There is a prevalent problem with double-speak and inconsistency that students witness in administration, daily. I cite the following letter from a student as evidence. This information can be corroborated by at least 200 students, especially members of the SGA OTM survey committee.
Travis,
There are two incidents of inconsistencies that I can attest to that need to be reported to the Board of Trustees. First, the profound differences in Dean Kuchera’s comments to the OTM Education Survey Committee (immediately following the presentation of our final reports to him, the other Deans and the OTM faculty representatives) and what he professed that he said in front of the mixed-class forum on Wednesday, 3 May 2000. Second, his insistence upon honoring an allegedly SGA-endorsed request that stipulated that both classes desired the addition of mandatory OMM rotations in the 3rd & 4th year curriculums.
First, immediately following the conclusion of the ”OTM Education Survey Report”, Dean Kuchera’s initial comments were [quoted to best of my memory] that he commended us on the “hard work, quality and professionalism” of the report and survey; but “that he disagreed with our interpretation that there was need to decrease the number of hours spent in OTM lab and/or lecture.” And, “that in his mind, he felt that our survey indicated more than adequate justification for an increase in OTM lab and lecture hours. However, I will concede to you that I will first address the issues of content, consistency, efficiency in utilization of the allotted hours and conflicts with data presented by other departments prior to any alterations in the number of OTM hours.”
To the contrary, when queried in the mixed-class forum about this very comment, he profoundly altered the statement when reciting it to the student body. Again, I quote to the best of my recollection; “I did not say that ‘the survey indicated we should increase OTM hours’”. “What I did say was, ‘the survey indicated to me that we need to increase the quality of content provided within the OTM curriculum.’” “I said nothing about increasing or decreasing the hours”.
The second version of his comments, said in front of the student body, is clearly contradictory and incongruent with his actual comments to the OTM Education Survey Committee. There were six members of said Committee who should be able to verify this discrepancy. The Committee members present were: Travis Fawver, SGA President; Jack Hay, 2002 Class President; Joel Reyes, 2003 Class President; Eli Brumfield, OTM Education Survey Committee Chair; Cameron Symonds, SGA Secretary; Charlene McWilliams, SGA Parliamentarian; Scott Balonier, 2002 SGA Representative; Jeff Rasch, 2003 SGA Representative; Ali Rajaei-Tehrani, 2003 SGA Representative and myself, (name deleted), SGA Executive at Large ñ Class of 2003.
The second inconsistency is that Dean Kuchera insists upon following through on a suggestion, allegedly presented to him by an SGA-endorsed student representative, that a significant portion of the student body desires the addition of “mandatory OMM rotations to our 3rd & 4th year curriculums.” When, in fact, he has been repeatedly corrected in that the SGA did endorse an individual to approach him only regarding the following two student suggestions: 1) that every student receive a free OTM treatment, by a member of the OTM faculty, early in their OTM training as a way to boost student interest; and 2) the creation of opportunities for students to partake in clinical-experience rotation(s), as a 1st or 2nd year student, to facilitate student interest and learning in regards to ‘real world’ applications of OTM to supplement what we were learning in the lab and classroom. The SGA did not and will not endorse any suggestions for mandatory OMM rotations added to the 3rd & 4th year classes.
The last I heard him speak on this issue, he still maintained that the suggestion originated with an SGA-endorsed representative. At that time, he was again reminded that there was no such SGA-endorsement of said suggestion. However, he made it clear that provisions for adding such rotations were already under way. He used this issue an example of his level of responsiveness to student needs and issues.
Finally, I would like to say that Dean Kuchera has been unapologetic for the “misunderstandings” he has generated. He has been repeatedly asked to be forthright and honest with students. He continues to offer excuses for his misinformation and continuously back-peddles and makes excuses when caught in contradiction to known facts. We have asked him to be non-evasive and have even offered suggestions as to how he can avoid communicating in a confounding manner with students. We gave him every chance and every benefit of the doubt. We offered him opportunities to speak frankly with the student body and student leaders. He has failed at almost every turn. I do not know if his actions are intentional or just the result of him being out of touch with reality and the students. In either case, many students do not view him as a dean that is interested in student welfare or modern medical training.
