<p>That guy’s resignation is very consequential.</p>
<p>Kind of like a guy who dumps his wife to move in with younger/richer/hotter girlfriend, but doesn’t immediately file for divorce because you never know. Then when the guy files the divorce papers much later, he blames it on the wife due to something the wife did after he had already dumped her. </p>
<p>No, because accepting a job at a university doesn’t require a bond of fidelity, severable only at death.</p>
<p>No, because it is actually in the best interests of the <em>institution</em> to offer this kind of leave of absence in the hopes of retaining valued faculty-- whether it is requested by the person in question or not. I know of many cases where this strategy has worked.</p>
<p>And no, because accepting a new job doesn’t ordinarily require that you heap “blame” upon the old one. (No “cause” is required for an employee to be allowed to leave his or her job). What makes this particular case distinctive is that there is cause, and (if Macara was offered and refused a leave as a bid at retention) he is willing to accept the consequences of saying so. Your analogy suggests you think that employees have a moral obligation not to accept another offer of employment that suits them and their needs better. Do you?</p>
<p>One suspected that the Board of Visitors didn’t lock themselves up until 2 am patting each other on the back and expressing their unanimous agreement, or even listening to only one or two members complain. Apparently the Board was evenly split on reinstating Sullivan (and apparently Sullivan would pretty clearly not have been fired had the Board actually met about it, which is why it’s important to hold the meetings).</p>
<p>Zeithaml seems to be saying the right things; I apologize for impugning his character on Tuesday. I do think that, given the circumstances, he probably could have set Dragas’ resignation as a condition to accepting the interim appointment. Had the top candidates all done that, she wouldn’t have had a choice to stay on.</p>
<p>Interesting point JHS regarding the condition of Dragas’s resignation to take the position. I do agree on your other points as well. Clearly it was not a united front, ever. </p>
<p>I do wonder, if the reports are to be believed, that President Sullivan would come back if Dragas resigns…is this contingent on an actual resignation, or would not being reappointed be enough? Either way she’s off the BOV, but I wonder if the resignation is key to Sullivan?</p>
<p>Basically, the headline says the ouster of Sullivan was justified but gives really very little, if any real substance behind his reason in the article. In the world of public relations it is very much like what attorneys will do before a trial. Find someone willing to write what they can to prove your side was right and put it out there to create uncertainty in the minds of those that read it. </p>
<p>The problem in this case is that the constituents are educated individuals that can actually think for themselves. This article is a perfect placement to allow Dragas to save face. It justifies her actions. So it begins. Be prepared to have several more of these on the horizon. They are not paying the NYC PR firm for nothing.</p>
<p>This entire situation is very weird. If half the board wanted to reinstate Sullivan, was a majority of the board every really interested in letting her go in the first place? Or, was the vote based solely upon a quorum of 3? </p>
<p>I can’t see McDonnel giving Dragas another term. With her gone the board will search for a new president and decide that Sullivan is the best person for the job. </p>
<p>If Sullivan does come back I hope she directly addresses her vision for the university with some assurance that the vision is financially feasible.</p>
<p>BOV will have a special meeting on Tuesday at 3 p.m.; local television reporting they have the votes to reinstate Sullivan. Whether that is true or not, only time will tell. Technically the meeting is to discuss changes to her terms of employment.</p>
<p>Anyone familiar with the Darius Rucker “Come Back” song?</p>
<p>"I know I said I wouldn’t miss you
But now I’m saying I’m a fool
You’re on the feel-good side of leaving
And I’m the backside of a mule’</p>
<p>'Cause I didn’t know I needed you so
And letting you go was wrong
And baby, I know you got your radio on
So this is my “so sad, come back” song"</p>
<p>Would love to have that playing in the background Tuesday!</p>
<p>Na na na na na na na… Helen Dragas and Co.:)</p>
<p>This paper definitely has an agenda (usually scandal mongering), but this story pulls together links to the rapidly occurring events in C’ville. </p>
<p>The letter from the Deans is especially well-crafted to ease a reversal by the Board.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the board was able to get enough members to make there be a vote on june 27th for having president sullivan back? I think it was due at around 5 today or something</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken, I read in one of the dozens of previous articles in the last several days, they had eight votes Monday night. With 16 members at the time it was not a majority.</p>
<p>Although my ties to UVA are not as strong as those of many who have posted here, I have a daughter at the Law School, and we have been dismayed and disgusted by what’s happened in the past two weeks. We keep thinking WWJeffersonD? The actions of the BOV are so at odds with what we thought UVA was and stood for. Even if Sullivan is reinstated and Dragas resigns, the damage will be considerable.</p>
<p>I also keep thinking of the opportunity Governor McDonnell missed to show true leadership and political courage. I already hated the guy, but a real leader shows what he/she is made of in times of crisis, and doesn’t hide behind a thin veil of excuses. Shame on him - I hope the damage to his career is considerable, as well.</p>
<p>The best part of the Dragas statement is one of the comments on the Cavalier Daily page. Apparently someone got access to the metadata on Dragas’ statement, which said that it had been written by John Ullyot (a senior vice president at Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm, and significant Republican fundraiser).</p>
<p>The statement winds up being a much more severe indictment of the Board of Visitors’ failure to have any systematic long-range planning process than of the new president who was clearly trying to address all of those issues AND to put a systematic planning process in place. Apart from Dragas’ bug about other elite colleges’ online courses, there isn’t so much different in this statement than what was in Sullivan’s May memo to the Board. The bottom line seems to be that Dragas didn’t like Sullivan, period, and has been scheming to get rid of her for months without regard to any specific dispute.</p>