Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Unholy Alliance?

Rumors circulated today that current JALC Board member Don Brewer has threatened to gut (or eviserate, depending on the version you heard) the Athletics Department, after the coming Board election.  The threat is assumed to be related to perceived friendships between athletic department personnel and Board candidate Mike Vanhorn.  Mr. Vanhorn has made it his mission, in the campaign, to needle Mr. Brewer and Board candidate Bill Kilquist. 

Given Vanhorn's reported relationship to the athletic department, it's interesting to note the rumored threat from Brewer comes on the heels of Mr. Kilquist's comments regarding cutting the athletic department budget.   At the February 19 candidate forum, candidates were asked their thoughts on what cuts, if any, needed to be made.  Kilquist's first slice would be from the athletic department.  He and Brewer seem to be rowing the same direction. 

Monday, February 25, 2013

Unanswered question Number One

Listening to audio of last Tuesday night's candidate forum, it becomes obvious that some questions were not answered.  Candidate Mike Vanhorn raised the question, 'Why was Bill Kilquist present at the Board session, even if he didn't vote, when his candidacy for Director of Security was discussed?'

OK, there it is.  Maybe this is a multi-part question:

  • What are the names of those who were present, at the Board meeting, when Bill Kilquist's hire as Director of Security was discussed?
  • What exactly was discussed at that meeting?
  • If Mr. Kilquist was present, why was he allowed to be?  Whose decision was it to allow him to remain?
  • Was this discussed in executive session? 
  • If so, why, if the candidate was present?
  • Was the Open Meetings Act adhered to? 
  • Were other candidates discussed at this session?
  • Was there a predetermined candidate, and if so, did this violate Logan hiring practices?

Again, why was he present?  Two years later, this is still being asked in the halls of Logan, out in the district and now in the election. 

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Nepotism is the Issue in John A Logan College race

Following the candidate forum, earlier in the week, nepotism is clearly the issue in the election for two seats on the John A. Logan College Board of Trustees.  After candidate Mike Vanhorn specifically, and repeatedly, brought the issue up, especially citing board member Don Brewer and his son, who is the Director of Human Resources, candidate Russell Williams has come out saying the BOT needs to stop involving itself in staff hires. 

Williams was quoted in today's Southern Illinoisan as saying, "“This is poor board governance, being involved in the hiring process for all employees at Logan....  This leads to appearances and accusations of nepotism and it’s time that this stops at JALC."

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

John A Logan Board forum

That was entertaining.  The seven candidates for the JALC Board of Trustees participated in a forum sponsored by the JALC Political Science club (kudos to Dr. Jane Bryant and the club!).  The format had the club moderators reading student prepared questions and a few from the audience.  Each candidate answered the same question, addressing the audience, not each other. 

All but Graff and Snider muffed the first question, regarding performance based funding.  The rest had no idea what the term means but used up their time making sentences with the word "performance" in them.

Early on, Vanhorn came out swinging.  He was upfront that his entire campaign is based on his opposition to the perceived nepotism and cronyism allegedly practiced by the Board.  He named names.  O'Keefe's son has a job.  Don Brewer's son Clay is the director of personnel and received hefty raises.  Bill Killquist was on the Board previously, sat in the executive session while his own hiring as director of security was discussed.  Why was he in the room, even if he didn't vote?  Vanhorn wanted to know. 

All the candidates seemed to be at pains to say the Board should take a less active role in the day to day running of the college, except Kilquist.  When they were asked, point blank, if they would renew the contract of new President Michael Drieth, all but two were effusive in their praise and adamant they would keep him.  Hamilton and Kilquist ran out the clock with their answer and avoided saying they would.  Hamilton actually ended fairly upfront that he thought the jury is still out. 

When asked what recent act of the Board they had the strongest reaction to, Vanhorn took Kilquist out for a spin regarding his hiring.  Kilquist objected to tuition increases.  Snider was proud and fairly eloquent regarding the purchase of a new computer system, the fact that they consciously voted the tuition increase to pay for it and eliminated some fees to balance out the tuition increase.  Williams cluelessly chimed in about how he thought that the new Desire to Learn software was great.  Problem was that Snider was talking about the new student information system.  Nobody called Williams out on it though. 

When the candidates were asked what to cut, it brought the strongest (and most diametrically opposed) answers from Vanhorn and Kilquist.  Kilquist wanted to cut athletics, specifially scholarships to out of district students.  Vanhorn expressed his undying love for Logan athletics proclaiming that Logan's feats, reported on the sports page of the local paper, were the best publicity for the school.  "It's not like you're going to see anything about the English department!"  Laughter from the crowd. 

As the night wore on, Kilquist went on a long rambling rant about unprepared young people applying for jobs he held in his hand in his various incarnations.  This was apparently a riff on another candidate's comment that the community college helps people prepare for career searches as well as teaching subject matter.  Hamilton managed to treat the audience like chumps when, attempting to defend the Board members with children employed by Logan, he said he knew Kilquist's son, who was a hard working bright young man.  The problem became evident later when O'Keefe, trying to defend himself and his actual son, had to point out that Hamilton must have confused his son for someone Hamilton thought was Kilquist's.  Apparently Hamilton didn't know him so well after all. 

In a rather jaw dropping admission, Vanhorn said he had applied for a coaching job, in the early '00s and, through political shenanigans, didn't get it.  He said he had forgiven but not forgotten.  Clearly not the latter.

So, reactions after two hours and no supper? 

Hamilton:  Started out reasonable but, rather than growing on one as the night went on, had the opposite effect. 

O'Keefe:   A non-factor all night.  Very quiet and kept his head down except to defend against helping his son once he was hired.  He didn't speak to how the son got hired.

Vanhorn:  Kind of the crazy uncle.  A loose cannon but hit his target each time.  He was on a mission and succeeded in introducing specific, as well as general, charges of nepotism.

Graff:  Came off as reasonable and informed. 

Snider:  Also came off as reasonable and informed.

Williams:  Pleasant, reasonable and uninformed.  Clearly winging it a couple times.

Kilquist:  Came off as a curmudgeon.  For all his talk of wanting to protect students from tuition hikes, he didn't seem to like young people much.  He repeatedly returned to his theme of job losses in southern Illinois, enumerating closings that weren't even in the John A Logan community college district.