More to the story behind censure

Published 9:00 pm Saturday, December 31, 2005

I have concerns about Melissa Slager’s Dec. 23 article that covered Charlie Earl’s promotion to executive director for the Washington State Board for Community &Technical Colleges.

First, Slager failed to capture the entire story behind Charlie Earl’s censure by the Everett Community College faculty. As indicated by the reporter, a popular administrator had been reassigned, but there were many other concerns. To paraphrase from the June, 2004 letter, 79 percent of the faculty voted to censure Earl for 1) his failure to initiate meaningful communication on matters that affect them prior to making decisions; 2) presiding over excessive and disruptive turnover of senior administrators; 3) creating and maintaining an outdated hierarchical management structure, and 4) for initiating pointless and redundant planning processes that unduly burdened the campus community.

Now, just a year and half after being censured by the EvCC faculty, Charlie Earl has been deemed the best person to oversee the entire state system. Is he ready to do that after only seven years of community college experience at one institution? I guess time will tell.

I also have a concern about the reporter’s contrasting the expertise of an “executive” with that of an “educator.” The idea that hiring an executive rather than an educator to improve college management by “running it like a business” is a myth. There are some lousy business executives out in the world; there are also superb educational administrators who, among other positive qualities, have had significant experience working with students. Hopefully, the college will find one to serve as the next president.

Chad T. Lewis

Everett