Real Truth at Principia

In Dr. Traci Bliss’ apology letter of September 4, 2007, to Dr. Moffett,  Bliss accuses Merlin Lewis and then Chairman/CEO Stuart Jenkins of conspiring and colluding to drive Moffett from office and using Bliss as a “mouthpiece”.Here is a time line of AQIP events. The e-mail exchanges have been placed in date order.  Portions of e-mails are highlighted for quick reference to key factual points.  The highlights typically refer to conflicting messages as stated in the apology letter.It should be noted that these e-mail exchanges show a dedicated Trustee, working within her area of expertise to inform other Trustees and the Chairman/CEO of areas needing attention.  Bliss was doing her job as a Trustee.  In one sense, these exchanges are unremarkable - as they are part of an important relationship between Trustee and Chairman/CEO.What is remarkable is Bliss’ effort to deny the significant role she played in shaping the Chaiman and Board’s view of AQIP and the performance of the College President.The  original “unedited” Reeves report of June 13th will provide more clarity on this topic.

June 2006

Bliss and the other members of the Trustee Educational Enhancement Committee (EEC)receive copies of the AQIP Systems Portfolio report.

July 2006

Bliss has now reviewed the report and is eager to communicate with Jenkins.  She sends Jenkins this e-mail on July 12, 2006.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:55 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: ElsahFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart,Concerning your remarks about the College: Have you had the chance to read the AQUIP Systems Portfolio document yet–nine areas covering  “all” aspects of the College? Those of us on the new Trustee Education Committee were sent copies in June and I’ve now had the opportunity to go over it in detail. It is a very thorough report and in an _unintended_ way speaks volumes about the issue you have raised. If my insights on how you can use this “self-study” report to promote real change would be helpful, lets talk.

Traci

Jenkins Responds, letting Bliss know that he hasn’t had a chance to read the AQIP Portfolio yet, but it is on his desk.From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:36 PMTo: ‘Traci Bliss’Subject: RE: ElsahTraci,I have it on my stack but have only cruised through it.I would love your insights on this and any bullet point take a ways that you would like to share would save me time and help direct me.ThanksSJ Later that same night, Bliss responds to Jenkins with suggestions on what to read in the report.  Please note Bliss’ last sentence - remembering that this is now occurring exactly one month AFTER Bliss and Jenkins met privately with Jenkins.  A meeting which Jenkins had no knowledge of the subject until he was with Bliss.  The subject was his salary.  For more information on the Salary Debacle - please click here: (CEO Salary - Details and information)

From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:31 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: ElsahFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: FlaggedGlad I can be of help–using their own very detailed work to point out the essential and very serious problem will show your deep responsiveness and disallow the usual higher ed myriad of excuses for lack of progress. Briefly read Chapters 3, 8, 9 then call me. From your reading of just that much you will quickly see that it is all trees and no forest. Where in the world is the forest?  It  cannot be created with processes, strategic plans, new Deans, better management and blah, blah–it requires a fundamental and total change in thinking. It is exactly the right time for you to articulate that change and it will be quite fun to support your effort quietly behind the scenes.

Traci

August 2006

On August 1, 2006 Bliss responds to Jenkins July 31, 2006 weekly update - and continues to request that Jenkins read the AQIP portfolio.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 3:00 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: UpdateFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart,    The advancement design looks so clear and lends itself to true accountability. I still hope you might want to chat about this related to the College. As I mentioned in my last e-mail the AQUIP study explains what the problem really is which I think can begin to be solved with the emphasis you have put on whole man and the initiative Faith has taken with establishing standards major by major. But there has to be a change of thought from inputs to outputs and that is what I’d like to talk about to you only.I had a close friend from the class of 56 call over the weekend–she really resonated with your reunion talk. In one of your updates will you discuss the tecnology upgrades that are happening at the College. I’ve listened to student concerns over the summer but have also heard from staff that the problem of excessive slowness on the Internet will be solved by Fall semester.

Traci

Jenkins Responds to Bliss - this time promising to read the pages that Bliss had highlighted for JenkinsFrom: Stuart JenkinsSent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 4:05 PMTo: ‘Traci Bliss’Subject: RE: UpdateTraci,I have dropped the ball on reading that Aquip report - I know you gave me the pages so I will go back and read that.  Gosh, It is hard to believe that fell through the cracks.I believe the band with issue at the College (primarily for gaming) will be solved this fall!  That is the goal and we are actively moving.  It may in fact be solved by the time the student get back to campus.SJ On August 2, 2006 at 2:09 p.m. Bliss responds to a draft of a communication Jenkins is planning on sending to Moffett related to Moffett’s “Blueprint for Excellence“.  Bliss responds to Jenkins draft:From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:09 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: Rough Draft for George. What do you think?Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart–these are the points we talked about and some other keys ones you have included.  I think you convey them well. This is the message I believe  the faculty need to hear. Sorry if it is more prose than you wanted but I think the detail of where you want to go is essential. 

*Targeting our efforts: What is our product and can we stand behind it? *

1. The AQUIP Portfolio is extremely thorough. You have ably identified dozens of areas that “need more work”.  My question is–does fixing these identified problems get us any closer to the goal  of creating the type of graduates  our mission  embraces?2. Instead of spending our efforts fixing these inputs lets turn our attention entirely toutputs. What comprises the “whole man” graduate at Prin? What does this individual look like? You have begun the process of identifying this for each academic area–we need to have it for each of the other four areas. What does a Prin grad know and what is he/she able to do relevant to each of the five component areas? We must as a community give substance and definition to each of these. How do these areas synergize and reinforce each other in every aspect of campus life? This is how we must evaluate ourselves as an institution and as individuals.3. Today our Aquip portfolio is 90 % about inputs–lets commit that in five years the report will be half the size and 90% about outputs. Only when we have defined what our product should look like do we need to collect the data that shows we’ve achieved it.  Without clearly defined outputs we will never really know which inputs are most effective. Lets focus on the hard but very exciting work of truly articulating what makes us unique and then inputs will begin to sort themselves out. What we will have created is an esprit de corps in which all students know exactly what it means to be a Principian. 

Cheers,Traci

Jenkins responds by asking Bliss whether her “prose” should be added to his message or replaced entirely with her wordingTraci,Thanks - Do you think(sic) the prose should be added to my list or replace it altogether?SJBliss responds at 3:33 p.m. to Jenkins questions by providing additional advice on how to move forward with the following message:  One must note the number of times that Bliss uses bus terminology from Collins’ book “Good to Great” (click here Good to Great for e-mail where Bliss suggests that Jenkins read the book)

What kind of leadership role do you see yourself taking?  I think your list can still go to George as a response to his blueprint but that you must  be the person to deliver the “talk” (what is in the prose) to faculty. If it comes from you it does signal to faculty that this is what is going to happen _regardless _of who is currently sitting where on the bus.  (Once faculty by-in to the idea of outputs, the college ed department can be a leader in providing examples of what that means and I can also generated models if needed. )  By asking directly for a complete change in thought–individuals can self-select whether they want to remain on the bus. (In Kentucky when we implemented a statewide output model–35% of the principals retired within two years because they resisted the accountability inherent in measurable outcomes!) Those who may enjoy coasting will kick and scream.. :-( …..

On August 2, 2006 Bliss receives word from Lewis regarding an AQUIP Site visit delay and alerts Jenkins in an e-mail at 4:09 p.m.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:09 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: AQUIPFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart,I just heard from Merlin that he is asking that the AQUIP site visit be delayed for a year or so. If I were an administrator wanting to defend the direction the college is currently headed, that is exactly what I would do to provide so-called opportunities for improvment. Conversely if I wanted to radically change the direction as you and I discussed, I would want AQUIP to come ASAP so we could move to a new way of thinking without further delay. Important call on your part.

Traci

90 minutes after her initial e-mail on this subject, Bliss writes a second e-mail to Jenkins alerting him that she has suggested Lewis call Jenkins directly.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:27 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: AQUIPFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

I don’t want to meddle but based on your request, I suggested to Merlin that he call you with a very brief summary of the two key points he wanted to make in his recent memo to you dated August 1–(I continually work with him on the idea that “less is more.”) This should open up the conversation for you to ask him about the AQUIP time frame and the possibility of pushing it up rather than back. 

Jenkins Responds to this suggestionTTell him to call me. SOONSLewis contacts Jenkins and provides him with an overview of AQIP

September 2006

In mid September a correspondence begins between Merlin Lewis and Bill Hays.  Hays was the chairman of the newly formed Educational Enhancement Committee (EEC) who had been given the AQIP portfolio in June.  On September 15th Lewis sends Hays a copy of the feedback report.From: Merlin Lewis [mailto:Merlin.Lewis@prin.edu]Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:50 AMTo: Hays, BillSubject: EQIP Feedback Report<<Principia SA Report.pdf>>Bill, We received the feedback report this week from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). The report is attached to this e-mail. Since all members of the EEC committee have a copy of the portfolio I think they will find the feedback report interesting.So you know, we are placing this report on our Assessment (primarily internal) web site, so it will be available to anyone who wants to read it. I think you can access our web site from the outside with the following link. The advantage of viewing on the web site is the use of “bookmarks.” Makes it easier to navigate.http://www.prin.edu/users/els/departments/assess/ Thanks, Merlin Bill responds with a brief comment on September 28th at 8:55 a.m.From: Hays, Bill [mailto:Bill.Hays@haynesboone.com]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:55 AMTo: Merlin LewisSubject: RE: EQIP Feedback ReportMerlin, I’ve read the report.  It looks to me like they are saying in a nice way that we get a failing grade. Am I missing something?BillTo which Merlin replies “yes, but…” and explains briefly what the next steps may want to be.From: Merlin Lewis [mailto:Merlin.Lewis@prin.edu]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:02 AMTo: Hays, BillSubject: RE: EQIP Feedback ReportHi Bill, Glad you read the report. The response to your question is “yes, but…” We are a bit like the student who waited until the night before the end of the quarter to begin studying, writing papers, preparing for tests. At that point the student is failing this course. So that part is “yes” to your question.“The “…but” is, if you take the correct steps from this point on, you can still be successful at college. We are at a critical turning point. I believe we know what to do that can reverse this, but there are some tough decisions that have to be made. If those are made in my view “correctly,” this could be handled easily.The college, generically, is of two minds now. One is looking to the past, the other to the future. While the core of the institution remains the same, our methods of doing business have to be changed, dramatically. Otherwise we will not only fail this course, we’ll fail in college.I realize this message is a bit cryptic. If you would like more, let me know. MerlinBill asks the key question that has been under much speculation during the past year “Will we get accredited?” to which Merlin replies very clearly the position the College is in as far as accreditation.  Remember that Hays is the chairman of the EEC (Educational Enhancement Committee).  Bliss is a member of this committee, Bliss’ and Hays’ understanding of the AQIP report and its impact on accreditation formulated the Board’s knowledge and understanding of this issue.  From: Hays, Bill [mailto:Bill.Hays@haynesboone.com]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:09 AMTo: Merlin LewisSubject: RE: EQIP Feedback ReportThank you, Merlin.  I would like to know a lot more, but I wonder if that discussion should take place at our November meetings with the newly named Educational Enhancement Committee (a combination of the former College and St. Louis Campus Committees).Will we get accredited? BillMerlin’s replies that in regards to accreditation - “there is no need to worry…”Hi Bill, I think you’re right to save the central discussion for the Board meeting. In response to the “Will we be accredited?” There is no need to worry — at this moment. Here’s why.Prin is a member of the AQIP accreditation program. Less than 20% of all institutions in the 19th state NCA region are in AQIP. Each school must apply to be part of the program. I’m on the AQIP Admissions Panel, so I know that it is a fairly rigorous process. This means, then, that once the school is in AQIP, the NCA perception of accreditation is “the institution’s to lose.” In short AQIP schools are given the benefit of doubt, at least initially.Why? By joining AQIP the school is voluntarily exposing itself to a different (higher) set of standards. The assumption is the AQIP schools are basically good. And this is true about Prin, despite our problems. But, the school’s commitment is to do all it can to improve continuously. This may sound obvious, but it is not. I do traditional accreditation visits for NCA as well as the AQIP program. In the traditional path it is often necessary to push hard on institutions that often don’t care to improve. So, AQIP schools are expected to discuss their problems openly, warts and all, but then do all things possible to improve without external pressure. Because they are committed to improvement, NCA feels there is no need to push, cajole, or threaten schools that are already committed to improvement.So, if we continue doing business as we have in recent years, accreditation will become a serious problem. If we decide to take a different approach, our “problems” will not be considered significant. I am sometimes asked to participate in NCA’s training programs and conferences. (I’m helping with such a training program next week.) At some point we will be able to share how we were “shocked” by the report, but then go on to explain how we responded — effectively.So my attitude is — there is no need to panic, but we need concerted action. We have come to a fork in the road. We have to decide which road we’re going to take. Hope that helps.MerlinMeanwhile, on September 24, 2006 Bliss has reached a point where she is ready to provide Jenkins with her personal opinion of Moffett’s Leadership and does so in an e-mail at 7:05 p.m.  There is no pleasure in posting this e-mail, however it is a key source document depicting Bliss’ unfettered thoughts.  This document has been highlighted by realtruthatprincipa to indicate conflicting messages between Bliss’ apology letter and this e-mail.  The first instance is related to her claim of having only “generic” knowledge of AQIP, the second instance is her claim in the apology letter “that she was unaware of the change in Merlin’s reporting”, when in fact she confirms in this memo that the change in reporting should occur.  We have copied Bliss’ e-mail directly into this page - or if you want to see the original click Square Peg Memo.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:05 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Selected Response/ Confidential all aroundFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Stuart,    What I’m about to say, I’ve said to you before in person but without the urgency I now feel. I appreciate your professionalism in supporting and not undermining George such as backing off private meetings with John. However, I would like to outline the data which shows that after 11 years George is a square peg in a round hole:

1. The PEC gave George very low ratings on the first ever evaluation from colleagues last May. Inspiring, brilliant speeches do not make for good management skills or forthright, transparent communication with faculty and staff.
2. Faculty evaluation is absolutely essential to quality teaching and necessary to avoid “mission drift”. Of course no one who has been coasting wants to be evaluated and as I said a year ago they will continue to delay as long as their leader does not hold feet to the fire. A leader is one who does the right thing, not the popular one. You attract and retain quality faculty when you have a leader who understands and is committed to quality teaching and learning and who won’t tolerate half-hearted faculty.
3. I am in the camp, with more experience in this arena than I would like, that says the AQUIP report is very, very  serious on the negative side and feel that George’s spin on it is intellectually dishonest. As Imentioned in the summer–section 8 of the report shows you the seriousness of the management problem.
4. The college enrollment is extremely low and more importantly we have lost takers for the most generous scholarships. The response is just more more spin from the College.
5. If this is not a problem of leadership then what is it?  How far into a hole are we going to dig ourselves before saying there must be a change?

I like George and find him very intellectual and delightful with parents. However, what confirmed for me that all your best mentoring will never turn him into a round peg was a call from him this past week. He mentioned that Faith was doing a proposal for you about systematic data collection. I asked him for the big picture of what she was proposing and he responded with, “Oh I don’t ever bother with anything like that–it is Faith’s job.” Stuart, it *must* be the President’s job to know precisely what does or doesn’t need evaluation and accountability. He doesn’t like to get his hands dirty with the day to day issues of running an effective organization. My personal view is that the disgruntlement with Merlin Lewis is that he tells the truth and won’t go along with the egregious spin. Were you to have him report directly to you, I believe you would get honest and straightforward answers, albeit sometimes lengthy. I think he could be vital to your reconstruction efforts because, unlike George and Faith, Merlin does know what structural problems need to be solved and doesn’t try to cover error by blaming others.

I hope that you will see love for the College as your continued determination to have the “right people on the bus” especially the bus driver. Or to use your favorite analogy, what do you do with Colonel Sanders if people aren’t buying the chicken?

Supportively,Traci

Jenkins Responds to Bliss and requests that she wait until the full board is together to provide her insights.  Traci,Holy Cow!  I don’t know what to say and I am afraid that anything I say “can and should” be used against me.I understand the issues.  I believe you know I understand the issues. My focus on the college will lead to the right answers - I hope I am right on that.When you get here in November pls keep these comments off the table while you are doing the committee work but this idea should be shared with the full board in just this clear and succinct fashion.ThanksSJ Bliss responds to Jenkins on September 26th and offers her support from a “higher ed perspective” and claims to be “open-minded to new evidence” From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:51 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: Selected Response/ Confidential all around

Stuart,Gosh–I do apologize for my directness.  I did not mean to infer that you weren’t already on top of these items–I want to support  your efforts by summarizing the problems from a higher ed perspective and especially what the hard data now shows me. I know you are being as fair and evenhanded as possible. You have been on the issue ever since I met you–now the Aquip report confirms my and possibly  your worse fears. 

Of course, I have not and will not mention these concerns to anyone else. In fact I will only share them if  asked at a full-board meeting.  Is that the best way I can support you?

On the other hand if you do believe George is showing evidence of a turn-around I want to be open-minded to new evidence. To summarize, I only wish to move in the direction you think is best.  If my take differs from yours then I defer to your judgment which includes far more data than mine. I  agree with Collins when he says that we can never get from good to great unless we tell the brutal truth about the existing problems, which very few want to do.

Traci

The memo above was written at 4:51 on the 26th of September - less than three hours later Jenkins receives this message from Bliss which will be referred to as the “Holy Cow” memo.From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:12 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Holy Cow!

Are you sitting down, Stuart?

In the past when we’ve discussed the College you’ve asked who could take over for George? Well should you ask me again anytime soon this would be my answer:

Only an interim President that people know and respect who is willing to do very tough work. That is, clearing out the remaining dead wood and restoring credible management, absolutely aligned with accreditation.

Guess who my only choice would be–Stuart Jenkins!!

Traci

Jenkins replies to Bliss’ “Holy Cow” e-mailFrom: Stuart JenkinsSent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:33 AMTo: ‘Traci Bliss’Subject: RE: Holy Cow!Traci,I am now picking myself up.Gosh, I don’t know if that is a job I could do.  I appreciate the vote of confidence however.SJ Bliss begins to take a lead role within the EEC committee to help guide the other members through the AQIP report and its impact on the institution.  On September 28, 2006 she writes a memo which is her response to having studied the AQIP report.  She titles this e-mail “College Accreditation”.  The report is actually called AQIP feedback report.  Could this e-mail sent by Bliss to the Trustees have confused the meaning of the report? Below please find first her introductory e-mail to which she attached “Aqip.doc”.  The attachment has been copied and pasted into this chain of e-mails for clarity.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:23 AMTo: Stuart Jenkins; Hays, Bill; AndySubject: College AccreditationFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: FlaggedAttachments: Aqip.doc

Dear Stuart,    The attached letter is my response to having studied the AQIP report you sent to our Committee. Please forward to Maggie as I can’t seem to locate her e-mail.

Traci

The document below is the “attached” letter Bliss is refering to.  The document has been highlighted to bring out Bliss’ statements on her expertise in the AQIP arena.  In her apology letter to Moffett, she claims to have only generic knowledge of these kinds of reports.  You can judge by her own written record whether her statement in the apology letter is accurate.At this point, Bliss is guiding Jenkins with how the report should be presented to the other members of the EEC and suggests that the remainder of the Trustees be brought up to speed on the report.  Bliss suggests the AQIP report be a part of the November meeting as well. In addition, Bliss notes in number 3 below that North Central “responded in August with the expectation that we will begin immediately to adderss the numerous areas noted with double zeros”  The only communication from NCA-HLC was the AQIP Feedback Report published by the HLC on September 7th and received by the college on September 11th - and subsequently posted on Principia College’s internal website on September 14th.  The HLC does not communicate about specific sections of a report, no matter how bad they might be.  HLC’s philosophy is that any problems will be addressed during the many follow up steps.Here is her attached letter:

Dear Stuart,

            The AQIP accreditation report, in response to the College’s 2006 Systems Portfolio Document, should be sounding alarm bells throughout the institution.  In my many opportunities to study such reports and chair a few accreditation teams this report stands out. The unusually high number of 0 marks (opportunity for improvement) and double 0 marks (opportunity for immediate improvement) is quite alarming.  However, of far greater concern is the extraordinarily few S and double S marks indicating institutional strengths.  Identified strengths show the institutional vision realized in concrete areas; I’ve never encountered a report with so few identified strengths.

            Assuming this will be a November agenda item, our other trustees should be sent your marked up copy as well.  I’ve included some bullets that may help our collective Board understanding of the AQIP process.

1. In June of 2006, the College submitted an 83 page Systems Portfolio Document to the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The portfolio is essential to the accreditation process in that it offers a compilation of all available factual information about every area of the College.
2. Eight teams, consisting of 62 faculty and key administrators as well as two PEC members from St. Louis, worked for more than a year to produce a very thorough and rigorous portfolio. Each team leader reviewed all other teams’ areas and George edited the exceptionally well-written document.
3. The North Central Association responded in August with the expectation that we will begin immediately to address the numerous areas noted with double zeros. Categories 7 and 8 (Measuring Effectiveness and Planning Continuous Improvement) received multiple double zeroes and no areas of identified strength.

Traci     

October 2006

Bliss continued her campaign regarding AQIP throughout October, beginning with a message to Jenkins on October 1st outlining her thoughts on AQIP and the fact she had “checked in with her higher ed colleagues” on her reading of the report (another indicator to the truth of her “generic” statement in the apology letter).  Bliss also asks Jenkins if she should “back off dogging of this issue.” Jenkins was out of the country on development business for Principia when the e-mail arrived, but responded upon his return.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:49 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: AQIP Continued/SEJ onlyFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: FlaggedStuart,

HiI continued to think about the AQIP report over the weekend and even checked in with some higher ed colleagues at other institutions to be certain my reading of the document is accurate. Please let me know if you want me to back off my dogging of this issue. Referring to the section on Educating Students, our primary responsibility as an institution, this is what stands out:

1. During accreditation, a college hopes for and most often receives feedback in the Educating Students  category that shows more than half of the indicators receiving an S(strength) or SS (significant strength, capable of being built upon). The remaining categories of 0 and double 00 are then looked at relative to the many strengths that have been identified. The institution immediately sets to work eliminating the double 00 marks while preserving and building upon the identified strengths. The double SS marks become bragging rights and are often used for recruitment. (The brand, so to speak.)2. Our report shows 3 out of the 17 indicators received an S for strength or in percentage terms, less than 20% of all indicators are considered a strength. We received 11 areas needing improvement and 3 as opportunities for major improvement.3. Especially noteworthy, is that there is not a single major strength in this area–nothing capable of being built upon or bragged about.

Editorial comment: In other areas such as categories 7 and 8 where we had no strengths, changing things requires putting new systems in place and is highly doable. In the educating students category, change requires a change in mind set, energy, direction, and competence. It is no wonder that we have lost star faculty and students when we offer an educational program with so few strengths.  We can meet this challenge but must face down the spin  that if only someone else had written the report we would have done much better. Even if we doubled the current number of strengths, the program would still be woefully weak.

On another and very positive topic:  I finally had time to give complete undivided attention to Peter’s Chapel Convocation Presentation. For the last year I’ve heard you and Chris praise what Peter has accomplished but it wasn’t until I experienced this that I truly “got” it. I was so moved by his incredible gift. Absolutely brilliant–such a strong message presented in a way that said in every detail, “we are an inclusive community where everyone is valued.”

Traci

On October 4, 2006 Bliss writes to Jenkins again continuing her guidance on how to present the AQIP report to the Trustees in preparation for the upcoming Board meeting.

From: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Wed 10/4/2006 5:37 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Trans-Atlantic

Stuart,

Hi–I’m sure the passengers appreciate your being there. Give my love to Betty! When  you receive this I’d like to continue our conversation re AQIP.  We need a proactive strategy if we want the EEC committee to come away from the Elsah meeting with a solid understanding of the really key issues for the College and possible answers raised by AQIP. The meeting format must be carefully crafted with the Trustee’s in control to assure far more structure than has occurred in the past show and tell sessions. What are your thoughts about that?  I have some ideas for focusing the time to ensure substance rather than froth, product rather than plan but those ideas would be best received coming from the CEO.Doggedly as ever,Traci

After returning from Europe, Jenkins Replies to Bliss - and asks for assistance on how to help College Committee Chairman Bill Hays plan for effective College committee meetings during the upcoming November Trustee meeting.

From: Stuart JenkinsSent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 12:52 PMTo: Traci BlissSubject: RE: Trans-Atlantic

Traci,

Sorry to be out of touch while in Germany.  I am afraid I received this note after saying goodbye to Betty.

I would welcome some advice as to how best to instruct Bill on this issue.  I think he is looking for help as to how to structure the meetings.  Do you want to work through me?  Or directly with Bill? I am willing to do either.

Stuart

Bliss responds to Jenkins request by providing some ideas on how the EEC meeting could be structured so the members time would be used most effectively

From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:53 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: Structuring Our Time ProductivelyFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart,My hope for the EEC meeting:  as a new committee with only Bill and myself as holdover members, you establish new expectations for our performance as a group. That way Bill has clear direction from you–not just for the immediate issue of the AQIP feedback but for our subsequent agendas and performance.  Previously, our committee has  been fairly passive allowing George and the College to set the agenda. Consequently, we’ve been given 45 minute reports by each  of the different constituencies with very little time for questions. (The one deviation occurred a year ago when we all met individually with different faculty and staff–we got some honest feedback but the down side was that we were not all hearing the same thing.)I’m brainstorming out loud  on how best to approach your charge to our committee. One way to proceed is for you to ask or have Bill ask all committee members and attendees to submit  their priority questions concerning the College. We then get those questions to you/Bill soon and George must organize presentations around the answers to our questions, including actual documents, with some time allocated for items the College wants to share.  Many of the topics we’ve heard about in  past meetings consisted of  speech making such as George literally going on about a moral topic for 40 minutes. (As well put together as his recent convocation speech was, I’ve heard various parts of it before. When I have to sit through it as a committee member, I find it aa artful diversion, ensuring that we don’t get to talk about the far more complex topic–quality  teaching and learning.)As Trustee’s we must gain a collective view of where progress is most needed and I believe that will be achieved only by  taking  control of the agenda.  I’m confident  in  the new members and  Chris and Michael’s ability  to understand  the seriousness of where we are but only if we can get beyond the surface into a real understanding  about the academic program (AQIP Category #1) and why we are so lacking in assessment/accountability throughout the organization.  I  hope  you will have your own list of priority questions to add to ours if this sounds like a way to go.  (Also, I would be sure to note that if we all send our questions via Karen  they will be organized without reference to who asked what question–that should encourage moral courage!)

Traci

On October 12, 2006 Jenkins recieves the following communication from Bliss. Note is is Bliss who first brings to Jenkins attention a loss of confidence in the college leadership.  You will not find any communication from Jenkins to the Trustees regarding this topic prior to or during the Trustee meeting.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:19 AMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: CollegeFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Stuart,Interestingly, yesterday you asked for our special support for the leadership team; later in the day I had contact  from a dependable college faculty member who said that the frustration level with the lack of administrative leadership was so high that a hand-full of key middle level players were ready to leave. (Just letting off steam or honest statements of intention?) This person emphasized that the faculty Senate in no way speaks for the whole faculty but that almost all the faculty now have a common cause–lost confidence in the current administration.  If this sense of profound discontent  is what your own meetings are also revealing, please do not spare us the bad news. You know you have my 150% support.

Traci

Remember that Jenkins receives the above e-mail from Bliss 4 months after their meeting about Salary in June.  October 13, 2006 begins what was described in a May 31, 2007 Pilot issue as “Three weeks in Autumn” but as you can clearly see there is more to the story.  Click here to read the Moffett letter and all the correlating e-mails relating to the letter, the PEC leak, and the details related to Moffett’s resignation.   October 17, 2006 Jenkins has Board secretary Karen Eisenauer overnight copies of the College AQIP report to the members of the Board who had not already seen the report as part of their duties on the EEC.From: Karen EisenauerSent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:33 AMTo: Andy; Bill; Chairman’s Office, Principia; Chris; Helen; Katharine; Maggi; Michael; Stuart; Traci; Tuck; WillardSubject: MailingFriends,For those of you who have not yet received copies of the College AQIP report (with Stuart’s markings), I am putting copies in today’s FED EX to arrive tomorrow.  Willard and Stuart wanted to be sure everyone has a copy.I’ll also tuck a copy of the College Pilot in the envelope.  For those who have already received the AQIP report (Educational Enhancement Committee:  Bill, Maggi, Traci, Andy), I’ll send the Pilot via today’s 1st class mail.all best,KarenOctober 18, 2006 - click here for Lewis Announcement  The announcement is released of the restructuring of Lewis’ office and reporting relationship to Jenkins.  Bliss responds to the announcement with support.  In addition she writes a memo to both Willard Hanzlik and Jenkins regarding AQIP.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:06 AMTo: whanzlik@mac.com; Stuart JenkinsSubject: Follow-up confidentialFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Willard, hello again–    Our necessarily hasty conversation Tuesday morning left me feeling the need to clarify a point I made.  Now that you have a copy of the AQIP report, you see that overall our areas for improvement are far more  extensive than our strengths, with categories 7 and 8 having no strengths.  However, there is one area above the others that propels my sense of urgency in the need for change.     Category #4 comprises those indicators of how well we value people.  A solid AQIP assessment in that area would be well above 50% of the indicators showing strengths. We received an assessment that shows only 17% strengths and some double zero weaknesses. As a Christian Science institution, I know you’ll agree that  we should be an exemplar in the area of Valuing People. Moreover,  as Stuart and I continue to discuss–none of the other categories can improve more than marginally until we turn this category completely around.  I believe this requires far more than just management expertise–it is a tone, a model, a set of priorities that  leadership must consistently demonstrate. Bottom line–if  we hope to retain top faculty and increase enrollment or even just maintain it, we must truly walk our talk.

Traci

Later that same day Bliss responds to the Lewis restructuring announcement in an e-mail at 7:35 p.m to Jenkins copying all Trustees. Remember that in the apology letter Bliss claims ”at the time, I was unaware of the change in Merlin’s communication.”  Separating fact from fiction is important.  Source documentation is important.  In case you need a review of what has happened - in Bliss’ September 24 “Square Peg” memo Bliss suggests that Lewis report directly to Jenkins - and when the change occurs she is not only made aware of the change - she shows her support.From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:35 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsCc: Andy; Bill; Chairman’s Office, Principia; Chris; Helen; Katharine; Maggi; Michael; Stuart Jenkins; Tuck; WillardSubject: Re: Institutional Research and PlanningFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Stuart,I think this was a very wise move–an essential first step in our steep path to continuing our AQIP accreditation. In our College Committee work, I’ve appreciated Merlin Lewis’s responsiveness and attention to detail within the big picture.My heartfelt thanks for your diligence at this time.

TraciJenkins replies to Bliss’ e-mail on the morning of October 20, 2006Traci,Thanks for you support on this.  I figured you would think I am nuts to get involved in this mess.  Talk about a no win deal.I just hope Merlin can/will identify the big rocks for me to push.  He is a process guy and sometimes I get lost in the weeds.  My sense is that there are 5 or 6 big things we have to focus on and not get distracted by a hundred things we could do.I am starting to be college president by action not position.  It is a dog gone poor way to operate.SJ Bliss helps Jenkins by outlining next steps he should take with Lewis in an e-mail dated October 20, 2006 at 8:44 a.m.  In this e-mail Bliss suggests that Jenkins speak to Felch.  This suggestion differs from Bliss’ account in her letter of apology when she describes a “lengthy, unscheduled conversation between Jenkins and Felch” - If Bliss had known that Jenkins and Felch had already met, why would she now ask Jenkins to seek out her perspective. (see highlights). Jenkins first meeting with Felch occured in late November 2006 AFTER the announcement of Moffett’s departure was made public.Please remember that during this same time frame Jenkins, Bliss, Hanzlik and all the Trustees are knee deep in dealing with Moffett’s reaction to and leak of information contained in the October 13th memo Jenkins wrote to Moffett. (see three weeks in Autumn)From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:44 AMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: Institutional Research and PlanningFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Dear Stuart,When the Bus is traveling fast you’ve got to use who is already on it! The way you get Merlin to focus on the big rocks is to get Judith Feltch’s perspective on issues. This is for two reasons–she is totally cut to the chase and has developed the one program AQIP says is a strength and that we should be building on. Aqip specifically asked why we haven’t built on FYE and that explains some of the boulders. I can point you in the direction of a few big boulders but at the moment I encourage you to shore up the faculty. In other words make sure no solid folk are planning to leave the bus.    I’m aware of Merlin’s lesser developed areas but his trustworthiness and especially the confidence he engenders with key staff are critical to holding things together–through him you will hear from voices John does not have access to.As for Boulder #1 see next memo.

Traci

On the basis of the October 19th e-mail to whom Bliss had copied all Trustees, Katherine Bullock sends an e-mail to Bliss at 8:21 a.m. on October 20, 2006 requesting a brief synopsis of AQIP at 9:23 a.m. Bliss responds to Jenkins, copying him in on Bullocks earlier e-mail, by offering to write a one page summary for all trustees stating Jenkins requested it.From: katharinebullock@comcast.netSent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:21 AMTo: Traci BlissSubject: Re: Institutional Research and Planningthanks for the comments traci….frankly, I don’t really get all this so it may be worth a few minutes explaining it to the Board at some time….see ya soon!  katharine

Bliss responds to Katharine’s comments by sending an e-mail to Jenkins with a suggestion that she put together a summary of the AQIP report to be sent to all TrusteesFrom: Traci Bliss [mailto:blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:23 AMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: [Fwd: Re: Institutional Research and Planning]

Stuart,

This suggests that there are widely differing understandings of where we are. If you would like, I’ll do a half page summary of the AQIP report and have it out to all the Trustees by Monday, stating that you requested it.

Traci 

Bliss then creates the summary for Katherine and attaches the one page document she had prepared to help Jenkins get up to speed with AQIP.  These communications illustrate how Bliss had taken the lead in guiding the trustees on the reading of the AQIP report and its significance.

To: Katharine

RE: Summary of AQIP

From: Traci

1. AQIP History:  In 2002, with Michael’s leadership and George’s wholehearted support, the College embraced the new, AQIP accreditation model, consisting of research-based indicators of quality higher education. (These are what you find in each of the 8 sections of the report you received this week.)  During 2005-2006, 62 faculty and staff participated in writing the AQIP self-assessment for the College, culminating in an 87 page report submitted in June 2006. In September of 2006, AQIP sent back their official assessment—what you have.

Board Meeting: On Thursday of the Board meeting, the EEC committee will hear the College team present their response to the AQIP assessment.  If requested by Bill, our committee chair, I can present a graphic organizer to the whole Board which shows our report summarized and then compared with what AQIP considers a solid accreditation. When seen graphically this is quickly understood.

My professional assessment: Every higher ed institution seeks an accreditation report which shows at least half or more of the specific indictors in the positive column (these are marked with S in our report.) Overall, our report shows that we are substantially below that 50% mark in positive S indicators. However, there are four areas that we need to be specifically focused on:

Specific Categories: Categories 7&8 concern management, leadership, and communication.  In both of these categories there are no S marks—only 0 and 00—needs improvement.  Having these categories rated with no strengths at all suggests serious problems and what Stuart has been diligently attending to. In my judgment, are greatest long-term concerns are categories 1 and 4. Category #1 is Supporting Student Learning, the essence of what we do. In this category we received S (strength) in only 20% of the indicators with the remainder being 0 and some 00.  Category #4, Valuing People, is a category in which Christian Scientists should be an exemplar for other institutions. The AQIP report ranked only 17% of our indicators as S or strengths. We must turn this category around very quickly if we hope to get the buy-in for progress in any other category.

 

Katherine sends bliss a thank you for the helpful information.

Traci, thank you so very very much for writing this up…..it is so helpful to me. You were very sweet to do it and I appreciate it. Can’t wait to see you next week and of course we have a lot on our plate! As I voiced in my e mail to everyone, I want to make sure we are methodically reviewing everything and realizing that things may take time to unfold to all of us. Best and thanks again….Katharine 

On October 22, 2006 the Trustees were in the midst of communicating with each other relating to Moffett’s reaction to having received Jenkins October 13th memo. The chain of e-mails related to this issue is available on the Moffett link.  However one e-mail exchange between Bliss and  Jenkins covered both topics - Moffett and AQIP.  The post is below. 

As far as the timeline goes it is now one week away from the Trustee meeting.  The Bliss e-mail below sent at 3:48 p.m. on October 22, 2006 is highlighted to bring out Bliss’ position on how to handle presentation of AQIP which she felt would give Moffett a “fair” opportunity.  Ten minutes later Bliss sends a separate e-mail to Jenkins. (below-entitled Fwd: Re: Clarifying AQIP)

From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:48 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Re: A FavorFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

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

On October 22, 2006 Bliss writes to Jenkins attaching the one page write up (above)

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

Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:58 PM To: Stuart Jenkins Subject: [Fwd: Re: Clarifying AQIP]

Stuart,

I’ve attached the one page write up I did for Katharine. Also, what I’m forwarding is one of the two pages of the graphic organizer. It is all organized as glasses full or empty. If you want to use it consider it yours, I can change it any way you like and you can present it.

Meanwhile, I’m finalizing the second page which compares us with a “solid” accreditation–another mid-west religious based institution done exactly at the same where all glasses are well above 50% full.

George basically did not understand the process because that is not where his focus or interest is. Accreditation menas follow through and that is his greatest weakness–none! I think you can make sure Merlin just stays on the big picture if he presents to us by giving him a 20 minute time limit and making him do a pre-presentation for one of your tough PEC members.

Traci

Jenkins resonds asking for Bliss to summarize the AQIP situation for him and saying he needs to “get up to speed” fast. A person who is not “up to speed” within 7 days of the Trustee meeting and the supposed immanent departure of the College President could not possibly have “conspired and colluded” using the AQIP report as a framework.  Traci, I would like to see your one page organizer on AQIP. I need to get up to speed on AQIP in a hurry. I am frankly concerned where George undervalued the process that Merlin is going to get to deep in the weeds to maintain perspective. However this view of Merlin may be influenced by how much he has been jumping up and down over the past few years while no(sic) one seemed to be paying attention. Keep it simple.SJLater that Day Bliss provides Jenkins the “graphic organizer” she had developed.  Click Glasses Chart to see the organizer.  It is a powerpoint file and may not open on all systems.  We are working to get it in .pdf file for more to see.  Bliss introduces this graphic organizer in an e-mail to Jenkins saying Jenkins 11 year old daughter will “get it in two minutes”From: Traci Bliss [blistrac@isu.edu]Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:10 PMTo: Stuart JenkinsSubject: Glasses full or empty?Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged Attachments: Glasses-1.pptStuart,    AQIP cannot get any simpler than this picture–Jordan will get it in two minutes!! It is all in Power Point. TraciOn October 29, 2006 Bliss writes to Vice-Chairman Hanzlik a concern she has regarding the agenda for the upcoming Trustee meeting.On Oct 29, 2006, at 17:13, Traci Bliss wrote:

Thanks Willard,

   Meanwhile, I’d appreciate some advice. Our Thursday afternoon EEC meeting with the College includes not even a mention of the AQIP report; apparently it is a half hour item at your Thursday morning meeting only.  I’m assuming since we will discuss the report at the full Board meeting in the overall context of the College’s future, we should just sit politely through the pages  of non-strategic, fluffy information as presented in the yellow report?  What is your thinking about this?

   (I leave Idaho at 10am Wednesday and arrive in Elsah at 10:30 pm so I won’t have the opportunity to chat about “appropriate demeanor” before the Thursday meetings.)

 

Traci

Hanzlik responds in an e-mail to Bliss later that evening.

 

 

From: Willard Hanzlik [whanzlik@mac.com]Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:09 PMTo: Traci BlissSubject: Re: PrincipiaTraci,The fact that George continues to give little attention to the AQIP report substantiates for me how out of touch he is with proper management of the college.  I think we need to play Thursday by ear.  If given the opportunity, I intend to ask some hard questions about it and other matters, however I am only a “guest” at the committee meetings and not actually a member of the committees, so I am not sure exactly how to handle this.Perhaps we all can visit at breakfast on Thursday?WillardThis AQIP timeline has now brought us up to the Trustee meeting.  If you’d like to take a break and go grab a cup of tea or a sandwich - now is the time.  We will pick up this timeline starting again after the Trustee meeting in a new page that will be called “AQIP Trustee meeting and beyond”.   You will have to check back for further activation of links that will be “live” in the document over the coming weeks.Back to About This Site