( – promoted by odum)

So the University of Vermont has concluded that “no laws or university policies were violated” by Rachael Kahn-Fogel’s relationship with Associate VP Michael Schultz. It did find that the relationship damaged morale in the development office, and ran counter to the institution’s “guidelines and values.” But nothing more. Freshly-ex-President Dan Fogel issued a statement saying “It is good to have reached closure on this unfortunate matter.” Yep, nothing to see here. Let’s all move on, folks.

Just a suspiciously lumpy rug, and a well-used broom nearby. Let’s examine the lumps, shall we?

— Well, sure, the relationship didn’t violate any University policies. There weren’t any policies covering the situation, as UVM Board President Robert Cioffi acknowledged.

— In addition to Fogel’s own expedited departure and enriched severance package, Michael Schultz has also made a quick exit. And he gets a severance deal equivalent to Fogel’s: a year and a half’s salary ($155K/year) and other benefits. According to the Burlington Free Press, Cioffi said that the Schultz deal averts possible litigation. You betcha.

— The board reviewed some $84,800 in possibly questionable expenses charged to UVM, and concluded that a mere $151 “exceeded reasonable thresholds.” Fogel has repaid that money. Is it just me that thinks the $151 is a rather suspiciously minuscule amount? Very specific, very small, but quantified — seemingly designed to imply a thorough, painstaking review.

— But what of the unquantifiable costs to the institution? UVM was going through a period of expansion and fundraising, and some painful budget cuts. At the same time, its development office was in significant disarray. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Ms. Kahn-Fogel served as a volunteer fund raiser for the university, and her ill-defined role contributed to problems within the development office, the review found. The report notes, for instance, that staffing decisions in the development office were made based on the Fogels’ preferences and comfort levels with certain individuals rather than their qualifications. Those favored by the family were “perceived to be protected” and promoted within the institution, the review found.

“This environment negatively affected morale in the development office and created ongoing distractions from the pursuit of the fund-raising objectives of the university,” the report says.

Interesting that “the Fogels” are cited for imposing their preferences, not just Kahn-Fogel.

We’ll never know how badly UVM’s fundraising was hampered by these shenanigans. And here’s where the whole fiasco bothers me the most.  

This situation was allowed to fester for years, undermining morale and causing staff turnover in one of UVM’s most important offices. We don’t know what, if anything, was done to try to rein in Kahn-Fogel. Or to stop the Fogels from meddling in development office staffing decisions. As far as I can tell, damn little was done until the whole thing was brought to light a couple months ago by Shay Totten in Seven Days.

I’ve written before about the “grandfather’s lightbulb” phenomenon all too prevalent in Vermont institutions and businesses, large and small. In short, it’s a tendency to ignore problems or inefficiencies (or even illegalities) for no good reason — just, well, we’ve always done it this way.

Robert Cioffi said he knew nothing of the relationship before it became public, but “he conceded that board members and some administrators were aware of concerns about the climate in the development office…” (Chronicle of Higher Education) To borrow the classic Watergate line, “What did they know and when did they know it?” And why didn’t they do anything? Or at least ask some pointed questions?

The UVM review said that, although there was no actual wrongdoing, “Effective management and oversight were lacking, for which the president, and in turn the Board of Trustees, must accept final responsibility.”

To which I say, what do you mean by accepting responsibility? I think we all know the answer to that: not a damned thing.

p.s. The Board took another bold, decisive action as well. Following widespread criticism of Fogel’s severance package, Cioffi announced that the board has begun “a study of executive compensation.” I can hardly wait for the results of that little gem.