Lehman to step down

[ithacat]

I haven't seen today's paper, but from yesterday's online edition, under the tagline Cornell President Resigns, Citing Split With Trustees:

[Q][Lehman] said that that was how he would characterize the situation between him and the board's chairman, Peter C. Meinig. "What's best for Cornell is to have a president who's in perfect alignment with the chairman of the board," he added.[/Q]

Although that's probably true for any university, how realistic is it to expect a "perfect alignment" between the 2?

Should Lehman be the only one to take responsibility for this? Shouldn't the board be somewhat accountable? Seems pretty messy.

[KeithK]

You're nitpicking.  Of course "perfect" is not very realistic.  Obviously the disagreement was significantly short of perfect for Lehman to leave in this way.

I don't know who is "responsible".  But clearly Lehman has to be the one to go if there's a significant disagreement.  Whether or not their vision is appropriate, the board is the higher power and they get to have the final word.

[Trotsky]

[Q]ithacat Wrote:
Should Lehman be the only one to take responsibility for this? Shouldn't the board be somewhat accountable? Seems pretty messy.
[/q]

In the end, a University President (whore for more money) is an employee of the Board of Trustees (grasping exploiters, er, sorry, selfless guardians of current money).

So yeah, he goes, in a heartbeat.

[Matt Janiga]

or we could vote the board out at the next election period.

[KeithK]

Alumni expressing their displeasure is the one real way to hold the board accountable for its actions.  The way the system is set up I don't think it's really feasible to "vote the board out" because I don't think we get to elect the majority of the board members (someone who knows the system better than I feel free to correct me here).

Then again, if the the problem was that "Lehman was too liberal and might have actually had a personal vision" as ithacat suggests then I for one am not going to castigate the board over this...

[ninian '72]

I don't think anyone should jump to conclusions about this situation, and I would guess that we will never have the full story.  Having been through a similar situation on the board of a much smaller organization a few years ago, I suspect no one on the board wanted to see this happen, and that neither the board nor Lehman wants to air dirty laundry in a way that could potentially damage the institution, whose welfare comes first before the particular interests of either the board or the president.  That's the way it's being handled, as it should be.  The administration seems to be in full, damage control mode, stating through various mouthpieces that the impact of Lehman's departure will be slim to none on the operation and future of the university.  Extremely sad turn of events, though.  FWIW, I was around for the sudden departure of another President - James Perkins - in a much more tumultuous time, and the ship righted itself just fine when Dale Corson took over.  I would expect things to go at least as well this time around.

[Trotsky]

I'd love to know how the Cornell Board actually works.  I have always been under the impression that a Noyes, a Uris, an Olin, and "the eldest lineal descendent of Ezra" get together in a smoke-filled room and figure out what they are going to have the university to do.  They tell "their" 51+% of the Board and that's what gets done.  The other 49-% of the Board is a sop to diversity or some other PR-statement-of-the-month and means zippo.  Through it all, Mr. Potter plots how to take control of the Savings & Loan.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Is that any diffeent than how the boards of most corporations work these days?   Nope.

[Ben Rocky '04]

Personally, I am glad the Board has the final word.  They've been affiliated with running Cornell for much longer then Lehman.

My guess would be that they terminated him for not conforming to their long term vision despite the press release saying that the reasons was 'differences with the board regarding the strategy for realizing Cornell's long-term vision.'  

Although his departure after such a short term is bad for Cornell's short term stability but I feel that this will be good for Cornell in the long term.  Lehman has not done nearly enough to work on our low positon in college rankings, and has been responsible for the departure of Inge Reichenbach and the Redbud mess.  Lets hope his replacement handles things better.

[min]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

 Personally, I am glad the Board has the final word.  They've been affiliated with running Cornell for much longer then Lehman.

My guess would be that they terminated him for not conforming to their long term vision despite the press release saying that the reasons was 'differences with the board regarding the strategy for realizing Cornell's long-term vision.'  

Although his departure after such a short term is bad for Cornell's short term stability but I feel that this will be good for Cornell in the long term.  Lehman has not done nearly enough to work on our low positon in college rankings, and has been responsible for the departure of Inge Reichenbach and the Redbud mess.  Lets hope his replacement handles things better.[/q]

i am not a lehman apologist, but to expect a rookie university president turn around cornell's "low" rankings in less than two years time is almost unfair, not to say ridiculous. by that logic, hunter rawlings's previous tenure as president must also be a failure, since cornell seldomly broke top 5 under his watch, IIRC. unlike coach schafer and the hockey team circa 1995, lehman is only an administrator, not a magician or god.

i don't know enough to comment on ms. inge reichenbch's resignation or on the redbuds incident. however,
didn't the plan to build a parking lot on redbud woods began long before lehman got there? why all the responsibility on him?

like everyone (well most everyone) i am left wondering what was lehman's approach for realizing cornell's long-term vision (whatever that is), and whether or not i would have preferred his over the board's.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[Q
like everyone (well most everyone) i am left wondering what was lehman's approach for realizing cornell's long-term vision (whatever that is), and whether or not i would have preferred his over the board's.
[/q]

That really sums it up.  Until someone discloses that info, and I doubt anyone ever will, anything discussed here is utter speculation.  

Tho I gotta admit, I feel the same as min does.  Inquiring minds want to know.  :-P

[Ben Rocky '04]

I too am very interested in what this 'long term vision' or the differences in implementing it entailed.

Lehman clearly did not believe college rankings were something the university should be spending time or money on.  Have you seen the new Undergrad Admissions page? Its terribly lame.

Redbud was long a part of the west campus plan, but it was while he was president that he adopted a university wide sustainability policy and then acted like bulldozing 150 acres wasn't a violation of his own policy.  It was also under his watch that we ended up gaining national attention for denying students degrees just because they protested the hypocrisy of his administration.

[Trotsky]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
It was also under his watch that we ended up gaining national attention for denying students degrees just because they protested the hypocrisy of his administration.[/q]
I have no idea what this is referring to, so I doubt whatever the fuss was qualifies as "national attention."

[KeithK]

[q]Lehman clearly did not believe college rankings were something the university should be spending time or money on. Have you seen the new Undergrad Admissions page? Its terribly lame.[/q]To be honest, college rankings aren't really something that a university should have to worry about.  The rankings are relatively useless and only seem important due to marketing by US News.   Does the fact that Cornell is x vs. x+2 rank really tell you much about  the school?  No.  Does a drop of one or two spots mean anything?  No.

Can't comment on the Undergad admissions page.  That's something the the school can easily control and should do properly.  After a quick glance I'm not immediately embarrassed by it, which is eomthing at least. :-)

[Ben Rocky '04]

I am refering to the New York Times article & AP wire services article from June 7.  Both very critical of Cornell for planning on developing land Robert Treman gave to Cornell to be kept perpetually green and not allowing Danny Pearlstein and Daisy Tores to graduate on time or receive transcripts.

If you want to pay to read it on the NYT website, search 'redbud' & it is the first result that comes up.