February 26, 2001
Dear Members of the GSU Student Senate:
I write to you now not as a fellow senator but as a
student who is bringing a complaint of abuse to the body intended to protect and
serve my best interests as a student and citizen. What follows is a complaint in my capacity as student editor
against the body intended to act responsibly, ethically, and equitably as
publisher to the campus newspaper, the Student Communications Media Board (SCMB),
of which I am not a member. Please consider this list of offenses a formal
request to grieve against the following members (past and present) of the
Governors State University (GSU) SCMB, each of whom has contributed in part or
in whole to rendering the campus newspaper, the INNOVATOR, from being able to
function accordingly and effectively, per that body’s own bylaws, and in
accordance with university, state, and federal regulations, and whom have also
misappropriated student funds and student equipment, in addition to failing to
live up to their responsibilities:
1) Ed Kammer (student member and alleged
chair of the SCMB)
2) Judy Young (student member)
3) Dorothy Ferguson (student member)
4) Claude R. Hill, IV* (former student member)
5) Frances Bradley (civil servant member)
6) Jackie Kilpatrick * (former faculty member)
7) Donald Bell (administrative liaison)
8) Patricia Carter (Dean of Student Affairs and Services)
9) Tommy Dascenzo (Director of Student Life)
10) Todd Rohman (former advisor to “the pond”)
11) Nanette Wargo (former
editor-in-chief of “the pond”)
List of Grievances:
a) The development of
“the pond” not being in accordance with Board of Trustees’ regulations
listed in Article IV, section F;
b) The implementation of
an undocumented policy that students holding existing media editorial
appointments cannot participate as editors on “the pond”;
c) For acting against
its existing bylaws/media policy in its decisions to not recognize the following
positions on the INNOVATOR staff:
Ad Manager
Photography/Art Editor
Layout Person
*It must be addressed that in the past, other
positions have been recognized, through payment, by the SCMB, though they did
not (and at present, do not) appear in the SCMB bylaws or published media award
policy. For example, John Garzman
was awarded $1,000 for service rendered as a copy editor.
d) Diversion of student funds to a medium not officially recognized or authorized to receive funding per Student Fee Board and GSU Student Senate stipulations; (Purchase of computers, software, printing costs, and the payment of an advisor);
e) Failure to hold a
search for a new editor of “the pond,” despite published and posted
materials limiting the term of tenure to that title;
f) Diversion of
student equipment to GSU employees without the sanctioning of the body (or
knowledge of the administration), in violation of university property control
management procedures;
g) Failure to keep and
provide minutes and agendas, per the Open Meetings Act of the General Assembly
of the State of Illinois (1971);
h) Failure to adhere to
policies determining which meetings are permissible to be closed to the public,
per the same act;
i) Failure to hold
elections for a new chair on the SCMB;
j) Failure to act
upon the knowledge that prior constraint (and later prior review) was attempted
on the part of the administration;
k) Failure to take
action against the administrative liaison upon knowledge of student funds being
diverted from SCMB account without prior knowledge or consent of that body (per
admission of its own members), and where adamant disapproval was voiced by the
INNOVATOR over purchase order matters;
l) Failure to
intercede upon the behalf of the INNOVATOR when members of its staff were
publicly attacked by the administration in the form of defamatory published
materials;
m) Failure to previously
assist with the search for an advisor, despite the fact that it was an act
desired by that body;
n) Failure to act (or
even express interest/concern) when the newsroom was broken into a number of
times;
o) Failure to act on
behalf of the INNOVATOR despite concerns raised by the newsstaff about
confidentiality of the press being compromised as a result of inherited
conditions/operations;
p) Failure to ensure
that the advisor was able to libel-proof materials to be published for the
INNOVATOR (necessary to go to press), and in fact, prevention of such by
permitting the computers purchased for the student media use to be in the
administrative liaison’s and a faculty member’s possession;
q) Imposing the creation
of a budget for review prior to authorizing compensation to INNOVATOR staff or
purchases, mandated in excess of six months in advance of when budget proposals
are due to the Student Fee Board;
r) The creation
and submission of an inaccurate/fraudulent budget request of student fees (for
operating purposes) to the Student Fee Board;
s) Failure to be
knowledgeable of the policies which are intended to govern that body, including
the SCMB bylaws, university-published materials, the Board of Trustee
regulations, Roberts’ Rules (parliamentary procedure), and the Open Meetings
Act of Illinois;
t) Failure to act
in compliance with the policies intended to govern that body;
u) Failure to respond to
materials submitted or forwarded for consideration on the part of the INNOVATOR,
such as emails, interoffice memos, and phone calls;
v) Repeated (and
willful) absences and early self-removals from SCMB meetings, prohibiting any
necessary actions from being carried out as a result of quorum not being met;
w) Failure to substantiate
decisions either made or permitted by that body which directly affect the
INNOVATOR and student funds diverted to “the pond”;
x) Failure to
“encourage the development and recognition of qualified student media…to
ensure continuity of and responsible leadership for recognized student media to
review elements of media performance towards maintaining the highest quality of
student media and to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound management.” (pg.
28, Student Handbook 2000);
y) Failure to implement
or carry out research necessary towards the purchase of necessary equipment for
the INNOVATOR;
z) Failure to act when
the student press was locked out of the press room in excess of five weeks;
aa) Forwarded release of order for
publication of “the pond” without fiscal (mandated roll call) approval of
members of the body;
bb) Failure to act upon learning that
federal offenses were being committed against the INNOVATOR in terms of mail
tampering on the part of the administration;
cc) Compensating members of the
INNOVATOR staff well beyond the stipulated due date (per policy) and in
violation of student options selected for reimbursement;
dd)
Knowledge
of wrongdoing and failure to report it to the proper authorities (in the chain
of command);
ee)
Failure
to address the budget issues or release of funds long overdue;
ff)
Failure
to compensate student contributors per the media policy guidelines;
gg)
Implementing
a policy which mandates the press to turn over sensitive and confidential
materials for reproduction, instigated by the administrative liaison;
hh)
Inappropriate
threat of bodily force (police removal) being exercised on the part of the
administrative liaison when
individuals elect to exercise right to speak in opposition to actions of SCMB at
meetings
ii)
Opening
of mailed materials sent to the attention of the INNOVATOR on the part of the
administrative liaison (and possibly acting chair), also to be considered
mail-tampering;
jj)
Attempting
to force executive decisions on the INNOVATOR to which the administration and
SCMB have no clear right, including firing one and renaming another advisor to
the paper;
kk)
Attempting
to grant access to persons who have no identifiable need or right to the student
press office;
ll)
Attempting
to make policies which run counter to the university’s published materials;
mm)
Attempting
to remove the editors prematurely from their one-year tenure (by forcing them to
choose between one commitment, i.e., being on the senate, or the other, i.e.,
the paper); and
nn)
Willful
disavowing of senate affiliation, failure to formally correspond with that body
upon request, and unlawful declaration of autonomy (per the university’s
published materials, for which the school is culpable to honor fully).
In light of these multiple grievances and the material evidence and testimony provided to support their credibility, the INNOVATOR is seeking the following resolution, of which represent the actions which the GSU Student Senate is in a position of authority to execute:
1)
A petition for the immediate and
permanent removal of Donald Bell as administrative liaison to the SCMB;
2) The immediate
and permanent removal of members (past and present) Frances Bradley,
Dorothy Ferguson, Ed Kammer, Judy Young, Claude R. Hill, IV, Jackie Kilpatrick.,
and Todd Rohman; and
3) The appointing of seven entirely new voting individuals to the SCMB, effective immediately. (This would entail a letter being sent to the GSU administration informing it of the change in guard, as well as letters to outed members of their formal removal.)
*University community members who have already expressed (in writing) an interest in working with the INNOVATOR include civil servant Linda McCann (employed as a full-time secretary in the College of Health Professions) and Professor Michael Dimitroff (employed as an instructor in the College of Education). I strongly recommend that these individuals be appointed on at least an interim basis (for the duration of this trimester), in order that the SCMB will not become effectively inactive upon the removal of the present members. The other faculty position would need to be announced, and four new students may then be appointed with senate consent, also possibly on an interim basis (for the duration of this trimester).
In
addition to the testimony which will be offered at the full senate meeting of
February 28, 2001, an effort to provide copies of the following material
evidence for the senate’s review will be made:
1)
A copy of
the Board of Trustees regulation Article IV, F;
2)
A copy of
the SCMB bylaws
3)
A copy of
the university’s media policy
4)
A copy of
the invoice paid out to an editorship not recognized under said policy
5)
Copies of
purchase orders for equipment for “the pond”
6)
A copy of
the published and posted flyer which defined the position of editorships for
“the pond” and the INNOVATOR as being for the space of one year
7)
A copy of
Todd Rohman’s email confessing to possessing a laptop computer purchased with
student money for student use;
8)
A copy of
the Open Meetings Act of Illinois;
9)
A copy of
emails from previous individuals who were denied the privilege of voting for a
closed session per the act in question, also indicating that no elections for
the position of chair were ever held, members simply walked out of meetings,
bodily threat was utilized on the part of Don Bell, fiscal roll calls were not
regularly taken, agendas were not
created, minutes were not taken, and no official paperwork was ever seen as to
the legitimate creation and funding of “the pond” ;
10)
A copy of
the letter written by the printing agency citing the calls made by Dean Carter
to halt the presses, which was provided to Dorothy Ferguson as early as November
2000;
11)
Copies of
the invoices indicating charges made by Don Bell to Follett’s,;
12)
A
copy of a list of charges made by Don Bell for which invoices could not be found
in the SCMB files, which was provided by the (former) store’s manager, Ron
Murray;
13)
A
copy of the publicly posted flyer circulated and penned on the part of Dean
Roger K. Oden against the INNOVATOR and individuals associated with it;
14)
A copy of
the publicly posted flyer circulated and penned on the part of Dr. Stuart I.
Fagan against the INNOVATOR and individuals associated with it;
15)
A copy of
an email circulated to members of the SCMB detailing the matter of selecting a
new advisor;
16)
A copy of
the flyer created by the INNOVATOR towards that end;
17)
A copy of
the budget proposed prematurely by the current INNOVATOR editorship;
18)
A copy of
the fraudulent/inaccurate budget officially submitted by the SCMB last year;
19)
Copies of
emails sent to Don Bell regarding INNOVATOR matters, each of went purposely
unaddressed by him;
20)
The
information (official case number) of the postal inspection requested on the
part of the INNOVATOR to the U.S. Postmaster General;
21)
A copy of
a handwritten message by Don Bell that he intercepted an INNOVATOR fax without
consent due to open access of press correspondence due to failure to purchase
equipment promised two trimesters ago by the SCMB;
22)
Copies of
the students selection for the media policy compensation mode;
23)
A
copy of the letter created by the SCMB for its proposal to compensate the
editors in opposition of said policy;
24)
A copy of
an email mandating the press to turn over all documents to the university for
purposes of reproduction;
25)
A copy of
the letter from Dean Carter sent to the editors’ selected advisor;
26)
A
copy of the SCMB ‘s recent resolution to install another advisor without the
paper’s input or approval;
27)
A copy of
the SCMB’s recent resolution to dole out keys to the pressroom to individuals
with no clear and identifiable need for access to it;
28)
A copy of
the SCMB’s recent resolution to end media stipends effective this trimester,
despite the university’s published materials indicating that said policies
should remain in effect for the duration of the catalogue (et al) period covered
(December 2001);
29)
A copy of
the SCMB’s recent resolution to strip current editors from their positions by
March 1, 2001 if they fail to withdraw from the student senate, despite the fact
that senate bylaws and the editorship awarding were guaranteed for the space of
one full year, not expected to expire until May of 2001; and
30)
A copy of
the email forwarded to the acting chair and administrative liaison by Senator
Steve Barba (per the senate’s
instruction/approval) requesting an explanation of the SCMB’s recently
reported actions and statements, which has gone unanswered to date.
This represents the materials which, minimally, we
hope to be able to present for review and consideration to the members of the
student senate present at the February 28, 2001 meeting.
The cabinet at its meeting of February 21, 2001, decided that an
invitation would be extended to the administrative liaison and the acting SCMB
chair to attend the upcoming full senate meeting, in order to answer to these
allegations and to clarify the position of the SCMB at present regarding its
affiliation with the student senate at GSU.
The cabinet also determined that a formal request would be made on behalf
of the student senate to require the SCMB to submit in writing a response to the
aforementioned issues, which Senator Barba has agreed to pen with the approval
of the executive committee. Additionally,
copies of this missive will be available to each the individuals listed in the
grievance, in order that they might have the opportunity to address the student
senate in their defense: there is nothing secretive about the contents of this
grievance, as the INNOVATOR gave the university’s official grievance
counselor, Dr. Peggy Woodard, full license to make this list of grievances
publicly-known instead of confidential.
The gravity and the urgency of the SCMB situation
being addressed is not inflated. Per
the university’s presently-published policies, the GSU Student Senate is
responsible for appointing all seven voting members of the SCMB.
It should be acknowledged, therefore, as being culpable also for removing
individuals who do not honor the work of the committee or who abuse its mission.
The members of the SCMB are being listed in the lawsuit currently filed
by the INNOVATOR since they are considered agents of the state, according to our
attorney. (Yes, this means they should be served the same as the Board of
Trustees have been.) Although they
are not traditionally compensated monetarily for their roles, they are still in
a position to exercise authority which compromises or violates citizen’s
rights, which is what the lawsuit contends has occurred based on the allegations
listed above.
The GSU Student Senate may also be considered an
agent of the state, and, as such, I have learned from my attorney, could also be
served for litigation purposes since it is also in a position to exercise
authority which could help alleviate or amend the violations for which the
INNOVATOR has filed suit in federal court.
What does this mean to the members of the student senate, perhaps you are
wondering? It means that there is a
very real possibility that the GSU Student Senate could be held culpable for not
taking disciplinary action against the members of the SCMB for its actions once
keenly aware of them, and therefore, named in the lawsuit presently filed by the
INNOVATOR.
The federal judge has granted an extension date of
March 1, 2001 for the INNOVATOR’s attorney to file an amended complaint,
wherein additional defendants will be named in the lawsuit.
I am hopeful that the student senators will see fit to act accordingly by
examining conscientiously the
credibility of these allegations and acting in a manner which will both
exonerate the senate of potential culpability and live up to the promise of
upholding the students’ best interests and the laws of the land which all
senators swore to uphold when taking the oath of office.
It would hurt me greatly to need to add the student senate to the list of
defendants, but at this juncture, it remains, sadly, a very real possibility.
Please read this document carefully and come prepared to the upcoming
meeting to discuss these serious allegations of infractions against students’
rights as both students and citizens of the United States.
Formulate questions for all parties, read this missive closely, and feel
free to contact me if you have any questions; I will do my utmost best to answer
them as thoroughly and clearly as possible.
I look forward to meeting with you all next week, and remain until such
time,
Very sincerely yours,
Margaret L. Hosty, Managing Editor,
GSU INNOVATOR