April 9, 2007
Dear Friends of Principia #9,
The focus this time is on (1) The recently released Petition to the Principia Board of Trustees which may be found at www.petitionPrincipia.org and (2)
The April 6th Pilot.
The recently released Petition to the Principia Board of Trustees which may be found at www.petitionPrincipia.org affords each of us the opportunity to take a public stand:
*Stuart Jenkins’s top down management style is inconsistent with Principia’s history of democratic management and should step down as CEO
*Dr. George Moffett has a vision and love for Principia that is crucial at this time and he should be retained as President of the College
*the role and constitution of the Board of Trustees warrant review and discussion
One might argue that if you don’t agree with all three (3) points it is inappropriate to sign the petition. A failure to vote may be improperly interpreted as support for the CEO or a lack of confidence in the President.
Since there is also a petition supporting the status quo it is even more important to take a public stand.
Whatever, any of us may do we are not putting our jobs on the line like the staff and faculty members who are standing up and speaking and voting publicly.
If another family member or a friend has already signed, join them. Each name carries its own weight.
Time is running out to retain Dr Moffett. The Trustees are getting ready to meet again. The Committee of 14 is preparing to select a consultant. Your voice will be especially effective if heard right now!
Be bold. Go public.
Pray daily. Know that Mind knows no imbalance, no in harmony and that the solution already exists. We need to just understand this and we will see it manifested.
*************************************************************
Continued…..
The seven relevant articles from the 4/6 Pilot are attached or may be found at www.truthatPrincipia.org. They are:
*Editorial: Pilot denied access to Information
*Memo: President’s removal was suggested
*Competing community petitions delivered
*Fuller named interim dean
*Response to Salary Reform Committee
*Resolution Committee
*Letters to the Editor (not at Truth at Principia)
I want to draw your attention to the Editorial. It emphasizes Prin’s historically unusual democratic management style which ran counter to the top down approach so long in vogue in our colleges and universities. That tradition appears endangered.
Without the reporting from the Pilot we would not be aware of many of the issues that are now being debated both on campus and around the world as committed Principia supporters struggle with questions such as:
*Is Prin successfully continuing Mary Kimball Morgan’s vision of the whole man education?
*Are the present CEO and trustees effective in their leadership?
*Are changes in personnel and rules warranted?
*What are these changes and how can they be brought about?
You may think that it is acceptable for the Pilot to be reigned in. It is true that the Supreme Court last year, by refusing to hear the appeal, let stand a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling [Hosty v. Carter, an Illinois case] which upheld the right of the dean of a university to demand to review, prior to printing, issues of the school newspaper. Since the President of the College is the publisher of the Pilot, Dr George Moffet, not third parties, should raise objections if they are valid.
This editorial raises multiple issues which together have a chilling effect on the ability of the Pilot to function.
(1) The trustee’s and CEO’s refuse to grant access to documents that should be public knowledge and are critical to an informed debate.
(2) There is considerable pressure by the CEO and Trustees on the Pilot to self-censor and not cover issues concerning the CEO and Trustees.
(3) The Trustees have hired a consultant to handle public relations for the CEO and Trustees. She also monitors the activities of the Pilot. She has contacted the Pilot faculty advisor requesting better balance. Consequences will ensue if controversial issues continue to be addressed. It is hard to present fully balanced articles when the CEO and Chairman consistently won’t respond to Pilot requests for comments.
At issue are the right of the Pilot to report and our subsequent right to know.
*************************************************************
In summary, please consider signing* the Petition to the Principia Board of Trustees if you agree with any or all of its sentiments. It’s good to have the Pilot back for its 4 spring issues. Enjoy their April 6th coverage.
*Go to www.petitionPrincipia.org to read and sign the Petition.
With gratitude,
Pilot denied access to information
Editor expresses concern about information flow stoppage and questions democracy of the institution
| D |
emocracy. It’s not just a PAC topic or a form of government. It’s also a way to manage an organization – it’s the way Mrs. Morgan established Principia’s management. At the time of Principia’s founding, many schools had a top-down style of management; Principia was revolutionary in its emphasis on democratic ideals and instilling those ideals in its students.
As the 21st century dawns, most American colleges and universities have incorporated democracy into their administration, while Principia seems to have fallen behind. And now a pillar of democracy – the press – is under threat at our beloved institution.
As one of the editors of the Pilot, I have experienced first hand how various elements in Principia’s administration are attempting to restrict our newspaper’s access to information and pressuring the Pilot to censor itself on issues of vital importance and interest to the community.
In this issue of the Pilot alone, I was stonewalled on several occasions in pursuit of information that should be public knowledge. For example, I wanted to explore what Principia’s archives said about how Principia was organized prior to 1983. (The trustees’ last email indicated that Principia may revert back to the organizational structure present before that date.) However, I was told by an administrator of the archives that no one can view anything about the trustees in the archives without permission from the Chairman of the Board.
Although this struck me as odd (would it be acceptable to the American public to view the Constitution or Bill of Rights only with permission of the president?), I asked permission of the chairman to look at the information in question. He told me to ask permission from the CEO. Again, I was confused – why could not the chairman give me permission – but I did ask the CEO’s permission. This time I was told no one can view information on the Board in the archives unless the CEO trusts that person to “use the information responsibly.” Apparently, a newspaper editor cannot be trusted to use information responsibly, and I am still not sure what undefined and unwritten tests one must pass to be deemed trustworthy.
Another example: the Pilot has heard persistent rumors this quarter that applications are down and students are choosing other colleges because of the ongoing controversy at Prin. Contemplating a story on this, I sought to determine the number of students who have applied and agreed to come to Principia next year. Surely there would be no benefit in hiding this information, especially given that the director of admissions wrote a letter to the editor last quarter stating that there was no evidence of a decline in freshmen enrollment next year. I learned, however, that there is apparently no policy about how the community can access this information, and it is entirely up to the director of admissions to decide if the newspaper (and consequently the entire community) will ever know the number of incoming freshmen. Perhaps there is no drop in applications or acceptances. If not, why can’t this information be made public (in which case there would likely be no story)? But if there is a drop, shouldn’t the community be made aware so that it can lend its prayerful support?
Besides these two examples of information being kept from the community, there seems to be a concerted effort to pressure the Pilot to self-censor and stop covering issues surrounding the CEO and Board of Trustees. The CEO told me that information on governance issues should only be released to and discussed by the resolution committee, and he will not respond to the Pilot’s questions on subjects of concern regarding his conduct. He indicated that only after fact-finding was complete should any stories be reported. Since when is it standard procedure for newspapers in America to refrain from reporting on a trial until a verdict is rendered?
Prompted by communications from the CEO, there was a meeting last week of senior administrators at the college, faculty counsel, and the Pilot’s top editors to discuss, among other Pilot issues, whether it is the Pilot’s role to report on “controversial” issues.
Also this week, the trustees hired an outside consultant to monitor the Pilot. The consultant has already contacted the Pilot faculty adviser, and, like the CEO, questioned the need for controversial articles and the “lack of balance” in Pilot stories. How can the Pilot be criticized for a lack of balance even as senior officials refuse comment for stories? (In addition to the CEO’s position, the chairman failed to respond to at least five attempts to reach him for comment on a Pilot story last quarter). The publisher of the Pilot is the president of the college. Pressure should not be put on the campus newspaper or its advisor by a third party. It is yet another example of bypassing chain of command and undermining the established authority structure.
The press’ main service to democracy is to provide the public with information, which individuals, in turn, can use to make informed decisions about their leaders, communities, and public policy. When the press is denied access to information or not permitted to ask questions relevant to public debate, the press cannot function. A crippled press is a crippled democracy.
The Pilot thanks all those in the community who have had the moral courage to speak out and provide relevant information.
The time for thinkers has indeed come. But thinkers can only make informed decisions when they are allowed access to a free flow of information. All those who care about the future of this institution should do all they can to prevent that flow from being dammed.
Caitlin Carpenter
Editor
Karen Davis David Bates
Editor Editor
*****************************************************************************************************************
Memo: President’s removal was suggested
October note between Jenkins and Williams discussed replacing Moffett
Staff writer
| T |
he revelation of a note at the end of winter quarter from Faculty Senate President John Williams to CEO Stuart Jenkins written in October became the newest piece of evidence about the sudden resignation in November of College President George Moffett.
In the note, Williams appears to have counseled Jenkins on strategies for the removal of Moffett and Academic Dean Faith Paul. Williams released the note to the Faculty Council on Feb. 26, and subsequently the Faculty Senate convened to consider whether Williams should continue as Senate president.
The contents of the note indicate that in October Jenkins discussed with Williams the removal of the two administrators and that Williams counseled him to retain Moffett and allow him to work with a new dean.
Williams said his note was not proposing the removal of Moffett or Paul, but was providing informal information on the correct due process in response to the CEO’s questions on that topic at one of their weekly meetings.
It was at that October meeting that Williams said he realized that “the CEO wanted to remove the president.”
The note from Williams begins, “Continuing the conversation with more off the cuff thoughts.” It then states: “Hold off on getting rid of the President for now, and get a new dean first…We have lived with him for this long, we can make it a little longer…plus a new dean like Steve H. [Hinthorne] may be able to actually help improve the current Pres’ performance.”
Williams, trained as a lawyer, said his answers to Jenkins’ questions were in a legalistic style and told Jenkins he did not think removing Moffett was “the right thing.”
On November 17, an email from the Chairman’s Office (Jenkins was then chairman of the Board of Trustees) notified the community that Moffett had decided to “move on from his post.”
On the topic of Williams’ October note, Jenkins said, “I think it’s inappropriate to comment until the work of the resolution committee is complete. The discussions, advice, and counsel between a Faculty Senate President and a CEO are not a matter that is appropriate for a community newspaper forum.”
Lee Ellis, vice-president of Faculty Senate said, “John’s motive, I think, was to be helpful to the CEO in terms of the kind of planning the CEO was contemplating. I’m not making excuses for John, but he is a lawyer by training, I think he went into counsel mode.”
In his email to Faculty Senate on March 7, Williams included the text of the note as well as Jenkins’ email from the weekend before asking Williams to make the note available to the College Executive Committee and the resolution committee (made up of 12 representatives from both campuses and two trustees). Jenkins’ email to Williams stated, “…I am calling upon you to release to the CEC and the resolution committee members your memo to me about George and Faith last fall…I know of your dislike for half-truths and equivocations, so now is your chance to set the record straight. Please make this document available to the CEC by Wednesday’s CEC meeting.”
The term “half-truths and equivocations” was in fact used in the Faculty Council’s February 14 message to the community in which they explained their rationale for their January 31 vote of no confidence in the CEO. The Council’s message stated: “The primary reason for the no-confidence vote was the lack of trust in the leadership of the CEO, which developed as we observed a pattern of half-truths and equivocation that emerged in his responses to our community as we worked our way through various issues.”
As president of Faculty Senate, Williams is also the chair of Faculty Council, a steering committee for Faculty Senate.
When asked to whether he felt the CEO was pressuring him because he publicly reported the faculty’s critique of the CEO’s actions, Williams refused to comment.
Williams said after he received Jenkins email asking him to give the note to the resolution committee and CEC, he spoke to Faith Paul, head of the CEC, who was acting as president of the college during Moffett’s temporary absence. Williams said he did not release the note, but within 24 hours of that meeting he had faculty members coming up to him and asking about the note (although, he said, they called it a memo to the trustees). He then decided to make the note public since it was already circulating and he was being asked by the faculty to respond, Williams said.
Jenkins said he would not answer any Pilot questions regarding the note or its context. He said the resolution committee would have access to his documents and emails pertaining to the context of Williams’ note “whenever they ask for them.”
Some in the Principia community believe Williams’ note calls into question Jenkins’ past statements that he did not “force out” Moffett, as former Trustee Gary Krisel indicated.
The Fall/Winter 2006 edition of the Progress at Principia magazine, reads, “‘George’s monumental abilities and contributions to Principia are deeply appreciated and greatly valued by every member of the community – none more than me,’ said Chairman Jenkins. ‘We cannot replace George.’”
At a meeting in January, Jenkins told faculty and staff that he “begged” Moffett to stay on as president.
Ruthie Bishop (C’72) received a similar pronouncement from the CEO after she sent a message to the Board on December 17 explaining her appreciation of Moffett and her concern that the announcement of Moffett’s retirement was “extremely sudden.”
In early January she received a reply back from the CEO agreeing with her statements of appreciation and saying that Moffett was valued by the community – by “none more than me.”
Bishop said around this time people in the field had begun hearing that there was potentially more to Moffett’s retirement, such as that Moffett had been offered a position other than president.
Bishop said that many people connected to Principia are deeply concerned about the October note. She said, “Suddenly it appeared that the trustees may not have wanted [Moffett] to stay and the CEO may have been making plans that he leave, perhaps for quite some time. The apparent contradiction makes friends and alums across the country wonder what other statements have been made that don’t square with the actual circumstances. We’re all thinkers and we’re all deeply supporting Principia and its stand for truthfulness.”
Williams, who said he did not keep a copy of the informal note, asked Jenkins for a copy when Jenkins requested it be released. Asked whether the note Jenkins provided (which had numerous typographical and grammatical errors) was indeed his note, Williams said he did not remember the document, but remembered writing an informal note on the topic and was willing to be held accountable for its contents.
Williams said that he realizes now that it was “out of line for the CEO to ask me those questions and I was out of line in answering. It was not my role and should not be my role.”
Bishop said she sees an erosion of trust between the community and the government of Principia. She said, “Trust is based on truth; that trust has to be based on stating what is straightforwardly true. Spin control always undermines trust. If you’re trying to put the best face on statements that turn out to be manipulative or duplicitous, that undermines trust. If you value trust, you don’t engage in spin. It’s a political tool, but has no place at Principia.”
She also said that the overuse of confidentiality as an excuse for keeping the community in the dark undermines trust. Confidentiality, when not based on mutual trust, she said, must be enforced through fear, non-disclosure agreements, and settlements. She said with so many people being “forced out,” the trustees should ask themselves how they can regain the trust of the community.
“What’s basic in all of this is our love and respect for each other. We gather our moral courage and say, we are all accountable to truth. We deserve it, you deserve it, Principia deserves it,” Bishop said.
Faculty Senate questioned Williams about the note and his role in Moffett’s departure at its March 8 meeting, because, as Ellis said, the faculty was “pretty upset.”
Williams apologized to Moffett, Paul, and Hinthorne for any hardship the note caused. Part way through the meeting Williams resigned, because Williams felt the faculty’s trust in him had been broken and thought he had overstepped his bounds, according to Ellis.
However, after Williams left the meeting, Faculty Senate voted to have Williams complete his term. The faculty also told him that for his own protection that in the future he should not hold individual meetings with the CEO and should bring a faculty member with him, Williams said.
Ellis said the thinking of the faculty was that Williams had shown honesty and humility about his mistake and had otherwise done a good job as Faculty Senate president. Ellis said, “I think the feeling was that there are issues bigger than this one piece.”
Competing community petitions delivered
324 people disapprove of trustees’ actions; four people support them
Staff writer
| A |
n alumni-sponsored petition calling for CEO Stuart Jenkins’ resignation and an invitation to College President George Moffett to remain President was delivered to the Board of Trustees April 3. It bears the names of 324 current students, alumni, and friends of Principia. A full text of the petition can be found at www.petitionprincipia.org.
A counter-petition of support for the trustees’ actions thus far has also been delivered to the board with four names on it.
“Sometimes an individual becomes too controversial for the good of the institution he or she serves,” states the petition. “We believe this has become the case with Stuart Jenkins….and so we ask that he have the grace to step down as CEO and Trustee and let the school move forward.”
The petition also calls for the administration’s “top-down management style” to be replaced with “genuine consulting of those who are affected by decisions.” It also requests more community involvement in the selection of future trustees.
It notes that the appointment of the former interim Dean of College, without first consulting the College faculty, was “inconsistent with the Trustees’ assertions that they are committed to bridging divides in the Principia community.”
It also calls for rotation in office for trustees and the enforcement of term limits to nine years.
The petition was organized by a small group of alumni, said David Brooks Andrews (US’72, C’76). Andrews was a member of the group that worked on the petition. “It is a diverse group of five people all bringing our own talents to it and spread across the country. As we’ve prayed through issues, we have worked by consensus. We have not taken any step or even finalized wording without consensus.”
Signers and organizers hope that the trustees take seriously their concern for Principia.
“I hope that it will show a serious level of concern among a representative and significant number of alumni. I think that’s all it can accomplish,” said signer Jim Rosebush (C’76).
“I’m hopeful that they [the trustees] are listening and that maybe they just need to hear more voices,” said Lark Rodman (C’06). “And I hope that they’ll [the trustees] see that if they continue to ignore the faculty they’ll have people who won’t let their kids to come to the school and donors who will withdraw their support.
The almost unanimous Jan. 31 faculty vote of no-confidence, combined with the trustee’s failure to act on it, apparently convinced some alumni to take action. “Votes of no-confidence should be taken very seriously. At most of universities where it happens, it’s not as unanimous as it was at Prin,” said Peggy DesAutels, former Principia faculty and (US ’73, C’77).
“When you have a vote of no confidence, in any organization, to ignore a vote like that is something that the people who are at the top…do at their great peril, at the institution’s peril, at the peril of tradition, at the peril of history. There is nothing good that can be done unless it is taken incredibly seriously,” said Bill Babcock (C’72).
“To ignore the vote is totally discounting the moral judgment of the faculty,” said Rodman.
A major concern in the petition is governance, and how to improve community involvement and transparency.
“It’s part of the American democratic way of governance for opinions to be expressed through petitions,” said Rosebush.
“We feel a tremendous gratitude for people who are willing to take a stand. I have found in my own life that taking these stands really strengthens one,” said Andrews.
When asked by one of the organizers if he would sign, Rosebush said, “I was ready to sign it because of the research I had done. I wanted to add my voice of concern.”
“I know many of these people, I know the integrity of the faculty, I know their hardworking nature. And I know that they would never vote that way unless there was very good reason. Mainly I signed in support of the faculty,”
DesAutles said.
The counter-petition, circulated by four alumni was delivered to the trustees and can be found at http://prinperforce.squarespace.com.
The names attached to the petition are alumni Nancy Joy Wilsnack (US’72, C’76), Jim Stock (US’81, C’85), Scott Anderson (US’80, C’84), and Mila Adams Grieb (US’42, C’46).
When contacted by the Pilot, they declined to comment.
The letter included with the petition states that it “is not in support of any single person or group of individuals.” It continues, “We have written this letter to convey support of the Board for its willingness to continue to act in accord with Principle and seek Truth.”
The petition states, “We…support a principled and deliberate approach to fact-finding regarding the recent complaints made against the institution and in particular its CEO, Stuart Jenkins. We applaud the Board’s efforts to seek truth based on fact and founded on Principle, while staying clear of human opinion and personality.”
It also encourages the Board to “make absolutely certain…The Pilot, continues its long-standing history of factual reporting in the mold of the Christian Science Monitor, and trust that the Board will take whatever steps necessary to ensure this.”
Fuller named interim dean
Staff writer
| F |
ollowing weeks of turmoil on campus, Tom Fuller has been selected interim Dean of the College (IDOC) in a process widely regarded as fast, fair, efficient and democratic.
Faculty and staff created and employed a new process to select qualified iDOC candidates, a process which the trustees accepted. From the group of names forwarded to the trustees, Fuller was selected and quickly assumed his duties.
“The process was very public, transparent, and democratic,” said Fuller. “The trustees have taken some hits. They went out of their way to make this work.”
The new process was proposed as a motion during a February 23 faculty senate meeting. That motion followed another in the same meeting which declared the existing process for selecting an iDOC -- which resulted in the appointment of Judith Felch -- was “undemocratic and lacked transparency” and “invalid.” Several days later Ms. Felch withdrew from the post.
“We turned around and asked for a process that was open, transparent, fair, and efficient,” said John Williams, president of faculty senate.
The process began with a set of qualifications. To be nominated, a candidate had to be a faculty member, possess a terminal degree, and have the support of 66% of both faculty and staff -- which voted separately. This last measure was designed to protect the interests of both groups. In essence, members of both constituencies did not vote for a single candidate, rather, they voted for as many candidates of which they “approved.”
Of the 11 candidates which met the qualifications and agreed to serve, three achieved the 66 percent approval threshold: Tom Fuller, Karen Grayson, and Greg Sandford. After the selection process was completed, Chairman of the Board of Trustees Bill Hays was emailed the details of the process and the names of the three candidates. Their names were submitted to the full board. Over spring break the three were interviewed by six trustees who flew in for that purpose.
In a March 23 email that announced Fuller’s appointment, the trustees wrote: “We are grateful to report that the Faculty and Staff Senates at the College took the initiative in a timely and purposeful manner to select three candidates for consideration for this position. We accepted their recommendations and consulted with George Moffett and Stuart Jenkins on their assessments of the candidates and the College’s needs at this time.”
“To me Tom has shown great unselfishness in accepting the position. I think everyone should be grateful for his willingness to serve, and I am certainly grateful for his willingness to serve,” CEO Stuart Jenkins said.
Ken Johnson, a professor in the computer science department, said, “[Tom] is such a strong and experienced teacher in math, computer science, and writing that it’s hard to imagine him outside of the classroom. However, I’m delighted both for Tom and for Principia that he was selected as iDOC.”
Tom Fuller received a B.A. in Math from Amherst College, an M.S. in Education from Old Dominion University, and a D.Sc. in Computer Science from Washington University in St. Louis.
Fuller has been a professor of math and computer science at Principia since 1989. What brought him to campus originally was not a position in the computer science department, but rather the registrar’s office. When the computer science department heard of his presence on campus they asked for an interview.
“There was no mistaking the call,” recounted Fuller, describing the prayer that led him to take the computer science position instead.
“When Sue and I first came to Principia in ’89 it was during the second measles epidemic. Our very first job was as metaphysicians, and secondarily as a teacher and librarian.” Fuller noted that this initial metaphysical purpose “probably made the decision to become DOC easier when the call came.”
The new process used to select Fuller is a break from tradition and some feel it could mark a new beginning in the way appointed positions are filled.
“The typical selection process was used most recently with Judith Felch, or Dr. Moffett,” said Williams. “One day they were revealed and it was a surprise. This new process is a total departure from normal.”
“The process to appoint the iDOC illustrates that the faculty can do a competent job in nominating qualified and supported candidates,” said Johnson.
“The process has already been done once, and successfully. Is that a precedent? You bet. Could the process we used be improved? Yes,” said Williams.
Others were grateful that the trustees were responsive to the new process and were willing to travel to Elsah for the interviews.
“This is a type of gesture that we need to see more of, to unify the campus. To have the trustees accept and thank faculty and staff was a good gesture,” said Brynne Gray, Director of the Writing Center.
Corrections
The Pilot always strives for accurate and
balanced coverage.
The Pilot corrects an error in the headline of the March 2 eddition
A headline on a story in the final Pilot of winter quarter was misleading, as was the first clause in the second paragraph. The headline read, “Revealed: CEO/Chair split not permanent.” The story itself detailed a faculty misunderstanding regarding the reporting relationship between the college, board chairman, and CEO following the separation of chair and CEO positions. The faculty widely believed that the trustees’ memo indicating that the President of the College reported to the chairman meant that, by extension, virtually all Elsah employees thus reported to the chairman. The story explained the faculty’s newfound (at the time) understanding of the board’s intended action: that only the College president reported to the chair (not faculty and staff) and that the new reporting relationship would endure only until a new President was named, at which point he or she would revert to reporting to the CEO. As for the split between Chairman and CEO, it is permanent, according to CEO Stuart Jenkins. The Pilot regrets the error.
Response
By Elizabeth Nacewicz
Staff writer
Response to Salary Reform Committee
letter to faculty
On March 7, the Salary Reform Committee emailed a memo to the Principia College Faculty in response to the March 2 “Faculty Salaries Based on Faulty Benchmarks” article. This brief response is an attempt to clarify statements addressed by the Committee.
When the article stated that the study had been “released,” I did not intend to imply that it had been made public, simply that it had been distributed to those outside the committee. The Board of Trustees never voted to make this a confidential report, and thus, the information is fair game to be shared. Much of the information included in the report itself is information that could, with some searching, be obtained on the Internet.
Also, the article made reference to “full time faculty” when instead, it should have said “full professor.” That was an unfortunate misstatement.
A “significant problem” pointed out by the committee’s letter indicates that the article provided inaccurate numbers for average faculty salaries for CUPA institutions. The committee’s letter stated that the average classroom faculty salary for CUPA Private Religious institutions with budgets of $20-$40 million (our identified benchmarking group) was $51,535.
Unless the information contained in the Salary Reform Study is false, according to the facts clearly stated in the study, this is an incorrect statement. The average salary for a full professor, according to the study itself, is $66,547, as stated originally in the article. As mentioned, the title of “full time faculty” was merely a misstatement and should have read “full professor.”
While there may have been some minor misstatements, none of these statements change the indisputable conclusions made by the article, provided in the report. The Salary Reform Committee did not challenge any of the substantive conclusions made by the article, attesting to their validity. It is disturbing to me that this committee would take such care to point out relatively minor errors in the story while ignoring it’s central point: that there are glaring inequities in the way Principia college faculty are paid relative to the St. Louis campus and similar colleges.
New committee aims to work toward solution
Principia community members convene in order to sort through the facts concerning campus controversy
Staff writer
| L |
ast Thursday and Friday, 14 members of the Principia community from both the St. Louis and Elsah campuses met as a resolution committee with the goal of moving towards solving some of the controversial issues recently addressed within the community.
Representatives from this committee indicated that the process is progressing harmoniously so far and that they are making progress in their attempts to find solutions and rebuild trust and harmony.
On Wednesday, April 4, in an effort to keep the community informed, the committee issued a statement regarding the work that has been done so far. The committee intends to hire a consultant by the end of next week.
The email to the community stated that the group discussed its purpose and goals for the process, emphasizing that the purpose is to work through issues in search of healing for Principia. The email stated that the group wants to “find what is right, not who is right.”
This resolution committee was initially proposed by the Trustees, with the proposal attempting to ensure equal representation from both campuses. In an email sent out last Wednesday, March 28, the Trustees stated that the resolution process now underway will “clarify controversial issues.”
Linda Bohaker, professor for the Business Administration department and one of the Elsah faculty members on the committee, states that one of the “ultimate goals of this committee is that Principia will be healthier and stronger coming out of this process.”
The committee was set up in order for representatives of experienced constituencies to have a voice and to look at recent issues that have come up. It represents an attempt to see what can be done to resolve things and move Principia forward. There are a few main goals for these meetings, including establishing ground rules for this process, continuing to work on the list of possible names for an outside mediator, and prioritizing the list of issues.
As stated, there are fourteen members on this resolution committee, representing both campuses. For the college, there are two faculty members, two staff members, and two students. For the St. Louis campus, there are two faculty members, two staff members, and two representatives from the business office. There are also two Trustees that sit on this committee. Each representative on the committee was elected by their respective constituencies.
Bohaker emphasized that the establishment of the committee represents a commitment to providing a process for addressing Prin’s situation. “I think this process has been a successful step so far,” she added. According to Bohaker, the committee is making progress behind the scenes about which people may not yet know.
John Williams, President of Faculty Senate, said the faculty are as a whole have expressed mixed sentiments with regard to the resolution committee and its process, although a few faculty members have been outspoken on the issue. “I hope the faculty would be pleased at the effort that is going into [the committee],” Williams added. One of the many goals of the faculty senate this quarter is to support the work of the resolution committee and ensure that the process moves forward.
Lee Ellis, Women’s Soccer Coach and Sports Management Faculty Member, expressed both optimism and hesitancy. Ellis said she was concerned that the committee would hold off the prospect of Principia moving forward because of its slower pace. Despite this uncertainty, however, she also added that the fact that this committee has been established to discuss issues on the table will “move [Principia] in a forward direction.”
Chrissie Sydness, outgoing Student Body President and one of two student representatives on the committee, said that “so far, this [committee] has been a progressive step with all constituents working together for the same resolution of harmony and restoring trust.” Forrest Bless, outgoing Student Body Vice-President, said that “the meetings last Thursday and Friday were very positive,” adding that no one group was most vocal and that many of the ideas shared seemed to have common themes. Sydness also added that since the committee members have spent lots of time together, it is a comfortable setting in which to exchange ideas and all feel free to talk about issues. Both Sydness and Bless agreed that their voices and opinions as students are valued within the committee’s setting.
Though Sydness and Bless are the only student representatives on the committee, there are ways students can still interact and stay informed on the progress being made. Sydness and Bless encourage any students with questions or concerns about the committee to contact their elected student government representatives.
Bohaker, Bless, and Sydness all emphasized that the members of the resolution committee constitute a very harmonious group of people who are working very well together. All acknowledge that this open and harmonious nature helps the committee members work together and get things done effectively.
The committee will continue meeting during the remainder of spring quarter and will begin conducting interviews to select a fact-finder on which the committee will vote.
Prin should operate around basic principles of a school
It is not too soon to be addressing the future of Principia. Yes, we are definitely still in the midst of the present challenges. However, these challenges will be resolved. People will move on out of their present jobs. Stuart will really resign. New people will be hired. The present, deeply flawed command structure will be changed. (Trustees take note - PLEASE.) The Principia will continue. The question is: will we learn anything from this? Will Principians take advantage of the wonderful opportunity that this overturning is providing?
Two things, and two things only, are necessary for a school -- students and teachers. This seems like a very basic concept, but it is so obvious, so simple, it gets overlooked all the time, especially by those who have a desire for personal power and the belief that they personally ought to control everything and everyone.
Students and teachers. EVERY SINGLE JOB at Principia should exist only to facilitate that relationship. A job that takes an employee even one step away from the task of making things easier for students and teachers is a waste of time and manpower. The question on the lips of every employee, including teachers, every day should be, “How does my job make the student/teacher relationship work better?” If you do not have a clear direct, unequivocal, easily defined answer, there is something wrong with your job. Every meeting at Principia should have one underlying focus: Are we doing everything we can to insure a good experience for every student and/or teacher? If not, why bother with the meeting? And anyone who thinks their job is more important than that, or puts them in a “higher” position than facilitator of the student/teacher relationship does not understand what a school should be.
Let’s have Principia be the leader in what it means to be a school. Let’s have a place where the only goal is to have the finest teachers helping young people become educated in an atmosphere of Christian Science. Parents who like that sort of education will send their children here when they are young. And, as they get older, the students will choose it for themselves. Young people will want to learn here. The highest quality teachers will want to teach here. Political maneuvering, grasping at personal power, the tactic of spreading fear, will no longer have a place here at any level.
Even now, in the midst of (and in spite of!) all the inexplicable behavior on the part of the self-appointed “bosses” of Principia, teachers are teaching and young people are learning and growing. That is where the focus should continue to be -- today and into the future.
Let’s be a school.
Suzanne Biggs
Due process needed to handle campus issues
In early February, I responded to a set of emails sent to me by a fellow alum which included statements I knew were not factual, contained extremely personal attacks
on Stuart Jenkins, and called for him to resign or be fired – all of which in my view exhibited limited or no regard for due process. Here is a portion of my response to those emails:
“We should all be embarrassed and ashamed at how some of the Principia community (on campus and off) is dealing with this situation. The actions seem to be that of a lynch mob, not those of Christian Scientists looking for healing, growth and progress.
If the right thing is for the current Chairman and CEO of Principia to step down, then
so be it, but such an action should be based on the FACTS -- not rumors and partial facts being put forth as the entire truth. Let’s find the truth in a Truthful manner and exercise good principles in a Principled fashion. …As people who love Principia dearly and all it stands for we certainly have every right to be concerned about the magnitude of the issues being discussed, but what is more important is how we all as a community deal with them. I’d like to think we can all do a heck of a lot better.”
The full text of my email, out of context from the other four documents which precipitated my response, was published on a website with the stated purpose
of “uncovering the truth of the current state of Principia.” Most of the comments I received directly from readers were positive and appreciative, although a few individuals have been kind enough to inform me that some take great offence to my use of the term “lynch mob.”
While my intent was to highlight the need for due process, which is something inherently lacking in a lynch mob, I was insensitive to those who grew up in the racially charged 60s where individuals were actually killed by lynch mobs. Please accept my apology for my insensitive choice of words.
My hope is that our community will support the problem resolution process that has been initiated, as well as those individuals who have been chosen and have unselfishly agreed to represent all of us in a fair and principled approach to addressing the issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Steve Abbott
Executive Advancement Officer
