Friday, September 29, 2006

Wendler "Man of Ethics?"

Nice guest column in the DE today.
"Last March, Saluki Way was presented to the Board of Trustees. At that same meeting on March 9, a petition, with more than 1,200 signatures from faculty, students, staff and alumni opposing the plan, was presented to the Board of Trustees."
Writes Whitney Shald a senior from Evergreen Park studying English literature
and USG senator.
She goes on,

"USG had many questions. One senator asked why the university did not take care of our deferred maintenance before building new buildings.

The chancellor said this was an excellent idea, and if someone had said that last year, the university would have done so. More than 1,200 of us did say that last year."

Why does Wendler think that everyone is stupid and why does he decide to lie instead of telling the truth? Can you imagine saying this is public? It is clearly a lie and there is no way around it, everyone knows the old buildings need massive maintenance. There is a board of how much up over the physical plant that ticks up everyday like the national debt (just kidding).

Once you get past the stylish hair (that isn't colored) and the waxed mustache, love of fresh concrete and bible thumping, there isn't much there to like in this package. Maybe he could do the right thing and concentrate his considerable energy to teaching architecture full-time? That would really help SIUC.


Anonymous said...


Accusing someone of lying should not be done lightly even if the charge is true. Your source is secondhand. Did she remember correctly? Does the USG keep minutes? I looked on their webpage but did not find any posting of meeting minutes. Have you talked to others who were at this meeting? Any newspaper reporter would do that before leveling a charge of overt lying. Do the same standards apply to bloggers?

I did find this on the USG web page:

I have not agreed with many of W's statements about what should be done to repair the USG. But, at least he does recognize that there is a problem to solve.

Peter, answer this: If we fire W do you really think this BOT would hire someone better, even if they wanted too? If you have a good argument that they would and could let's hear it.

Peter in Carbondale said...

If you are on the road, there are no more turns and at the end you are going off the cliff, should you change directions? We know the result of the Wendler experiment already, so change is good.

You could just get someone who understands marketing and management. I would take either of the last 2 CoBA deans for example.

There are lots of great people out there who aren't clueless. I agree, it is a tough job, but there are always takers.

Maybe your question is if the board/Poshard could hire someone good?

Fraydog said...

Wendler is probably the best we could have hired after the Argersinger mess. Could we hire better this time around? I think the potential is there. However, we need to, as an organization, work on developing better administrative leadership from within.

Anonymous said...

Maybe your question is if the board/Poshard could hire someone good?

BINGO!! The market for adminstrators is very tight. Several dean searchers have failed to find anyone. We could not find external person for the Assoc. Provost spot and hired an insider. (He has worked elsewhere, and has not been around here for decades.) When we hired the Provost we could not even get three people to come and interview. SIUC has a bad reputation among college administrators. Their's is a small world. If we can W in an ugly way, finding someone better would be hard. (BTW: COBA is a small college with four departments; it's a very big jump to the top.)

I also concerned that Poshard would lean toward insiders with political connections. I hope I am wrong there. But look at how he was hired.

We need to educate P and BOT. I do not think they understand that an eduation PhD is something like the "gentlemen's C". P, W, B & D all have their terminal degrees in education. I do not mean to put any one person down, but this is not healthy. Does the BOT realise this?

Now, the current crop is far better than the Sanders-Jackson-Winters axis . We need outsiders. Hiring top people from within is a mistake. You need adminstrators who have severed at a couple of campuses. Does the BOT realize this? (W & D do bring needed outsider prespectives.)

I am just some guy who beat his brains to get a PhD, made several original discoveries in one of the more rigorous fields, and who has taught students here and elsewhere at all levels. The BOT won't listen me, but they might listen to you. Don't blow your credibility by personalizing things. (Your father does that, and that is why he has no influence after being here for three decades despite the veracity of much of what he says.)

You have made many valid points, especially about marketing. I'd love to see a study done on your idea of just fixing up the stadium. Over the next ten to twenty years you could do a lot a good around here.

Peter in Carbondale said...

I'm at the end of 5 years here and it is unlikely that I'll be here in another 5. Like most of the best people, I will vote with my feet sooner than later.

The real problem traditionally has been the BOT, they don't do the work. Maybe this new board will, but maybe not?

When my father was my age he was working hard to setup the JRB process and the university was pretty good shape (that was in the early 1980's). Don't lump him in with the SIUC professors who are hiding in their offices and accepting this mediocre crap. He has been here since 1972 and is now heading toward 70, he had fought the good fight. He isn't nearly as mean as I am and is willing to accept other professors being wimps. I think you can be fairly certain that everything my father has said about SIUC has become reality, no one wants to talk about the future results of their current decisions. I like to say that "if you are right at SIU you get ostracized and if you are right in business you get rich." Make no mistake, I'm my father's son.

When someone says don't personalized. Does that mean I'm not supposed to call out Sue Davis as a terrible performer? I'm not supposed to call Wendler's architectural vision a time bomb? How can you talk about these things without putting your finger on the fact that it is the people in key positions screwing up that make all the difference?