Northwest Missouri State’s John Jasinski is a successful president. Why force him out?
Northwest Missouri State University’s search for a new leader continues, but the hushed circumstances surrounding the pending departure of the current president could give pause to would-be candidates for the job with the 117-year-old regional university.
Two years ago, members of the university’s board of regents voted not to renew the contract for President John Jasinski, who will depart at the end of June after 13 years years in the post.
Leaving was not something Jasinski wanted. In a statement following last month’s announcement of his pending departure, Jasinski asked the community to “look critically” at the regents. “Understand the inner workings and ties to others, discern the intended direction, ascertain support or lack thereof for critical issues and weigh in on the institution’s future.”
“Civility with accountability are words that come to mind as you do so,” he said.
My inquiring mind — and others, I’m sure — would like to see more transparency at Northwest State, the second largest employer in Maryville. Faculty, alumni and the community deserve to know why the school’s governing board forced out a successful and respected leader.
Two of the seven regents say they opposed the vote. But none have given good reasons for why the contract wasn’t renewed, other than an intentionally vague statement from board chair John Moore that the university wanted to “go in a different direction.” He later told me that he meant they just want a different president.
In a statement last month to the university community, Moore, who voted not to renew Jasinski’s contract, said that he is “very supportive” of the university’s vision, mission, values and strategic direction and has “no desire to change any of those.”
Moore praised Jasinski’s service and said the decision had nothing to do with the president’s job performance or university performance, and that it was not political. “I have no political differences” with Jasinski, his statement said.
And he told us Jasinski has “done nothing to harm the university.” In fact, he said, Jasinski is leaving the university “in a sound position of financial health,” growing enrollment and donor dollars.
Moore’s statement raises the obvious question: If Jasinski was doing such a good job, why not renew his contract?
In a statement on the regents’ decision, Marilou Joyner, a former regent and board chair, said that the amount of money raised during Jasinski’s tenure “far surpasses any amount raised under any other Northwest president’s tenure” in the history of the university.
Joyner, who described Jasinski as someone who “lives by the highest degree of ethical behavior,” also said she is “disappointed and heartsick that the majority of the current BOR failed to support a new contract.”
Regent Deborah Roach did not support the board decision because Jasinski “to my knowledge did not do anything wrong, period,” she said. “The man has been nothing but classy through all of this. He is one of the most professional people I have ever met.”
Full disclosure: I interviewed Jasinski when he was first named university president. Over the years he’d always answered my calls to discuss ups or downs happening on the campus or in higher education. My oldest son is a Northwest graduate. He was editor of the campus paper. Jasinski knew him by name. And that wasn’t unusual. Jasinski had a similar familiarity with many students.
Word that Jasinski would not be allowed to continue as university president set off a firestorm of social media comments from faculty, students, community members and alumni, with most questioning the regents’ decision and complaining about the lack of answers being shared by the university’s governing body.
Moore has responded that “as chair, I pledge to improve transparency where feasible.” Giving the university community some real information about why the leadership is changing would be a good start.
Petty personnel disagreements behind dismissal?
Members of the university community have said they assume it’s more a personal, and not a personnel matter — and does not have to do with Jasinski’s performance.
It only makes sense some would think that because what other reason is left? We don’t know because the board’s not saying, instead insisting that they can’t talk about personnel matters.
But no law prohibits them from giving the reasons behind their decision. They could if they wanted to. If they were giving him a bonus or raise they would surely outline all the wonderful things he’s accomplished as justification for a pay bump.
In a board of regents listening session via teleconference last month, members of the university community questioned whether board members were considering what’s best for the university or acting because of some petty personal disagreement they had with Jasinski.
Ken Scribner, a 1987 graduate and active alumni and donor, recalled a conversation with Moore, who a couple years ago expressed being unhappy with Jasinski because he rejected a proposal to erect a statue of celebrated retired football coach and athletic director Mel Tjeerdsma, who is now a regent. “If that is one of the key drivers that have driven you to continue to pursue his removal from office, … I challenge you to make sure you’re thinking about the students,” Scribner said in the meeting.
The regents’ decision won’t be reversed. But it is important the governing board become more transparent in decisions of this magnitude. The university president serves not just the regents but students, teachers and the region as a whole. That person can strengthen — or weaken — the institution’s brand. It sounds like Jasinski did much to strengthen it.
Potential job candidates who may want to follow in Jasinski’s footsteps must now consider if they’re willing to risk putting their career in the hands of regents who showed themselves unwilling to support a leader among the most successful in the school’s history.
