The feedback from all over continues to pour in. Your alertness, deep love for the institution of Principia and the spiritual qualities it embodies are evident. Love is our answered prayer.
with gratitude,
Paul
***************************************************************************************************************************************
Former Trustee says president was “forced out” by CEO
Caitlin Carpenter
Published in the Principia Pilot February 2, 2007
Dr. George Moffett was pressured to resign from his post as president of the college, Gary Krisel, a former Prin trustee who resigned in July, said during his question and answer session with the college community on Jan. 26.
Krisel, who was coincidentally in the vicinity of the college to attend a memorial service, was asked by the Faculty Senate to be made available to the community for an hour of questions in Wanamaker Hall. Faculty Senate Chair John Williams, who introduced Krisel, said the session was completely unofficial and unendorsed. Williams left the session after introducing Krisel, he said, “to be with my wife,” and left the role of moderator to Professor John Glen.
Among the questions asked was one from a faculty member about whether Moffett decided on his own to resign. “I believe he was forced out, plain and simple,” Krisel responded. “The trustees were told by Stuart that the faculty would throw George out with a vote of no-confidence in George if the trustees did not act.”
Professor Dave McFarland said there was a gasp around Wanamaker from the faculty at this statement.
McFarland said, “I don’t know where the trustees got that impression, but I think that we were absolutely stunned.”
He added, “You can only be undermined for so long. [Dr. Moffett] was constantly being criticized by Stuart. Many months before the November meeting, Stuart bragged to the board that he thought that he had convinced a certain faculty member to take George’s position. Whether the boast was accurate or not, I believe it had an effect on the board. And this unethical approach continues to have a corrupting effect on the community. Other people in this institution – in this room – I believe have been sucked into negotiations for positions they had no right being offered.”
On an occasion after the meeting took place, in regards to criticism of Moffett, Williams said to the Pilot, “I have vigorously represented the interests and concerns of the faculty to anyone I could speak to.”
When asked whether those concerns contributed to the trustees forming the opinion – stated by Krisel – that the faculty would have a vote of no-confidence about Moffett, Williams said, “I deeply fear that my vigor in representing the concerns of the faculty contributed.”
However, Williams added that he never spoke directly to the Board of Trustees, and that he only voiced concerns to Jenkins or to the board’s College Sub-Committee made up of four trustees. Therefore, Williams said, his comments about Moffett to the board were always “filtered” through someone else.
As to whether it was ever indicated that he would become the next college president, Williams responded, “Never.”
Krisel told the Wanamaker audience that he did not want to discuss the circumstances of how exactly the president was forced out because Moffett was currently in a “precarious” situation.
Krisel then directed a question to Chief Legal Council Phil Riley who was in the Wanamaker audience: “Phil, did Moffett sign a non-disclosure agreement? A non-disclosure agreement doesn’t mean you can’t admit it exists. Did he?”
Riley responded, “That is so inappropriate.”
“Since when do we demand non-disclosure agreements of people who simply resigned to pursue another interest and that we are begging to stay?” Kristel asked, referring to Jenkins’s claims that he begged Moffett to stay as president at the same salary and with the same responsibilities.
“You could search 100 years and not find an administrator that will actually be able to make the connection for students between Christian Science and what they’re learning here, that stands so clearly and eloquently for character education,” Krisel said.
One faculty member asked how the administration and trustees viewed the faculty and staff. Krisel responded, “Stuart views the college from a business perspective, that he needs managers in key positions. It has become increasingly top down management.”
Krisel elaborated on the need to demonstrate real respect for faculty and staff by saying, “When a faculty member retires after 30, 40 years of outstanding service, one of the giants who students will remember for the rest of their lives, they get a lamp. When Michael Sharples resigned from seven years as CEO and Chairman, the trustees voted him $40,000 – at the height of budget cuts. I asked how this could be justified. One trustee explained to me that it was like presidents of companies and factory workers.”
This led one staff member to respond, “If the faculty are factory workers, what does that make staff?”
Like many corporations where the Board of Trustees seem to care most for the few people closest to them, they look to “manage” the rest, Krisel said.
Krisel advised, “there needs to be open communication; community-evolved priorities. You are not children that they need to manage and hide information from. The administration should be serving you and helping you do your jobs. What is done with the students, that’s what’s really important.”
A faculty member inquired about the trustees’ reasons for the CEO’s salary raise last April.
Krisel responded, “In my 23 years [as an executive] at the Disney Company, not once did someone ask me for a raise. They made it known through friends and so forth.”
“It may be true that Stuart did not officially demand a raise, but Michael Sharples told me back in February that Stuart needs to make real money or we’re going to lose him.”
Krisel added that the size of the raise was unmerited and unprecedented.
During the discussion of the CEO’s raise, Riley asked Krisel, “Is it not true that the trustees vote on the CEO’s salary every year at the April meeting?”
Krisel responded that typically it was only a three percent raise.
Another faculty member said there was concern that the CEO raise was roughly equal to what it would cost to hire two faculty members for the German Studies program that was cancelled for budgetary reasons. The faculty member then stated that Jenkins said he did not want the raise and asked the trustees not to give it to him.
“Then why didn’t he refuse it? Traci [Bliss] told him many, many times in person and by email over several months that the raise was inappropriate and wouldn’t look good…and I understand he responded that if it became an issue he said he would blame the trustees,” Krisel said. “Only now that it has become an embarrassment has he suspended the raise until benchmark research is done. This sounds a little disingenuous to me. How long does it take to look up a benchmark?”
Addressing Riley, a member of the Salary Study Committee, Krisel asked, “How long does it take Phil? A couple of hours? Half an hour? Twenty-five minutes?”
Riley responded that since January, Jenkins has received his old salary and explained the history of benchmarks at Principia. Krisel interrupted Riley and said he was not answering the question.
Riley still gave no indication of how long it would take to look up the benchmark for the CEO salary.
Krisel asked where was the benchmark research that was used to persuade the trustees that a much higher salary was warranted. Riley said that after the raise was voted on, the trustees came to his office and asked for research for a new benchmark for the CEO/Chairman that coincided with that raise.
Krisel responded that this process was backwards. He said, “At the time I was told the raise had been based on new benchmark information. This process makes it look like the board was just trying to justify their actions after the fact. How can we have faith in a transparent salary system with this kind of behavior.”
The trustees were told to keep the raise confidential for 18 months, a request that had never been made about the past CEO salary increases of 3 percent, Krisel said. He added, “Confidentiality can be used to hide a myriad of problems.”
Chief Financial Officer Howard Berner, who was also in the audience, asked why would the board want confidentiality when the salary increase would be published in the Chronicle of Higher Education based on the annual 9-90 forms that Prin submits.
Berner said that anyone could request a copy of the 9-90 from the Accounting Office and that he would send it to them the next day.
Jim Clough, who was not at the meeting, but was contacted by the Pilot later, said that he went to the Accounting Office and requested to see the 9-90 and was shown a copy on www.guidestar.com. The next day Clough received a call from Jenkins. “He’d heard I came in and wanted to know what was up,” Clough said.
As for suggestions for institutional reform, Krisel said, “For starters we should adhere to our policies to be democratic in every way practical.”
“If you think you need the whole picture to take the first step, then you won’t ever take step one…There needs to be a real reform in the way this school is governed. First the CEO position needs to be separated from the chairman position.”
Krisel said that he learned the danger of a self-perpetuating board from this experience. He said, “When things go wrong there are no breaks. Stuart told me his idea of how a board should run is that every new trustee signs a letter of resignation that goes in his desk to be pulled our and used when he wants to. That’s a cabinet not an independent board.”
Krisel said that at Stanford, the alumni elect the board of trustees. For Prin, he suggested a transition in which perhaps 25 percent of the board is elected by the faculty and staff and 25 percent by the alumni.
Krisel said, “This is your school. Stand up and seize the day. Do it with love, but demand high standards. Show the students what the best practices are.”
He said, “I believe the faculty embody the wisdom of the community, and we need your wisdom more than ever today. We expect our students to have the highest standards of ethics. And our students should be able to look to our administrators and trustees and see that Principia can be a light to the world with even better practices than we find in the best practices in business.”
“Students that graduate from Prin should have been able to go out into their work and raise the standards because of what they experience here and the critical thinking they employ.”
*****************************************************************************************
Faculty votes “no confidence” in CEO by 71-2 tally, calls for his resignation
Elizabeth Nacewicz
Published in the Principia Pilot February 2, 2007
After more than a week of hastily-called meetings and spectacular revelations, on Wednesday the Faculty Senate cast a vote of no confidence in CEO/Chairman Stuart Jenkins and called on him to resign, with a vote of 71-2 with four abstentions.
The motion read, “We have no confidence in Stuart Jenkins’ leadership as chairman and CEO of the Principia, and ask that he resign both positions.”
With the guidance of faculty at the end of a meeting on Tuesday, the Faculty Council on Wednesday at noon drafted motions on three topics: Jenkins, a reform of the Board of Trustees, and Dr. Moffett, according to Faculty Senate President John Williams.
Williams said, “I think we’re deeply aware of the blowback on this vote. I understand there will be anger and animosity directed at us, and so I commend the courage of the body, knowing that there will be people who were not a part of this process who will feel deeply hurt by it.”
The second motion drafted by the Faculty Council involves potentially drastic changes to the composition of the Board of Trustees. As the Pilot went to press, the motion included five substantive points. These include separating the positions of chairman and CEO; hiring the CEO through a transparent, external search that does not come from the Trustees; enforcing term limits; capping the total number of Trustees; and altering the board election process.
Again, as the Pilot went to press, the proposal to change how a portion of the Board of Trustees is elected involved 5 positions. There would be a representative from the college faculty, one from the
The third motion considered a vote of confidence in college President George Moffett. A related motion generated from the entire senate body, rather than the Faculty Council, will ask Moffett to continue as President, for some negotiated amount of time, due to the current turmoil and the need for experienced leadership.
After the Faculty Senate had a conference call with former trustee Traci Bliss on Tuesday, Williams said, “We are deeply concerned about academic freedom. This is a phenomenal time for the faculty to come together and do the things that faculties do in an institution like this.”
After the meeting, some faculty discussed their thoughts on the decision.
“I’m very grateful to see the faculty acting in a unified way, and I hope that this will help students to ask the right questions,” said Heidi Snow, professor of English.
Chrissie Sydness, student body president, who was invited to be a silent-observer in the meeting, stated that “the outcome of the vote proves that there is substantial information that was given to the faculty that caused them to take such a powerful stance, and this cannot be ignored.”
She added, “If the students knew the information that the faculty do from their conversations with Gary Krisel, Traci Bliss, and Stuart Jenkins, it would allow the community to be on the same page and possibly give support to the faculty’s position.”
“The vote was based entirely on principles…There comes a time when you have to act. This seemed like the time to hold Stuart Jenkins accountable,” said Amy Trevelyan, professor of Art History.
Julie Blase, professor of Political Science, said “The events of the past week have been extremely disappointing, and I haven’t seen the leadership from Stuart that Principia needs.”
She added, “But what matters to me most is that we get some long-term structural … change that can help to prevent a repeat of failures of leadership and that can start to change the culture here at Principia into a culture that’s more open, transparent, and fearless.”
“We are expressing our highest sense of Love. There’s a great desire to bring students, staff, and faculty together on this,” said Brynne Gray.
Elizabeth Toohey, professor of English, commented that there was a sense of unity among faculty members even though there were different views expressed.
To emphasize the magnitude of these events, Williams said “Act One is done. But this is not over. A step has been taken, and we must go on to Chapter 2 in the story, whatever that may unfold.” Encouraged by the dedication of the faculty, Williams added, “I believe the faculty is now up to it. They’re up to providing the leadership to move this institution forward.”
From: John W. Williams, President, Faculty Senate
Date: February 1, 2007
RE: Recent motions passed by the Faculty Senate
Over the course of three meetings on January 31st and February 1st, the Faculty Senate passed the following motions:
1. Motion – We have no confidence in Stuart Jenkins' leadership as chairman of the Board of Trustees and CEO of the Principia, and ask that he resign.
2. Motion - The faculty of the College lacks confidence in the current structure and the procedures for selection of the Board of Trustees.
3. Motion - We call for urgent negotiations involving representatives of all stakeholders in the Principia community to develop a more democratic system of governance for The Principia, in accordance with Policy 9.
4. Motion - To avoid the conflict of interest, the positions of CEO and Chairman of the Board of Trustees should be separated immediately.
5. Motion – Given the tumultuous events of the last week we, the faculty, request that George Moffett consider staying on in his position until a new president is transitioned into office. Principia's greatest needs at this hour are to gain spiritual dominion over the events that have transpired, to rekindle the flame of love within our community, and to move forward with a clear sense of purpose.
********************************************************************************************
Students have mixed reactions to CEO's remarks at meeting
Laura Distel
Published in the Principia Pilot February 2, 2007
Various forms of student reactions to the controversy surrounding the CEO/Chairman Stuart Jenkins are occurring on the
A petition was circulated this weekend among students. The petition was in support of the faculty and staff’s search for truth. Additionally, it was the student body’s way of showing concern for the issue. A little over 40 students signed this petition, and it was placed in faculty members’ mailboxes prior to their meeting with Jenkins Monday afternoon.
The second form of activism seen on the college campus was a letter to the Board of Trustees written by Joe Fitzgibbon, a senior, and K C Gahlon, a sophomore. It expressed their concern for the issue through a series of questions for the Trustees to answer. These questions addressed issues such as Jenkins’s raise, benchmarking, and Dr. Moffett’s resignation. This letter was placed in the mailbox of every student in hopes of gaining support for their effort.
Jenkins met with the
The meeting began in a particularly interesting fashion when the student body President Chrissie Sydness requested one staff member and one faculty member to attend the meeting. Sydness’s reasoning for admitting these non-students was to make sure that the facts were presented consistently with the faculty and staff meetings with Jenkins. Additionally, the Faculty Senate’s President John Williams asked Sydness and Bless Tuesday night for permission to admit a few Faculty Senate members to silently observe. Sydness and Bless agreed under the condition that these faculty members would metaphysically support the meeting.
However, Jenkins’s assistant, Karen Eisenhauer, called shortly before the meeting and said that Jenkins would not talk to the students and answer questions if any faculty or staff were present. Pressed for time, Sydness removed all non-students from the audience. Louise Kingsbery, the staff member who Sydness chose to be present at the meeting, said, “I talked with students afterward, and they said that if we [Karen Grayson and herself] had been present at the meeting, they would have had more confidence in his answers.”
Many students thought that Jenkins did not fully answer the questions that were asked of him. “I think that he avoided a lot of questions, and his responses were really vague in the answers he did give,” said Gahlon.
“I don’t think we got any answers, and we saw how uncomfortable Stuart is now,” said Fitzgibbon.
“I’m very dissatisfied and I don’t feel like we are getting any answers. I walked away from the meeting even more confused,” said Heather Harmon, president of Brooks House.
Other students, however, were very grateful for Jenkins’s question and answer session. “He [Jenkins] really doesn’t have to come all the way down here to apologize for a salary raise or for rumors that have been started by students or faculty that he really has no control over,” said Jacqueline Pappas, president of Howard House.
“I appreciated the way that he addressed the students, and I appreciate his willingness to come and talk to us,” said Freshman Kenny D’Evelyn.
Some students were more concerned with the manner in which the questions were posed to Stuart than the questions themselves. “I feel like we as students composed ourselves without respect. Not everybody, but some people interrogated this man. He was not on trial, and I think he sort of deserves a raise after today,” said Pappas.
“I felt like some people attacked him more than the desire to understand and learn the truth,” said Abbe Boudreaux, a senior. “Ultimately, we were looking for the same thing—the truth.”
Did students find truth? “I still feel like there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes,” said Adrian Allen, a senior. “The salary issue brought to light a whole lot of other issues.”
“There’s two people [Gary Krisel, a former trustee, and Jenkins] telling us different things, and we still don’t know the truth yet or who to believe,” said Heather Ruszczyk, a senior.
“I think we found the tip of the iceberg, and we are getting there,” said Boudreaux. “I still have a lot of questions, but we have a good start to our discovery.”
Now students are trying to move forward with the situation. Some students continue to turn towards activism. Fitzgibbon and Gahlon plan on putting together some sort of statement proposing suggestions of how to move forward with structural reforms.
In addition to activism, students are turning to prayer to help bring healing to the situation. “Unless we as a student body and a Principia community are able to step back and look at this objectively…this cause might get torn apart. I am still a little concerned right now, but I am hoping through prayer, we can get through this,” said D’Evelyn.
Syndess and Forrest Bless, the student body vice president, sent an email to all students in “response to recent events” (see page 7). It concludes with, “We ask all of you to support Principia by joining us in prayer and maintaining the utmost confidence that this institution will remain as ‘a city that is set on a hill and cannot be hid.’ (Matthew 5:14).”
No comments:
Post a Comment