Dear UMA Colleagues,
Last week and in recent days, you’ve been exposed to a deluge of information about me and my time at SUNY Delhi and the UMA presidential search process. And that has left many of you upset and disillusioned. I deeply regret that this is the case.
When I was hired by SUNY six years ago, I was expected to be a change agent, following an administration that had been in place for nearly twenty years. My initial charge was to hire replacements for most members of the leadership team who were ready to retire. This was a completely homogeneous group that had spent the majority of their careers at SUNY Delhi. Additionally, I was expected to introduce new programs; replace antiquated policies, practices, and processes; raise money; and improve campus facilities. I set to work in my usual fast-paced fashion. Many of the changes that were instituted during my tenure were embraced by all, such as the use of technology to create efficiencies, the equitable restructuring of the academic schools and departments, the advancement of the Athletic Teams to the NCAA, a reconfiguration of our enrollment practices, and the creation of new academic programs.
Some changes, however, were not as warmly received by a small group of individuals, such as stopping the publication of an individual’s personal information in the daily campus email, the diversification and expansion of the Senior Leadership Team, and the institution of a new transparent and department-responsible budget model, resulting in a closer examination of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on extra service to faculty and staff, in lieu of hiring full time or temporary employees. As a result, in these past few years, I often found myself at odds with this small group who regularly resisted or derailed advances or initiatives proposed by me or by members of my leadership team. We persisted in fulfilling our mission of providing students with access to an excellent, accessible, and affordable education, but for some on campus, especially those who had worked exclusively under the former administration, this rapid pace and level of change was difficult and anxiety provoking.
The incident that particularly upset this group was the hiring of a new provost in spring/summer 2020. There was a national search, and the faculty, staff, and administration all fully participated in the vetting, interviewing, and hiring of this individual. However, this group did not feel that he was “qualified” for the position, and soon after his hiring told him so publicly in a Senate meeting, while referring to the search, even in the provost’s presence, as a “failed search.” They complained that he “had no experience teaching,” which is untrue. In fact, he has years of teaching experience, even more years of administering recruitment and retention efforts, overseeing programs for low-income and under-represented students, and most recently serving as Assistant Provost at another institution. His impeccable credentials lined up with our campus needs and made him the best candidate for the position. And I saw the hiring of an African American provost as a wonderful addition to the campus, as about half of the students at SUNY Delhi are students of color. He was joining the newly established leadership team formed under my leadership, that now included people who identify as Latino, Asian, women, and gay. This representation in the senior administration was embraced and supported by students, who finally saw someone who looks like them in a leadership position.
Much of this transformation was seen as an asset by most, but this group of individuals resisted, pushed back, and began fabricating reasons for discontent within the community. They blamed me for new hires they seemed to think were unacceptable. They publicly stated that they wanted “things to return to the way they used to be.” The only way they felt that they could accomplish this task was to oppose me and the leadership team, distribute a petition based entirely on untrue statements, carry out the vote of no confidence, and request that the SUNY Chancellor remove me immediately. The SUNY Chancellor had their claims promptly investigated and found them to be without merit. He did not remove me and did not ask me to leave. Needless to say, I was baffled and hurt by these tactics, but still I (and the leadership team) made several attempts to rebuild a positive and productive relationship with the Senate leadership. They refused to meet or engage with us.
Recognizing that they were unwilling to work with the campus leadership, that this was an unhealthy environment for me long-term, having accomplished most of what I was initially charged to do, and knowing that a severely strained senate–leadership team relationship was unhealthy for the campus, I began the search for a new opportunity. I was concerned about how to address the vote of no confidence in a search process. I knew it was public information, but I also knew that the allegations against me were baseless. I sought the counsel of other sitting presidents, former presidents, and search consultants in higher education. Each of them said that such votes commonly occur where there is a great deal of change on campus, and that many presidents move forward after these votes to have successful second and even third presidencies. I was advised that when interviewing, it was best to share this information honestly with search consultants and allow them to share it with the hiring authorities, but to expect to be questioned about it during the interview process.
When I submitted my materials for the UMA President search, I was open and candid with the search consultant about my experiences at SUNY Delhi. But a discussion never occurred with the search committee. It’s so clear to me now that I should have made a point to address the vote of no confidence directly, and I’m sorry I didn’t. Not doing so was an error of judgment. My desire to make a good impression and remain positive clouded my judgment and led to my silence on this painful issue. It was not my intention to mislead you; I wanted to focus on my strengths. I wanted you to see the real me, not how I have been characterized by those who disagree with my vision.
When I left UMA after my campus interview, I wanted to believe that people were fully aware of the vote but that they understood the false claims and did not require an explanation. I had spent so much time during these past two years disproving falsehoods, upholding my ethical and moral responses to issues, and demonstrating my commitment to DEI that I was relieved that I did not have defend myself on these points with you. But now I regret my reasoning and that the story unfolded as it did, through the media reporting the false allegations of the SUNY Delhi individuals as fact and shining a negative light on both institutions. Again, for this I am wholeheartedly sorry. I will be participating in the campus meeting with the Faculty Senate on Wednesday to discuss this situation and respond to any concerns or questions.
I realize and regret that this situation has strained my relationship with many of you before I even arrive on campus. This is certainly not the way I wanted to join the UMA community. However, I want you all to know that I will do everything in my power to be the open and transparent leader that you deserve, and will work hard to earn your trust. I look forward to creating collaborative relationships with all members of the UMA community, as well as listening, learning, and working with all of you to create an engaged vision for the future of UMA. I remain incredibly excited about the opportunity to provide leadership and direction to this outstanding institution. I look forward to working together to move beyond this situation and I am eager to learn more about the people and great things happening at the University of Maine at Augusta.
Sincerely,