"In the event you hadn’t been paying attention, momentous and unprecedented events have occurred at this university this week. First, students organized and said NO to business as usual. They said NO to not being substantively included in the future of their university.
Second, faculty said NO to the status quo. Faculty demanded more of a president than one with an online degree and limited experience in higher education during the last 20 years. Faculty demanded more of a candidate who did little more than recount stories unrelated to the pertinent and important questions asked of him. This applicant was asked directly about the veracity of his reputation and responded that it was unfounded and then demonstrated unequivocally that his reputation for retaliation was, in fact, not unfounded. You may have invited them to this campus believing they would visit without incident. The university community said resoundingly NOT WITHOUT INCIDENT!
Third, the press reported extensively about these events and your institutional behavior and functioning. Their reporting, both print and broadcast, as I interpret it shows you lacking in the performance of your fiduciary responsibilities.
I took some time to read the etymology of fiduciary. It’s from the Latin fi-du-cia-rius of something held in trust which is from fi-du-cia meaning trust. Your conduct in this presidential search process has irrevocably breached the trust of this community. Your ability to fulfill your fiduciary responsibility is now impossible.
You had the opportunity at this meeting to begin to restore the trust that has been broken and missed that opportunity. You could have conducted an open discussion of the two applicants in the full view of the university. 5 ILCS 120 Section 2 states “The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception.” Therefore this body could have had an open discussion of this matter and chose not to, either because of not understanding the Open Meetings Act or a continued desire to conceal the functioning of the Board .
This body has on more than one occasion violated its own governing policy. Article 1, Section 1 of your governing policies states “Although the Board is responsible for assuring that its policies and regulations are followed, it shall not participate in the details of institutional management, which are hereby delegated to the university administration.” And should you attempt to refute this statement, I would suggest reconsideration, especially when the Office of Executive Inspector General could initiate an investigation into those claims.
The university demands more of the Board now. It is calling for you to truthfully examine your honor, your motivations, and personal agendas before you continue with whatever ill conceived plan you have to foist one of these grossly unqualified applicants on this university. If you are honorable you will acknowledge that it would be a horrendous injury to this university to appoint either of these feckless candidates. If you are not honorable, if you are driven by your own selfish motivations or are consumed by some unsatiated thirst for power, pursuing Machiavellian agendas that do not serve the higher ideals and aspirations of this institution, I guarantee you will find that path strewn with obstacles you can’t yet begin to imagine.
The university has said NEITHER! Neither of these candidates is fit or deserving to lead this university. Neither of these candidates should be given a minutes more consideration. The university has said NEITHER! Ignore that message at your own peril.
I do not purport to speak for the university, the students, or the faculty. And if they believe my words to be true they will support me in whatever way they believe is appropriate, either by word or deed. "
Second, faculty said NO to the status quo. Faculty demanded more of a president than one with an online degree and limited experience in higher education during the last 20 years. Faculty demanded more of a candidate who did little more than recount stories unrelated to the pertinent and important questions asked of him. This applicant was asked directly about the veracity of his reputation and responded that it was unfounded and then demonstrated unequivocally that his reputation for retaliation was, in fact, not unfounded. You may have invited them to this campus believing they would visit without incident. The university community said resoundingly NOT WITHOUT INCIDENT!
Third, the press reported extensively about these events and your institutional behavior and functioning. Their reporting, both print and broadcast, as I interpret it shows you lacking in the performance of your fiduciary responsibilities.
I took some time to read the etymology of fiduciary. It’s from the Latin fi-du-cia-rius of something held in trust which is from fi-du-cia meaning trust. Your conduct in this presidential search process has irrevocably breached the trust of this community. Your ability to fulfill your fiduciary responsibility is now impossible.
You had the opportunity at this meeting to begin to restore the trust that has been broken and missed that opportunity. You could have conducted an open discussion of the two applicants in the full view of the university. 5 ILCS 120 Section 2 states “The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception.” Therefore this body could have had an open discussion of this matter and chose not to, either because of not understanding the Open Meetings Act or a continued desire to conceal the functioning of the Board .
This body has on more than one occasion violated its own governing policy. Article 1, Section 1 of your governing policies states “Although the Board is responsible for assuring that its policies and regulations are followed, it shall not participate in the details of institutional management, which are hereby delegated to the university administration.” And should you attempt to refute this statement, I would suggest reconsideration, especially when the Office of Executive Inspector General could initiate an investigation into those claims.
The university demands more of the Board now. It is calling for you to truthfully examine your honor, your motivations, and personal agendas before you continue with whatever ill conceived plan you have to foist one of these grossly unqualified applicants on this university. If you are honorable you will acknowledge that it would be a horrendous injury to this university to appoint either of these feckless candidates. If you are not honorable, if you are driven by your own selfish motivations or are consumed by some unsatiated thirst for power, pursuing Machiavellian agendas that do not serve the higher ideals and aspirations of this institution, I guarantee you will find that path strewn with obstacles you can’t yet begin to imagine.
The university has said NEITHER! Neither of these candidates is fit or deserving to lead this university. Neither of these candidates should be given a minutes more consideration. The university has said NEITHER! Ignore that message at your own peril.
I do not purport to speak for the university, the students, or the faculty. And if they believe my words to be true they will support me in whatever way they believe is appropriate, either by word or deed. "
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6khePgwzXg
ReplyDeletewatch this speech and the comments of the students.