For the love of Principia #23

February 21, 2008

Dear Friends of Principia,

I apologize for being silent for so long. It was easier to give priority to family and work when things were getting back on track at Prin. There is much to be grateful for and to support. David Anable, serving as interim Chief Executive, has been working hard at opening lines of communication and focusing simultaneously on day-to-day decisions and the long-term bigger picture. He is free from many of the distractions that bogged down progress for many months when the campus was alarmingly divided.

Dr. Jonathan Palmer has been hired as the next college President and is transitioning into that position. He will fully assume those duties in July. Because of his interaction with faculty, students, administrators and staff during his selection process there is a palpable eagerness to begin to work together.

The Board of Trustees is well on its way to a transformation to new members with original ideas and new skills who will help Prin continue to evolve so that it will remain a vibrant and effective educational institution.

Of immediate concern is the continuing presence and influence of Stuart Jenkins. Unlike the many administrators, faculty members and staff who where either fired, intimidated to leave or chose to separate themselves from the daily acrimony in 2005-2007, Stuart remains in the CEO’s St. Louis house. He freely mixes on campus with current staff and students. His children are attending school tuition free. And all the while he actively seeds discontent and prophesies doom and gloom for Principia. [ See his new web presence at www.realtruthatprincipia.net ]. This is not fair to anyone on either campus. David Anable, the Trustees, the faculty, the staff and most importantly the students need to be free to move forward without an anchor from the past constantly weighing them down.

The Trustees are meeting on campus this weekend. I urge you to spend two minutes. Send them an e-mail. Support their taking an immediate firm stand. For Prin’s sake Stuart needs to be completely removed from Prin today. Even if Prin can’t stop him from constantly rewriting events during his tenure it should no longer be as an on-campus guest.

For some reason the e-mail addresses for the individual Trustees will not post even though they were included in the draft. You can use Trustees@principia.edu to reach all the Trustees listed below:

"Bill Hays" , "Bob Schwentker" , "Carol Worley" , "Catherine Raffles" , "Chris Towle" , "David Anable" , "Gary Fleener" , "Helen Ostenberg Elswit" , "James Suber" , "Scott Shivers" , "Willard Hanzlik" ,

With gratitude,
Paul Schmidt JD GRI
College ‘71

For the love of Principia #22

December 6, 2007

Dear Friends of Principia #22,

It has been 6 weeks since FOP #21. I have been interacting with faculty, the administration and some alumni during that time period. I have accumulated enough new information that it seems time to send out my next e-mail. I will speak about or share:

(1) A letter to the editor of the Pilot published on 10/26 from Chrissie Sydness (C’07) former Student Body President.

(2) The College faculty continues to address unresolved issues. In late October they met and expressed extreme reservations about the Communication Standards Commission.

(3) The meeting of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update Committee on Principia was held on Monday, November 5, 2007. Principia will remain in the Major Educational Campus category. Any rezoning will have to be compatible with that of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. There will be no office buildings, commercial developmeunanimous recommendation of the subcommittee will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

(4) David Anable, interim CEO and recently appointed Trustee “in- waiting” is on campus, has completed a brief transition with Stuart Jenkins and has assumed full responsibility. He talked to K.C. Gahlon, Staff Writer for The 11/09/2007 Pilot.

(5) On November 9^th the Trustees announced that Stuart had made a report to them on the status of the proposed Town and Country Development and then relinquished his remaining responsibilities to Principia.

(6) Dr. William Weary of Fieldstone Consulting has been charged by the Board of Trustees to conduct a governance audit of Principia. A 10/26/2007 Pilot interview.

(7) Some plaudits plus some concerns about unfinished business.

(1) Letter to the Editor by Chrissie Sydness

Dear Pilot Editors,

I was pleased to read the Board of Trustees’ recent announcements of newly elected members and interim CEO. Though it is not clear what the final straw was that caused the Board to finally accept Stuart Jenkins’ resignation, it was welcome news signaling a time of change. The community can now work toward healing and restoration after almost a year of turmoil and unrest. This is not to say that the healing could not happen with the former CEO intact, but from my interaction with people in the community and involvement in the Resolution Committee, it seems that his departure from office was a necessary step in the healing process.

When we cast our vote on the RC, it was the thought of many in the majority group that our priority was to think of the community over the individual. What would be best for the community? What would do the most good? What needed to happen in order for the community to be restored? As you can imagine this was not easy conclusion to reach. We wrote in our majority report that “It is important to realize the institution as a whole must be more important than any one member. For this institution to heal and move forward we all agreed a change in the top leadership is needed. [We] finally concluded that for many in the community it would be too difficult to rebuild confidence in Stuart or to move on to the broader institutional healing under his leadership’ (see Majority Report to Community, July 18, 2007). The issues the community has faced over the past year have at times consumed our thoughts and governed our actions. Now that the Board has announced this change in administrative leadership, I urge every Principian to focus on moving forward and to commit to fulfilling the institution’s vital purpose.

Most Sincerely,

Chrissie Sydness (C ’07)

Former Student Body President

(2) Resolution of Faculty Senate clashes with established Commission

The members of the Faculty Senate voted against the Commission on Standards in their Faculty Senate meeting on October 23rd. Their decision had the effect of a “no-confidence” vote.

The Commission will consist of five individuals from the Principia community who represent the spectrum of institutional publishing. These individuals will come from Principia College, The Principia School, and the offices of institutional publishing, and, unlike popular speculation suggests, said Fuller, are "not going to be a group of censors." Instead, Commission members will work together to draft a document entitled "Policies for Principia Print and Broadcast Publishing," which will outline standards for Principia publications and make recommendations such as who should be the publisher of the Pilot and the Voice, the student newspaper of the Upper School.

Some faculty members have expressed concern that the Commission’s work may be at odds with Policy 9 of the Principia, which reads, "In all departments of its work, both curricular and extracurricular, The Principia shall place emphasis upon devotion to the democratic way of life and upon the dedication of the individual to its service. Emphasis shall be laid upon the priceless privileges of the democratic way of life expressed in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religious worship, freedom of press."

"My biggest concern is linking Internet radio with the Pilot," said Savoye. "The Pilot isn’t broadcast worldwide. It is distributed on-campus and to 125 campus. The method of distributing the Pilot hasn’t changed in half a century, nor has anything else about it changed that would suddenly require oversight by a Commission."

Savoye expressed particular concern that the question, "Who should be the publisher of the Pilot?" is even "on the table." He said, "There should be no question that the College President is the publisher. This is Principia College’s student-run paper. Who else would be the publisher?" Savoye said that at the very least, whoever is named as the new College President ought to have the right to make that decision

(3) Subject: T&C: Decision of Land Use Plan Committee on Principia Property

The meeting of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update Committee on
Principia was held on Monday, November 5, 2007. Everyone, about
eighteen people, in the audience burst into applause at the end of the
eight o'clock AM meeting.

Principia will remain in the MEC or Major Educational Campus category.
Any rezoning will have to be compatible with that of the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. There will be no office buildings,
commercial development, condos designated in the Plan for any rezoning
of the Principia Property. Members of the committee are Mayor Dalton,
Alderman Fred Meyland-Smith, Susan Feigenbaum, Ron Sulewski, and Harvey
Schneider.

The unanimous recommendation of the subcommittee will be forwarded the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Dalton, Alderman Fred
Meyland-Smith, Ron Sulewski, and Harvey Schneider are members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mariette Palmer, resident

Memo from Alderman Fred Meyland-Smith, Chairman of the Principia Advisory Task Force

The Principia Advisory Task Force Meeting scheduled for 8:00 AM on Friday, November 2 is postponed.

The agenda I was considering for this meeting was to have representatives of Principia join us and provide greater detail on their development concept and to solicit committee and resident input.

I have been advised that the Principia Board of Trustees will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on November 1 - 3 and I anticipate the subjects of potential leadership transition and possible development will be discussed. Therefore, in the interest of the best use of our time, I conclude it is prudent to delay our meeting until more clarity is offered by Principia regarding the manner in which they intend to proceed.

I will reschedule our meeting when I believe it is appropriate

(4) Anable takes office, speaks with Pilot

The Pilot had the opportunity to talk with interim Chief Executive David Anable about his first days on the job. He answered questions about his role as a facilitator of progress, his understanding of the governance audit of Principia, and his optimism about the possibilities for good at Principia.

Principia Pilot: What are the key challenges that you see facing Principia that we need to address in order to strengthen all of the good that is already here?

David Anable: I think it’s been a time of misunderstandings and some divisions, and those misunderstandings need to be corrected and the divisions healed… It takes a little while sometimes to deal with these things. But I think that the process has begun. And so I think perhaps the first thing to do is to have people feel a sense of mutual trust, of mutual understanding, and, where necessary, mutual forgiveness. It’s very hard to move forward without forgiving the misunderstandings of the past… My feeling is that we need to just forgive what appear to have been misunderstandings or resentments or whatever it was and move on, rather than treasuring those resentments and treasuring those misunderstandings and treasuring those divisions. That’s difficult to do, quite frankly. Human nature does not easily let go. I think the key challenge is to have everybody agree that we do have to forgive, to let go, to move forward.

There are plenty of other issues. There are some administrative and other issues which need dealing with, none of which are impossible to deal with. One takes those one by one to resolve them and begin to provide as much honest justice and fairness and mutual respect as one can.

PP: Do you think that there are any immediate changes that need to be made in order to better facilitate that process of forgiveness and reconciliation?

DA: There may be, but I’m still so new that it’s hard for me to tell what specifics still need to be done. Yes, I’ve got a number of ideas on some fairly simple, direct changes that probably need to be made. But I’m not sufficiently plugged in to be able to say, “we’ll do this, we’ll do the other,” because I think that would smack of rush and haste and lack of judgment, and I think this is where we need peace and clear thinking and thoughtfulness and a lot of prayer to understand what are the specific moves that need to be made.

PP: What do you see as your specific role in the process of facilitating the forward movement of the institution?

DA: Listening to people’s ideas and hearing where they think things have gone right and where they think things have gone wrong, and carefully hearing all points of view and trying to decide what is the best course to take. And then being decisive! It’s important to make decisions and to carry them out and do things rather than sit and dither. So I’m expecting that in due course, decisions will have to be made. What they are, I’m not sure. But I don’t like dithering.

PP: We ran a story in our last issue on the governance consultant and governance audit. What is your sense of where that process is headed at this point now that [Dr. Bill Weary] has met with the various constituencies on campus?

DA: Bill Weary will be reporting back to us sort of in stages, probably taking the more urgent issues first. And I think this is a process which could go on for several months while we discuss and work over the issues that he may raise with us. I’m not sure at this point which ones are most urgent, but there clearly are some issues of governance, which do need to be looked at. And I’m learning as fast as Bill, actually, because I’ve also been discussing some of these things with people on both campuses, as well as with Bill

DA: My role is temporary here, and I’m going to have to make some decisions before a new president comes on board. So, I’m also a learner in this process.

One has a very complicated set-up at Principia. There are not very many institutions which exist both as a school, which goes pre-K through twelfth grade, and a liberal arts college. Those types of institutions are rare, especially ones which are based on a particular set of religious principles as we are… We’ve got to work out a way in which Principia’s very specific needs can be best met in governance and that covers a whole range: Who should be CEO? Should there be a CEO? What should be the role of the president? What should be the role of the head of school? How do those three roles coincide? Or two roles if one of them is dropped? How do we set up the Board of Trustees? How do they operate? What are the various relationships between them? There are many, many issues here which are being rethought. I’m not going to second guess any of those. It’s all I can do to keep up with how it works now, let alone how it will work. But again, we can’t sit around and discuss this indefinitely. We’ve got to make some decisions and get on with it, and we will be doing that over the next month or two.

PP: Something that hasn’t been talked about so publicly recently because we’ve been talking about governance as a whole is the issue of the college president and needing to bring somebody on board. Do you think that as this process progresses, it’s going to be important that there is a president in place who is on board with the decisions that are being made and who is helping to make those decisions because they can’t wait. But as much as possible, I feel it’s important to hold some of those decisions over to a new president, because they’re going to want to make their own personnel choices. They’re going to want to make their own choices as to how they operate… I have to do a balance between taking the essential decisions now and leaving as much as possible to an incoming new president.

I will also be in touch with potential new presidents, particularly the one that I think you’ve all met, Jonathan Palmer. Where it seems necessary, I can talk with Jonathan about what he feels about some of these issues as we go along. What I want to do is keep the new president’s options as much open as possible without dithering in the meantime.

PP: What most excites you about Principia and the possibilities you see here?

DA: I think that the possibilities are unlimited. I’m sitting in a seat, which has been held by a number of excellent people, including Stuart Jenkins. I’m grateful for what they’ve contributed over the years. It gives me a nice basis on which to do some interim building. I’m excited by the fact that Principia is so soundly based on principle. And that really makes it unlimited in its options. If this was based on just money or just some narrow educational viewpoint or some strange philosophy, that would be very difficult to handle. But Principia is based solidly and squarely on principle and on the purpose of serving Christian Science. That gives unlimited potential to The Principia at all levels. And that is, I think, very exciting. It’s a wonderful base. If you’ve got a good foundation, whatever needs to be built can be built on it. Principia clearly has a wonderfully strong foundation. And, I would add, some absolutely wonderful people carrying it out. All the basics are there.

(5) Stuart reports to Board and resigns from development position

From: Trustees of the Principia Corporation
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 10:01 AM
To: Els-Faculty; Els-Staff; StL-Faculty; StL-Staff
Cc: 'acorn_parents@prin.edu'; 'pre_parents@prin.edu'; 'lower_parents@prin.edu'; 'middle_parents@prin.edu'; 'upper_parents@prin.edu'; 'parents-els@prin.edu'

Subject: An Announcement

The Principia
Interoffice Correspondence

To: The Principia Community
Fm: The Board of Trustees

During the Board of Trustees’ regularly scheduled meeting last week, we received a report from Stuart Jenkins regarding the status of the exploration of land-development options for the St. Louis campus.

The Board will continue to evaluate the possibilities for the property while a strategic plan for The Principia School is developed. Our goal is to determine the best course of action to benefit Principia, the city of Town & Country, and its residents. No further decisions are expected until the Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting in February 2008.

With the completion of the transition of the CEO's duties from Stuart to interim Chief Executive David Anable, Stuart has relinquished his role in this project. We appreciate Stuart's vision and his untiring efforts in pursuing this matter at the direction of the Board of Trustees.

(6) Principia governance audit begins

Changes to the current governance structure of Principia could be coming soon. Dr. William Weary of Fieldstone Consulting, the governance consultant charged by Principia’s Board of Trustees to conduct a governance audit of Principia, spent time on Principia’s Elsah campus on Tuesday and Wednesday and on the St. Louis campus on Thursday and Friday meeting with many groups and individuals to hear their thoughts on governance at Principia.

As Dr. Weary told the Pilot, one of his duties a governance consultant “will be putting together structures involving different constituencies—staff, faculty, alumni, administrators, parents, and students—to provide insight and perspective to the Board [of Trustees].” This week’s meetings were the beginning of this process.

Governance at Principia has been a subject of great conversation and debate over the past year. Initially, governance was one of three topics to be addressed by the Resolution Committee along with the departure of former College President George Moffett and the performance of former CEO Stuart Jenkins. However, in their July 16 Letter to the Principia community, the Board of Trustees disbanded the Resolution Committee, writing, “At this point, substantive matters of governance need to be addressed in a more open forum with broader input from all constituencies of our community.”

The Board’s letter continued with the indication, “As a first step in the governance review process, the Trustees are planning to bring in a consultant this fall to conduct a seminar for the entire Board on current best practices in the governance of educational institutions.”

According to Trustee Helen Elswit, the Board of Trustees has been considering a governance audit of Principia for the past few years. Recently, she says, “The full Board has charged a governance committee [of Trustees] to examine the structure and function of governance at Principia and how decisions are made.”

Former College President George Moffett responded to Pilot questions by email. He indicated why a governance review of Principia is pertinent at this moment in Principia’s history: “The greatest impetus to a reexamination just now is the widespread perception in the community that the current structure is no longer appropriate or conducive to effective academic governance.”

In light of the events of the past year, some community members have spent time considering what “effective academic governance” is.

The current structure of governance at Principia was adopted in 1983 with the arrival of a new college president. Prior to that time, governance at Principia followed a different model. Under the old governance model, the Dean of the College, a Business Manager, and the Upper School Head of School all reported to the President of Principia who in turn reported to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. In 1983, Principia adopted its current governance model under which the College President, heads of the Principia Corporation including Human Resources personnel, and Upper School Head of School report directly to the Chief Executive Officer, who reports to the Chairman of the Board.

The Pilot talked with Dean of Students Chestnut Booth about her developing ideas for a new governance model at Principia. Booth’s suggestion for a new governance model at Principia focuses on shifting the school away from the centralized control that has come to define Principia’s governance. She questioned the current structure, which places Human Resources personnel at least on an equal level with the College President and Upper School Head of School. She said, "I'd like to see us consider having the President and Head of School report directly to the Trustees and have the centralized services have a joint reporting relationship to the President and Head of School."

Such a model, according to Moffett, would not be unusual. He wrote, “The prevalent, almost universal model in higher education is for the College President to report directly to the Chairman of the Board, and to have control over college budget, personnel, and administrative matters.” He added, “At Principia, this would require also keeping in mind the needs of the entire institution.”

Booth also indicated that one unique governance challenge facing Principia is the question of how to maintain its two campuses as one institution while determining the proper balance between effectiveness and efficiency. She said, "In the quest for the right balance between centralized efficiency and the effectiveness and accountability of the two individual campuses, I hope we can learn from the down side of the recent shift to greater centralization rather than simply have a too extreme pendulum swing away from centralized services."

Dr. Weary said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on possible changes to Principia’s governance structure to the Pilot at this point. He did indicate that his sense that the Board of Trustees is ready for “significant forward movement,” and he also offered his view of the functions of a governing Board. He said, “Boards are not responsible to the constituencies of an institution. They don’t report to them. But if Boards don’t perform appropriately, they won’t have any constituencies.”

After Dr. Weary completes his visit to Principia today, he will be meeting with the members of the Trustee Governance Committee, who will report his initial findings to the full Board at their November meeting. According to a member of a Weary focus group who requested anonymity, Dr. Weary has not yet decided whether he will submit a written report. The Trustees expect the governance audit to be completed by the end of the current academic year, according to Elswit.

(7) Some concerns about unfinished business:

I’m grateful that David Anable has taken the reins and seems to be listening and responding thoughtfully to those who express concerns and reservations to him.

I’m grateful that the grievance that was filed against Craig Savoie, the faculty advisor for the Pilot for publishing Dr Traci Bliss’ recent letter to the editor concluded and he was absolved.

The Principia
Interoffice Correspondence

To: Elsah Faculty and Staff
From: Dean of Academic Affairs, Faith Paul
Date: November 30, 2007
Subject: Resolution
The grievance process against Craig Savoye has concluded. He will retain his employment at Principia and remain as adviser to the Pilot. The process exposed the need for a specific set of principles to help guide the Pilot adviser and student editors in their decision making. The previously announced committee, headed by John Hughes, will draft that set of principles. Craig has agreed, as adviser to the Pilot, to abide by those principles when they are finally established.

I trust the turnover in members of the Board of Trustees will continue until all those who enabled Stuart Jenkins to subvert the principles of governance are gone. As Chrissie Sydness opined in her letter “we all agreed a change in the top leadership is needed”. The Board is a self-perpetuating body. It needs to complete the renewal process so confidence can be fully restored.

I trust the lessons learned from the failed process of Jim Reeves investigation and the snubbing of the Resolution Committee by both Reeves and the Board [no comprehensive final written report by the fact finder which the community could digest, debate and use as a blueprint for change] and a predetermination by the Trustees of the outcome will not be repeated by Dr. Weary as he undertakes his governance audit and makes recommend-

dations.

I trust a new College President will soon be named so that the campus can stop “treading water” and coalesce under new leadership.

With gratitude,

Paul D.Schmidt JD GRI

C ‘71

For the love of Principia #21

October 25, 2007

Dear Friends,

The October 18^th resignation of CEO Stuart Jenkins was a welcome relief after many months of increasing angst on both campuses, an ever widening circle of engaged alumni and mounting written and oral evidence of misdeeds. However, this was just the beginning of the healing process.

I have heard from many of you over the past week. The repeated themes were relief, gratitude and a resolve for serious introspection, honest acknowledgment of wrongdoing and institutional changes that ensure that this nightmare cannot reoccur.

I recall fondly a Principia where the atmosphere was familial. Friendly greetings between passers-by were the rule. Missteps were forgiven as healing was evidenced. Commonalities were accentuated, rather than differences, but differing views were nourished. Parties representing all segments of the community worked in concert energized by a common love of Principia and Christian Science. It wasn’t nirvana but it was a place we cherished and hoped our children would also experience.

This past year there was an alarming disconnect between CEO Stuart Jenkins, the Trustees, a few administrators and staff on one hand and many of the administrators, faculty, staff and students on the other. Such was the oppressiveness of the prevailing atmosphere that some on campus were temporarily silenced through an atmosphere of “intimidation and fear” as stated in the majority report from the Resolution Committee back in July. There were those who bravely spoke out. The Pilot reported independently. Voices in the field asked for change. Nothing appeared to have any effect.

Some of those contacting me recently had heard that a group of distinguished Principians had written a letter to the Editor of the Pilot that was published in Pilot on October 12^th. This group had unsuccessfully tried to engage the Board in discussion for four months and had decided that it was time to share their experience with the community. Their letter is not publicly posted, but is available by request at the email address included in their letter to the Editor as provided in this excerpt:

…Since retiring from Principia, we have shied away from second-guessing those who succeeded us as Trustees, Chairman, CEO, College President, Head of School, and other key positions. We know the challenges of these positions and that those in these roles are often faced with very difficult decisions. While we have tried to remain out of the public eye on the issues currently at hand, we believe that at this time it is appropriate to share with the Principia family our concern about the present situation, our prayers for resolution and healing, and some of the steps we have taken. …

Today, about four months after first communicating as a group with the Trustees, we do not feel that they have demonstrated a sincere desire for dialogue as they had indicated back in January. As the challenges at Principia have escalated, and without evidence of reasonable progress or a viable roadmap for resolution, we believe that it is appropriate to share our experience with the community. For these reasons, and out of a desire for greater transparency, we have decided to make our letters to the Board available on request from our* collective email address: principia2007@gmail.com.

We appreciate that the Trustees have recently written of their desire to “seek the common ground that unites us.” As we all work together for the benefit of Principia, it is critical that all participants demonstrate the ascendancy of Principle over person. We all yearn to see evidence at Principia of the practice of leadership that restores trust. …

Principia is blessed to be built on such a strong foundation and to harbor within her family so many wonderful people. The inspired prayers, the critical thinking, the deep love for what is right and good by every member of our extended family, will yield the fruit of healing. …

* John Boyman Former President of Principia College

Hank Hamlin Former Director of Publications for Principia

Margie Hamlin Former Principia International Student Advisor

Doug Hawes Former Principia Trustee

Dawn Larmer Former Chairman Principia Board of Trustees, CEO

Bob Larsen Former Principia Financial Development Director

Bill Truitt Former Headmaster, Principia St. Louis Campus

Char Wachtel Former Principia Trustee

My hope is that Principia’s strong foundation will support the healing process that is now needed. Principia has certainly been threatened by the internal struggles. Many well loved members of the Prin community were either forced to leave or left in frustration and disgust. If this period of intense disharmony is followed by radical healing that leaves Prin more united and democratic and with governance safeguards that ensure this debacle won’t be repeated, their sacrifice will not have been in vain.

The primary issue is not one of change vs. the status quo. Principia has always been about progress, which necessarily includes change. The primary issue has been about what constitutes progress and how it is achieved. In addition to formulating and articulating a viable strategic plan, decisions must always be based on Principle, not person as required by Policy 7. Those entrusted with the stewardship of Principia must employ the appropriate tone, tactics, and temperament in all that they do so that they educate by their own example.

I have received pleas by phone and e-mail for the next steps to include:

*public acknowledgment of wrongdoing

*honest and open admissions of mistakes

*apologies to those inappropriately fired or forced out

*the departure of anyone who enabled the perversion of Mary Kimball Morgan’s vision

*a genuine collaboration between the Trustees and other members of the Principia community to ensure that all elements have a permanent voice

*the enactment of rules of governance than ensure a diverse Board of Trustees and institution wide leadership that satisfies Policy 17’s standard […every post shall be filled with the most effective individual available].

Although many are still eager to make public their stories of wrongdoing I hope our energies will now be spent “walking in the same direction”.

Enough venting, together let’s ascend to the heights.

Watch and pray.

With gratitude,

Paul D. Schmidt

College ‘71

For the love of Principia #20 Let the healing begin!

Subject: [US'18] Announcement
From: "Trustees of the Principia Corporation" <trustees@prin.edu>
Date: Thu, October 18, 2007 4:04 pm
To: "Els-Faculty" <Els-Faculty@prin.edu>, "Els-Staff"
<Els-Staff@prin.edu>, "StL-Faculty" <StL-Faculty@prin.edu>, "StL-Staff"
<StL-Staff@prin.edu>
Cc: acorn_parents@prin.edu, pre_parents@prin.edu,
lower_parents@prin.edu, upper_parents@prin.edu, middle_parents@prin.edu

The Principia
Interoffice Correspondence

To: The Principia Community
Fm: The Board of Trustees

Dear Friends,

As Principia emerges from a period of profound self-reflection, and builds on the spirit of humility and love that has always characterized our institution, the 110^th year of our school’s story continues to unfold.

Stuart Jenkins has requested that we accept his resignation as Chief Executive Officer and Trustee of Principia. His deep love for Principia and his concern for its capacity to move forward under the current circumstances have led him to this conclusion. We agree with his concern and have accepted his resignation. The Board is very grateful for his unwavering commitment to finding solutions to entrenched issues that need to be resolved. He has put his heart and soul into improving the students’ experience, upgrading programs and facilities, and causing us all to examine our accountability for fulfilling Mrs. Morgan’s vision. He has agreed to be available for the transition to his successor.

The Board has appointed David J. Anable to fulfill the interim role as Chief Executive of Principia. Accordingly, David will defer taking office as a Trustee until this assignment is complete. In this capacity, he will coordinate the activities of the two campus heads and all shared services, fulfill the ongoing duties of the CEO’s office, and prepare the way for the future leadership of Principia. Biographical information about David can be found in our letter of September 10, 2007, which is posted on our website: www.prin.edu/trustees/correspondence/09102007.shtml. Stuart and David plan to work through the transition next week.

The current Governance Study will help provide the framework for any changes that may be made subsequently in Principia’s organizational structure, but it is still too early to provide an indication of what those might be.

Please join us in expressing heartfelt thanks to Stuart for all that he accomplished during his tenure, and extending a warm welcome to David with gratitude for his willingness to serve.

Most sincerely,

The Board of Trustees

Friends of Principia #19

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 16^th 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