Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
The longtime academic who has led the College of Southern Nevada since August is on track to become the school’s next president.
A search committee of the university system regents today recommended making Interim President Michael Richards the school’s permanent chief. The full Board of Regents will vote on that recommendation on May 1.
Richards was selected from a field of 54 candidates. The search committee, along with an advisory committee that included many members of the CSN community, voted unanimously to pick Richards over two other finalists, President Berton Glandon of Arapahoe Community College in Colorado and President Laurence Spraggs of Broome Community College in New York.
Richards’ insider status was, by some accounts, what put him over the top. University system Chancellor Jim Rogers said he liked both Richards and Glandon, and that, “If I were looking at Dr. Glandon and Dr. Richards as both coming from out of town, making applications for this job, I would probably rank them about equal.”
But Rogers added that “the fact that I have dealt with Dr. Richards these last eight or nine months is very important. ... He is a proven leader.”
As the search nears its end, it has become clear that many faculty and staff members and students shared Rogers’ sentiment.
Five different people have led CSN in as many years, leaving the college community yearning for stability.
Comment removed by staff.
The committee, and the Las Vegas Sun, have let us down badly. Mike Richards has nowhere near the support among the faculty that you claim he has. The "fix was in" from the moment that the regents changed their own rules to allow Richards to be a candidate. The two other candidates, whose qualifications exceeded Richards's by an embarrassing margin, were simply defrauded, as were the citizens and taxpayers of the State of Nevada, and the entire CSN community.
Comment removed by staff.
This is unbelievable. The lingering Richard Carpenter's assassin Mike Richards will be our president? What's next? Alok gets rewarded for lying to the public about how us faculty love Richards while we all loathe him? Oh Alok already did, with Richards' generous provision of one-year free ride on our state budget. It is great news for the students to not have the Pandeys listed on the schedule, but it should not be at the state's expense. There is no justification of $100,000 to waste on blood sucking parasites. Can we make it a one-time fee and tell them to permanently go away? Why stay on the job that you are not good at, and every student hates you?
What does this say about the quality of our instructors? About how much Richards cares about it? About the integrity of a supposedly faculty representative?
Regents have got to be kidding on this. Jim Rogers is unfit. Those individuals are determined to burn CSN up in flames. I am left speechless.
These other 2 finalists are defrauded 100% with their effort and sincerity. I suggest that next time if the Regents try to defraud any more applicants, put out someone they want who is really really really good, to convince the public. Mike Richards had an aweful performance on April 23, 2008 compared to the other finalists. He is not even in their league, and he got selected.
Dear Dr. Glandon, thank you for coming here and showing us what a college president should be like, you received 95 out of 100 from Professor Stan VerNooy. Dear Dr. Spraggs, thank you also for coming and you received 88 from Professor Stan VerNooy, who only gave our very own Dr. Richards 65, and I gave Mike Richards an "F" without reservation.
Dear Dr. Glandon and Dr. Spraggs, we would rather have you than this dictator Richards, trust us. Consider this a scam and move on. You are defrauded by Nevada Board of Regents. You have put in your sincere effort and we appreciate it. On behalf of CSN employees, I would like to thank you and apologize to you.
Regents, pay back the fees you paid to the national search company. There is no way during our budget crisis, hundreds of thousands of dollards should be wasted like this.
CSN employees, Las Vegas Community… THROW THE BUMS OUT! The Board of Regents have reiterated their commitment to licking the boots of the Megalomaniac/Creature that is James Rogers. The Board of Regents have again capitulated their objectivity, integrity and ethics by electing Mike Richards as the President of CSN. For heavens sake, Mike Richards is an integral part of the disgusting Richard Carpenter regime and is responsible for the continued mayhem at CSN. Daily, CSN faculty suffers the indignities of Richards’s leadership and deviance. We witness rewards offered to faculty and administrators who align themselves with Richards including Alok and Mahima Pandey.
We all know that Mike Richards was selected to help keep the lid on the multiple EEOC 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sexual Harassment, American with Disabilities, Retaliation and Sexism complaints and corruption cases against CSN. Apparently, it was more important to maintain the course of destruction than to bring in a change agent that would have been inclined to "clean house."
It is also apparent that Richard Carpenter promised Mike Richards the job before his departure and Richard Carpenter again seduced Rogers to bend to his will. Rogers behaves like a love-sick school-girl for Richard Carpenter. He is no man but a weak pathetic tyrant.
On June 13, 2007 the Nevada Attorney General raided two CSN campuses and the Finance Office for 15 hours. The home of construction chief, Bob Gilbert was raided for 36 hours. Just two weeks ago, the F.B.I., NV Attorney General and North Las Vegas Sheriff dept. raided CSN for Child Pornography.
Lastly, to the Regents who aspire to higher office, forget it because we will never forget that you allowed Rogers and Carpenter to destroy CSN, an important part of the LV community!
"SignUpNow" proposed an open letter to the public to be signed by faculty, staff, and students of CSN, and community residents:
We the undersigned faculty, staff, and students of CSN, and community residents, wish to express our deep dismay and disappointment in the search process used by some Regents in selecting a new president. It is well known that this college has been exposed to many damaging managerial and leadership actions for many years. A series of presidents have been hired and dismissed with serious consequences by a highly ineffective Board that cannot seem to distingiuish right from wrong.
The current search passed over some well-qualified finalists to pick an interim who was not even a principle candidate. The Board's manipulative reasoning and tainted process perpetuates a long history of mismanagement and bad decisions on their part. In turn, this keeps the college in a state of operational despair and prolonged distrust of public officials who flaunt their power because it is unchecked, unbalanced and unwisely used.
We strongly urge the Regents to reconsider the biased process, their uneven actions, the continued waste of public funds and contrary actions that denigrate the faculty's interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of what shoud be a premier college among the nation's community college systems.
We deserve better and so do you.
(Signatures)
Contact the ad hoc CSN President Search Committee and demand their reasoning for this decision that insults the community's intelligence:
Steve Sisolak, Chair
Mark Alden
Stavros Anthony
Cedric Crear
Ron Knecht
James Dean Leavitt
*****
Steve Sisolak
District 7 - Clark County
29 Burning Tree Ct.
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Phone: (702) 871-6497
Fax: (702) 369-4655
E-mail: sisolak@aol.com
*****
Mark Alden
District 4 - Clark County
3503 Kensbrook
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Phone: (702) 454-4999
Fax: (702) 735-0285
E-mail: malden@nevada.edu
*****
Stavros S. Anthony, Ph.D.
District 12 - Clark County
9104 Terrace Ridge Court
Las Vegas, NV 89129
Phone: (702) 254-2035
Fax: (702) 254-2035
E-mail: Stavros_Anthony@nshe.nevada.edu
*****
Cedric Crear
District 1 - Clark County
720 South 4th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 731-0546
Fax: (702) 731-0271
E-mail: Cedric_Crear@nshe.nevada.edu
*****
Ron Knecht
District 9 – Carson City, Douglas, Lyon Storey and Washoe Counties
1009 Spencer Street
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 882-2935
Fax: (775) 882-6348
E-mail: RonKnecht@aol.com
*****
James Dean Leavitt
District 13 - Clark County
200 Hoover Ave., Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 384-0909
Fax: (702) 598-0510
E-mail: regentjamesdean@aol.com
*****
Also ask the CSN President Search Advisory Committee Members:
1. Why they produced an illegitimate president?
2. Would the fact that all but 3 are subordinates to Mike Richards affect their decision? and
3. Patty Charlton Dayar's office was raided by the Attorney General's office on June 13, 2007, and she is still under AG's investigation. Why did she not recuse herself, even after Christina Littlefield's report in 2007 asking the same question.
Jenny DesVaux Oakes (chair), Cisco Aguilar, Maggie Arias- Petrel, Dr. Alan Balboni, Hannah Brown, Thomas Brown, Dr. Arthur Byrd, Dr. Sondra Cosgrove, Ed Curry, Patty Charlton Dayar, Eric Garner, Taylor Gray, Rose Hawkins, Somer Hollingsworth, Sonia Joya, Dr. Candace Kant, Dr. Joshua Levin, Paul Moradkhan, Shannon Raborn, Pat Shalmy, Robert Sharp, Judy Stewart, Tod Story, Tom Thomas, Danny Thompson and Patty Wade.
This is Sherry "Taz" Rosenthal, CSN English professor. This letter was posted to the CSN Carpenter Watch Blog today. It was written by CSN math professor Stan VerNooy to CSN faculty on the search committee that voted to appoint Interim President Michael Richards.
Thank you Professor VerNooy for putting into words so powerfully the thoughts and feelings of myriad CSN faculty, staff and others about this unfair; unethical and enormously embarrassing appointment. I will have post this in two parts due to the comment length restriction:
---
Part One
I am appalled by the decision of the Presidential Search Committee to appoint Mike Richards as the president of CSN. Before getting to the merits (or lack thereof) of the decision itself, however, I must also mention how ashamed I am on behalf of the two other candidates, who were simply defrauded by being led to believe that they had some chance of being appointed. I certainly hope they weren't required to pay their own travel expenses when they came here for the interview. On the other hand, if the Regents paid for their travel, then it was an unethical misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Every member of the committee knows that there was absolutely nothing that either of those candidates could have said, nothing they could have done, and no qualification or accomplishment that they could have brought forth, that would have changed the committee's pre-established determination to give the job to Mike Richards. Please do not make any public or private representations to the contrary, because that would only damage your reputation for personal integrity, as the decision itself has damaged your reputation for good and responsible judgement. It is simply not possible for ANY objective person to have gone into this week's activities with an open mind, and then to have concluded that Mike Richards should be appointed over two embarrassingly better-qualified candidates.
Stan VerNooy's letter (continued):
I will personally write letters of apology to those two unsuccessful candidates, because I don't believe that there is anyone on the committee who possesses the integrity or the character to tell those two fine men the truth about what they were subjected to.
Before you make your next public claim that Mike Richards enjoys widespread support among the CSN community, I suggest that you read the comments posted at http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/news/20... and at http://richard-carpenter-watch.blogspot..... (Some of the comments are admittedly duplicates, and I myself am the poster "wonteach" on the Las Vegas Sun website. [BTW "wonteach" stands for "wonderful teacher," not "won't teach"!]).
Stan VerNooy's letter (continued)
Furthermore, consider that the atmosphere of intimidation established by Carpenter has had the effect of silencing others who would be making similar comments, and has tranquilized many, many others into a state of mind where they just don't care any more because they know that their voices and contributions will be ignored.
That last sentence raises an issue which is perhaps the most single devastating indictment of the Carpenter/Richards years at CSN. CSN is heavily populated with dedicated, passionate people who decided long ago to devote their lives to education, despite their possession (in many cases) of qualifications which would enable them to pursue careers with considerably higher income and prestige. But the "in-crowd" mentality at CSN, along with the monolithic "CSN for the sake of CSN's bureaucracy" ideology, has made many such people feel marginalized. These people (and yes, I number myself among them) have a great number of ideas and a great amount of energy that could be put to work to make CSN a superior, even nationally admired, educational institution. But they (we) rarely volunteer, don't join committees, don't run for Faculty Senate, and often don't even bother to express opinions except possibly (and anonymously) on CSN's "dissident website" [I hope Tazzie doesn't object to my characterizing it that way].
Stan Vernooy's letter (continued):
And why is this? Because they have tried in the past to have an impact in influencing the organization to operate more ethically, more fairly, and more in line with its mission. And they have found that those contributions are simply not wanted by the Powers that Be. Why bother to volunteer for a Faculty Senate committee that unanimously recommends that students who are late with their financial aid should be excluded from classrooms? Anyone with a pro-education stance on that issue would be acting only as an impediment to the establishment careerists who are taking us headlong into an era where CSN will be just another AT&T – one of whose products happens to be education. And what would be the point of serving on a Presidential Search Committee that has already unanimously made up its mind to hire the LEAST qualified of the final candidates, even before they meet them?
Why bother? Why get in people's way? You're not going to influence the final outcome, and you're just going to wind up frustrated and angry. So the contributions of those people – among whom are some of the most talented and dedicated at the school – are lost to the organization.
Stan Vernooy's letter (continued)
I was sarcastically amused by Chancellor Rogers's quoted statement (I believe in the Review-Journal) that Mike Richards was always responsive to everything that he (Rogers) wanted him to do. Did it not occur to the Chancellor that this "responsiveness" is a standard characteristic of the "kiss up / kick down" style of management that Richard Carpenter established at CSN and which Richards has done nothing to change? Didn't Rogers find it strange that there was never a time that Richards failed to deliver on some request by the preferred deadline because he (Richards) was involved in some activity that involved the education of students? Does it occur to him – does it occur to the committee – that CSN's constituency does not consist solely – or even primarily – of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents? It consists of thousands of employees and more than 35,000 students whose lives we are hired to change.
When I arrived at CSN ten-plus years ago, Richard Moore gave a speech to the incoming faculty members. He gave his well-known (at the time) description of the "typical CSN student": A single mother in her 30's with no more education than a high school diploma or a GED, whose ex-husband is paying no child support, and who is working for $8.00 an hour at a local casino. "She has only one chance to get off that $8.00-an-hour treadmill," he said. "And that one chance, is you."
Can you imagine Richard Carpenter giving a speech like that? It is inconceivable. I submit that it would be almost equally inconceivable from Mike Richards. And that illustrates dramatically how far we have fallen from our prior focus on CSN's only mission: changing the lives of students.
Having been a CSN faculty member for ten years, I know the culture of this school very well. And I can say with absolutely firm certainty that Richard Carpenter did more to damage morale, more to destroy the sense of community that the school once had, and more to shift the focus of the school away from education and toward bureaucracy for its own sake, than anyone could have ever imagined that one man could do. Mike Richards, in almost a year, has shown that he is oblivious to the severe problems that Carpenter's regime caused, and has made it clear that he will do nothing about those problems. If Bert Glandon had been appointed as president, as he emphatically should have been, he would have noticed this distorted "bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake" priority almost immediately, and would have worked vigorously to correct it. When he was asked questions at the forum on Wednesday, he almost always told stories involving specific individual students whom he knew personally. He knew how their lives had been changed by their community college experiences. Do you think, from Dr. Richards's presentation and background, that he could (or would) tell the same kind of story regarding even one student in his career?
Stan VerNooy's letter (end)
I could cite a list of specific incidents over the last couple of years that demonstrate how far CSN has strayed from its mission. And if anyone has any interest in knowing about that, I'll be glad to provide chapter and verse. But as things stand right now, the Regents and the committee seem not to be interested in doing anything but justifying a decision that was a monstrous betrayal of CSN and its constituents. If, as they seem to desire, Mike Richards stays in his new position for many years [and I certainly can't imagine anyone else hiring him to be their president!], then the consequences of that betrayal will be with us for a long, long time. And the betrayal will not be forgotten.
Stan VerNooy
Community College Professor, Mathematics
CSN
I apologize to Stan VerNooy for misspelling VerNooy in several of the above posts.
Sorry too for underestimating the number of consecutive posts I'd need!
Sherry "Taz" Rosenthal
Thank you very much Professor Sherry "Taz" Rosenthal. The following is what Taz answered to an anonymous commenter who was not pleased with her asking pertinent questions to Mike Richards (in two parts):
Part One:
Taz said...
Hi this is Taz. Anonymous at 5:09 P.M. thanks for the feedback, but I must beg to differ with you. Please hear me out as to why:
One has the right to ask hardball questions of someone applying to be CSN President; it is an important job; there is competition for it, and it should not be anyone's for the asking. Neither of the other candidates Bert Glandon or Larry Spraggs had any problem with my equally tough questions to them. Both showed today that they are extremely quick, rigorous thinkers. Your preferred candidate though you may like him is not in their league.
I came to the forums today to determine as best I could the measure of each candidate as a potential CSN president. I asked questions designed (and planned) to elicit from each evidence of quick flexible thinking; problem solving skill; innovativeness; inventiveness; inclusiveness; open-mindedness; demonstrated interest in and understanding of faculty issues, logical reasoning and persuasive ability.
CSN can only hope to hold its own in the future with a first rate thinker at the helm. My opinion after today's forums is that we would likely have that person in either Bert Glandon or Larry Spraggs but not in your preferred candidate who came off very badly by comparison and would have done so with or without my questions.
One does not glean the sort of information I sought today through tentativeness, deference or diffident chit-chat. For me as faculty the stakes (likely different from yours) are important. I am not pleased with how faculty are treated by the interim CSN president and I want a different president who understands and demonstrates concern for and interest in faculty issues, faculty values, and the many unique and formidable qualities and abilities of CSN faculty. I also want someone who respects and trusts faculty implicitly and does not look down on faculty. Unfortunately your candidate demonstrated amply today (and not just in response to my questions) that he is not that person.
Toward the ends I've described I asked deliberate hardball questions of all. Only the interim CSN president flubbed any and all of my questions. In that way he compared abysmally to either Bert Glandon or Larry Spraggs.
Part Two (Continued from Part One):
I appreciate that you may not like my questioning style. However I do not agree that it was inappropriate within today's forums. What I believe WAS inappropriate and showed your candidate in an especially dismal light was his haughty refusal to address them, even more so because both Bert Glandon and Larry Spraggs not only addressed them but did so with considerable deftness and skill.
My hunch is that your indignation is driven less by me or my questions today than by the fact that your candidate's reactions to them brought to stark light his extreme weakness as a contender.
Sincerely,
Taz
Another helpful report from Taz:
Taz (Forum report-Merry Mike's talk) said...
I asked Merry Mike some tough questions, including one about why he had kept referring to CSN as an "organization" seven times in his opening remarks but never once as a college.
His response, incredibly, was that the word "organization" was "a very intimate one" to him! I think I did pretty well right then not to hoot with laughter!
Then he said he considered himself a "shared governance plus" person because of his good rapport with "faculty leaders". I told him I don't talk to a lot of "faculty leaders" but I do talk to many faculty and we would give him a "shared governance minus". So, I then asked him, what are the vast majority of us faculty apparently missing about his "shared governance plus" performance. He tried to dodge this question by launching into vague gobbledego*k about how it's not just faculty, it's administration, it's this, it's that, it's the foundation, it's . . . and blah, blah, blah. I then reminded him I had just asked him a question about faculty that I would like him to answer the question I had asked. To that he said "I could do better with faculty". I asked "How" but just then one of his people interrupted and threw him a nerf ball. He gratefully accepted the nerf ball in order to move on from my annoying question, looking relieved.
My final question to him was about the nature of his commitgment to CSN, which he had said earlier was a big commitment. I said it was a public record that he had signed a contract to be Interim President only meaning he would not apply for the permanent job. He tried to weasel out of this one by saying "The contract I signed said I didn't INTEND to apply" I said this was the sort of convenient rationalization that creates bad faith. I then asked him why, given that he had not kept his word about not applying for the permanent job we should expect him to keep his word on anything else. He dodged this too by replying "There are other candidates. You may prefer one of those."
And how was YOUR morning?
Tazzie
Very informative on Dr. Glandon and Dr. Spraggs, who have been defrauded their fair chance of competing. We thank you Dr. Glandon and Dr. Spragss for showing us what a real college president should be like. We apologize for the sham Nevada Board of Regents. (Two parts)
Part One:
Taz' Report: Bert Glandon and Larry Spraggs were great said...
On a more hopeful and positive note, Bert Glandon has a very successful corporate background AND two successful college presidencies. He did say he did not have the most positive relationships with faculty at Arapahoe Community College in Colorado (where he is now) during his first three years there but that his rapport with faculty improved afterward. Charlotte Hsu's coverage of him including quotes from someone who currently works for him at Arapahoe bears out what he said about this.
Another thing I really liked about him was that i could sense that he truly likes and enjoys talking with strong outspoken women (like Taz M.) and that he is not hostile, put off, repulsed or intimidated by the latter (Merry Mike is the opposite). He was really enjoying answering a question I had about including all faculty in major decisions and not just Faculty Senate. He was thinking as he answered and you could sense him revising and ordering things just so to give the very best answer. Impressive!
(Continued) He seemed a nice, nice person, devoted to family, married with two sons, wanting to come here and stay.
I adored Larry Spraggs and even went back to Charleston at 2:30 to listen to him again in the Public Forums. But then I realized I'd better get home and finish grading for tomorrow so I didn't stay. But his morning talk was great!
He IS another one of these "education is business" types, but when I told him I don't like that model because it leaves out faculty he responded with real interest to my critique of the business model. He feels that one COULD measure quality of faculty according to the same model and he seemed to be thinking about how one would actually go about doing this. I really liked the way he engaged with this issue!
In terms of his personality, I think he would be the most engaging, energetic person of the three. He has a doctorate in biology and wide interests. Another thing I really liked about him was that on the Broome Community College (where he is now) website his personal recommended reading list.
It's an excellent list, a bit heavy on popular business books (stuff like Covey's 7 HABITS) but that's not all that's on the list. He also seems to like journalism (Friedman's THE WORLD IS FLAT) and biography. He talked about books a lot. Candace asked him to name the last book he had read. He named a very interesting sounding Abraham Lincoln biography.
Another thing I got about him from the Broome Community College website is that he likes sports. This isn't a hard and fast rule but in my experience sports makes you less moody and more even tempered because you get rid of more stress than someone who is sedentary. This would be refreshing after our long series of mercurial couch potato presidents.
larry Spraggs also has self-direction and internal drive and seems very well organized and efficient (I would say this of Bert Glandon equally).
I'd be happy with either as the next CSN President. People were very clear with both of them about the deficits and challenges of Nevada higher education. neither were daunted and I truly believe either could handle it with aplomb right off the bat.
Bert Glandon gave a lot of good specifics about problems he had dealt with in the past similar to our CSN problems (e.g., very severe budget cuts at Arapahoe right after he first arrived there). I liked what Bert Glandon said about building relationships with legislators and other people slowly and steadily and how he had a track record of success at this and at community college fundraising.
Part 3 out of 3: (Sorry for wrong estimate)
Larry Spraggs also has an impressive fundraising track record but Spraggs acknowledges some difficulties with an important relationship with one New York commissioner. This is Barbara Fiala and she seems (according to various internet articles and blog comments) the reason for his deciding to leave Broome. You can read more about this by googling Larry Spraggs Broome Community College).
In terms of difficulty here with new budget cuts, the fact of a non-education-friendly legislature and governor, etc. Larry Spraggs seemed like he couldn't wait to get in and try it. I liked his optimism in this regard. Equally, I liked Bert Glandon's self-confidence about these challenges.
I think they're both great, but differently. Either is a good fit for CSN. I felt that I was being carefully and seriously listened to and respected by both and that felt amazing! (I guess it's something none of us are very used to around here!) I had an excellent time talking to both of them. Either would represent an enormous improvement over the status quo!
Did anyone else attend any of the forums?
Tazzie
Quoting from "Las Vegan", April 25, above:
"Another thing I really liked about him [Bert Glandon] was that I could sense that he truly likes and enjoys talking with strong outspoken women (like Taz)and that he is not hostile, put off, repulsed or intimidated by the latter (Merry Mike is the opposite)."
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this comment. It proves that I am not paranoid after all. I have felt for the longest time that Mike Richards loves his female colleagues meek and submissive.
I am scared to death of what he will try to do to get rid of outspoken females.
Comment removed by staff.
Comment removed by staff.
Story of another persected woman in Richard Carpenter regime:
Click the link below to read "Debra Lopez Story"
http://richard-carpenter-watch.blogspot....
I posted Professor Stan VerNooy's letter and the responses in Review Journal:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/18168734.html
Think about where else we can get this message out. Post to as many places as you can. Thank you.
SUN Staff,
Why the sensorship? I answered the question from "Outspoken" and offered my opinion that Mike Richards is uncomfortable with capable women. I illustrated the examples of Joan V. and Diane Fruth. Those are publicly persecuted women at CSN whose stories are not secrets. I also linked the readers to Jeff Foshee's racial slur, at the CSN Richard Carpenter Watch blog, that was proven in Diane Fruth's notarized statement.
Please tell me which part of my statement was the problem that caused you to remove my posting. If any commentor, myself included, takes the time and thoughts to write a comment here and gets removed without any obivous violation such as foul language, you need to explain what sensorship guidelines had resulted in this removal, so people learn not to get deleted again.
If you are just not welcome an opinion that's different from your writer's, you should make it clear to the public, so we don't waste your time, or our time writing a good-faithed comment which is quickly removed without any obious reason. Thanks.
Don't buy a pig in a poke! I am on the CSN faculty and frankly I am sick of a few disgruntled CSN professors from the CSN English and the Math Department trying to tell the Vegas community how to think. First, somehow the CSN English Department got the idea they were something special and better than the rest of us at CSN. The math department is not far behind. Well, they are no more special than the rest of us and by the content of their blog, they need to learn a few manners. Second, these bloggers are not the majority like they would lead you to believe. There about 13 of them, two are vocal, about four are casual commentors to blogs, and seven are infrequent contributors. Some post under multiple names. The number of blog hits is higher than that because many of us watch their evil deeds to ward off attacks on us. Actually, they are about seven tenths of one percent of the total CSN faculty at best and that is hardly the majority. Their behavior at their home blog is an embarrassment to our faculty and higher education. It is 99.9 percent anonymous, contains extensive profanity, tirade after tirade of hate, made-up stories about CSN managers and their friends and families, threats, wishful and weird allegations meant to entice the gullible to join the attack on CSN administration and the Board of Regents, many statements taken purposely out of context, and much more garbage. Their conduct has the purpose of hoping someone will step in and investigate all their crap statements when they are too yellowbelly to make their fairy tales into public accusations attached to their names for which they would be accountable and liable. We know the leaders, they are on the English and Math faculty and have never held a sustained position of responsibility in a real business, never met a payroll, never had to comply with Federal and State regulations, never had to make a profit. Their allegations about many CSN administrations are based on theory and a perfect world. One final point, these bloggers come from the English and Math departments which are the two areas of at the top of huge failures an American education today.
Simmer down now James.
What special treatment has Richards promised you? Your statistics are unproven, (take it from a math instructor), and your logic is that if we see injustice we should just keep quiet and not speak out?
What kind of democracy is that? You obviously are either bought off by this crook or you are a member of the administration yourself. Either way, you seem alone in your opinion among all the comments posted here, so why dont you do everyone a favor and mind your own business.
The individuals posting comments here have real greviances against real wrong-doings. This is what a democracy is all about. You sure seem to have following the blogs very closely to know such details about them. Hummmm!
jamescinq,
Tse! Tse! Tse! You panicked in your rambling utterance. Got to stay cool. You are losing it when truth comes out, aren't you? Don't start fibbing about the blog's org chart, power structure, next election, and secret hand-shake. Looks like they are too successful for you to dismiss them? How come the rest of CSN congratulates them while you are sweating?
Contrary to what YOU told the Las Vegas community how to think, we can think on our own. I visit the blog because that's where truth is not prohibited like with all@csn.edu. My colleagues and I at CSN do not belong to Math or English department. I have never met Professors Rosenthal or VerNooy personally. I enjoy their opinions and I feel free writing my opinions to the blog. If you are sick and tired of reading it as you claimed, why don't you NOT read it? You have to take the initiative to go to that blog, don't play a victim for your voluntary act.
Your list of accusation about the blog was long: fairytales, hatred, tirades, garbage, and threats. Wow! Is that why you are helplessly addicted to it? I noticed that throughout your aimless attacking, you didn't dare to mention their URL. On the contrary, the blog people have no problem giving us the link and have any of us come and go as we wish. I did not find those things you accused in the blog. The truth only hurts people who live in a lie. The CSN administration is living in a lie. And if you find any inaccuracy, why don't you point out, instead of a blanket statement of the blog not being perfect? One of many things I find wrong about this administration is they have too much time on their hands to hassle a blog while they should be doing their work honestly. They are trying to steal this election, I, for one as faculty, will make sure the society knows about it.
Talking about fragile feelings. Be careful when you said that the English and Math departments "are the two areas of at the top of huge failures an American education today", you got on the nerve of Alok Pandey, since Professor VerNooy is a successful professor but Alok isn't so the latter must take the blame than the former. Don't hurt your buddy's feelings! They will take free sabbatical, travel, promotion, banquet, relief time, but they can't have their feelings hurt. You have got to be more sensitive to people's feelings as you preached the blog should have been to the corrupt administration's feelings.
I have just sent the following message to Regent Sisolak, in response to a message he sent me which made two points: First, that he refuses to read blogs and complaints that are not signed because he doesn't take seriously the statements of people who lack the courage to identify themselves, and secondly, that he hopes I/we will "give Mike Richards a chance."
Here is my response:
Regent Sisolak -
You fail to take into account the obvious fact that many people who will not sign their names are unwilling to do so because of the regular use of intimidation as a weapon by Carpenter, and to a lesser extent, Richards. It is hard to believe that you are so naive as to be unaware of that. I have personally received messages from people who, of course, have trusted me not to reveal their names, expressing their fears of retaliation if they speak out. And in more than one case, they have cited specific instances of statements made to them that eminently justify their fears.
Since you are so afraid to face the statements of people who differ with your defense of the status quo, let me share some of the communications that I have received in response to my letter (of which I sent you the original version, but which has been e-mailed, published and posted with small modifications all over the Internet):
****
[and here I inserted some quotes from this blog, from e-mails I have received, and from other places where my letter was posted.}
****
As far as giving the new president a chance, he has already been given a chance. We know what we have with Mike Richards - an unqualified hack who has got where he is by kissing up to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents at the expense of the mission of the school he has just been selected to head. There is no reason to give him an additional chance, especially when we know for a fact that there were two far better qualified alternatives whom your committee simply ignored.
I personally will "give him a chance" in the sense that I will support anything he does that promotes the legitimate mission of the school. But since I don't think he knows what that mission is, I don't know that there will be very many opportunities for me to express that support. I don't base my support on personalities anyway - I support things that I believe deserve my support, and I oppose things that don't. But as far as supporting him personally, simply because he's there and he's the president, no I won't do that. I think his presence in the presidency of CSN is detrimental to our mission, and I think I would be disloyal to CSN and its constituents if I were to do or say anything with the intention of maintaining him in his position. I think the greatest support I can provide for CSN will be to work for his departure at the earliest possible date.
Letter to Sisolak - Part 2
And by the way, if you had any credibility left with me, it was destroyed by the INCREDIBLY hypocritical comment that the Review-Journal quoted you as making, that the "institution has been tough on presidents."
May I please remind you of the facts, namely that:
1. You foisted an unbelievably unqualified president on us who was forced to resign shortly thereafter when he was overheard making a gutter-level racist remark about an Assemblyman's wife;
2. You foolishly fired Ron Remington, who had the enthusiastic support of the CSN community;
3. Richard Carpenter left, not because of any pressure on him from the school (although there SHOULD have been pressure), but because he was offered a job with higher visibility and more prestige, and he characteristically did what was in the best interests of Richard Carpenter. That action violated his contract and broke his word (much as Mike Richards broke his word not to be a candidate for the current presidential opening) - but, as in the words of an old song, "You knew I was a snake before you took me in."
In other words, the turnover in presidents at CSN is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT the result of the actions and decisions of the Board of Regents, and yet you have the chutzpah, the hypocrisy, and the temerity to admonish US publicly that we had better support this president because WE have been so hard on presidents in the past. Have you NO sense of shame?
I have always thought of you as one of the best of the regents. My God, what does that say about the rest of you?
To Sisolak - Part 3
Finally, a few personal notes - yes I suppose all of this has been personal, but not quite in the same way as the folllowing:
When Mike Richards first arrived, I was VERY impressed with him. I told some of my closest colleagues that we finally had someone I thought I could respect and work with. I certainly did not start out with any prejudices against him - quite the contrary. In his first meeting with the math and science division, he came across as a straight shooter. He didn't sugar-coat things, he recognized problems where problems existed, and he didn't speak in platitudes. I started to have reservations when it became clear that his expressions of concern about some of our issues were never going to be anything but that - expressions of concern. There was never any action, never any change in the status quo. I thought perhaps THAT would change when he became the top guy, but as I said in my newspaper interview, he has been an empty suit. He has made sure to please Jim Rogers, but he has done nothing for the school.
I also lost most of my personal respect for him for what may seem to you to be a trivial reason, but I don't think it was trivial at all. He was holding a meeting with our division. During the question-and-answer session, I was in the middle of asking him a question when his cell phone rang. He immediately answered his phone and walked out of the room, motioning for Rand Key (perhaps the highest-placed nothing I have ever encountered in my 61 years of life) to answer the question for him.
I would not tolerate that rudeness from one of my students. I wouldn't tolerate it from myself. And I had, and have, no reason to tolerate it from a Vice President of Academics. And I believe that you can often tell more about a person's character from little things like that than you can from the major decisions he makes after a great deal of thought.
Meanwhile, under his Mike Richards's nonexistent 'leadership,' the school has continued its downward slide into focusing its energy more and more on itself, sometimes even explicitly at the expense of its educational mission. I have already expounded on that in some detail, so there's no reason to repeat it here. My only point is that I am FAR from being a person who was predisposed to dislike Mike Richards. He has richly earned my lack of confidence in him.
To Sisolak - Part 4
I am 61 years old. I spent 15 years in various data processing / project manager jobs before deciding I wanted to teach. In my previous career, I had about 7 different jobs in three states; as a teacher I have taught at six schools in four states. It wasn't until something like 2003 that I made the same amount of money that I was making in 1985 - and that's without allowing for inflation! I am not in this business to build a career. I am in it to educate students and change lives.
This will be my last job. My forward calculations show that I probably can't afford to retire for another 10 years, at which time I will be 71, but that's OK with me. In fact I have no real desire to ever stop teaching, although I would like to move to the Pacific Northwest once I have my 20 years in here. At any rate, my only ambition is to be allowed to participate in an institution that truly believes in education, that remembers that its mission is not itself, and that its first priority is not kissing the ass of a chancellor or regent. When I first came here, I truly thought I had found that kind of a school. Richard Moore, for all his blowhardism and name-dropping, never lost sight of why the school was here. And he never let US forget either.
Things have deteriorated alarmingly in the ten years since I arrived. During the candidates' forum that I attended at Henderson, a middle-aged female staff member whom I had never met brought up exactly this same issue in her own words. She remembered how Moore had dropped in to student hangouts just to chat and find out whether the school was fulfilling their needs and expectations. She felt - and she was certainly correct - that we had lost something precious as the culture has shifted more and more inward. Her comments were addressed to Dr. Glandon, who gave a response that I don't remember verbatim, but just listening to his response should have embarrassed anyone who supported Dr. Richards's candidacy.
I had to teach a class during Dr. Richards's turn in Henderson, but I really wish someone had asked him the following simple question: "Other than members of the Student Government, can you name three current students at CSN and tell us what you know about them?" I can guarantee that Drs. Spraggs and Glandon would have had no trouble with the question and would have answered it with real enthusiasm. I suspect Dr. Richards would have come close to losing his temper at being asked that same question.
To Sisolak - Part 5
When you get to be 61 (aren't we about the same age? Forgive me if that's an insult!), you start thinking about what you really want your life to be worth. I have become much less patient with people who impede the very goal for which I changed my life at the age of 40, and especially those do so purely for self-serving reasons. I do not intend to just "play out the string" and "go along to get along."
It wasn't until earlier this year that it really came home to me how seriously poisoned the culture of CSN had become as a result of the Carpenter tenure. In all those jobs, in all those states, in both careers that I described above, I have never known a person for whom I had the total irredeemable, personal and professional contempt that I had, and continue to have, for Richard Carpenter. I really didn't believe it was possible for any individual to be so obsessively self-centered, so blithely willing to sacrifice the good of his organization purely to promote his own career and to protect himself from criticism. It was also astounding to me that a person would go into educational administration knowing almost nothing about education and having so little intertest IN education.
If I were 31 instead of 61, maybe I'd just chalk the whole thing up to experience, probably look for another job, and move on. But as I said above, this is my last job. I'm damn well going to make it count. And that means that when a major decision is made, undermining my and everyone else's ability to turn this school into an educational institution we can be proud of, I'm going to say something about it. I'm going to say it loudly, I'm going to say it unapologetically, and I'm going to say it repeatedly.
You let us down. You let us down badly, in one of the most important decisions you can possibly make concerning the largest school in the state. And you had no excuse. The superiority of the credentials of the two other candidates were objective, clear, and unarguable. If you were unaware that CSN needs a drastic change in direction instead of "continuity," then you certainly SHOULD have known. It's your job to know. And you didn't do it.
Stan VerNooy
Just as a member of the reading public over several decades now, I can recall what appears to be a small number of faculty at CCSN has complained and whined about every administration over the last 4 or 5 administrations. What has changed are the administrations and the membership of the board of regents. The complaining continues. That clearly says the problems are with the faculty. The other thing that has my eye is the enormous effort put into hate blogs and hate mail over the last many years. Why does CCSN faculty have this huge amount of time for anarchy and revolution? Why aren't they teaching our students with all this energy? Maybe replacing the small number of faculty that now admits to being at CCSN over these years would settle things down.
Dear "Reading Public"!
Judging from the many articles in the newspaper and the extensive media coverage, there are many people furious and upset over what the Endoscopy Center has done to the trusting public over many years. Everyone is asking why none of the employees exposed the unethical behaviors. FEAR and a LOSS of a job that supports their families comes to mind.
On the other hand, when CSN employees try to point out that the welfare of students and academics are not first and foremost on the minds of their various presidents, they are insulted, chastised and called "complainers" and "whiners"? This reaction shows me that a good education is not valued in Nevada and neither are dedicated instructors who are appalled by what they see happening year after year after year.
By the way, I do admit that some comments on this blog are inappropriate, hateful, and hurtful and do nothing to elevate the position that some other folks are trying to bring forth.
While Stan Vernooy might be a little "wordy", I urge everyone to read his letter several times because he makes some valid points. He discusses (a) the unethical presidential selection process with its associated $50,000+ (?) price tag for the Nevada taxpayers during a state budget crisis and (b) he also talks about the apathy that exists among many dedicated CSN instructors because their pleas to improve the welfare of the students and to increase academic rigor are not heard.
Yoo! Mrs Taxpayer here. I beg to differ with you Outspoken. The point is we are demanding better education for our bucks. All the other higher ed institutions are busy teaching, except CCSN where faculty seems to be busy whining and complaining and are not happy with ANY administration or ANY board of regents and that has been going on over many years. Too many faculty at CCSN have taken the stance that endless bitching is great and forgot that someone is paying the bill. It's time to clean up CCSN by getting rid of the faculty who lost sight of why they are there and get back to educating students. Industry is reducing its labor costs with early outs and reshaping its production thinking to get an agile solution to competition - not a bunch of whiners who want yesterday's old ways back. The same is now needed at CCSN. We need education at less costs - not complainers who forgot the taxpayer it paying for all this theory. Bounce the bitchers!
Yo debray,
Or should I say Mike Richards, your logic is flawed. The mission of CSN is to educate the young adult population of Las Vegas and prepare them to be able to participate fully in the Southern Nevada economy. We educators are committed to executing this mission and are impeded at every step by the administrations incompetancy. Don't shoot the messenger, hear what we say and look into the accusations before you simply dismiss them as "whinning".
You seem to want to shut down opposition and strangle differing views. What's your problem? Can't take a little democracy. Expressing our views a little too close to your comfort zone? Seems like we are getting very close to exposing the evil doings of someone you care about.
If you are so concerned about tax dollars, why haven't you said anything about the thousands waisted by this phony search?
Your final comment "Bounce the B&%$#@" gives you away. That came directly from Mike Richards. I've personally overheard him make similar comments all too freqnently. Lets not "Bounce the B&%$#@", lets bounce the corrupt administration, the Board of Regents and Jim Rogers who have failed to protect the interests of the students of CSN by replacing the crook Richard Carpenter with the Hack Mike Richards!
I couldn't agree more with Rusty. There are other things that gave "debray" away as Mike Richards. Mike Richards does not spend time making CSN a better place and he continues wasting taxpayers' money away. I least appreciate the public threat he puts out.
Nevada public, please watch out! This is your tax dollars at work. A public official threatens to get rid employees with constructive suggestions by accusing them of "whining and complaining". Exact quote, "It's time to clean up CCSN by getting rid of the faculty who lost sight of why they are there and get back to educating students."
How about looking at student evaluation? You can easily tell who is not doing his/her job. The PAST faculty senate chair Alok Pandey and his wife Mahima Pandey, have semester after semester, year after year, consistently received student complaints and extremely poor student evaluation, how come you do nothing about it? Instead, Alok and Mahima Pandey have just received your approval to go on a one-year sabbatical vacation, which in my very conservative estimation, will cost taxpayer at least $100,000. The Pandeys brags to people that they are taking children back to India to live there for a year because American Education is no good. Thanks to the harm they did to the American education to ruin what we work hard for! They are the least qualified to comment on American Education!
Mike Richards, plain and simple. We do our job well and receive excellent student review. The Pandeys fouled up everything they did in classroom (and I wouldn't call his faculty representation a success either). You want to clean house? Do it! Start with those who consistently receive poor student evaluations!
I don't see how the participation in the blog should result in the change of status of a faculty member's employment unless you want to silence the opposition. I see that the student evaluation has EVERYTHING to do with a faculty member's employment if you care about our teaching quality. Mike Richards, if you don't agree with this opinion, you shouldn't be the CSN president, and you shouldn't be in Education. PERIOD.
One very important point that's being brought up by others first and my colleagues and I whole-hearted agree: If the CSN administration has any hint of abuse or harassment to the outspoken Professor Stan VerNooy, Professor Sherry Taz Rosenthal, and any other who exercise their First Amendment Rights freedom by talking in the blog, you have to answer to ALL of us at CSN, in Las Vegas, in Nevada, and in the United States. And guess what? Your blocking the blog has already resulted in a First Amendment Lawsuit in Texas and ban was quickly lifted. Learn from your lesson, do your job, get rid of bad teachers, Mike Richards.
Obviously the administration is hard at work to divert our attention from this main issue, the illegitimacy of the selection of Mike Richards as the next CSN president, by telling the public that "a small group of faculty members" complained about "the last 4 or 5 administrations" therefore, "That clearly says the problems are with the faculty" and their "enormous effort put into hate blogs and hate mail over the last many years".
Here comes the threat from the administration, "Maybe replacing the small number of faculty that now admits to being at CCSN over these years would settle things down".
Let's set the record straight. Did the faculty complain about the last 4, 5 administrations? Not at all. The faculty openly and clearly complain about the Richard Carpenter administration. The blog is NOT EVEN 1 year old! The overwhelming success is from the support of the CSN faculty who finally find an outlet of their pent-up emotions by Richard Carpenter's prohibition of the truth, his shut-down of the everyone@csn.edu, his reinstatement of a student body president who utter the N- word over 30 times, the openly racist comments from Richard Carpenter and cronies in the Christmas parties, their persecution of the outspoken activists like Joan, the exclusion of a diversity center director Debra, the termination of one capable woman's career of Fruth for her telling the truth, etc. etc.
The faculty is complaining about Richard Carpenter administration, and the left-over Mike Richards. For Merry Mike's information, we loved the Remington administration, the one right before the Carpenter administration. So how can you say that we hate 4, 5 administrations? We found it the Regents' huge mistake to get rid of Remington and bring in the loser Carpenter.
The faculty is clear on their dissatisfaction of the Carpenter administration and worries on the lingering Mike Richards. So don't categorize yourself as part of the 4, 5 administrations that people hate. There are no others, but the Richard Carpenter administration, that we hate. Clear now?
Here are some questions for Mike Richards:
1. It is widely recognized by attendees that you completely flunked at the forums on April 23, 2008 while Dr. Glandon and Dr. Spraggs shined. Can you tell us how you felt about your performance on that day?
a. You did well
b. You didn't do well
If the answer is a., how come your recognition of good or bad performances is so different from the public's? Shouldn't it be worrisome to you that you have such a disconnect with reality?
If the answer is b., how come you didn't withdraw like you did with the college you applied in Texas that's in the college system of Richard Carpenter's? When did you withdraw from that one? How come only your application was reported but your withdrawal was never reported? Under what circumstances did you withdraw and why?
Here is our assumption: You knew your performance on April 23, 2008 was BAD (this is to give you credit for a normal person's intelligence). The reason you didn't withdraw was because you were going to get the offer as the Regents previously arranged. The reason you didn't withdraw is because the fix was in. Are we correct?
It also looks to us as if that you had gotten a smear campaign going on Dr. Glandon and Dr. Spraggs that they were the finalists for different colleges (how is it a bad thing by the way?) Can you tell us during this one-year contract in which you promised to not to pursue the CSN president's position, did you get on the finalist's list anywhere in any college in the US? If yes, which ones? If no, what do you think the reason is?
http://www.petitiononline.com/CSNVote/
CSN faculty, staff, students, parents and concerned community residents,
The petition is up! Click the above to sign at the petition site.
This is an opportunity to get our voice heard. This presidential selection process attests to the arrogance and ignorance of Chancellor Jim Rogers and the Nevada Board of Regents. Do the right thing. Don't regret in the future when you are personally impacted. It's a matter of when, not if. Stand up for the truth.