September 26, 2007
Dear Friends of Principia #18,
While the Trustees continue to move forward on their own agenda [see www.prin.edu/trustees ] more and more members of the Principia community and neighbors of the St. Louis campus speak up and out.
I have created a new web address www.fortheloveofprincipia.blogspot.com .
This will allow anyone to access past and future mailings 24/7. You will find Friends of Principia #'s 1-17 and in addition this one (FOP #18). I have cut and pasted the attachments and appended them to each mailing. They are entered chronologically by date starting with the oldest.
This mailing includes:
(1) notice of new Friends of Principia “library” at
www.fortheloveofprincipia.blogspot.com. This website
should be clean. If any of the text is garbled refresh the page
and/or clean out your cache.
(2) letter to Trustees by David Brooks Andrews, son of former long time faculty members Joan and Robert Andrews and nephew of former College President David Andrews
(3) letter by John Lyon, Director of the Media Services Center at the College, on Governance & Communication at Principia sent to the Trustees, members of the Executive Committee, former members of the Resolution Committee & others
(4) announcement of a new website dedicated to fighting the proposed development of 175 acres of the St. Louis campus at
www.zoningintegrity.com where you can be educated, keep up-
to-date and become involved. Followed by two letters not found at
the website.
(5) controversy regarding dropping Prin’s Panther mascot in favor of Blue and Gold
The two letters [ (1) & (2) ] are both long, well written and worth the read!!!
(1)
There have been more and more requests for “back issues” of my Friends of Principia mailings. To make them easily accessible I have created a website at www.fortheloveofprincipia.blogspot.com so anyone can read them (and the attachments which have been “copied and pasted” following each letter.
Future mailings will be available at the website as soon as they are e-mailed to my mailing list.
There are also links to:
· www.truthatPrincipia.org
· www.petitionprincipia.org
· www.zoningintegrity.com
**************************************************************************************************************************
(2)
Dear Friends:
I thought you might be interested in seeing the letter below, which I've sent to the Principia Board of Trustees. There have been a number of deeply moving and powerful letters sent to them. I hope this letter adds something to that growing chorus.
Please feel free to share it with others, as you are led to.
I've also attached a copy of the letter to this e-mail, in case you would prefer it in that form.
With deepest gratitude for all that so many have done to preserve the true spirit of Principia,
David Brooks Andrews
September 21, 2007
To: The Principia Board of Trustees
From: David Brooks Andrews
(Preschool through US72, C76)
Dear Principia Board of Trustees:
After receiving and giving considerable thought to your July 16, 2007 letter to the Principia Family, I feel a need to respond, with love but also deep concern, to many of the positions you’ve announced.
Its not easy to write this letter since I’ve known a number of you and/or your relatives over the years. And many of you studied with or otherwise knew my parents, Robert and Joan Andrews, and have expressed deep appreciation for them.
Sadly, I feel sure that both of them would be troubled, as I am, by many of your decisions. I believe they would be surprised if they knew that, within 25 years of their teaching at Principia College, the CEOs actions would cause 97% of the College faculty to vote no-confidence in him and that the school would be going through such a deep crisis. I believe that they would also be dismayed by the lack of support your Board and CEO Stuart Jenkins have given to one of the finest presidents Principia College has ever had. I say this from the perspective of having been a student at Principia College when my uncle, David Andrews, was President and was highly regarded during his long tenure.
I appreciate your commitment to serving Principia. I know that it has been a very difficult year for you, as it has for all who love Principia.
I hope you will read my letter carefully and with an open heart. I also pray that you will find a way to lay aside some of the defensiveness that many people have encountered when they’ve tried to speak or write to you.
I know that many in the Principia community would appreciate hearing your answers to the questions and issues raised in this letter. In the spirit of your January 31, 2007 letter to the community welcoming constructive dialogue, your honest response would be most welcome.
In your July 16 letter, you have written about working to support the healing of turmoil and unrest in the community. Yet how can that healing occur without first facing and healing what is giving rise to the turmoil and unrest (i.e., the need for greater integrity, Christianity and genuine love need that has characterized many of the recent actions of the Principia Corporation)?
Turmoil and unrest are not healed simply by pronouncing that disputes are over, facts have been settled, decisions have been made, and any disagreement with the Trustees views will not be tolerated, as your letter has done.
It may be possible, but not advisable, to take such a position in the corporate world. But to do so is contrary to the spirit of inquiry, pursuit of truth and commitment to integrity that should characterize any academic institution. It is even more directly contrary to the spirit of Christian Science and to the nature of Christian Science healing, which Mrs. Eddy makes clear is not a matter of human will but of yielding with the greatest humility to Gods will. She writes: Human will-power is not Science (Science and Health, p. 144:14). And later in the textbook: Every Christian Scientist, every conscientious teacher of the Science of Mind-healing, knows that human will is not Christian Science, and he must recognize this in order to defend himself from the influence of human will (Science and Health, p. 451: 19-23).
To try to force views on Principia that are at odds with its nature and founding principles and to silence any conscientious disagreement with those views, as your July 16 letter implies that you plan to do, would severely undermine the future of Principia, as it would your own reputation and legacy. As Christian Science teaches, truth, integrity, justice, common sense and the deepest humanity will ultimately prevail in the human scene and to ally oneself with anything contrary to those qualities is a grave mistake.
I realize that several of you have recently announced your retirement from the Board of Trustees. I hope you will make a point of reconsidering your July 16 letter before you retire and that you will decide not to leave it as your legacy.
Many of these issues may be new to those of you who will be joining the Board in November. I realize that you are not responsible for the July 16 letter and its positions, but once you have become members of the Board, naturally you will be allied with those positions, unless you call for them to be revoked and replaced with those that are much more in line with the genuine spirit of Principia.
This letter is longer than I had hoped, but its length is dictated by the many points raised in your letter of July 16 and your recent actions. Ive organized my letter into the following sections:
Removal of the College President
Treatment of the Resolution Committee
Firing of Lynda Sleight
Developing Land on the St. Louis Campus
Stifling of Conscientious Dissent
Removal of the College President
There are many gaping holes in Jim Reeves report. For you to have determined that the report is unimpeachable before the Resolution Committee even had a chance to respond to the report and for you to have rejected the Committees offer to meet with your full Board shows serious disregard for others. This has been one of the major complaints about your Board and Jenkins as CEO that you have repeatedly acted in a top-down, hierarchical manner instead of truly listening to and genuinely trying to understand other peoples views. Sadly, it seems that you have done little to remedy this problem.
The most blatant imbalance in the report lies in the analysis of George Moffett’s departure as President of the College, since it is given almost entirely from the perspective of Jenkins, while barely even quoting Moffett. If any Principia College student had turned in such a one-sided report, he or she presumably would be given a failing grade or be made to rewrite the report. It is such an obvious omission that its hard to understand why a professional mediator would give such a completely one-sided account of what happened to Moffett.
In your July 16 letter, you have treated Reeves account of Moffett’s departure as if Reeves were a fact-finder who had nailed down every last fact. And yet Reeves repeatedly insisted during the process that he was not so much a fact finder who would be expected to establish all the facts as he was a facilitator who would attempt to bridge divides between people. He frequently took no notes or very few of them while interviewing people for hours. Apparently, he never, or rarely ever, typed up notes from interviews and sent them to interviewees for their review, as he said he would. For you to treat his report as the final word on the facts concerning Moffett’s departure, or on other recent events at Principia, is misleading and contrary to Reeves own claims about his work and the contract by which he was retained.
While none of us is privy to the exact words that were exchanged during the five-minute encounter between Moffett and the four of you who met him at the entrance to the Principia Guest House on November 3, it is evident from his November 2nd letter, as published in The Principia Pilot, that he expected to have a full meeting with the entire Board without the CEO present. Clearly Moffett didn’t come with his resignation in hand or even intending to resign. One can only conclude that the Board, or at least the four Trustees who met with him, decided to preempt any lengthy discussion and simply announced that they were accepting his resignation, although it hadn’t been offered. This, in plain terms, is a firing. To read the e-mail string between Moffett and Jenkins published in The Principia Pilot of May 31, 2007, is to come to this conclusion.
However Reeves chooses to parse it, it seems obvious that you forced Moffett out as President of Principia College. In other words, you fired him. To claim that it was Moffett’s choice to leave because he rejected your offer to stay on in a severely reduced position is disingenuous, so much so that it isn’t worthy of who you are as Christian Scientists or as Trustees of Principia. I wonder whether Jenkins would be willing to stay on if he were offered such a reduced version of the CEO position without any real authority, or if you would be willing to stay on as Trustees if your roles were so drastically reduced? If Moffett resigned totally of his own free will, without any pressure, as you have claimed, why did you insist that he sign a confidentiality agreement?
Its very difficult to accept Reeves claim as credible that Jenkins had made no plans to remove Moffett as President of the College when Jenkins forced John Williams, President of the Faculty Senate, to reveal the advice Williams had given him in considerable detail on just such a course of action.
Anyone who reads the e-mail string between Jenkins and Moffett published in The Pilot, with Elizabeth Ponds introduction and explanatory notes, would get a very clear sense of the character of the two men. Moffett’s voice was reasoned, thoughtful, calm and patient while under the most severe pressure. Jenkins voice was hostile, angry, and intimidating. Even if one didn’t know anything more about the views of these two men, the difference between their tones of voice tells worlds about which one seems better suited to lead Principia. Numerous reports indicate that these very different tones are typical of how they’ve treated others at Principia during their respective tenures.
Its puzzling to see you characterize Reeves assessment of Jenkins tone and attitude as a matter of style issues. In all of Mrs. Eddy’s writings she never refers to anger, willfulness, and bullying or, to use the words of the Majority Members of the Resolution Committee, fear and intimidation as style issues. To her such behavior and treatment of people were not style issues but a matter of sin, in the broadest sense, which she rebuked with the sternest of words, while making clear that they undermine spiritual demonstration, as they have at Principia.
After one reads the e-mail string between Jenkins and Moffett, its clear why so many college faculty wholeheartedly endorsed Moffett’s leadership with 82% of the faculty voting support for him (more apparently would have, if the vote hadn’t been cut short). Its also clear why over 450 alums and friends of Principia have signed a petition calling for Jenkins to step down as CEO (a few names still have to be added to the Web site), and why 97% of the faculty voted no confidence in him. Why is it so difficult for your Board to recognize the difference between these two men and the character of each of them?
I hope you will take time to reread Moffett’s assessment of Jenkins treatment of employees at Principia, which Moffett sent you and which Pond included in her assessment of Reeves report. I’m sure these are hard words for Jenkins, and for you who appointed and have unquestioningly supported him, to hear. But they are remarkably specific, thoughtful and have the ring of truth to them. Moffett wrote: From community members I hear concerns that his [Jenkins] management style is to search for and magnify bad news, while rarely acknowledging accomplishments; that he does not listen well, has fixed opinions, and demonstrates little interest in alternative points of view; that he draws conclusions based on conversations with the most disaffected members of the community; that he has little interest in and understanding of collegiate academics and therefore does not understand the prerequisites to academic excellence. His frequent references to 'getting people off the bus,' and his occasional scolding of subordinates, have produced an atmosphere characterized by a considerable degree of fear . . . . These views appear to be held by a good number of highly respected people at the College. There is growing concern in the community that a continuance of this management style will undermine the foundations of trust and goodwill that have been established and that are essential to the progress of this institution." A number of employees can back up what Moffett has reported here and apparently have in reports they filed with Jim Reeves. The Reeves report states in a footnote that even supporters of Jenkins acknowledge that he has many of these characteristics. What they don’t acknowledge is how corrosive these characteristics have been to Principia.
The extraordinarily dismissive tone that Jenkins used towards Moffett and Faith Paul in his peanuts memo to your Board which begins “Grab some peanuts, the circus is in town!” illustrates many of the very points Moffett made about Jenkins management style. It’s hard to understand why you would retain any administrator who writes so dismissively of other employees and jumps to such negative conclusions that clearly are unfounded, instead of approaching employees directly in the spirit of respect and dignity.
These are not mere style issues that can be fixed by hiring a management consultant to work with Jenkins. They run far deeper than that. Surely you must agree that they’re hardly the qualities that a CEO should be modeling for Principia’s students, and they do little to bolster the credibility of a man who, by many accounts, doesn’t have the educational background or experience that should be required of the CEO of Principia.
The lack of support that Moffett received over the last couple of years from Jenkins and you as Trustees is particularly troubling for instance, how infrequently you met with him, your refusal to provide him with the managerial assistance that he requested and your complete misreading of the Academic Quality Improvement Programs (AQIP’s) report. The report was meant to be a starkly honest self-assessment that uncovered every conceivable problem rather than an objective assessment for comparing Principia with other colleges, as you apparently assumed it was. It would help enormously to clear the air if your Board would offer a clear admission:
That you misread the AQIP report is evident from the letter by AQIP’s director Stephen Spangehl that was published in The Pilot.
That the College was far from losing its AQIP accreditation, as Moffett explained to you.
That a misreading of the report was at the heart of your forcing him out.
Regardless of whom your Board may have turned to for interpretation of the AQIP report, final accountability for using it as a basis for forcing Moffett out resides with the Trustees.
I’m glad that you apologized for the manner in which you accepted Moffett’s resignation. But what does it mean that you take responsibility for the breakdown in communication between the Board and the College President? Would you please explain how you are taking that responsibility and if that includes dismissing those who are most directly responsible for such a grievous error?
One has to conclude that the breakdown in communication is at the heart of why your Board misunderstood Moffett, misrepresented him and accepted Reeves one-sided report on his removal. Presumably the breakdown in communication led to your accepting without question Jenkins vision for Principia and his disparagement of Moffett because you have not been willing to hear other points of view, specifically the view of Moffett, 97% of the College faculty, the more than 450 signers of the petition, and the group of eight former high level administrators, including Trustees, a CEO, and a Principia College President. The Trustees breakdown in communication with the College President has had an extremely serious effect on Principia and is at the heart of the crisis that has developed.
For all that Moffett has done for Principia College over the past eleven years, he deserved more support than this real support, in terms of listening to him frequently and giving him the managerial support he requested as well as the respect he deserved.
Treatment of the Resolution Committee
From the beginning, there was considerable concern that the Resolution Committee and Reeves report could be used as a means for your Board to buy time while giving the appearance of impartiality, instead of really listening to people and working toward true resolution. Even so, many of us hoped that something good would come out of the process.
As you know, a number of people have pointed out from the very start that it was a conflict of interest to have placed two Trustees on the Resolution Committee when the committee was charged with evaluating a fellow Trustee, whom you had appointed as CEO, and with investigating your removal of Moffett. Such a conflict of interest would be unacceptable in any sector of society government, business or any other educational institution. Why is it acceptable at Principia, a school that promotes itself as a groundbreaker in ethics, morality and character education?
If you were going to take the unusual step of appointing two Trustees to the Resolution Committee, it would only have been fair to have appointed two representatives from Moffett’s office.
One of the Resolution Committees early letters to the community sounded as if it were coming directly from the mouth of the Trustees. In fact, it turned out that it was. It was written by Helen Elswit from the perspective of the Trustees, not the Resolution Committee. This underscores the problem of having Trustees on the Committee. Numerous complaints about the letter alerted the Resolution Committee to the fact that they should prevent this from happening in the future.
I believe it was wrong for you to have claimed that the resolution process would confirm that Jenkins had acted with integrity. Having made this claim publicly, you painted yourself into a corner, making it very difficult indeed to evaluate the evidence objectively and possibly reach a different conclusion. Such a claim would be appropriate for a defense attorney to say about his or her client, but it was inappropriate for you who had two of your own members sitting on the Resolution Committee and who ended up defying the majority vote of the Resolution Committee on key issues and closing down the resolution process prematurely. In fact, contrary to your prediction, the Resolution Committee did not exonerate Jenkins at all.
As you know, there were a total of eight votes recommending that Jenkins leave as CEO but only five votes really only three legitimate votes, since two were cast by Trustees recommending that Jenkins stay on as CEO. But even the minority didn’t fully exonerate him. Their recommendation included the condition of a probation/mentoring/action plan for specific changes for Stuart.
For you to assemble the Resolution Committee, have the members work tirelessly for five months and then reject their key recommendations, including dismissal of Jenkins and dropping of the development of land on the St. Louis campus until more issues are resolved, makes an unfortunate sham of the process.
To close down the Resolution Committee before its members even had time to issue majority and minority reports on Reeves report, and when they had considered only two of the many issues they had been appointed to take up, will lead to greater disillusionment in the Principia Community. It was wrong and misleading of you to have silenced peoples complaints, calling on them to wait for and respect the resolution process, when your Board didn’t end up respecting the process or the key recommendations that came out of it.
The Resolution Committee was established with two elected representatives, each from different quarters of Principia, to assure people that the outcome would reflect the Principia community as much as possible. For you, as Trustees, to take over their work undermines the very reason for having established a Resolution Committee.
To hold the Resolution Committee responsible in your September 18, 2007, memo for not having mediated or resolved the issues facing the community which you’ve defined as presenting solutions to which all parties agree is totally unreasonable. In the current climate, it would be virtually impossible to get all parties to agree on issues, especially with your Board holding out against strong majority views, such as the College faculty’ s 97% vote of no confidence in Jenkins. The Resolution Committees votes show how close the Principia community is to agreement on primary issues, if only your Board would yield to the growing consensus. It took a Herculean effort for the Committee to accomplish all that they did. It seems cynical to take away their work from them because they didn’t accomplish an impossible task. To so do sounds like the plot of a dark fairy tale.
For you to have accepted the Committees key recommendations would not have been delegating decision-making authority to them, as you claimed in your memo. Rather it would have demonstrated that you were responsive to the majority views within the very committee that you had established and within the community as a whole. What’s the point of setting up a Resolution Committee that works for months on end only to reject their key recommendations? Unfortunately, it doesn’t make your Board look very good.
Now that you have dismissed the Resolution Committees key findings and shut down the resolution process, why would people trust your plan to resolve governance issues, other than that they’re forced to accept it? Obviously your Board does have responsibilities that you cant and shouldn’t surrender to others, but in the midst of a school-wide crisis one of your largest responsibilities is to listen and work with people as you strive to bridge the gaps between you.
Members of the Resolution Committee understood that their next step would be to work through the many issues raised by the community, including important governance issues. They especially wanted to examine the term limit of nine years that your Board has used to remove Trustees when you wanted to replace them, but which four of you are well beyond and which Jenkins has now exceeded. I’m glad to hear that three Trustees who have been on far longer than nine years have announced their retirement, but I was surprised and sorry to hear that one of the four is staying on. It’s extremely important for the vitality of Principia that there is rotation in office among the Trustees and that individuals appointed to your Board have a variety of viewpoints and experience.
Can you assure us that the new one-year term limits for Trustees that you’ve announced in your September 18 memo and the more organized, comprehensive annual evaluations of all Board members aren’t being established to intimidate Trustees who might be inclined to disagree with the direction of your Board? Now that one of your new appointees has had to withdraw couldn’t you show good faith to the community by replacing him, and in the future others, with one of the many thoughtful individuals and devoted Christian Scientists who have spoken openly against those policies of yours that are troubling to so many alums and friends of Principia?
Many people had questions about the resolution process and the hiring of Reeves, but they were willing to set aside their doubts and see what good might come out of it all. Sadly, it seems that there was little reason to have had hope in the process.
Firing of Lynda Sleight
At the very time that so many in the Principia community were pleading with your Board and Jenkins to be utterly forthright about what was happening at the school, the truth came from a different corner. It came from Lynda Sleight, administrative assistant to President Moffett, a single mother who was being paid a very modest salary and has few resources to fall back on. Yet she risked her job so that the Principia community could know the truth.
She took some extraordinarily courageous steps. They were not steps that an employee would ordinarily take, but in a time of severe crisis at Principia, she felt a deeper obligation to truth than to confidentiality requirements that unfortunately were being used to hide the truth.
Its a sad commentary on what Principia has become that a loyal and faithful employee, with an outstanding record of service over eight years, would be put in the position of having to choose between loyalty to truth and obedience to the schools rules of confidentiality that in the end were arbitrarily applied.
How was that divide allowed to happen? Can any of us read all that Mrs. Eddy has written about truth in Science and Health and honestly say that Sleight should have chosen the administrative rules of Principia over truth? Presumably any rules of confidentiality that she may have violated were not established to prevent truth from coming to the surface. Do you really expect employees at Principia to maintain confidentiality about wrongdoing and dishonesty, especially during the midst of an all-school crisis? If so, Principia has lost its ethical moorings.
Over the past several years, Principia has invited several nationally-known whistle-blowers to speak on the College campus about their own courageous actions. Their determination to expose corruption in organizations for which they worked has helped to spur changes throughout our society to protect exactly the type of actions that Sleight took. For Principia to punish, rather than praise, such action by one of its own employees is hypocritical at best.
During a faculty and staff meeting in Winter Quarter 2007, Sleight spoke about seeing a paper copy of an e-mail to your Board that was on Jenkins desk when he had asked her to work on his computer. She believed that the e-mail confirmed concerns expressed by others at the meeting about the transparency of the transition process to a new College President. Sleight explained at the meeting that she realized she could be fired for speaking about the e-mail but felt compelled to do so by a higher sense of loyalty. When someone asked if she would be fired for what she had done, Jenkins assured everyone at the meeting that she would not be.
In the May 31 Pilot interview, Sleight reported overhearing Phil Riley, Chief Legal Counsel, admit to a staff member that you, the Trustees, had arrived at the figure for Jenkins new salary first and then afterwards had gone to Katherine Milner, director of Human Resources, and asked her to find a benchmark to justify it. And in fact your Board had to use, and knew you were using, a flawed benchmark from a much larger institution in order to justify the raise. This is directly contrary to what you have publicly said. Reeves failure to report on Sleights account, even though it was reported in The Pilot, is an example of his willingness to paper over the truth in an effort to create harmony and unity at Principia. Christian Science teaches, if harmony and unity are not established on the rock of truth, they are false and will not last.
Sleight was fired for apparently violating confidentiality when the e-mail string between Moffett and Jenkins was published in the May 31 Pilot, even though Jenkins said in an interview on the PrinPerforce web site, I can assure you that no one would like to see the facts come out more quickly than I. After saying that, how can he possibly allow anyone to be fired for helping the facts to come out?
Reeves report on the departure of Moffett was so skewed towards Jenkins perspective that it underscored just how important it was that the e-mail string between Moffett and Jenkins was published in The Pilot, so the Principia community could learn the truth about the unjust treatment of Moffett and how he was forced out as President of the College. Unfortunately, the Principia Community wouldn’t be reading the truth about what happened to Moffett in Reeves report.
Tragically, you have treated Sleight as corporations typically treat their whistle-blowers firing her, banning her from the College campus for weeks, and allowing Jenkins as CEO to disparage her with language that was so off-the-mark, inflammatory and personal that it never should have been used by any administrator at Principia under any circumstance, particularly about an employee who has sacrificed so much to help truth come to the surface and has been so dedicated in her work for the College.
Unlike the rest of the world, Principia should have the moral courage to embrace its whistle- blowers, thank them for helping the school to face itself in the mirror and reward them for having the courage to stand for truth. Principia should give Sleight and others who blow the whistle on wrongdoing a choice of keeping their jobs or being given another one in the organization. Why instead has the school followed the worldly pattern of firing its whistle-blowers while protecting those who committed the very act that required the whistle to be blown? Its Jenkins who should be dismissed for treating Moffett and other employees so poorly and for forcing Moffett out, not Sleight for standing up for truth when it was such a scarce commodity at Principia.
Sleight demonstrated extraordinary moral courage at a college where it should be regarded as one of the greatest strengths an employee can bring to the institution. You should have recognized what a remarkable asset she was to Principia instead of firing her.
Developing Land on the St. Louis Campus
By majority vote, the members of the Resolution Committee asked that you make rebuilding trust your top priority and that you not spend time and attention on the development of land on the St. Louis campus until more urgent issues are resolved. There is considerable wisdom in their recommendation, and honoring it would help you begin to rebuild the trust that you have lost.
The development of land on the St. Louis campus is an extremely controversial issue, especially since it will drastically alter the environment of the campus in ways that cannot be undone. If such an issue is to be raised for consideration I have doubts it even should be its essential that it be proposed by administrators who have the full trust of the Principia community and who have established a reputation for really listening to others. Sadly, the CEO and your Board have lost that trust to a great degree. As the Resolution Committee recommended, your primary job at this time is to rebuild that trust, not to push forward on controversial issues that are sure to divide the community further. If the driver of an automobile loses the trust of his or her passengers, its imperative to slow down and regain that trust, instead of rapidly plunging ahead down unexplored roads.
As Jenkins said in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 29, 2007, about the undeveloped land, Granted most people would love to keep it an open field . . . . No doubt because they recognize the quality of life that such undeveloped land adds to Principia and the surrounding community an added value that cant be calculated in dollars and cents. The desire to preserve the undeveloped land should be heard and respected.
The plan to develop this land raises many serious issues. At this time, does Principia really need the money that would be raised by such a development? For what purpose? If money is needed, couldn’t it be raised in another way? Does developing the land best honor the wisdom of G. Eldredge Hamlin and others who purchased the land for the campus, even if they were open to selling it at some point? Does development really help preserve Principia as a unique educational institution and serve the surrounding community?
Would any plan for developing the land create, intentionally or unintentionally, an independent source of income, enabling your Board and future Boards to be even less sensitive to the views of the Principia field than you already are? On June 6, 1937, Mrs. Morgan presented an important paper at a session of the Board of Trustees to which members of the Executives Committee and the Alumni Board had been invited. In this paper, she stated: I do not believe that this institution needs to be wealthy. I do not think it would be healthy for it to have more than it requires. (Education at Principia, p. 145:21-33) She offers this advice before suggesting a balanced and reasonable approach to the schools endowment.
Principia already stands out in the community because of its commitment to Christian Science, and it needs the support of the surrounding community as much as possible. Over the years, Principia has earned considerable goodwill from the community. But this goodwill is at risk of being lost. The development plans have already sparked considerable opposition, not only among Principians, but also among Town & Country residents, with many property owners along Mason Road posting signs protesting the plans. Have you taken into account the effect that such signs and opposition have on students, who, understandably, are sensitive to how their school is viewed by others? Your CEO has a reputation for taking actions that tend to alienate and divide people. Sadly, this seems to be yet another example of that.
I seriously doubt that the land in question should ever be developed. But if at a later time, a CEO and Board that have earned the trust of the Principia community were to look into developing the land, wouldn’t it be much more respectful of Principia’s neighbors to develop it within the zoning regulations that call for one-acre residential lots, as Town and Country resident Henry T. Vogt suggested in his August 25, 2007 letter to Jenkins? Why should Principia request a change of zoning laws, altering the character of Town and Country, so Principia can prosper at other people’s expense? As Vogt concluded, remember your guiding principles…the Golden Rule and do the right thing both for The Principia, and our community.
It was difficult to read Jenkins quote in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, saying about the proposed development, “We want to create a place that has heart and warmth and humanity”. It’s hard to believe that statement is little more than words, when those qualities, by so many peoples accounts, have been lacking in his dealings with Principia employees, including an extraordinarily gracious President of Principia College. How will the CEO imbue a real estate development with heart, humanity and warmth when he has had difficulty bringing them to conversations and meetings with people within his own organization and of his own faith?
I was glad to see that the CEO invited Principia alumni and current parents of students to attend a meeting on September 10, 2007, in which there was a brief presentation followed by an opportunity to ask questions and share ideas. But how can people feel confident that their ideas will be taken seriously, if they run the least bit counter to the CEOs or your Boards plans, after they’ve seen your treatment of the Resolution Committee? That’s the danger of moving ahead on such an extensive project when trust has been so seriously eroded.
Early in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, Jenkins said that Principia has no plans to sell the property, only to lease it. But by the end of the article, he offered the thinly veiled threat that a stalemate in the community over plans to develop the land might force the school to sell the property. After such a threat, the promise of creating a development that has heart and warmth and humanity rings more hollow than ever. It’s bad enough to have the CEO of Principia threaten employees, but to have him issue threats to the community is even more destructive to Principia. Unfortunately, the schools neighbors and friends are now beginning to experience the atmosphere of intimidation and fear that Jenkins has fostered on both Principia campuses.
Stifling of Conscientious Dissent
One of the most chilling aspects of your July 16 letter is the implication that dissent and disagreement with your Boards views and policies will not be tolerated.
The sentence in your letter that some members of our community may not agree with the choices represented by the Trustees decisions and will turn to growth opportunities elsewhere certainly sounded like a thinly veiled threat to any employee who disagrees with your decisions. In such a carefully written letter, the ambiguity of the sentence and its unsettling effect seemed intentional. I was glad to read in your September 18 memo that you did not intend it that way. But even with your clarification, it still appears that its purpose is to encourage dissenters to leave Principia. The need is not to slowly back and fill on such mistakes but to openly admit that you made a mistake and to demonstrate a real openness to hearing those who disagree with your positions and to changing your own views.
If you hope to attract distinguished faculty and promising students, its essential that you don’t deny them, or even appear to deny them, the right to question your policies within the framework Mrs. Morgan established for the school.
The fact that Principia’s student newspapers reach widely beyond our campus boundaries is no excuse for setting up a Commission on Communication Standards. A body and name that sound as if they’re directly out of the former Soviet Union or George Orwell’s 1984to regulate the student papers. However this Commission functions whether as a board of censorship or less directly through calling for self-censorship, as a recent memo from you indicates it seems apparent that its purpose is to inhibit The Pilot from speaking openly and freely on issues that concern students and the entire school.
Its deeply troubling how much effort you put into trying to prevent The Pilot from reporting and editorializing on the crisis at Principia during the last school year. The many ways you attempted to curb The Pilots coverage shows little trust in the democratic process:
You hired a media consultant to monitor The Pilot and pressure it to stop writing on controversial issues.
The CEO refused to give The Pilot access to archival information and said that he would make the information available only if he personally trusted that it would be used responsibly.
Senior officials often wouldn’t t give interviews to The Pilot and yet accused the paper of lacking balance.
The CEO insisted that governance issues should not be discussed by The Pilot but only by the Resolution Committee, until after the fact-finding was complete. (See Pilot denied access to information, The Principia Pilot, April 6, 2007)
What does this teach students about democracy and the value of a free press, especially those international students who come from countries that have little sense of democracy? If you’re uncomfortable with the news that is reaching beyond Principia’s campus boundaries, the need is to resolve the issues in a way that involves and respects the whole community, not to censor The Pilots reporting of those issues. You may be uncomfortable with The Pilots directness in writing about issues that concern you, but your refusal to listen to others leaves many of us with few options, other than to speak with more directness than we often wish we had to.
Clearly the underlying standard for communication articulated in the Purpose and Policies of Principia is truth being true to the facts and to the teachings of Christian Science. And nothing should be allowed to interfere with that standard, which is best maintained by honoring the freedom of the press provided by the United States Constitution, rather than by setting up a commission to censor or require self-censoring of articles.
Sadly, your effort to stifle dissent contributes to the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that the majority of the members of the Resolution Committee specified as the reason they voted against keeping Jenkins as CEO.
The instructions Kim Browning, PACE director, gave to the Summer Session faculty and staff this July to avoid talking to Summer Session students about the issues troubling Principia is yet another example of stifling discussion and dissent. The history and founding principles of our own country should teach us all that issues aren’t solved but exacerbated by attempting to squash discussion and dissent.
The new rule issued by Human Resources that gossip is an act of moral turpitude and the offender will be subject to immediate dismissal without further pay is a serious threat to freedom of speech at Principia. What constitutes gossip is an extremely subjective matter. It’s particularly difficult to define at a time when the administration has very different views from many of the faculty, staff and students on what has and hasn’t occurred and what it all means.
What would prevent administrators from labeling any criticism of their actions as gossip? What assurance do employees have that they can speak openly and candidly about issues at Principia without fear of being fired for gossiping? This rule is extremely corrosive to the free exchange of ideas that is so crucial to resolving the crisis at Principia and to the ongoing health of the institution. Its a rule that compounds the ongoing intimidation exponentially rather than clearing the atmosphere. Please void this rule at once to assure everyone that you are welcoming, not trying to shut down, an open exchange of views, including those that may be contrary to your own. Obviously, actual gossip is not helpful to an individual or a community, but, as with many personal flaws, there are better ways for people to realize that gossip is wrong than through the threat of being fired.
A top-down, hierarchical method of management and fostering an atmosphere of fear and intimidation are very much something of the past, as the best businesses and schools have been discovering.
Progress in human thought is leading towards management based on truly listening to others, on working democratically as much as possible, on ideas coming from all corners of an organization, on rallying support through love and respect rather than trying to command it by fear and intimidation. Christian Scientists and Principia itself should be on the cutting edge of genuine progress instead of clinging to the worst approaches of the past.
I appreciate your reading all of this letter, especially since I realize its long and its never easy reading something that directly challenges so many of ones assumptions. I hope and pray deeply that you will reconsider many of the positions announced in your July 16 letter, particularly your continuing support of Jenkins as CEO. If you continue to support him, his policies, his management style and his ongoing manner of treating people, it seems likely that you will risk losing the consent of the governed that’s crucial to your Boards leadership of Principia. I don’t feel any ill will towards Jenkins, it’s simply that what he has chosen to stand for over the years often seems so contrary to the real nature and purpose of Principia. I hope you will make a radical change in your course before the damage to Principia and to your own reputation and legacy is beyond repair.
With deepest concern,
David Brooks Andrews
Preschool through US 72, C 76
P.S. I would appreciate hearing from you that you have sent this letter on to all Trustees, including those who are retiring and have just retired and those who will join the Board this fall.
**************************************************************************************************************************
(3)
TO: The Board of Trustees
FROM: John Lyon
DATE: September 19, 2007
SUBJ: governance & communications at Principia
Dear Trustees:
You are beginning a study of governance issues at Principia and have asked if there are any governance issues not addressed in your email of August 20. You have also asked recently for suggestions about ways in which you could more effectively communicate with the Principia community. Implied in those requests is a concern regarding the lack of trust in the CEO and in the Board of Trustees currently being expressed by a number of individuals in the broad Principia community. This letter will address those issues.
You recently hired an outside consultant to get involved in the Principia community in order to provide you guidance regarding what is going on here and how you should deal with it. As an active member of this community for quite a few years and as someone who is very interested in matters of governance, I believe I can share a perspective that might prove helpful to you in your study. I believe that I can help you gain some understanding of a number of the sensitivities currently affecting many Principians.
I believe you are sincerely looking for ideas that will help Principia overcome its current challenges, and I appreciate this opportunity to share with you a number of ideas that I have thoughtfully and prayerfully considered. Some of the issues overlap. I will give particular focus to the following topics:
1) the important work of the Board of Trustees
2) general governance issues at Principia
3) better communications at Principia
4) character education at Principia
5) the perception that the CEO and the Board of Trustees have a “corporate perspective”
6) oversight of the CEO by the Board of Trustees
At the end of the report there will be some final comments about what needs to happen now and why I decided to submit this report.
1. The important work of the Board of Trustees
First let’s turn to Mrs. Morgan for guidance. What is the most important work of the Trustees? What kind of people should serve on the Board of Trustees?
From Education at The Principia:
“. . . it is my hope that those who serve upon this Board may always be found, as in the past, among those Christian Scientists who are living, working, truly serving in the vanguard of our movement.” (p. 140)
“. . . Principia’s work can be supported only by a Board of Trustees whose members are first and foremost Christian Scientists, and impersonal, unselfish workers for our Cause.” (p. 148)
“In your hands, dear friends, not as human individuals, not as names, nor as bank accounts, not as prominent people, but in your hands as consecrated, effective, successful workers for the Cause of Christian Science lies the future of this institution.” (p. 149)
Mrs. Morgan didn’t simply state that Trustees had to be Christian Scientists. She said that she wanted the Board to be made up of Christian Scientists who are in the vanguard of our movement. That means she wanted the leading, the foremost, the most active, the most dedicated Christian Scientists in the world. Mrs. Morgan understood how important the work of Principia is to our movement, and she wanted the very best Christian Scientists in the movement directing that work. Notice also that she didn’t want Trustees because of their names, their prominence, or their bank accounts. She wanted individuals who “are first and foremost Christian Scientists, and impersonal, unselfish workers for our Cause.”
Some community members question whether or not all of those currently serving on the Board of Trustees are demonstrating the kind of commitment to the work that Mrs. Morgan expected from the Trustees of her day. I was one of the staff representatives who met with you recently at the Marriott Hotel. We were talking about how communications could be improved at Principia. When the suggestion was made that it would help if you came to the campuses more often and spoke directly to members of the Prin community, there was resistance expressed. The indication was that it just would not be convenient to do that. When you come to Principia you are focused on the business at hand and don’t have time to spend talking to members of the community. I got the impression that it would be a lot to ask to suggest that Trustees give up any more of their personal time to spend it at Principia. You have lives and businesses and families and other pursuits away from Prin and are already expending a significant amount of time and effort in your service to Principia.
Trustees dedicate much of their lives to the service of Principia, but if, in fact, you are a Trustee who now feels limited or inconvenienced by your service to Principia, is it not time to step aside and allow someone else the opportunity to serve as a Trustee?
Mrs. Morgan states in Education at The Principia, “. . . as members of the Board of Trustees, we cannot expect others to be loyal to Principia, to love it, to work for it, or to sustain it in any ways in which we ourselves are unwilling to serve. We must set the example to the limit of our abilities in responding to whatever may be the needs that face our institution. If God is guiding this work, it will only require of us what we can certainly fulfill.” (p. 148)
2. General governance issues at Principia
This summer I did a lot of thinking and study about issues of governance. My reading included a focused study of our Founding Fathers and of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which created the United States Constitution. We can learn much about governance by paying attention to what took place at the Constitutional Convention.
The Founding Fathers believed that the very legitimacy of government depended upon the support of the governed. Without public support government is illegitimate. One of the topics most hotly debated during the Constitutional Convention was the manner in which the chief executive of the country would be elected. For awhile it looked as if the delegates would settle on having the president elected by the national legislature. But the idea of having one group with power (the legislature) select another key individual with power (the president) made them uncomfortable. Their experience taught them that power given would result in power abused. They believed that the people would not accept a president endowed with far-reaching powers unless they (the people) had a role in selecting him. In the end the delegates decided that the chief executive of the land had to be a man of the people rather than a tool of the legislature, and so they established a process whereby the president would be elected by an electoral college made up of direct representatives of the people (who had no other political power than the ability to elect the president).
Because the Founding Fathers believed that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (James Madison), they worked hard to create a national government characterized by checks and balances. Having three separate branches of government which provided checks on the other two created balance and ensured a system in which no single individual’s ambition could run amuck.
The Founding Fathers also believed strongly in the rule of law rather than the rule of person. They believed that every single individual including the president had to be accountable for his actions. That is why they included in the Constitution a method to remedy executive abuse of power. The power of impeachment (indictment, trial, and conviction) put the president within rather than above the law.
Finally, as David McCullough pointed out in his talk at Principia College this past spring, the Founding Fathers understood that they were not perfect and that the document they had created was not perfect. That is why they built into the Constitution a process for amending it. When Benjamin Franklin urged unanimous support from the States for the Constitution, he asked each delegate to “doubt a little of his own infallibility” and put his name to the document.
Having a voice
When referring specifically to the American Revolutionary War during his recent talk at Prin, David McCullough asked, “What were they fighting for?” He answered that question by saying that the American soldiers were fighting to have it “our way” – not Great Britain’s way. “We are going to do it our way. We are going to have this country for ourselves. We are not going to be dictated to by people who don’t know us and don’t care about us and have a different outlook on the future.”
The Trustees need to understand this longing in the human spirit to have a voice in what happens in one’s own life, one’s own job, one’s own environment. “Principia” – the idea, the organization, the school – is not just the private domain of the current Board of Trustees and the CEO. It is true that Principia has to keep its financial house in order, but Principia is not a business! Principia is the collective demonstration of administrators, faculty, staff, students, alumni, all the supporters of Principia, and all the Principians who came before us and are a part of Principia’s development and growth. Principia is so much more than just a corporate entity. If the Trustees adamantly retain for themselves all authority to make any decision regarding Principia matters without any community input, if the Trustees continually take actions they understand to be in conflict with the wishes of significant portions of the Principia community (especially if they don’t even make an effort to explain their actions), if the Trustees do not allow Principia employees to be an active, vital component in the demonstration of the Principia idea, then why would Principia employees want to continue to work for an organization that shows them so little respect and why would Principia supporters continue to support an organization with such a human and limited vision?
Recently the words from the Trustees to the community are, “We want to hear what you have to say.” But time and time and time again the actions from the Trustees to the community have been, “We are not interested in what you have to say,” or “We reject what you have to say.” For example:
1) As you, the Trustees, have admitted, you were not even concerned what the reaction of the Principia community might be when you gave the CEO a 47% pay raise.
2) For years and years you have been traveling to this campus to conduct business. During most of your college visits you have remained isolated in the Guest House. During all that time why did you not take some meaningful time to observe and mingle with the community? In past years a few Trustees did that, but currently very few Trustees take advantage of the opportunity to visit classes, to attend sporting events, to eat in the student dining room, or to enter into any heartfelt conversations with members of the community. (Of course, Helen Elswit recently spent an entire quarter on the college campus. Unfortunately her stay on campus did not produce the kind of open dialogue the community had hoped for. She mostly played the role of a lawyer defending her client. Her energies seemed more directed into defending the actions of the Board of Trustees than into truly hearing the concerns of the community.)
3) There are many who believe that following the 71 to 2 vote of no confidence in the CEO taken by the Principia College Faculty Senate you put forth a limited, tepid effort to truly understand the reasons behind the vote. You did not meet with the faculty directly as a group to ask questions of them and to listen to their responses.
4) In response to agitation being expressed at Principia regarding actions of the CEO and the Board of Trustees you set up a mediation/resolution process stating in your letter of February 5, 2007, that you would “take the actions agreed to by the parties in the mediation process.”
5) You stated in a letter of March 28, 2007, “The Trustees are confident that the resolution process now underway will clarify controversial issues and confirm that Stuart has acted with integrity.” This you did before you had heard from any members of the community regarding possible grievances they might have against Stuart and even before the Resolution Committee which you set up had done its work. You made it appear as if you had pre-determined what the outcome of the resolution process would be before it ever took place.
6) You decided to appoint without input from the community three new Trustees to the Board in April despite strong requests from the Principia community that they have a voice in the process.
7) According to one of the signers of the letter, you did not acknowledge or respond to a letter dated June 9, 2007 sent to you by Principia’s former CEO, past college president, and other top administrators stating that Stuart Jenkins should “step aside” and that the “Board must accept his resignation without further delay.”
8) You decided not to honor your previous promise that you would “take the actions agreed to by the parties in the mediation process” deciding instead to pick and choose which recommendations you would support and which you would reject.
9) You disbanded the Resolution Committee (announced in your letter of July 16, 2007) despite strong feelings by members of the committee that they were not done with the work they had been asked to do and which they very much wanted to continue.
10) This month you again appointed new members to the Board of Trustees without providing a process that gives the community an opportunity to ask questions, provide comment, or play some significant role in the selection of the Trustees.
Principia’s employees are an essential part of the Principia idea and should be valued and heard. As the Founding Fathers stated, the legitimacy of a government depends upon the consent of the governed. What members of the faculty and staff think truly matters in regard to the operation of this organization and it should be taken seriously by members of the administration. More than that, the voice of the faculty and staff should have a permanent place at the table when matters of governance are discussed at Principia.
The flow of information and the examination of ideas
Good governance requires a free flow of ideas and information. Organizations need a thoughtful process for considering the pros and cons of diverse ideas and alternative courses of action. Right now at Principia there are several factors working against that kind of open exchange of ideas and information.
As individual Trustees have reminded community members from time to time, the Trustees have complete authority to do whatever they deem to be in the best interest of Principia. I believe most people understand that. What is troublesome to some is that you seem to interpret that to mean that you do not need to carry on an active dialogue with the Principia community. Many people at Principia don’t know who you are and don’t know exactly what you do. When you do take an action that you announce publicly to the Prin community, it usually comes without explanation as to why you did what you did. Much of your activities seem hidden from the Principia community. Since you also seem to be opposed to receiving community input into your operation, you give the impression that you believe your work to be none of our business. If that is truly what you believe, I would argue that much of your work is our business. Decisions made by the Trustees affect our work, our lives all the time. We want to know what’s going on, and we would like to know why particular decisions are being made.
Something else that hinders an open flow of information is the overuse of confidentiality. Many people believe that Principia needs to be much more thoughtful in the way it uses confidentiality. Although some things need to be confidential, not everything does. The concern is that confidentiality can be misused to cover up sloppy or unfair practices. Even worse it can be used to cover up deliberate malfeasance. As Traci Fenton pointed out in her talk at Principia this past year, many organizations are becoming much more transparent. Traci gave examples of companies and other organizations that have become more productive, more substantial, and more beneficial for themselves (i.e. profitable) and more beneficial for their communities by becoming more transparent. In talking about these organizations she said, “There is no hidden agenda going on. Everybody knows what’s actually happening for real in the organization.” When employees are kept informed and are given an opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions about possible courses of action, the organization benefits. While members of the Principia community understand the authority of the Board of Trustees and appreciate your efforts to support and sustain Principia, we also believe that if you allowed us to have a greater voice and play a bigger part in the operation of Principia, it would be beneficial for everyone involved. Principia would be the better for it.
Specific actions regarding governance
So, given all this discussion of governance issues, what are specific actions that could be taken by the Board of Trustees that could improve governance at Principia?
1) Give members of the Principia community a place at the table – a permanent and substantive voice in the governance of Principia.
2) Give members of the Principia community direct representation in the selection process for the school’s top executive and for the Trustees.
3) Change the name of Principia’s top administrator from CEO (Chief Executive Officer) to a title taken from an academic or government context rather than from a business context.
4) Increase the diversity of the Board of Trustees in terms of expertise, background, and experience. Select individuals more reflective of the broad spectrum of persons within the Christian Science movement.
5) Establish a bylaw stating the maximum number of years that any individual can serve on the Board of Trustees.
6) Establish a process whereby the chief administrator and the Trustees can be held accountable for their actions. Put them within rather than above the law.
7) Greatly increase the opportunities for direct communications between the Board of Trustees and the Principia community. (More specifics on this will be given in the next section of this report.
3. Better communications at Principia
Any individuals who live together or work together have to communicate. It is unavoidable. How important it is then to communicate effectively. How do we do that? What are some of the components of good communications? Certainly trust and mutual respect are two of the basic components. In order to communicate effectively you must speak truly and you must believe that what the other party is saying is true. And you have to genuinely care about one another. That is true because when you care, you hear better. You listen more carefully, more compassionately. Following is an example from Mary Kimball Morgan of the kind of caring and respect required to achieve true communication:
“A part of the secret of whatever measure of success The Principia may have attained, or will, in the future, attain is due to a certain democratic co-operation between Principal and teachers, and teachers and pupils. No one has been permitted to feel that he was but a subordinate – a child, therefore less interested in the welfare of Principia than those at the head of the institution. All have felt the responsibility of making the work a success, and pupils have been encouraged to present their viewpoint upon matters concerning which they may have had opinions differing from those of the faculty; and these views have been respected and thoroughly weighed from the standpoint of the student body, before making definite decisions. Teachers have been consulted and asked to help in mental work when matters of importance were to be settled. The family council, whenever possible, is indispensable to the perfect co-operation of those composing an organization of any importance. To make that family council of real value, there must be a true democratic ‘getting together,’ and the opinion of one must not be valued more than that of another.” (As the Sowing, p. 97)
As stated earlier, Mrs. Morgan wanted on the Board of Trustees members who are “first and foremost Christian Scientists, and impersonal, unselfish workers for our Cause.” She also wanted the Trustees to be compassionate communicators. She states in Education at The Principia (p.142) that Trustees must demonstrate “more readiness to listen, more willingness to accept counsel and advice, more readiness to cooperate, more respect for and reliance on that quality of spiritual thinking and perception which is best exemplified in human experience through what we know as intuition, provided such intuition is the result of action of the one infinite Mind. There must be a greater breadth of culture, keener alertness to one’s own ineffectiveness or insufficiency in human ways . . .”
Good, effective communications will not take place at Principia until the Board of Trustees and the Principia community develop greater trust in one another and demonstrate a genuine concern for one another. This will happen rather quickly once the Trustees learn that there is an advantage to the organization in letting faculty and staff members have a voice in the operation. People under someone else’s authority don’t always need to have their way, but they do need to have their say. They need to be respected for their ideas, and they want to have a voice. If they believe that they are truly being heard within the organization, they can be very forgiving and very understanding of those in authority. When those being governed have a voice in what happens, they feel a part of the process, they feel that everyone working for the organization is part of the same team and that they are all working for common goals.
So what specific actions can the Board of Trustees take to improve communications at Principia? Here are some suggestions:
1) Make yourself more accessible to members of the community both as individuals and as a group. When you visit the campus schedule time to just walk around and mingle. Visit classes, attend sporting events, eat in the student dining room, spend some time in the Pub, talk with people.
2) When you talk to people ask them why they decided to work for Principia. Get an idea of the level of commitment being expressed (and in some cases the extraordinary sacrifices being made) by individual members of the faculty and staff.
3) Attend meetings of the Faculty Senate and the Staff Senate. If you can’t be at the meetings at least read the minutes of the meetings.
4) Consult with people before you make final decisions about things you know will affect them. Seek community input and listen to what they have to say.
5) Make yourselves better known to the Principia community. Allow yourselves to be interviewed by members of the “Pilot” staff so we can start getting a clearer idea of who you are.
6) Use the “Pilot” and the Prin web site to speak to us candidly and informally about your vision for Principia. Tell us about the thought process that went into decisions you have made.
7) Present a state-of-the-school report from the Trustees to the entire Principia community at least once a year. (This would be a report above and beyond the CEO’s annual report. The community needs to feel directly connected to the Trustees and wants to hear directly from you.)
8) Each quarter on each campus hold an open forum of at least one hour during which any question on any topic from any member of the Principia community can be presented to the entire Board of Trustees.
4. Character education at Principia
As important as it is to take specific actions to improve governance and communications at Principia, the greatest improvement at Principia will come when each one of us strives daily to live a life of sound moral character. We talk a lot about character education at Principia. We understand that setting a good example is important in so many areas of life but is especially important when working with young people. Children of all ages can tell when an adult is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Our actions speak so much louder than our words.
When the Principia community learned about the email exchange of last October between Stuart Jenkins and George Moffett, it was painful and embarrassing for everyone. When we learned about how the four Trustees treated Dr. Moffett during their very brief meeting with him at the Guest House on November 3, the reaction was the same. What kind of an example is that to set for our students? The CEO and the Trustees make it more difficult for resident counselors, coaches, professors, or any of us to speak seriously with students about expressing a “refined moral character” when that is the example being set by the school’s leadership. There simply was nothing refined about either one of those examples. It is still difficult to understand it, but our CEO came across as a bully – someone who gets angry when people don’t do what he wants and who then pushes his weight around. And can any of the Trustees who were involved in the “meeting” with Dr. Moffett say that they treated him the way they would have wanted to be treated themselves? Regardless of whether or not you wanted Dr. Moffett to continue as college president, is that the way you “accept the resignation” of someone who has dedicated his life to Principia and given so much to it for eleven years? (And, by the way, how do you “accept the resignation” of someone who never wrote nor submitted a letter of resignation? George Moffett was a college president. In that position he wrote letters and reports all the time. He was also a journalist, an author, a responsible individual, and someone who cared deeply about Principia. Would a person like that not write a letter of resignation if, in fact, it was his intent to resign?) The way George Moffett was treated on November 3rd was disgraceful.
I believe that some time after the “meeting” with Dr. Moffett, the Trustees acknowledged that they did not handle the situation well. I’m sure many individuals in the community sincerely appreciate the Trustees’ acknowledgement of mistakes made in this situation and are hopeful that this was a significant learning experience for them. As we look to the future, it is important to acknowledge once more that no matter how much we talk about character education at Principia, it means nothing if we don’t live by the Golden Rule ourselves. It means nothing if we don’t demonstrate true character in our own lives.
5. The perception that the CEO and the Board of Trustees have a
“corporate perspective”
Recently the Board of Trustees announced the appointment of five new Trustees who will take office in November. At that time three other Trustees and the CEO will step down from the Board thus changing significantly the composition of the Board. Currently and for a number of years our CEO and Trustees are and have been primarily businesspersons (financial people) and lawyers. In the view of many members of the community our CEO and Trustees have a decidedly “corporate” way of looking at things. Is there harm in this? What happens when the school’s chief administrator and its top policy makers are mostly individuals with a corporate mindset? What difference does it make whether the head of the school comes from a corporate or from an educational background? Actually the difference can be quite significant.
A corporate vs. an educational perspective
In a corporate environment efficiency and speed are important. The corporate executive needs to act quickly to respond to market conditions. When a CEO requires that something be done, he wants action not questions. The consultative process can slow things down. Many businesses are autocratic and hierarchical because that way is more efficient. A corporate executive sometimes thinks it is unnecessary to create trust or to build open communications between employer and employee. Except for the privileged, powerful, and protected few at the top of the organization, employees are considered relatively expendable. If they don’t like how things are done, they are free (and encouraged) to work elsewhere. The company will simply find someone else to take their place. The governance style is often “My way or the highway.”
An educator generally has a very different perspective and a very different set of priorities from those of a corporate executive. In an educator’s environment inquiry is encouraged. Original thought is welcomed. Thoughtful dialogue and diverse points of view are valued. Ideas are presented to others and then dissected, analyzed, defended, discarded, revised, and refined until something truly significant is achieved. Neither efficiency nor speed is the goal. When problems are encountered, a vigorous exchange of differing opinions is looked upon as something good. Diversity is respected. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Ideas are often judged according to their own merit. The atmosphere is frequently one of collegiality, mutual respect, and trust.
“Corporate-think” at Principia
At Principia in the past few years a number of the decisions and actions of the CEO and the Trustees have demonstrated a corporate mindset. The “Trim to Grow” program was a corporate-think approach to allocating resources. The basic idea that you have to take from one area of the school’s operation in order to give to another area of the school’s operation is not a concept based on an understanding of God’s superabundance or the idea that divine Love meets every human need. It was not a concept that proved beneficial for Principia and was eventually dropped.
Another example of “corporate-think” is branding. Branding is something businesses do to help consumers easily identify their products. Companies use a consistent color scheme and a consistent logo to “brand” their products. Principia has decided to do the same thing. In an email sent to the Principia community on August 31, the CEO wrote, “Currently there are at least a dozen different panther icons that Principia has used to represent its mascot. At some point it would seem prudent for the school community to select one icon of a panther to represent the institution. . . No decision will be made without broad input from students, faculty, staff, parents, and alumni.”
This email was written in response to questions raised by community members about an incident that recently happened on the St. Louis campus that surprised and upset a number of individuals. Here is what happened as I understand it. With the understanding that the CEO and the Marketing Department had decided to adopt the concept of branding and that the CEO was going to ask the school “to select one icon of a panther to represent the institution”, and with the approval of those above him, a member of the Athletic Department directed that existing images of panthers in the area of the Girls’ Gym be eliminated. The panther paws on the floor of the Girls’ Gym were removed during the summer. The work of painting over a panther mural outside the boys’ locker rooms on the lower level of the Girls’ Gym building began near the start of the school year. When a member of the community saw that the panther mural was being painted over, she asked the Facilities worker who had been told to do the work to stop and he willingly complied. She asked the worker who had instructed him to do what he was doing and he told her. When she asked that individual why the panther mural was being painted over, his response was, “Because we are not the panthers.”
When the community member stopped the paint-over of the panther mural, she did so because she was stunned that a beautiful piece of artwork was being destroyed. The panther mural I am talking about is 17 feet wide and 11 feet high. It depicts a gorgeous black panther reclining on a tree limb in a lush jungle setting. Subtly and inconspicuously included in the scene so that you have to search for them there are quotes from Mrs. Eddy and from the Bible. The painting is spectacular. It is carefully, thoughtfully, beautifully rendered. The painting was done by Ryan White, a talented art student who attended both the Upper School and Principia College. The painting was given to Principia as the Class Gift from the Senior Class of 1999.
[There is an error in my report that I need to correct. I state in my report that the panther mural in the Girls' Gym building on the St. Louis campus was the Class Gift from the Senior Class of 1999. My source for that information was the man who actually gave the checks from Principia to the artist, Ryan White. I have now been informed that that information was not accurate. The money for the painting did come from Principia but not from the funds raised by the Senior Class of 1999. The panther mural was commissioned by Principia, but was not the gift of the class of 1999. Their funds went to a different project.]
I do not disagree with Principia management’s desire or decision to bring clarity and consistency to Principia’s color scheme and logos, but I do question the process that has been used to implement the decision. Doesn’t common sense tell you that you do not destroy a piece of art like this – at least not without carefully considering your actions and gaining broad support for your decision? Even if you thought you were doing the right thing and had the approval of those above you, don’t you think that in a community like Principia it is the wise to help others understand your perspective – especially before you take any action that could have the slightest possibility of becoming controversial. If you are absolutely convinced that you are doing the right thing, wouldn’t it be smart to get the community on board with you before doing something that might upset them if you were simply to forge ahead on your own? Apparently the individual who directed the paint-over of the mural felt that he had done all that needed to be done. He had the approval of those above him and knew that they had complete authority to make this kind of decision.
After this incident happened, the CEO wrote his email stating, “At some point it would seem prudent for the school community to select one icon of a panther to represent the institution.” What is the CEO saying? Certainly at that point in the process the community had had no broad input. No survey had been taken. “Students, faculty, staff, parents, and alumni” had not yet been asked to select a particular panther icon. Is the CEO saying that it was justified to paint over the mural because he has the authority to tell the community to decide on a single panther icon and that since he knows that is going to happen anyway it is OK to start eliminating existing panther images on campus? It may not be clear what the CEO is saying, but it is very clear what he is not saying. He is not giving the community a clear explanation of what happened or why it happened. The email contains no apology for mistakes that were made. It contains no acknowledgement of accountability for what was done. And there is no promise to evaluate the process that was used and to look for a better way to do it the next time.
The Trustees are trying to understand why there is a sense of distrust and misunderstanding in the Principia community. This is why! When the community is not consulted in the first place and not given completely clear and factual information in the second place, it breeds misunderstanding. It is incidents such as this one that erode the confidence and trust of the Principia community in the school’s leadership.
The Clarence Howard example
I’ve been talking about “corporate-think” at Principia and giving examples that illustrate the dangers of having people with a corporate mindset in the top management positions at Principia. I don’t mean to infer that it isn’t important for Principia to keep its financial house in order. Of course it is. But is it absolutely necessary for the top administrator of the school to be someone with a corporate background? Financial advisers (and legal advisers) can be hired by the school or can simply serve as consultants. Isn’t there more important work for the school’s top administrator to be doing? Shouldn’t Christian healing, quality of education issues, community building, and character development take precedence over financial issues for the head of the school?
During the early days of Principia Clarence Howard, a successful businessman, was essential to the survival and growth of the school. His financial expertise and contributions were significant in keeping the school going. Mr. Howard served as a Trustee of The Principia, but, to my knowledge, Mrs. Morgan did not ask him nor consider him to be the head of the school. He had a very important role to play in the school’s development, but that role was not to be the chief administrator. During Mrs. Morgan’s time the role of chief administrator was always held by an educator.
Businessmen in Mrs. Eddy’s household
At Summer Session this year John Ranson gave a Chapel talk that included a part about businessmen in Mrs. Eddy’s household. He began that portion of his talk by noting that our society honors human experience and discounts that which cannot be proved by physical observation. The notion that God can heal or work “miracles” is often scorned and dismissed as irrelevant.
He continued by saying that after Mrs. Eddy discovered Christian Science “human knowledge receded in importance and was replaced by a deep commitment to look completely to God for direction.” Mrs. Eddy writes on page 234 of Miscellaneous Writings, “What hinders man’s progress is vain conceit. . . . Empirical knowledge is worse than useless: it never has advanced man a single step in the scale of being.” This understanding gave Mrs. Eddy the ability to see things that others never saw and to truly discern the signs of the times.
Mr. Ranson stated, “Most of us are familiar with the number of times that Mrs. Eddy had accomplished businessmen – primarily men – as part of her circle of advisors or early workers, and also the number of times those accomplished businessmen were sure, convinced, unhesitatingly convinced that a decision by Mrs. Eddy was so against accredited evidence of business acumen that they would argue or campaign against Mrs. Eddy because they knew she was wrong. But the funny thing about this is that the answers and the directions that were revealed to Mrs. Eddy always outlasted, outshined, and outperformed the solutions put forth by the early businessmen that participated with Mrs. Eddy in the early movement.” He continued “. . . seasoned businessmen came to work in Mrs. Eddy’s household or the Publishing Society or to support the movement and left convinced that Mrs. Eddy was wrong, convinced that she was going to wreck the movement, and that, frankly, they were better skilled to run the movement than she was.”
Mr. Ranson drew these remarks to a close by stating, “Prayer itself is not enhanced by human knowledge. It is hindered. Progress only comes from inspired thought and the revelation of God with us.” He concluded by saying that we each need to learn from Mrs. Eddy’s example by turning selflessly and humbly to God for direction rather than to human expertise.
We are what we read
It is so important for each one of us to turn selflessly and humbly to God for direction, but that is especially important for individuals in a position of leadership who regularly make decisions affecting the lives of others. Where are the CEO and the Trustees looking for direction? What ideas and principles are guiding your thought as you guide Principia?
During his talk on the Founding Fathers given at Principia this past spring, David McCullough stated that we can know more about the men of that time or any time by knowing more about what they read. As he put it, “The books are the man. We are what we read.” What books are affecting the thought of Principia’s management? The one I’ve heard about that has made a significant impression is entitled Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . and Others Don’t by Jim Collins. In talking about a particular CEO, Collins writes on page 45, “When Maxwell became CEO of Fannie Mae during its darkest days, the board desperately wanted to know how he was going to rescue the company. . . . Maxwell focused first on getting the right people on the Fannie Mae management team. . . . Maxwell made it absolutely clear that there would only be seats for A players who were going to put forth an A+ effort, and if you weren’t up for it, you had better get off the bus, and get off now.” Later on page 63 he states, “The good-to-great leaders began the transformation by getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it.”
Is Principia being properly led?
Given all that has happened at Principia in the past three years, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to state that the actions of the CEO and the Trustees have been heavily influenced by the concepts in Good to Great – possibly to the extent of taking priority over the principles in Education at The Principia. The perception on the part of many is that Principia’s top administrator and policy makers are leading the organization according to current business acumen more than according to inspiration gained from divine guidance.
A number of people want to know your answers to a number of serious questions. What guides the thought of the Trustees? What do you consider to be your most important work? What vision do you have for Principia? Where do you expend your greatest effort? What work is necessary for you to do and what can you hire others to do? What would you say gets more of your focus and energy at regular Trustee meetings: the character education of our students or the management of Principia’s endowment? And which of these: the reestablishment of trust and understanding on the Principia campuses or the development of Principia’s real estate? Are you focused on the most important things? What is your primary task?
Here is one more quote from Mrs. Morgan:
“May I say it – and I firmly believe it – that the members of this Board need to know more about the task we have assumed. I believe we must take it more to heart, in terms not only of unwearied willingness to serve but of intelligent readiness to serve, day in and day out. . . . Such service, dear friends, cannot be compressed within the minimum essentials of attendance at our meetings, nor within the giving of financial support or personal interest alone. It means real metaphysical leadership! Principia is yours. What will you do with it?” (Education at The Principia, p. 149):
6. Oversight of the CEO by the Board of Trustees
There is one final governance issue for the Trustees to consider that is very serious. How much autonomy should the Chief Executive Officer have? Should he have complete authority in all things? Should there be no accountability whatsoever for his actions? Or should the Board of Trustees provide some supervision, some oversight of the CEO?
At present it appears as if oversight of the CEO is practically nonexistent. It looks as if the CEO has not been limited in any way in anything that he does. The Trustees are rarely on campus and thus rarely see for themselves what is taking place at Principia. Certainly the Trustees have the authority to support or to temper the actions of the CEO, but how effectively can they do that when the information used by the Trustees to make decisions comes primarily from the CEO and reflects his perception of what is going on at Principia?
Here is the concern of many individuals in the Principia community: Intended or not, under the CEO’s position of unchecked authority Principia is becoming a divided community of the “haves” and the “have nots”. The claim is that individuals are now able to by-pass regulations and standard procedures with Stuart’s assistance and approval. When challenged by others, the phrase that has been used is, “Stuart said I could.” When individuals are seen having a one-on-one conversation with Stuart, others are starting to wonder if that individual is asking for some special privilege or some special treatment. To many it appears that Stuart treats Principia as if it is his own private business over which he exerts total and absolute control.
The conclusion reluctantly arrived at by some but strongly felt by most is that the management style of Stuart Jenkins simply does not work in an educational institution. The consensus among many in the broad Principia community is that as long as Stuart Jenkins remains CEO of The Principia, there will continue to be a deterioration of trust and confidence regarding Principia’s leadership. Stuart Jenkins encourages a concentration of power at the top of the organization. He believes that he has total authority to do whatever he alone decides to do, and his top management team supports (and benefits from) that belief. He does not foster nor encourage open communications within the organization. He does not believe in the process of gathering a wide range of diverse voices and opinions before making critical decisions. He does not expose his plans for the future and invite thoughtful and critical analysis of his ideas except, perhaps, to/from a small and tightly knit audience. He does not believe in having a balance of power in the top management structure. He seems to focus more of his energies on financial concerns than on educational concerns. He does not admit mistakes nor accept accountability for poor decisions readily or openly. He doesn’t seem to value the contributions of others in a meaningful way or to be driven by a genuine, powerful, merciful, pure sense of compassion for the Principia community.
Whether these conclusions and perceptions are valid or not, it is broadly understood that the CEO has the power, the authority, and the resources to determine who or what receives support at Principia and who or what does not. Because the CEO is the final hiring authority for all positions not appointed by the Board of Trustees, he can determine who gets a particular job and who does not. All power flows through the CEO’s office. In the position of CEO Stuart Jenkins is a very “hands on” person. He gets involved in a lot of decisions. Individuals and managers of various departments are learning that if you want to get something done or something done quickly, it is essential that you gain the ear of Stuart. Ultimately, he is the one who decides what flies and what dies at Principia. It is his perception of what is happening and of what needs to happen that carries the greatest weight. It takes priority over the perception of every other individual in the Principia organization.
Regardless of who the individual is that occupies the position of CEO, is it healthy for Principia to have so much power concentrated in a single individual? Is this how the Trustees want it to be? Is this how the Trustees believe it should be? Is this concentration of power at the top contributing to the climate of mistrust and suspicion at Principia? Is this current form of governance consistent with Mrs. Morgan’s requirement that the “government of The Principia shall be as democratic as possible. . .”? (Education at The Principia, p. 233)
In a hierarchy where power is concentrated at the top, there is great potential for the abuse of power. There is always the danger that loyalty to person will take precedence over adherence to Principle. If someone under someone else’s authority wants to keep his job or simply remain in the favor of those above him, he will generally do what he is directed to do without giving much thought to whether or not it is the principled thing to do.
Here is an example to which we were all witness that involved the Trustees. Sometime after giving Stuart a 47% pay raise, the Trustees admitted to the community that they had used a “flawed process”. Well, Trustees were not the only persons involved in that flawed process. The process was enabled and carried out by top staff personnel who did not challenge the request but instead demonstrated obedience to person rather than to Principle. In other words, people in positions of authority were willing to go outside the rules, outside the normal procedures because individuals above them in Principia’s hierarchy of power asked them or directed them to do so.
Conclusion
Principia’s current challenges are something we can overcome and correct if we more faithfully adhere to Principle and restructure our governance to incorporate accountability, distribution of power, the opportunity for a diversity of voices to be heard, and a governance structure that allows all constituencies to play a vital role in the governance of the organization. This is something we can do and that we need to do in order to ensure the very survival of The Principia. Without consecrated and consistent adherence to Principle, Principia is no longer Principia. It becomes just another human organization subject to the vicissitudes of human thinking.
I am sure that people at Principia are not being deliberately unprincipled, but we need to wake up to what is going on. The devil (error) would try to lead unsuspecting people at Principia into putting person ahead of Principle because that would be striking a blow to the very heart of Principia. Error is trying to make us lose our moral compass.
Each one of us knows deep inside what is right and what is wrong. We each need to pay better attention to that still, small voice within. We also need to pay better attention to the outstanding speakers who come to this campus and share with us the principles that have made their lives successful. As reported in the “Principia Purpose” (Fall/Winter 2006), during his talk at Principia this past year Egil “Bud” Krogh spoke about “the importance of making decisions from a sound ethical basis, rather than personal loyalties.” He knew what he was talking about. There was a time in his life when he lost his moral compass and put loyalty to person ahead of adherence to Principle. The result is that he went to jail. He reminded those of us who work at Principia that we always need “to be loyal to the highest ideas and ideals that govern the institution you are a part of.”
We at Principia today have the authority and the ability to deal with error’s suggestions now. All we need do is to rededicate ourselves to Principle, and be obedient to that one Principle. And we need to keep our promises.
At all times and under all circumstances, overcome evil with good. Know thyself, and God will supply the wisdom and the occasion for a victory over evil. (S&H p. 571:15-18)
And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure. (S&H p. 497:24)
Submitting this report
I now submit this report to the Board of Trustees for your review. It is neither my wish nor my expectation that you accept any of my observations or suggestions without examination. On the contrary, it is my hope that this report stimulates thought and discussion. I hope you thoroughly test the veracity of my statements. Ask others in this community what their experience has been. Invite them to come forward and tell you their stories and give you their suggestions. Invite open (and, if necessary, confidential) discussions. I believe that it is through prayerful thought, careful examination of ideas, and open, respectful, vigorous discussions that truth is found – the truth that leads us to the right course of action in human affairs.)
I understand that portions of this report will probably agitate some people. That could include those who are benefiting from the status quo and don’t want things disturbed, those who are aware of current challenges but don’t want to get involved, and those who may not be aware or who simply want to be left alone to do their jobs. However, I also believe that this report will encourage others because they will see that some of their concerns are being articulated and brought forth for review and thoughtful consideration.
In the end I decided to submit this report because I couldn’t ignore the thoughts that kept coming to me and that needed to be voiced. Additionally, I feel a huge debt of gratitude for those who have come before us and who battled for principle in their day and left us the country, the religion, and the school that we are so privileged to be a part of. If we have to make some sacrifices in our lives in order to battle error and to stand up for Truth, it is so little compared to the sacrifices made by our Founding Fathers, by our leader, Mary Baker Eddy, and by the founder of this school, Mary Kimball Morgan. We are so blessed and so benefited by what they did! I feel we have a responsibility to defend the clarity of their visions and to maintain the strength and wisdom of their institutions. I hope that is what I am doing. That certainly is my intent.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
(4)
NO REZONING PRINCIPIA
www.zoningintegrity.com
This site includes:
(1) Reasons to not rezone
(2) How to get involved
(3) Newspaper articles
(4) Letter to CEO
(5) City Task Force
(6) Alderman addresses
(7) Principia addresses
(8) Blog
(9) About us
This site enables you to read what the press, fellow Principians and the community have written about the proposed Mason Woods development. It gives you access to minutes from public meetings on the development. It also assists you take action if you are opposed to selling and/or developing ½ the St. Louis campus for non-educational purposes.
An alumnus wrote, after seeing this website:
This is a great website...I've sent it out to all who "know." Do you know if it has been sent to the Post-Dispatch? SEJ is quite the politician. He's following the "when all else fails, start a war" policy of hopelessly-in-over-their-heads politicians. He doesn't have enough of a mess with an overwhelming vote of no-confidence, a lack of a College President, mutiny in Elsah, and a damaging rift in STL, that now he has to tackle a new project that will also alienate most of Town and Country? Hey, we've never had great PR with the town; to them, we're weird, we're different. That's ok if we keep to ourselves and don't bother anyone, but once we start rezoning and subdividing and letting a new Town Hall go up on our property, our anonymity and privacy are shot to hell. Not to mention our security. Imagine an inebriated hotel guest deciding to wander around and end up walking the Prin pathways late at night. And no fence is going to impair access. Prin has never been secure in that way (of course, that's a topic we all pray about, but you know what I mean). It's so easy to get on the property now. When the surrounding property is developed, accessibility will increase dramatically. The STL campus should not be naïve on this topic so important to educational facilities nationwide. This site says T&C has tons of money - yet an earlier letter said they had little to spare researching SEJ's plans. I wonder which is accurate, if either. The question remains, what does Prin need? Does it need money? Does it need increased enrollment? Does it need building upgrades and new construction of the educational buildings? If it needs money, sell the Dutch company. If it needs increased enrollment, live CS. If it needs new buildings, go to the Field and ask for funds. SEJ could win over a lot of people if he just asked for the building monies (following tradition) instead of subdividing the property. And what's with needing to tear down all the STL buildings? When we lived there 10ish years ago, Sharples had them spend millions on new A/C, all new windows, new floors/carpet - complete overhauls of the dorms and major buildings. For what? To be torn down 10 years later? At that time, we were told the buildings were now "like new" and would last a good many years later. And as to the millions SEJ says are needed for the Preschool, show us the data. I'm wagering there are MANY preschools in close proximity to Prin that were built on far less than several million. Prin already owns the property - new construction just doesn't cost that much. Do research, ask around. The Field is being deceived by all these SEJ meetings - the decision has been made, and the development is in the works. If a highway developer were deciding to build new roads and went to the trouble of hiring contractors and developers and town governments to "look into it," you'd have a pretty sure bet the roads were 100% certain. Wake up, folks. SEJ considers himself and introduces himself as a cattle rancher, not an educational administrator, disturbing as that may be. As a cattle rancher, what if he decided to develop his land to become a sweet little English village filled with cars and hotels and less than appropriate influences - would he be able to convince others that it was for the good of the cows? There's a lot of manure being slung, and I hope people can see it for what it is…he wants to develop the land to make a name for himself in Prin history, not for the good of the cows...um...students.
A community member wrote:
RICHARD C. & LOUISE R. JENSEN
13004 STARBUCK ROAD
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63141
314-878-4870
September 14, 2007
Mr. Chris D. Towle
Principia Board of Trustees
42 Countryside Lane
St. Louis, MO 63131-1205
Dear Mr. Towle,
On September 13th Mike Fox and I met with Stuart Jenkins at Bellerive Country Club. Our purpose in the meeting was to discuss Principia’s desire to develop 128 plus acres of the school’s campus into commercial and mixed-use development. Mr. Jenkins indicated that the Board of Trustees had directed him to explore the concept of this mixed-use development plan, and it is in this regard that I am writing to you.
I have served on over a dozen of civic, charitable, and corporate boards (list enclosed), and I know the importance of board responsibility and leadership. Boards have the responsibility to be good stewards of the assets and to give direction and oversight to the Chief Executive Officer.
It has come to my attention that there is considerable discord and controversy within the Principia community regarding Stuart Jenkins’s methods and character. These internal issues are Principia’s business and of little concern to me. But my neighbors and I are very concerned about the relationship that Principia has with the Town & Country community.
In the 30 years that I have lived off Mason Road, Principia and the residents have enjoyed a respectful and positive relationship. When Principia announced their intention to explore the commercial and mixed-use development on over 128 acres of their campus, the residents felt confused as to why Principia would ever consider “paving paradise and putting up a parking lot”. Please review the resident’s website: www.zoningintegrity.com.
My understanding is that a basic tenant of Christian Science is Harmony. Currently Principia are risking the creation of a non-harmonious relationship within our community. Perhaps this situation is more the result of Mr. Jenkins’s approach and not the intention of the Principia community. Your CEO has antagonized the community. The citizens of Town & Country simply do not want a commercial (offices, shops, and possibly an inn) use on this property.
If an art museum is having financial difficulties, it doesn’t sell off its prize painting. Rather, the museum board finds the leadership that can raise money to solve its financial challenges. Mr. Towle, I hope you and your fellow trustees have the foresight not to develop this special asset of Principia, and find alternative ways of solving its financial challenges.
I would hope you and the other Trustees would have the foresight to withdraw your development plans now.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call me.
With kindest regards,
Richard C. Jensen
Enclosure
(5)
The Prin Panther’s Demise
For several months there have been rumors and strange happenings around campus concerning the Panther mascot. [See John Lyon’s letter Section 5]. In spite of protestations that it will be up to the campuses to determine changes in the school mascot, it appears that a change is inevitable. The “anointed” new mascot/logo will be Blue and Gold. Yet another example of the top down methodical corporatization of Prin by Stuart Jenkins.
With gratitude,
Paul Schmidt JD GRI
College ‘71
