You are quite right about the media stories being far from complete. For instance, the story you relied on for your opening paragraph--from the Chronicle of Higher Education--fails to note something that is surely noteworthy, namely, that the Board of Trustees leveled the charges, and then sat in judgment of their truth. In effect, the BOT was prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hearing.
Long ago, Lord Coke noted the impropriety of one's being judge in one's own case (Dr. Bonham;s Case, 1610); John Locke and James Madison remarked on this as well. That they were right about this cannot serioulsy be doubted. The Adams State College BOT could have, and without doubt they should have, engaged an impartial arbitrator to hear the case. They did not do this, but chose instead to be judge in their own case. The article reports on the number of hours of testimony, but not that the BOT, qua judge/jury, had this glaring conflict of interest. Yet, the latter is at least as significant as the former, and would help a reader get a true sense of what took place.
One final point. In the penultimate paragraph of your piece you speak of ethical issues and a lack of communication and leadership. It's not entirely clear how far this point is supposed to reach; whether, in particular, it is supposed to include not only the high level administrators you name, but the boards of trustees/directors to whom they answer. I respectfully suggest that it must be understood to include both, for as I have argued above, the Adams State College Board of Trustees conducted itself in a way that raises significant ethical and leadership/communication questions.
loan rental property loan rental property loan rental property // refinance with poor credit refinance with poor credit refinance with poor credit
casino and gaming casino and gaming casino and gaming // the aladdin casino the aladdin casino the aladdin casino
Commenting by HaloScan
