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.
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

--..End

--