I am writing to clarify why almost 50 percent of the faculty (in a vote that failed 17-19) expressed a prefernce to table and bury a motion at the February faculty meeting congratulating Col. Henry Zimon on his appointment as president of Albright College. When the vote on congratulating Col. Zimon was finally forced, fully 25 percent of the faculty either voted against or abstained from it. That has to be quite a record of lack of confidence in an incoming president - before he has even assumed office.

The faculty concerns can be traced to the responses that were gathered fol,lowing Col. Zimon's visit; every campus constituency - faculty, staff and students - viewed his candidacy unfavorably and this in fact is noted in the summaries of the community responses that were developed by the search committee. Nonetheless, the committee decided to ignore the overwhelming community sentiment. That decision may be justified, because the committee memers naturally had greater exposure to the candidates. But at the very least, they owe an explanation to the community to explain their rationale.

The refusal by committee members and the statement by Mr. Jack Horrigan, chairman of the Board of Trustees, that trustees have the power to do as they please, reflects an arrogance that is exceeded, in my opinion, only by the ineptitude of these trustees. It is owrth remembering, after all, that it is these very trustees that brought this college a few years ago to the brink of bankruptcy, which resulted in the declaration of financial exigency and the termination of 18 faculty members and countless other employees. Excuse us, Mr Chairman if we don't have much confidence in you and your raff of earnest buffoons.

Even though search committee members and the trustees may choose to hide or refuse to respond, they cannot miss the facts. Col Zimon's resume is a model of vagueness. In it he states that he had "Oversight during past four years of multi-university system, including three universities, fourteen colleges, and numerous schools, institutes, and centers located in eleven States…." It states that he had, "Strategic and financial management oversight of very large organizations most recently at the $60 billion per annum level…." It adds that he "Wrote and helped negotiate major sections of two U.S. Treaties and related documents; contributions to two other U.S. Treaties."

We are not told what these institutions or organizations are or the nature of his "oversight and strategic" responsibilities. We are led to believe that he has authored treaties and other documents without specifying the documents he is actually referring to. Surely one has the right to ask for an explanation of such a vague resume. During his last visit to Albright, I asked Col Zimon to explain at a public forum the nature of his financial responsibilities in the army. Part of his explanation was that he had sole signature authority on army checks and had in fact just a few days earlier signed a $480 million check and that it was ascary feeling to be signing a check with so many seros on it. He added his was the only signature on that check. More on that in a bit.

In the college's press release "Statesman-Soldier-Scholar" on Col Zimon's appointment, there are sweeping and embarrassing comparisons between Col Zimon and General Eisenhower and some of these vague representations from his resume are repeated. The press release also asserts that he is "widely published." His resume is very skimpy in the area of publications, especially if one discounts two forthcoming books. In addition, fully a third of the so-called publications cited in his resume are treaty documents.

--..Continued..

--