Home » Voices » Editorial »

President Ross must re-evaluate priorities in joining private company

By Editorial Board on September 13, 2010 3:00 am in Editorial, Voices / 15 comments

 

George Ross will need to tread lightly to save face in his role as university president, after accepting a position on the board of directors of a private company.

Ross, who has been president of CMU for just over six months, should not have taken a position with Furniture Brands International, Inc. when his focus should be squarely on the problems facing the university in the coming months and years.

While his responsibilities or his compensation — possibly around $45,000 plus stock bonuses — have not been determined, he will have to attend four out-of-state, multi-day board meetings each year, as well as spending untold time preparing, researching and managing for this company.

While it is true it is quite common for university presidents to serve on such boards, Ross may have reconsidered the timing of his decision and the implications of his views toward the university. With only six months as president, half of which was during the summer, Ross needs to appear devoted and dedicated to the institution paying him over $350,000 annually to do so.

It is too early to see what will happen with issues such as rising tuition, cramped on-campus housing and the money-pit that is the medical school, but Ross’ participation in the decision-making of these issues is paramount.

He could, reasonably, deal hands-on with most of these issues while maintaining his new private-sector responsibilities. Yet, what about the promises he made that he has yet to even begin to fulfill?

This question mainly concerns President Ross’ visibility on campus.

When he was first announced as president, he claimed he was going to interact with students on a personal level, even saying it would not be rare to see him eating lunch with individual students.

This has not happened once in the six months of his presidency.

Ross is rarely seen on campus and has only held two forums with students and the public. This can be excused momentarily, because of the brevity of his tenure as president.

However, as his presidency continues, Ross has to get out in the open, keep his hands firmly on CMU affairs and do everything in his ability to assure the community of his devotion to his office.

There is no rule against Ross taking this position with Furniture Brands, only the hope that he will prove to have more devotion and care for the students under his watch than footstools.

 

Tags

, ,

Related Posts

 
  • Michmediaperson

    Well said. Great editorial. Now, there should be interviews with board members before or after the next board meeting about this matter. George should be out visiting all the dorms, alumni groups, academic departments, foundations within Michigan, etc.

  • Timbankful

    Ross shamefully abandoned the students he had charge over in Mississippi–he is now doing it here to feather his retirement. Do not forget Ross was “a yes we can” hire. He was far from the best qualified candidate, but he is African-American and that seems to be the all important qualifier in advancement in higher education system.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    He fulfilled all the contractual requirements of his previous job. There is nothing shameful about leaving for a more advantageous position. Racist as you are, you believe that he has a special obligation to those who share his skin color.

    Name one better qualified candidate for the position he took at CMU who didn't reject an offer. You can't. Racist as you are, you assume there must be one.

    Go nail yourself to your burning cross, sheethead.

  • Michmediaperson

    Is CM LIFE going to check out to see if Furniture Brands has been doing any outsourcing of jobs overseas? And, where does Dr. Ross stands on the outsourcing of American jobs? He's joining them at a great time. The stock price is way down from the highs of 5-10 years ago. But, have they been doing any outsourcing to China and parts unknown?

    The Liberals are in a tizzy about Mr. Snyder and we don't know if he had anything to do with the outsourcing of jobs at Gateway. Well, what about Furniture Brands? Did the CEO and executive and board members make big bonuses over the last 7-8 years? Any outsourcing during that time?

    And, should presidents of Michigan's public universities serve on boards? Mary Sue Coleman, the ultra-liberal UM president sits on a couple boards and makes outrageous monies! How she can sit on the Johnson and Johnson board and runs a Med School is beyond me. But, I guess when it's a Liberal, then it's OK.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    The board members who are executives in the private sector? Whatever might they say? Cuts both ways?

  • Timbankful

    I love to experience the racist rants of the tolerant followers of the multi-culturalism. Nothing but hate flows from their hearts and minds. Does Ross have a special obligation to his race? Terrorist,( and you are a ideological terrorist) the black male culture is in crisis-but Mr. Ross flipped them off and ran north to fill his pockets with the white mans cotton. You argue that his abandonment of the future of his race is acceptable, I do not. Ross is a disgrace and if you support his betrayal-then your soul is cut from the same soiled cloth.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    Dr. Ross is not an elected official, he's a hired executive; comparing his position to that of Governor is absurd. How about outsourcing your posting to someone who can stay on topic instead of deviating into partisan nonsense?

  • Socrates

    Other employees are restricted in their rights to run for political office,lest they slack off from their duties. Apparently, the Board of Trustees doesn't see the President's new job as cutting into his work time even though Presidents should lead by example. I, for one, could get by on his salary!

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    No, they are not.

    http://www.cmich.edu/Documents/trustees/policy-manual/c3/03-04%20%2812-4-08%29.pdf

    Selected quotes from the policy:

    “Public service is part of CMU’s Vision Statement. Therefore, employees are encouraged to seek and hold public office.”

    “Employees who seek public office of any kind must do so on their own time.”

    “Any employee of the university who becomes a candidate for nomination and/or election to any federal, state, county, or local office, whether it be part-time or full-time, paid or unpaid, is required, upon filing for candidacy, to present to the applicable personnel office (either Human Resources or Faculty Personnel Services) a statement from her/his supervisor and the applicable vice president or the provost (or president with respect to members of the president’s division) of CMU attesting that appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that their candidacy in no way will interfere with the full performance of their university work and that their candidacy will pose no conflict with professional standards or ethics.”

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    You've confirmed that “you believe that he has a special obligation to those who share his skin color.” It's a bit late for you to feign concern for those who share his skin color, seeing as you've issued a judgment against him based solely on the same. He's not good enough for “us” but he's just right for “them”? Surely, you've noticed that there are students at CMU who also share his skin color.

    Perhaps next you'd like to tell us why he should move to the back of the bus? And why segregation is a good thing? And why white people who speak against white supremacist ideas are race traitors?

    If I'm a terrorist to you, you must also be a coward in addition to being a bigot and a fool.

  • Timbankful

    So in your self-hating socialist mind any white man or woman who criticizes the professional actions of a “Person of color ” is a “white supremacist”. Is that right Terrorist? And because I publicly accuse a black man of abandoning his race for financial gain I am “a bigot and a fool.” ( Did I say he was unqualified? No I did not. ) Terrorist. Mr. Ross is a public employee. I am a member of the public-consequently, I have every right to critique Mr. Ross' behavior while he is under my employ. Terrorist I based my judgment of Mr. Ross on his behavior not the color of his skin. He was a “University President” who accepted a job at a predominantly black University in Mississippi. Thereby I concluded he was accepting a challenge to assist in the development of the young minds of African Americans. (When things got tough at Acorn he bailed out and went north “for the money”.) Based upon that assumption I concluded he betrayed them and himself. You on the other hand like a poorly programed Cuban robot INSTANTLY attack me by throwing the race card on the table. Honorable behavior is very important to me. Whether or not a person is behaving honorably is something I look for. I do not see it in Mr. Ross nor do I see it in you either. If you wish to become a noble person-one must live an honorable life. But sadly the left sees honorable behavior as foolishness-that saddens me.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    I don't hate myself; why do you think that I do? Nor am I a socialist, but the way the term is abused these days, it's not a surprise that you'd assert that. (“Terrorist” is a likewise abused term.) Criticism of others based on their skin color is a key component of white supremacy. You are criticizing a person based on the color of his skin.

    'And because I publicly accuse a black man of abandoning his race for financial gain I am “a bigot and a fool.”'
    Yes. Your assumption, and the conclusion you drew from it, also expose you as a bigot and a fool.

    “( Did I say he was unqualified? No I did not. )”
    Did I say that you said that he was unqualified? No, I did not.

    “I am a member of the public-consequently, I have every right to critique Mr. Ross' behavior while he is under my employ.”
    You “have every right to critique Mr. Ross' behavior,” but it's not a consequence of you being “a member of the public.” Logic is beyond you. Also, he's not under your employ; neither am I.

    “I based my judgment of Mr. Ross on his behavior not the color of his skin.”
    If Dr. Ross were white, you wouldn't make the same judgment, nor be posting the same nonsense that you are.

    “He was far from the best qualified candidate, but he is African-American and that seems to be the all important qualifier in advancement in higher education system.”
    You threw the “race card.” I pointed at it.

    “Honorable behavior is very important to me.”
    Either it's not important enough to engage in it yourself, or you have a very distorted vision of what it is.

  • Timbankful

    No, you hate yourself. You are ashamed of your race, your skin color makes you feel unclean ( I am assuming you are caucasian) and are doing everything within your power to distance yourself from your racial identity and make yourself an acceptable “white person” Behold ! A new creation created in the image of Mr. Obama.

    As you well know humans by their nature need to be accepted and recognized as a conforming member of a herd . The white herd is being unnaturally splintered by the application of multicultural theory. You represent one of the more militant splintered factions. Have you ever been in jail? If you have you must have noticed how whites have surrendered the outward vestiges of their racial identity to be accepted (to survive) by the dominate minority groups that make up our jail and prison populations. You, as have all people who have become members of the anti-christian socialist left have had to surrender a part of themselves to be accepted by the “people of color”. And one of the things whites must do to stay accepted by the “people of color” is to denounce the members of their race who do not adhere to the doctrines of multiculturalism . In direct contradiction to multicultural theory. You are a hypocritical slave. Ironic don't you think?

    I loosely adhere to the teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson-(read his essay on “Self-reliance). Consequently, I have taught myself to remain free of the herd-I should say freer because it is our nature to be group identified. Nevertheless I can perceive the intellectual and spiritual embrace of the collective and decide which part of its behavior I choose to adapt and apply to my life.

    Now I will respond to the rest of your missive.

    Skin color:

    I vet all people with the same template regardless of race, creed, color etc.

    Race-skin color is a part of who you are. I am white therefore that means one thousand things: historical context being the most prominent affectation. White=racist until you have sold your soul to the philosophical underpinnings of the democrat party. To you my being white means I am a racist. If you are white that means to me you have sold your racial identity to co-exist with the racial group you wish to be identified with. Mr. Ross is a black man and of a generation which literally perceived temporal reality in black and white terms . His consciousness is that of an oppressed black male, it is unique to his genetic and intellectual origins. Consequently, I must evaluate who he is based on his racial identity as well as his intellectual abilities and professional experience . You have done the same with me. I am white and I criticized a black man= I am a white supremacist. His black skin is an integral part of who he is as my white skin is an integral part of who I am. I think I would place skin color with the penis as two of the most dominate human physical organs that define who a man is .

    Public employment:
    If you receive a pay check from Lansing as Mr Ross does. Then you are a public servant. An employee of the state and answerable the general public.

    Race card :
    As I already stated race is an important qualifier. A persons race can not be ignored-especially in the age of affirmative action-where race, gender and sexual orientation dominate the hiring process in “public ” employment. Consequently, I stand by my original statement. It is correct.

    Honor:

    You and I live in two entirely different intellectual and moral systems. Therefore what I would define as honorable behavior you would define as dishonorable behavior. (” you have a very distorted vision of what it is”) There is nothing I can say to you that would convince you other wise. My honor code is seen as foolishness to you-so I shall not waste my time outlining it for you. (Emerson-self-reliance and the writings of the stoics) I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts. As with all debates they spur thought.

  • Is Glen Beck a terrorist?

    You assume too much, which is why you keep reaching absurd conclusions. I do not hate myself, nor am I ashamed of my skin color, nor do I seek to be accepted by any “herd.”

    “I think I would place skin color with the penis as two of the most dominate human physical organs that define who a man is .”
    That someone is defined by their skin color is a blatantly racist belief.

    “The white herd is being unnaturally splintered by the application of multicultural theory.”
    You're clearly segregationist.

    “His consciousness is that of an oppressed black male, it is unique to his genetic and intellectual origins.”
    And here you assert that he's defined negatively by his skin color.

    “I am white therefore that means one thousand things: historical context being the most prominent affectation.”
    And it is clear that you think that “white” defines one more positively than any other skin color. (By the way, your misuse of the word “affectation” reveals your intellectualism as an affectation.)

    “I am a white supremacist.”
    Indeed, but it's not for the reason you've discarded.