A six-month investigation of public records and publishers reveals that Albright College President Henry Zimon may have falsified his resume and grossly misrepresented and exaggerated his background to the faculty and the presidential search committee.

1. In his resume, Colonel Zimon claims he is publishing a book titled CFE: The Making of the Treaty and Its Implications for the Future with former CIA Director Ambassador R. James Woolsey. Colonel Zimon repeated that claim at his meeting with the faculty in February and he further added that part of the manuscript has already been written. I have spoken with Ambassador Woolsey, who told me that the book is "news to me… I don't know anything about the book … I have no commitment to do any such book… This must be garbled up or something." Colonel Zimon has insisted to me repeatedly that Colonel Woolsey is collaborating with him on the book and that Ambassador Woolsey would attest to that fact. On quite the contrary, Ambassador Woolsey denies any association with the book. Mr. Woolsey can be reached at 202-828-2056.

2. Colonel Zimon's resume claims a second book titled Reshaping U.S. National Security Strategy: Peacetime Engagement, Regional Stability and Global Security, to be published by Praeger in 1998-1999. Praeger Publisher Peter Kracht has advised me that Praeger is not publishing the book. I have also talked to Mr. John Harney, a freelance acquisitions editor for Praeger, who Colonel Zimon claimed is his editor after he was told that Praeger is denying that it is publishing his book. Mr. Harney says he knows nothing about the book. Pressed on the subject at the September faculty meeting, Colonel Zimon insisted that he has a written contract from Praeger, albeit one which he is now trying to get out of. Colonel Zimon has failed to produce the contract for seven months. For months he asserted that the contract had been packed in preparation for his move to Albright. He even hid behind the war in Kosovo, saying that he had no time to address these issues, but that he would do so as soon as he came to campus. Now he pleads that he has not had an opportunity to open the boxes in which his contract is allegedly packed. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that something is remiss here that requires more than Colonel Zimon's verbal assurance that he has a contract. Both Praeger and Mr. Harney have looked at their files and confirmed that they are not publishing his book and even assert that they have never heard of Colonel Zimon. Mr. Kracht can be contacted at 203-226-3571 and Mr. Harney at 508-359-8787.

3. Colonel Zimon's resume claims that he had financial oversight of $60 billion of the U.S. army budget, which included, he told a faculty meeting in February, sole signature authority on army checks, including one, he said, for $428 million. I filed a Freedom of Information request with the army and in its response the army has reported that "Colonel Zimon has signed no government checks." I met with Colonel Zimon twice, first on Aug. 11 and again on Sept. 13. I found his explanations on most of the issues I have raised unsatisfactory. He now admits that he never signed army checks, which is totally contrary to what he stated to the faculty in February. Indeed, at that meeting he had drawn comparisons with his personal checkbook and even waxed about the number of zeroes he had entered the day earlier on a check in the hundreds of millions of dollars. His new explanation is that he approves the OPS Form 61, which constitutes authorizations for checks. Indeed, he told me that he had signed hundreds of these forms. In fact, the army has told me, that the OPS Form 61 is not a check authorization at all, but is instead a routine general document summary cover sheet. Indeed, I understand that neither the Office of Operations and Plans nor Colonel Zimon have financial responsibilities that involve checks in any way, shape or form. Nevertheless, I requested copies of the OPS Form 61s signed by Colonel Zimon under the FOIA, and have been advised that there are no such documents.

4. Colonel Zimon claims in his resume that he had oversight responsibility of the army's educational system. At a public faculty meeting during the search he stressed the very significant character of those responsibilities, that included, he asserted, authoring the army's annual strategic educational review. But in response to an FOI request I filed with the army, I have been informed that "No official documents were authored or co-authored by Colonel Zimon" relating to the army's university or educational system. In my meeting with him, Colonel Zimon claims that such documents exist, but that the army does not provide all documents under the FOI. That is simply not accurate as FOI rules obligate the army to produce all documents pursuant to a request, unless the documents are exempt under national security, which is not being asserted by the army here.

5. Colonel Zimon claims in his resume to have authored, even been the principal author, of several U.S. treaties. In his resume he states that he "Participated in the development, writing, and intragency coordination of five of the eight President's U.S. National Security Strategies. Wrote and helped negotitate major sections of two U.S. Treaties and related documents…." In addition, in his resume, he lists the following documents as publications: Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe; National Security Strategy of the United States; Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate Range Missiles; National Security Strategy of the United States. But in response to my FOI request, the army informed me that, "No official documents were authored or co-authored by Colonel Zimon" relating to any treaties, U.S. security plans, or the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, of which Colonel Zimon claims to be principal author. Once again, in his meeting with me, Colonel Zimon was unable to provide any explanation for this discrepancy, again explaining that the documents exist but that they have not been provided to me pursuant to my FOI request. Colonel Zimon's in essence is arguing that the army is violating FOI law by not providing the documents that he says will show that he played a significant role in these national publications. Indeed, my understanding is that Colonel Zimon was not even a member of most of the task forces that authored these documents and of which he claims to be principal author.

6. Two search committee members have advised me that they had the understanding that Colonel Zimon was a candidate for president at Seton Hall. Indeed, it was the concern of losing Colonel Zimon to a competing institution that was advanced as the motivating consideration for speedy action on his candidacy, well ahead of the scheduled time table. This hasty action may have precluded the kind of investigation that might have exposed some of these discrepancies. In fact, Colonel Zimon was candidate only for dean of the International School at Seton Hall, which scarcely raised concerns of losing him. He was also a candidate for dean of the school of arts and sciences at Creighton University. He had not even interviewed for these positions at the time. How these two and perhaps other committee members came to the false understanding that he was candidate for president at Seton Hall needs to be examined. Perhaps this miscommunication was passed along by the consulting firm hired by the college for this search. Colonel Zimon has told me that the firm had vetted his vita. The nature of his relationship with the consulting firm for possible conflicts of interest needs to be explored.
There are a host of other questionable claims that Colonel Zimon had made about his professional and publishing background, but all the above involve documentary evidence that can be examined. Academic dishonesty is the most egregious misconduct in academia. The Albright College catalog notes: "Academic honesty is part of the foundation of an academic community. Any violation of the highest standards of academic honesty threatens the trust upon which an academic community is built." The point is further underscored in the faculty handbook, which provides on the subject of faculty searches: "Faculty are expected to be honest and fully responsive to the questions they are asked…. This interest requires an open, honest search procedure and is PARAMOUNT in the College's consideration." (Emphasis added).
In his interview with The Albright Reporter (Summer 1999), Colonel Zimon himself stresses honesty and integrity as the core values both in life and education: "However, in answer to your question to me personally, at the top of my list are core values such as integrity - and I should point out that integrity to me is a much broader value than simple honesty, although it certainly includes being honest…."
As one works through these and other issues and looks at the totality of the documentary evidence, one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that there is potentially, at least, a willful and calculated pattern of deception on Colonel Zimon's part to deliberately mislead and deceive the faculty, the search committee and the trustees. I do not ask anybody to take my word; I do ask for a legitimate inquiry that gets to the facts. I have not even asked that Colonel Zimon produce the evidence to me; I have asked only for a serious investigation.
A prima facie case exists that Colonel Zimon has falsified his publication record and that he has grossly exaggerated and misrepresented his army background. Even though the facts in this case may cause us discomfort, we all have a professional responsibility to pursue truth wherever it might lead us. If we chose to ignore such a blatant case of dishonesty by the college's lead officer, the faculty will have no moral authority to challenge similar misconduct by students and by other faculty.
Questions relating to Colonel Zimon's background were raised at the faculty meeting of February 17. Several of the votes that followed were very narrow. A motion to table a resolution congratulating Colonel Zimon was voted down by just two votes (and just one not counting the chair). Remarks were made by supporters of Colonel Zimon at that meeting, to quote the minutes, "[I]f Dr. Zimon's vita were inaccurate then this in itself would be grounds for his removal…." There are sufficient grounds to suggest that that might be so. No doubt, students are investigated on far flimsier evidence than is the case here.
It is imperative that the college establish a committee to investigate Colonel Zimon professional and academic background and let the chips fall where they may.

Achal Mehra
Associate Professor
Communications Program

--..End

--