YpsiLivin

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 10:02 p.m.

ERMG, The hallmark of truly good administration is accountability. I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but it sounds like you're suggesting that if only we all just lowered our expectations of our elected officials and college presidents we could clearly see the real bang for our buck we're getting from the WCC administration. Thanks but I'll pass.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 8:22 p.m.

Thanks, Ypsilivin, for proving my point! Good Night and Good Luck

YpsiLivin

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 8 p.m.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost said: Ypsilivin and others on this discussion expect absolute perfection out of public officials--and God forbid they make a mistake. Sorry, ERMG, but Larry Whitworth gets paid A LOT of money (which is why he can afford to be a "stand up guy" in this case)... far too much money to make junior-level errors in judgment. No free passes on this one. I don't expect perfection but this gaffe was both painfully obvious and entirely avoidable. And if that's not good enough for you, the College purchasing rules state that any expenditure over $3,000 must go out for bid. (Which naturally didn't happen in this case.) When the President and the Board of Trustees choose not to respect the rules that ensure the College operates responsibly and with integrity, there's a major problem. Alan Goldsmith: It wasn't the Chronicle that first uncovered this one; it was the Washtenaw Voice... the student newspaper on campus. The Chronicle covered the first day of the retreat. The Voice also FOIA'd the restaurant bill and discovered that it included $600 worth of alcohol, even though Stand Up Larry assured us that it didn't. The restaurant, btw, told the Voice that the menu for the evening was approved by Whitworth's office before the event, so Whitworth's claim that the bill was "excessive and shocking" is also suspect. (Unless he's just repeating the taxpayers' assessment.)

gibby76

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 3:15 p.m.

4024 for 23 people. good eaters lol

bmaloy

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.

There's nothing honorable about admitting guilt when it took a 3rd party to point out the guilty acts. That's called getting caught. Using this standard of accountability (or lack of) is embarrassing.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.

Ypsilivin wrote: "Real stand up guys don't do this kind of thing in the first place. Real stand up guys think about the ramifications of of an action like this." The very definition of a stand-up guy is someone who rectifies their mistakes. That has happened here. Ypsilin does not describe a "standup guy." They describe an absolutely flawless individual. Not certain what world people like Ysplivin inhabit, but I live in world where human beings are fallible and where they make mistakes. Ypsilivin and others on this discussion expect absolute perfection out of public officials--and God forbid they make a mistake. And, judged by the comments here, even worse if try to rectify that mistake. As I said above, proof that no good deed goes unpunished. Little wonder, then, that Pat Lesko won't back down from her patently outrageous statements--no reason to do so--she'll get punished for admitting she was wrong. No, much better to plow ahead. Let me suggest that these perfectionists, then, need to run for public office, as I know they will bring perfection to whatever it is they do. Good Night and Good Luck

YpsiLivin

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.

To Bob Martel and those who think this gesture paints Larry Whitworth as a "stand up guy": Real stand up guys don't do this kind of thing in the first place. Real stand up guys think about the ramifications of of an action like this, measure it in terms of how it will look in the eyes of the taxpayers, recognize it for what it is (a bad idea) and avoid like the plague taking actions that will make the College look bad. The College survives for the most part, due to the good graces of the taxpayers who support it and find value in what it does. Long after Whitworth and Rutledge are gone, the College will be left to bear the brunt of the taxpayers anger toward a group of elected officials who somehow came to the conclusion that they are "entitled" to a set of perks to compensate them for the voluntary expenditure of their time. The Board positions are unpaid. Each board member who ran for a seat understood that when they took the job. There are no perks, no compensation, and nothing to which they are entitled in exchange for serving on the board. They're volunteers who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' dollars whenever they act in their capacity as members of the boards. What other "perks" do the trustees receive as the result of being board members? If Whitworth were a real stand up guy, he would immediately disclose all expenditures (budgeted and otherwise) made by the College on behalf of or for the benefit of the Board of Trustees. Beyond the $9,000 weekend junket, how much are the taxpayers spending to "thank" the trustees for their volunteer service to the College?

A Pretty Ann Arbor

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 9:26 a.m.

I found everything about this dinner to be WRONG. Many students struggle to pay tuition even at a community college. The dinner cost was a slap in the face to students. In these difficult financial times I find it abhorrent that they saw fit to raise tuition (at this same retreat) and then eat food at a ridiculous price. Where is the common sense in this waste of money? One commenter wanted to know why this came out during election season - well the participants created the tab at the restaurant should be asked why they were IMHO stupid enough to create this kind of bill in the first place. For those that didn't participate - congrats - for those that did - shame on you!! I think they should come up with a $4K scholarship to the culinary program to amend some of this insanity. $9K for one weekend and almost half of it was one meal...ouch. The hall of shame! BTW - One of my degrees was from WCC - good school, great instructors and good price. However WCC went down a notch in my book for this. They should all be contributing back somehow to make amends.

Steve Hendel

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

Whitworth's comments don't make sense fo a few reasons: 1-If he truly believes that the whole thing was proper and that the criticism is unwarranted, then why is he reimbursing the College? 2-What exactly is a "restaurant charge"? Is that a minimum per person, or is it over and above the cost of the meal?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.

D: Could not have said it better myself. Articles such as these bring out the same half-dozen angry teapartyists every time. They frequently have no real agenda except their anger and have no real facts or logic to support that anger. Good Night and Good Luck

bruno_uno

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 4:34 a.m.

why am I paying for this guy and 23 other clowns alcohol?

John

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 11:45 p.m.

geej86 wrote - "I'm a little surprised by all the negative comments" Don't look at the comments that disagree with the entitlement attitude exhibited by the subject as "negative". Look at them as comments from people who believe in responsibility and accountability.... something that has been lost in modern society and especially in the public sector. You say "negative", I say "responsible". It is telling that you take a dig at annarbor.com as they allow you to voice your opinion. If annarbor.com is beneath you, then please voice your opinions elsewhere. Nice job.

geej86

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 10:26 p.m.

Just wanted to say that I agree full heartedly with Edward R Murrow and Bob Martel on this one. I'm a little surprised by all the negative comments, this is annarbor.com though.

stunhsif

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.

Yep, just pay the 4 grand back and call it "even steven". This allows you to make repeated mistakes and if you get busted, you just pay your way back into "good graces". @John, I agree, kinda like church. Good old Tony Soprano wacks a guy on tuesday, goes to confession on wednesday and all is good to go to do it again the next week. Badda Boom--Badda Bing! Malfeasance is here to stay unless we vote it away!

John

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 7:37 p.m.

Quote- I find President Whitworths action to address this controversy to be honorable and above and beyond the call of duty. It is not often that you see someone admit to a possible lapse in judgment and then make it right. Wow, that bar is set pretty low. Sounds like a kiss up comment to me. It's kinda like your kid getting taking your debit card and wastefully spending your money over and over again. Then he/she gets caught and offers to pay you back for only that instance. The kid is no dummy. He/she is smart enough to realize you are dumb enough to pat him/her on the back for doing the "right thing", ensuring that you will leave the debit card in the same place for future use. I guess, in your world that is what you describe as "honorable and above and beyond the call of duty". This is the problem with our public officials. Kinda like church. Sin. Repent. You are forgiven. Business as usual!

scooter dog

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 7:26 p.m.

Never heard of a $100.00 per person restaurant charge.Large groups are usually billed as a group and the tip of 18% is added to the bill,works out to $31.50 per person,a far cry from $100.00. I've been eating in good restrauants for 40 yrs and never heard of the so called $100.00 charge

jcj

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 6:42 p.m.

If I were making almost $200,000 in salary I would not consider $4000 a bad investment to cover my tracks! He "made it right" with our money!

stunhsif

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.

@John, Good response to some of the "bloviating" going on here. This entire situation is very sad. If the cost had not been so excessive and the booze running so freely it would not have been an issue. I don't pay my taxes to get WCC trustees well fed and liquored up and then have them try and defend it. Sad, very very sad.

Bob Martel

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

I find President Whitworths action to address this controversy to be honorable and above and beyond the call of duty. It is not often that you see someone admit to a possible lapse in judgment and then make it right.

John

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 5:08 p.m.

Response to Edward Murrows Ghost - Time for a reality check- Just a poor attempt at justifying waste. They work thousands of hours annually while maintaining other employment? Really? Working Retreat? Should accountability get left at the door? Donated substantial sums? Then why don't they just pay for their own way to help the college? Sounds like a good donation. A 10 year bill of clean health? Great. Sounds like they are just doing what is expected. That is how I do my job too. Just because the waste was not on the same level (yet) of AIG and Pebble Beach, does not mean that it is not waste. My dog's feces may not be the size of an elephant's feces, but you know what? It is still feces.

John

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 4:48 p.m.

"When you're doing this kind of activity, it does not come free,"- True, it does not come free, but it certainly shouldn't cost $175 per person. Like our government, this is just another example of wasting money that is not their own. Money they did not have to earn and are not accountable for. He only ponied up the money, well after the fact, because he got caught spending foolishly! "I should have looked at the fine print," I guarantee you this was not "fine print". If someone cannot be responsible enough to handle a simple dinner for 23 people in an efficient manner, how can they possibly be entrusted with greater responsibility?

JMA2Y

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.

Not only should they have remained local, and not only are there many fine, expensive restaurants in town to accomondate them, but WCC has a fine catering/dining staff which could have catered the affair, even something high end, in any of its rooms or conference spaces. But then it would not have been in such a fine, lush, expensive establishment as the Grille. These are the same trustees who took over a music room to create a board room, then furnished it with furniture that is exclusive to themselves and is put back into storage when their meetings are over.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

Time for a reality check. In response to A2.com's article about Mr. Scott making this an issue, I wrote the following (anything in [ ]s I have added today): Lets stipulate up front that this was politically tone deaf given the tenor of the times. That said: 1) This was not AIG going to a retreat golf outing at Pebble Beach. This was a working retreat, the records of which are readily available except for those sessions where personnel issues were being discussed. Retreats such as this permit much to be accomplished away from the phone, away from the secretary, away the possibility of being interrupted routinely with relatively mundane issues. [Especially important at retreats such as this is the ability to spend long periods of time in strategic planning] 2) The college chose the Book Cadillac, a local business that had just recently reopened at huge expense to private investors. It is not clear that that that investment will ever be realized given the states and the citys economies. The College, then, was trying to support one part of an important new economic venture in downtown Detroit 3) The board members, all of whom have other jobs on which their livelihoods depend, do this job with zero compensation. They put in hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of work annually for this job. Despite their day jobs several are routinely on campus at WCC (Jerry Jernigan, when he was trustee, wandered the halls talking to students, staff, and faculty, and was known to simply pop into an office to talk to administrators and faculty). 4) Board members have donated substantial sums to the WCC Foundation, the charitable arm of the college that funds tuition and other resources for in-need students. Their connections (which someone chose to denigrate above[in the original article]) ARE important in this regard, as an important role of the board is to strongarm their friends and business colleagues to support the various functions of the Foundation. 5) Of the people who have served on the WCC Board for the last 15 years, only David Rutledge has attempted to use that position as a springboard to higher office (and it is not yet clear if Mr. Rutledge will succeed). This is not a position political elites use to further their careers. It is something committed citizens do to serve their community. 6) Someone [commenting on the original article] raised the issue of perks. Perks!! You must be kidding me. Anyone who thinks the WCC Board of Trustees have perks for this thankless job should run for election to the Board so that they might discover first-hand just what those perks might be. WCC provides a quality education to its students. The Higher Learning Commission, the body that accredits colleges and universities in the North Central Region, just gave WCC a 10-year clean bill of health during its visit in the Fall of 2009. Let me be clear that this almost NEVER happens. At the very least, most colleges are required to file follow-up reports that address noted shortcomings. Many are required to undergo re-inspection. WCC was not required to do any of this. The HLCs findings are a measure of the high quality job being done by WCCs instructors, staff, administrators, and, yes, by its Board of Trustees. And if a $9000 weekend once per year is what is necessary to allow that Board to do its job, to oversee a college whose budget now approaches near $100 million per year, and to insure the continued high quality of the education that WCC provides, well... $9000 seems a bargain. ------------- Commenters' anger has blinded them to the reality that, judged by outside agencies, WCC is an enormously well-run and successful educational institution. Keep your eye on the ball, folks. Good Night and Good Luck

Tag

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

I think AnnArbor.com should delete the existing comments and disable commenting for this article. It seems to me that too much mud-slinging is going on in the comment section and that many of the posters seem to have an agenda. I'll ask one question though; Why has this dinner become an issue ONLY in an election year?

sunflower

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.

Larry Whitworth has been the president of WCC for over 12 years now. If this is the worst that can happen under his leadership, so what! Try asking the leader of Goldman-Sachs for the money that he lost for others. At least Whitworth owned up to the issue. And by the way, the WCC board does not "notify" the president to call individuals who have issues with registration. The board generally oversees the college and policies. They do not micro-manage. This is a fact.

YpsiSunshine

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

I am happy that he paid for the dinner but it still does not excuse the actions or Mr. Rutledge's defense of the spending. Mr. Scott did the right thing by making it an issue, if he hadn't would the money have been paid back, I doubt it. I do not see this as negative campaigning, but bringing something wrong to the publics attention. I appreciate the fact that my tax dollars are being protected by a candidate for office and will "thank" Mr. Scott in August with my vote.

bmaloy

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.

This guy just got caught. If a 3rd party had no brought it to the attention of the public, then WCC picks up the tab. You can't take credit for doing the right thing when you only did the right thing after getting caught. That's slimy.

gamebuster

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 2 p.m.

I don't recommend this president at all. Three years ago, I wrote five e-mail letters to this president and cc. the board expressing the faulty system of enrollment & registration. He even didn't write back one letter. He receives very high salary every year, but he doesn't take his job seriously. Finally, it's the board of trustees notified the office to give me a call to explain the registration system. It's a shame. Being the president of WCC, he couldn't win my respect. As the leader of the college with brain, he should have avoided the interest of conflict. The money should have gone to student's scholarships or school funds instead.

Cash

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 1:48 p.m.

Edward R, When one is caught with one's proverbial pants down,it is in good taste to try to pull them up. That's not a good deed. That's just an attempt to cover one's bottom.

aajeff

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.

A "stand up guy" would have thought about those that pay his salary (us, the tax payer) and brown bagged it in a WCC facility. Or at the very least had the dinner meeting in Washtenaw County. You have to go to Detroit to meet? It is ironic that they spent that kind of money eating while raising the tuition 10%. Yea, he's just covering his you know what.

Rasputin

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.

I've met him, he is a role model and a REAL mensch! Bravo President Larry Whitworth

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.

Judging by all but one of the comments so far, proof that no good deed goes unpunished. Good Night and Good Luck

Morris Thorpe

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.

>>He sounds like a stand-up guy. Not many people would step up to the plate, admit they were wrong, and then cut a personal check to rectify the mistake.>> Boy, do we have different versions of stand-up guys. A stand-up guy would have nixed the dinner on the spot (which would have taken some cojones, for sure.) And he did not rectify a mistake. He just got caught taking advantage of the system and was forced to do something to save some face. Pathetic, the whole lot of 'em (including the tattler.)

PformerPfizer

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:49 p.m.

"saying it was a strictly-business affair and is a tradition" - isn't it just that type of thinking that has brought down so many institutions?

uawisok

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.

It would seem that they could have found a local buisness to support...at least stay in the county that pays their bills....bet Weber's could have hosted such an event????

Cash

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:42 p.m.

Campaign be darned....it's time for people to stop accepting these expenditures as "status quo." These kinds of decisions are a direct slap in the face to students who are trying to find jobs and then working hard for minimum wage in this economy. On top of that, they borrow student loan funds with little hope for future employment to pay them off. Talk about stress! It's time for public institutions to wake up to the reality of Michigan's economy and stop slapping taxpayers and students in the face. Regarding the campaign...Mr Rutledge, if you see this expense as an "investment" in WCC, that is just wrong. An investment would be you donating the cost of your portion of the meal to a scholarship fund for kids who are struggling.

Atticus F.

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:34 p.m.

He sounds like a stand-up guy. Not many people would step up to the plate, admit they were wrong, and then cut a personal check to rectify the mistake.

Bear

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.

The bill comes out to $174.95 for each person dining. If you factor in the $100 a person restaurant charge, then it comes down to $74.95 per person for dinner. Reasonable rate. I agree with Rutledge, if his opponent can't find anything else to criticize him with he should take another tack. Negative campaigning at it's worst. "Let's dig up some dirt or, failing that, invent some!"

Jake C

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.

$4024 for a single dinner, attended by 23 people, works out to about $175 per person. Apparently *not* including alcohol? Now, I could probably run up a $175 tab at a high-end restaurant if it included a really nice bottle of wine, but I can't understand how *each person* could eat (or even order) $175 worth of food. Or does dinner just mean everything at the meal (including wine and beer and tip), and the $600 for drinks were purchased elsewhere?