SUMMARY ANALYSIS REVIEW

This statement is constructed in the attempt to shed some light upon the recent history at Edison State College that led up to the Faculty Senate Vote of No Confidence in Dr. Walker and Dr. Browder on April 4^th, 2011. It represents the events as best as I have been able to reconstruct them having served throughout this crisis as one of the primary spokespersons for the Faculty Senate. Given my previous role as an officer of the Faculty Senate and the amount of information that I have collected, I have been encouraged by my peers to summarize my findings. I understand that mine is not the only perspective on these series of events. However, I submit this account in the hopes that we may all come to a more complete understanding of our current situation and that we may more effectively find our way forward. Wherever I speculate or interpret I try to say as much; when I count upon what I consider to be reliable information from a direct witness I refer to it as one perspective on the relevant events.

At 3PM Monday the 28^th of March the leadership from the Senate and Union met informally to set the structure of the District Faculty Senate meeting to be held at 4PM on that same day. Prior to gathering we learned that Dr. Walker wished to propose a last minute deal in order to avoid a possible Vote of No Confidence at the Senate meeting. Not all of the leadership teams thought it worthwhile, but about half of us thought it valuable to listen. From my perspective I considered it possible that Dr. Walker had been genuinely unaware or so disconnected from the day to day operations of the organization that he may not have fully appreciated in the time prior to the address he gave to the faculty on Thursday the 24^th the gravity and negativity of the situation related to Dr. Browder’s hiring and brief time with the college. With that in mind, I wanted to hear his thoughts prior to the District Senate meeting. Several others agreed. We listened and negotiated, and the four basic components of the motion later passed by the Senate was the result (see page 16).

Many in the Senate, including some in leadership positions, argued that the problems at Edison ran deeper than what the four points of the compromise addressed. However, ultimately our long discussions led to the unanimous passing of the motion with the goal of addressing several specific issues. These included and particularly centered on the immediate removal of Dr. Browder from the position of second in command, but also generally established a process for rebuilding trust, should such still be possible.

However, one week later on April 4^th we found ourselves again convening as a District Senate in order to prepare for the April 7^th meeting of the Board of Trustees. To be fair to Dr. Walker, the first of the elements of the agreement involving Dr. Browder’s immediate removal from all campuses and any duties involving academics and reaccreditation by April 1^st was addressed according to schedule. Admittedly, there were still some tough questions being asked by faculty, the press, and members of the community about what new duties he would undertake, how much involvement he might still have in day to day operations, the level of his compensation, and his future after June 2011. Yet, what quickly emerged as the primary concern of faculty was the tone of comments made by Dr. Walker in meetings, emails, and interviews in the time following the Monday the 4^th. On the larger issue of rebuilding trust in the spirit of the compromise many felt that his remarks represented an immediate setback.

Along with Professor Ambrose and Professor Bunting, I even met personally with Dr. Walker on Wednesday the 30^th, after his “consummate professional” remark regarding Dr. Browder in an email announcement on the 29^th. I expressed that such words were perceived unfavorably by faculty who had just voted unanimously to have Dr. Browder physically removed from all campuses. Dr. Walker’s reply to me was that he had every right to say what he thought, and on that point I had to agree. However, that it is his right does not mean that it showed good judgment to refuse to exercise more caution in a tumultuous time if the goal is to move toward better relations. His remark was perceived by many as another red flag that he either might not care about or that he might be underestimating the lack of trust and respect on the part of the faculty, the staff, and the community at large about Dr. Browder and even about his own position in the future of this institution.

Unfortunately, several days later in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education Dr. Walker was quoted as saying that Dr. Browder was an “able leader who had fallen victim to an organized, news-media-fueled effort by faculty to unseat him.” In the context of trying to find a way back toward mutual trust, many found those to be poorly chosen words which diminished faculty concerns or even questioned faculty commitment to the betterment of the institution. Dr. Walker’s sentiment, never retracted or qualified in any way, along with other remarks by a member of the board about a select few faculty being at the core of all the trouble, added stress to an already fragile detente. What should we suppose would be the motive for these few faculty members? Why would the faculty seek to victimize an “able leader”? Why would faculty want to make baseless accusations and thereby decrease the public trust in the institution at which we all work? Dr. Walker’s remarks struck many as misleading, unfair, and a further sign that more drastic action was required. It was in this way that what was once a meeting designed to prepare for the Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday the 6^th turned into a Vote of No Confidence.

However to more fully understand the context for this vote, we must at least look back to September of 2010. In fact, it would be even more helpful to spend a moment on an even larger context if the reader will indulge it. I would start by saying that when I arrived at Edison in 2004 I felt extremely lucky to have landed here. I immediately loved the campus and the cohesive community of educators of which I was privileged to now be a part. I loved Edison. I still love Edison. I appreciate being here, serving with many of our fine faculty and staff, and getting the chance to educate our students and help them along their life paths. Yet, over the next few years after arriving I came to see that there were issues emerging at Edison that seemed connected to older vertical management styles and structures meeting the new realities and rapid growth of a Level 2 “shared governance” institution. What I perceived was a growing undercurrent of mixed emotions about the rapidly expanding mission of our institution without the necessary resources and time for thoughtful and participatory deliberation upon what we were creating. In many ways we were proud, but we were also overwhelmed and uncertain about the continuous introduction of new initiatives and their impact on the quality of our work. In the last couple of years that undercurrent evolved into more specific, but still quiet questions being asked about our leadership, including speculation about what appeared to be a power struggle between our two top administrators, Dr. Walker and Dr. Noreen Thomas.

Then, abruptly, in the fall of 2010 the situation began to get worse, and in retrospect our leadership began to unravel. From one day to the next, the college’s Executive Vice President, Dr. Thomas, was gone. At a meeting called for and conducted by Dr. Walker on Thursday, March 24^th, 2011, Dr. Walker told us all in front of the cameras that he could have never imagined Dr. Thomas’s sudden resignation, and that he was totally shocked at the loss of his number two in command. As can be seen in the video footage of that event, I questioned him on that point based upon the assumption that it was either a misleading statement or it was an indictment of his disconnection from day to day operations. Now, based upon e-mail records and conversations I have had with people close to the matter, I believe it was a combination of both. It seems very likely that Dr. Thomas was upset at her increasing marginalization from power, exacerbated by Dr. Browder’s arrival and his apparent grooming as the heir to the number two position under Dr. Walker. It now seems clear to me that Dr. Walker has never been operationally strong as President of Edison, and has always relied upon a chosen Vice President for the actual running of the College. When I arrived it was still Dr. Slusher, then it became Dr. Thomas, and when she began to doubt his direction for the college, he brought in the controversial figure of Dr. Browder to forcefully push his own vision forward.

As implied above, Dr. Thomas had perhaps begun to alienate herself from Dr. Walker by overstepping her own authority in the time prior to Dr. Browder’s arrival. That contributed to the last straw for her time at Edison, which appears to have been Dr. Walker’s attempt to take Student Services away from her and give it Dr. James Martin. It is speculated that at that time she may have vehemently or even inappropriately objected to Dr. Walker’s decision, and was then fired on the spot. She was escorted off campus by security, as the first of several in the last year. Comments she made that day on the way out and while packing her office, corroborated by other well-placed individuals point toward this version of events. However, a deal was struck for a resignation settlement involving a hefty severance ($300,000) that bought her silence. Unfortunately, the story only gets worse.

Just before Dr. Thomas’s sudden departure on September 30^th, 2010, we witnessed the arrival of the aforementioned Dr. James Browder on September 20^th. It is fair to say that Dr. Browder, whatever his strengths may be, was an extremely controversial and polarizing local figure as the Superintendant of Schools for Lee County. Dr. Walker once told me that he had never received so many supportive calls for a hire as when he brought on Dr. Browder. But surely Dr. Walker wasn’t completely unaware of other widely-held and strongly contrasting local sentiments based in Dr. Browder’s time as superintendent, his perceived double-dipping return from retirement, and what has been seen as his golden parachute into the arms of Edison State College without even so much as a search. It seems near certain that a national and open search for a Vice President of Operations could have yielded someone at least as capable and not a bit as controversial. And while it may be just as certain that Dr. Walker had the legal right to hire for such a position, perhaps these events testify as to why effective leaders often rely upon open-processes as opposed to personal hires at every level of the institution. For many among the faculty, the hiring of Dr. Browder remains a primary indicator of the questionable judgment on the part of Dr. Walker. In fact, many within and without the institution still wonder why he was brought in, why he was given such a lucrative contract, and why Dr. Walker struggled so hard to keep him when his faculty went into full revolt over Dr. Browder’s presence and conduct.

At this time it is my belief, and this is obviously speculative, that the most charitable interpretation of the situation and the motivations for tolerating it would involve Dr. Walker’s genuine belief that Dr. Browder would have been an effective and loyal contributor to the implementation of the Edison Educational System. Furthermore, serving as a second-in-command, Dr. Browder would be willing to make the difficult day to day operational decisions required to run the college and keep it moving toward Dr. Walker’s vision and legacy.

Of course, as of September and October 2010, I understood very little about what was truly happening. Few of us were privy to the events that led up to Dr. Browder’s hire and Dr. Thomas’s sudden departure. However, it fell to another new member of the senior administration to make the argument that there was no connection between the two major events. This challenging task fell to Dr. James Martin, who had been recently relocated from Pensacola to fill the Lee Campus President’s post, after a year-long search that took quite a toll on the volunteer faculty and staff that served on the committee. It is still not clear why that Lee Campus post was taken away from Dr. Robert Jones, now serving as Interim President of the Collier Campus. However, it did seem that Dr. Thomas, who took over from Dr. Jones by adding to her own list of titles, was always willing to hire a new Lee President.

The ironic twist that followed Dr. Martin’s attempt to explain away the apparent tension between Jim Browder’s arrival and Noreen Thomas’s departure was a painful one for many, but especially for Dr. Martin. After only one semester on the job he was reassigned by Dr. Browder to assist President Albritton on the Collier campus, representing a lateral and downward move while keeping his pay as Lee Campus President. According my personal phone conversations with Dr. Martin, when he asked Dr. Browder and then later Dr. Walker if he had done anything wrong to have been given such a quick demotion, the answer from both was that he had not. However, it seems likely that his proposed restructuring of Student Services, long in need of more resources and a thorough overhaul, was part of his undoing. Two other factors seem likely to have contributed. First, Dr. Martin was apparently not the type to seek input about a matter on which he had strong views. Reportedly, his approach to change in Student Services caused much distress. It seems likely that his style also conflicted with the similar tendencies of Dr. Browder, and that the two men very quickly came into conflict with one another. Secondly, and contributing to the first issue, there was an historical lack of clarity about the role of the Lee Campus President in relation to a Senior Vice President. A long-standing ambiguity in the overall administrative structure set the stage for conflict between Dr. Martin and Dr. Browder under the best of scenarios. Nevertheless, when reassigned Dr. Martin was told that the Lee Campus Presidency was being eliminated for financial reasons, Collier campus needed help, and that he hadn’t done anything wrong.

However, two issues call this rationale into question. First, on Collier campus President Albritton was a well-compensated administrator with a relatively small number of full-time faculty. Secondly, and more importantly, the financial justification for his removal flies in the face of Vice President Fairfax’s nearly $30,000 raise, given just months earlier and signed by Dr. Browder, for a title change and no new responsibilities. Furthermore, Dr. Browder’s own huge compensation increase for taking over Dr. Thomas’s responsibilities was given about a month later. Meanwhile, on Collier campus Dr. Martin would continue to make his Presidential salary, and Dr. Walker himself continued to make something in the staggering range of over $800,000 in yearly compensation with some benefits still not included (consider the right to return as full faculty or the value of a sabbatical at the end of a career as examples).

The compensation packages of senior administrators were never the primary target of the faculty. However, the lack of transparency surrounding them combined with the sheer bulk of College resources going to pay them seriously eroded trust and respect. Before his resignation at the end of March, 2011, former Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees Dr. David Klein said that he was shocked and outraged to learn of these amounts. To this day, how the compensation of the President came to be so large is an important and unanswered question. That he could have claimed to be a “servant leader” and made more than most of the University Presidents in the nation remains an unresolved tension.

In an interview on Fox in March of 2011, even Dr. Walker claimed he didn’t know how much he made, but added that he was worth it. That lack of “sunshine” on financial matters was made worse by looking at past Budget Summaries. In the 2007-2008 Budget Summary there were indications of very high compensation for senior administration (the top five or six individuals accounting for nearly $2,000,000 in compensation) fueling quiet complaints among faculty and staff who felt they dared not raise the issue. However, by the 2010-2011 Budget Summary all that was listed for senior administrative compensation was the minimum of the salary range with no direct reference to actual compensation and no reference to the District Presidency at all. Despite the implications of Ms. Mann’s cross-examinations of an Edison Student speaking at a Board meeting on this matter, responses to public records requests made by the Faculty Union and the media have been repeatedly delayed, partial, and inconclusive. In light of all this, the suggestion that it was “financial reasons” behind Dr. Martin’s reassignment seems implausible; and although Dr. Martin himself wouldn’t say so directly, sources inside the administration corroborate that his exile into a professional no-man’s land was the result of his disagreements with the increasingly powerful Dr. Browder. One might reasonably surmise that this short tenure at Edison will be a difficult professional hurdle for Dr. Martin to overcome, and that he is victim of poor management at the College.

Not long after Dr. Martin’s abrupt departure from his presidential post on Lee Campus in January of 2011, Dr. Browder received a promotion and substantial compensation increase, including a three-year deal which eventually committed the college to the difficult position of either justifying his remaining on the payroll or buying out his lucrative contract once it became abundantly clear that he wouldn’t suffice as an Executive Vice President. Despite the equivocations of Dr. Walker in his March 24^th address to the faculty implying that Dr. Browder was never over academics and accreditation, his salary and his daily actions said otherwise. Within four months of his arrival at Edison, Dr. Browder had become the de facto second-in-command with a large compensation to match, despite almost no history in higher education and no open-processes involving the hire, promotion, or raise. To be fair to Dr. Browder, Dr. Thomas once told me that she believed that he could one day become an effective and loyal Executive Vice President for Dr. Walker. However, in her view that would have required several years of study in this new higher educational context and that he would have maintained the humble willingness to learn with which he began his time here.

Unfortunately, according to several parties working closely with him in subordinate roles his early attitude morphed in a matter of months into what has been described as a pattern of intimidation and retaliation against those very persons from whom he was supposed to learn the workings of a Level 2 higher education institution necessitating shared governance with the faculty. If this is true as alleged in two current EEOC complaints against the College, this provides us with a key piece of the puzzle as to why we then suffered what was arguably our greatest blow to an already depleted and unstable senior administration. Dr. Steve Atkins alleges that Dr. Browder attempted to retaliate against the Vice President of Lee Campus and District Dean, Dr. Robert Beeson. The latter has alleged that Dr. Browder made a remark that amounted to evidence for discriminatory hiring practices. Allegedly, Dr. Browder then ordered Dr. Atkins to strip Dr. Beeson of his Lee Campus Vice Presidency. Dr. Atkins refused because he thought the move was retaliatory and he said as much. We know now that as of that moment Dr. Atkins’ days were numbered.

While the following is based upon the testimony of different persons, it may be worth mentioning on the chance that it would produce an interesting line of inquiry. One commonly reported view in the Spring of 2011 among those privy to the second floor of I Building was that Dr. Browder had some clear targets and some clear favorites. Among the targets were reportedly Beeson, Atkins, and former Dean Bill Roshon. Chief among his favorites was reportedly, Associate Dean Denette Foy, whom Dr. Browder seemed to have tapped as eventual Dean of Professional and Technical Studies, once he could remove Roshon. However, that became impossible for him after Dr. Beeson’s evaluation of Foy in March of 2011, which cited many deficiencies in judgment including her involvement in course swap scandal.

By early March, the pressure on Dr. Atkins from Dr. Browder became what the former has characterized as unbearable, involving shouting and daily interference into areas for which Dr. Browder had no professional credentials. Finally, on Thursday March 10^th Dr. Atkins went to Dr. Walker with all of this information and an ultimatum of what he needed to continue serving Edison effectively through the SACS process. In retrospect, what Dr. Atkins requested does not seem that unreasonable in order to keep the chief academic officer and lead SACS liaison at Edison in a SACS year. According to Dr. Atkins, what he wanted were two things: (1) he wanted some job security in what had been an incredibly unstable administration in the last five years made worse by what he perceived as an increasingly hostile work environment under Dr. Browder (specifically, he asked for a two year contract with no increase in pay); and (2) he wanted to answer directly to Dr. Walker and have control of the exact same areas that would soon thereafter be given to Dr. Pendleton and Dr. Harrel during their times as Interim VPAA (he wanted control over academics, student services, and institutional effectiveness).

According to Dr. Atkins’ records, Dr. Walker said he would think about it over the weekend and talk to Dr. Browder. It would seem that he did both, and when Dr. Atkins came in again on Monday the 14^th in the morning, he was told that he couldn’t have these things. When Dr. Atkins said there was no room for negotiation on these conditions, Dr. Walker again consulted Dr. Browder. Meanwhile, expecting the worst, Dr. Atkins returned to his office and dictated his resignation letter. An hour and half later, Dr. Walker called Dr. Atkins to his office to tell him the answer was still no. The rationale he allegedly gave is an interesting one. He told Dr. Atkins that the Board of Trustees wanted him (Dr. Walker) out of the day-to-day workings of the college and two senior Vice Presidents answering directly to him could not work. Something said above must be highlighted here. The man with whom Dr. Walker consulted over the conditions that Dr. Atkins presented is the same man that Dr. Atkins alleges tried to retaliate against Dr. Beeson and the same man that Dr. Atkins had refused.

Yet, despite all this, in his March 24^th address to the faculty, Dr. Walker told us all in front of the cameras that he was again taken completely by surprise by Dr. Atkins’ departure. While artfully dancing around what he could not legally reveal about this personnel matter, he even managed to imply that the sudden departure was about Dr. Atkins’ desires to pursue other interests. To say the least, it seems highly improbably that this well-credentialed administrator would have abandoned the Edison ship mid-course in a SACS year to pursue “other interests” like becoming a college president one day as Dr. Walker seems to have wanted us to believe. In fact, I have spoken with Dr. Atkins about the events and days surrounding his departure. In addition to his two conditions, he says that on Thursday, March 10^th he shared with our District President all the relevant problems which are discussed here. If true, this would seem to contradict Dr. Walker’s statement in the Chronicle of Higher Education that until watching the news after the emergency Senate meeting of Tuesday March 22^nd he was unaware of the problems and concerns that the faculty were to raise later in our written document (see pages 13-15). In fact, there seem to have been other meetings, including one on the 16^th of March involving the Faculty Union Leaders, Dr. Browder, and Dr. Beeson at which the raised voices made it very plain that the situation was indeed serious and spreading.

As I have implied, one of the most serious issues to surface following the departure of Dr. Atkins was the expanded roles assigned to Dr. Browder, especially over Academics. In one of the least expected moments over the weeks following Atkins’s resignation, I received a call early on Monday, the 28^th of March. That was the day of the possible Vote of No Confidence at a District Senate Meeting held in response to Dr. Walker’s unsatisfactory faculty address of the 24^th. Dr. Browder’s Staff Assistant called me and asked if she could visit with me for a few moments in my office. Given that she had been a student of mine, I agreed. In our subsequent conversation she asked that I consider in my senate deliberations her personal opinion that Dr. Browder was a good boss. Additionally, she gave me a folder of printed-out Edison emails that to this day I am not sure how she came to possess.

Taken as a whole, the stack seemed to serve as the premises for a weak circumstantial argument that faculty had known about Dr. Browder’s role in Academics, prior to Dr. Atkins’ departure and contrary to our claims otherwise. Furthermore, at least one element seemed included to imply that Dr. Atkins had actually wanted for Dr. Browder to be in a role over academics. Among the emails there were several from me to my colleagues in the Humanities discussing a proposed meeting between us and Dr. Browder about possible programs in the Fine Arts. That meeting did in fact occur. However, as far as we knew this was not because Dr. Browder was over Academics, but because he was to be in charge of building construction projects that must consider such possible program expansion. The one lone email that seemed to be suggesting that Dr. Atkins had himself pushed for Dr. Browder’s involvement in Academics was from Dr. Atkins to Professor Ambrose who serves as the Coordinator of Assessment. The one and only line on this matter was a response to Professor Ambrose asking if Dr. Browder should be invited to attend a meeting on assessment. Dr. Atkins’ response was that she should indeed invite Dr. Browder to the meeting on Assessment because Dr. Atkins was, to quote the e-mail, “trying to pull him [Browder] into all things academic.”

However, according to my conversations with Dr. Atkins, his response was not due to any desire on his part to have Dr. Browder lead Academics at Edison. It was because he had been explicitly told by Dr. Walker to help Dr. Browder learn as much about the institution as possible. Furthermore, he has also shared with me the added motivation that since Dr. Browder was insisting upon interfering in areas for which he had no expertise, he thought Browder might be less disruptive if he at least had the chance to understand such matters better. Admittedly, this is Dr. Atkins’ account of the circumstances. I have also happened, quite by chance, to hear Dr. Walker’s version. In the small meeting I had with Dr. Walker on Wednesday the 30^th of March, to which I referred earlier and at which I counseled caution with regard to the compromise reached on the 28^th, Dr. Walker brought up this very matter. To my amazement, Dr. Walker used the exact same phrase from the email given to me by Dr. Browder’s Staff Assistant. He said that he thought he remembered seeing somewhere that Dr. Atkins was “trying to pull him into all things academic.” I jumped at the opportunity to ask Dr. Walker directly if he hadn’t in fact ordered Dr. Atkins to do so, and he denied that he had. Also attending that meeting was Catherine Bergerson, Mark Lupe, and Professors Ambrose and Bunting. Of course, all we have here are two different accounts of that matter, but I found the reference to the exact line from the email to be troubling in its implications. It seemed to point toward an attempt to blame Dr. Atkins for Dr. Browder’s role at the college, and in retrospect it seems a part of pattern of selectively using emails to point the blame toward others as Dr. Atkins’ own EEOC complaint currently alleges.

Yet, by far the most interesting email in the stack was the one from Dr. Noreen Thomas to Dr. Walker marked CONFIDENTIAL and dated from June 2010. I am not sure as to why I was given this document, but I would surmise that it was designed to argue that Dr. Browder was not the main cause of Dr. Thomas’s departure. Many in the faculty were more comfortable working under the albeit imperfect command of Dr. Thomas than under Dr. Browder, and this seemed like an attempt to disassociate Browder’s arrival and Thomas’s departure. The email was basically her resignation letter to Dr. Walker, effective in December 2011 following the SACS visit, but sent in June of 2010. It was clear that there were serious differences of opinion between the two about the proper administrative structure of the college, but also that Dr. Thomas remained committed to helping Dr. Walker and the institution get through this difficult year.

In retrospect, that email was very helpful to me in seeing a couple of pieces of the larger picture. Ironically, instead of convincing me that Dr. Browder wasn’t the cause, the email highlighted how much Dr. Thomas wanted to stay longer than she did, and can in this way be seen as evidence for the above interpretation of her departure as related to Browder’s arrival. Secondly, and sadly, I was now greatly troubled by the version of events presented by Dr. Walker to the faculty in his address of March 24^th. In that live, video-streamed meeting Dr. Walker claimed that he was shocked by Dr. Thomas’s departure. When I later returned to that point because it gave me such pause that our leader could be so taken by surprise by the departure of his second-in-command, he again reiterated that he could have never imagined that happening. Unfortunately, his remarks on the 24^th would now seem to be, at best, a misleading equivocation casting yet another shadow of doubt upon our chances for rebuilding trust.

Unfortunately, I could go on to more specific instances of questionable judgments, evidence of disconnection, and implications of less than full disclosure that contributed to the perceptions leading up to the Vote of No Confidence. There is much more to this sad tale than I have explored here. There are additional allegations combining to create a picture of an institution in need of leadership: allegations of expanded discriminatory or unfair hiring practices on Lee and the Hendry/Glades Center, and insufficient investigations of such; defamatory comments allegedly made by Dr. Browder against faculty and staff; continued lack of clarity in financial practices and lack of “sunshine” generally; autocratic decisions about the creation of administrative posts, about art, and about facilities without input from the people serving students in them; the appearance of conflicts of interest in the use of crucial library space (the first floor of the J Building on Lee) and classroom space (the expensive Continuing Education Lab created in L Building); troubles in major programs such as nursing and major areas of the college such as Student Services; vacuums in leadership on Collier until recently; administrative attrition dating back to before September 2010, including a large number of registrars, and chief academic officers and student services administrators; underpaid staff in relation to administrative compensation; too few full-time faculty and too many part-timers; and an embarrassingly low ratio of advisors to students. Of late, we can add the Course Swap Scandal, double-standards and lack of transparency in hires, terminations, promotions, and raises; and serious allegations and concerns about retaliation.

Even admitting that likelihood that I may have something misunderstood, only partially accurate, or even mistaken in my account as summarized here, I believe that several conclusions still seem very reasonable. The President lost the trust and respect of a majority of the people who serve under him as evidenced by the Vote of No Confidence. Not surprisingly, we have yet to do the anonymous survey that would allow staff to express their views on this matter. Furthermore, the President has also failed to win back that trust and respect once the initial issues were identified as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of public comment and the Faculty’s request that he resign immediately. Furthermore, the very fact of the President’s own compensation casts doubts on his commitment to the best for this institution. Former Board of Trustees Chair, Mary Lee Mann argued in her News-Press editorial that the compensation wasn’t the President’s fault. No one accepts that.

Let it be clear that it is with my whole heart that I wish the very best for this institution and all the parties involved. I offer this detailed account in the hope that it may be useful in helping to understand how several of the saddest chapters of this tale have unfolded. I sincerely wish that those of us lucky enough to be at Edison State College can continue to serve our students and our community with integrity and excellence, and that the institution can go on from here to be the best it has ever been.

TIMELINE

September 2010

9-20

Browder is hired as VP of Operations

9-30

Thomas leaves

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

1-18 Martin is reassigned; announced on 1-14

February 2011

March 2011

3-10

Atkins meets with Walker

3-14

Atkins meets with Walker twice; with a Walker/Browder meeting in between;  Atkins resigns at 2^nd mtg.

3-16

Walker, Browder, Beeson, Ambrose, Bunting meet to discuss alleged defamatory remarks and threats by Browder

3-22

1^st Emergency District Senate Meeting producing the Statement of Concerns. The Senate decided to produce a statement, deliver it on Friday the 25^th, and request a meeting with Walker on the 28^th. (pasted below)

3-23

Walker announces he will address the faculty on Thursday the 24^th. Senate officers speed up production of Statement of Concerns and deliver it Thursday morning in order to present it prior to Walker address.

3-24

Walker addresses Faculty in front of the media he invited.

3-28

Walker reaches out to Senate and Union leadership to propose a deal to avoid the Vote of No Confidence, and a meeting is held at 3 PM on Lee with polycom connection to Collier and Charlotte. Attending were: Swanson, Ambrose, Bunting, Maetzke, Daniels, Van Glabek, Rice-McGarity, Wilcox. Walker attended for part of the gathering. In sum, the deal was that we would argue against making a Vote of No Confidence before the full District Senate (without guarantee of the argument’s success). In return, if the argument was successful, Dr. Walker agreed to remove Dr. Browder from campus immediately and discuss with Dr. Atkins his possible return.

2^nd Emergency District Senate Meeting held to evaluate the Walker address of the 24^th. The argument referred to above was made successfully and a corresponding Senate Motion unanimously passed. (pasted below)

3-30

Meeting held to discuss fragile nature of compromise and the dangers of Dr. Walker claiming that Dr. Browder and he were faultless in this affair. Dr. Walker argued he could say whatever he wished; attending Walker, Lupe, Bergerson, Swanson, Ambrose, Bunting.

April 2011

4-4 3^rd Emergency District Faculty Senate Meeting held to plan for upcoming BOT meeting. The issue was raised that Dr. walker had been quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education saying that Dr. Browder was an “able leader” who was victimized by a faculty led media campaign. Vote of No Confidence initiated and complete by 11 AM on 4-5.