While University students and faculty may assume they will encounter an environment of professionalism and transparency when dealing with the University, they may be disappointed by what they find.
Such was the situation that began to develop when five international students were recruited to participate in a new fellowship program in the Institute for Policy Research and Innovation, which falls under the Policy, Public Planning and Management Department, starting in the 2004-05 academic year. The lack of transparency seemed to have culminated last week in a $500,000 out-of-court settlement awarded to professor Jean Stockard, former head of PPPM at the University, but the issue remains opaque at best.
The half-million dollar settlement does avoid court proceedings that would have looked into the allegations that Stockard was forced to resign as a result of her concerns that fraud and abuse may have taken place in the IPRI fellowship program; however, such a settlement does not evidence the University’s claim that the call for Stockard’s resignation was not a form of retaliation. In fact, by paying out this sum in order to have legal proceedings stopped and possibly avoid sustained press coverage of the embarrassing mismanagement of the IPRI fellowship, the University is giving the impression that it is not coming clean as to the motivation and circumstances surrounding Stockard’s forced resignation.
The disturbance in the PPPM originates from what should have been a success story. The IPRI instituted an international fellowship program, inspired by programs at University of California at Berkeley and the University of Michigan. This sort of active recruitment and program initiative is exactly the sort of energy that should be displayed by all University departments and affiliates. We should make these opportunities to expand our reputation and collaboration with students, scholars and institutions around the globe.
But what occurred in this particular case has had exactly the opposite effect. A lack of planning and preparation, communication and transparency resulted in the University tarnishing its own reputation as a trustworthy and professional institution. Three of the students from Korea, who were recruited as fellows for this program, arrived at the University expecting to find a ready-made program of studies, advising and support.
Instead, what they found was a do-it-yourself situation in which they were essentially left on their own with limited administrative support. For months the IPRI, PPPM and University, individually and collectively, could not even provide itemized invoices for the students, who needed such documentation to forward to their sponsors back in Korea. The invoices they finally received were unofficial and assessed as much as $20,000 in tuition and general fees. The lack of preparation on the part of the fellowship architects turned an opportunity for positive international networking into a public display of incompetence.
While serving as head of PPPM during that school year, Stockard attempted to rectify the situation and reported her concerns to the Secretary of State Fraud and Abuse Division in May 2005. An investigation ensued, the program was suspended, the students were refunded, but rather than that being the end of it, in December 2005 Stockard was told she would be removed from her position unless she resigned.
The University maintains that this move against Stockard was due to other factors, and in no way connected to her “whistle blowing.” But the size of the cash settlement not only shows just how eager the University is to bury the allegations of mismanagement, but also gives the impression that the University in fact did retaliate against a faculty member who exposed that mismanagement.