I have heard this story from 5 or 6 people now over the last few months. It goes something like this, some professors are fighting with a dean. The dean give a big job related thing to one of his flunkies and the professors don't approve (or weren't consulted or something to do with proceedure). The professors complained to Dunn (who was Provost at that time). Dunn asked them for written documentation. The professors wrote it up and gave their version to Dunn. Dunn did nothing, except give the document to the dean's pet. The dean's pet got mad and filed a JRB complaint against the other professors, which was thrown out because it was BS.
Now petty arguing at SIU is par for the course. Deans giving promotions to their buddies who don't deserve then certainly makes sense (not saying it is true, just that it wouldn't surprise me), in the merit is a four letter word that SIU seems to be. People complaining to the Provost about this kind of monkey business makes sense, in the real world they are called "whistle blowers". But the Provost releasing these complaints, that seems more wrong then the rest. I have no problem with him taking no action, I'm sure people complain about nonsense all the time.
I don't know if this is true, but it sure sounds like it might be. How could Dunn release procedural complaints? Why would he do it except to produce attacks on the "whistle blowers"? Isn't it illegal to attack whistle blowers (I don't watch "60 Minutes", so I'm not sure), I do know it is unethical and unhealthy if true.
If the SIU administration is going to attack the people who come forward and try to right wrongs (the "whistle blowers"), how can they possibly run a clean shop?
Your comments are welcome.