President Whitten - 2024 Faculty No Vote

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,858]

Honestly-- this feels VERY Steve Aird ish. 

[Stuhoo 79,505]

18 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Did you read the IDS article? 

I read the IDS article, and I read @HoosierHoopster's  posts. 

That's why I stated that while there may not be, sometimes there is more to a situation than what meets the eye from an outside observer.

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,858]

5 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

I read the IDS article, and I read @HoosierHoopster's  posts. 

That's why I stated that while there may not be, sometimes there is more to a situation than what meets the eye from an outside observer.

I struggle to take IDS seriously, that article didn't change that. 

[Stuhoo 79,505]

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

I struggle to take IDS seriously, that article didn't change that. 

They are student journalists. They are learning, even if they are trying very hard to be excellent.

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,858]

7 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

They are student journalists. They are learning, even if they are trying very hard to be excellent.

Umm.. you can think that, respectfully. They've shown their colors time in and time out. 

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,858]

@Stuhoo in the same breath, I do agree, that there are LAYERS to this kind of stuff. By no means would I know any sort of details. I am simply going off of the article. 

[Stuhoo 79,505]

Just now, btownqb said:

Umm.. you can think that, respectfully. They've shown their colors time in and time out. 

The journalism profession and the kids at the IDS are not a monolith.

They are a variety of people from different backgrounds (though largely raised in Indiana) that have different perspectives, flaws, and abilities.

[Certified Sunshine Pumper 8,858]

Just now, Stuhoo said:

The journalism profession and the kids at the IDS are not a monolith.

They are a variety of people from different backgrounds (though largely raised in Indiana) that have different perspectives, flaws, and abilities.

Ehhhh (to the bold)

Largely raised in Indiana? I would highly question that, as well. (that however, isn't all that relevant) 

[Stuhoo 79,505]

3 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Ehhhh (to the bold)

Largely raised in Indiana? I would highly question that, as well. (that however, isn't all that relevant) 

Only because this likely means it reflects the demographics and culture of the State as a whole:

The Media School

https://mediaschool.indiana.edu › News & Events › News

 

Aug 31, 2023 — Fifty-nine percent of undergraduate students in The Media School are residents of Indiana and 41% are from out of state.

[Golfman25 4,989]

14 hours ago, HoosierHoopster said:

 One examp - for any meeting with her the person (prof, etc) has to put their cellphone in a container, some feeling reflects paranoia.

OMG, the horror.  

[Stuhoo 79,505]

14 hours ago, HoosierHoopster said:

Profs are really angry with her. She has some out there policies. One examp - for any meeting with her the person (prof, etc) has to put their cellphone in a container, some feeling reflects paranoia.

 

5 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

OMG, the horror.  

It's an example.

I work for/with a very no-nonsense leader. If that was proposed to him he'd think it was a clear sign of a leader that doesn't trust or command the respect of his/her team. I think so too.

[Napleshoosier 10,135]

Best to lock this one up.  No goods going to come from it.  Let’s get back to pi$$ing about guard play and recruiting.

[8bucks 6,340]

11 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

It's an example.

I work for/with a very no-nonsense leader. If that was proposed to him he'd think it was a clear sign of a leader that doesn't trust or command the respect of his/her team. I think so too.

Just curious, if this is paranoia based, is the argument that she fears they would be recording the conversation?  Can you secretly record a conversation in Indiana?   

[Golfman25 4,989]

58 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

It's an example.

I work for/with a very no-nonsense leader. If that was proposed to him he'd think it was a clear sign of a leader that doesn't trust or command the respect of his/her team. I think so too.

A poor example.  Cell phones are a distraction and why many Professors restrict students use in class.  

[Stuhoo 79,505]

1 hour ago, 8bucks said:

Just curious, if this is paranoia based, is the argument that she fears they would be recording the conversation?  Can you secretly record a conversation in Indiana?   

Exactly.

100% agree that the “cell phone as a distraction” issue is very real!

But telling people to keep their cell phones out of their hands and off of the conference room table is one thing and quite appropriate, while collecting them into a bag is another.

Kinda interesting in part because Indiana is a one party consent state, so it would be legal to surreptitiously record a board meeting.

[RaceToTheTop 24,843]

I think the big thing that is missed is that this is a pretty big Board of Trustees failure...once again.  Kathy with a C can't spin out of this factoid from the article and it shows exactly how the 'group consensus' of the board produces crap.

-------------------

When an 18-person search committee was charged with selecting IU’s next president in 2020, they narrowed the list to four finalists — none of whom included Whitten. According to Steve Sanders, a Maurer School of Law professor who interviewed people involved with the search, the Board of Trustees rejected all four finalists and chose four new finalists externally, this time including Whitten.  

---------------------

So in essence, here are the issues REGARDLESS of politics:

    -- the search committee produces four names and the BOT chose to ignore it completely.  If you want to stay in good graces with the people you are working with, you don't simply wholeheartedly ignore their entire work.  Horrible, horrible PR and sets whoever they do hire up for an immediate adverse relationship.  Better move:  keep one or two names from the original list and add your own to a list of finalists.

    --  the BOT then violated public access law by failing to produce documents in a timely manner that should have been available through the freedom of information act.

    --  Part of the documents they tried to hide indicate that former president McRobbie was paid over $500,000 for 'consulting' work for Whitten in the first six months of her job.....to those involved in the original search committee, this says to them that the BOT chose to ignore candidates they recommended and chose a candidate who wasn't qualified and needed a half a million dollars worth of training.

So to me this says the no confidence vote for Whitten is really a no confidence vote in the procedures that the BOT has adopted.  Sure, there are politics at play but it goes beyond disagreement between the president and staff.

[Golfman25 4,989]

2 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I think the big thing that is missed is that this is a pretty big Board of Trustees failure...once again.  Kathy with a C can't spin out of this factoid from the article and it shows exactly how the 'group consensus' of the board produces crap.

-------------------

When an 18-person search committee was charged with selecting IU’s next president in 2020, they narrowed the list to four finalists — none of whom included Whitten. According to Steve Sanders, a Maurer School of Law professor who interviewed people involved with the search, the Board of Trustees rejected all four finalists and chose four new finalists externally, this time including Whitten.  

---------------------

So in essence, here are the issues REGARDLESS of politics:

    -- the search committee produces four names and the BOT chose to ignore it completely.  If you want to stay in good graces with the people you are working with, you don't simply wholeheartedly ignore their entire work.  Horrible, horrible PR and sets whoever they do hire up for an immediate adverse relationship.  Better move:  keep one or two names from the original list and add your own to a list of finalists.

    --  the BOT then violated public access law by failing to produce documents in a timely manner that should have been available through the freedom of information act.

    --  Part of the documents they tried to hide indicate that former president McRobbie was paid over $500,000 for 'consulting' work for Whitten in the first six months of her job.....to those involved in the original search committee, this says to them that the BOT chose to ignore candidates they recommended and chose a candidate who wasn't qualified and needed a half a million dollars worth of training.

So to me this says the no confidence vote for Whitten is really a no confidence vote in the procedures that the BOT has adopted.  Sure, there are politics at play but it goes beyond disagreement between the president and staff.

That happens all the time.  The BOD has the ultimate authority, not some "search committee."  They are there to help.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  If the seach committee doesn't like it, don't let the door hit you in the arse.  Sick of the inmates trying to run the asylum.  

[RaceToTheTop 24,843]

1 minute ago, Golfman25 said:

That happens all the time.  The BOD has the ultimate authority, not some "search committee."  They are there to help.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  If the seach committee doesn't like it, don't let the door hit you in the arse.  Sick of the inmates trying to run the asylum.  

That kind of attitude is exactly why no confidence votes are held — the assumption that you should just accept whatever **** is thrown your way and say thank you.

[8bucks 6,340]

2 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I think the big thing that is missed is that this is a pretty big Board of Trustees failure...once again.  Kathy with a C can't spin out of this factoid from the article and it shows exactly how the 'group consensus' of the board produces crap.

-------------------

When an 18-person search committee was charged with selecting IU’s next president in 2020, they narrowed the list to four finalists — none of whom included Whitten. According to Steve Sanders, a Maurer School of Law professor who interviewed people involved with the search, the Board of Trustees rejected all four finalists and chose four new finalists externally, this time including Whitten.  

---------------------

So in essence, here are the issues REGARDLESS of politics:

    -- the search committee produces four names and the BOT chose to ignore it completely.  If you want to stay in good graces with the people you are working with, you don't simply wholeheartedly ignore their entire work.  Horrible, horrible PR and sets whoever they do hire up for an immediate adverse relationship.  Better move:  keep one or two names from the original list and add your own to a list of finalists.

    --  the BOT then violated public access law by failing to produce documents in a timely manner that should have been available through the freedom of information act.

    --  Part of the documents they tried to hide indicate that former president McRobbie was paid over $500,000 for 'consulting' work for Whitten in the first six months of her job.....to those involved in the original search committee, this says to them that the BOT chose to ignore candidates they recommended and chose a candidate who wasn't qualified and needed a half a million dollars worth of training.

So to me this says the no confidence vote for Whitten is really a no confidence vote in the procedures that the BOT has adopted.  Sure, there are politics at play but it goes beyond disagreement between the president and staff.

Hard to say if there was anything revealing about having the prior president help with the transition. I have had a few opportunities to be the successor to a retiring president. In many of the opportunities there was an overlap or some consulting type role like this to help ease in the transition especially when I was coming in from the outside. If she was not in the first round then it may have taken more time to get her on board and some of that time may initially have been planned for this consulting help.  

[RaceToTheTop 24,843]

1 minute ago, 8bucks said:

Hard to say if there was anything revealing about having the prior president help with the transition. I have had a few opportunities to be the successor to a retiring president. In many of the opportunities there was an overlap or some consulting type role like this to help ease in the transition especially when I was coming in from the outside. If she was not in the first round then it may have taken more time to get her on board and some of that time may initially have been planned for this consulting help.  

Simple question then:  why did the BOT violate Indiana government open information act?  
 

It’s also not like she hadn’t been a college president before — she was in her third year as Kennesaw State’s president for three years prior to coming to Indiana.