August 30, 2007
Dear Friends of Principia # 17,
The Reeves report failed to speak openly and completely about facts. We will not, however, allow the inconsistencies, lack of truthfulness, and manipulation of facts and discussions by the CEO, Stuart Jenkins, and the Principia Board of Trustees to continue. We must instead assess the trustworthiness of the Board’s numerous communications and Board members willingness to think critically and honestly about situations where they have made terrible mistakes. Therefore, to begin the discussion that is necessary between all in the Principia community (faculty, staff, administrators, students, parents, alumni and friends) two memos authored by Trustee Michael Sharples follow this letter and are also attached to it. The rest of this letter will attempt to put these Sharples memos into context, a task Mr. Reeves was apparently not up to. This will be the first of many efforts to provide the fact finding that the Principia community asked for and deserves.
On January 3, 2007 Stuart Jenkins reported to John Williams that the adjustment to his salary was made after three years in office to “bring the salary into line with the full responsibilities of [a] benchmark,” a benchmark for a CEO with “dual campus” responsibilities.
On January 26, 2007, at a meeting on campus with Gary Krisel, Phil Riley, chief legal counsel, admitted that there had been no benchmarks before the salary was adjusted.
On February 2, 2007 there was a meeting held by the Board of Trustees with Faculty and Staff Representatives from the
“We have no objection to differing opinions and we are fully prepared to address
concerns and differences. We will take appropriate actions if changes are found to
be in the best interest of Principia when based on principle, proper deliberation,
facts, and prayer.
We seek healing.
We have received a lot of questions. Many overlap, but there are three major issues
that have stirred up the most controversy: CEO compensation, the College President’s departure and governance.”
We’d like to start with these three issues, discuss them as long as you wish, and then move to other concerns if you wish to do so.”
-2-
The official minutes of that meeting indicated that on the CEO pay raise issue, the Trustees felt that Stuart was under compensated and had therefore looked at comparable pay in setting his new salary level; also, that the benchmark data had not been a help in seeking a fair salary level, that a compensation expert was needed, and that the decision was made too quickly.
A few days later, in a February 5, 2007 letter, the Trustees said that they had used a “flawed process” in adjusting the CEO’s salary because they should have waited until after other salaries had been re-benchmarked and adjusted; and that they should have used an independent consultant to advise on the amount and timing of the adjustment.
It was also in this February 5th letter that the Board proposed that all issues and concerns would now be submitted to mediation. This led to the formation of the Resolution Committee, which first met on February 17th, 2007. At this point the Principia Community presumably assumed that they could take the Trustee’s tone of openness and honesty from the February 2 meeting to heart. After the Resolution Committee was formed, however, the Trustees refused to consider any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the CEO, or any calls on the part of faculty, staff or alums for the removal of the CEO, repeatedly stating that any action would wait until the work of the Resolution Committee was completed.
In early April, the Resolution Committee sent an update to the Principia Community which included a repetition of the Trustees’ earlier promise that “If any actions were found to be in error, we will take appropriate steps to correct them.” The Principia Community continued to trust this. Shortly thereafter, Jim Reeves was appointed as fact finder. Mr. Reeves had been suggested to the Board of Trustees by Lee Baron, although the Resolution Committee indicated a review of the credentials of other consultants as well
In good faith, while the Principia Community waited, dozens of individual community members openly shared their stories with Jim Reeves, and the Resolution Committee worked to ferret out and organize the many issues that their constituents raised as concerns. Hours and hours of consecrated time were devoted by the elected Resolution Committee members to the thoughtful consideration of the best way to proceed and bring healing to the Principia community.
In July, Jim Reeves issued his report. Only the three major issues were addressed. The grievances of the many community members who had bared their souls to Jim Reeves were ignored. The conclusions, while quite damning of the atmosphere that Jenkins had created, were heavily slanted in
-3-
a number of instances in favor of the CEO and the Trustees. The majority of the Resolution Committee was appalled that the report reflected neither the breadth nor the objectivity the Board had promised. Several friends and alumni who have expertise in the professional standards of dispute resolution processes publicly expressed their shock at Jim Reeves’ inadequate performance.
Following the release of Reeves’ Report, the Resolution Committee issued its own separate statement, which was followed by a majority report concluding that Stuart Jenkins must be replaced as CEO. The Resolution Committee fully anticipated that it would then continue to work on dozens of other issues that had been identified as community concerns.
On July 16th, the Board of Trustees wrote a letter to the community:
(1) They endorsed Jim Reeves conclusions essentially absolving Stuart Jenkins of any wrongdoing and proclaiming their full support for his governance, and
(2) They agreed with Reeves’ ridiculous finding that College President George Moffett had voluntarily resigned, thus completely ignoring the multitude of evidence that showed:
a) Dr Moffett was so completely undermined and falsely maligned by CEO Jenkins and the Board, that he had no choice but to resign; and b) Board members Sharples, Hanzlik, Spaulding and Hunter had informed Moffett that they were “accepting his resignation,” a classic corporate firing. [See “Three Weeks in Autumn” by Elizabeth Pond].
It now seems obvious that the Board of Trustees did not show good faith nor fulfill any of their earlier promises about the work of the Resolution Committee. In fact, to the Board of Trustees, the Resolution Committee was in essence a valuable delaying tactic that had to be shut down when it reached fair-minded, but inconvenient conclusions. The Board’s lack of good faith is specifically seen:
(1) from the rapidity of their response;
(2) from their complete acceptance of Jim Reeves’ report without any critical analysis of its glaring lack of objectivity and omission of reference to many of the community’s most critical concerns;
(3) from their ignoring the finding of all but one of the Resolution Committee members that Stuart Jenkins is a flawed administrator;
(4) from their ignoring the recommendation of the majority of the
Committee that Stuart Jenkins be replaced as CEO;
-4-
(5) from their disbanding of the Resolution Committee before it could complete its work on a myriad of other issues; and
(6) from their threatening warning:
“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.”
Jim Reeves failed to report, or apparently to consider, the multitude of evidence he was presented that showed instances of misdeeds, dishonesty, un-Christian behavior, intimidation and deception engaged in by Stuart Jenkins and members of the Board of Trustees. It is now incumbent on those who are privy to this ignored evidence to make it public so that the Principia Community can fully appreciate the oft repeated pattern of actions contrary to principles of Mary Kimball Morgan and Mary Baker Eddy. These are tearing Principia apart and they illustrate the necessity of replacing Stuart Jenkins and the members of the Board of Trustees who continue to enable him.
To initiate this truth telling, the attached e-mails from current Trustee and former CEO Michael Sharples, read carefully, demonstrate the disingenuous tone, contempt for the Principia community, especially college faculty, and disregard for the truth that has characterized treatment of faculty, administrators, staff, students, parents, alumni and friends by Stuart Jenkins and many of the Trustees. These e-mails illustrate the tone, which, if left unchallenged, will permeate and destroy the Principia ideal we cherish.
Sharples’ January 25th document was one of many confidential documents and conversations received by Jim Reeves and systematically buried before it could be properly reviewed by the Resolution Committee. Reeves read to the Resolution Committee a short portion of the memo regarding the salary issue at which point he was cut off by one of the Trustees on the Committee who objected because the Board had already apologized for the salary process. By this action, Trustee Helen Elswit succeeded in obstructing the disclosure of the more damning portions of the memo until it could no longer be useful. Obviously the trustee members of the Resolution Committee knew the contents of the rest of the memo since they had received it in January, 2007. Other Resolution Committee members made repeated requests to read the entire memo. They were ignored. Belatedly, at their final meeting, too late to incorporate it into the Committee’s work, Reeves agreed to allow committee members to read it. Only then was the deluded reasoning of the Board exposed. Obviously, this makes clear the Board’s interference with the open, honest and direct deliberation of the Resolution Committee’s work.
-5-
Keep in mind as you read the January 25th memo that Sharples is apologizing for a salary adjustment that had no basis "before the fact" of its enactment as Phil Riley, corporate counsel was later forced to admit. This was clearly known by Willard Hanzlik when he announced to the Principia community on February 2nd that comparable pay had been examined before the CEO's pay raise was voted on.
The Board's first statements seem intended to mislead. Stuart Jenkins, Chairman of the Board, delivered a written message to the Faculty on January 3, 2007, in which he wrote, "Principia gauges all its staff, administrator, and college faculty salaries to the same outside benchmark. The Trustees made a major adjustment in the CEO salary after three years in office to bring the salary into line with the full responsibilities of the benchmark." On January 22, 2007, Jenkins wrote to the larger community, insisting that "the action taken last year regarding my compensation was properly motivated and carried out in a principled fashion..." On January 23, 2007, the Board of Trustees wrote, "The Board consulted with staff members to determine through the benchmarking process, the appropriate salary for the Chairman/CEO, and this was adopted." On January 26, 2007, in a question and answer session before the Faculty, Phil Riley, corporate counsel, admitted that no benchmark work was done prior to the Board vote to increase Jenkins' salary, but that Riley had been approached after that Board meeting to find benchmark information to support Jenkins' salary increase. On February 2, 2007, at a Board meeting with Faculty and Staff, Willard Hanzlik, Vice-Chairman, admitted that mistakes had been made in the CEO's salary process. On February 5, 2007, the Board wrote to the community that "in adjusting the CEO's salary to a new benchmark, we used a flawed process." They do not include in their definition of that "flawed process" the granting of a substantial raise without first establishing a proper basis for the raise. As Michael Sharples' memo shows, the real basis was, very simply, personal sense.
Reviewing the history is the Board to be believed when it finally admitted that the raise was simply a "flawed process?" Is that really all that went wrong, a flawed process? Are they openly and directly taking responsibility for their actions the same way students are expected to have the humility and honesty to confront and correct their errors? Do the Trustees have the humility and integrity to hold themselves and Stuart Jenkins to the standard of Policy 17 or are they ignoring and lowering the standards of the institution to keep themselves in office?
-6-
Does Stuart Jenkins acceptance of this raise, after repeated protests over a period of eight months, exhibit the character education leadership that Michael Sharples asserts Jenkins represents and the faculty lacks? Is this the moral courage that Jenkins insists he possesses in contrast to Dr. Moffett and Bob Clarke?
With gratitude,
Paul D Schmidt JD GRI
College ‘71
MEMO #1
Subject: FW; Pilot
From:Michae1-Sharples-[mailto:mtsharples@principia.edu]
Dent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:747 PM
To: 'Andy Hunter'
Fellow Trustees, Stuart suggested I forward this message to you so you are all aware of what might come next.
Michael
From: Michael Sharples [mallto:mtsharples@principia.edu)
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:47 PM
To: ‘Stuart Jenkins’
Cc: ‘Willard Hanzlik’; ‘Philip Riley’
Subject: Pilot
I responded to a call from Caitlin this afternoon. She told me that she had interviewed you on the salary issue for her Pilot article (deadline tonight) and you suggested she call me, The Q and A covered:
1. Did Stuart ask for an increase? No, this was a trustee initiative consistent with our periodic review of Stuart’s performance and salary. He was not present for the discussion. Since he has been in office for 3 years now, we took a more in-depth approach and concluded that a different benchmark (covering multiple campus operations) was appropriate.
2. She had the $250k number but was uncertain about the previous salary. I referred her to Phil.
3. What did I make when I was CEO? I couldn’t remember but suggested she contact Phil. I told her that I had taken the job after retiring from a full
-7-
career and so was able to do the job as a service, and took a lot more time away from the campuses to use our
mid-career with a young family and different set of obligations and the trustees recognized this difference appropriately.
4. We do riot routinely publish salary data, but certain salaries are published in the Chronicle.
5. Will other salaries now be revised? We are constantly examining the appropriateness of our benchmarks on both campuses. Phil can tell you more about these.
M
MEMO #2
Duped or Visionary?
From: Michael Sharples
Date: Thu, 25 .Jan 2007 09: 42:53 .-0500
To: 'Andy Hunter'
Friends,
I am sure we are doing a lot of soul-searching. Here is where mine is leading.
We are being duped into thinking that this is all about person. Stuart, George, the trustees, the faculty...etc. etc.
The faculty probably feel that over the last ten years they have been oppressed by the administration and trustees (ironically many trustee actions were at the urging of George). We took away from them the right to elect their own Dean, we ignored their request for tenure, we have been slow to respond to their concerns that we measure their salaries from a benchmark of schools they do not feel they should be compared with, they have been pressured to do personal performance evaluations etc. etc. During Dawn’s tenure we gave them a bonus a couple of times. We haven’t done that in a while. So now we have given them two sticks to get our attention...Stuart’s salary increase and George’s departure. They may well censure Stuart and us to make sure that they have our attention...but for what purpose?
-8-
The next step may well be that we move from personalities to issues…then we may be given a list of grievances that could include many of the above. This could be helpful as the process unfolds, and our meeting next week with campus reps may lead in this direction. But the real issue here is all about the vision for Principia.
The faculty vision may be that they run the college as they ARE the College in the traditional academic sense. By creating disequilibrium, they have an opportunity to regain dominance. George’ vision was based on reasserting the role of CS in College life and focusing on creating world citizens that could pray for the world. This was a tough hurdle for the academics. Along comes Stuart with a reassertion of Mrs. Morgan’s vision. ...Whole Man Character Education. That is like climbing Everest for those focused only on academics. The only way to return the agenda to faculty hegemony is to discredit the messengers.
I want to apologize to you all for allowing myself to initiate a salary adjustment for the Chairman/CEO based more on person than principle. ) It should have been based before the fact and not after the fact on the principle of responsibility for two campuses etc. and not on the needs of a mid-career commitment by a family. My comments to the Pilot reinforced the personal rather than the principle. 1 am considering how to rectify this by writing a letter to the Pilot.
The Way (Misc. 355) has us pegged pretty well. Speaking for myself I am still in the self-knowledge phase, I am seeking the humility to listen for the right next steps, and hope to attain the love that will again embrace the whole community.
Michael
