Jason Reed’s dismissal was long overdue

Jason Reed’s dismissal was long overdue

On Sunday, April 23, the students’ association board of
directors took the long overdue step of removing Executive Director
Jason Reed from office.

For most of his first 13 years, Reed effectively manipulated and
controlled the student majority board.

Three years ago, Reed relentlessly worked to convince a
reluctant board that students should shoulder the bill of the
seismic retrofitting of Ackerman Union and Kerckhoff Hall, adding
more than $100 onto registration fees. Just last year, he forced an
unrealistic and highly unpopular budget through a doubtful board.
The past five years have been characterized by the association’s
shaky financial status, but Reed held the reins.

The main source of Reed’s authority was the transitional nature
of student representation. As new appointees filled the seats of
the old ones, the cycle would begin anew.

But this year’s board may have broken that cycle. Threats of
huge financial losses, coupled with even more disturbing
revelations of management’s failure to warn the board about the
dire financial picture, finally forced the board to take
action.

Although board members should be commended for removing Reed, we
must ask ­ what took so long? In every month this year except
for September, the association posted disappointing financial
results. The four years leading up to 1994-95 were financially
dissatisfying as well. Throughout the year, signs of the
association’s paralyzed decision-making have abounded.

This February, the situation reached a critical point. The board
not only learned that the association could lose $1.8 million this
year, but saw evidence of Reed’s failure to communicate these
predicted losses.

The board’s belated action is to be applauded but also
questioned. Had Reed been the CEO of a large private company, his
position would never have survived this long.

We can only speculate as to what finally prompted the board to
remove the executive director. As late as last week, sources within
the organization thought it was unlikely the board would seek to
terminate Reed anytime soon. The newly-hired Alpha Partners Inc.
consulting firm, which has temporarily replaced Reed, may have
influenced the board’s decision. Mounting public pressure on the
board may have also had an impact. But one lingering question
remains ­ would the board have moved to fire Reed without
these outside factors? What if no one had been playing
watchdog?

This year raised doubts in the board’s ability to effectively
represent students and truly power the association. For many years,
the board followed Reed’s lead unquestioningly. In the meantime,
revenue fell and communication about internal problems failed.

Perhaps the problem lies not with the individual personalities
of the changing board members, but in the structure of the board
itself. Ironically, the board members who inevitably serve longest
on the board are not students, but administrative, faculty and
alumni representatives. Student appointments last a mere year.

And the effects of these short terms should not be
underestimated. The complexities of the students’ association take
most board members half a year to assimilate. During that time,
they are extremely vulnerable to the executive director’s
suggestions. Encouragingly, both student governments have increased
student terms to two years.

But in the meantime, many problems have flourished. An
atmosphere of secrecy pervaded the association during this period.
Under Reed, the workplace culture unofficially but effectively
discouraged employees from talking to board members or the press.
This created a situation in which the board’s only source of
information was Reed himself, who picked and chose the information
the board was privy to.

A strict hierarchal structure reinforced this freezing of
communication. Managers at all levels of the organization knew in
October of the association’s prediction of large year-end losses,
but remarkably, none stepped forward to tell the board about them
when it became clear Reed would not do so.

Perhaps they feared for their jobs, or perhaps the unofficial
rules of silence were too strongly enforced to disobey. In any
case, the nature of the board demands information be available from
sources other than the executive director.

The simplest solution to all of these problems, however, is also
the biggest challenge facing the Alpha Partners Inc. firm. Charles
Mack of the Alpha firm has repeatedly stated that his goals include
empowering employees and changing the nature of campus dialogue
about the association.

If he is sincere and successful, the culture of secrecy, lack of
communication and old style management of Reed’s tenure may be
avoided.

The board took the first, long overdue step Sunday. We hope that
with this new leadership, board members will rise to the challenge
that lays ahead and on their own initiative, make the tough
decisions needed to guide the association through the next few
critical months.