Mark said:

Reality replied:

“Our legal experts say that we can’t do that” regarding the CDL skunk works proposal.

When challenged, Mark could provide no proof that he had ever spoken with any legal experts about this subject, and in fact, withdrew from the conversation without further comment.

Asserted that NCA mandates that the CDL must be under the direct control of the Academics Department.

There is no such mandate in the NCA regulations; precedent exists in that other universities run their CDLs as skunk works.

Claimed that IWU would lose “millions in revenue” if they allowed an MBA core group to switch to the new shortened curriculum because then other core groups would want to.

Operations ran the actual budget numbers; class for class, for all existing core groups, the actual “loss” would have been less than $500,000.

Maintained that IWU did not have to honor its printed policy regarding curriculum changes for the MBA core group referred to in the previous situation.

IWU, as a Christian organization, is only as honorable as its actions, and if IWU won’t honor its own printed policies, then it has no honor as a Christian institution.

Boasted openly of the President’s comment (purportedly about Mark) that he would rather have an employee that he has to reign in from time to time than one he has to light a fire underneath to get going.

Mark doesn’t extend that same “grace” to all those who work for him; he lacks the ability to deal with direct conflict and turn the situation into a professional development opportunity.

Agreed with me during a conversation with David that the dynamic tensions between us were good for us and good for the University, because it forced us to look at issues differently than we were used to.

By dismissing me, Mark has rendered that conversation moot – if the dynamic tension between us was healthy, then why did he feel compelled to ask me to leave the organization for “philosophical reasons?”

Claimed that another VP’s office initiated a call to him regarding the installation of an alternate carpet in certain unfinished STAR offices; then later claimed he spoke to them about it during a call he initiated.

The third (final?) version was that while he was visiting in the building where said VP’s office is located, he stopped in to ask about the carpet for finishing those rooms.  Who knows what the truth is…?

He promised me (and ostensibly, David Wright) that he (Mark) would leave the University before he would not “get along” with me in his role as the new VP.

Who was asked to resign, and who is still at IWU…?

Mark promised me that he would not ask me to leave unless/until he had peace from God about his decision, even though his wife was urging him to let me go.

Mark openly admitted that he was not sleeping well after asking me to resign – a clear indication that he does not have God’s peace about his actions.

He claimed that he and I were “okay” with his request for my resignation, citing pressure from unspecified members of the Ad Council to follow through with it.

First, I’m not “okay” with his actions; Second, if members of the Ad Council wanted me to resign, I would guess it should have been in response to some offence I was guilty of toward them, and if that’s the case, they neglected the Biblical principle of confrontation and restoration; Third, what ever happened to loyalty, to protecting your own employees?