Dear Friends of Principia #6,
I apologize for not getting back to you as promised. Some of the information I was expecting did not become available as quickly as possible. And events were transpiring so rapidly that I kept thinking "just wait until you can report this, and this, and this…"
Some of the news is encouraging [the faculty and staff at both campuses are very united in its concern about the leadership of both CEO Stuart Jenkins and the Trustees]. Most of the news is very alarming [Stuart Jenkins and the Trustees are moving ahead dismantling the historic administrative structure at Principia "Damn the torpedoes" (blatantly ignoring the pleas of the college faculty, deans, students and hundreds of alumni to (1) pause and not appoint new trustees and to (2) reconsider the forced departure of the Moffetts].
As prescribed by the Trustees, 6 representatives were elected from each campus to be part of the dispute resolution process.
From St. Louis:
Faculty- Nancy Heimerl and Lynne Evans
Business Office- Doug Gibbs and Paula Manker
Staff- Craig Fredrickson and Alice Stanley
From the college:
Faculty- Linda Bohaker and Greg Sandford
Staff- Chestnut Booth and Patty Langton
Students- Forrest Bless (Chrissie Sydness is also a representative but was unavailable on Saturday.)
From the trustees:
Helen Elswit and Bill Hays
The initial 3 hour meeting took place Saturday at the Guest House on the college campus. The participants discussed the requirements for a fact finding process, the desired qualifications for a fact finder, the process of identifying eligible persons and securing the services of whomever is elected. The majority of the meeting was dedicated to each participant sharing his/her issues that need to be addressed. A list of issues or questions to be resolved was compiled. [Attached as "preliminary list…"] A report by the reps from the St. Louis campus gives a more complete account. [Attached as "report from Prin mtg…]
As mentioned in Friends of Principia #5/for the love of Prin #5, the College Faculty has hired an attorney to advise them: Charles C McCarter of McCarter & Greenley, LLC, St. Louis, MO. Since the CEO and Trustees are "well represented" by lawyers Prin pays for, the Faculty was very wise to also retain counsel. Mr. McCarter is an alumnus US '44, C'50, the father of Prin grads and has practiced for over 50 years. He has experience successfully representing Prin employees. To facilitate our assisting in paying his fees the College Faculty has set up an account, called the "Advocacy Fund". Donations are not tax deductible at this time. Qualifying for tax exempt status takes some time. However, this is a very tangible way to help those "waging" the fight to preserve Principia. I'm going to channel my customary Prin donations to this worthy cause.
The Advocacy Fund
It's a sad day when one cannot use the Principia mail system.
Now I will share the really alarming news. While the Saturday meeting with the campus reps was taking place, in a seeming spirit of cooperation, the CEO and Trustees were simultaneously taking actions which were a slap in the face to the College Faculty, students, the College Deans, concerned alumni and most of all the Moffetts.
Wednesday morning, in an interoffice e-mail, all were informed that on Friday and Saturday new trustees were elected AND a new position of interim Dean of the College was created. Judy Felch, member of the art department faculty, was appointed to "manage the educational and administrative affairs of Principia College". She will report to Dr Moffett until he "retires" in June and then to the CEO during the balance of the "transition period".
I call this "a coup de Principia"! The response by the CEO and Trustees to sincere pleas by the College Faculty, Deans, students and alumni to ask the Moffetts to stay is to emasculate Dr Moffett's position until he is forced to leave. Have they no decency? [Attached interoffice correspondence 2.21.07]
Unfortunately, this un-Christian action mirrors what has already occurred at the St. Louis campus. Employees are manipulated and played off against each other. It's no wonder so many Prin employees are so afraid to speak openly about their abhorrence for what is happening at Prin.
How poorly the CEO and Trustees have judged us…who put Principle above person. They are wearying of the barrage of e-mails and letters that bring daily messages of condemnation for their actions and promises that "right will prevail". Each move to further solidify Stuart's personal iron grip on everyone and everything at Principia is met with loud and forceful resistance. The sleeping lion has been awakened. Hopefully this is the "darkest hour before the dawn".
Please keep up the good and necessary work! Here are some ways.
(1) Prayerfully treat our beloved Principia each day.
(2) Alert more alumni and friends of Principia to this crisis and the need to continue to speak out by letter or e-mail to the Trustees.
(3) Continue communicating your concerns to the Trustees.
(4) Help the College Faculty with their legal expenses.
(5) Organize your Prin clubs and tell the Alumni Office that you are postponing all scheduled Prin Club activities until the on campus grievances are resolved to the satisfaction of the faculty and staff.
This is no time for business as usual.
(6) Write a letter to the Editor of the Pilot. [Next published 1/1/2007]
(7) Look for upcoming innovative ways to speak out.
With gratitude,
Paul D. Schmidt JD GRI
College C'71
PS Attached are also several Letters to the Editor from the 2/16/07 edition,
attachments #5-9
PPS Don't forget to check www.truthatPrincipia.org daily for new information
PPPS Call Principia College at 1-800-277-4648, ask for The Pilot office and subscribe to the campus newspaper to keep up to date on what's happening on campus. It's published 12 times each school year.
******************************************************************************************
Date: February 19, 2007
To: All Faculty and Staff
Fm: The Board of Trustees
Re: Principia Board of Trustees Report, February 15-17, 2007
Dear Friends,
We are glad to share a brief report with you on the meetings we held this past weekend. On Thursday, we met one-on-one with unit heads on the
The results of the election of new Trustees will be announced after the process is complete, which includes acceptance by those appointed. The new Trustees will take office at our April meeting.
On Thursday the Board received a report from the Salary Reform Study Committee on revised compensation benchmarks for both campuses, and asked for an expedited review of the recommendations by an independent compensation consultant. Our goal is to give final approval of the report at the April Trustees’ meeting. Steps can then be taken to implement adjustments in compensation levels on both campuses to reflect the new benchmarks.
On Saturday afternoon, two representatives of the Board joined 11 representatives (six from the
The Trustees also established a website at http://www.prin.edu/trustees/ on which will be posted documents and communications relating to the Board and its activities.
We are deeply thankful for the spirit of cooperation and unselfish service shown by all who met with us, and we look forward to sharing additional reports with you as further steps unfold.
With warm regards,
Board of Trustees
Katharine Bullock Helen Elswit Margaret Foerster
Willard Hanzlik William Hays Durant Hunter
Stuart Jenkins Michael Sharples Charles Spaulding, III
Christopher Towle
Dear Friends,
We would like to report to you briefly on the meeting held on Saturday with representatives of the trustees. Here is the list of people participating:
From
Faculty-
Business Office- Doug Gibbs and
Staff-
From the college-
Faculty- Linda Bohaker and Greg Sandford
Staff- Chestnut Booth and Patty Langton
Students- Forrest Bless (Chrissie Sydness is also a representative but was unavailable on Saturday.)
From the trustees-
Helen Elswit and Bill Hays
Helen began the meeting with readings. Then Bill Hays explained that there were two items on the agenda. First, to select a mediator, or determine how we would select a mediator. Second, we were to compose a list of issues on the table so we would know how to best proceed. We were not expected to answer questions, or sort and debate issues—just compose a list.
Bill passed out resumes for two mediators in the
A discussion followed that resulted in the following points:
- We are looking for a person who can be a facilitator/fact finder rather than a mediator. The process is conducted from a different point of view—that of working together to solve problems rather than having two sides in a confrontational format.
- We should be looking nationwide rather than limiting ourselves to the
- We should be looking for a Christian Scientist, although there was some concern expressed that we could find a Christian Scientist who is independent of the issues at hand.
- It would be helpful to find someone who has experience with educational institutions.
- We are open to the possibility of a panel of people, rather than one individual.
- The idea was presented that perhaps we could do this ourselves, rather than turning over fact finding to others.
The next order of business was compiling a list of issues and/or questions to be resolved. The trustees emphasized that everything was open, and that there did not need to be a limit on issues. They said that there would be no attempt to censor any issues or concerns. They also said that this does not need to be the final list. Other items can be added as they come up or as new information comes to light.
We generated a list of between 90 and 100 items. This was done by going around the room with each person reading the concerns that had been suggested to them by their constituents. There were several themes that were re-occurring. Three different people kept a list, with others taking copious notes as well. We have not yet compared the lists, but as soon as we have a composite list we will send it out to all of you.
Toward the end of the meeting, one of the college representatives asked the trustees if they still intended to appoint five new trustees that weekend. They answered that they did. The college representative commented that that seemed like a bad faith move, since it suggested that the governance issue for the trustees was not really on the table, so to speak. There was no further explanation on the part of the trustees.
The next step is for all of us to seek out the names of people who might serve as the facilitator/ fact finder who will best serve this process. We do not have another meeting set up at this time.
The six of us who represent the
“There is but one side to good, — it has no evil side; there is but one side to reality, and that is the good side.
God is All, and in all: that finishes the question of a good and a bad side to existence.”
Christian Healing by Mary Baker Eddy 10:10-14
Sincerely,
The
Nancy, Lynne, Doug, Paula, Craig, and Alice
“O loving Father, well we know
That words alone are vain,
That those who seek Thy will to do,
The true communion gain.
Then may our deeds our pure desire
For growth in grace express,
That we may know how Love divine
Forever waits to bless.”
Christian Science Hymnal Hymn 269:3
February 17, 2007
Preliminary list of issues
Please note: This is the list that was generated at the meeting last Saturday. It is not intended to be comprehensive. Those at the meeting acknowledged that with the short notice for the meeting, people did not have time to contact representatives with issues. If you have something that concerns you, please contact your representative(s) with your views.
List of Issues from all constituents:
1. Did the Trustees actually give Michael Sharples $40,000 when he retired from being CEO? In light of the financial constraints for Principia at the time, why would this be done?
2. Inappropriate terminations – appropriate hiring/firing processes;
i. Does Principia request non-disclosure when someone leave
ii. Why?
3. Is Principia focusing more on boys vs. girls in leadership, opportunities and education on the St L campus?
4. Is there cronyism at Principia and why? (Perception that a new boys club makes decisions without including others or following procedures required of others.) Are they running the school?
5. Benchmarking for everyone
i. US feels the faculty are being left out of Benchmarking (process is unclear)
ii. Why is this opaque rather than a transparent process?
iii. No representation of classroom teachers on benchmarking committee
iv. How are these benchmarks arrived at?
6. CEO’s salary issue
i. Why were the Trustees not sensitive to know a substantial change in the CEO’s salary would upset the employees?
ii. How was the CEO’s salary increase arrived at?
iii. The Benchmark is not transparent
iv. What is the measurement? To what schools/institutions/organizations was it compared?
v. How did and how should the community have learned of the increase?
7. Inappropriate listening/caring of CEO towards employee questions and concerns
8. Concerns about this process
i. Independent representation of each group
ii. Cannot agree to anything at this time
iii. Meetings should not be confidential
iv. The process should not move too fast to be done well, though it should move with deliberate speed
9. Governance
i. Bad start if Trustees appoint 5 new members before issues are addressed
ii. How are Trustees appointed?
iii. Proper representation of constituents and other perspectives
iv. Term limits: criteria for term limits and are the criteria being applied differentially
v. Should there be some kind of democratic representation
vi. Define stakeholders in ultimate system of government and who need to participate in this process
vii. What are best practices for the structure and governance of higher education academic institutions and how do we implement them at Principia?
viii. Tenure
10. Trustees clarification of no retribution for this process
i. No termination of any participating in this process for 2 years
ii. No budget cuts that might be seen as directed against anyone participating in this process
11. Concern about the CEO’s integrity and implications for character education
12. Concern about the CEO’s management style and skills
13. Valuing people (cultural issue)
i. Compensation philosophy
ii. More transparent structure for determining pay increases and salaries
iii. An evaluation process that leads to improvement and development
iv. Training
v. Listen to each other, share ideas, foster open discourse
vi. An environment of trust that values and has confidence in its faculty
14. What are the goals and responsibilities for the institution?
15. Reporting responsibilities
i. Who owns the curriculum? Who makes curricular decisions?
ii. Is change in college President’s reporting structure temporary or permanent?
iii. Roles, responsibilities, checks and balances, reporting relationships, selection processes, and operating procedures from the Trustees level to all employees
iv. From the trustees down to the faculty, who is responsible for what?
v. What is the place of all employees?
vi. Structural relation between college and corporation, school and corporation; proper structure for Prin as a college.
vii. What is the relationship between the trustees and the school?
viii. Be more transparent about roles and selection
16. What are best practices for Prin that are consistent with higher ed? Tenure would be an example of that.
17. Have we become a business that also has a school attached rather than a school that happens to have a business?
18. Faculty is not properly supported by Head of School who is not an academic
19. Who is Marilyn Walllace and why do we see her so seldom?
20. Is Principia now a school for character education rather than a school for CS?
21. Why was the website changed to emphasize character education and take off “A school for Christian Scientists”?
22. Are the Admissions standards changing?
23. Branding and image creation seems to be removing Mrs. Morgan’s chosen name and symbol (sheaf of wheat)
i.
24. Benchmarking doesn’t seem to include the
i. Why is it secret?
ii. There’s no clear sense of how salaries are assigned
iii. Is there no representation of classroom teachers on the benchmark committee?
25. Out of balance emphasis on athletics
i. Affecting student grades
ii. Academics taking a back seat
iii. Amount of time given on St L campus to academic day is decreasing while more is required for athletics
iv. College building an athletic center when programs are being cut
26. Those making decisions about curriculum and academic day are never in the classroom observing the classes
i. Head of School not an educator and is not learning about the education and what should happen in a school
ii. Concern about people who call themselves educators but are not teachers
27. How can CEO position be discussed and assessed while he is a member of the board? Perceived as a conflict of interest
28. Condescending view of classroom teachers by administrators- comparing them to factory workers
29. Culture of fear and lack of trust due to not being fully informed
i. Is information filtered?
ii. How do trustees get information?
iii. St Louis Faculty would like more direct contact with the Trustees
30. Students would like to really know why current college President resigned.
i. Current college President asked his situation be excluded from the process
ii. Does this group want to honor his request?
iii. Some information surrounding this might be vital to the process.
31. Composition of the Board of Trustees and Governance
i. Other stakeholders represented, including students
ii. Publish charter of board and what their job is and how it functions
iii. What are the Trustee perks?
iv. What are the term limits?
v. When the trustees are here, what are they doing?
vi. Would like a level a transparency
32. Are there enough checks and balances- within the board and with other constituencies?
i. Related to Board and executive officers
ii. How is the board kept in check with other constituencies?
iii. Is there a better model for more power distribution instead of a hierarchical model?
33. More shared power and vision between the Trustees and all constituencies than currently exists
34. Are we a corporate entity or an educational institution?
35. What is the difference between K-12 and college? Are we considering them separately? Should there be a clear distinction? Should they be managed differently?
36. Gary Krisel said CEO envisioned having every Trustee’s resignation letter in a drawer and he could pull them out when he needed it. Is this true?
37. Does CEO report to the Trustees, or do the Trustees report to CEO?
38. Why was Gary Krisel’s resignation announced months late instead of when it was tendered?
39. Cleaning up integrity issues surrounding CEO should take precedence in the proceedings and is very important to students
i. There are issues around the current CEO and issues around governance.
ii. The current CEO issues are more pressing, but the governance issues are long term
iii. The fact that the CEO is in such a high leadership position is critical for students
40. The
i. Did this affect Jack Hubbel’s resignation?
ii. Did the CEO talk to TMC about this before the policy?
iii. Should Maggie Forester still be on?
iv. What is the TMC’s actual policy?
41. Are people lined up for positions before the normal hiring process is followed?
i. Positions are outlined before resignations are tendered.
ii. Is this getting the “right people on the bus” without the right process? Sense is that people are pushed out with a plan already in place of knowing who will fill that slot.
iii. Is this ethical? Are these best practices?
42. Rebuild Trust
i. With Trustees and Employees
43. Eliminate a culture of fear
i. Lack of trust
ii. Not fully informed
44. Trim to Grow –what are the actual facts?
i. Strong financial constraints
ii. Frozen departmental budgets
iii. Pressure to cut FTEs
iv. Cuts on services
45. What did
i. Attributed problems to President rather than CEO
46. What were the exact motions in the Faculty Senate when they took a no confidence vote?
47. What is the chronology of benchmarking the raise for the CEO?
48. Re-establish trust between Trustees and employees
49. The hiring and firing process raises many questions.
50. Do Trustees only know what CEO tells them?
51. Need better sense of unity between
i. One institution
52. Why have requirements for athletics increased in
i. Students must participate at a higher level of interscholastic involvement and can only be excused with the consent of the AD
53.
54. Not much value placed on training in education, but sense that anyone can be an educator
55. Line between governance and management at all levels
i. Big Picture vs. managers—is there micromanaging?
ii. Do more employees need the big picture?
iii. Need for procedures based on principles rather than personal authority
56. Disconnect in communication at various levels
i. Professional concerns need to be considered, rather than dismissed as personal complaints
ii. What is the responsibility of people making the decisions and people carrying out the details?
57. Clearer process for grievances
58. Clear decision making model
i. Not based on Fear, Money, Person, or Position
59. Why are there so many new initiatives being created coming down from above without enough time and resources allocated, and without finishing old initiatives, and no communication of vision or recognition of operational duties? Any connection to master plan?
60. Should Principia be benchmarking ourselves against other schools or should we be setting a bar that is higher?
61. Concern about character assassination? Has the process been fair?
62. Decisions are often made in a hurry. Processes are set aside for the sake of getting started.
63. Concern about a number of consultants paid lots of money to get results that employees have known for years, yet employee input was not considered
64. Lack of professional development for some positions- not encouraged
65. Lack of clear path for advancement and feedback in positions
66. No structured review process in being followed
67. Need better coordination with the business office to coordinate budget issues and program decisions
i. If people carrying out the budgets knew more about the budget they could better plan and coordinate programs
Issues presented by Trustees:
1. What actions can be taken to restore mutual trust and communication among constituencies?
2. Does Principia have an ends-justify-the-means culture, and, if so, how can it be changed?
3. Is there a culture of fear at Principia? If so, how do we eliminate it?
4. How do we create at Principia a culture of discourse?
5. Do the Trustees put their self-interests above Principia’s interests?
6. Are the Trustees micromanaging the College?
7. Was borrowing money for the College athletic facility irresponsible?
8. Did the CEO push the Board to borrow the money?
9. Does Principia place too much of an emphasis on athletics?
10. Are there gender issues involved in any of the CEO’s hiring or firing of personnel?
11. Has the CEO fired qualified people and hired unqualified people?
12. Does the CEO follow a proper procedure in hiring people?
13. Has the CEO been evaluated by the Board?
14. Is that evaluation public?
15. How does the board get the information they need to evaluate to CEO?
16. Is Principia admitting non-Christian Scientists, especially in athletics, or did the CEO direct or attempt to influence anyone to do so?
17. What do the Trustees think the significance of the AQIP report is?
18. Did the CEO suggest to the Trustees that the College was in danger of losing its accreditation?
19. What actions of the CEO did the Trustees not support?
20. Did the Trustees support the CEO’s raise?
21. Did the CEO ask any Trustee for a raise?
22. Did the CEO threaten to quit if he did not get a raise?
23. Did Trustees encourage the CEO to take the raise?
24. Did the Trustees have any benchmarking data for the CEO’s raise?
25. Did the CEO say that he was the last person benchmarked and that everyone else had been benchmarked?
26. Did the Trustees engage in a conspiracy of silence regarding the CEO’s raise and cause tax forms to be filed late?
27. Did any Trustee attempt to make a thorough overhaul of the compensation system at Principia, and were they prevented by the Board or the CEO from doing so?
28. What’s the status of trim to grow and how did it impact the CEO’s raise?
29. For what positions at the College did the CEO consider the Head of School?
30. Did the CEO offer the College President’s position to anyone?
31. Did any community members act improperly under community standards or otherwise in violating anyone’s privacy or confidentiality?
32. Did Trustees resign in protest or refuse to be re-elected over the CEO’s or the Board’s actions?
33. Did the CEO engage in a three-year campaign to fire the College President?
34. Have College budgets and FTEs been reduced over the last three years?
35. Is the Board a closed club, an old-boys club, or selected from the CEO’s inner circle, and do they all know each other before being elected and vote the same way?
36. Do they talk outside of meetings?
37. Are the Trustees out of touch and why?
38. Does the CEO manage and manipulate the Board?
39. Was and is the CEO qualified to be CEO and Chairman?
40. How can all constituencies better view Principia as one institution?
41. Is the emphasis on whole man character education accepted on both campuses?
42. Did the CEO accept the job as Chairman/CEO to make more money than he was making, to live in a bigger house, or because his business was failing and he needed a job?
43. Did the CEO ask other Trustees to elect him Chairman?
44. Did the CEO ask for a new car because he missed his BMW and did not want to drive his predecessor’s old car?
45. Did the Board give the CEO any directions on the matter of Trustee rotation?
46. What are the events surrounding the former Chairman and CEO’s $40,000 retirement gift?
47. Does the CEO have a financial advisor on the Board or any inappropriate financial relationship?
48. Was the CEO’s investment relationship with other Trustees disclosed under the Board’s conflict-of-interest policy?
49. Did the CEO advise the Board prior to the College President’s resignation that the faculty was going to vote on a no-confidence measure regarding the College President?
50. Does the CEO use confidentiality as an excuse to hide improper dealings or unethical decisions?
51. Does the CEO hold himself to the same standard of confidentiality that he asks of others?
Interoffice Correspondence
Date: Febuary 21, 2007
To: All Faculty and Staff
Fm: The Board of Trustees
Re: Interim Dean of the College
Judith Felch has accepted the Trustees’ request to postpone her previously announced retirement in June, 2007, in order to assume the position of Interim Dean of the College effective at the beginning of Spring Quarter. She has agreed to serve in this newly created position until the next president of
The Interim Dean of the College will be responsible for managing the educational and administrative affairs of
In accepting this appointment, Judith said, “I am looking forward to working closely with my faculty and staff colleagues in a collaborative manner to assure that all voices are heard and that decisions are made in the best interest of our students and Principia. We all have a timely opportunity to rebuild trust and to move
Bill Hays, Chairman of the Board, said, “Judith brings to this interim position an extraordinarily broad and deep background at
Judith Felch is a 1967 graduate of
Alumnus calls alumni to action against poor leadership of and questionable actions taken by CEO and trustees
Dear Editor,
I graduated from Prin College in 1971. I served on the NEC [National Executive Committee] from 2000-2003. I have been on the board of the Portland, Oregon Prin Club since 1996. Partially as a result of those experiences I know the Moffetts, Clarks and Sharples very well. I have had several opportunities to meet and observe Stuart Jenkins. I have ties to or an acquaintance with many of the other individuals who are prominent in the current crisis.
My wife Brooke Howell Schmidt and I graduated from Prin College in 1971. When our children Ashley and Blake were at Prin College [C’2000 and C’2003] they were the 18th and 19th members of our family to attend Prin. It is why I care so deeply for Prin and am so concerned about the current situation which I believe is an unprecedented catastrophe.
Three weeks ago, when the Pilot article about Stuart Jenkins’ huge pay raise was published I became proactive and wrote an e-mail to 150 alumni I knew, alerting them to the challenges at hand. I asked for their prayers and activism. I had been aware of disturbing changes on both campuses for several years. The announcement last fall that the Moffetts were leaving was the proverbial “final nail in the coffin” that I had long feared. I have received phone calls and e-mails from more than 75 alumni, many of whom were not part of my original mailing list, who are concerned and have become proactive now that they better understand the challenges those on the campuses face each day.
Several individuals shared with me how they had been mistreated or were fired by Stuart or his minions. The malfeasance includes wrongful firing of employees, favoritism in hiring and promotions, cronyism in appointments, emphasis on athletics rather than the whole man, threatening dissident faculty, staff and trustees, and lying about credentials, conversations and events. At a school founded on character education this is an indefensible situation. The pattern of un-Christian, immoral and even illegal actions is clear. Many of the adults are not setting the best examples for the students. I believe much of this uncharacteristic misbehavior is caused by the individual’s fear for his livelihood and reputation. Being a team player [supporting Stuart] has become the accepted measuring tool.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no balance in leadership at Prin. The Trustees’ obvious priority is protecting Stuart at all costs, rather than the best interest of Principia as a whole. His complete removal from any association with Principia is paramount.
I applaud the college faculty who continue to speak out. It upsets me that the Trustees are attempting to marginalize and discredit their recommendations. I find these recommendations well founded. Their implementation would go a long way to resolve this crisis.
The seriousness of the problem is underlined when the CEO and the Trustees continue to speak and act unrepentantly even with the spotlight focused on their every word and move. While there are proclamations of change and some remorse the threatening, cajoling, isolating, misrepresenting, and lying only seems to be intensifying.
Real change will only occur only when everyone understands the facts about how Stuart and the Trustees have abused their power. It therefore becomes incumbent on individuals who are currently at Principia, as well as those who are no longer there, who have witnessed egregious behavior, to speak out. I know that facts exist that will force Stuart and many of the Trustees to leave so that strong, moral leadership can replace them. However, until those voices of truth are heard, the uninformed will still believe the cover up, misinformation, and lies.
How can you help? We need to hear from faculty, staff, parents, alumni and students. There are several available forums: letters [e-mails] sent directly to Stuart and the Trustees, letters [e-mails] published at TruthatPrincipia.org, letters [e-mails] to The Pilot and interviews with The Pilot. Each time a person speaks on the record it emboldens others and at the same time makes dissenters more secure. There is safety in numbers, especially on such a public stage.
With gratitude,
Elizabeth Pond praises Pilot, supports Dr. Moffett
Thank you very much for your conscientious coverage of the issue of Principia’s governance. Among other things, Pilot articles perform a real service in keeping those of us in the larger Prin community off campus informed about what is going on.
Just before the faculty-trustees meeting in early February, I emailed a letter about what I see as the central issue to the faculty senate and to the trustees. Through the pages of the Pilot, I would also like to write essentially the same letter to college students as important actors and thinkers in the sorting out that is now in process:
As indications mount that President George Moffett did not resign of his own volition but was fired by the administration (if by roundabout means), I cannot remain silent. I speak as a lifelong Christian Scientist; a member of The Mother Church for 57 years; a Principia graduate; a visiting professor twice (including 2007) at the college; and someone who owes my life twice over to the action of prayer and the operation of divine Principle - once when I was captured in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge and Viet Cong and threatened with being shot, and once when a medical diagnosis of a degenerative disease 35 years ago gave me only a few months left to live.
It seems to me that the main issue in the present controversy is the continuing vitality of Christian Science in today’s world. George has brought to Principia not only an impressive speakers series of American presidents and world Nobel Prize laureates, support for every student activity from the solar car to basketball, and a genuine interest in every member of the Prin community; he and Martha have also brought a restoration of the feeling, as John Williams expressed it last November, that it’s “cool” to espouse Christian Science. It is clear that both the Moffetts apply the deep insights of Christian Science unabashedly to enhancing academic excellence at the college and to countermanding the global ills of war, poverty, and the like that cry out for redress. And they welcome the fellowship of faculty, staff, and students who do the same.
This is an approach that is just the opposite of an ivory tower. It invites Christian Scientists to apply the wonderful truths that we all cherish to the healing of our world as well as to the healing of our bodies. I would hate to see this awe for the transforming power of the Christ diminished by the premature departure from the college of those who have done so much to foster it.
Finally, I would add that the Moffetts have helped greatly to strengthen respect for openness, honesty, accountability, and moral courage at the college. This is just the opposite of a culture of secrecy that lends itself so easily to backroom maneuvering, the fait accompli, and even character assassination. It saddens me to hear that in the changed situation today there seems to be considerable fear on campus of the consequences of speaking truth to power. And this - what should I call it? moral contagion? - points yet again to the wisdom of Mrs. Morgan in insisting on the education of the “whole man” at Principia.
I very much hope now that the Principia community will again embrace the more universal sense of healing that is our trust and was surely a key component of Mrs. Morgan’s vision in founding Principia.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Pond
College Faculty, Spring 2007
Questioning whether Pilot is stirring animosity
Dear Editor:
As events unfolded at Principia over the past several weeks, I was moved to seek, if not answers, explanations, for what I’ve been hearing. One would assume that turning to an Internet weblog called “Truth At Principia” might be of assistance. But alas, what I find in these entries seem primarily hearsay and innuendo, most all of which appear aimed at something close to character assassination. So what of Truth?
I am no expert on the inner workings of
It should be noted that I am not affiliated with, or employed by, nor am I in the service of
I came to Christian Science late in life, in my forties, because I was attracted by so many practicing Christian Scientists I met. Many of you reading this are more well versed than I in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, but even if I didn’t read the Church Manual regularly, which I do, I hear from the desk the first Sunday of every month page 40, A Rule For Motives and Acts: “Neither animosity nor mere personal attachment should impel the motives or acts of the members of the Mother Church.”
Can the readers of the Pilot articles listed on the Truth at Principia weblog, honestly say that these articles feel free of animosity or personal attachment? To me, they read quite the contrary. Even the order of their listing seems orchestrated to heighten a reader’s sense of animosity. Shouldn’t we turn first to Science and Health and our own Church Manual? Are we not Christian Scientists first, and faculty members, parents, trustees and students, second? Should fear and anger govern us, or the Christ?
In this past week’s (Christian Science) lesson I read: “Rise in the strength of Spirit to resist all that is unlike good.”
and
“In Science, man reflects God’s government.”
The power of words.
I read, on the blog, several articles previously published in the Pilot, the college’s school paper, that I understand is under the guidance of a faculty member who acts as adviser. One such article was a school interview with a former trustee. Several times this article referred to this former trustee’s belief that the out-going college president was “run out” of his position. Readers, take note: this is not a fact, but an expressed belief. In legal circles, this is referred to as hearsay. And yet as the article is written, there is no attempt on the part of the writer, editor, or publisher, to make it clear this is just one man’s belief – a man who may be soured by his own experience, indicative through his own voluntary departure from the Board of Trustees. Indeed, the article is headlined: Former Trustee says president was “forced out” by CEO. In point of fact—and representing fact, after all, is the responsibility of good journalism—the former trustee said only it was his belief such a thing happened, not that it did. And he was on the board. If it had happened, don’t you think he would have said: “This is what happened?” It is my belief the Pilot, and the weblog, Truth At Principia, are making the reader read between the lines to find the Truth at Principia, instead of presenting clear, well-balanced journalism. That is a disservice to us all, especially the students whose work is not being properly published.
In another article, titled “Students’ mixed reactions to CEO’s remarks,” much is made of a petition sent to the Board of Trustees. Buried away from the lead (of the article) is the hard fact that it was signed by only forty members of the student body – as I understand it, less than 1/10th of the current student body. One has to ask – and the article did not – whether a petition garnering less than 10% of the enrolled student body should be given any credibility or any ink.
Again, I am not speaking to the issues. Members of the institution will have to sort them out—however that process takes shape. But I am writing to ask readers of Truth At Principia and the Pilot to consider their sources. It is my understanding that letters and/or e-mails may have been introduced in written form and/or read publicly in support of certain arguments. I would urge you, reader, whether faculty, student, or alumni, to remember that any reading of another person’s mail (printed or electronic) without written permission of the letter’s creator is a violation of federal law. Is this the proper foundation on which to form or present opinion? On the back of broken law? Again, I strongly suggest a reading of the Church Manual.
I return to the power of words. I offer two for your consideration:
Trustee – this is a person, or persons in whom an institution puts its trust. That trust is to be maintained not only in good times, but in challenging times as well.
Institution – the word “institute” means to start or initiate something. As a community, let’s start back at the beginning – with the Church Manual and Science and Health. As an institution, Principia is chartered to help to start or initiate new, more expansive lives for its students.
I hope we are serving students well in the manner and means through which information is currently being disseminated.
Let us not carelessly throw around our words; especially this one: “Truth.” It is too valuable to us all. Now, and in the future, let Principle guide us to look and listen for Truth, and let us remain mindful in our evaluation of those purporting to represent it.
Ridley Pearson
A Pilot response to Ridley Pearson’s letter
The writer appears to refer to one article published in the Pilot regarding the current crisis on campus. There have been five articles published so far. The piece in the January 19 edition that alerted the community to the fact that two trustees had resigned over the CEO’s 47% pay increase was the finest piece of journalism I have ever seen at the college level. It is sourced to two ex-trustees speaking about matters in which they were direct participants. The article was balanced. The current CEO, and a former CEO and member of the board, were interviewed in person and over the phone, respectively. Perhaps the best testament to the accuracy of the initial article, and those that followed, is that from the day the first article was printed to today (February 14, nearly four weeks later), neither the CEO, any member of his staff, nor any member of the Board of Trustees have contacted either the author of the article or myself to complain about a single word in the article -- or any other articles that have subsequently run. Wouldn’t someone who felt they were the victim of inaccuracies come forward to issue a complaint, call for a retraction, or at least write a letter to the editor, especially when it is a small college newspaper where the reporter and adviser are readily available?
The writer asks the Pilot to consider its sources. There has been a tendency to label information sourced to Dr. Tracy Bliss and Gary Krisel as “hearsay.” Again, these are not anonymous or uniformed sources. For a journalist, they are impeccable sources -- ex-trustees directly involved in the matters about which they are speaking out. Neither has any reason to come forward other than a love of Principia and concern about the current direction. Dr. Bliss has three degrees from Stanford and a sterling reputation in academia. Gary Krisel rose to the highest ranks of one of the largest corporations in
Furthermore on the issue of sourcing and “well-balanced journalism:” The Pilot has in its possession copies of correspondence Dr. Bliss sent to the Board over the last 8 months on the salary issue. The information in those documents is entirely consistent with her comments in the Pilot. Dr. Bliss says that no board member, at the time they received the documents, or since, has refuted any part of their content.
A key concern among faculty in the current crisis is the belief that the flow of information throughout the institution has become severely restricted and compartmentalized. The Pilot is one of the few sources to which faculty, staff, and students can turn to get unfiltered information. I am proud of the moral courage student staffers have shown in pursuing the truth. The Pilot will continue that pursuit and stands by all of the stories that have appeared in its pages.
Craig Savoye
Pilot Faculty Advisor
No comments:
Post a Comment