On May 31, 2007, The Principia Pilot published a “special edition” issue including articles by Elizabeth Pond as well as student Editor Caitlin Carpenter weaving a story based on documents that had been provided to Resolution Facilitator Jim Reeves, but apparently stolen by then President Moffett Secretary, Lynda Sleight, and given to Pond for her article entitled: “Three Weeks in Autumn”. 

It may be best for you to open up a copy of the Pond article by clicking here: 3 weeks in Autumn -(this link is no longer active - we are working to find an electronic version of the article) and view these two pages side by side.

Although Jenkins was given the opportunity to answer questions from Carpenter, he had been abiding by the resolution committee’s expectation that all matters in regard to the controversy be handled through the resolution committee and he therefore did not provide any documentation to Carpenter or Pond.

This is now the opportunity for the public to see the actual timeline of events relating to Ponds article “Three Weeks in Autumn”.  The full disclosure of events and documents paints a very different picture than what has, up until now, been what the public believed to have happened. Pond’s e-mail exchanges regarding Moffett begin on October 26^th.

The documents shown here begin with the October 13^th memo.  Pond’s article also contains the John Williams Memo information, which we have posted on another link. (click here).

Pond began her “3 weeks” article on October 26, 2006.  Unfortunately for readers of The Pilot, she has missed key information that provide background as to how the exchanges that are printed in the Pilot began.

We start the timeline with Jenkins delivery to Moffett of the October 13^th memo.

The fact that Pond began her “3 weeks” article on October 26th shows that either she didn’t have the earlier exchanges (a highly likely scenario) or she purposely left them out of her article.  This shows an unprecedented lack of journalistic integrity. The fact is Pond has missed key information which provide background and context for which she wrote her article.

On October 13, 2006 (click here for Moffett Letter) Jenkins delivered a letter to Dr. George Moffett characterizing the strengths and weaknesses that Jenkins saw in the Office of President of Principia College.  Jenkins sent this letter without prior approval from the Board of Trustees.  This letter was not considered an “official evaluation” as Bliss characterizes in her letter of apology.

On October 15, 2006 Jenkins receives the following email from Bliss:

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:58 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: College/CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Stuart,

I want to let you know that I had three phone calls from George early today and was just now able to respond to him. He said that you had a very serious discussion with him on Wednesday and followed it up with a letter delivered to the College yesterday. He wanted to discuss with me the contents of both saying that the Trustees needed to know that your letter is filled with misrepresentations. The following was my response: _ I have not seen a copy of the letter but I assume Stuart will be including it in our Monday update. Meanwhile, I need to protect the integrity of the Institution by suggesting that you use a formal process for responding to Stuart’s letter. As a Trustee, I’m not in a position to have an informal conversation about this but will certainly take seriously any written response you make to Stuart if you decide to share it with the Board _George then wanted to tell me the problems he has had with Faith and that overall the College has never been better and that you just blow things way out of proportion. He acknowledged that there were a few problems but they were all being dealt with. I again reiterated to him that he needed to express his concerns to the Trustees as a whole and I assured him we would look at any issue based on evidence not on he said, she said.

Please feel free to share this with other Board members if appropriate.

Traci

Bliss states in her letter of apology to Dr. Moffett regarding Jenkins, the following - ”when I talked with him after your call to me, he told me about the letter but downplayed the severity.  Instead he was quite concerned that you called me and made a big deal out of his assertion that you knew that was a violation of confidentiality… He said you were in complete violation of the standard set by his PEC group.” 

In fact Jenkins provided Bliss a copy of the letter at 8:15p.m. (a little more than an hour after Bliss sent Jenkins the above e-mail) Jenkins could not have said that Moffett had violated a PEC standard - because the PEC met on October 17th to discuss the very issue of leaking confidential information - and set a standard at the meeting that day.  (for further information see PEC information below).

Here is the e-mail Jenkins sent to Bliss with the attachment of the October 13 letter to Moffett: 

October 15, 2007 - 8:15 pm

Traci,

Since you are now knee deep in the facts — here is a copy of the letter.

What do you think?

SJ

On October 16th Jenkins replies to a request that Moffett made for the two of them to meet.  Below is Jenkins reply:

From: Stuart Jenkins

Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:47 AM

To: George Moffett

Subject: Meet with SJ

GMRegarding a meeting time with me.  The timing is completely up to you.  Tuesday or Wednesday work for me.  Just let Karen know when you would like to meet and we will set it up.

Thanks

SJ

On Tuesday October 17, 2006 the PEC (Principia Executive Committee) met for its regular monthly meeting.  By this time, news relating to the contents of the October 13^th letter had reached Jenkins by several sources.  During the PEC meeting Jenkins shared that PEC level restructuring concepts had been shared outside of the PEC.  He then asked the members of the PEC to discuss the best way to handle confidential information that related to PEC level issues and what consequences should occur if a breach of this type of information occurred.  Jenkins left the room as the members of the PEC discussed the issue.  Jenkins was called back into the room and was given confirmation that this type of breach was very serious and that the need to keep PEC level information private was extremely critical.  Jenkins was then told he had permission to discover how the breach of confidentiality occurred. Moffett was at the meeting and agreed to participate in the follow-up on this breach.

Two days later each member of the PEC was sent a simple questionnaire. 

Memo sent to PEC members is below:

Interoffice Correspondence  

DATE:      October 19, 2006

TO:           Principia Executives’ Committee       

Steve Abbott , Katherine Milner, Peter Shays, Howard Berner       

George Moffett , Peter Stevens, Richard Booth, Phil Riley, Jeff Williams

 

FROM:     Stuart Jenkins, Chairman/CEO

RE:           Follow-up on PEC meeting confidentiality breach

The topic of the confidential information that was leaked is a PEC-level restructuring idea that focused on a.) changing the responsibilities of a key executive post, and b.) the reasons for considering change.

Following up on that portion of our meeting on Tuesday afternoon that focused on confidential information being disclosed by a PEC member(s), we need resolution and have not yet achieved it.  Please consider and respond via e-mail to the following questions:

1. Since Friday, October 13, have you communicated with any trustee or former trustee? 

2. Since Friday, October 13, have you communicated about a key PEC post, or the reasons for a possible restructure of it, with:

a.       any trustee

b.      former trustee

c.       confidant:  friend, spouse, colleague, other?

  

Please answer each question briefly as follows with either:

a.       no

b.      yes

c.       and, if yes, identify who

I would appreciate your responses today.

 In addition Jenkins provides Willard Hanzlik and Traci Bliss a copy of the questionnaire as trustee level “oversight” on the investigative process. Jenkins sends the following e-mail to both Bliss and Hanzlik:

Hi Traci and Willard,

Members of the PEC are really upset that no member of the team has stepped up to “own” the leak issue.   This memo went out late today. You are the only trustees that know about the PEC meeting on Tuesday. where they asked me to follow the breach of confidentiality to wherever it leads.   I want to insure that this process is transparent and has some “oversight”. Thanks

SJ

Within 24 hours, Jenkins receives responses from each member of his Executive committee EXCEPT Moffett - each having filled out the questionnaire and returning it to Jenkins. Moffett, however, responds to the simple questions by sending the following e-mail to Jenkins:

From: Principia College President’s Office

Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:09 AM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: Response

Stuart, On the basis of the letter you sent on Saturday, which came in the context of what has long seemed a general disapproval on your part of my performance as president, I concluded that my dismissal was imminent. So did Martha. On this basis I confided in two or three associates that my tenure may be nearing an end, feeling that this was something they might need to be aware of and prepared for. The communication was in the strictest confidence and confidence has been maintained. No one has seen your letter or heard passages from it other than Martha. I have also put in a request for practitioner help in this connection. My communication was not done in any way to influence the outcome, nor did I then have the slightest idea about any possible reorganization. I first became aware of the concept of a “restructuring” when you mentioned it at the PEC meeting on Tuesday.  As I mentioned, Traci responded to my call clearly and firmly that there should be no communication between us outside of normal board channels. As I mentioned, the call lasted no more than one minute.  

George

Jenkins contacted Bliss to confirm that Moffett was accurate in the portrayal of the phone call he made to her.

On October 21, 2006 Bliss continued to think about Moffett’s breach as well as his response to Jenkins regarding the length of time he spoke to Bliss.  Bliss wrote the following e-mail, copying Willard Hanzlik (vice-chairman)

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]>

Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:58 PM>

To: Stuart Jenkins; Willard Hanzlik

Subject: A Favor

Dear Stuart,

During my two years on the Board of Trustees I have never asked you a favor, now I am. I would like George’s deceit to be exposed and shared with the full Board. To that end, a Sprint manager has confirmed that my cell phone call to George’s home phone on October 15 was eight minutes long compared with the one minute George admitted in his e-mail to you. In those eight minutes, while I repeatedly told George I could not discuss the topic, he insisted on telling me how misinformed you were and how right he was pursuant to your letter of October 14.

Thank you for considering the importance of this request. We are either faithful Christian Scientists or we are not; honesty and forthrightness must be the new culture of leadership at the College.

Sincerely,

Traci

Jenkins responded to Bliss’s email by asking her to be patient and let things unfold.  Jenkins e-mail below:

Stuart Jenkins wrote: Traci, This issue will come out but it is in fact far larger then the missing 7 minutes. I plan to bring this out but must do it in a way that is not viewed as “stuart piling on”. I think you will see in this weeks update that I have started laying the ground work. For one the PEC would likely be far less forgiving then the Trustees and they may demand that we take action! Please be patient and do not show your hand, please just watch as I make the case.  You feel very strongly on this point, as you should. George has been party to dismissing student that have provided this level of misdirection. Phil’s interview with George is a real eye opener. Claiming even that he had no idea what I was talking about in the Tuesday PEC meeting. Thus it never occurred to him that this might involve him. Really hard to believe but he may in fact be that disconnected.SDuring this same time period Jenkins is communicating with the Trustees on a regular basis.  In Bliss’ letter of apology she comments that “Jenkins states there will be more conversation between the two of you before he forms any plan to discuss with the Trustees.  Aside from his interrogating you over the leaks, I have no documentation that such conversation ever occurred prior to the November Trustee meeting…..”  First is a communication sent out by Vice-Chairman Willard Hanzlik to all Trustees on October 17, 2006:

October 17, 2006

CONFIDENTIAL

Members of the Board of Trustees

Dear Friends:

            As you may know, Stuart’s recent discussions with George Moffett and his October 13 letter to George have resulted in some unexpected reactions by the College president as George (or persons close to George) has shared the essence of Stuart’s private communications with at least one former Trustee and others known to be critical of Principia in an effort to gain support for his position.  As we work through this situation, it is important for us as Trustees to maintain objectivity and confidentiality and to avoid discussions outside of the Board of Trustees.

            Stuart has carefully kept the Board informed of the steps he is taking and the rationale for such steps.  It is incumbent upon us as Trustees to avoid entertaining discussions with members of the community whose intent is to influence the decisions of the Board or to allow anyone or any interest to attempt to drive a wedge between the Chairman and the Board of Trustees.  Issues such as this must not be resolved in the court of public opinion but rather through careful, deliberative process.  As Trustees, we must speak with one voice.

            There are important facts which we need to understand in order to properly understand this situation including the results of the College personnel evaluations last Spring and the recent AQIP report on the College, among others.  I am confident that Stuart will continue to keep us informed and we will have an opportunity as a Board to confer among ourselves.  If we need to do so before the November Trustees meeting, we can, of course, schedule a conference call.   In the meantime, I suggest that our obligation as Trustees is to support Principia metaphysically and to remain above the fray of human opinion.

With best wishes,

Willard

Bliss responds to Willard’s communication on October 17From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:17 PMTo: whanzlik@mac.com; Stuart JenkinsSubject: Letter to TrusteesFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Willard,    Your letter seems just right in both tone and content. I appreciate how closely we are working together and will keep you both updated if I receive any more lobbying efforts.Traci

On October 19, 2006 Jenkins provides all the Trustees with an update.  Timing is important in this sequence as there are overlaps with the AQIP timeline as well as the PEC Breach.   October 19th is the same day the PEC is receiving the questionnaire - so Jenkins does not know how Moffett is going to reply yet. October 19, 2006 

Friends,

I wanted to update you regarding the situation in Elsah with George.  We met yesterday morning in a meeting that I would characterize with the words humble, genteel, and even emotional.

This was an extraordinarily difficult meeting for George.  It was the first time I have ever been able to talk with him about his strengths and weaknesses without any resistance or ego.  It was the first time George has ever acknowledged his own shortcomings, which appear very hard for him to come to terms with, and in doing so he is clearly struggling with the idea that he might not be College President.  For whatever reason that role is very important to him.

I told him that I spent 25 years thinking I was stupid because I don’t spell well, but I have reached the point where I don’t pin my intelligence on my ability to spell.  I then noted that George had many outstanding skills, but he is a very poor manager – but that does not make him a bad person.  I told him we are asking him to build on his strengths.  He seems to understand, and maybe even trust a little bit, that I am seeking to find the right place for him to succeed rather than just wanting to throw him overboard.  He even noted that the paragraph in the letter about his strengths “was clearly written with sincerity and heart”.

He voiced an interest in bringing in a VP for operational purposes and asked that I consider this option.  In contrast, I asked him to think about staying in a role that builds on his prodigious strengths while letting me bring in an operational head at the College.  He said he would think about it.

He then let me know that he had planned to stay two more years beyond this year.  I noted that seems like a very long time to “play out a position”.  If we are going to change the organizational structure at the College in the short term, he is very concerned that it happen in a manner that preserves his dignity.  I assured him that is important to everyone!

George asked that I not make any decisions until after the Trustee meeting.  Clearly he is banking a lot on those meetings being a huge success.  I told him that I had no intention of doing anything before the Trustee meeting.

George needs a lot of support.  He needs to know how valued he is yet he cannot be led to believe he is a great operational manager.  Please help me on this one as it has taken a lot of work to get to this point.

From my standpoint we are now having conversations that are open and free.  The walls are coming down.

The only way ahead is forward and we are going that way.On October 20, 2006 Bliss responds by sending the following e-mail to Jenkins and Hanzlik:From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:17 AMTo: Stuart Jenkins; whanzlik@mac.comSubject: Andy’s AlternativesFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Hi Stuart,Consistent with Andy’s request, I’ve thought through the various ways Higher Ed handles these situations. I have one alternative other than Chancellor that would probably be more attractive to George and would be better for the College and our PR in the field. Given his guilt over the leak he would probably welcome it with open arms, especially as opposed to firing. Willard, do you think we may need to have that Board conference call  before the meeting?  Otherwise, will this topic divert too much time and attention from other essential business?  Also, I’m concerned that it may be quite awkward for the EEC Committee to sit through a lengthy meeting with George when we’ve never discussed this as a group.Stuart, please call me over the weekend, and if the plan I’ve come up with seems like a viable alternative, I’ll write it up for you ASAP in the form Andy has requested.

Traci

Jenkins replies to Bliss’ e-mail above noting that he is not familiar with Andy’s request.  Earlier in this sequence Hanzlik had sent a communication to the full board (above) - but Hanzlik did not include Jenkins in that original communication (Hanzlik sent the e-mail separately to Jenkins).  Andy Hunter received Hanzlik’s e-mail and hit “reply-all” with the suggestion that Stuart develop alternatives for George.  Jenkins did not see that e-mail because he was not one of the “reply-all” recipients.  Traci explains to Jenkins what Hunter is asking for.I am not familiar with Andy’s request.  Has Andy sent something?SJTo Which Bliss responds:

Stuart,In response to your latest update, Andy’s message was that he wanted you to develop alternatives for George and the pros and cons of each–he asked for this in a written form that we could all study. Traci

Willard Hanzlik responds to Bliss as well - asking for her alternative ideas:From:Willard Hanzlik Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:21 AMTo:Traci Bliss

Cc: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: Re: Andy’s AlternativesTraci,At this point I don’t sense a need for a conference call, however events could change between now and the Trustees meeting. Your point about the EEC committee meeting with George is interesting…another awkward moment. I’m very interested in your alternative idea.WillardJenkins follows this up with a further correspondence to the Trustees on October 23rd outlining alternatives for George and further information on the current situation.On October 22 - Bliss responds to a previous e-mail but it is now related to Moffett’s options going forward:

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]

Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:48 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins Subject:

Re: A Favor

Stuart,

So far we have worked quite well as a team on this whole topic and I’m confident in however you decide to handle it. I have no intention of mentioning it to anyone so that you and Willard are the only one’s who know how I feel. I can act very well. My central issue is this–I do not think it is principled or healing to have George believe or any of the Trustee’s believe that George is being asked to go on sabbatical or whatever the first step in his departure will be because he is a poor manager. He is a poor manager because he will not tell the truth or follow through on the promises he makes. Down the line, I don’t want the question to come up–well why didn’t the Trustee’s send George to management school? The intensive Harvard management program wouldn’t make a dent–the only change will come when George decides to become a truthful person. Are we in sync on this?

As for sending Merlin’s note to our committee–that is indeed one strategy. If you go that direction then tell us what you want us to do with the knowledge and if it should inform the questions we ask during George’s presentations. However, if your goal is to give George the fairest shot with the Trustee’s you may want to try a different strategy.  If you let George and his group make their presentation on Thursday with no interference by you, etc. then it is totally fair. Then on Friday or Saturday when we discuss the topic–you make sure Merlin has the opportunity to present his assessment of AQIP to the Board. As you and I discussed earlier, I’ve done a one page graphic organizer which makes it very simple to see AQIP at a glance and I can share that if and when you and Bill want me to. Meanwhile, I would send Merlin’s note to Bill because he is so quitely vital in all of this.

(On the AQIP topic, in response to Katharine’s note about not really getting AQIP, I did a one page summary for her yesterday. I’m glad to share it with you as well if you like. ) The good news is:

Chestnut called this morning to say they were sending our EEC group overnight materials for the Board meeting–major change from the past when we never even knew what the substance would be about. Already you are bringing a new sense of order–amazing what accountablity can do! )

Traci

 

Jenkins sends a correspondence to the Trustees updating them on events surrounding the outcome of Jenkins October 13 letter to Moffett.October 23, 2006 –        CONFIDENTIAL to Board of Trustees – –        RE:  College President 

My letter last week placed on record my view of George Moffett’s assets and what he brings to the office of College president.  Briefly stated, George inspires alums, donors, families, and friends of Principia to trust that the school is still committed to its founding principles for education and conduct.  This important group believes that Principia is on the right track because of George’s stellar leadership and that as long as he is in place, Principia is in good hands.

I am also on record stating the weaknesses that I see in George Moffett’s leadership skills.  I believe my view is shared by the Principia Executive’s Committee and the majority of the faculty and staff at the College.  It comes down to a lack of trust in his ability or willingness to lead in an open, honest and direct manner.  He is simply not trusted or respected by those closest to the inner workings of the College.

Is this the best we can expect for Principia College?  That is the fundamental question the Trustees must ask.  If this is as good as we can expect for the College, then we should do nothing and avoid the hassle of trying to get better.  I believe we can do much better and we owe it to our mission, students and faculty to try.

What is the effect of the current situation? Alums, donors, and others at a distance are very supportive of George and therefore are happy with Principia.  It sounds good and looks good.

The faculty and staff are tuning out and essentially believe that the Trustees are more interested in pretending George is a wonderful college president than in addressing his substantial shortcomings and their effect on the College.  Some pillar teachers are tired of the charade and have opted to leave.  Judy and Glenn Felch and Gary Fleener have opted out and when pressed point to presidential leadership as part of the reason.  Joe Ritter and Steve Shedd were seriously considering the same path for the same reason.  When you start losing some of your key faculty and put in jeopardy the retention of others, it is time to act.

The CEO has done some damage control by working directly with John Williams, Faith Paul, Lee Suarez, Steve Fulkerson and others.  However, this form of management is inappropriate in almost every way and will never lead to systemic improvement.  This unintentionally further undermines the credibility of the office of the president.

The AQIP report, written by sixty-two members of the faculty and staff and edited by the president is so damming that most colleges receiving such a report would consider it a major crisis.  This report, in polite language, says that Principia has weak leadership.  Category four is especially discouraging.

How important is enrollment to Principia College?  The admissions office has had the highest turnover of any office on campus during the last five years but the director received no direct feedback from her supervisor, the College president.  When she was finally terminated, the word from the president, according to the personnel office, was that he was ok with her performance but that the CEO wanted her removed.  Can Principia afford to continue to manage itself in key functional areas this way?

 Risks:

If we stay the current course we will have a supportive alum, parent, friend, and donor base.  If the change gets ugly then the public relations problem could be significant.  Think Brian Morse times one thousand.

If we stay the course the College operation will continue as it is.  The faculty, staff, and management relationships will continue to be full of mistrust and dysfunction.  The college will look less and less like the school we advertise and promote.

Continuing in the present course will hamper our ability to retain key faculty members and it will lead to more breakdowns in the organization, such as the one we have experienced in the office of admissions.

George should be retained in a position that utilizes his strengths and precludes him from being involved in operational activities or management.  This would require that he have absolutely no day-to-day management responsibilities at the College.  This must be done in a manner that preserves his dignity.  Do not underestimate the importance to George of the title, the house, and the other perks of being College president.

 What are some options?

Option 1: Appoint George Chancellor of the College.  Responsibilities to include:

Fundraising and speech-making across the country

Selecting and presenting speakers at Principia

Handling graduation and other dignitary relationships

Writing articles about education and whole man character education

Option 2: Let him retain the title of president with the following stipulations:

Take a sabbatical, starting January 2007, to prepare a course on the Christian Science Movement (or some other topic of interest to him)

Add to this the same fundraising and friend-making duties as above.

Teach courses at Summer Session and PACE programs

Teach the history of the Christian Science Movement once a year at the College.

While preserving George’s dignity, we cannot be so subtle that the community is unaware of unbelieving of the change.  In either case, it would be best for the College to have George off campus for some significant period of time so that we could begin to establish a functioning leadership unit in Elsah.

Option 3: Deniability

I purposely sent my letter to George last week without Board review.  If you do not agree with the content of that letter, you are in a position to state that the CEO got out ahead of the Board and that the Board does not agree with the assessment presented.  You have deniability.  But the Board should either support the letter or disown it.  Leaving George not knowing where the Board stands is unfair.

 My Recommendation:

If George’s employment was left totally up to me, I would seek to execute option 2.  I would make the carrot attractive enough to him that he could not turn it into an ugly public relations issue.  However no matter how we structure it, we should be prepared to hear how we “forced George out”.  We just have to deal with it.

 How would we govern in the short term?

I would chair the College leadership team for the short term by bringing in a respected mix of community leaders to advise me.  Judy Felch and Steve Hinthorne would be my initial suggestions to serve as members of an advisory council.  Both are well respected among their peers and in the community.  Steve has had his challenges but has really stepped up in the last six months.  The group needs diversity and the voices that have been squelched over the last few years need to be reinstated.  John Williams would like be the third member of the advisory group.  Merlin Lewis would be used as a secretary for tracking projects and plans.  I would recommend paying these folks an extra stipend, such as $25,000 to serve in this capacity.

In the intermediate term (before June), I would bring Peter Stevens to the College and elevate Marilyn Wallace to Head of School on the St. Louis campus.  Peter should have a dual campus role.  Four days in Elsah and one in St. Louis.  I would not even consider giving Peter the title of College president!  Ever!

Once we have established the College and put some major initiatives into place we could begin the search for a new president.

 Other Questions?

• Would it be better to wait another two years?
  • Even if it is only two years, we must begin considering the qualities needed for the next College president.
• Can we handle the public relations message if George leaves?
• Can we handle it if he leaves mad?
• What effect will it have on long-term giving?
• Since George is generally viewed as being negative toward whatever happens at The Mother Church – TMC Youth in particular – would his leaving improve our relationships in Boston? (Do we want it to improve?)
• If no change is made, what do you expect the CEO to do in Elsah?

Jenkins outline above shows a CEO who is clear about what needs to be done to manage the institution.  Jenkins lays out ideas - offers suggestions and puts the decision where it needs to be in the hands of the Trustees.  Bliss responds to Jenkins October 23rd update.  Please remember that in her apology letter she claims having “no communication” regarding Moffett other than Leak issues - up until the Board meeting.  This is now her 6th correspondence with Jenkins regarding options for Moffett.Further clarification shows that Jenkins communicated directly with all Trustees a full portrayal of events and options a total of 4 times between October 15, 2006 and November 1, 2006.  This does not include a variety of individual responses as Trustees asked questions prior to the meetings.  In this communication Bliss comments that she was disappointed that he hadn’t pointed out that Moffett had been “untruthful” and she suggests Moffett sign a “non-disclosure” agreement. 

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]

Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 7:06 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: Response to update

Stuart,

The letter in response to Andy was so well done.

Points to consider:

1. It is one of your greatest assets that you haven’t been willing to go along with the George as hero spin that has all but crippled the College and is so inconsistent with our Leader saying you have to tell the truth about the lie/error. That you haven’t supported dishonesty, poor management, lack of follow-through and self-aggrandizement at others’ expense is to be commended, not something from which you have to learn a lesson. ( Though I am disappointment that you wouldn’t say George was not truthful with you in his admission. See My 123:27)

2. I want to offer a consituency that you haven’t yet discussed–those of us who attempt to recruit students to Prin. There are two seniors here in Idaho, both nationally recognized athletes in their respective fields, from excellent CS families. I’ve spent time with both of them and their parents. Now with an AQIP report that says we support student learning at a 20% level and value people at a 17% level–can I honestly encourage them? Really, I feel like a charlatan!

How would the development office do if they told donors the AQIP facts?

3. I assume you meant for option #2 that George only retains the title of Presdient during his six month sabbatical–not for eternity?

One way of helping to handle the PR issue is to have Phil do a non-disclosure agreement. With that, all the Trustees and George are legally bound not to discuss the circumstances and there are stiff financial penalties if anyone does. Then we say to all the gossip mongers, “I’m sorry but legally we are not at liberty to discuss that” and George must say the same thing, smiling of course. Non disclosure agreements provide mutual protection.

Supportively,

Traci

On October 24, 2006 Bliss continues to provide Jenkins with her thoughts on leadership at the College. 

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:23 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: (no subject)

Hi Stuart,

Thank you so much for the meals decision–it is huge.Please see attached.

Dear Stuart,

           I think continuing to clarify our thinking with each other is very worthwhile.  I don’t expect you to give Trustee’s information before they are ready to hear it: I would never suggest that. On the other hand, shouldn’t they at some point know the truth about the situation or at least have the option of knowing more if they choose to?  I think it is dangerous to try to protect people from the truth—it is never what Ms. Eddy did and in fact urged the opposite, especially with those in her household. 

            I realize that for some this must be like a sudden death in the family and I wish to be totally sensitive to and gentle with those feelings.  But I would never want someone else on the Board deciding to withhold information from me because he/she thought it was in my best interest.  Is it really honest to do this? I can’t believe there is a single Trustee that, ultimately, would not want to know the truth, as hard as it is to accept.  Seeing the error for what it truly is ensures we will not be subjected to it in the future. Some say for example, that Faith has a hard time being consistently truthful because it is the example George has set and it seeps through the College.    

Stuart, is there a compromise here?  I don’t feel it is necessary to tell Board members specifics such as the missing seven minutes.  I do feel that the Board should know that forthrightness and integrity must be the qualities governing the College future and that those qualities have not been consistently present.  That we are dealing with qualities not personalities, the quality of the institution not one individual, is what we all so deeply love. If the Board decides that it is time for George to accept one of your two options but never knows that honesty and integrity were not consistent during his leadership then we will have won a very important battle but lost the war.

Traci

On October 23rd, 2006 Moffett asked for a meeting with Phil Riley - Phil suggested that it would not be appropriate for the two of them to meet without Jenkins present.  At the meeting Jenkins, Moffett and Riley discuss ideas on how best to move the College forward with Moffett as part of the plan.  The following day Jenkins receives the following e-mail from Moffett: (This is the e-mail that begins the Pond article)From: George MoffettSent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:21 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Executive officerStuart,Re. our conversation yesterday, if it is deemed necessary to bring on an executive officer, I’m sure we can make it work. But I feel that a decision on this may be just a little premature, given that we’ve got traction now on the very issues the Trustees are focused on. If we do need to move forward let’s think it through clearly so lines of authority are clear. I don’t want to lose control over or participation in the very management issues I’m very engaged with now.  With the help of a consultant (Noel-Levitz), we’re going to look at some restructuring of the Admission Office. I think it would be helpful, using outside consultants and over time, to do program evaluations of selected College offices. The Registrar, for example, is very open to the idea. Before we make a move on the President’s Office perhaps we should consider having a consultant evaluate the operations of the senior administration.  George

Jenkins responds to Moffett and asks him to talk to Riley based on the fact that Riley was in on the full discussions the previous day.From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:27 PMTo: George MoffettSubject: RE: Executive officerGeorge,Thanks for the note and concept.   Did you/would you share this idea with Phil?I will give this some thought.Thank You.StuartThe following morning Jenkins replies to Moffett’s e-mail from yesterday again but this time in regards to the “joint document”From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:12 AMTo: George MoffettSubject: RE: Executive officer response #2George,I still hope you will write up our joint document for presentation to the trustees.  If you want to include this as a third option that is ok with me.SJMoffett replies stating he isn’t sure what their joint document is - and Jenkins responds, reminding Moffett of the meeting they had with Phil RileyFrom: George MoffettSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:57 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: RE: Executive officer response #2

Stuart,

I’m not completely sure what our “joint document” is. I’m probably forgetting something here. Can you help?

George

Jenkins replies:From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:36 PMTo: George MoffettSubject: RE: Executive officer response #2GFrom our meeting with Phil I thought you were going to write up on one paper your thoughts on organizational structure, stay the course, as defined by the booklet that has been sent to the Trustees, review in six months etc   In addition your [sic] your understanding of my proposal:   VP of administration, six month sabbatical, CS Movement, Focus on vision and out bound communication of vision.  VP to focus on implementing vision at operational level. etc.  We would then give that documents to the Trustees to consider.If you have forgotten then you might want to call Phil for a further prompt.SJAt 3:18 that same afternoon Jenkins responds to Moffett and Paul’s request to know the role of CEO of Principia.  Jenkins provides them with attachments (click here) of his responsibilities as formulated during a strategic planning session in 2004:In reflecting on this request, it now seems clear that Moffett and Paul were already attempting to determine a way to indicate that Jenkins was overstepping his authority as CEO.  The communication between Jenkins, Trustees, Moffett and Riley show clearly that Jenkins was quite clear the final decision on any move in regards to the President’s post is ultimately up to the Trustees.  From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:18 PMTo: George Moffett; Faith Paul; John WilliamsSubject: FW: Roles of Chairman and CEOImportance: HighAttachments: July 04 Retreat Flip Charts2.docGeorge, Faith, John,We have talked about roles and responsibilities of posts.  Here is a 25,000 foot look at my jobs as the PEC envisioned them two years ago.SJOn October 27, 2006 at 5:05 p.m. Moffett responds to Jenkins with what he understands the two options to be:From: George MoffettSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:03 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: OptionsStuart,Here are the two options I understand to be on the table regarding organizational structure.

1. One option is to move immediately with the creation of a new position in the College Administration – a Vice-President for Administration or Executive Officer.
2. The second option is to stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in, say, six months.

My personal view is that an immediate decision would be premature, given the traction that’s been established with regard to various administrative initiatives. I think it’s important to weigh lines of authority carefully in any proposed new structure so that the President does not lose control over or participation in administrative affairs. One possible step would be to bring in a consultant to evaluate the operations of the senior administration – such as we are now doing with the Admissions Office – before any final decisions are made. George

 

Jenkins responds to Moffett’s earlier memo and provides him with a more accurate presentation of what “options” are under consideration: (Jenkins response is completely missing from the Pond article, though it is referred to in a highly manipulative manner to paint a negative picture of the options - leaving out the bulk of what had been offered)

 

From: Stuart Jenkins

Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:13 PMTo: George MoffettSubject: FW: Options

George,Below is a more accurate curate presentation of the option I presented to you last Wednesday.  These are the options I think we ought to present to the trustees.Please let me know if you have any edits to yours or questions about mine.Stuart Option #1 George’s proposal The second option is to stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in, say, six months. My personal view is that an immediate decision would be premature, given the traction that’s been established with regard to various administrative initiatives. I think it’s important to weigh lines of authority carefully in any proposed new structure so that the President does not lose control over or participation in administrative affairs. One possible step would be to bring in a consultant to evaluate the operations of the senior administration – such as we are now doing with the Admissions Office – before any final decisions are made.  Option #2 Stuart’s Proposal:GM continues with title of President of the College, continues to live in Hutchinson House, continues to maintain his office and secretary, and continues to receive current compensation and benefits through the academic year ending in June 2008. Willing to talk about continuing  service to Principia after 2008 if GM is willing.  GM disengages from day to day administrative responsibilities at the College.Installed Vice President – Administration at the College and assumes all administrative responsibilities at Principia College.  Vice President – Administration reports to the CEO of Principia.GM meets regularly with CEO and VP of Administration to help establishes priorities and direction for the college.GM’s portfolio:

·         Continue to clarify the purpose and vision of Principia while communicating that vision on behalf of the school.

·         Hold administrators feet to the fire .       .

·         Continues to serve on PEC for overall direction of institution.

·         Convenes annual pre fall faculty Staff meeting to set tone for upcoming year.

·         Serve as speaker in the field in support of Principia.  This would be coordinated by Advancement and the Chairman

·         Responsibility for outside speaker’s program at the College

·         When requested, assist Office of Advancement with special donors

·         Give College convocations

·         Preside over 2007 and 2008 Commencement exercises

·         Represent Principia College as and when appropriate at academic conferences and associations

·         Attend and support Summer Session in 2007 (and 2008)

·         Assist admissions and enrollment (especially through meetings with prospective students and parents in the field and at the Upper School)

·         Assist the Board of Trustees in identifying and recruiting the next President of the College

·         Research and design a college level course on the history of the Christian Science movement.  Principia to provide GM with whatever resources are required for this including accommodations in Boston for research at the Library.  Course to be initially taught at Summer Session, 2007 and thereafter each quarter at the College.  If GM desires to continue to teach the course after June 2008, this is be desirable.

·         Other

o        Write second 50 year history of Principia as companion to As The Sowing

·                                 Other as determined by our work together.   

On October 30, 2006 Jenkins writes his weekly update to the Trustees enclosing the updated options information in regards to Moffett

 

October 30, 2006 College:

I spent the past week, with Phil’s help, working with George trying to sort out leadership and management issues in Elsah.  Although this is not complex, we have yet to reach a resolution.  George’s view of his skills is not consistent with my view of his skill.  I believe we could solve this issue by agreeing on his strengths and recognizing what other skills need to be brought to bear.  Thus far, George feels that he has all the skills needed to solve the problems in Elsah and that any admission otherwise, which could change any “control”, is unacceptable to him.  The concept of building a team just does not seem to hold any interest to him.

I continue to believe if we could agree with George about where he could best serve the institution and then bring in high quality day-to-day leadership, Principia College would be better positioned.  I hope this does not come down to an either/or choice, because that is not necessary.

George, Phil and I had a lengthy discussion on Wednesday where I presented the options I wrote you about last week.  Phil felt it was a very positive meeting, but George let me know on Friday that a six month sabbatical was absolutely unacceptable to him.  While the world views a sabbatical after ten years of service for a college president a respectable perk, George said he would view it as a “firing”.  Thus I am completely willing to drop that part of the proposal.

Board Meeting Materials from the College:

I regret that I did not see the materials sent to you from the College until after they were mailed.  I was then asked for my feedback.  As a result, I asked the College team to do the following:

• Acknowledge that this is a very ROUGH DRAFT rather than presenting it as the answer.
• Include Merlin Lewis in the process to present AQIP to the Trustees
• Acknowledge up front that category four of the AQIP report needs to be addressed
• Use the Trustee goals, not the restated goals for the College
• Acknowledge that many items presented as “strategies” are actually small tactical steps
• If tasks are going to be defined, they need to come with completion dates & objectives – always
• Better sense of priority needs to be established.  What are the top five things we are committed to getting done, in six months, a year, etc.

We will see if any of this feedback is incorporated into the presentation to the Board Committees.  The above comments were not taken well by some as they seem to believe that this book is the answer to the current management challenge in Elsah.  My sense is that it highlights the nature of the challenge.

 

 

Later in the evening Bliss Writes to Jenkins regarding a PEC decision.

 

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]>

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:09 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: Leadership

Dear Stuart, 

It seems that whatever the PEC decides tomorrow may be useful as a key piece of data. Regardless of what George says, how your peers see you has everything to do with your effectiveness as a leader. Is one a team player or not?

Traci

Jenkins responds – not sure of what Bliss is referring to.What is going to happen tomorrow? I am missing something?SJBliss explains her question:

(You had said in our phone conversation you were going to ask the PEC their opinion on the issue of the leaks at the Tuesday meeting.)

Jenkins responds by explaining the PEC meeting structure:From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:50 AMTo: ‘Traci Bliss’Subject: RE: LeadershipTracy,The PEC only meets once a month and that will not happen for two weeks. I have paced events to see how George responds.  If he was going to gracefully step away I would have let the leak issue rest.  Now that George is being difficult I am pushing the issue again.  I just confronted GM in a direct manner yesterday!   He is really going to resist giving up the names of his leaks and I will force the issue.  The PEC will ask about the out comes of the leaks and I will turn to GM and ask him to address the issue with the team.  I think it will be powerful event when it happens.I don’t think anyone here looks forward to “outing” the college President as a liar since it will undermine the school in general.  GM has shown he is willing to go public and he has a lot of support that is independent of the facts.  Any time we spend fighting with GM in public will be time not spent on fixing the college for the kids and community.The Trustees are a long way behind me thus far just as they were with Bob. I am the one that told George in private and with a letter exactly where he stands.  The Trustees who hire the college President have not weight in at all.  It was a painful process for me to be in advance of the Trustees for 6 months in St. Louis.  I told the trustees in my letter a week ago what I would do if I alone made the decision.  I don’t think the Trustees in general are willing to “out” George. Why?  You really have to ask them.    You have to realize that having put my card face up on the table the Trustees might decide to keep George in his current role and leave me hanging and dealing with the fall out!  George is counting on the Trustees to fold.  I think he is 100% sure I am not going to be the one that folds.  Thus his latest letter trying to win the hearts, minds and fear of the Trustees.Keep pushing.SJTo which Bliss responds with this e-mail telling him that all she can do is “pray that you will honor that and face down the giant.”

Stuart,

 why do George’s threats seem to have such force? Are we willing to go to any lengths, even disregarding the needs of our faculty and staff, to avoid having to fire him? If so then George is effectively holding us hostage. You said that you knew what was right in your heart–all I can do at this point is pray you will honor that and face down the giant.

Traci

 

Bliss responds again at 9:48 a.m. to the same e-mail exchange - asking Jenkins to “not leave the question of Moffett’s leadership as a question at the end of the Board meeting.”  From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:48 AMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: LeadershipFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Stuart,A detailed understanding of the AQIP report and what valuing people really looks like determines  my role–to support you in your decision-making.  The recent update did sound like you might be folding, thankfully  it was my mis-read about your resolve.  I will back you and the direction you want to go but with key facts, not opinions, and only as  necessary. Where I see the critical challenge is to not leave the outcome vague at the end of the Trustee weekend.  Such as “Stuart will try to exercise some additional leadership at the College and work things out with George for a win-win.”  That is total avoidance and continuing the enabling behavior that cripples the College. Your  working out something with George as comrades in arms  is a complete fantasy;  George will relinquish no authority whatsoever and is becoming more bullheaded, like a spoiled child.  Consequently, please require us as a board to make a clear and specific decision as to the operational aspects of the College. Without that, we will have committed you  to prolonging the agony and loosing great educators in the process.One aspect of all this that is a bit perplexing: When I came on the Board two years ago, Policy #17 seemed to be at the very core of Board thinking. Surely, the Board does not think there is a single individual that is exempt from that policy? Or do they?Thanks for taking the time to reassure me of your resolve–I needed that.  I  too know there is  nothing to be gained  by fighting this in the court of public opinion but neither can we be bullied and frightened into appeasing the error with more chances. George believes his hyperbolic spin to us and threats to you will achieve just that.

Traci

Jenkins continues to work with Moffett to uncover to whom he shared PEC level information with.  Remember we are now going on 11 days since the initial questionnaire was sent out - and every other member of the PEC has already responded.  (The Pond article does not include the first two exchanges shown below between Jenkins and Moffett)Occurring at the same time, Moffett sends a letter to the Trustees providing them with information on how he views issues at the college.  Click here for that letter. (Moffett October 20, 2006 memo)

From: Stuart Jenkins 

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:00 PM 

To: George Moffett

Subject: leaked information

George,I got a letter today that indicates the information I shared with you several weeks ago is still making the rounds. Now from Florida.  We need to work together on this one in support of Principia. I expect to be asked this week who who leaked this information? Now to help control this issue we need to have you identify who you told. By name. We need to know if you have gone back to that  person(s) or not and what was said. We need to know who called Gary and who tried to drag the gal from Oklahoma into the fry.Please let me know as soon as you can..ThanksStuartMoffett Responds:

From: George Moffett 

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:09 AM 

To: Stuart Jenkins 

Subject: RE: leaked information

Stuart,Regarding Florida, let me say again that I did not discuss a reorganization plan with anyone. As for Oklahoma, I have never met the woman - I presume we’re talking about Betty Ann Ridley - or been in touch with her directly or indirectly. Moreover, I strongly oppose her mode of doing business through emails to the field. GeorgeJenkins still attempting to get George to answer the simple questionnaire becomes firm in his response:

From: Stuart Jenkins

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:31 AM

To: George Moffett

Subject: RE: leaked information

George, You did not answer the question - yet again.George, this is the third or fourth time I have had to ask you directly WHO YOU LEAKED this information to. I think it is about time I get a straight answer. The PEC, Trustees, and I want need to know.Please do not make me ask again and don’t make me ask any follow-up questions to reveal the facts. Level with me - NOW!I want the answers in writing and I want them today.StuartRemember earlier that Jenkins had included Bliss and Hanzlik on the questionnaire situation for oversight.  Jenkins forwards to Bliss the exchange between Moffett and Jenkins regarding the leak. Bliss responds to seeing Moffett’s responses with this e-mail.Traci,FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.SJ

Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:14 PM

To: Stuart Jenkins

Subject: Re: FW: leaked information

We are dealing with one of George’s semantics games of which he is the PRO. For example, he discussed with me in detail the contents of the letter you wrote but can honestly say that he did not discuss with me a reorganization plan because that terminology never came up in the 8 minute conversation. He probably needs to be asked who he discussed any portion of your letter with even if he didn’t mention the letter itself or reorganization. Stuart, I know for a fact that David Winder told BAR about the basics of your letter. She of course has deniability as a practioner but David does not. Also, you reported a week or so ago that he confessed to sharing the situation with three colleagues–is he recanting now? (MBE: “Dishonesty is human weakness”.)

On October 31, 2006 Jenkins communicates with all Trustees another update of the current situation with Moffett including a more comprehensive look at the possible options.  Below this update you will find an e-mail Jenkins receives from Moffett regarding the PEC breach.  – Moffett is still the only member of the PEC not to have filled out the simple questionnaire which had been sent almost 2 weeks earlier.

October 31, 2006 – Options

Friends,

Over the past two weeks I have sought to find a workable solution to College leadership that is energizing and acceptable to George, while empowering the rest of the team.  I have failed to achieve this goal.

In the end the Trustees have to recognize that George and I have two very different views of the “state of the College”, and more importantly we have two different views of George’s skills.  The Trustees are going to have to decide which view they embrace and which management structure will best support Principia’s success in the future.

I have presented two options below.  The first option was written by George and is taken directly from an e-mail he sent to me.  The second option is a proposal I gave to George via email on Monday.

I believe that it is highly that if you do not choose George’s option that he will leave the College and cast it as a “firing” for field consumption.  Perhaps a respected group of Trustees could persuade him to stay on in the modified role, but I do not think that outcome is likely.  The proposal I have outlined is a full and meaningful role for George, a role that I believe can bring major blessings to Principia.  To cast this new role in any negative light is unnecessary and a distraction.  To call it a “firing” or a “dismissal” is to be distracted by ego and personal sense.

I have done my level best to present the options in a clear and distinct manner.  I believe my job is to tell you what I think is best for the school.  Your job is to make the final decision.

Thanks,

Stuart

  Option #1 (George’s Proposal)

“Stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in, say, six months.  My personal view is that an immediate decision would be premature, given the traction that’s been established with regard to various administrative initiatives.  I think it’s important to weigh lines of authority carefully in any proposed new structure so that the President does not lose control over or participation in administrative affairs.  One possible step would be to bring in a consultant to evaluate the operations of the senior administration – such as we are now doing with the Admissions Office – before any final decisions are made.”

 Option #2 (Stuart’s Proposal)

GM continues with title of President of the College, continues to live in Hutchinson House, continues to maintain his office and secretary, and continues to receive current compensation and benefits through the academic year ending in June 2008.  I am willing to talk about continuing service to Principia after 2008 if GM is willing.

GM disengages from day-to-day administrative responsibilities at the College.

Install someone to serve as Vice President – Administration at the College who assumes all administrative responsibilities at Principia College.  Vice President – Administration reports to the CEO of Principia.

GM meets regularly with CEO and VP of Administration to establish priorities and direction for the College.

GM’s portfolio:

• Continue to clarify the purpose and vision of Principia while communicating that vision on behalf of the school.
• Hold administrators feed to the fire.
• Continues to serve on PEC for overall direction of institution
• Convenes annual pre-fall faculty/staff meeting to set tone for upcoming year.
• Serve as speaker in the field in support of Principia.  This would be coordinated by Advancement and the Chairman
• Responsibility for outside speaker’s program at the College
• When requested, assist Office of Advancement with special donors
• Give College convocations
• Preside over 2007 and 2008 Commencement exercises
• Represent Principia College as and when appropriate at academic conferences and association.
• Attend and support Summer Session in 2007 (and 2008)
• Assist admissions and enrollment (especially through meetings with prospective students and parents in the field and at the Upper School)
• Assist the Board of Trustees in identifying and recruiting the next President of the College
• Research and design a college level course on the history of the Christian Science movement.  Principia to provide GM with whatever resources are required for this including accommodations in Boston for research at the Library.  Course to be initially taught at Summer Session, 2007 and thereafter each quarter at the College.  If GM desires to continue to teach the course after June 2008, this is desirable.

Other:

• Write second 50 year history of Principia as companion to As The Sowing.
• Other as determined by our work together

From: George MoffettSent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:50 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: ResponseDear Stuart:I am somewhat taken back by the tone the discourse has taken. I certainly intend to be cooperative, respectful and constructive. I have no intention to be insubordinate or to do anything that is not in the best interests of Principia. I previously understood your inquiry and that of Phil Riley to be limited to discussions regarding some reorganization plan. (This is not semantics – if I understood you correctly, you were hearing from the field regarding a reorganization plan, and I knew that information did not come from me.) I now believe you to be asking for the names of anyone to whom I have mentioned any aspect of your letter of 13 October.When I received the letter I was left with the strongest impression that there was a plan in place to remove me from this position to which I am devoted. This was not an unreasonable assumption at the time. Your letter called into serious question my accomplishments and my reputation. I don’t think you would disagree that this is a serious matter. Deeply concerned and taken aback I consulted with a very limited number of friends and confidants regarding my future at Principia. I would expect that any individual in those circumstances would naturally seek reassurance and advice. I asked those with whom I spoke – Faith Paul, Chestnut Booth, David Winder, and Gary Krisel – to maintain confidence; I am confident they have respected and will respect that request.  Each of those individuals understands that I have been under significant pressure; none know the details. To none of them did I show or read your letter. To none of them, as I say, did I speak of any restructuring plan. To say the least, I am most distressed that my reaching out for reassurance and advice has become the thing of conspiracy or a vehicle for questioning my integrity.  We can disagree in good faith on various issues. Despite disagreements I would not expect that my integrity or motives would be questioned. Let me be as clear as I possibly can be, I have not been attempting to use your letter to create support for me in the field nor to disclose Principia secrets to people who might use them to undermine confidence in the Chairman or Trustees. Nothing could be further from the truth. If my calls were an overreaction – and that’s an arguable point – no harm was intended. I regret and am deeply saddened to know that after so many years of faithful service to Principia and to you personally that my motives have become the object of suspicion, concern and distrust.GeorgeOn November 1, 2006 - after many communications (as seen above) Moffett finally replies to the options memo Jenkins sent on October 30, 2006: (In the “Three weeks in Autumn” article, Pond has the following two e-mails in reverse order.  Pond places Jenkins response as an October 31 e-mail when in actuality, Moffett sends the “options” e-mail to Jenkins at 9:53 a.m. on November 1, 2006  – Jenkins responds to the “options” e-mail, on November 1, 2006 at 12:39 p.m.)  This order makes much more sense, as Jenkins says he will “respond in detail later” to the options, while still trying to get Moffett to answer the PEC questionnaire from almost 2 weeks prior.From: George MoffettSent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:53 AMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Options Stuart,Sorry for the delay in responding regarding the two options. I think you know from our recent conversation that if yours is adopted I will take that as my cue that it’s time to move on at the end of the year. The Trustees need to know that I would not be interested in a presidency that is merely a figurehead position. Regarding my option, I would reword it this way: The second option is to stay the course as defined by the booklet sent to the Trustees and to reevaluate options in, say, six months. An immediate decision would be premature given that management systems are now in place or being put in place and just as the deans are demonstrating strong management support. I think it would be best to test my – and the deans’ – confidence in our progress before making any final decisions regarding restructuring.  If eventually deemed necessary I think restructuring possibilities exist so long as (a) the President retains ultimate oversight of strategic planning, with staffing delegated to an administrative VP; (b) any appointment be the choice of both the President and Chairman; and (c) the VP report solely to the President. Generally, I could see this kind of division of labor:·         The President has responsibility for developing strategy (strategic plan and its implementation); for relationships with internal and external constituencies; and for overall campus growth including enrollment management.·         administrative VP would be responsible for the distribution of work and roles and for management effectiveness including reviewing assessments of people and programs; and working with the President to see that management carries out strategic plans.  I hope this helps. I would be grateful to receive a final copy of the options memo.   George

From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:39 PMTo: George MoffettSubject: RE: Options

G

 

I will respond in detail later.

 

The questionnaire I sent (October 19) regarding a breach of confidentiality at the PEC level asked questions about actions, not motives or integrity!

 

The three questions where straightforward, simple, and direct.  There was no need to interpret the questions.  If those questions had been answered in the first place this issue would be behind us long ago!  Please review and read the questionnaire once again.

 

I regret I have had to keep asking these questions so persistently, but until everyone answered there was no closure on the issue.

 

S

At 11:47 a.m. after receiving Moffett’s most recent options memo, Jenkins sends Moffett the final options as he had sent to the Trustees, and includes a note that Jenkins had also forwarded Moffett’s most recent additions. (The Pond article states that Jenkins omitted having sent the Trustees the additions)From:   Stuart JenkinsSent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:47 AMTo:  George MoffettSubject:FW: Options - sent to trustees GM This is what went to the trustees.  I have now forward {sic} your additions. SJ Moffett sends the Trustees a second memo on November 2nd and requests a meeting with all Trustees except for Jenkins.  The Trustees decline Moffett’s offer to meet without Jenkins.To be more clear on how the four Trustees came to meet Moffett at the door of the Guest House, you also need to read the AQIP sequence.  To be more clear on how and why four Trustees came to meet Moffett at the door of the Guest house, you also need to read the AQIP Timeline of events.  Clearly, all aspects of Moffett’s departure were not handled perfectly - but the story has not been told in its entirety with all facts and documents until now.Pond claims that Moffett was not given the “legally mandatory due process outlined in Williams’ October memo” - Moffett was however given many opportunities to come to an agreement as to how best he could continue to serve Principia as College President.  Moffett offered his resignation and the Trustees accepted it.  Frankly Williams memo has nothing to do with “due process” or with the Trustee’s actions.On November 10, 2006 Jenkins sends his weekly update to the Trustees – In the Update he gives a status report on Moffett, while he continues to find a solution to include Moffett in the ongoing building of Principia College.

GM Update:  George has been very gracious and our working relationship now is characterized by an easy flow of information. All the tension has seemed to dissipate and we are just doing the job we need to do without fanfare.

It is clear George has had second thoughts and is hoping the Board has too. “This all happened so fast; I just wish we had taken a little more time; I love Principia; I would like to stay involved”, etc. I asked him to let me know what role he might see for himself that he would enthusiastically embrace. In the end he came back with “stay the course and see how it works out in six months”. I let him know that was a bridge we had already crossed and there was no going back. All in all, it was an odd conversation.

Meanwhile, at least one of George’s top performing teammates has been told by George that he is retiring at the end of the year. (No, I am not surprised that he told someone.) This person came to me and said “please don’t make us sit through anymore planning meetings chaired by George because he just does not know what to do.” George just does not understand the true feelings of his direct reports.

One point that was made very clearly: George does not want any form of “transition” person to be in place before he leaves. He wants to run the College the way he is currently doing it without any “interference” from others until June. He let Phil know that if I had other ideas he wanted to leave in January.

I spoke with John Williams about the “no confidence vote” issue and he acknowledged hearing “rumblings” about it but did not add any new details. We agreed that if such a move were made he would “for the good of the institution” have the group come to me before taking it public. I did not get into George’s retirement with John as there was no need to do so.

Bliss’ Response, showing her gratitude for how the Board worked together during the recent meeting – and she continues her request that Jenkins must continue pushing faculty evaluations.From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:36 PM’To: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: Update: Nov 10, 2006

Hi Stuart,

Yes, it was truly inspiring to be part of a Board that worked so thoughtfully together for the love of the institution. In all my years in higher ed I’ve never heard of a President announcing retirement and then not making a transition team a priority. I don’t think No-fold would consider backing off on this but it will be much easier when he announces because then everyone will want to know what is next? You then can convince George by the number of requests you will have about what is happening next. He doesn’t have to relinguish control but everyone involved deserves a clear transition plan–otherwise you really increase anxiety, especially among the faculty and parents of prospective students who have to make decisions. Apparently, George is still in denial–poor guy. Who would want to stay where he is not wanted?

As for the faculty evaluation, my reponse is–the faculty don’t need to be concerned about firings if they use the next two quarters to show their commitment to continuous improvement–which is the major point of annual evaluations and course evaluations for every course, every quarter.

Traci