scary! latest from a faculty member at WVU Health Sciences

"At least two chairs who I know and spoke to me directly told me that Bailes told them they should sign or their jobs could be in jeopardy. They both told him to get lost, but were visibly shaken. When I found out, I went around to 5 other chairs and suggested they go home today. Four of them did. This is unacceptable in any workplace."

"Some faculty feel pressed to sign letter backing WVU president"

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Article. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08123/878485-85.stm

Lead paragraph: "A prominent member of West Virginia University's Health Sciences Center and ally of WVU President Michael Garrison yesterday organized a faculty letter in support of the embattled executive, a letter some faculty members said they felt pressured to sign but did not."

Very depressing.

From students:

Dear Faculty,

We are Concerned WVU Students. We are writing to express our sincere
frustration with the current administration, especially President
Garrison. Students all over this campus are beginning to speak out
against the President and his staff that hastily gave an unearned
degree to Heather Bresch. We believe that this action was politically
motivated and done in utter disregard to standard academic procedure
of the University. We believe that it is in the best interest of
faculty, staff and students that for the sake of this community,
President Garrison should resign. We urge you to vote no confidence
and clearly recommend the resignation of Garrison and members of his
staff. We believe this is the only way our University and this
community can truly move forward. Additionally, please encourage your
students to speak out.

Signed,

Concerned WVU Students

forwarded by a faculty member

Dear Faculty Senate Members:

I am writing you as a concerned parent, WVU Alumni, and WV resident in
reference to the Heather Bresch fiasco. I cannot believe that President
Garrison is using the Business and Economics Dean and the Provost as
scapegoats for his actions, I think that is a cowardly act on his part and
he needs to be brought to the carpet for his actions! For him to say he had
no involvement in the Bresch matter is an insult to my intelligence along
with everyone elses! In a matter that is this important, no one can believe
that the PRESIDENT of a university would turn it over to people under him!

In every syllabus there is a section on Academic Integrity. In short, it
discusses how each student and faculty/staff member is expected to follow
the highest level of integrity in their actions in the classroom. President
Garrison did not follow this "creed". How can you expect students follow
through with Academic Integrity when the PRESIDENT of the University can't
follow it himself? What message are you sending to potential
students/parents of WVU? To former students? To potential EMPLOYERS? To
financial supporters of this institution? The good name of WVU lies in the
balance at this time....thus in your hands! Vote NO CONFIDENCE in Mike
Garrison and push hard for his resignation. Help to restore Integrity to
the WVU name.

Thank you,

Robert J. Connor

sent by a faculty member to the faculty senate leadership

Dear Virginia, Steve, and Nigel:

I am prompted to write you, as Faculty Senate leaders and the faculty rep to the BOG, by Mike Garrison's statement in response to the BOG's directive following release of the Bresch panel's report. The BOG directed Garrison to take responsibility for the errors made as well as to implement the panel's suggestions. In his official statement, Garrison failed to take responsibility for the mistakes made in granting Heather Bresch an MBA and so flouted an important part of the BOG's directive. Garrison's failure to take responsibility and his comments minimizing the gravity of the error(s) necessitates a response from the Faculty Senate.

The report was clear, comprehensive, and unequivocal in finding that administrators' actions were "seriously flawed"; that awarding the bogus degree entailed "failures of process and failures of leadership"; and that these failures were "unique to this particular, high-profile case, rather than . . . systemic" ("Bresch Panel report" 4).

Speaking for the BOG, Steve Goodwin directed Garrison to take responsibility for these problems: "It is the recommendation of the Board that you as president of West
Virginia University accept responsibility for errors in judgment and
procedures relative to this matter made by members of, and personnel
affiliated with, the administration" (WVU E-News, 4/23).

In his response statement, Garrison took responsibility for implementing the Panel's suggestions but did not "accept responsibility for errors in judgment and procedures relative to this matter." In the only passage to mention taking responsibility, Garrison said, "As president, I take full responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the panel as required by the Board" (WVU E-News, 4/23).

Garrison further evaded responsibility and minimized the impact of the errors in judgment and leadership for the WVU community by expressing regret for the investigative process rather than for the actions that resulted in awarding Bresch a false degree: "I deeply regret that the West Virginia University community, here on campus and around the state and the world, has had to endure the lengthy process that led to this day." The lengthy investigative process that led to such a comprehensive, frank, and objective report, rather than taxing the WVU community, works to restore faith in WVU's academic integrity. It is the flawed process of awarding the false degree, not the fact-finding process, that damaged the WVU community.

Further, Garrison seemed to defend as systemic a process that the panel found not only flawed but unique to this high-profile case: "As an institution, we celebrate the fact that we have a culture that invites students and alumni to bring their questions and concerns to the
Office of the President. My practice has been, and will continue to be, to refer individual academic concerns to the appropriate office - the provost, or a vice president or dean - for disposition, or the Office of Student Life to assist with questions." While I also support the university's open-door policies, it is clearly not typical that student complaints get referred from the President's office to the Provost. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. In fact, the panel found that "the rush to judgment in Ms. Bresch's case was driven primarily and inappropriately by concerns about public relations and by Ms. Bresch's high profile" ("report" 16).

Although Garrison said he would implement the panel's suggestions, he seems to refute the validity of its finding that this constituted a unique and problematic situation of special treatment and, instead, offers to see that WVU "adhere to the best practices and highest standards in the area of student and alumni record keeping" (WVU E-News 4/23). In fact, the Panel report clearly stated that the flawed decision making process regarding Bresch had nothing to do with flawed record-keeping. Moreover, the report was at pains to stress that WVU's record-keeping systems worked well enough to ensure the value of all other students' MBA degrees. Thus, Garrison's commitment to implementation erroneously focuses on record-keeping rather than on the lack of safeguards ensuring that all students are treated equally and fairly.

I am not one of those faculty members calling for the heads of administrators in the wake of this scandal. If our top administrators, and especially the president, had responded to the panel's findings with humility and integrity and had taken responsibility for the flawed decision-making process, I would have been satisfied with a commitment from them to set up safeguards ensuring that such events did not recur. However, in the wake of Garrison's evasive response, which directly flouted the BOG's directive to take responsibility, which did not acknowledge the damage done by the administration's actions, and which did not evince understanding of the nature of the problem (administrative leadership, not record-keeping), I would argue that it behooves the Faculty Senate to take further action in the immediate future rather than waiting for Garrison's report to the BOG at their next meeting. I do not have a particular Senate action in mind, but I would suggest, at a minimum, that the Senate propose and attempt to pass a resolution outlining the ways that Garrison's response to the panel report and to the BOG does not adequately address crucial issues and fails to take the institution forward and past this damaging event.

a statement sent last weekend to Miles Layton at the Dominion Post

When Mike Garrison was appointed president, I was willing to give him a chance despite his lack of academic credentials. He’s tried to respond to faculty and staff needs by raising salaries to make WVU competitive with peer institutions, starting work on the daycare center, and instituting a program to help new faculty spouses find employment in Morgantown. But faculty probably care more about academic integrity than salaries—even if we’d rather not have to choose between them.

The gross infractions of academic integrity committed to give Heather Bresch an unearned eMBA undermines our mission as educators and devalues our students. WVU students work hard in their classes, often while working long hours at outside jobs to put themselves through school. They value their education, respect their professors, and commit to earning their grades and their degrees. I feel privileged to teach them. For their sake, as well as for the rest of WVU’s stakeholders, the administration must commit to restoring the university’s reputation for academic integrity.

The first step would have been for Garrison to accept the findings—not just the recommendations—of the fair and objective investigative panel. Despite the fact that the BOG explicitly charged him to take responsibility for the errors of judgment and poor leadership that resulted in granting Bresch the degree, Garrison failed to take this first step. It is not only the initial errors but Garrison’s continued cavalier attitude that is causing a groundswell of support for his resignation.

I am particularly persuaded by the eloquent and considered letter by physics professor and faculty senator Boyd Edwards calling for Garrison’s resignation. I also know that others in the Faculty Senate leadership, beyond Riemenschneider and his second, are planning to move in that direction. I am increasingly convinced that this is the right decision.

About political patronage:

Education has long been considered the key to upward mobility in the U.S. Garrison likes to offer himself as an example, frequently touting his credentials as a first-generation college graduate who is proud to have his degrees from WVU. Unfortunately, the Heather Bresch affair makes us question whether WVU’s leadership is really working equally for all West Virginians, or is it working harder for some than others? In this case, not only did a well-connected individual get special treatment, but all other WVU graduates have been harmed by the damage done to WVU’s national reputation and the consequent devaluing of a WVU degree.

looking for whistleblowers to report illegal activities by the Garrison administration

Professor Paul Brown is looking for whistleblowers to report illegal activities by the Garrison administration. Confidentiality guaranteed. Call 216-6443 or email pbrown4348@verizon.net.

not a record-keeping problem

(from a WVU faculty member) Yesterday's DA article about the Bresch scandal reports that Jonathan Cummings has been appointed by Garrison to oversee improving record-keeping practices (this isn't news). It also says that Cummings says there's not much to do since there's no problem with record keeping. Isn't this (focusing on record keeping) a misinterpretation of the report's and BOG's charge that Garrison ensure such an event as the Bresch scandal does not recur? Since the report says the problem came in treating a high-profile case uniquely and in rushing to judgment and in gathering high-level officials who did not necessarily have records but who falsified documents--rather than in routine record-keeping practices--then shouldn't the implementation plan focus on processes of handling student queries about transcripts, ensuring all queries and students are treated equally, and setting up a uniform process that lays out who should be involved, etc.? (By the way, in his testimony to the investigative panel, printed in today's DP, Garrison mentions the case of another student who was short a course and told he didn't graduate. His parents called Garrison's office, but the kid still didn't get to graduate and someone from the Parent's Club broke the news to the kid's mom. He suggests this is a parallel case, but it's certainly not in terms of outcome and levels of administrators involved). It seems to me that this tack of implementation is yet another way that Garrison is misreading the report and/or misleading the university--intentionally or not. In any case, this appointment of Cummings seems to be the wrong direction for implementing the report's recommendations. I might not be aware of other steps Garrison has taken, but this certainly seems like another failure by Garrison to heed the report.

university-wide faculty assembly

We have learned today that it's possible for the president of the Faculty Senate to call a university-wide faculty assembly to address the MBA scandal, if 5% of the faculty make such a request. This effort is already underway. If this is important to you, please email Steve Kite TODAY and circulate this message.

A Petition to WVU Faculty

(from WVU faculty member Matt Vester)

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

Given the current state of affairs on our campus, it seems important to me to assess the views of WVU faculty (and not just faculty senators) regarding the calls for President Garrison’s resignation.

On Monday, April 29, Kevin Leyden (Political Science) claimed that “most people believe Michael Garrison has performed his duties beyond expectations” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 29, 2008) . Perhaps Leyden has polling data to support this claim. If evidence can be shown to prove that most faculty believe Garrison’s resignation to be unnecessary, I for one will pledge not to speak another word about it. The last thing that I hope to do is to make an already terrible situation worse, against the wishes of most members of the faculty community.

But if most WVU faculty believe that the restoration of university’s integrity requires Garrison’s resignation (at a minimum), then the Faculty Senate, the BOG, and the President’s Office must be made aware of this fact. For that I reason I am willing to compile a list of faculty members who support the proposed Faculty Senate resolution calling upon President Garrison to resign, and those who do not.

If you email me, I will tabulate the results and have them verified by someone whose views on this matter are contrary to my own. For those who support the resignation resolution, I would be happy to add your name to what would in effect become a petition that could be distributed to members of the Faculty Senate prior to Monday’s meeting. I realize that this is a methodologically imperfect procedure, but at least it should provide a somewhat more accurate sense of faculty views concerning this issue that so closely affects our collective reputation.

Please send me an e-mail (matt.vester@mail.wvu.edu) by Saturday, May 3, at 6:00 PM, with true or false answers to the following statements:

1. I support Garrison's resignation (T/F).
2. I am willing for my name to be made public (T/F).

Thanks for your help with this modest research project. Yours, Matt Vester (History Department, WVU)

one of life's mysteries...

Kevin Leyden, in his statement to the Faculty Senate, insisted that "most people believe Michael Garrison has performed his duties beyond expectations," that Garrison is an effective leader so far, citing money Garrison brought in from the state government for salaries and research. Others cite the development of a WVU day care program. He is responsible for these things even when, in most cases, he is not directly doing the work, others are negotiating, holding meetings, etc.; perhaps some of these decisions were even already in place when Garrison became responsible for them... Similarly, there are occurrences of all sorts and at all levels at WVU that Garrison is responsible for in his role as President. ("My responsibility as president extends to the entire university," he says.)

On the other hand, it seems from Garrison's response in the last few days that he is not responsible for what happened in the meetings about Heather Bresch's grades. His public statement takes responsibility for "this matter," which seems to mean the aftermath of the report, but not for what happened in the meetings, not for the decisions made there. He makes a clean distinction: "I removed myself from this process immediately after handing this matter off." His representatives - Macia, Walker, Case, etc. - were present in the meetings and presumably they are in some way responsible, but it seems Garrison himself was not in the room, not present at the meetings, and therefore not responsible.

The mystery for me - and I would think for faculty, employees, students, etc. - is for future references how to know when Garrison is "in the room" or not? Sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. How do we know what he is and is not responsible for? Will there be a sign? (Perhaps a good name for one of Leyden's committees: "On Discerning the Presence of the President.")

Turn over your phone records now!