Advertisement

‘Flashmob for Flanagan’ floods Quad

4

On Thursday, students gathered collectively at Schroeder Plaza with signs and protest demanding answers about the departure of former president Tim Flanagan.

The demonstration began at 12:15 p.m. The flashmob was created by a group of approximately 40 students who take a social movement class together. At the event, an estimated 100 to 200 people showed up to voice their opinion.

The main reasoning behind the flashmob was to continue raising awareness about the issues surrounding Flanagan’s situation, the termination of Patrick Murphy and the role of the Board of Trustees (BOT), Mallie Feltner, senior political science major and one of the organizers of the flashmob, said.

“We want students to see that we have a voice and can make a difference by standing up for what’s right instead of idly sitting by while the administration make decisions that negatively affect us,” Feltner said.

Quoting a previous Vidette article, Flanagan received the money by making a compromise with the BOT. It would pay him the rest of this year’s salary and his next years’ salary which equated to the lesser of two evils.

But, the students’ outcry on Thursday was more than simply the payout to Flanagan.

The flashmob would like accountability from the BOT in the form of a formal apology. They would like a presidential contract protecting ISU in the future which wouldn’t be at the expense of students and taxpayers, Feltner said.  A total of 1,300 signatures have been collected in favor of this stance.

Last mont, President Larry Dietz signed a similar worded presidential contract to the one Flanagan signed.

“We want students to be educated on subjects and speak their mind, so from that perspective I applaud it,” Jay Groves, chief of staff, said. “Illinois State is part of the American Democracy Project, so I think it’s important when students get educated on issues get passionate about them and state their passion.”

Groves continued by stating he would answer any questions regarding this situation and has reached out to any group of students wishing to know more about the topic.

Groves can be contacted at jrgrove@ilstu.edu or 309-438-5677.

4 Responses

  1. Ryan Finn

    Check out our group on Facebook: “I Paid for Flanagan 2014,” to learn how to become involved and our blog @ stateyourpower.wordpress.com for more information on our protest movement! Stay tuned for more activity, we’ve got more planned for the near future!

    Reply
    • Mr. Justice

      But don’t check it out if you want FACTS or INFORMATION! These protestors don’t represent the views of regular ISU students. They are little better than conspiracy theorists who use the false aura of a “mystery” to incite passion. Too bad they can’t incite intelligence or an understanding group members. Learn something about contracts! Be open to facts! Like these: http://www.wjbc.com/common/page.php?pt=ISU+officials+respond+to+I+Paid+For+Flanagan&id=128344&is_corp=0

      Reply
      • Paula Abrams

        Are you kidding me? Have you even taken the slightest look at Flanagan’s history? At Framingham, he ordered the department of university advancement not to release news that four sexual assaults took place in the spring of 2012. An independent review of his pre-Sandusky resume raises very disturbing questions having been affiliated with University of Pittsburgh and Gannon. $481,000 is paid to hush lot more than a simple assault. Your opinion seems historically uninformed and based on either little knowledge of him, or an intent to try bandaiding a problem that has hardly been exposed and treated.

        Reply
  2. Edward V. Bergstrom

    Timothy Flanagan was formally charged with disorderly conduct. But look a little deeper irregardless of the litigious climate in which we live. It does not take much effort to interpret the amount of money disgraced former Illinois State University Timothy Flanagan chose to pocket. Though any free thinking has to elect the protection of alleging their opinion herein, I am confident that stronger, valid and reliable allegations of misconduct lay beneath the payout.

    First, naivety aside, the public has to remember that Timothy Flanagan had a bonafied choice on December 5, 2013 to restrain himself. He chose not to.

    He had a choice to confess and apologize for his conduct unbecoming an employee for the state of Illinois the following work day/week. Instead. the superintendent of grounds was chosenly fired on 12/10/13 for involuntarily becoming the target of Flanagan’s assault.

    Flanagan had over fifteen weeks to choose the high road. He had free will without restraint to approach the university administration, confess what he did to the superintendent, and develop an action plan for reconciliation and rehiring in accordance with suitable due process approved by union contracts and university improvisation. Flanagan chose to to do nothing. Across nearly one hundred days Flanagan’s free will to elect or reject “choice” was intact.

    With no intention to sound pretentious or snobbish, I am very familiar with the culture and structure in both public and private colleges and universities. I say that only to demonstrate that the quantity of words and time I pay to this matter, though not appraised at $480018.00. Flanagan could have deliberately chosen to salvage some integrity and respectability becoming by requesting a prorated settlement. Of course this would mean he was already paid what his contract prescribed. Under an annual salary of $350,000 Flanagan’s 229 days of service as president of the university credited between August 15, 2013 and March 22, 2014, results in pre-tax daily income of $958.40, and a total prorated and pretax salary of $219,589.

    Flanagan had choices. If you praise the half million dollar settlement in comparison to a cost of 1.3 million dollars in legal/court costs, you miss the greater substantial point. The matter would have never come to such a hilt had Flanagan made choices consistent with the bare minimal integrity asked of a university president.

    Nonetheless, Flanagan used zero character to exacerbate his contract to the border of extorting the University of Illinois. He brought his timing and seizure of monies to a maxim of unearned greed that should be coined “FLANA-GAIN”.

    Conveniently, his timing and seizure pursuant to contract came less than 48 hours prior to getting formally charged with criminal misconduct. He is entitled to get paid for the amount of weeks he worked — no one can dispute this fact. A 30 day eviction notice on the university house and car is reasonable.

    No doubt $480K was a settlement sought by Flanagan and aggressively pushed to fruition by his attorneys. His choice to seek maximum settlement monies was a choice made to the detriment of the public who pay his salary in taxes (at least in part), and with regard to self and attorney interest. A physical assault should not enable a financial assault on more people. He had an opportunity to make a choice to send a symbolic message at Illinois State University.

    Although Greenwood/Archer & Associates were hired to find viable candidates to interview for the presidential post, there is a lot to be said that an average, free-thinking person found out just as much and likely more about him during his University of Illinois service.

    For example, last September Martha Coakley ordered a special investigation by the state treasurer into the alleged misspending of university funds by a junior administrator. Specifically Assistant for Alumni Relations, Robert Walmsley, was fired from Framingham State University in June 2013.

    The university inexplicably failed to report knowledge of the missing funds for over three months. The news broke in late August 2013. The news disseminated like a parody of how state universities feel entitled to hide public information. The parody starred the Framingham State University director of human resources and a campus policeman. Aptly, HR tried to conceal the identity of the alleged over-spending employee and specifics about the six-figure balk, behind the tailor-made “matter of national security” line that has come to define unjustified concealment in higher education: “Its a personnel matter.” Meanwhile, campus police, who reports directly to university human resources and not the state police barracks, named Walmsley and more details about the spending gaff.

    All news coverage reported that an employee, three months removed of getting fired, spent as much as $167,000 on the university’s professional charge card system. Human Resources and general council Rita Colucci added that they (Walmsley) may not have spent the entire amount. In fact the case file shows that Walmsley spent none of it. Having reached April 2014, an unprecedented ten months removed from incident without any update on one of the largest scale grand larcenies by a university in recent history, it is reliably conclusive there is no file.

    Lets get real, $167,000 is a suspiciously large sum of money for a junior administrator to rack up. This is particularly true for someone like Walmsley, whose job was to solicit funds from alumni to fund university endeavors, while under the very high scrutiny and deep surveillance, in due consideration of Framingham State University’s poor financial track record, which had led to audits and accounting investigations by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    Suspicions are abound on who spent these monies. Examination of recent criminal charges filed against former Framingham State University President Timothy Flanagan, who happened to officially leave Framingham State University in June 2013, reveals much to be investigated.

    It is also worth mentioning that Timothy Flanagan saw to it that the Vice President of Academic Affairs Linda Vaden-Goad be hired in 2010, after she was under investigation in a well-documented civil lawsuit for discrimination against a colleague of mine & full-time faculty member and 40 year state employee Rosalie Appel. According to the case status PRIOR to Vaden-Goad’s hiring by Flanagan, Vaden-Goad and two other defendant’s characterized their own behavior toward Rosalie Appel as punitive and malicious. Because Appel protected her interests in court, Vaden-Goad et al., “…retaliated against her for filing this lawsuit by subjecting her to an escalating series of disciplinary measures. Defendants do not dispute, for purposes of this appeal, that Appel successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination (See Appel v. Spiridon).

    Vaden-Goad retaliated by accessing Appel’s medical records without Appel’s permission, against regulations enforced by HIPPA, and compelled Ms. Appel to imperatively have a psychological evaluation by a university appointed psychologist on threat of termination. On declining, Vaden-Goad aggressively pursued her termination.

    Nonetheless Vaden-Goad, someone deserving to be sidelined, and someone who should have chosen to remove herself from higher education to clean uo her act, was smoothly transferred to Framingham State University and promoted to Vice President of Academic Affairs by then Framingham State University president Timothy Flanagan.

    According to court records, the “controlling question” was “whether the defendants show indisputably that they would have taken the same adverse actions against a different administrator or faculty member, namely implementation and enforcement of a university appointed psychologist, based on unlawful access to Appel’s medical records. In addition, would someone else endure the same progressive retaliation that Appel experienced, even in the absence of her protected speech.” The district court denied Vaden-Gosd et al. qualified immunity on Appel’s First Amendment claim as the actions of Vaden-Goad et al. were motivated, implemented and enforced by impermissible retaliation.

    Appel also claimed that defendants retaliated against her for bringing a lawsuit in and of itself in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that they violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to privacy. So why hire someone who has a track record of discrimination.

    These facts establish a more plausible blueprint on there whereabouts of these missing $167,000 in monies. A September 2013 settlement hearing called for monetary damages that are much more comparable to the missing Framingham State University funds.
    Keep in mind that the Flanagan is a plausible suspect, especially alleged plausible when considering that subtracting $167,000 plus interest from the $480418 resignation settlement nearly equals Flanagan’s annual salary Illinois State University salary of $350,000.

    These allegations herein are just that allegations; but they are very informed to allege Flanagan or Vaden-Goad may be fully responsible for the missing $167,000 from abusing the Framingham State University charge card. Assuming that Flanagan most likely had to resign at the Uuniversity of Illinois for more than a simple assault, it is possible and alleged that FSU discovered Flanagan or Vaden-Goad was responsible for the overspending, and moved against Flanagan to retrieve the overspending amount after Flanagan was under investigation. Higher education in MA and IL, between June 2013 and April 2014 is a shameful and sorry drive down the low road by self-entitled elitists who exhibit criminal behavior with no remorse.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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