Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

1.

Former Chairperson Lori Van Dusen appointed a Presidential Search Committee without consulting the

Board of Trustees. That action on Ms. Van Dusen's part breaches the guidelines for Presidential searches

for community colleges, established by the State University of New York (University) Board of Trustees

which states: "As soon as is practical after a presidential vacancy occurs, the college Board of Trustees

should appoint a committee..." That did not happen in this case.

1. The bylaws of the MCC Board of Trustees provide for appointment of


committees by the chairperson, as Mr. Parrinello knows from his tenure as chair.
The board had many months prior to this to make any concerns known.

2. At the time of Ms. Van Dusen's resignation as Chairperson, because she disagreed with the consensus of

the Board of Trustees of MCC as to who should be the Chairperson, Ms. Van Dusen threatened that she

was going to "go public" and left the meeting.

2. Ms. Van Dusen, as I’m sure Mr. Parrinello knows, has not “gone public.”
However, were she to do so at some future date, how would that invalidate the
process? What is it that Mr. Parrinello is afraid the public might find out? As for
going public, these two quotes suggest that it is Mr. Parrinello who is attempting
to thwart the process by “going public:” Compare “Van Dusen has declined to
comment on her resignation as chairwoman,” with “Rochester criminal defense
lawyer Parrinello wrote to Guon late Friday, copying most Rochester-area
news organizations,” (emphasis mine.)

3. Ms. Van Dusen, while still Chairperson, selected a head hunter without the knowledge and consent of the

full Board of Trustees. The head hunter was paid an unknown sum of money. I question whether the proper

approvals were retained regarding his contract.

3. Not knowing the board’s procedures, I have no comment on this alleged


“reason,” other than to say it would be a shame at this point to waste the money
already spent by ignoring the “head hunter’s” advice.
4. When I requested to be placed on the so-called Search Committee appointed by Ms. Van Dusen, Ms. Van

Dusen polled the Board, and I believe that I was the person that got the most recommendations, but Ms.

Van Dusen told me that she would never appoint me to the so-called Search Committee, despite my ten (10)

years of service as a Board Member and Board Chair for six (6) of those years.

4. Given the divisiveness for which Mr. Parrinello has been responsible, it would
seem that Ms. Van Dusen acted quite wisely.

5. There were no ads placed locally for candidates for the MCC Presidential Search until members of the

Board complained.

5. If local people were actively looking for such a position, they should be
watching national EDUCATIONAL publications. If they are not, I suggest that this
is prima facie evidence of a lack of knowledge of and commitment to higher
education in general and MCC in particular.

6.) The guidelines for Presidential searches for community colleges established by the State University of

New York (University) Board of Trustees states: Confidentiality is most important, and anyone agreeing to

serve on a search committee must respect this principle."

6. Excuse me? You are listing the requirement for confidentiality as a reason to
call off the search?

7. Before most Board Members knew the name of the finalists recommended by the so-called Search

Committee and the Faculty Search Committee, the names and profiles of the two (2) finalists appeared in

the Rochester Business Journal, followed by the Democrat & Chronicle.

7. Rochester news outlets have clearly found this story to be of interest to their
readers. The members of the search committees with whom I have spoken have
been so careful as to not even confirm the number of candidates, let alone
names. Clearly someone on one of the search committees or the board issued
at least a confirmation to the press. I fail to see any way in which that invalidates
the process. Given that Mr. Parrinello feels that this somehow invalidates the
process, and he so clearly want to derail the process, perhaps it is he who
released the names.

8. At the Board of Trustees meeting on March 24, 2008 the heads of the two committees announced the

names of the finalists, which coincidentally, were the same from each committee, although, each Committee

assured the Board that there was no collusion. The Board was told that not all Search Committee Members

attended every meeting. We need attendance lists to determine if each Committee Member was eligible to

vote.

8. Given the qualifications of the two candidates put forth by the search
committees, it seems no coincidence that they selected the same names.

9. During the March 24, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting, approximately 39 speakers were allowed to

present their views the Board. Each speaker spoke uninterruptedly.

9. Excuse me again, Mr. Parrinello. In what way did having 28 speakers at the
meeting invalidate the procedure?

10. At the March 24, 2008 meeting, attended by approximately 300 people, mainly faculty members, tenured

and untenured, cheered for those Members of the Board who voted not to add any additional names to the

two finalists recommended by the Search Committee.

10. Mr. Parrinello, are you suggesting that freedom of speech is dead at MCC?
Are you suggesting that freedom of speech would somehow invalidate the
process?

11. When it came time for those Members of the Board who favored adding the names of two local

applicants which was within the process agreed upon by the Board, the 300 attendees booed and jeered

those Trustees.

11. No one booed or jeered until after Mr. Parrinello personally attacked both
chairs of the search committees, and set a terribly negative tone to the meeting.
Again, the booing which occurred was no more or less than free speech. Did it
somehow change the vote of the board? In what way did it invalidate the
process? The answer is that it did not invalidate the process.

12. As I spoke during the discussion period following an amended motion to add the names of two local

applicants, I was greeted with disrespectful outbursts from those in the audience and one tenured professor

actually stated "John Parrinello, you are single-handedly responsible for destroying MCC". That comment

was slanderous, disrespectful and hurtful in view of the fact that I have only one vote and had assured the

crowd that no one had told me who to vote for and that I was reserving my vote until we had interviewed all

four finalists.

12. Again, the meeting started with Mr. Parinello’s attacking the chairs of the
search committees. As no one else on the board engaged in such attacks, the
‘single-handed” part seems fitting. Given tone and direction of the meeting,
especially Mr. Parinello’s direct attack on the professor in question, the statement
“destroying MCC” did not feel like hyperbole. Once again I need to refer back to
freedom of speech.

13. Faculty members of MCC have repeatedly made public announcements that it was their intent to take a

vote of no confidence in the Board of Trustees if anyone other than one of the two finalists recommended by

the Search Committee was selected as President.

13. In what way is this an argument that the process is tainted? Mr. Parrinello
contends that there are threats of a confidence vote, yet the board voted to add
Mr. Smith and Mr. Kessler’s names despite the fact that it was clearly against the
faculty’s wishes. 28 people spoke against adding the names, and yet the board
added two names. Clearly these alleged “threats” did not influence the board.
Despite the board’s decision, there have been no votes of no confidence. This
assertion is clearly irrelevant.

14. One faculty member wrote "The board's allegiance seems to have shifted towards the interest of

constituencies external to the college. It is demoralizing to have a small board in which student success has
become secondary to other goals." That written statement flies in the face of the dedication of the Members

of MCC's Board of Trustees who have served with distinction for many years.

14. There is a procedure for selecting a president specified by SUNY. Until the
board added candidates that had twice been found lacking by their own search
committee, there was no reason to criticize the board. Still, if the board has
“served with distinction for many years.” then an expression of concern should in
no way affect the search process. There is no substance to this complaint.

15. The Faculty Senate wrote a letter to you in which they stated at one point: "Some people have

questioned the commitment of Board members to place the College's interests above their own individual

pursuits." There is absolutely no basis for the Faculty Senate to make that statement.

15. The exact same answer as number 14 applies to number 15. There is no
substance to this complaint.

16. I have been told by a highly placed source at MCC that he/she was told by SUNY that if William A.

Smith, one of the finalists, is chosen as President, that when his name is submitted to SUNY for approval,

that Mr. Smith will be "DOA". I cannot and do not believe that the SUNY Board of Trustees will reject

whomever's name is forwarded to them as the MCC's Board of Trustees choice as President in view of the

fact that the process has been followed.

16. I agree. We do not believe that the SUNY Board of Trustees would reject a
candidate without cause. If the process has been followed, certainly the SUNY
Board of Trustees will take appropriate action. I find myself in accord with Mr.
Parrinello on this. Given that Mr. Parrinello says that “I cannot and do not believe
that the SUNY Board of Trustees will reject whomever’s name is forwarded” then
clearly we’re in agreement that the process need not be stopped for this.

17. I have also been told that a highly placed person from MCC has met with one of the finalists

recommended by the Search Committee for two hours and discussed matters concerning his application.
17. If substantiated, in what way would such a discussion invalidate the process?
MCC faculty and administration are proud of their institution, willing to share their
reasons for being proud and they are accessible to all. The president’s e-mail
address is prominent on the college and county web sites. Others are just as
accessible and open as he. This is the 17th “non-reason” to cut short the process
begun last year and on which so many people from all the MCC
constituencies have invested so much time.