Previous Message

1) I can't say neither can't hit the ground running, but IMO I don't see either as hitting the ground running. Rather I see them doing the usual "I'm evaluating the programs and getting to know the landscape" type of tried and trued discourse

2) the lady at least comes from a school USD, with a strong VB history, which for me I like

3) the gentleman's resume at least has some postiive discernable metrics listed about fund-raising

4) I see each as both using LBSU as a stepping-stone. that's not unexpected, but then it also can result in LCD (least common denominator) operations. i.e., they won't risk making a mistake to hurt their careers. and we need someone who can stick their neck out and beat the bushes, and present LBSU coherently and without word salad leadership


5) seeing these resumes, I'm beyond dissapointed knowing who DID NOT make it as finalist and won't be the next AD. not just beyond dissapointed, flabbergasted and frustrated. I don't know the criteria the selection committee used or who was composed on it, but it's pretty clear the agenda is not the same as what I perceive what should have been the following key factors:
fund-raising, credibility, buy-in, PROVEN success, & stature .... are the main criteria for this next AD. these two have some credibility, some success, probably ambition ...and all those are fine, but to pass over a shot-in-the arm hit the ground running leader is sad to me

I am afraid our PResident has made another check-box action to her litany of problem-solving techniques.

6) of course, need to support and give the new AD a chance, just I expect not much of anything but well chosen words to come out initially.