Questions and Answers:

Q: Can you tell us why you left IWU so suddenly after 2 years of dedicated service?

A: Quite frankly, it was because I was given no alternative. Mark (Mark Smith, VP for Adult and Graduate Studies) asked me to come to his office on Friday afternoon (5/24) at about 2pm for a short meeting. It was at this meeting that he informed me that I was being terminated effective at the close of business that same day.

Q: Wasn’t that a little sudden?

A: I'd say it was sudden! Perhaps I was being too naive, but I had remarked earlier in the day to one of my colleagues that after two months in his position as the new VP, I believed that Mark was becoming easier to work with as he grew more accustomed to his new work load and responsibilities.

Q: What was Mark's reason for terminating your employment?

A: He stated that he had noted "philosophical differences" that made me unfit for employment at IWU.

Q: Can you elaborate about the meaning of the term "philosophical differences" that Mark cited?

A: I wish I could, but even when I pressed him for details, he refused to give me specifics. As our conversation progressed, I grew more confused regarding the real reason that Mark was forcing me to resign. Over the past two months since he became the VP, he had never addressed anything specifically with me such as a short-coming or deficiency in performance, attitude, or anything that might be grounds for termination! During our conversation in this meeting I told Mark that in order for me to improve my management skills I would need to leave IWU knowing the specific areas that I needed to address. He refused to elucidate anything other than “philosophical differences.”

Q: But wait! You said that you resigned your position there, not that you were terminated. Why the discrepancy?

A: That's almost laughable. Mark stated that although his intent was to terminate me, effective at end of the work day, he did offer me the opportunity to submit a letter of resignation that he would accept instead. If I chose not to submit such a letter, the termination would be effective nonetheless.

Q: How was all this communicated to you?

A: As I said, Mark had asked me to a short meeting in his office that Friday afternoon. I had no advance indication of his intent to dismiss me. Elvin Weinmann (VP for Finance) was present, I guess as a witness to the event. Mark was reading from a letter he had written that was addressed to me. (The full text can be read at Mark's letter. It has been included in its original, unedited form, complete with the spelling and grammar as written by the author, Mark A. Smith, EdD.)

Q: How did you respond during all this?

A: Well, I guess I was quite shocked that Mark was dismissing me, but the first thing that came to my mind was, "God is not surprised by this, even if I am." I tried to understand the real issue but Mark refused to divulge what that was, again only citing "philosophical differences."

Q: Didn't that frustrate you?

A: Absolutely! In trying to understand why I was being asked to leave, I rephrased what I had heard from him and stated, "Let me be sure I understand this. I'm not being accused of doing anything illegal or unlawful, and I've done nothing materially wrong. You're just letting me go because of unspecified philosophical differences?"

Q: And what was Mark’s response?

A: He said, “Let’s just leave it at philosophical differences.”

Q: So let’s get back to the resignation issue – did you offer a letter of resignation?

A: I certainly did. Since I had no options and no higher authority to which I could appeal Mark’s decision, I drafted a resignation letter. (The full text can be read at Frank's letter. It has been included in its original, unedited form, complete with the spelling and grammar as written by the author, Frank L. de Monbrun.) I’m 47 years old and have never been terminated from a job in all of my adult life, so it seemed to me to be the right thing to do. I acknowledge that it was merely a technicality, since Mark’s stated intent was to terminate my employment anyway.

Q: What did you mean by “no higher authority” to appeal Mark’s decision? What about Dr. Barnes (President of IWU)?

A: Mark had made it abundantly clear in the preceding months during some of our meetings together that he had received Jim’s (Dr. Barnes) tacit approval to reorganize the management team reporting to Mark in any fashion that Mark deemed necessary to be successful. It was pretty clear to me at that time that he was planning a reorganization of AGS (Adult and Graduate Studies, of which Mark is the current VP) but I had no idea then how or when he might take such action.

Q: One rumor prior to your resignation/termination is that you were already seeking employment elsewhere. Is that true?

A: Yes, it certainly was. I had been actively seeking employment since David (Dr. David Wright, previous VP of AGS) announced his untimely resignation to join another organization.

Q: Why were you looking to move?

A: I had worked with Mark for much of the past two years while we were peers – he was the Dean of the College of Adult and Professional Studies, a part of the AGS organization, and I was the Assistant Vice President for AGS. The administrative structure that David had created in which these two positions operated had an over-lap that created a constant tension between them. Couple that natural tendency of organizational stress with Mark’s preponderance to lie about issues and you have a recipe for disaster if he’s left unchecked. I was that balance for the organization because I was not afraid to challenge Mark’s statements and/or actions. When David left and Jim unilaterally appointed Mark to the VP’s position, I suspected that it was only a matter of time before Mark would ask me to leave or force me out some other way. In seeking employment elsewhere, I was trying to preempt what happened on 5/24.

Q: You have been criticized by those who oppose the fact that you spoke openly about your employment search, and that you remained critical of Mark even after he was appointed as the new VP. How do you respond to this?

A: Well, the only criticism I heard from anyone directly was that I should not be speaking to the hourly employees regarding my desire to leave. I believe that it’s good management to quell rumors before they get started and at IWU there is no lack of rumors about the affairs of the employees. I did not have the venue to speak to everyone at the same time, so if I were asked about my plans by an individual, whether an hourly employee or not, I would openly speak of my intent to move on if something more suitable came along. It was better for those who asked to hear it directly from me instead of getting their information from the rumor mill, because it was certain that they would hear something from someone! With regard to the claim that I was openly critical of Mark, I can state unequivocally that it’s not true. I did oppose him on many issues and at many levels, but never in an open forum where it might be construed as insubordination.

Q: So you still opposed Mark on various issues?

A: Well, not a variety of issues, but certainly in one area – that of his ethics. For whatever reason, Mark is not comfortable taking responsibility for his actions. This is evident from his habit of citing unnamed sources who may either support or oppose his point of view, depending on the argument he’s trying to advance. In addition, Mark speaks frequently of others who are pressing him to make a decision that he may or may not want to make. The real issue with these habits of his is truthfulness – Mark is just not truthful in most cases. He manages by innuendo, threats, and fear while claiming to have a “pastor’s heart” for the people which is, I guess, a euphemism for how much he cares for the employees.

Q: Do you have proof of these things? This sounds like “sour grapes” from someone who was fired, or someone out to get their pound of flesh now that they’ve been ousted.

A: I certainly do have proof. Let’s first go back to two years ago, when I started work at IWU as the Program Manager for the BSBIS Online program. I was engaged in an email exchange with Mark, Hank (Henry Kelly, then the Director of the Center for Distributed Learning), Tom (Tom Lehman, then the Director for Bachelor’s Degree Programs), some of the other Online program managers and instructional designers, and others. We were discussing the issue of making the Center for Distributed Learning (CDL) into a “skunk works” – that is, allowing it complete autonomy – by setting it apart from the Academics Department to which it was matrixed for “academic integrity.” At one point in the exchange of ideas, Mark emailed that “our legal experts say that we can’t do that,” referring to setting up the CDL as a skunk works. I immediately recognized this ploy, having seen it before in other organizational settings, and I challenged his statement and asked for the specific names of those “experts” who had nixed the concept. Mark instead opted out of the discussion, and we heard no more from him. It appeared plainly to me that as the current organization was indirectly responsible to Mark, and that he had been pleading the case for some time with David that it should be under the Academic Department’s direct control, this issue really boiled down to nothing more or less than Mark wanting more power. Incredibly, this issue was revisited again when I became the Assistant VP and David directed the CDL to report directly to me. It was most recently “resolved” when Mark became the new VP and directed the CDL to report directly to him, citing that it was due to accreditation regulations. A simple check of existing policies throughout higher education organizations and/or perusing the NCA guidelines will quickly debunk Mark’s assertion. It once again comes down to his megalomania.

Q: Wow! That’s an impressive story, but mostly circumstantial and/or conjecture, isn’t it? Do you have any other proof?

A: I don’t believe that it is either circumstantial or conjecture, except for my theorizing about Mark’s motives. But there are a few other items regarding his inability to speak the truth in all settings that we could cover. For further examples, you may want to examine the chart of Mark’s statements that I’ve compiled. It’s by no means all of them, but it is a representative sample that clearly illustrates my assertion of his inability to tell the truth consistently.

Q: You spoke of Mark invoking other people pressing him to make a decision. Can you elaborate?

A: Sure. Let me give you an example. Shortly after Mark was named as the new VP, I was in his office for a meeting when he said to me that he had been approached by members of the Ad Council who were complaining of my conduct. He named Terry Munday, Brendan Bowen, John Gredy, Art Mahan, and Todd Voss as those who had shared with him comments about me. In the same breath, Mark demanded that I not contact any of them directly about their “issues” with me. I never heard anything directly from any one of them, nor did I hear any more from Mark about their comments, except for those attributed to Terry Munday.

Q: What was the substance of the Ad Council members’ complaints? Was there any truth to what they said?

A; First, let’s make it clear that I’m not even sure the complaints were made by the Ad Council members. In the case of most of these men, I believed we were mature enough in our relationship that they would have come to me directly if there was an issue of offence between us, regardless of whose fault it was. If not, and they were offended by my actions/words, then they were disobedient to God’s Word by not coming to me directly as their offender and seeking resolution privately. Speaking to the substance of their complaints, Mark told me nothing specific, only that they had lodged complaints with him about me.

Q: You mentioned that there were further comments attributed to Terry Munday – was this at the same time, or a later date?

A: Well, the additional comments were communicated to me at a later date.

Q: And what was the substance of those comments?

A: Mark told me that he had heard that I was on the Board of Directors for Sunnycrest Baptist Church’s television station and that he knew all about our negotiations with IWU regarding the operation of their television station. He told me that Terry had filled him in on the details. Then, Mark strongly suggested that I excuse myself from further negotiations because Jim was upset with me for representing Sunnycrest while I was an employee of IWU.

Q: What was your response to Mark’s suggestion?

A: I replied that I had already discussed the issue in detail with Jim, and that he had given me his assurances that he was okay with my participation on Sunnycrest’s negotiation team. This situation arose while David was still the VP, and I had a private, face to face discussion with Jim in his office at David’s insistence. My comments to Jim included that although I worked at IWU and owed allegiance to the university, I worshipped at Sunnycrest and owed allegiance to them as well. As long as we were genuinely seeking the Lord’s will in the resolution, I didn’t see a conflict since I serve the same God at both places. Jim seemed okay with that concept, but I told him that if he had any problem whatsoever with me being on the Sunnycrest negotiating team, I would defer to his wishes and recuse myself from further meetings with IWU. Jim assured me that such action was not necessary.

Q: Was that the end of this issue with Mark?

A: No, he got in a parting shot as I was leaving his office. Mark said, “Take it from me, as your friend, that he’s (Jim) not okay with it and you need to get off the board.” I hope this didn’t figure into the decision to ask me to leave, because I trusted Jim and took him at his word. I believed that if he had changed his mind and now had a problem with the issue, he would have spoken with me directly about it.

Q: Why is Sunnycrest negotiating with IWU? Over what?

A: It all stems from the operation of the television station on the campus. This issue goes back some ten years to when Sunnycrest gave IWU one of the low power TV station licenses that it had acquired. It was given to IWU along with stipulations regarding its operation, but Sunnycrest believes that IWU has never fully been in compliance with the memorandum of understanding that was signed between IWU and Sunnycrest. In fact, after over 6 months during which we held meetings and engaged in phone calls with Jim and Terry, IWU is still refusing to abide by the terms of the memorandum of understanding!

Q: What of the nature of IWU? Isn’t it supposed to be a Christian organization? Doesn’t it seem strange that the administration would condone such conduct?

A: Well, in a word, yes. On the one hand, it’s completely uncharacteristic of Christians to treat people (especially other Christians!) this way. One thing is certainly clear from God’s Word, and that is that God will not hold Dr. Barnes and the administration blameless for allowing this to go on. On the other hand, these people are still humans capable of sinning. They may be redeemed by God’s mercy and grace and washed by the blood of His Son, but they’re not perfect and are going to make mistakes. It falls to those who have been offended by their actions/words to forgive them and pray for them, knowing that when God exacts justice for their actions, it will be a painful and fearful ordeal. They will be in need of our prayers for God’s grace and mercy then.