Saturday, August 11, 2012

Taylor Lands @ Bauder

It seems that Charles A. Taylor has emerged from his undisclosed location to become the preseident of a for profit Kaplan school in Atlanta, Bauder College. His wife Scheherazade Taylor is now at Georgia State.

Presumably Kaplan will keep him on a short leash with the financials and is using him as a figure head. This college is much smaller than his previous positions.

We're just grateful he left the Old Domionion, where he'd already done enough damage.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Taylor "Retires"

Jesus must be coming soon.

The Daily Press announced today that Charles A. Taylor is "retiring" from TNCC. Read the story at:,0,1220017.story

I guess "retiring" means that he gets benefits that he wouldn't get if he "resigned" (or if he was "fired" which is what the faculty did to him last year).

The Daily Press article reminds readers that Taylor was working on a "special project" for the VCCS. Now isn't that just "special." Has anybody seen the finished product? Or did Virginia taxpayers drop two hundred grand to prevent Taylor from suing the state alleging racial discrimination? Well, it was money well spent since it got him out the door.

He had/has friends in high places so you can bet that most of us don't know half of the "dirt" that must have prompted the chancellor to give him a "sabbatical."

Let's hope that if he tries to get another job colleges will use due diligence better than TNCC and VCCS did.

Taylor already had a rap sheet when he was hired at TNCC. Too bad thems what hired him aren't paying a price too.

No Confidence

Last year the faculty did a brave thing. Passed a vote of no confidence against a president who was taking the college in the wrong direction like he did every where else he has been. One of your colleagues has sent Flagstiffed this interview from The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Friday, June 12, 2009
How to Fire Your President: Voting 'No
Confidence' With Confidence

College faculties often use votes of "no confidence" to try to push out the leader of their institutions. Many do so, however, without giving much thought to what such a vote actually means, whether they are using it appropriately, or how it will affect their institution—and their own future.

Mae Kuykendall, a professor of law at Michigan State University and an expert on corporate law, has spent much of the past two years studying the no-confidence vote's origins, philosophical underpinnings, and uses in higher-education institutions and other organizations. She is scheduled to discuss her findings in Washington on Saturday at an international conference on college governance, academic freedom, and globalization sponsored by the American Association of University Professors. The Chronicle asked her to share her insights in an interview conducted via e-mail:

Q. Where did the no-confidence vote, as a way to change an organization's leadership, originate? Where is it used?
A. The phrase arose in the British Parliament [in 1782, in response to the British surrender to the Americans at Yorktown]. The vote has come to express the loss of support by a group whose cooperation is necessary for a leader's exercise of her duties. Libraries, police departments, public schools, fire departments, universities and their subunits, and various nonprofit groups use the vote of no confidence.

Q. How does the vote fit in, or contrast, with other means of trying to remove a leader?
A. A vote of no confidence undermines a leader's claim to legitimacy, a feature made evident by contrast with common, but illegitimate, means of trying to remove a leader, such as mutiny, rebellion, work stoppage, mob action, and assassination. … The essence of the vote of no confidence is that the group need not give reasons or a set of charges. It is simultaneously unauthorized and legitimate.

Q. You talk about colleges as "fuzzily governed" institutions. How do they differ from other places that you examined, and how does the no-confidence vote fit into a "fuzzy" governance structure?
A. In authoritarian groups, regular members cannot demand a change. At the other end of the spectrum, democratic structures have clear, weighty procedures—impeachment and recall—for ousting their leaders. Universities and other nonprofit institutions sit in the middle of this spectrum. There is consultation to select leaders and to make decisions.

Q. Is there a typical response to these votes from college presidents and boards of trustees?
A. My research does not support a definite statement about a "typical" response. I can, however, describe one recurring pattern that almost could be said to follow a script. By a circular logic, the leader often claims that the outbreak of opposition is proof of his success: He or she is challenging an entrenched organizational culture that requires bold intervention. The president and his or her allies cite the call for ouster as evidence of stellar performance. The claim verges on a generic defense—one made even when the basis of a no-confidence petition arises from idiosyncratically personal flaws of the leader with no discernible connection to larger political concerns for the advancement of an institutional agenda. This response also serves to stigmatize those voting for removal, suggesting that they have betrayed their institutional trust and resist useful change. … When leaders eventually exit after a period of resistance and denial, the leader and/or the board typically issue bland claims that the exit and the no-confidence vote are unrelated. Indeed, in the archives of official statement, there is virtually no such event as "pressured leader exit." There is merely the change of mood by a leader, who, after a claimed success in one domain, decides to move on to private concerns or new challenges.

Q. How effective is the vote? Is it more likely to bring about change in some situations than others?
A. A review of public announcements concerning leaders' exits plainly reveals that no-confidence votes often work. … One hypothesis that I have developed is that votes of no confidence are more likely to be effective in smaller institutional settings than in larger, more-complex universities in which the president is more remote from the faculty and the mission-related concerns of the schools differ. The credibility that accrues to a group that works directly with a leader is not present in larger, more-complex settings. The concern of an institution about its reputation in its relevant audience matters. If a school is willing to forgo the esteem of professional organizations and to risk prospective students' concerns about a leadership under a cloud, the vote of no confidence will fail to drive out a leader backed by a determined board.

Q. Can such votes make matters worse for faculty members?
A. One can readily find articles urging faculty members to avoid votes of no confidence, on the grounds that less disruptive, mediated solutions are better. … The claim that the vote of no confidence always yields an outcome that is worse than some other imagined state of affairs is not persuasive. Faculty members, who are generally averse to risk, see a vote of no confidence as a last resort in a bad situation. … The risks are real. Opposing the leader and losing can bring about what management theorist [Jean] Lipman-Blumen has called exile or "social death." In addition, a successful effort can have unpredictable effects on group dynamics. … These risks help discipline groups to avoid casual resorts to such votes.

Q. Do faculties ever use these votes inappropriately?
A. Votes of no confidence are about the values and goals of mission-driven institutions, such as universities. … For this reason, faculties should strive to distinguish between union actions not related to core academic functions and actions animated by a faculty responsibility for the mission of the university.

Q. What practical advice would you give faculty members who are contemplating using a no-confidence vote to try to rid their institution of its current president?
A. First, talk with anyone you know in a similar institution that has experienced a vote of no confidence. Second, take with a grain of salt much of what you hear. Look for practical information, not fortune telling. … Colleagues at other institutions can tell you how a no-confidence vote developed, what role accrediting agencies may have played, what techniques seemed helpful, and where the greatest hazards, to collegiality and to the task of making ethical choices, lie.

Since there is typically no formally authorized procedure for votes of no confidence, there is no rule book. Every decision is open to critique or high cost. Whether to call a formal meeting and whether to involve the untenured are good targets for second guessing. A vote of no confidence is a statement of fact, not a charge, so don't give a bill of particulars. The constant question for faculty in the midst of making these critical decisions is the one posed by the old Johnny Carson quiz show, with its deficient grammar—Who Do You Trust? One good answer that is hard to beat: Trust yourself.

Copyright© 2009 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Dr Quanty Memorial

Flagstiffed was sad to learn about the death of Dr. Mike Quanty a TNCC administrator and teacher. I never had Dr Quanty for a professor but I served on a committee with him. I was amazed that one person could know so much about the college.

If anyone knew where the bodies are buried he did.

You will never know now much you owe to him.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Alvine Schexnider, Skeletons in the Closet

TNCC folks have contacted Flagstiffed about their temporary president Alvin Schexnider who apparently thinks that payback is his mission in trying to bring the TNCC faculty into line. Word on the streets is that he's as bad or worse than Charles A. Taylor. When your only temporary you feel free to do all kinds of harm.

TNCC needs to know that Schexnider has his own skeletons. He's been bouncing around various jobs. Maybe you should find out why and find out what people think of him there.

When he was chancellor in NC he got caught using state funds for personal use. His administration was audited twice. The second audit found that his administration misplaced about half a million dollars. (What is it with these guys and half a million dollars? Look at Flagstiffed's reports on Taylor.) Flagstiffed has reported in detail on Charles A. Taylor's big spending habits. Here's the first auditors' letter about Schexnider (sent to Flagstiffed bya friend at TNCC):


July 16, 1999

Dr. Alvin J. Schexnider, Chancellor
Winston-Salem State
601 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Dear Chancellor Schexnider:

The Office of the State Auditor received complaints through the State Auditor's Hotline alleging misuse of funds and violations of purchasing procedures at Winston-Salem State University WSSU). We conducted a Special Review of these allegations in accordance with G.S.§147-64.

In conducting this review, we examined WSSU and WSSU Foundation records and conducted interviews with individuals internal and external to WSSU. Our Special Review resulted in the following findings and recommendations to WSSU Management and the University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC-General Administration).

1. Disbursement from Discretionary Funds
In fiscal year 1997-98, WSSU's Internal Auditor conducted a review of expenditures incurred by the Chancellor from January 1996 through May 1998. We reviewed the Internal Auditor's workpapers as well as the expenditures incurred by the Chancellor from July 1998 through April 1999. Our review revealed that the Chancellor used discretionary funds to pay for some items that could be viewed as more personal than university related. Such items included travel expenses for his children, flowers for his wife, and membership in a fitness center. Although there are no general written guidelines for spending discretionary funds, these funds should be spent on items related to the University. To ensure protection for all parties concerned and an understanding on the part of the general public, UNC-General Administration should consider defining the utilization of discretionary funds.

2. Expenditures for Transporting Children to School
The Chancellor used State funds to pay mileage to a house worker from January 1998 through March 1998 to take his children to school. The total reimbursement for mileage was $416.62. On May 20, 1998 the Chancellor reimbursed the University this amount. According to the Chancellor, he reimbursed the University after being told that the expenditures were inappropriate. He did not reimburse the University, however, for the house worker's time spent to transport his children. Based on estimates received from the Chancellor of the time it would take to perform this task, the Chancellor should reimburse WSSU an additional $495. The Chancellor said he thought he had already reimbursed the University for the house worker's time.

3. Outside Contractors Clean the Chancellor's Residence and Maintain His Yard
The Chancellor's residence, located 8.5 miles from campus, is owned by the University. According to the Chancellor, the former Vice-Chancellor for Finance and Administration recommended outsourcing the housekeeping duties which had been done in the past by a university housekeeping employee. Outsourcing the housekeeping duties at the residence cost WSSU $92.50 per week for three hours of work. WSSU incurs a similar cost by using an outside contractor for landscaping tasks. The Associate Vice-Chancellor for Facilities recommended outsourcing the landscaping duties. Currently, the contractor mows the lawn once a week, performs minor landscaping duties and cleans away ice and snow for an agreed upon contract of $7,385 per year. WSSU should conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine the feasibility of continuing these contracts versus using university staff.

4. Some Items Purchased for the Chancellor's Residence Are Not On the University's Inventory System
A large screen television, a pool table, and a fax machine were purchased for the Chancellor's residence but do not show-up on the University's Fixed Asset Inventory. WSSU's inventory policy states that all purchases in excess of $500 must be recorded for inventory control purposes.

5. Invoices Are Not Always Paid on Time
We examined one hundred checks paid in September 1998 and one hundred checks paid in February 1999 to determine if they were paid by the due dates. In September 1998, WSSU wrote twenty-two checks out of the one hundred examined after the due date on the invoice. In February 1999, the number of late payments increased to thirty out of the one hundred examined. According to WSSU's Accounts Payable Supervisor, she and her staff were employed within the last year. The constant turnover of the staff in the finance area has resulted in the need to constantly train new employees. The Accounts Payable Supervisor said she is writing new procedures for her section, effective July 1, 1999, that should eliminate late payments, as well as any duplicate payments. We are presenting these findings and recommendations for your review and written response. The purpose of the response is to allow you the opportunity to outline any corrective actions taken or planned. We request that your written response be delivered to us by July 30, 1999.

While we have addressed the issues at WSSU in this management letter, it seems prudent for General Administration to review the need for developing policies and guidelines for the spending of discretionary funds. Adherence to such guidelines would ensure consistency and benefit all the chancellors within the system.

We wish to thank you and your staff for the cooperation extended to us during this review. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact this office at 919/733-3217.

Ralph Campbell, Jr., CFE
cc: Dr. Molly C. Broad, President
UNC General

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The President

TNCC faculty and staff, one of your colleagues has sent Flagstiffed this multi-count indictment that was assembled last spring before the vote of no confidence against Charles A. Taylor. A strong majority of the full time faculty (the only faculty authorized to vote) passed this vote of no confidence. This person asked me to post it here. So here. Author unknown.

  • The president of the college has failed to provide a clear, coherent vision for the college; instead he offers meaningless platitudes (like “Excellence in All We Do”) or a shifting array of initiatives (like the Southeast Center, the jail initiative).
  • While professing “Excellence in All We Do” the president has tolerated a culture of mediocrity and incompetence in some areas but not in others.
  • The president’s public representation of the college is embarrassing because of his verbal gaffs, by his inability to articulate in a clear and cogent manner information about the college, and because of his evident lack of knowledge about the college in his public comments, which are frequently filled with errors of fact.
  • The president regularly relies on a narrative that is self-aggrandizing but insulting to long-time employees, namely that the college was dysfunctional and invisible until he arrived to save us.
  • The president employs a two-fold method of deflecting criticism and responsibility for his oversight: He refuses to put anything in writing that might later come back to haunt him and he uses surrogates to do his controversial or potentially damaging “dirty work.”
  • The president disdains replying to invitations to events (presumably because he does not want a paper trail if he were to tender his regrets since he rare attends) and usually does not attend them. This behavior is insulting, discourteous and unprofessional. The fact that he does not attend is indicative of his disdain for the college and its employees and students.
  • The president has resorted to threats and intimidation in order to manage his employees. Some of these have been public (“Anyone who I find is responsible for a student leaving the college will also leave the college”; “If you don’t like it here I will help you to leave”) and some of these have been private (instructing mid-level managers never to associate his name with anything negative or they will find themselves out the door).
  • The president has refused to retract or apologize for such statements, claiming that a president has to say tough things sometimes. Executives at other colleges with whom I have repeated these statements, however, are shocked that a president would be that impolitic and tactless.
  • The president has created a climate of paranoia, suspicion and fear among executives, managers, staff and faculty. Organizational paranoia is a top-down phenomenon, never a bottom-up phenomenon. You cannot blame current or former employees, no matter how disgruntled, for fostering a climate of paranoia.
  • The president has refused to take responsibility for any of the missteps, mistakes, misstatements, or morale issues of the college. Instead he blames previous administrations, previous administrators, a faulty morale survey, or others’ misunderstanding him or misunderstanding his statements.
  • The president has refused to accept the depth and seriousness of the campus morale issues. In the two years since the morale survey that the College Board instructed him to administer he has taken every opportunity to dismiss publicly the survey and its findings, blaming low morale as a chronic TNCC problem (when he acknowledges the survey as valid) or dismissing the morale survey as inaccurate or invalid (because it asked the wrong questions or because not every employee responded to the survey).
  • The president has tolerated a climate of racial tension and resentment that is unprecedented on this campus.
  • The president has used the structures and processes of shared governance as it suits him (mainly as public relations tools to give him bragging rights that he communicates with employees) and ignores them when it doesn’t suit him. For example, the College Council has debated such important issues as the placement of outside cigarette stands and parking spaces, but he did not bring to the College Council a proposal for the Southeast Center, which was decided only by the cabinet.
  • The president has subverted the most thoroughly established process on campus, namely curriculum review, and subverted one of the most important SACS accreditation criteria, the primary responsibility for curriculum review lying with the faculty and its discipline experts. His attempt to railroad a curriculum change through the College Board over the objection of the department it affected, over the College Curricula Committee and over the Faculty Forum is unprecedented in recent memory.
  • While decrying “rumors” and “urban legends” the president appears to base his own decisions on prejudice, undocumented statistics, unnamed sources, irrelevant data. He refused to substantiate claims that he has made about course prerequisites, including assertions about unnamed school superintendents and unidentified corporate partners. This behavior has been frequently repeated.
  • Failing to acknowledge that an anonymous blog site and scores of anonymous Daily Press discussion board postings are symptoms of the failure of his administration, the president has instead blamed employees for their failure to use the shared governance processes that he manipulates and lectures employees on the necessity of their doing so, for example at the most recent “town hall meeting”.
  • The president has a pathological aversion to public discussion of concerns, complaints and criticism but claims that he is protecting the college’s reputation in doing so.
  • The president has played a Ponzi scheme with the budget recklessly insisting on unrealistic income projections in order to float a budget that includes imprudent expenses (salary increases, the Southeast Center, the purchase and consequent maintenance of Hampton III) and has reportedly attempted to indulge in personal extravagances (like expensive print products such as cut or embossed covers on publications, a $30,000 personal shower stall [which was prevented by an able employee’s report to the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline]).
  • The president makes nearly delusional claims about being visible and present on campus, about his close contact with employees and students, and about his having an open door policy. Most faculty have not seen the evidence for these claims.
  • The president’s administration has failed in the one most important initiative of institutional advancement: securing funds from the General Assembly to open, run, and maintain the HT campus. The president has failed in securing the good will and support of the Peninsula’s legislative delegation.
  • The president has frequently been cited for misrepresenting facts and misrepresenting his previous statements, even of outright lying, in a variety of public and private forums.
  • The president has permitted, even promoted, a blurring of the distinctions between private religious sentiments and a public, secular institution, both in his personal statements (telling employees that he must “pray about a decision” they have asked him to make and telling an interviewer that he was sent to the presidency of TNCC by God) and his tolerating a variety of forms of religious expression at official business functions.
  • Any one of these items is cause for concern, even of censure. Taken together they demand a vote of no confidence.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Taylor Pounds Pavement Looking For Work

Flagstiffed was too sad to report the mess at TNCC back in the spring after the faculty passed a vote of no confidence on Charles A. Taylor. The news media and the Daily Mess blogs seemed to be doing a good enough job of doing what Flagstiffed did before. Flagstiffed's mailbox has been quiet.

Now there's good news for TNCC. Flagstiffed's mailbox got suddently busy today. Flagstiffed has learned from TNCC folks that disgraced and discredited president Charles A. Taylor is now looking for work.

He's a candidate for a job in California at Riverside Community College District. Among the things they say they are looking for? --
  • Provide leadership in the utilization of the $250 million in bond funding—including using this local •
    funding source to leverage other resources at the state level and in the private sector.
Oh baby will he "utilize" that money!

  • Maintain an inclusive approach to shared governance that promotes collaboration, communication, and collegiality in achieving the District’s goal of maintaining a learning-centered environment.
    Provide leadership and support that will expand Interest Based Bargaining with all employee groups. Encourage open communication throughout the District and in the community that will support and •
    preserve the history of RCCD. Demonstrates a passion for educational quality and feels comfortable with the collaborative process utilized in shared governance and interest based bargaining
Yeah, right. Maybe somebody at Riverside should check out the TNCC morale survey what they thought of his leadership there.
  • Demonstrates abstract thinking skills with practical solutions.
  • A leader committed to the highest level of personal and professional integrity. An administrator with a management style that is inclusive, visible, collaborative, open, approachable, and accessible. An individual with exceptional interpersonal, communication, and presentation skills An individual who can facilitate a process of participatory governance and inclusiveness, so that introspective analysis will promote transformation at each of the colleges.

If they think that CATman has these qualities (or why else is he one of the people there interviewing), they deserve him as their Beloved Leader. The line for the special Koolaid forms here. Enjoying your refreshing beverage Riverside faculty staff and students!

You can read all about it at:

Then click on the candidate bios ("supplied by the candidates") to see what Charles Taylor thinkgs of himself.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Taylor Loses Mind, Attacks Faculty

Dr. Charles A. Taylor, president of Thomas Nelson Community College, apparently lost his mind recently and attacked the faculty.

Flagstiffed has learned from various sources on campus and from an article in the March 28, 2008 Daily Press, that Taylor had attempted to pick a fight with faculty on the one thing that faculty most cherish: Their authority and responsibility for curriculum.

[You can read the Daily Press article entitled “TNCC votes to keep entry level class Board shoots down a proposal” by Cathy Grimes at,0,5306394.story ]

On Tuesday March 11 faculty leaders learned that Taylor had sent his surrogates to the Biology faculty with a proposal to virtually eliminate an important course prerequisite.

Using surrogates instead of being man enough to bring the business himself is reported (by TNCC and CCS faculty) to be a classic Taylor tactic. As one faculty member told Flagstiffed, “He keeps his fingerprints off controversial issues but his nasty DNA is all over the place.” The Biology faculty voted unanimously against Taylor’s proposal.

That should have ended the discussion but Taylor had instructed his surrogates to bring the proposal to the College Curriculum Committee on Monday March 17.

In the meantime the faculty senate convened an extraordinary session of all fulltime faculty called the “Faculty Forum” for Tuesday March 18.

When Taylor’s surrogates presented his proposal to the College Curriclum Committee on March 17, it was unanimously voted down.

That should have ended the discussion but Taylor had instructed his surrogates to bring the proposal to the College Board on March 26.

In the meantime the faculty forum met with Taylor explaining his proposal. One faculty member present described Taylor as “Bojangles on a unicycle, the only man who can tap dance while he backpedals”. His presentation was reported to be full of evasions and misrepresentations not to mention the fact that it had no credible evidence to support it.

“Bojangles” Taylor then had his surrogates present a new proposal to the Biology faculty on Monday March 24. This also was rejected unanimously.

And that should have been the end of it. But the determined Taylor had his surrogates present it to the College Board; first to the Board’s Curriculum Committee (which voted unanimously against it) and then to the Board itself (which voted unanimously against it).

What turned the tide with the Board it appears is that faculty showed up at the Board’s Curriculum Committee meeting and at the Board meeting to speak in support of the faculty position. They presented reasoned arguments based on evidence. Bojangles Taylor had neither evidence or reason. At the Board meeting faculty and students spoke in favor of the current course prerequisite.

It was apparent that faculty felt that they spoke against the presidents’ proposal at great risk and peril. It has been reported to Flagstiffed that one faculty member said as much but was reprimanded by the Board’s chair who said that neither the Board or Bojangles would tolerate retaliation. (The Board needs to examine Flagstiffed’s reports of Bojangles Taylor’s previous record and his more recent record of driving out or firing good people.)

Faculty report that Taylor was agitated and visibly angry that he had been so publically embarrassed. It has been reported that he even tried to bring the matter up again later in the meeting.

Faculty also report being completely puzzled by Taylor’s behavior. The Biology faculty had created the course prerequisite in response to accreditation concerns based on statistical data. Taylor claimed that school superintendants were opposed to the prerequisite (though he would provide any names) and claimed that many businesses would not work with the college because of the prerequisite (but he wouldn't name the businesses). Making bogus claims is also another classic Bojangles tactic: The Taylor Sideshuffle.

One speculation is that Riverside Medical, where Taylor’s wife used to work before they made her job disappear so that she would too and where Taylor’s frat bro and former College Board chair Mckinley Price is said to be on the Riverside Medial Board, had some problems with the prerequisite. But Biology faculty are reported to have proposed an innovative solution to Riverside’s complaints.

In Bojangles Taylor’s world data and facts don’t mean much; everything’s a faith based initiative and apparently God told Taylor to get rid of the prerequisite. He was just doing the Lord’s work.

[Readers have begun to post comments on this story on a new discussion board provided by the Daily Press ]

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Old Dawg, Old Tricks

Just like you can’t change a leopard’s spots or teach an old dawg new tricks, you can’t expect TNCC President Charles A. Taylor to change his ways. No matter how many times he sheds his professional skin (Spokane Chancellor, Oakland Vice Chancellor), he’s still a snake.

Now he’s up to his old tricks at TNCC where he is about to railroad a curriculum change over the objection of faculty experts and over the Faculty Senate and its curriculum committee, according to reports that Flagstiffed has received from faculty over the past week.

Faculty learned two weeks ago that Taylor had used surrogate administrators (his usual method of keeping his fingerprints off things that might blow up though his DNA is all over the stuff) to strong arm Biology faculty to change a course prerequisite. They turned him down. The serpentine Taylor then got his surrogates to go to the faculty’s curriculum committee. They weren’t buying it either. Now he’s going to go directly to his college board over the objection of the faculty.

This repeats Taylor’s history at previous institutions where the Serpent King has tried the same things. However the TNCC faculty have a long track record of standing up to bullies. At a packed house faculty meeting last week Taylor is reported to have tried explaining his proposal. But faculty had already learned of Taylor’s threats if he didn’t get his way, so they gave as good as they got. One faculty member described Taylor as “Bojangles on a unicycle—the only man who can tap dance while he backpedals”.

Things will get very interesting at the monthly meeting of the college’s governing board on Wednesday, March 26, where faculty and students are reportedly planning to show up in numbers. Taylor can’t stand public dissent or anything that makes him look bad. Heads will probably roll but the King Charles’ eventually will be one of them.

If you see fireworks over Hampton Virginia it may be the shot heard round the world. The beginning of the end of the Taylor presidency.

All of this is an old script in what is laughingly called Taylor’s “career” but is really the movie “Independence Day” where aliens move from planet to planet, plundering one planet to get what they want before moving on to the next and plundering it.

It sounds like the Americans (the TNCC faculty) have found their courage and are getting ready to strike back.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Daily Mess Discussion Board

See our posting (below) about Charles "Chucky Cheezie" Taylor's interview in the Daily Mess recently. You can now view responses to the interview from Daily Mess readers at

You'll even find a posting by The Almighty (who Taylor said sent him to TNCC)!!!!

As of Sunday March 23 there are 161 messages posted by people. Flagstiffed will archive thse in case the Daily Mess shuts the board down. We will republish them here if so.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Taylor Called By God, Interview in Daily Mess

It's been a busy month at Tommy Tech High School according to Flagstiffed's sources.

A new climate and morale survey was sent out to all employees. (One of Flagstiffed's sources asks "Will Charles Taylor spend the next two years telling us how invalid this new survey is like he has for the past two years with the last survey?" That's a good question.)

The college's board has sent out its annual survey evaluating the Fearless Leader. A couple of employees have told Flagstiffed about that and wondering what the point is if nothing ever changes.

Flagstiffed has also learned this evening that Charles Taylor suddenly backed out of a local radio appearance recently because another guest on the radio program (something about colleges and universities) is a former employee who had successfully sued him.

But the big news is that Charles Taylor has been called by God to be at your college and the Fearless Leader loves all of you.

A fluff piece pretending to be journalism by a rookie softball tosser named David Squires (the boy's got a future in executive ass kissing) gave Fearless Leader a forum to explain how bad things were at your college before he arrived, how much better things are now, and how God wants him to be there.

If you can stomach it, you can read it at,0,3213831.story

Some highlights . . .

Taylor claims that increased enrollments during his regime are the result of his leadership (never mind that enrollments are up at almost every college nationally according to published reports) all those Baby Boomer Babies coming of age.

Taylor reports: "We have brown-bag opportunities for students to ask questions. I take the time to walk around and have sessions in the cafeteria so students can have an opportunity to ask questions" (That's funny, employees say they never see him. What campus is he doing this on?)

Among his accomplishments for students: "That's why now we have a homecoming, we have a championship basketball program that a year ago won the state championship among community colleges. We now have a cheerleading squad. We now have a dance team. We now have a choir." (Wow. Excellence in all he does.)

What about employees? "In the first year, there was an issue of morale. I have regular town hall meetings that bring together faculty, staff and administrators to keep them involved of what's happening. " (Uh, hello, morale was bad two years into your regime, and according to the sources reporting to Flagstiffed they aint any better. Employees reported to Flagstiffed that almost no faculty attended the last "town hall meeting" because they knew it was another bullshit fest.)

Flagstiffed will leave you with the inspiring words of the Fearless Leader Who Boldly Goes (or should just go): "I'm a very religious individual, and when I make a major decision, or even a minor decision, I take the time to pray. God placed me here to do what he wants me to do. And I don't think my work is complete here. ... I believe it's God's will wherever I'm to be. I love the Hampton Roads area. I love the faculty and staff I'm working with. I love the community."

Feel the love, baby, feel the love. It's all good.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Executive Harrassment: False Charges of Racism End Free Speech

One of the veteran faculty members in speech at Tommy Tech High School (formerly known as a community college) was the object of the unwanted attentions of two Vice Principals recently. Call it executive harassment.

According to numerous reports that Flagstiffed has received, the speech instructor was teaching a course in which the final speech given by a white student promoted the controversial position that the word “nigger” should NOT be used either by white people or by black people.

Apparently a black student in the class thought that the speech was racist and went running to Vice Principal for Students, Dr. Bivouac Stumbler-Bumbler, to complain. The black student claimed that the white student’s speech said that white people SHOULD use the word “nigger”.

Vice Principal Stumbler-Bumbler took it upon herself to visit the speech class in order to reassure students that the Tommy Tech High School Principal, Dr. Charles Seamstress Ponzi, would not tolerate no high falutin white crackers to upset their pretty little heads with controversial ideas or language. She was reported to have said that the white student’s topic was “unfortunate”.

Vice Principal Stumbler-Bumbler was joined in this executive harassment by Vice Principal for Academics, Dr. Ricky Flimflam.

Here’s the lesson for students: Any false charge of racism will get the attention of the school’s Principal and Vice Principals. Drama will get you more attention than self discipline.

Here’s the lesson for teachers: Watch your back. Anybody can be falsely accused. Don’t expect your leaders to support you. Tell your students how wonderful they are and give them good grades. The problem at Tommy Tech High School is that you are racists who don’t know how to treat urban black students.

(This report was sent to us by HSB. Flagstiffed has checked with our sources for it's accuracy.)

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Free Expression RIP: TNCC IT Blocks Flagstiffed

It is with great regret that we inform you of the death of Free Expression at TNCC.

After sending several messages to TNCC email accounts with the latest updates on the campus assault of an instructor and the police stonewalling of same Flagstiffed's email began receiving the following messages from the TNCC automated postmaster:

Barracuda Spam Firewall Your message to:
was blocked by our Spam Firewall. The email you sent with the following subject has NOT BEEN DELIVERED: TNCC Instructor Assaulted, Campus Police Stonewalls

Students, faculty and staff fondly remember Free Expression as a disrespectful but lively friend who could always be counted on to make life interesting.

However Free Expression also frightened campus administrators some of which found themselves the center of Free Expression's unwelcome attention.

With the passing of Free Expression TNCC will now officially be known as Tommy Tech High School.

Friends may leave condolence and memorial messages by clicking on the underlined title of this blog article.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Manic Masturbator Assaults Instructor

Teen Wanker Wacks Teacher at Tommy Tech

(Hampton, Virginia) On Monday night, when an Information Technology instructor at Tommy Tech High School entered his classroom he discovered an adolescent (not a student) sitting in front of a computer viewing pornography and masturbating. When the teacher attempted to keep the juvie visitor from leaving in order for campus police to arrive the wacky wacker assaulted the teacher. A case of jerkoff interruptus.

News of the assault began to circulate around the campus the next day but campus police claimed at a faculty senate meeting on Tuesday that they legally could not comment on the incident since a juvenile was involved.

One legal expert characterized that claim as “bogus, sham, ass covering bullshit to cover the sorry ass” of Tommy Tech High School principal Charles Ponzi. Apparently Ponzi is hosting a national meeting on the high school campus next week and wants everything cleaned up before his friends arrive.

Speaking of cleanup, one report received by Flagstiffed claims that the pervie perp left some of his DNA behind which is good for forensics but bad for housekeeping. Note to instructors: Ask your administration if the room has been decontaminated. In the meantime carry some handiwipes with you.

No word yet on the condition of the instructor. One email to Flagstiffed indicated that the instructor had been bitten by the abusive self abuser. Hope the teen perp has been tested for both HIV and hepatitis and that Tommy Tech High School has good liability insurance.

Campus police and the PR department are still stonewalling. The incident has not been reported to the campus at large.

You’d think that in a day and age when nutcase students and campus crime is a concern Tommy Tech’s administration would be interested in informing its public not in covering up. But Tommy Tech principal Ponzi has a long rap sheet of trying to save face rather than facing the music.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Back to School FAQ

Ok boys and girls, everybodies back to school, and Flagstiffed is back from vacation (except when I was checking on and approving your message postings from my undisclosed location) so its time for an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) and another open forum.

Who is Flagstiffed? "Flagstiffed" is a friend of your college. The college that made a difference in my life when I needed to take a new direction. You have made a difference to me. You make a difference to many many many many students. I can't thank you enough. Over the years I've kept in touch with former teachers and employees. What they have told me over the past couple of years about your current administration makes me very sad. So I thought I'd give you a chance to tell your story and to air your concerns. And to dish the dirt--not gossip, not rumors but genuwhine 120 proof dirt. The real news, not the fake news in "Fluffstuff" or "Flagstaff" or whatever its called. So really Flagstiffed is YOU!!!

Where do you find the stuff that you publish? Kids, alot of this is available in public domain. Too bad your leaders have covered it up or were too lazy to dig. Alot of this stuff has been communicated to us from folks on the Left Coast (your president has no friends out here, doncha know). But most important: YOU SEND ME STUFF! Thank you for those emails.

How come some people get emails from you with updates? Well, I'm not sure if your ticked off because you DO get mail from me or if your ticked off because you DON"T get email from me. Some names I pick at random (thanks to your Web site). Some names are the names of teachers I admire (they know who they are) or employees I got to know. Some names I just pick at random.

Does the administration know about this Web site? You bet. Your main office in Richmond knows. Your administration knows. Don't you feel better now knowing thatt?

Are you really our college's president or one of his henchmen? That rumor came my way recently. LOL! And then I cried. Thats got to tell you something about the paranoia on your campus. Don't forget kids: Paranoia, like shit, flows down from the top. Get out of the slipstream.

Do news media know about this Web site? Some of them do. Do you really think they give a damn?

If I post an anonymous comment, can it be traced or identified? Nope. I can't tell who you are. Google/Blogger doesn't give a crap who you are. If you send us email though please use a dummy email account that can't be identified.

How do I post a comment? As always, click on the underlined links to post a comment. Click on Flagstiffed email link to send us mail. The comments are moderated, so I have to approve them before they actually appear on the Web. (Some folks were touching a few legal and ethical nerves with their messages, so we want to make sure they everybodyies protected and we can keep this operation going. No "defamation per se" here.)

Sunday, July 29, 2007

August Holiday: Open Forum

Its almost August when everybody in Paris, New York and the Valley goes on vacation. Flagstiffed is posting this open forum for you to post your news and views. This is a moderated forum (like all the others) so when you post your message it won't appear until I've approved it.

Stay cool/kewl!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Mental Health Watch: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Good Mental Health
Dealing with Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Flagstiffed provides this feature as a public service to help employees deal with a difficult personality type.

The general description of the personality disorder comes from AllPsych and Heffner Media Group, Inc.

We consulted with a professional who has extensive clinical experience in both individual and group psychotherapy settings to offer a commentary that is written in blue italics.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Like most personality disorders, there are many factors that may contribute to the development of symptoms. Because the symptoms are long lasting, the idea that symptoms begin to emerge in childhood or at least adolescence is well accepted. The negative consequences of such symptoms, however, may not show themselves until adulthood.

(Conventional psychotherapeutic models of the narcissistic personality tend to attribute it to a psychic wound inflicted in childhood. For example, an abusive father may produce the disorder in his son for whom the narcissism becomes a form of protection against the father’s emotional assaults. Narcissistic disordered patients are often ACOA [adult children of an alcoholic parent] whose narcissism was developed as a protective shell. Narcissistic adults frequently seek out other narcissistic adults as their mates and partners since they both view the world as a dangerous place filled with people who are out to get them.)

The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder:
1. Revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. (The narcissistic patient frequently surrounds himself with people who flatter or praise him and rebuffs those who criticize or disagree with him.)

2. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements. (The narcissistic patient often displays emblems of success and admiration, no matter how trivial or insignificant, such as awards, certificates, and prizes, or brags about supposed accomplishments, which are often exaggerated or are actually the product of others’ labor.)

3. They may be overwhelmed with fantasies involving unlimited success, power, love, or beauty and feel that they can only be understood by others who are, like them, superior in some aspect of life. (The narcissistic patient blames others for problems for which he is responsible and is unable to accept responsibility for mistakes or to apologize for harm he has caused.)

4. There is a sense of entitlement, of being more deserving than others based solely on their superiority. (In a curious twist, this sense of superiority can be masked by a false pose of humility while simultaneously existing as a symptom of a fundamental insecurity.)

5. These symptoms, however, are a result of an underlying sense of inferiority and are often seen as overcompensation. (Underlying all of the narcissistic patient’s bragging and displays of supposed accomplishments are a deep, abiding, and intractable insecurity, sense of shame, and fear of being exposed to ridicule.)

6. Because of this, they are often envious and even angry of others who have more, receive more respect or attention, or otherwise steal away the spotlight. (The narcissistic personality can become very paranoid, questioning the loyalty and motives of those around them. They also tend to “infect” their associates with the same paranoia and sense of emergency or urgency in stressful circumstances.)

Treatment for this disorder is very rarely sought. There is a limited amount of insight into the symptoms, and the negative consequences are often blamed on society. In this sense, treatment options are limited. Some research has found long term insight oriented therapy to be effective, but getting the individual to commit to this treatment is a major obstacle.

(The narcissistic patient abhors situations where he appears to have made a mistake, blames others for his personal problems or for problems that he has caused, feels himself to be the object of undue scrutiny, and in some instances exhibits a paranoia in which he imagines others are out to get him. He is unable to acknowledge the extent to which he is the cause of his own problems or the extent to which he causes pain and suffering in others. Therefore, when his disorder causes others distress, he is unlikely to acknowledge the pain and suffering that he has inflicted on others, much less to apologize, to remedy, or to change. Seeking treatment requires an individual who has some degree of self-awareness, empathy, and ego strength, which the narcissistic personality typically lacks.)

Prognosis is limited and based mainly on the individual's ability to recognize their underlying inferiority and decreased sense of self worth. With insight and long term therapy, the symptoms can be reduced in both number and intensity.

(Narcissistic personality types can be very dangerous to those associated with them. When asked how one should deal with a narcissistic personality, the clinician’s best answer is, With as much distance as possible!)

Copyright © 1999-2003, AllPsych and Heffner Media Group, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Anatomy of a Deficit (Part Four)

Swing a Cat, Hit a VP

Employees who read Flagstiffed have reported concerns about the number of administrators that the college has and as we have reported in a previous article they are expensive. So we asked one of our readers to look into the matter to make sure that we report the facts. Here is that reader’s report:

The most expensive part of the college’s budget is personnel services, including salaries and benefits. However, as college enrollments and income have increased, you would think that the college would invest in more full time faculty. But you’d be wrong.

For several years we have noticed a disturbing phenomenon. Enrollments at the college have increased over the past decade, but the number of full time faculty has remained about the same. The number of administrators has increased over the past decade, but the number of full time faculty has remained about the same. If enrollments are increasing, wouldn’t it make sense that the numbers of full time faculty would also increase proportionately?

Let’s do the numbers. We’re going to use FTES (full time equivalent students) because that’s what the college’s appropriations are calculated on.

3,745 FTE students
23 college administrators
0 vice presidents
0 associate vice presidents
About 100 faculty

4,879 FTE Students
29 college administrators
0 vice presidents
0 associate vice presidents
About 100 faculty

5,201 FTE Students
39 college administrators
8 vice presidents, a provost, and a special assistant to the president (a cabinet post)
5 associate vice presidents
About 100 faculty

So in ten years, enrollment at the college has increased about 39%, the number of administrators has increased about 70%, and the number of full time faculty has remained about the same.

Let’s compare those executive numbers with a nearby neighboring college. In 2005-2006, they enrolled 15,613 FTE students (three times more students than our college). So how many executives do they employ? They have a provost for each campus (four provosts) and five vice presidents, a total of nine cabinet executives. If they used our ratios they would have a cabinet of about 24 executives!

Does it make sense that increased enrollment during a decade requires only the same number of full time faculty but a vastly larger number of administrators? How does the college afford those executive and sub-executive salaries, not to mention administrative support staff (clerical workers) for each? How can the college justify increasing administrators while full time faculty numbers remain almost constant?

The secret behind this increase lies in the fact that most administrators at the college are just passing through town. The college is a stepping stone on their way to bigger and better executive positions. And one of the ways to pad your resume before you move on out and up is to increase the number of “direct reports” under you on the organizational chart. Faculty and staff who have served on the myriad of executive and sub-executive search committees this past year have reported that statements about the “direct reports” who worked for applicants figured prominently in applicant’s job application letters and resumes as well as in interviews.

Increasing the number of executives in the cabinet and increasing the number of associate vice presidents, deans and directors reporting to vice presidents does not serve a growing student body. The increase only serves executive incumbents when they seek advancement by moving to other colleges. In some circles it is known as “featherbedding” or feathering your own nest. Here at this college it should be known as “ka-ching!”

What’s the cost? Based on data from the VCCS, vice presidential salaries at college our size can range from $94,000 to $125,000; provosts, $96,000 to $128,000 (both VP and provost salaries are based in part on FTES); and associate vice presidents, $56,000 to $105,000. Tack on 50% more for each to include the cost of their benefits. Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

And you wonder why there’s a budget deficit?

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Anatomy of a Deficit (Part Three)

Business Econ 101

{This is the third in a series on the college's financial difficulties. Flagstiffed has relied on reports from people with knowledge of the situation. Some sources have confirmed other sources but Flagstiffed has not asked the college's administration for comment.}

At a town hall meeting for employees, later in an email to employees, and after that in an article in a local newspaper, the president’s story about the college’s deficit kept changing. One version of events provided by the president (the deficit is the product of the college’s success with growing enrollments) can be easily discounted with a simply lesson in business economics, which has been provided for us by a business economist whose analysis was sent to us by one of our readers:

Putting an additional student into an empty desk for a single 3 credit course adds more than $225 to the college’s revenues. Yet, the marginal cost associated with that additional student is relatively insignificant---unless there are no empty seats to be had. However, that's not the case at the college. Very few classes are full (i.e., without a single empty desk in the room). So, in the vast majority of cases, adding another student to a class will generate a fair amount of revenue without incurring any significant additional costs.

Can you imagine a CEO in the business world telling shareholders that a firm's financial problems stem from having too many paying customers? Who would accept such nonsense at face value? Yet, that's exactly what the college’s president has done. If an organization's marginal revenue greatly exceeds its marginal cost at its current level of output, is it likely that it would lose money by expanding output a bit more? Given this scenario, shouldn't we suspect waste or fraud---or, at least, managerial incompetence---if an organization DID lose money under these circumstances?

We don't really know how much of a student's tuition the college gets to keep. But, given the minimal marginal cost of adding a single student to a particular class (i.e., providing a syllabus, a Class Schedule booklet, a student email address, and some "employee" time processing the registration and payment), it's a certainty that the college should be coming out ahead. A brand new student who goes through placement testing and counseling would be more expensive; but most of them end up with full loads, so they'd each generate $900+ in revenue their first semester.

What readers should find amazing is that in Fall, 2002 (less than five years ago), the college was charging $40.46 per credit hour for tuition. And they didn't seem to be going broke. They’ve raised tuition more than 79% since then (to $72.50 per credit hour)---and now they can't make ends meet! Where is all that "extra" money going?

If an organization has plenty of customers but still gets into financial difficulty, mismanagement is the likely cause. Fifty-three of the lowest-paid college employees had their hours cut with virtually no advanced warning. Some of them live paycheck-to-paycheck. Now we learn that summertime adjunct faculty will not get paid until July 1. Could you make ends meet if your take-home pay was cut in half tomorrow or you paycheck delayed by half a month? Administrators will never know. And there are many administrators at the college.

Next time: Swing a Cat, Hit a VP

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Anatomy of a Budget Deficit (Part Two)

Train Wreck

{This is the second in a series on the college's financial difficulties. Flagstiffed has relied on reports from people with knowledge of the situation. Some sources have confirmed other sources but Flagstiffed has not asked the college's administration for comment.}

Put simply there appears to be two causes to the college’s current deficit. The administration created a budget whose income and expense projections were bogus and the current budget management was not able to do cash projections in order to insure that cash on hand matched expenses. Freight train meets passenger train on the same pair of tracks.

The president has reportedly claimed that mismanagement by a previous administration and previous uncollected monies owed to the college are to blame for this deficit. But uncollected debts are only a problem if you make bogus projections about how much youre going to collect on those “receivables” and then include those bogus projections as anticipated income in your budget.

The administration insisted on doing both despite the fact that at least one employee (no longer employed there) at the time reportedly warned them not to use those numbers. And now it faces a big budget hole that its trying to fill by temporarily cutting parttime employees, delaying adjunct faculty paychecks, delaying paying vendors and delaying purchases and hiring until next year (which is just postponing the inevitable to the end of next year). Perhaps the president hopes to have a new job in another state by the time the collection agency comes calling on his current college.

What really confused college employees was that for months the president and his finance staff had been reporting good news. Problems in the business office had been fixed. Numerous audit findings had been corrected. Something that the president was calling a “Dream Team” had visited the campus and now everything was OK.

But wait, theres more. college employees report that in recent months they also heard nothing but good news about record enrollment increases. Those increases look good on paper and they looked good when the budget included them as income. But not all enrollments are fully paying enrollments, yet the administration’s budget counted them anyway. Now he’s saying that record enrollments caused the deficit. Huh? One explanation, according to several employees, is that the enrollment numbers were not accurate or were not an accurate reflection of tuition income. Apparently the college has been claiming something called “dual enrollments” that make the numbers look better but that aren’t bringing in the tuition. Plus one of Flagstiffed’s readers has pointed out that enrollment numbers calculate APPROPRIATIONS which aren’t income. Paying enrollment, these employees have reported to Flagstiffed, have been flat, not rising.

But thats only part of the problem. A bogus budget is definitely going to end in a train wreck, but a good budget manager is like a sharp eyed railroad engineer who can put the breaks on the train as soon as he sees trouble ahead. At the college that did not happen. A whole new budget and business office staff hired over the past year apparently have not had enough time to get a handle on regular cash projections, according to sources with knowledge of this subject. Information databases apparently don’t talk to each other either creating problems with billing. One database runs registration. Another older database runs the accounting. In one instance, it has been reported that over $100,000 owed to the college for services that it has rendered to clients has not been billed. Other substantial unbilled accounts have recently been reported.

The timing of the “discovery” of the deficit, just after the arrival of a new vice president of finance, can’t be coincidental. Several sources report to Flagstiffed that he discovered the problem. Why didn’t the previous VP for finance and the college’s board see this and intervene sooner? In fact, it has been reported that one board member resigned in disgust at what he saw coming down the train tracks.

The saddest thing to report is that the college’s administration was warned last summer and again last winter that the budget was not achievable, according to informed sources who have communicated with Flagstiffed. The college’s administration was warned of other financial problems 2 or 3 years ago, according to those same sources. It was warned of potential audit problems 3 years ago, according to other sources. However, sources report that the president chooses who he trusts-usually his cronies-and listens to those who tell him what he wants to hear. They report that he doesn’t like people who stand in his way; he makes them go away. Poof!

Next time: Business Econ 101