I am a 1986 alumnus of Lewis & Clark College, as well as a former employee of the college. My wife and I have in the past been financially supportive of the college each year since our respective graduations. While I will remain thankful for my time at Lewis & Clark and my education from the college, I will be seriously considering dropping my financial support of the school given the recently revealed financial shenanigans involving Michael Mooney.
I applaud the three members of the college's Board of Trustees that resigned as a result of this situation, and I cannot imagine the remaining board members issuing a statement in support of Mooney and his VP of Finance.
Clearly, there is an odd cozy relationship where the college president feels empowered to loan over 10 million dollars of college money to a firm in which he is invested and then turns around and receives the support of the college's board! One wonders if the board members view their positions as more social than fiduciary. An act like this is certainly more than a "mistake" when viewed in light of the circumstances revealed in WW.
Ten million dollars is a significant amount of money, a great deal more money than our friend Martha Stewart is accused of illegally earning for insider trading. I recall during my employment at Lewis & Clark the inauguration of Michael Mooney as president being referred to by skeptical employees of the college as more of a "coronation" ceremony. It would appear that during the ensuing 14 years, Mooney has indeed occupied the position of omnipotent sovereign leader at Lewis & Clark College, and the Board of Trustees seems to be have become the Jester in Mooney's court.
Robert C. Bress
THE WAY OF THE KNIFE
I read with sadness the Rogue of the Week on Youth Opportunity Center [WW, May 14, 2003]. I understand Dorothy Turner's struggle working within the administration of Worksystems, as this was plagued by mixed messages and inappropriate management.
As far as Ms. Turner's "whistle blowing," I, as her supervisor, was vaguely aware of her call to Washington, D.C., and had no concerns with this; all of us were looking for changes. Your article failed to identify that all staff had workload increases and projects ignored.
Ms. Turner made allegations of me pulling out a knife and saying, "You've got to cut out the cancer." This is not true. I facilitated an in-service on healthy and clear communication and shared a Native story paralleling a sharp knife to a sharp tongue, which teaches the importance of speaking honestly and with integrity. At the time of this in-service, staff expressed great value in this teaching, including Ms. Turner.
It is my belief that each individual is accountable for their work and actions. I always advocate for those I supervise, and in the teaching of the sharp knife, will identify concerns where an individual is not taking responsibility. I would hope that WW, the individual reader, the BOLI investigator and ultimately Ms. Turner will recognize that even though Worksystems administration created a difficult work environment, each individual had personal responsibility to work in truth, honor and integrity.
Two Foxes Singing