Chuck Gutenson listed these 19 common points between the account of Peter Kerr and that issued by Dan Johnson:
1. the board policies mandate that the president’s review be based on agreed to performance objectives, and that these were not discussed with the president.
2. an informal, anecdotal survey was the initial basis for discussion.
3. the Chair appointed task force was given a summary of this anecdotal survey by the Board Chair which was a “cut and paste” summary made by the Chair.
4. the informal, anecdotal survey was non-scientific with the 12 persons interviewed being solely selected by the Board Chair and the interviews carried out by a consultant.
5. the result of the anecdotal, non-scientific survey presented two different views of President Greenway and his leadership.
6. the Chair appointed task force gave the president about an hour to read a 34 page document summarizing parts of the review.
7. the president had no reason to expect such a negative review and the committee’s findings took him by surprise.
8. the president was instructed to stand down from his presidential duties for the day while the review was to be processed.
9. a member of the Chair appointed task force indicated to the president that the president was being asked to resign or be fired.
10. this member communicated some of “the task force’s member’s concerns” and no effort was made to correct any miscommunication.
11. the president went home to discuss these matters with his family.
12. communications broke down after this with the president refusing to return for further discussions on that day.
13. the Chair appointed task force initially placed President Greenway on leave and this decision was extended at the subsequent Executive Committee meeting.
14. the initial announcement regarding the leave made it clear that there were no “smoking gun” issues involving ethical, moral, or legal matters.
15. the Executive Committee did not ask the president to return to meet with them on the following Tuesday.
16. the president issued a statement offering an apology for his initial reaction and asking for third-party mediation.
17. the faculty passed, by a large margin, a number of resolutions expressing full confidence in President Greenway.
18. communication since have occurred primarily through lawyers.
19. there is no one fulfilling the role of president or chief executive at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ken: I posted earlier regarding the use of protest etc... by students and the inability of faculty and others to be seen to encourage that kind of behavior. You took the post more personally and indicated that you were standing down in your "activism" only briefly.
My point was that no one on campus with any existing power can encourage the students to become active in any way other than to keep silent and "pray." (board--wouldn't/couldn't; faculty--couldn't; president/administration--couldn't)
I would suggest that a person in your position as well as other alumni could encourage students to become active and quite possibly should. Alumni could, without fear to significant reprisal or loss of a voice, encourage current students to pray and then act in accordance with their conscience including taking such actions as:
1) Collectively missing a day of class and holding a public prayer meeting to express concern for the leadership of their school;
2) gathering in groups and traveling to Atlanta in order to express concern over the decisions that will be made there that will directly effect their future;
3) Circulating petitions or other actions that can constructively communicate student concerns and thoughts on the current controversy involving the leadership of their school.
Post a Comment