has His plan already drawn….” (Education at the Principia, p. 206-207)
The Board recognizes that land development is, in and of itself, a distraction from our most important goals and responsibilities. However, the Board’s fiduciary duty demands that when opportunities come along to dramatically improve the school’s quality, it is incumbent upon the Board to listen carefully. This appears to be that time.
This opportunity, if successful, could allow us to invest in our facilities, our educational program, and, most importantly, our valued faculty and staff – which are the backbone of a high-quality educational program. The potential is significant enough to dramatically change the financial picture at Principia - for this generation and for future generations. At the same time, we have an opportunity to share our strong sense of community with our Town & Country neighbors.
We invite your metaphysical support for this process.
Sincerely,
Stuart Jenkins
