February 16th, 2004
Let’s crunch some numbers.
So far, the Palmer board seems to be comfortable with the dissent of the community they ostensibly represent. Perhaps dissent and a differing of opinion is one thing, but dollars irretrievably lost is another.
The Palmer Board/Administration has decided to change Lyceum back to Homecoming.This change will come with a marked change in strategy as this event will be marketed and promoted to palmer Alumni only and no longer to the profession at large. (Rumors of no CE credit proved to be false. CE credits will still be offered) The administration/board has been made aware that this change may likely result in numerous vendors and speakers pulling out of their commitments to participate and the loss of substantial revenue for the college. Lyceum previously made in the ballpark of $200,000 and continued to grow every year. Prior to the switch and leadership associated with the Lyceum format, the Homecoming format lost around $140,000 annually. Lyceum culminated in fireworks and a party in view of the Palmer Beacon. Homecoming will end with a picnic and a talent show at Credit Island. When the inevitable loss of revenue was brought to the attention of the administration, they responded that this was not a concern and would be supplemented (by student tuition dollars presumably?) as it had been before the days of Lyceum. Estimated cost: $340,000.
The marketing department has already been directed to forgo much of the recruitment and marketing materials (which name Dr. Riekeman), worth $80,000. They are now ordering all new materials without his name and likeness attached, at an estimated cost of $150,000. This is a telling statement as to the board’s iron clad and non-negotiable commitment to the decision they made last week. Estimated cost: $230,000.
Untrackable, but numerous, president club members have withdrawn their support. One known major contributor has withdrawn funds. Many in the profession are waiting to see if and how the board will respond before withdrawing their dollars. The President’s Club grew from approximately 200 members to almost 600 members under the leadership of Dr. Riekeman. Each member pledged a minimum of $1,000 annually. Estimated cost to date: $100,000. Potential future loss: $400,000.
The capital campaign for $35 million dollars is in extreme jeopardy. The Co-chairs of this campaign have resigned after repeated attempts to communicate with the board were ignored. They take with them, a pledge for $225,000 as well as the trust of many major potential investors. Known loss to date $250,000. Potential future loss: unmeasurable.
The monetary value of a student is a complicated thing to compute. Tuition is over $6,600 each term plus fees. Each student brings roughly $20,000 to the school annually and roughly $66,000 to the school over the course of 10 trimesters. While there is no large movement among the current students to undertake the cost and stress to leave Palmer and transfer elsewhere, there is great and immediate danger of the withdrawal of alumni referrals, which could cost the school a substantial of its enrollment numbers over the next few years. Loss of each student referral: $60,000.
Total known loss to date: $920,000.
It would seem that fiscal responsibility is not a current priority of this board and administration. Nor does it seem to be a concern of the PCCIAA leadership. They state that their mission is limited to supporting the “fours planks” of alumni membership, student recruitment, scholarship, and financial support. I’m not sure how the tremendous alumni concern over the inevitable results of the current situation doesn’t fall under those four stated objectives, but the leadership within the PCCIAA seems pretty confident that they are speaking for the majority of us (not that we were asked) while they support all actions of the Board. When will this end?
The Board has finally issued a release, dated February 14th, 2004 (that is linked on this site). In this statement, they acknowledge that communication was a problem but point the finger at Dr. Riekeman as the perpetrator. While we do not have enough information to engage in a “he said-she said” debate based on second hand information, I will choose to rely on what I know or have experienced first hand of the integrity and communication styles of the players in this disagreement of fact. I find it very hard to believe that Dr. Riekeman initiated an environment of non-communication. It is counter to everything I have seen or experienced in the past five years. I urge each of you to search your intuition and the past history of these individuals as you decide what feels right to you.
I have tried to reserved public judgement of the Board until they chose to address the many concerns of the chiropractic community, but I now find many aspects of their public statement baffling (misleading to outsiders) and frankly hard to believe. Perhaps they stop short of outright lying, but they make many misleading statements or try to infer a bigger picture of wrongdoing without running the risk of outright lying. Pay attention to the part (in the latest board statement) when Frank Bemis, who was president of the alumni association at the time of the vote of no confidence against Patten, again speaks for all the alumni by stating (but not explaining) that we were all wrong at that time. Again, I will let you judge for yourself how you feel about this statement.
The board is also trying to make subtle allegations of financially inappropriate decisions by Riekeman as well as unfair hiring practices. But once again, they stop short of leveling actual charges that would force them to get into particulars. Numerous people have told me that the board approves all college expenditures. I have also been told (and experienced) that the individual departments conduct all hiring and the administration simply approves their recommendations. Confusion (and lack of public knowledge) on these issues has been the basis of much innuendo.
So far, the board’s most powerful statements have been those characterizing alumni dissent as small and minor. The time has come for alumni to unite and make our voices heard. We cannot be misled into believing we are few and ineffectual. We are many and strong and we have the right and the DUTY to protect and defend our alma mater and the Chiropractic Legacy. The Board of Trustees behaves as though they own Palmer and are the only ones who can choose its path. We must make the power and authority of opinions that may differ from the Board’s known to them and to the larger chiropractic community.
Please direct yourself and all members of the profession to www.dc2be.com where you can cast your vote to support the Board or to vote No Confidence in the Board. I will be monitoring and collecting the votes and presenting them to the Board and the profession at large. I will collect votes and comments through noon on Monday, February 23rd. Shortly thereafter I will present the results and comments to the Palmer Board of Trustees, as well as to the Palmer Beacon and the Quad City Times.
“You never know how far reaching something you may think, say, or do today, will affect the lives of millions tomorrow.” –BJ Palmer
Think, Say, and Do today so we can have a tomorrow for Palmer for which we can all be Palmer Proud once again.
Chiropractically yours,
Mary Flannery, DC
Again, feel free to forward this as needed.