Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:30:42 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Here is one paragraph from the boilerplate email I received four minutes
after sending my email to the president, regarding Barb's point:
With another year of flat funding for the university and an increasing
realization that university resources must be aligned with strategic
priorities, we made the difficult decision to discontinue our subsidy to the
press beginning in the 2013 fiscal year. Out of respect for notifying the
remaining ten employees at the press, this decision was not discussed
publicly in advance, but please know it was vetted by system and campus
administration, including vice presidents, chancellors, provosts and
curators.
His "respect" for the remaining ten employees, down from 20+ in a previous
cost-cutting move, included not conferring with them at all, never meeting
them, never visiting their offices, and certainly not telling them the axe
was about to fall. In the last paragraph of his "letter," he calls shutting
down the press "phasing out our current model." Woe to the university who
hires a businessman as president!
John Bird
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Save the University of Missouri Press--Facebook page and
Petition
Why are we not hearing how the University Board of Curators weighed in on
this decision? Doesn't the President of the University answer to them? I
would think this decision was made at a higher level than the President's
office. He is taking the heat but what role did the governing body play in
this decision?
Barb
|
|
|