Category Archives: EMU President

From annarbor.com comes “Eastern Michigan University President Susan Martin falls short of multiple goals in review.” Here’s a quote from the opening paragraphs:

Tension that surfaced between Eastern Michigan University’s governing board and president last year appears to remain an issue at the Ypsilanti school.
In a fiscal 2011-12 performance review, EMU regents said president Susan Martin fell short of enrollment goals, failed to develop a strategic vision for the school and inconsistently consulted regents prior to making decisions.

“All regents should feel informed and updated on all matters requiring board engagement to their particular level of interest and satisfaction,” the October 19, 2012, review states. “Performance in this regard has been inconsistent. Board input on significant policy direction merits more serious attention.”

The review was obtained by AnnArbor.com through a Freedom of Information Act request. It was signed by former regent Roy Wilbanks and current regents Francine Parker, Mike Morris and Mike Hawks, who asserted that regents were “sometimes not alerted to major issues affecting the campus” and cited Martin’s decision to close satellite campuses without informing regents.

The actual letter annarbor.com got via FOIA is here as a PDF.

I haven’t seen the previous job evaluations so it’s hard to compare, but it’s kind of a lukewarm review, not at all surprising given that Martin’s contract is up in July 2013 and obviously the Board wants to be in a position where they can get rid of Martin if they want to. Though given the positive trends– enrollment is up, fundraising is up, on-campus housing is up, etc., etc.– I’m not sure that they’ll want to get rid of her. Or will be able to easily get rid of her since I think Martin probably has the support of students and faculty, more or less.

Personally, I think Martin has done a pretty decent job overall– I’d probably give her a B+ as a grade– and I think EMU ought to keep things stable and renew her contract. I think there has been a lot more “good” than “bad” in what she’s done or not done.  I do agree with two things that the board says needs improvement:

The review said Martin hadn’t presented a strategic plan for the school, which she was supposed to have completed by June 2009. “This goal remains unmet,” the review states. “This should remain an area of focus for you and the institution as a whole.”

The regents wanted Martin to evaluate services provided to students and staff, such as the ombudsman and human services offices, but said in the review that Martin failed to complete those tasks. Regents also told Martin she did not properly handle layoffs and payroll issues.

I’m not a big fan of elaborate strategic plans, but I would agree there perhaps ought to be at least some plan, and I think a review of the ombudsman function in particular ought to be revisited.

So, rehire Martin or a new presidential search in 2013?

Just when you thought it was done, annarbor.com has another Martin drinking (or not) scandal, “Roy Wilbanks: EMU ‘Regents had to protect’ university with Susan Martin letter.”  This one has a few interesting additions, bits of information, and interviews.  Some highlights (for me, at least):

Wilbanks declined an interview request, after offering a short, prepared statement last that concluded, “We will continue to move forward. And to that end, the chair is supportive of the president.”

However, in the emails obtained this week by AnnArbor.comthrough a Freedom of Information Act request, Wilbanks offered a little more insight. He wrote to EMU alumnus Len Capelli that if the EMU community “can stick together” the university “will get through this difficult time.”

Capelli emailed Wilbanks July 12 to express displeasure in the information being leaked to the media about the incident. The posting of the information on the EMU website followed a FOIA request by the Detroit Free Press.

“The Board of Regents has prided itself on transparency, and yet who leaked the information to the press has not been discussed,” Capelli wrote. “… Why was it released now, what good could this expose possibly do for the university?”

Wilbanks responded to Capelli and said he has “no idea who the source is.”

BTW, based on a quick google search, I think Capelli is another D.C. alum, so maybe he has a different take on the “drunken” (or not) “argument” (or whatever it was).  Then there’s this:

In response to emails from AnnArbor.com, Wilbanks said all regents knew the letter would be going into Martin’s file; and he would not disclose information on “prior incidents” mentioned in the letter or the time frame during which a conversation about so-called prior incidents took place.

Once again, mum on these “prior incidents,” and once again, I am left wondering what he’s talking about.  And again let me ask:  can anyone actually recall something that happened at some kind of event that raised some eyebrows?  Remember, you can post here anonymously….

Also our own Eric Brown is quoted at some length:

Alumnus and former president of the EMU Alumni Association Board of Directors Eric Brownwas part of the 2008 search committee that subsequently chose Martin to be president.

Brown said he was not notified of the president’s 2005 drunken driving arrest at Grand Valley State University.

“One of the things she stated in the initial release of emails is she spoke about transparency, but if that’s the case, she would have disclosed all of that during the interview session,” Brown said, referring to the 2005 arrest.

Brown said if he had known about Martin’s arrest, he would not have supported her selection.

He’s also concerned that the two presidents before Martin left their positions following controversy. Martin replaced John Fallon, who was fired in 2007 for assisting in the cover-up of student Laura Dickinson’s murder on the Ypsilanti campus.

“It’s embarrassing that we have another situation bringing a black mark to the university,” he said.

I actually agree with this:  what I mean is if I had been on that search committee and only found out four years later about that drunk driving conviction, I’d be pretty pissed off too.  I think the board, the head-hunting service, and whoever else knew about this when Martin was being interviewed in the first place should have disclosed this, just as they should have disclosed all potentially relevant information about all of the candidates.  Now, it’s far too hypothetical for me to even guess if that means we would have hired one of the other candidates had we known about this, but I definitely see Brown’s point.

As for “another president bringing controversy:”  that seems par for the course for most university presidents nowadays, I’m afraid.  I don’t know what the average is nowadays, but it sure seems like the tradition a generation or so ago where you’d have someone be president for decades is long gone.  Most seem to last about 5 years, and they either move on to another job or they leave or get fired as a result of some kind of disgrace, manufactured or otherwise.

The article also quotes several EMU folks who say mostly positive things about Martin.  I agree a lot with Decky Alexander, who said:

…she finds the situation “strange.” She credits Martin for increased campus safety, infrastructure changes and renovations.

“She’s done several things to create a good team here,” Alexander said. “There is a lot to be said. She’s about the university. Find me somebody that doesn’t believe that. If you were here five years ago, it was totally different.”

A strange situation indeed.

Annarbor.com has an editorial that I assume is kind of a “wrap-up” to the angry and/or drunken presidential scandal, “Susan Martin and EMU’s Regents:  Questions remain about future relationship.”I largely agree with their summation, too.

I think Martin did do the right thing in agreeing to counseling and donating money to drinking awareness on campus.  That’s a no-brainer:  if she doesn’t have a drinking problem, counseling will amount to an educational opportunity and a good show.  Of course, maybe she’ll go to counseling and say “hey, maybe I do have a drinking problem” and that will help change her ways which will be good for her as a person and good for her as president of EMU.  But as I have said repeatedly here, I for one don’t know if Martin does or doesn’t have a problem.

I’ve heard rumors and there have been several comments over the last few days that imply previous drunken incidents since she’s been president.  But what I haven’t read here or anywhere else is actual examples of these incidents, and given the attention this has received in the local and even national press in the last week, you’d think that someone would step forward and offer some detail of some other incident of an argument or misbehavior or something.  There was that report of Martin somehow locking her keys in the trunk with that drunk driving arrest, but that was 2005 and before she was president.  Where is the other troubling Homer Simpson drunk dance moment?

So what else has she done since then that is worrying the Board?  After all, as this annarbor.com editorial points out, “The letter of reprimand seems like a surprising and aggressive step from the recents, who have supported Martin in her official evaluations.”  What’s changed and changed (apparently) so rapidly?

If the worry is over “undisclosed incidents” that the Board is unable or unwilling to disclose, then I think a lot of us are going to continue to be suspicious of the Board’s motives.  If these undisclosed incident(s) are serious and the Board doesn’t want to talk about them because they’re embarrassing or there are legal issues or whatever, then it’s a cover-up, and as we all know at EMU, that’s never a good thing.  But if these undisclosed incident(s) are as trivial as the disclosed one– that is an argument with an alum about a stupid Huron statue– then it’s a frame-up job by the board in an effort to set up to fire Martin for some reason, or at least not renew her contract.