Flanagan payout: questions answered


Jake Johnson / Photographer:  Tomi Mick, Elke Vansteen, Heather Withers and Victoria Gardner protest Flanagan’s payout on the Quad.

Jake Johnson / Photographer:
Tomi Mick, Elke Vansteen, Heather Withers and Victoria Gardner protest Flanagan’s payout on the Quad.

Rumors and questions have flooded campus since the sudden resignation of Timothy Flanagan on March 22, when he stepped down from President of Illinois State University and was paid $480,000.

When the Board of Trustees (BOT) announced their decision of the payout, students and staff questioned the ability of the university to afford this amount of money. However, Jay D. Bergman, BOT member, said it was the best decision for the university.

“It was a lot of money, but it was the best of the bad alternatives the board had,” Bergman said.

The BOT faced two options, both of which resulted in paying Flanagan a large sum of money.

The first option involved firing Flanagan, in which he would inevitably file for cause against the university with the likelihood of winning, he said. In the case of Flanagan’s victory, the university would be forced to pay him up to $1 million. If the BOT did win against Flanagan, which was unlikely, it would still cost the university a few hundred thousand dollars, Bergman said.

The second option was to make a compromise with Flanagan, which is essentially what the BOT decided to do. The compromise stated that if Flanagan resigned, the BOT would pay him the rest of this year’s salary of $130,000, plus his entire next year’s salary, which would have been $350,000, totaling the $480,000 Flanagan received.

However, the reason for Flanagan’s requested resignation is still unknown.

“The agreement we had with Dr. Flanagan says we won’t disclose that information. We can only put out a press release,” Bergman said.

Students have been seeking justice since this announcement, by protesting on the Quad and asking others to sign their petition. They believe the money that was paid to Flanagan should go to the students instead.

“I would certainly rather see the students have the money, I’m on their side,” Bergman said. “Nobody on the Board was crazy about it either, but it was the best thing we could do.”

Flanagan has permission to reside in the presidential residence until May, in which he will have to move out so newly appointed President Larry Dietz can move in.

“We wish Dr. Flanagan well,” Bergman said. “He’s not a bad guy, it just was not a good fit for ISU.”

5 Responses

  1. Emily Smith

    I’m confused. Why does it say the author is Holly Petrovich, but it’s just a bunch of Jay D. Bergman quotes? I have a new slogan for The Vidette…. Fair and Balanced!

  2. Timothy Como

    This sounds like the ISU administration has been reading the Obama’s administration book on politics, whatever happened to being transparent? If this ISU president was charged with a misconduct, then he should be terminated, no questions asked! The only reason he should receive any compensation is the board didn’t have a very sound contract when they hired this Bozo……
    Class of 1980

  3. Bob Ritter

    It will be interesting to hear what this is all about. I have a hard time believing a person of the stature such as Dr. Flanagan, who would have been vetted by the board and would not have a track record of past behavior, would be have in the manor described. Maybe I am living in a different world, but human behavior usually improves with position.

    It is very easy when it is “she said, he said” with no others to see what is going on to make accusations that could be unfounded. Let all of those that have not raised their voice in anger step forward first. Something does not pass the smell test on this one, however; if the University believes he has done wrong, we should let the whole thing take it’s natural course and your either have a President or not. Either way, you are not using student or alumni money for something you are not getting of value.

  4. StudentsWithoutAmnesia

    As I predicted a couple weeks before Timothy Flanagan’s day in court, Jason Chambers did not recuse himself. A cursory, even amateur investigation will reveal that all Chambers neve intended not intends to recuse himself, and the scheduling conflict applying to an alternate special prosecutor, who was allegedly caught up in litigating another matter, is an excuse applicable to any special prosecutor, DA or ADA in a recusal-qualifying capacity.

    Also, thoughts are kindhearted and respectable, to the fullest standard of class. Please know my words do not mean to debunk the fitness of what you are trying to express. “I just wanted to say it was a nice day,” “Mr. Dietz is a great person who truly wants to heal wounds,” and, “he is committed to genuinely concerted efforts to bridge gaps he is not even responsible for making” are not badly interpreted.

    This event was a damage control placebo college administrations to gauge the most current severity level of news. The university did not expect the Flanagan “abridged story” to blow up like it did.

    Also I can guarantee that the article above is a strategy model that goes by the university administration and a private risk management firm.

    One of the contemptuous items that threatens accreditation is for public colleges and universities is hiring private risk management firms to advise private attorneys and firms, hired by the taxpayer. These private domains do not have to legally disclose anything, and usually refuse to do so. Disclosure in higher public education has now surpassed religious entities as the most guarded public organization as far as disclosing information.

    Don’t ever be fooled by the human resources director, deans, provost, Vice Presidents, private attorneys, president and/or board of trustees’ underestimation of public intelligence that comes in the form of the following words, “Its a personnel matter; therefore we cannot go into further detail.”

    1) Measure media outcry prior to resignation and payout with internal alpha reliable socially scientific internal criteria (internal criteria is likely to be characterized as private due to the personnel matter justification, thus no publicity is made)

    2) Measure media outcry after resignation and payout with internal alpha reliable socially scientific internal criteria.

    3) Measure media outcry after the resignation and payout with internal alpha reliable socially scientific internal criteria after the close of the current semester.

    4) Because the protesting students and public outcry inevitably dies down with the end of the semester, the university begins reporting affirmative image inducing media, like free lunch with new presidents.

    5) Using internal alpha reliable criteria, continued inevitable improvement in public perception of the university is made public. The university does not explain what suddenly made the publicity of interpretation of private internal criteria legally permitted due to previous claim “its a personnel matter” to support improved image development of the school.

    6) The baseline of improvement ends with a period of quiet until a follow-up summer self-assessment shows more improvement. Tho is followed by affirmative publicity of faculty research endeavors and administrative funding efforts.

    7) Junior faculty who spoke up against any administrative decision begins to receive the early signs of academic mobbing, such as the “Vaden-Goad Mode”. This is where an administrator initiates academic mobbing by holding a meeting with all faculty in the department of the outspoken junior faculty member, except the junior faculty member. In the “Vaden-Goad Mode”, a non-union sanctioned petition of signatures of the target’s colleagues are collected to initiate cause for disciplinary action with an increased level of retaliation when the target resists.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *