In response to my question at the open faculty forum, Col Zimon himself conceded that his publishing record is weak and that he is acutely concious of that fact. So presumably even he would acknowledge that the college's press release is stretching the truth when it claims that he is "widely published" and has a "distinguished" record of scholarship.

In the face of the refusal of committee members to respond to requests for information, I filed several Freedom of Information requests with the army under the Freedom of Information Act. I received the army's reply during the past week. To my request for any documents authored by Col Zimon on the army's educational system (my Question 4), or documents relating to treaties or U.S. security plans (my Question 8) or any documents relating to the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement (my Question 9), the army response was: "No official documents were authored or co-authored by Colonel Zimon in response to your queries in paragraphs 4, 8 and 9. Service Planners responsibilities include the review and approval or other appropriate action on numerous documents, which are authored or co-authored by others. However, it is rare for Service Planners to serve as the primary author or co-author of official government documents or related materials."

Note some of these very documents are specifically cited as publications in Col Zimon's resume and the he claims he "wrote."

What about any checks signed by Col Zimon going back as far as 1996 (recall the $480 million check that was causing Col Zimon such trepidation)? The army response: "Colonel Zimon has signed no government checks during the period since 1996."

Now there could be perfectly valid and reasonable explanations for these discrepancies, and I, for one, am all ears. But surely we have the right to an explanation. Even though I am raising these concerns, I am withholding my judgment and still do not want to suggest any wrongdoing. I simply want wither committee members or Col Zimon to give us some explanation for these incongruities. I do not ask the community nor Albrightian readers to accept either my analysis or my recitation of the facts. I ask only that the full facts in these areas be explained.

In The Albrightian article, Dr Karen Campbell protests that she is upset that her duties on the search committee are being questioned. The faculty saw just how upset she was when she broke down and cried profusely at the faculty meeting after several tough questions were raised. Professor Campbell's unusual predilection for operating in the dark is understandable given her professional specialization in affinity for bats. But surely those of us who don't make a career of pursuing batty research can be forgiven for daring to ask for some light.

Achal Mehra

--..Continued..

--