Troyer resigns; UI to pay $175,000 in severance deal

The University of Illinois will pay former chief of staff Lisa Troyer $175,000 as part of a severance agreement that the university recently reached with her.

The university has not initiated, and will not initiate, any disciplinary process, according to UI spokesman Tom Hardy.

"Professor Troyer has resigned her tenured faculty appointment in the Department of Psychology on the Urbana campus of the university effective August 15, 2012," according to a university statement released this afternoon.

The agreement was the result of a mediation conference agreed upon by both sides, according to the university.

The announcement comes on the second day Robert Easter has been in the UI president's office. He took over presidential duties from Michael Hogan on July 1.

Troyer resigned as Hogan's chief of staff in January amid an investigation into anonymous emails reportedly tracked to her computer. The anonymous emails sent to faculty leaders were about the contentious enrollment management recommendations being debated at the time among faculty and administrators. Troyer has denied sending the emails. The report did not come to any conclusions about whether Troyer violated any university policies or rules.

In a statement released by her lawyers, Troyer said, "I have always stated that I never sent any anonymous emails, and the investigation report never concluded that I did."

Troyer did not immediately return a phone call from The News-Gazette.

After Hogan joined the UI as president in 2010, he hired Troyer, a colleague from the University of Connecticut, as his chief of staff. Troyer, a sociologist by training, earned $200,850. After her resignation as chief of staff, Troyer joined the faculty in the Department of Psychology on the Urbana campus; the tenured position had been established for her there when she joined the university.

She was scheduled to teach a psychology course this fall.

Sections (2):News, Local
Tags (1):Lisa Troyer

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

kc072157 wrote on July 03, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Here we go agian, pay money without any consequence for wrong doing, no wonder no one thinks anyone or any organization has credibility 

joshua d wrote on July 03, 2012 at 3:07 pm

they had to pay her.  she was suing them and would of won.  read the report.  it shows her computer was probably hacked. and why didnt they say what the intrview with the chancellor was about.  theres way more to this than meets the eye. she obviously has something on the university. but now it may nver come out.

juandez wrote on July 03, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Are you sure you read the same report I did? You need to work on your reading comprehension. 

It basically concluded that the computer had not been hacked, and it was always under her control. The report when into great detail as to how they were able to prove the emails were sent on that computer and how there was no evidence of hacking.

 

joshua d wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

yes i read it.  so did many others who saw the troubles in it.  one part of the report said her computer was interupted and they went to the truble of cheking it.  thats a hack. a denial of srvice. they tried to hide it. probably why she was suing. if they really thougt she did this why the pay off.  sorry but your the one who should check on your reading comprehension. no offense.

thelowedown wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Joshua, you did not comprehend -- or read completely -- the report.

"In addition to reviewing the forensic artifacts on the Troyer Laptop to determine whether the anonymous emails were created on that machine, Duff & Phelps also reviewed the work conducted by the University’s IT Department and performed an independent review of certain network and session data to determine whether the Troyer Laptop had been remotely accessed or “hacked” by a third party. The University’s IT Department performed an in-depth analysis of the firewall logs and network activity which was well designed to detect any remote access of the Troyer Laptop.

"The following investigative steps were undertaken by Duff & Phelps:

"(1) The file systems on the Troyer Laptop were scanned for any known virus, malware, Trojan, or other potentially malicious software with no positive results.

"(2) Duff & Phelps verified that system activity on the Troyer Laptop was consistent with network activity reported by the University IT Department, and found no inconsistencies that would indicate malicious activity.

"(3) The system logs and startup scripts were analyzed for any abnormalities. Only one service log showed a service interruption. Further investigation with security sites and the National Vulnerability Database revealed no known exploits related to the crash of this service that could cause a remote hijack of the system.

"(4) A live system analysis of the image provided by the University IT Department was done in order to verify proper operation of the laptop’s firewall and verify that no malicious software was present on the laptop attempting to contact an unauthorized computer.

"No unusual activity was identified, nor were any other signs indicating remote access of the Troyer Laptop by a third party.

"In an interview with investigators, Troyer described what she considered to be unusual activity on her computer and the University network, which she presented as evidence supporting her contention that an unauthorized third-party had accessed her computer. She noted that the IT Department had documented network traffic involving her laptop on December 12, 2011, from 10:00 am and 11:30 am, during the time when she was in meetings and not at her computer. The IT Department reviewed this traffic and concluded that it was not indicative of unauthorized access, but rather indicated that her computer had been left connected to a Yahoo.com website which periodically refreshed itself.

 

"Troyer also described concerns related to the loaner and replacement computers she was assigned when her laptop was acquired for forensic analysis, as well as alleged problems with email and network access she attributed to unidentified staffers. App. 23. These problems included error messages that occurred during the use of her University email account. App. 24.

"The IT Department concluded that these concerns were not indicative of any unauthorized access of University network systems, and Duff & Phelps’ independent analysis of the data revealed no evidence of any unauthorized intrusion into the University network systems.

"In order for an outside party to obtain unauthorized access to the Troyer Laptopin such a way as to have been responsible for the anonymous emails, the followingwould have needed to occur:

  • "The third-party would have needed information about Troyer’s work habits and whereabouts, and the ability to insert unauthorized activity in between Troyer’s documented activity without Troyer’s awareness.
  • "The third-party would have needed to be able to pass through the University’s AITS firewall as well as over the campus network without leaving any trace in any of the multiple campus network and security devices.
  • "The third-party would have needed to be able to pass through the Troyer Laptop’s firewall without leaving any trace.
  • "The third-party would have needed to be able to send “test” emails from the Troyer Laptop to Troyer’s University email account, and after having done so, would have needed to be able to access her email account in order to delete those same “test” messages and then empty the Outlook trash folder before Troyer saw them.
  • "The third-party would have needed to be able to leave behind selected artifacts on the Troyer Laptop implicating its user in the creation of the emails.
  • "The third-party would have needed to secretly conduct a search for the term “permanent delete,” and then initiate and abort the running of “secure erase.” These would have needed to be carefully prepared in order to leave deliberate forensic traces but not any onscreen indication to the user. The third-party would have needed to run the wiping utility just long enough to leave the implicating indication that it had been run but not long enough to undo any of the false trails that had been planted on the Troyer Laptop beforehand.

Foster wrote on July 03, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Joshua,  I agree.  I have always believed there was something fishy here but I did not know she had sued the U of I. The fact that they are paying her more than two years of salary counting the last 6 months while nothing happened to her says something is wrong. Also if she is resigning why is she being paid for another several weeks? I bet there is more like legal costs and other pieces of what she will get for staying silent.  There should be ways of finding out what really happened.  If there is a contract on this pay out it should be made publicly available.

thelowedown wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Foster, she is being paid because her resignation is not effetive until August 15th. If you had read the story you are commenting on, you might know that fact.

Foster wrote on July 03, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Ms/Mr. thelowdown:  I did read the story and your comment is exactly my point.  Why is her resignation not immediate?  Why is the University of Illinois waiting 6 more weeks, all with pay and benefits, for her resignation?  She will have eight or nine months of pay and benefits since this all started beyond the $175K amount.  This is not a legal settlement that would result for a person that the university was convinced was guilty.  I have found this entire issue very suspicious from the beginning and continue to do so.  There seems to be much more involved that those in charge do not want to have revealed.  Troyer must have a gag order as part of tthis.

rsp wrote on July 03, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Maybe you missed the part that she wasn't yet charged with a crime so until charged you have to abide by the terms of the contract that was in place. If you don't do that it can end up costing you more in the long run. Troyer filed suit because she wanted to be paid for being on Hogan's staff after she resigned from his staff. Her resignation was negotiated, meaning part of it was that they wouldn't come after her with charges and maybe she can try to salvage her career elsewhere. I think everything to be seen is in plain sight, no gag order. You might want to ask yourself why she would follow him from job to job and throw away her career. There is something that defies logic there.

Manny L wrote on July 03, 2012 at 6:07 pm

She doesn't have to be charged with a crime to be fired, rsp.  The university can fire you without a judge, without a jury, without a trial.  It's in their procedures.  They're doing it with Wozniak.  Like some others on this message board, I heard she was suing for defamation and maybe more.  I also looked at the agreement she signed.  She signed it a few weeks ago.  There are a whole lot more legal actions she is barred from taking than the university.  I also found it interesting that she can't sue Wheeler.  There is a long list of people who aren't allowd to comment, too, including Wise.  I do agree. It all defies logic.  Something stinks.

rsp wrote on July 03, 2012 at 8:07 pm

This is what happens when you llisten to rumors. She wasn't suing anyone. She filed two complaints with the Illinois Department of Labor. I guess you missed that in the agreement she signed? The people who can't comment? You think it defies logic? If you were her and you were looking for a job, wouldn't you want them legally barred from telling what you did? But she expects Hogan to tell people what a good employee she is apparently. If anything that should raise more questions with you than the fact that she wants to keep people from telling what she did. They list all of the options for lawsuits because she's just that kind of person who will try to come back and sue for something else if it's not included. Wheeler was one of her targets and by listing him if she get's caught defaming him she could lose all of the money plus additional damages. When you have a contract like the one Hogan arranged for her they couldn't just fire her. I don't care what their procedures say. They still have to abide by the terms of the contract they signed with her. That required going through a process to get rid of her. 

Manny L wrote on July 04, 2012 at 9:07 am

How do you know she wasn't suing the university or individuals?  It doesn't make sense to pay her $175,000 for two wage claims and add the expense of hiring an outside lawyer to deal with the claims if a acouple of wage claims are all there is to this.  One month on her salary is about 9,000.  There must be more to this to motivate the university to make this kind of pay off.  They wouldn't have to call out Wheeler as being excluded from future litigation by her if they didn't think she had a case on him.  There are most likely things he said or did that were beyond his authority.  The agreement states that she cannot sue officials of the university.  If Wheeler had been acting within his the authority at the university that statement would have covered him without needing to name him to protect him.  They could have also just said that no officials can speak about her, but they instead pointed out specific names, including Wise who was interviewed in the investigation but the details of that interview have never been disclosed but others were.  Why did they agree to this deal for her?  There is clearly more involved.  I agree they must want her to be quiet and just leave, but the question I have is why do they want her silence so much and at such a great cost?  What does she know?  Since you seem to know so much rsp, maybe you can explain how her contract was different for faculty who can be disciplined or terminated without going to court.  Other news reports have said that the university was going to do that.  Now they drop it at a a big expense.  Why?

Alexander wrote on July 04, 2012 at 12:07 pm

I consider this very normal in the business world. She's quitting. Had she stayed on, the cost of her salary in the psych dept for 10 years would have been much greater. They wanted her out now, so they paid a fee to do it. Finally, if she sued, even if she had no case, the cost of lawyer's fees to the university would have likely cost more than the settlement. In business, the higher up you are, the more one has to pay out -- since it's harder to get a similar job. Whether she deserved to be in such a position is a different point, but it's well established that you cannot treat someone in her position the same way as a Walmart clerk. That's just the truth, even if you or I don't like it. Everything else I could say has already been said.

Summary: This is Occam's razor applied to this situation. My point is that employment law is very specific, and can't just be analyzed with the untrained eye. Idle conjecture and "why?"'s unsupported with any evidence whatsoever is pointless and likely just wrong.

 

rsp wrote on July 04, 2012 at 1:07 pm

How do you know she wasn't suing the university or individuals?

I know it for a fact. Read the agreement. Would you sign a severence agreement with someone you wanted to go away that allows her to keep coming at you? If she was suing them it would be settled with this agreement and listed. The only thing there is the complaints with the Labor Dept. for back pay she wanted. It states that with the agreement it's settled. It also states she can't sue anyone there or she has to give the money back. She can't even use them as a reference, just Hogan. She wasn't faculty, her contract was negotiated by her good friend Hogan. 

Which side do you think was paranoid and wanted to name people who couldn't talk about her? When the U/I named Wheeler I think it was so she couldn't go after him privately when this is over. I suspect as time went on the came to realize that someone had some serious issues and it would be in everyones best interest to reach an agreement. 

Regarding her contract you're forgetting that she was in the President's office with a contract negotiated by Hogan. In essence she had two contracts, or two parts to her contract that came into play. First she worked directly under Hogan. She resigned from that position and became a faculty member. Even to fire a faculty member they have to go through a really long process. Due process. Because she had tenure. Meanwhile the grownups at the U/I probably wanted to focus on their jobs.

Manny L wrote on July 04, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Well, rsp, maybe you can tell us where you get your facts since you say that you "know it for a fact" that Troyer does not have or will not have a law suit going.

No one gets tenure at the university without a department, a dean, a provost, and a chancellor approving it.  That would include Waatkins, Wheeler, and Easter approving her appointment when she was hired.  Troyer made this point when Tolliver and Murav said she was tenured after this email thing and not before it.  Her department, the dean, the provost, the chancellor all approved it when she started according to records from the Board of Trustees.  There is no sign of any special negotiation.  From the other news reports it seems like she was or maybe is still going to sue both Tolliver and Murav and others and from what I can see she probably has a case.  I think she can probably sue Tolliver because Tolliver put it on the record when she claimed Troyer was not tenured through a regular process by saying she was speaking as an individual and case law shows that someone in Tolliver's position knows better.  She may be fried on this.  Murav said she spoke on behalf of a faculty organization and maybe is safe from a law suit. If what the News Gazette posted is accurate there is a whole page of law suits Troyer can not file against university authorities.  That about covers the range for anyone acting with university authority and I wonder why they needed all this. It does not cover anyone acting as an individual.  Then, the agreement says she can not pursue Wheeler as an individual even if he had no authority to say or do the things he did. This means it protects him as an individual. It also seems to mean that he was saying or doing things he had no authority to do.  Why else would he get this special protection? Anyone who spoke out as an individual except Wheeler is outside this agreement. That puts Tolliver, Moore, maybe Murav, Chambers, Burluse, who can not seem to keep from talking and others in the gun sights of a law suit.  Too bad that they did not get in on Wheeler's deal to be protected as individuals by this agreement.  I wonder who else is at risk.  This is a very big pay out to someone if the university really had proof that she did something wrong.  I doubt it would cost this much to go through the dismissal process on her if they have solid proof and if she does not have something on them.  The big question is what does she have on them that would lead to such a big pay out to her.

wayward wrote on July 04, 2012 at 7:07 pm

It sounds like Troyer came to UI attached to Hogan, and tenured full professor status was part of that deal.  If Tolliver was just saying that most people who are hired here with that status have been recruited because of their research, that doesn't seem libelous.

I'm not convinced Troyer had anything on UI.  Her career prospects seem kind of slim, and I doubt the money is going to last that long.  Dismissing a tenured faculty member sounds like a messy, drawn-out process, and she could have basically threatened to make them go through that if they didn't give her anything.  During that time, they probably would have been paying her salary, so it's not like it wouldn't have cost them anything.

rsp wrote on July 04, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Answer me this, how long did she work at the school before she was a tenured professor? It was given to her by the BOT when she was hired. At the request of her little friend. Keep up. She didn't earn it from the U/I in other words. When she was originally hired and a lot of people weren't happy about all of the perks that were promised from the start. That was one of them. It doesn't matter if she had anything or not it's bad publicity. The bad publicity is hurting the university more than paying her to leave. Wouldn't you want her to go away?

Read the agreement. That's where the facts are.

mankind wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

The report doesn't state her computer was hacked at all. Your post is just proof that if someone denies wrongdoing enough, someone will always believe them no matter what the evidence. The university probably gave her the severance because they couldn't break her contract otherwise. I really hope they reevaluate how they hire presidents from now on. Hogan and Troyer must get on the phone every night and laugh and laugh and laugh.  

thelowedown wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Joshua, the report says there is zero evidence her computer was hacked or accessed without authorization. Before you spread your lies, you might want to realize this is the age of the web, where lots of information is easily accessible and your tinfoil hat conspiracies cannot float around with the truth off in some mystical distance. In fact, the truth lies in the report linked to.

http://www.uillinois.edu/our/news/2012/emails/FinalReport.only.Jan13.pdf

THX-1138 wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

The computer was not hacked, and the evidence that she sent the emails is damning. She even did a test run and only sent the emails to herself.

The full report is available here: http://www.uillinois.edu/our/news/2012/emails/FinalReport.only.Jan13.pdf

Here's the summary:

"* The Troyer Laptop was used to compose the content of the aboutuiintegrity Emails and then to send these emails.
* Troyer was in possession of the Troyer Laptop at the time the aboutuiintegrity Emails were sent.
* The Troyer Laptop was not improperly accessed by any third-party, either directly or remotely, at any relevant time. Indeed, the investigation uncovered no evidence to indicate that the Troyer Laptop had been improperly accessed at any time.
* The investigation uncovered no evidence of any breach of University network security with respect to the Troyer Laptop.
* Given the above findings, and the additional information developed in this investigation described below, it is reasonable to infer that Troyer composed and sent the aboutuiintegrity Emails, using her laptop and falsely representing herself to be a University Senator.
* On December 5, 2011 (a week before sending the aboutuiintegrity Emails), Troyer used the Troyer Laptop to open a separate Yahoo! email account (goillini81@yahoo.com); to compose anonymous emails (the “goillini81 Emails”), purportedly from a “Soon ex-senator,” that were critical of comments made by certain Senators in opposition to the enrollment management proposal; and to send the goillini81 Emails as a “test” to Troyer’s University email account. These emails appear not to have been sent to any other person."

The real question here is why we're paying anything to an employee that lied every step of the way and wasted University resources chasing phantom hackers.

GeneralLeePeeved wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

....and so ends yet another costly sad chapter in University administration history caused by yet another BAD decision made by people who get paid a whole lot of money to make decisions.  It's not so much a crime that they made a bad decision, the problem is that they keep being allowed to make more of them!

joshua d wrote on July 03, 2012 at 4:07 pm

honestly no offense to any of you.  but talk about beliving all you read. look at the report were it says her computer was interrepted and then they checked on it.  they wouldnt do a check if it wasnt serius.  thats a hack people. its denial of service attack.  i dont know why they didnt say so except they must have wanted to see if they could get her. maybe some one should look at what the outside company was hired to do.  were they just hired to get her. also why are they paying her now for like someone else said more than two years and maybe more. why arent they just firing her because they could if she didnt have something on them.  the university maybe said she wasnt hacked but thats not what the report says if you read it that denial of service is right there but they seemd to hide it.  why was it that the outside consultant didnt get involved for almost two weekks. what was going on for that time. why was the chancelor interviewed. if they had her they wouldnt be paying her this much.  there are way more qustions raised by that report and this pay off than answered. 

ClearVision wrote on July 06, 2012 at 2:07 pm

I read it as saying that a University service was interrupted around the time of one of the incidents. That sort of thing happens all the time, and has nothing to do with any particular computer. The investigators were just being extremely thorough. Also, you insist there was some kind of denial of service attack. Tell us how a denial of service attack could have composed the fake messages, created the Yahoo account, sent the test messages to herself, then sent the messages to the senate recipients, all over the course of several days. Talk about defying logic!

Personally, I think she won't try to sue anybody, since the evidence is so clear she did it and it would just continue to hurt her future job prospects to keep this in the news.

cruieo wrote on July 07, 2012 at 2:07 pm

If the outside  forensic company did not have access to the computer for 2 weeks AND they can't guarantee that the computer was not secured during those 2 weeks then there is absolutely NOTHING you can conclude from this report. Throw in evidence of a DOS attack and it seems to me pretty clear. The entire report was bogus and there is much more to this story.  

Foster wrote on July 07, 2012 at 6:07 am

Ms./Mr. Clearvision.  After Mr. joshua d's posts, I consulted with some friends who seem to know a great deal about computers.  They all agreed that this report indicates an attack on Troyer's computer.  It is not a general interruption of service at the university.  It is an interruption on her computer.  One colleague advised me that by IT offices will use the term "service interruption" instead of "Denial of Service Attack" to quell anxiety that the latter causes.  IT officers do not want customers to think that their computers are at risk, although they are always at risk if they are on the internet.  I find it suspicious that the report uses this tactic.  I also find it very disturbing that the report claims "no evidence of hacking" when this is clear evidence of a potential hack.  This alone may explain the university's interest in paying Troyer to remain silent.  There may also be more.  The report is very one-sided and perhaps there is more to be told about what Troyer knows, such as why only some of the interviews were reported.  At least one, the interview with Dr. Wise, is glaringly omitted from the report. 

ClearVision wrote on July 07, 2012 at 7:07 pm

You and your "experts" need to go back to basics and research what a "denial of service" attack is. Until you understand this, you just sound silly.

joshua d wrote on July 08, 2012 at 2:07 pm

cv then explain to us why this isnt a dos attack since you know so much.  go to the cern site and youll see that foster and i are right on this one.  even ask it or any cs student.  this was a dos attack.  what seems weird is that they put it in the report but trid to hid it.  may be the outside investigtor felt they had to include it or may be troyer knew about it and so they had to say it.  who knows.  another question with no anser.

wayward wrote on July 08, 2012 at 6:07 pm

go to the cern site and youll see that foster and i are right on this one

Well, CERN is the European center for nuclear research that recently made the news for the Higgs boson discovery.  CERT is the US computer emergency readiness team that puts out advisories.  Just another one of those basic facts that might come in handy when you're trying to "debunk" the official report.

joshua d wrote on July 09, 2012 at 10:07 am

ww. tx for clarifaction now people will have right info.

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 03, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Regardless of the report details, the two issues are this. 1) The ethics office is ineffective and cannot reach across the isle and pull the plug on these people because the university is entering into contractual agreements that do not include providing for dismissal for cause further than a shift to their tenure position. They enter as Tenured Professors "serving" as administrators. 2)The source of this problem is the vetting process itself. There is some political blight that is apparent resulting in the choosing of these larcenous minded cons. Fix that and you fix the dysfunction that is this University's administration.

ohnooo wrote on July 03, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Over compensated, special privileged,  underworked "professionals" of the defunct state of Illinois, she should have been fired with NO severance No retirement pay.  This fine state is drowning in problems, not just financial, and this college, well it is over priced ( see the tution increases yoy ) is part of it.  When will it end.....or at least improve ? 

nbmiller wrote on July 03, 2012 at 6:07 pm

This makes me sick.  I'm a U of I retiree and this would be 7 years income for me.

cruieo wrote on July 03, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Dear News Gazette,

This smells bad.  Why would this campus pay her more then two years of salary if there was not more to this story.  Where there is smoke there is fire.  There have to be documents you can Foia. You have already accussed the campus of a vendetta against Troyer.  Why?  

Feltrino wrote on July 03, 2012 at 9:07 pm

If the posts on this story are from UI graduates, the grammar and spelling would indicate that the school has bigger problems than Troyer and her laptop.

rsp wrote on July 03, 2012 at 10:07 pm

If Troyer was as incompetent with a computer as she wanted people to believe she should never have been hired as an executive. 

wayward wrote on July 04, 2012 at 8:07 am

I think most of us agree that Troyer should never have been hired as an executive. :)  But she was, and as you point out, UI would have had to go through procedures to get rid of her.

sahuoy wrote on July 04, 2012 at 6:07 am

This story is simple confirmation that females love to talk, gossip, influence change by cloak and dagger methods. She has been caught. Nothing has changed. New technologies are tripping up the females and that's all there is to this. Done deal.

wayward wrote on July 04, 2012 at 8:07 am

It certainly seems that there are a lot of stupid people out there with access to computers and technology.

sahuoy wrote on July 04, 2012 at 6:07 am

This story is simple confirmation that females love to talk, gossip, influence change by cloak and dagger methods. She has been caught. Nothing has changed. New technologies are tripping up the females and that's all there is to this. Done deal.

EL YATIRI wrote on July 04, 2012 at 7:07 am
Profile Picture

Big win for Troyer. She was doing exactly what Hogan and the U of I Board of Trustees wanted.

That's why she gets the money.  It is to buy her silence with.

wayward wrote on July 04, 2012 at 8:07 am

Getting rid of tenured professors is a messy and time-consuming process, and I'd guess UI would have spent more than $175000 on her salary, other people's time, and legal fees if they'd gone that route.  They've been going through this with Louis Wozniak, and that seems to have been dragging on for years.  Unlike Troyer, he has filed a couple of lawsuits in Champaign County.

Troyer is probably pretty much done. AFAIK, there aren't tons of tenure-track jobs for sociologists, and it's hard to imagine another school being eager to hire her.

Foster wrote on July 04, 2012 at 9:07 am

I still believe something is wrong with this situation.  A few months ago McNeely, the ethics officer, said that nothing was confidential about this case.  McNeely gave no more information though.  After that Troyer still has not talked and now it looks like the university wants to preserve her silence.  I think that because McNeely said that there is no confidentiality on this case all of her records related to Troyer should be made public and all Troyer's records on it should be made public.  That would include any records Troyer has from people she might have hired to investigate.  All we have now is a report from an outside expensive firm hired by McNeely after McNeely and CITES had been working for two weeks on this.  If McNeely and CITES found nothing after two weeks and had to try to get Troyer or someone implicated by hiring an outside firm at significant cost then there is something wrong.  I wonder if Troyer's people found the smoking gun behind this and the university wants it kept under wraps.  That might explain this very large pay out to her and all the constraints on people talking about it, now including Troyer, who McNeely says had no confidentiality issues earlier.  Now they seem to want Troyer's silence and for her to keep it all confidential as part of this agreement.

whatsinitforme wrote on July 04, 2012 at 11:07 am

 


In private business, this is called a gag order/hold harmless agreement with consideration. Although the consideration is high, this is very common in the business world.

cruieo wrote on July 04, 2012 at 11:07 am

What do we NOT know?

This is a very questionable and suspicious situation.  It is not so much what is in the investigative report that should be addressed (as several other writers have) it is what is not in the report that needs to be questioned.  Clearly there were people interviewed during this investigation who's testimony was not included in the report.  What did they say and why was their testimony not included?  Who should have been interviewed that was not?  A Denial of Service attack on a computer has the potential to render the system completely vulnerable.  Why was this fact buried deep in the report and called something less onerous?  If as another writer states the computer did not get to the outside firm for several days (or maybe even as much as 2 weeks!) then is there not the potential that the evidence was tampered with therefore making the entire investigation tainted?  Finally, if Troyer continues to claim innocence, who did she communicate this too and what is the basis of her claims?  Another words, what is the other side of the story here?  If as the campus has claimed that the investigation was not confidential then is this information not available through the Freedom of Information Act? 

These and other questions needed to be asked and investigated so  that maybe the rest of this yet unfinished story can be told.

rsp wrote on July 04, 2012 at 9:07 pm

 A Denial of Service attack on a computer has the potential to render the system completely vulnerable.  Why was this fact buried deep in the report and called something less onerous? 

Are you referring to when she left her computer logged into yahoo, and the page kept refreshing itself? That's not a denial of service. 

 Finally, if Troyer continues to claim innocence, who did she communicate this too and what is the basis of her claims?

Everyone she's talked to, and if you repeat it enough somebody will believe you. That doesn't make it true. 

joshua d wrote on July 05, 2012 at 10:07 am

cant answer all your questions rsp.  dont know who she claimed innonce to but youd think that the university lawyers know and might have beleived she has a good case.  why else would they settle and my opinion is still that the report has problems.  the dos attack is not a refreshing yahoo page.  its the service interuption that the report mentiosn.  they just avoid the common term dos attack.  you can tell its dos attack by how they handled it.

wayward wrote on July 05, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Your assertion doesn't even make sense. Denial of service attacks are generally aimed at servers, not random personal laptops.  The purpose of a DoS attack is to render a server unable to function adequately so that it can't respond to client requests in a timely manner (if at all).  Trying to make network communication appear to come from somewhere else is called spoofing.  However, this did not appear to have occurred with the Troyer emails.  The report was quite clear that the laptop had been under Troyer's control at all times, and there was no sign that it had been compromised.

joshua d wrote on July 05, 2012 at 8:07 pm

wrong again ww.  dos attacks can hit individual pcs or servers.. this is the first thing that made me wonder. all pcs are vulnrable to attacks even the it web says so.  for pc users they dont know if there computer was hit. the servers might have built in detction software that show if they were hit and this shows up on the national warehouse. few uers have such dignostcs and it wont be in the warehouse. there isnt anything in the report that says troyer had control of the pc at all times. she said she was in other meetings at some of the time.  you are right that there are other ways to do something like this like spoofing.but this looks to me like dos attack tho i wont deny your theory that it could be spoofed or both.

wayward wrote on July 05, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Oh geesh.

Theoretically, a DOS attack could target a random laptop, but it wouldn't make much sense for an attacker to do that.  A distributed denial of service attack takes a certain amount of effort.  The attacker would often be using a botnet, and would have to either create one or leverage an existing one.  Why go to all that trouble to temporarily silence a random user, especially since a laptop user on a DHCP network could pretty easily turn the machine off and come back with a different IP address?

Compromised user machines can certainly be exploited by botnets, which are commonly used in DDoS attacks.  But the investigators checked Troyer's laptop and found no evidence of malware or compromise.

I didn't come up with a "theory" that the email was spoofed.  I simply explained what the term meant.

rsp wrote on July 06, 2012 at 8:07 am

Some  of the emails were sent while she was on the phone, had the computer and was using it and admitted having it and using it with absolutely no evidence of any compromise to the computer. She never claimed her computer was hacked until she was told they had traced the emails to her computer. Now why is that? She never noticed the evidence she was trying to delete in the sent box? Why do you think they hired specialists? They know everything that was done with that machine and where. They know when she had the computer and when she left it alone. That's the beauty of digital records. You send a work email and then 30 seconds later you send a non-work email. What does that tell you?

joshua d wrote on July 06, 2012 at 11:07 am

ww dont mean to embarass you but a dos attack doesnt have to be random. it can be targedted to a pc and its not that hard to do.  the big bots dont go that way cuz they dont care about little guys they hit commercial servers for money or intellgence.  someone who wanted to get her could do this pretty easy.  maybe cs should have a contest to see.  probably take no more than a day for good cs student.

rsp i dont see where she said she had the computer the whole time.  the investigator said so but dont know cuz i see where she said she was some where else a couple of times during it. also i dont see where it said she deleted her outbox. where does it say she sent an email 30 sec before one of the two went out.  where doe it say she was on the phone when one of them was sent.  your misreprsetning the info. it looks like a frame job. very little of the report has revelant info but the service interuption is relevant info but hiden. thats very suspcious to people in it.  why they hired specialists.  they did that two weeks after they had her computer.  what were they doing with it and what did they do to it for two weeks. why would they need experts. universty has it experts.  this isnt how you do a it security invstigation.  theres to many questions raised by this. id like to see what info she has about it being a bad investigaton.

wayward wrote on July 06, 2012 at 11:07 am

Why not go visit the CS department and tell the security researchers there all about how hackers use denial of service attacks against personal laptops to gain information and send emails to the UI faculty senate?  Even if some of them felt embarrassed when confronted with your stellar technical knowledge, I'm sure they'd be all ears.

joshua d wrote on July 06, 2012 at 7:07 pm

ww why so defnsive.  i dont have to visit.  already there.  thats much of my point.  im not the only one in cs who sees this is not an objectv report.  one sided. hidden info and theres the pay off to troyer.  that about says it all.

wayward wrote on July 06, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Actually, a CS professor was the person who started the ball rolling.  Roy Campbell took a look at the metadata included in the email and noticed that it appeared to have been written on Lisa Troyer's computer.

joshua d wrote on July 07, 2012 at 2:07 pm

dr campbell also said to be cautious about believing it is troyer and hes said that over and over again cuz this stuff is easily faked. dr campbell has nevere come out and said troyer is responsible and i heard the it people never found the same path on troyers computer.  just setting the record straight.  dont mean any harm ww but you keep trying to defend a report that has to many problms.

Alexander wrote on July 07, 2012 at 7:07 am

Joshua D: No offense intended, but your posts (which I mainly disagree with) might elicit a more agreeable response if you wrote properly. Maybe you're commenting from an inconvenient device, I don't know. But if you're "already there" in the CS department, presumably as an educated and learned person about DOS attacks etc, then can you at least once demonstrate some reading/writing comprehension skills? This way people won't think they're wasting their time. Just sayin'.

joshua d wrote on July 07, 2012 at 3:07 pm

a.  yep using a device.  no apologs or excuses for bad spelling but you and others are gettng the point i think. feel free to disagree.  hope its not for spelling and only for content.  just sayin.

Alexander wrote on July 07, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Fine (with the spelling and the grammar, and the disjointed sentences). But let me summarize some points (beyond my earlier post that one of your brothers in arms never responded to) and which address yours.

Fact 1: Troyer was going to make $175 K in two years or so of regular salary. She had at least a decade to go in her career.

So while people comment on and on about how she's getting such a big payout (and the implications about "what she has on the school") I'd rather say the opposite -- if she was blameless, why did she take such a *small* payout to end her career here? Especially if the report was so "flawed"?

Fact 2: She was taking illicit emails from a UIS senator/professor about this very issue. Even without her own "alleged" false emails, it's clear she was behaving unethically about this very topic.

Fact 3: Despite any supposed flaws that "some people say" that "some people say" with the report, there were professionals, willing to sign their name that indicated strongly she sent those emails.

Conclusion: Hence, even if I accept that in principle, a stealth computer ninja could have hacked Troyer, when I put Fact 2 and Fact 3 together, the strong preponderance of the evidence suggests the Occam's razor solution: she forged the emails.

I challenge you (or anyone here) to explain why these alternative theories "some people say" should supercede the simplest solution.

 

 

 

joshua d wrote on July 08, 2012 at 1:07 pm

a. fact 1 as others have noted shes getting way more than 175. she still has the same time in carerr with enough to start agian.  fact 2 since when is it unethical to get  emails from people and the report says she didnt know who was sending them. its not clear they were even ilicit. you cant control who sends you email or what they send.  if it is unethicl then a whole lot of students and professors are going to be investigatd. what about all the porn junkmail in the ui pipeline everyday that people get. cant wait to see what happens there if your right.  i get random emails every day so i guess i better get a lawyer or start packin. fact 3 cant hold the outside people responsble.  they got the compter 2 weeks after ethics was dinking around with it. the outside investgation can only be responsble for it after theye got it and who knows what happend before.  thats my earlier point. this isnt how you do it investigations.  theres also the problems with the report shows a dos attack plus interviews not reported with no explantion.  who knows what else is wrong or missing with the report.  sorry a but your occams razor doesnt pan out. way more questions. no answrs.

Alexander wrote on July 08, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Dear Joshua D -- Those are interesting rebuttals, thanks. Why do I say Occam's razor? It's because it's reasonable to go with known facts rather than speculation. My point is that your rebuttals are based on unknowns, while my argument derives from the known. Take fact 1 and your rebuttal. She's reported to get 175K; the agreement is there to see. But you say that's not true, "some people say" she's "probably getting a lot more". You can't seriously want to base an rebuttal on that! Even her lawyers fees (which I not aware have been published) were 75K, so what? She could work for 10 more years at 109K if she was really so not guilty. Also, I don't think you or I are in a place to say her career options are the "same" after resigning.

Fact 2 and rebuttal: I agree and disagree you can't control what people send you. I'm not even going to get into the likely fact that she then transferred that info to Hogan (as suggested in the report). My rebuttal is simply this: if she received this information, it was her ethical duty to report the leak to the senate conference. She did not do that, and she did worse. The fact that Ting was calling her personally when the forged email scandal was breaking speaks for itself. 

I honestly don't understand your rebuttal to Fact 3. This time the disjointed sentences really were too hard for me to parse.

Look at your arguments, they go along the lines of "as others have noted" (you assume they know something) and "who knows what else is wrong or missing with the report" (you assume there's something missing)

Occam's razor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

joshua d wrote on July 08, 2012 at 6:07 pm

a. tx for your acknowledgemnt.  fact 1 is not speculation.  univ already admited spending more than 300,000 on outsid firms.  she gets 175,000 and 8 months salary, benefits. all facts.  now were up to over 500,000.  no speculation.  fact 2 since when is anyone required by ethics to report unverified emails they receiev much less phone calls.  crazy.  the univ doesnt even have resources to deal with that much less the law behind them. how many unverifd emails you have what about phone calls from people you know or dont.   fact 3 sorry i was unclear.  point is that the outside guys signed cuz they only had to deal with the computer after they received it and that was 2 weks after ethics office was fumblin with it.  who knows what they did to it.  holding a comptr with no results for 2 wks then handing it off is suspicus.  not the way to handle a it investigation.  the record shows problems.  thats all fact.  i know about o's razor.  if we used that rule of thmb, the death penalty wouldnt be going away. a lot of innocent peopl die or go to jail on an o's razor bet. dont mean to diss you a. just want people to know that this whole report is bogus and any one of us culd be at the receivng end of the same stuff.

Alexander wrote on July 08, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Dear Joshua D -- Thanks for your reply. 

Re: Fact 1 -- UIUC spending $300K on firms on this case doesn't have anything to do with Troyer. She was getting that 8 months+benefits already; UIUC couldn't take that away retroactively. So the agreement is for 175K going forward (maybe + lawyer's fees, I'm not sure); the other amounts do not pertain to her settlement, yes?

Re: Fact 2 -- First of all, there's a big difference between some estonian porn company sending me emails and getting emails with official senate document information attached. That's what made the emails verifiable. Clearly there was an ethical violation by someone, and therefore she had a duty to report it -- if only to protect her own reputation. (Of course we know the reason why she didn't do this, since she was "allegedly" in collaboration with the author Ting and trying to benefit from this inside info in negotiations.) 

Second, it's important to inspect the entirety of the case against her and the overall pattern of conduct. Combined with her "alleged" forged emails *on the same topic* as the "anonymous" emails she was receiving, her phone contact with Ting etc, it paints a very strong prima facie case against her.

Fact 3 -- You may be right that there are potential holes in the handling of the computer, I don't know. However, my main point remains the same: there are professionals who signed off on a report, thus putting their own reputations on the line, stating very clearly Troyer's computer was not hacked. Therefore,

Q: why should one supercede that with the speculation of unnamed people who can say anything for any reason? 

I know you know what Occam's razor means (and anyone can easily look it up). I only meant to cite a particular elaborated description that I am using.

I don't understand your remark about the razor and the death penalty. If you are saying that it's not a useful principle of discourse and thought, then what do you propose instead? 

Finally, if it is true that a "DOS attack" or whatever could hit a computer of someone like Troyer and send out stealth illicit emails meant to embarrass that person, then can you give me one published example in all of time? A html link would suffice. 

joshua d wrote on July 09, 2012 at 10:07 am

a. as i said earlier cert (tx to ww for correction) is a good sourse. wikipedia and simple google work to learn more. thru dos attack you can put a trojan horse on someones computer that can do all kinds of damage that gets blamed on the person. its one way to do identy theft to. remote desktop that ui it wants people to use is a huge hole for dos attack. i wont toucht it. my point about occs razor and death penalty is that the simple solution isnt always right and costs people lives. m. posted that troyer didnt have to report anon emails she got. i agree and if ethics says i have to thats a huge problem for  everyone. did whoever sent them to her do something wrong. then go after that person if something was wrong. dont know how much troyer is really geting. others said shes getting lawyer money extra months of pay benefits. i dont know. but getting anything says a lot if they put 300k or more into this couldnt get enough on her and had to pay her to stay quiet.

Alexander wrote on July 09, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Joshua D -- You're saying that you are expert in computer hacking stuff. You've described a scenario but won't give a single example. I can tell you that the things I know about well, I can respond to a simple challenge to give a single html link that shows that the scenario can happen to someone in reality rather than theory. 

"M" by which I assume you mean "Manny L" is a definitive source on university ethics? Why should you trust his interpretation more than mine (or mine more than his?). In any case, his wording was "where does it say that...." which is hardly an authoritative voice on the rules. Ting violated her fiduciary responsibility to her fellow senators by leaking information and documents to her negotiation counterparty (Troyer). Troyer, as an agent of the president should not accept or even leave the possibility open that she was behaving in an underhanded manner. That was unethical, period -- specifically it damages the appearance of the university. Thus, one can be let go. 

Please do not respond by saying that it was just an "anonymous email" (like one from a porn company). That ignores (again) the central point I've made.  Rather compare it to the level of responsibility expected say at Penn State.

Occam's razor doesn't say use a simple solution, it says that when choosing among competing hypotheses, you use the simplest one that fits the evidence UNLESS there is strong reason to go otherwise.

 

wayward wrote on July 09, 2012 at 10:07 pm

According to the report, Ting and Troyer also had phone conversations.  Just a guess here, but I'd bet you've never felt the need to call anyone who sent you random spam. :)

joshua d wrote on July 10, 2012 at 10:07 am

a. i never claimed im an expert or m. is. i just want people to know that your always at risk on internet and the report covered up a dos attack and said no one has to worry cuz ui interent is secure. thats wrong. you and me are at risk right now on this web site and every day we are on a ui computer on the net. seems unethical to me for ethics to say were safe when thats not true and there own report shows it. sorry i didnt give you enough to go on to find out more about risk. dont want to be accusd of pointing people to only one place who should be perfctly capble of their own research.but for a start try searching on wikipedia under targeted denial of service attack and back door trojan horse. or you can do it on google or any other search engine to. i dont see anything in the ethics rules that says that tings emails were illegal or a vioaltion of fiduciary resp. isnt that usualy a financil obligation some one has to keep. also how do you know troyer didnt report those emails. on my occs. r. comment sometimes a weak reason is best to avid harm. may be im wrong but i thought occs. r. has to do with balance and risk is part of it. im not trying to offend you a. or any one. im just bothered that this whole report is making people feel safe cuz were at ui. were not safe.

Alexander wrote on July 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Dear Joshua D -- Thanks for your thoughts; I guess I'm ready to call it a day. Nice chatting with you :)

Alexander wrote on July 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Dear Joshua D -- Thanks for your thoughts; I guess I'm ready to call it a day. Nice chatting with you :)

cruieo wrote on July 06, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Please read the report again so you can clarify for yourself the difference between the two items.  Secondly, if you know that she communicated her innocence to everyone then why not tell us the response she has received from the university regarding her reasons for claiming innocence. 

read the DI wrote on July 04, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Isn't it obvious? Sounds to me like she was doing the nasty with Hogan! Why else would he bring her from job to job?

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 05, 2012 at 3:07 pm

As much as I have commented on Dr. Troyer in the past, I do not feel that her reputation should be slandered by innuendos.  There is evidence of her possible lack of ethics; but it should be left at that.  There is no reason to speculate on anything other than her e-mail scandal.  She is leaving.  Dr. Hogan has stepped down.  Dr. Easter is the president now.  The e-mail scandal is over.  It's time to move on.

read the DI wrote on July 05, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Fair enough. But it certainly would explain the payout -- or is that "payoff?"

Manny L wrote on July 05, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Sid's right.  Your comments are no more than innuendo and childish.  It's very common for high level administrators to recruit their own assistants from among established colleagues.  Those positions are often step-offs for the recruited person to advance in a career. There are many administrators and faculty at U of I who have done the same when moving to the campus by bringing their own staff along with them.  I seem to recall also that she is from the midwest and wanted to return.  Stay on point and stop trying to create yet another non-existent scandal.

wayward wrote on July 05, 2012 at 4:07 pm

If by "administrator," you mean "basketball coach" or "football coach," sure, it's common for them to bring in their own staffs.  But bringing in a chief of staff with tenured full professor status and a salary higher than the governor's seemed to be a pretty unique move on Hogan's part.

Manny L wrote on July 05, 2012 at 5:07 pm

WayWard, your post is not very accurate.  For example for the research labs across the U of I and especially in Chicago every major faculty research hire brings in several staff.  Troyer's salary is small compared to their salaries.  Also her salary was always near the bottom of all administrators at the U of I.  It doesn't compare with football and basketball (mens) staff and pay, but neither do most faculty salaries, much less the president compared to a coach. Other administrators have also recruited their own staff from outside who serve on the faculty.  Many people don't understand how academic life works or how administrative staffing works.  Her CV shows she was tenured for many years before coming to U of I and her research and teaching records are very strong.  She went through a tenure process that was the same as for others.  It's very common to bring in faculty from another institution and review and grant them tenure based on their prior records at other institutions.  All faculty know this.  This is how you recruit.  Saying that she didn't earn it here is not accurate.  She earned it because she was reviewed by her peers, provost, dean, chancellor and it was recommended that she receive it.  I find it strange that Tolliver and others seem to pretend not to know how this process works.  They should know better.  Any of us can agree or disagree with the e-mail issue.  But saying that Hogan insured her tenure is just plain wrong.  The faculty, provost, dean, chancellor, and Board of Trustees made that decision and if they don't like their decision they should take ownership.

wayward wrote on July 05, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Funny, the Troyer hire at $195000 seemed to generate far more controversy than usual for faculty and administrative hires.

http://capitolfax.com/2010/07/21/ui-paying-195k-for-an-executive-assistant/

And there was another story earlier this year in the N-G suggesting that secrecy had limited the search committee's ability to perform background checks.  Sounds like Troyer had alienated some of the UConn faculty.  Did they also not "understand how academic life works or how administrative staffing works?"

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/education/2012-05-13/faculty-secrecy-hampers-searches.html

 

Manny L wrote on July 05, 2012 at 7:07 pm

WayWard, I don't know anything about her record at Connecticut except that she had the same arrangement there according to the news stories.  People often resent success.  They also gave her the only job title they had at U of I.  But it seems she was far from an executive assistant.  IL is tightly tied to civil service and I have heard that they were working through a title change for her.  The report in the News-Gazette also never said who they talked to at CT about her job responsibilities and authority.  Hogan was her boss so who knows what her responsibilities were other than him and maybe the Board and they clearly talked to neither, only faculty.  Faculty wouldn't necessarily know what she could and could not do and that seems to be who they talked to.  As far as the secrecy piece goes, it doesn't get in the way of search.  Ask Professor Beck who claims he was calling many people to check up on the candidates when they hired Wise.  Wise has her own share of detractors at the University of Washington too.  There were many criticisms, if not scandals while she was provost and temporary president.  But that doesn't mean she was a poor choice.  Executives who try to create change are always going to be controversial to those who want the status quo.

read the DI wrote on July 05, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Give us a break. There are a handful of professors at UofI making north of $200,000 a year, and almost all are 1) department heads and 2) in engineering. Yes, some researchers generate high salaries that are in large part paid for by their grants, but even then there are caps, and they are paying their own way. No one needs a $200,000 a year assistant, Ph.D. or not.

read the DI wrote on July 08, 2012 at 8:07 am

"Those positions are often step-offs for the recruited person to advance in a career."


Right. It's common practice to go from chief of staff to ... what is the next step again?

wayward wrote on July 05, 2012 at 4:07 pm

There wouldn't have necessarily been any sexual activity.  I thought Troyer came across as a sycophant and Hogan seemed inclined to hire someone who would feed his ego.

Manny L wrote on July 06, 2012 at 8:07 am

DI Fan and WayWard,  I don't think either of you are being balanced.  First, there are far more than five faculty making north of 2K.  You are obviously ignoring biomedical sciences, business, IT, most of the administration and some other high-earning units, not to mention all of athletics and most administrators.  There are at least 200 faculty/staff making more than her.  This is all public information and published every year.  She was at about the bottom of the administration in earnings.  But I don't believe she was underpaid.  I think this is just how it works. I don't think she was overpaid either, even if she made some people jealous.  What evidence do you have WayWard that she is a syncophant and Hogan is an egoist?  I saw her in one staff and faculty meeting and she would openly challenge him and he appeared annoyed by her comments.  That doesn't sound like a person who gets ahead by flattery.  I'm open to hearing your facts though. 

wayward wrote on July 06, 2012 at 8:07 am

Below is the text of an email Troyer sent to Hogan.  Looks pretty flattering to me.

Mike, I know the lack of support from some at UIUC for the initiatives you and the Board have established is discouraging. I know that it makes you feel like you’re running in place. But, that’s just not true. You’ve made big and very positive changes and many people know and appreciate that. There are many more positive comments in support of your vision and your work than negative ones in your e-mail, for instance.

I’m not so naive as to not understand the potential risks of a handful of people who have become lifetime senators and who will oppose any change (so long as they know about it). I think, however, that the Board will back you on this, as they have on other initiatives. Anyway, I’m sorry that this threw such a bad taste into your evening. You have a very good vision for the University and have fought battles you never should have had to fight. I admire that you do that, even when it is so hard. I hope tomorrow gives you a new view and that you have a better day. 

rsp wrote on July 06, 2012 at 9:07 am

I always thought that was funny. He didn't read his own email, just what she screened for him. Plus what it reveals. "who will oppose any change (so long as they know about it)."  That line right there says it all, doesn't it?  

joshua d wrote on July 06, 2012 at 11:07 am

ww.  so you never sent a nice emal to any one.  why should she be punshed for a nice email.

rsp wrote on July 06, 2012 at 8:07 am

The Hogan/Troyer hire was doomed from the start. There wasn't faculty buy-in due in part the BOT thinking they were in charge. They would just order changes and people would follow and all the problems would get taken care of. So then you have a new President coming in and some of the first things you hear are how he's getting paid drastically more that any prior President while there is a fiscal crisis, and he's bringing his chief-of-staff? Which prior President has had a chief-of-staff? And this is why everyone took furlow days? Where was the shared sacrifice? The trust? The respect for the people who built the school? So there is a new president at the University. Who's his chief-of-staff?

joshua d wrote on July 06, 2012 at 11:07 am

hogan didnt have furlogh days for staff and faculty.  tht was before him.  get the record straight rsp.  most presidents have chief of staff.  easter has a chief of staff name is odonoghue. attorney and atorneys wife.

rsp wrote on July 06, 2012 at 11:07 am

I didn't say Hogan called for them. Just after asking everyone to accept cuts and tuition hikes the BOT hires a new Pres at a much greater pay scale. That was my point. Nobody else has staff going out of their way to seek attention. Easter's pay scale is what, 2/3 of Hogan's.

joshua d wrote on July 08, 2012 at 6:07 pm

odonoghue is easters troyer chief of staff. shes veazies wife.  attorney for campus. she was ikenberrys too before troyer.

read the DI wrote on July 08, 2012 at 8:07 am

You may be the only person in history to use athletic coaches salaries as a comp for an academic posting. Certainly the university itself does not.

 

cruieo wrote on July 05, 2012 at 10:07 pm

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Faculty senators

University Senates Conference

Campus Administrators

Ethics Office

IT department

Board of Trustees

Maybe the News-Gazette, Tribune or some other paper ought to do some digging.