Sunday, September 17, 2006

Telegraph Herald Editorial

Today, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald Editorial Board issued an opinion regarding the University's subpoenaing of Jason Price. "It is one thing for the university to stifle public criticism among its employees," they write in reference the Jeffries ordeal, "That will be an interesting court decision. However, it is another matter when the university drags a student's private communications into the fray. When a citizen has information or questions about public entities or private organizations of public interest or concern, he or she should be free to communicate that. Otherwise, the threat of invasive subpoenas would have a chilling effect on public accountability."

Kudos to the TH Editorial Board for taking a stand on this important issue. We certainly agree that such actions on the part of UD serve to undermine everyone's willingness to speak up and speak out on University policies.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole thing is sad. UD claims a Christian heritage and a relatively new Wendt Character Initiative. I fail to see Christianese being practiced in law suits, countersuits, and serving supenas. What's worse, I fail to see moral and ethical character being exemplified, unless UD is trying to write a textbook case study of how to not be moral and ethical.

From my vista, too much money is being placed in the pockets of lawyers who are offering poor advice while too many administrators are evidently forgetting their Christian expectations.

I wonder just how much money UD has as from what I've heard, UD is barely offering a balanced budget. So where is all the money to fund lawyers coming from?

Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:27:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

I call on Jeff BULLock to resign.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calling on Jeff Bullock to resign is one of the most assinine comments I've ever seen on this blog. I do, however, believe he should fire his legal counsel. They seem to only be able to insite further distrust of the administration. Seriously, what kind of response did they expect from subpoenaing a respected student in the parking lot as he leaves for Harvard. It's almost funny if it wasn't so sad.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:11:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

No trying to infringe on a persons private emails is assinine. BULLock is an educated man, he can not claim that he did not know what this was. This whole thing stinks.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note that the Telegraph Herald mentions the blog but does not give its address so that others can access it. It is still instigating damage control for UD and Bullock.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There it is again--"chilling effect."

Monday, September 18, 2006 8:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be fair. The TH displayed its Web address prominently, directing readers to go there for a link to the blog, in both Saturday's article and Sunday's editorial. That is probably the publicity with the highest profile that the blog has yet received.

Monday, September 18, 2006 9:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Former UD Student said...

I have a suggestion for current UD students who read this blog. Believe me, there is significant interest in how much students know about these issues and where they stand.

Now that the Telegraph Herald editorial has clearly supported the right to express opinions in this blog, why not post a comment?

Some have suggested that the blog represents the viewpoints of only the disgruntled few. If you have not expressed yourself previously, let the rest of us know if you feel that the University policies in question affect you as a student.

Just identify yourself as a previously quiet UD student.

Monday, September 18, 2006 10:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Garfield, Jeffries, Supena; UD is receiving questionable legal advice. Why hasn't the Jeffries case been settled out of court?

UD administrators claim that they are following advise of legal counsel...but what does legal counsel know about operating a business?

Too many organizational executives have followed legal counsel's advise and run their organizations into the ground. It is time UD's administrators follow their Christian conscience and settle out of court in order to get UD out of the bad press it has been receiving, and will continue to receive if legal counsel advice is followed.

Why not set aside legal advice and settle. This will stop the fiscal drain that makes lawyers flush with cash and UD look stupid.?

Monday, September 18, 2006 6:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read with great interest that the student government has chosen to remain uninvolved.

Thank goodness the framers of our Constitution didn't have such a blasé attitude. The student government does our Founding Fathers a disservice when they do so little to protect constitutional rights!

The administration at UD should be proud to have folks like Jeffries who strive to do what is ethically correct in order to teach students to cherish and defend the right to speak when wrongdoing is detected. How can UD claim to revere ethics when it drives away those who try so hard to model ethical behavior as they live their lives and teach UD students?

It's no wonder the student government students stand mute instead of defending ethical behavior. Many excellent role models have left the institution, and the administrators who are involved in this fracas are poor substitutes!

Monday, September 18, 2006 9:07:00 PM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

I believe in the constiutional right of free speech, therefore I speak and I let others know who I am by signing my name to this blog. I have opinions, and quite frankly I think what the school is doing to its students is ridiculous. I have no problem getting subpoened by the University. What's going to hurt? I go to court, I say I support Paul and Jason, I tell them that my rights were violated, I go home. I understand the principal behind it, and I think it is unfair to subpoena my records, but why not fight for it instead of hiding behind anonymous? I don't support the University's decision to start subpoeoning people or pressuring their students into going to court, but I'm going to stand up for what I believe in, put my name on it, and start talking instead of hiding. I do support the editors of this blog for remaining anonymous, but those who have their own opinions should be vocal and evident. If you are a current UD student, you should bring your concerns to SGA in order for them to do something for you. They can't take Anonymous off the internet and make a case for you against the school. Let's think about this people. If you are hiding behind anonymous, the school wins because you are too afraid to come out and speak against it. Jason Price is the only one who has made a big enough impact on this case in order for the school to start running scared. They probably just sent the subpoena to Jason so they could shut him up...guess what, the University lost, now their running scared again. Kudos to Jason Price and his personal convictions in order to stand up publicly against the University.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Tony Keefe, if you want to be subpoena-ed, hire a lawyer, take time to go to court, and lose study time--go ahead. Don't criticize others for not doing the same. SGA stand up for students? That's a laugh. Investigate the last time the SGA did that. You may have to go back a long way. In the past, profs have been pressured to change students' grades. If it means keeping your job as professor or changing a grade, what do you think the choice will be? Appeal? To whom? The people who ordered the change? Get a lawyer? Have the money and time? Part of UD's retaliation of Price is that he had to fork over money to a lawyer--even when UD knew it would lose. Punishment sends out a clear message.

Ask all but seven of the faculty who were fired in 1999 for refusing to accept contract language that would make them serfs instead of collegiality which means equal in status.

Also compare the percent of UD full-time faculty compared to Loras and Clarke's percent of full-time faculty plus compare the percent of Ph.D.'s to see how the students are being ripped off.

Still, it's great you signed your name.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be fair to the TH? Why should someone have to go to the TH blog when all the TH had to do was mention the address of the blog in its editorial. How many people are going to write down the blog address and go to their computer to visit the site and then get the address compared to those would have gotten it directly from the article? Businesses who print coupons bank on at least 50% not using them but they still get the credit for offering the public something. The TH engaged in that same kind of thinking. The Des Moines Register, on the other hand, mentioned the address of the blog in its article.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be fair to the TH? Why should someone have to go to the TH blog when all the TH had to do was mention the address of the blog in its editorial. How many people are going to write down the blog address and go to their computer to visit the site and then get the address compared to those would have gotten it directly from the article? Businesses who print coupons bank on at least 50% not using them but they still get the credit for offering the public something. The TH engaged in that same kind of thinking. The Des Moines Register, on the other hand, mentioned the address of the blog in its article.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:53:00 AM  
Blogger Tony Keefe said...

The last time SGA did something...last year, when SGA found out about Alan Garfield's plagiarism issue, they asked him to quit as SGA advisor. This was an admirable thing to do because they stood up to a faculty member, and didn't suffer any type retaliation from any administrator. You might ask yourself how this affects you as a student, it affects you because SGA saw a flaw with its advising and stood up for students saying that we aren't going to tolerate cheaters, especially faculty members. SGA heard the controversy last year when it came to having a counseling system on campus, they put their minds together and asked the student life staff, the president, and the board of trustees to implement a counseling service on campus...they did. Now I'm not saying that our administration is perfect because they did ONE thing for students, but SGA does a lot behind closed doors. If more students would come to SGA with their complaints instead of hiding on the internet, they would be willing to work with students and help them out. I'm curious to ask...did the person who called Tony Keefe out is an on campus student, a professor, a non-trad student, living in the res. halls, what kind of student are you? SGA can only use what students give them. SGA should not have to go out onto the internet to find out "news" or "information" to use when they are dealing with adminstration or faculty on campus. I do agree with the faculty issues between UD and Loras and Clarke. It seems unfair that Loras and Clarke have more opportunities with full time and Ph.D. educated faculty members. I think I'm paying too much now for what I'm getting. However, I know how much I'm paying to go to school here, and I still decide to come back. So, it's my own fault. If I had to hire a lawyer and waste my time with the University and their outlandish ways of getting students to talk, I would in order help out other students. Jason Price has inspired me to stand up for what I believe in and speak out against "University Oppression." I don't have a couple grand to stick into fighting something I know I'm going to win but if it helps out everyone else, or shows the administration that I'm not giving in to them, I'm going to do it. I don't support the University in what they are doing. I support Paul and Jason. I don't think it is right that Jason got his private records supboenaed and I think that it is bad for him, especially while he is doing graduate work at an awesome school. What if SGA took the stance saying they back there institution? Would that speak on behalf of the student body? Do you want SGA to speak on behalf of the student body, or do you want them to provide a side as an organization? Thanks for the feedback.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:42:00 AM  
Anonymous A Former Student said...

Rumor has it that the lawyer for Jason Price who was successful in getting the subpoena quashed was supplied by the Presbytery that is financially supporting Mr. Price's graduate studies.

Could it be that the unethical treatment of faculty and students by the University is attracting attention in the Presbyterian Church, the parent body of the University of Dubuque?

That would give pause even to Jeff Bullock, Peter Smith, and UD's Executive Board, for fear of repercussions.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't kid yourselves. PCUSA is impotent when it comes to any controversial issue. PCUSA is not about to wallow in the stupidity the reigns supreme among those created a supena and who now find themselves physically working in Peter's Palace.

I had a friend show me around the new building.

Wow! There's more wasted space in that new building than I can believe.

How can UD build such an ediface (Peter's Palace) and ignore the students? The classrooms are relegated to the basement, have no windows, and believe it or not, many do not have technology installed.

I cannot believe faculty are being encouraged to lecture in the 21st century.

But then, the folks who issued the supena also designed the building.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The UD Board of Trustees (really the Board of Directors who run UD inbetween trustee meetings) don't care about the Presbyterian Church opinions. ONce in the past it considered closing UD and then starting it up again the next day so that it would no longer be under the influence of the Presbytery. Cooler heads prevailed but just to have considered it at such a high level is an indication of the hubris of the Board.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anytime you put curves and balconies in a building, it costs mucho money which could be better used for students. But this is not the only building messed up on campus. The library addition of $5m and the second floor of $2M, yet not one penny of that for books!

The technology building had no sewers on the second floor bathrooms and it flooded down to the first floor (how did that get by city inspectors?), the seats in the slanted auditorium are too small for students with long legs, and cables are exposed along the floor. I am told the Internet can be projected onto a screen for class viewing in only one room! Great planning!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:28:00 PM  
Anonymous A Former Student said...

The support for Free Speech that the Telegraph Herald provided, particularly in its editorial, cannot be overstated. Remember, this is the same newspaper that was strongly criticized several times in this blog (I was one of the critics). Undue influence on editorial policy by UD Board members was suggested and the courage of the paper's editor was questioned.

Let's rethink our view of the paper based on the content of Saturday's front-page article and Sunday's full editorial. In addition, note that the correct blog address was in fact cited by the paper, in Saturday's article. I do not think the Des Moines Register has taken an official position by way of an editorial, to this point.

I have often been less than impressed by Dubuque's only newspaper, but in this case I want to recognize that the TH has risen to the occasion.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

It is an important point that the TH editorial stated that the Wendt Character Initiative "would examine the University's ethics and virtues". I am not certain that you can read that intent, however reasonable it is as an assumption, into the wording of the Initiative as distributed.

I do know that the Wendt Initiative was first described to faculty as having two priorities that are very different from the above-stated intention, as follows:
1)Attempt to shape the character of students.
2)Influence the character/behavior of faculty, by way of mandating that certain content be included in all courses.

Is this a case where University leadership was, for once, caught by being expected to "do as you say"? Certainly, that was a surprise to the leaders who were quick to take the funding and budgetary relief provided by the Wendt money without anticipating that their way of treating people might come into question as a consequence.

University leaders, obsessed as they are with secrecy, did not see that by accepting the Wendt funding they were "moving into a glass house".

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am an alum of the 70's who wishes to remain anonymous. In addition, I just learned about this blog.

For several years, I have questioned whether I should continue with my annual contribution, even as small as it is. I have not understood UD's upheavals of the late 1990's, the simingly mismanagement of the late 1980's and early 90's.

Similarly, I have not understood how UD which claimed to be cash poor could absorb new buildings. I know donors supply $$$ for edifaces but generally do not supply $$$ for upkeep and operations.

Then I realized UD was accepting students who's apptitude for success is based upon their ability to win on athletic fields, but was not equipped to provide one-on-one support for these kinds of learners. Ironically, athletic winning has not occurred any more than these same students have completed their degrees.

So, as an alum, what am I to conclude? UD is trying to look good at the expense of those who can ill afford it? Well, I will no longer continue to contribute my annual pitance in support of teams that don't win, students who cannot graduate, and administration that only wants to look good in fund raising circles.

It pains me to write this as I wonder what faculty and those who support the students are going through. Given that this blog contains both fiction and truth, I don't really trust much of what is written here.

However, UD's actions speak louder than the ambigous thoughts in the blog. Good faculty and several members of the president's cabinet have voted by leaving UD; I suspect others are in family situations that prohibit their abililty to leave.

As for me, I will no longer support my alma mater.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster that said the Des Moines Register has not taken a position, you should consider the fact that in its weekly "Roses and Thistles" section of the editorial page on the weekend following publication of their story on the UD subpoena, the Register gave the UD administration a "Thistle" for using "scorched earth" legal tactics that would stifle free speech at the university. This preceded the TH's editorial, which echoed many of the same sentiments espoused by the Register. Both papers were on the mark, IMHO.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:07:00 PM  
Anonymous A Former Student said...

Jeff Bullock sure is lucky. He is busily planning the October consecration of his Presidential Palace (or is that Temple of Greed?) on Bennett Street. It so happens that the Telegraph Herald this week ran a front page photo of a Loras College prof who was leading a class on Socrates while wearing a toga. The good news is that Jeff has a local expert to teach him how to drape a toga, for the ceremony.

Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

What a difference 10 years can make!

It is often said that the best leaders lead by example. I am reminded of this when I think of former University of Dubuque president Dr. John Agria and his wife Mary. The Agrias entertained faculty often in their University-owned home on Grandview Avenue. The house was older, a classic brick with a red tile roof. John and Mary would point to the thread-bare carpeting in the living room and declare that it would not be replaced until the University could raise the regrettably low faculty salaries significantly.

Unfortunately, influential members of the UD Board of Trustees became opposed to John Agria's activities as president, including his open-door policy and candor with faculty. This led to the abrupt ouster of John Agria in August of 1996, and his replacement by a retired businessman.

The priorities of the Agrias are in stark contrast to those of Jeff Bullock, with his extremely high salary and palatial new quarters on campus.

Again, what a difference 10 years can make.

Friday, September 22, 2006 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an idea. Supervisors inviting rank and file employees into one's home to build community and improve transparancy.

The concept is right, but the execution of such actions at UD have not happened...well, since 1996. Besides, current administration would not be able to continue to execute actions that were congruent with their speeches.

i.e., UD does not walk the talk!

Friday, September 22, 2006 1:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard more about the other lawsuit UD is engaged in? The one with Upper Iowa?

Are depositions still going on?

Friday, September 22, 2006 1:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The one thing that Agria and Bullock have in common is that both are unethical. Agria shamefully violated the faculty handbook procedures in a faculty hearing and permitted his personnel officer to attempt to intimidate and ignore evidence. It took the university lawyer to set them both straight. But no doubt, Agria as well as Bullock, follow the dictates of the Board of Directors. the ethical thing would have been for Agria to resign in protest but was too weak-willed to do so. Bullock just asks how high to jump.

Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

At least under Agria there was a Handbook that provided due process, and a hearing was held!

With the crew that the UD Board has in place now, under Bullock, a faculty member is hanging out there alone, with no internal recourse. Just the way the Board wants it -- at will employees.

Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any news on the lawsuits? Any further antics by the lawyers?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No lawyer action; they are too busy counting their $$$.

They will swing back into action when they need more $$$; which is fortunate, as given the historic trends, UD has plenty of money to share with them

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

Someone asked about the other lawsuit. It is worth pointing out that the other lawsuit, filed by Upper Iowa University, came about as one consequence of a special new initiative at UD. Jeff Bullock announced to the University community with great enthusiasm and high expectations the creation of a for-profit branch of the University called the Institute. A downtown office in Dubuque was set up, and two retired administrators from Upper Iowa were hired to spearhead this project (at least one was still under contract, thus the lawsuit).
The Institute was to start various for-profit enterprises in order to produce new revenue streams for UD.

How much money was lost in this ill-fated venture, about which nothing is said by UD? We'll never know, but it was substantial.

Another reason for the secrecy upon which UD insists.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At least under Agria there was a Handbook that provided due process, and a hearing was held!" Bullock may be the more honest of the two. At least he tells you that you are going to be a slave at UD with a superior-inferior relationship with the administration. Yes, Agria provided due process and, yes, a hearing was held, but he violated every single procedure in that process--which was the equivalent of not really having due process. Who was the more honest (or dishonest)?

Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's keep our eyes on the main focus of this blog: what was done to Paul Jeffries and the repression of free speech at UD.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To understand the firing of Jeffries, one must be aware of the history of the university and the actions of its protagonists--both past and present. And that all administrative actions ultimately were approved if not dictated by the Executive Board of the Board of Trustees who make the decisions between the few meeting of the large Board of Trustees.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Agria did wrong set the stage for the Bullock swagger. There is no dignity involved with Bullock's actions. He sent his campus security to oversee a fired faculty members cleaning out his/her office in the two-hour time limit. Out-of-favor administrators were treated in the same manner. In the past, out-of-favor administrators were given face-saving departing receptions. "What you do to the least of my brethen . . . ."

Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

Jeff Bullock would make an interesting case study. He has often referred to his humble beginnings, and to the fact that he "came up the hard way". Does that contribute to his inflated self-worth and drive to surround himself with the trappings of power and loyal followers?

Note that when Jeff was first hired as Seminary dean, he did not have his doctorate in hand, and was under a deadline to complete it. Fortunately for him, he had a very supportive major professor at the University of Washington, Dr. John Stewart (yes, the individual who now serves UD as the VPAA).

Jeff had barely arrived on campus when the UD Board repaced the president who had hired him, John Agria, with retired banker Bruce Meriwether. Needless to say, Jeff felt very insecure in his new position, and was grateful when Mr. Meriwether kept him on.

Jeff ingratiated himself with his boss by faithfully carrying out all assignments, with the push to develop a new mission statement as the outstanding example. He impressed Bruce with his willingness to be adequately ruthless in his handling of personnel matters.

It was no surprise when Bruce, as Board Chair, cancelled a national search and chose Jeff to replace him in the president's role.

It appeared to observers that Jeff was more or less a figurehead his first year as president, since Bruce kept an office on campus and maintained his authority over employees. This was the period when Jeff fronted for first, the lawsuit against faculty in an attempt to overrule the Faculty Handbook; and second, the Transformation, when the lawsuit failed.

The spring (1999) that the Transformation was finalized and many tenured faculty were terminated as a consequence, the Commencement ceremony was highly charged. Jeff found it necessary to wear a bullet-proof vest under his gown, out of fear that one of the terminated faculty would resort to violence. It has been suggested that this occasion was a serious blow to Jeff's masculinity, and this explains his lasting vindictiveness toward anyone who spoke up during this time.

Does all this help in understanding the inflexible, heavy-handed administrator that we see in Jeff today? In spite of the wealth and power to which Jeff has risen, there may still be an underlying insecurity that leads him to be fiercely defensive of his complete authority on campus as president.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only did Bullock wear a bullet-proof vest but he was escorted during he Commencement activities by campus security. All as a show to Board members that faculty members were dangerous. How ridiculous! It was beneath faculty members to resort to violence; they wouldn't even carry a nail as a weapon! It amused faculty members and others at the spectacle of Bullock and the security guards.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Interested Observer said...

Rumor has it that the security working that day were not campus security, rather they were hired law enforcement officers who were 'wired' like Secret Service agents to communicate! Apparently, Bullock feared a sniper attack.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do bloggers feel about the following question: is the UD secrecy mania based more on Bullock's insecurity or on the arrogance of UD's Board?

Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can the board be perceived as arrogant when the board is ignorant of the details? I submit information (the details) is being withheld. Moreover, I submit board members are NOT asking appropriate questions that might uncover the details.

Sunday, October 08, 2006 7:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The blog talks about UD's Board. But there are two boards as someone else has informed. The Board of Trustees that has a large membership, possibly thirty, that meets three or four times a year. It is wined and dined and presented an agenda for action that it rubber stamps with little or no discussion because it receives little or no details. Membership on the Board of Trustees is almost always determined by the possibility and ability of a Board member to make a financial contribution. And this is an incestuous board for it choses its own members.

Then there is the Board of Directors which is a small group of the Board of Trustees which runs the University and makes decisions in-between meetings of the Board of Trustees. This is where the real power lies. The attitude of the Board of Directors is that no matter what the Trustees decide, it will do what it wants. After all, who will take time out to mount an organized objection?

Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

I thought that the name had officially been changed from Board of Directors to Board of Trustees a few years back. This was probably an attempt to stress the Board's role in 'protecting' the University's traditions and heritage. (The Board of Trustees for many years had been a smaller group of senior Board members ostensibly charged with managing physical assets such as buildings.)

As pointed out above, the key point is that power resides with a small group that meets regularly, the Executive Committee of the Board.

It would take an amazing effort and an overpowering issue to motivate the full Board to rise up against its executive committee. Most regular Board members are content to allow the University to use their money and names, and are unwilling to invest the time and energy to serve on the Ex.Com. The full Board communicates only through the secretary to the Board, who is also an assistant to the president and, thereby, his creature.

Anything short of a scandal involving the personal morals of the president or chair of the Board (and who wants that?) would simply be inadequate to cause a revolt in the full Board. An example would be the scandal underway in the U.S. House of Representatives. Remember, harsh treatment of employees and clamping down on speaking out by employees would be characterized to the Board as 'running a tight ship', which would appeal to business types.

Monday, October 09, 2006 12:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Dubuquer said...

An aspect of Jeff Bullock's behavior that has not been adequately described is that he flies into rages without warning.

One such incident was related to me in detail. The first fall (1999) after the Transformation was put into effect, Bullock was giving a "State of the University" report to the University community, assembled in Hadley Auditorium. A faculty member (since departed) asked if UD's Board had declared a state of financial exigency to justify the termination of faculty. Bullock said that the Board had not. He was called to the side by the VPAA of the time, Paul Kessler, for a whispered discussion. Bullock went back to the podium and said that the Board "may have declared a state of...", when he was called back to the side by Kessler once again. He returned to the podium to correct himself and report that the UD Board, at its May meeting, had declared a state of financial emergency. He was obviously embarrassed by the ignorance of University actions that he had displayed.

After the meeting, he followed the female faculty member who had asked the question back to her building, venting his anger at her for putting him in that position. In fact, Kessler had to come between the two.

When the faculty member in question stood for tenure a year or two later, the faculty committee recommended her highly as both a scholar and a teacher. Needless to say, she was denied tenure by Bullock.

Many who witnessed the meeting expected Kessler's days at UD to be numbered as well. About a year later, Bullock announced that Kessler would be searching for another position. Within 3 months, Kessler was escorted from his office for reasons that were never explained.

Jeff Bullock is easily provoked to rage, and he is unable to forgive anyone whom he decides to blame when this happens. It is not surprising that UD employees are afraid of him.

This aspect of Jeff's character is certainly not a result of his ministerial training.

Monday, October 09, 2006 3:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does Bullock still give "State of the University" reports?

Monday, October 09, 2006 3:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give a "state of the U" report??? Are you kidding??? That would imply the sharing of information which is not allowed by the bylaws, I think (sic).

Monday, October 09, 2006 5:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Concerned Alumnus said...

Many of you may not have seen a full-page article in the Telegraph Herald this week that was devoted to Peace and Justice groups, student-led, at local colleges. Most of the text, and the photos, reported on a program at UWisconsin-Plattville. However, there was also a schedule of up-coming programs and activities at Plattville, Clarke College, and Loras College, listing several events at each school. At the bottom of the schedule was a note: There is no active peace and justice group at the University of Dubuque at this time.

Coincidence? I think not!

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:14:00 PM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

It is funny. Garfield has a blog where he trashes the president for lying and stealing. He is a hypocrite, I hate even running into him on campus

Friday, October 13, 2006 8:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is the url?

Friday, October 13, 2006 9:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Amazed Alumnus said...

Peter Smith, Jeff Bullock's right-hand man, appears to be allowing his power over University mailings to go to his head. Certain UD alumni have now been removed from the University's mailing list. Did you, as an alumnus, receive the brochures on Homecoming and the ethics conference recently? If so, Peter has not yet removed you from the list.

This is another example of arrogance and power run amuck. Will Bullock and Smith attempt to cancel earned UD degrees next?

Friday, October 13, 2006 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous current ud student1970 said...

Look at the anti bush bumper stickers. More examples of plagerism

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Removed from mailing list? It did not begin just recently. The wife of a retired prof recently told he that she got her second degree from UD but has received only one mailing in over five years. Of course, her husband was a "renegade" prof. Can this be called censorship? also, of course, Smith did her favor by saving her the trouble of sending the mailing to the circular file unopened.

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still get the alumni email messages. I pass them on to people who I know no longer receive them. I'd be willing to forward them to the editors if they are interested.

Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Soon, I will be an alum. At that time, I will be asking the alumni office to delete my name from their files. I don't want to receive any messages, pictures, or solicitations from UD because in my opinion, it had a chance to apply Wendt Character initiatives in both the Garfield AND Jeffries sitution and did not do so. Instead, UD supenaed another alum.

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will be through at Myers University soon. I do not think that I will want to recieve future mailings

Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous indicates being thru at Myers U soon; I thought it was Wendt Myers U (WMU). In any event, I hope the person does not leave before the water fall located in the lobby of the MTAC building is completed. If they leave before it's completion they will not have the chance to make sure it remains clean with a box of washing detergent (the kind that makes lots of bubbles).

An inside water fall! How does that compare to lower tuition rates for students who already have high outstanding loans? Was this Bullock's, Smith's, or the architect's idea?

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Ancient Alum said...


If you share some of the concerns about what's happening at UD that have been expressed by other students, please speak up!

This is your chance to let the rest of us reading this blog know what is really happening on campus.

Monday, October 16, 2006 5:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK. Why do some of the brand new classrooms NOT have any windows or connected computer projectors when the lobby has two large, flat screen TVs and a waterfall? Am I misguided to think an emphasis on learning and students should be the focal points? How many classrooms with computer projection could be in place of the lobby?

Monday, October 16, 2006 7:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Departed Faculty said...

A waterfall in Bullock's Presidential Palace? The only waterfalls that I experienced in my time at UD were the result of leaking roofs!

At least Bullock apparently did not get the climbing wall that he wanted to put in the new science complex.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The roof still leaks in the Myers Palace. On the first day of classes, there were a couple of ceiling tiles that were really stained because of the leaks. They had portible dehumidifiers set up all over. Forget the fact that the classrooms are all on the lower level. As long as it looks good for the public imiga, BULLock is happy. I will be done shortly at Myers/Wendt University.

Sunday, October 22, 2006 4:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This week, UD is staging its Character farce, while also dedicating the Temple of Greed and "honoring" alumni. Hypocrisy piled upon hypocrisy. They should bestow a Hypocrite of the Year Award, too.

Any suggestions for nominees?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me many choices...I say Bullock. The office is the final straw.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullock is just a talking head doing the bid of the Board. I nominate the chair of the Board of Directors--anyone know his name? In the background but pulling the strings,

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, no. The Board of Directors as a group. They make the decisions as a group. After all, who fired 95% of the faculty in 1999 and came up with the Transformation PLan that eliminated 62% of the majors! But couldn't convince the library donor to donate even one dollar for books in addition to the building. A sad group of minor players who are over their heads in the academic field.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Chalapaty is outspoken as the Board chair, certainly not in the background. He is a major force (and donor) behind the new sports building.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a poll and see how many students (and even faculty) know the name of Chalapaty much less that he chairman of the Board. A new sports building! My, my. If he was academically minded, he would have sponsored an endowed chair in some department--that is, one in which the proceeds or interest of the money raised or donated is enough to pay for the salary of a faculty member. This attracts better faculty, more money, and means less expense for salaries for the university. And I bet no one in administration mentioned the words "endowed chair" to him.

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comments about the sentencing of Jeff Skillet from Enron have been interesting, and relevant to UD.

It seems that the Enron mess started as small decisions to "cut corners" in order to maintain the image of the corporation as being hugely successful. There was no transparency, and thus no accountability. Eventually, there was no turning back, and the deception got bigger and bigger.

The University has relied on large donations from Myers, Wendt, and Chalapaty to project an image of success. If you look behind the image, the reality is much different.

Problems with poor academic skills among students are never mentioned.

Reliance on part-time faculty is hidden.

The only faculty members who have lasted more than a handful of years are either unquestioning loyalists to the point of having no conscience or intimidated people afraid of their own shadow.

Impressive buildings with little academic function are erected with inadequate funding, increasing the University's debt and putting it in an impossible maintenance situation.

Administrative salaries are so high that the operating budget cannot be balanced and must be hidden (no reports).

Eventually, the facade will crack and crumble, as it did at Enron. The image-builders will scramble then, but what will become of the institution?

Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of deceptive tricks of the admissions office and the university is to publicize how many new students have enrolled without mentioning later how many have left! Some don't last or don't want to stay the semester. There is a net loss by the end of the year. But they won't tell you that.

Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who is impressed by the success of UD's football program should ask how many of the players did not finish out even the semester!

Monday, December 04, 2006 3:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a cover-up on the UD campus? Remember, the facts of the plagiarism case were never made public!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a cover-up on the UD campus? Remember, the facts of the plagiarism case were never made public!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the plagiarism issue was sort-of made public.

Garfield admitted his erroneous ways at a faculty meeting at the beginning of the fall semester following his May screw-up. He claimed at the time, that he gave the monetary award back to the donor, but the plaque w/his name and recognition remain posted in the lobby of Blades Hall.

If one identifies the confession as going public, then yes, Garfield's plagiarism was made known to his colleagues. If that does not constitute another definition of "public," then no, the facts were never made public.

I think a significant issue is that Jeffries involvement w/the Garfield plagiarism issue set up Jeffries as a person UD administrators did NOT want in the Wendt Character Initiative. Jeffries further excaerbated this negative perception by getting into the tenure/contract issues.

Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:17:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

free web page counters