11 June, 1998

From: George R. Garrison

To: E. Timothy Moore

Re: Your Negative Vote in the Review Process

Tim, out of all of the things that have happened concerning the two year controversy in this Department, there are two things that are the most worrisome for me: 1) first and foremost, your negative vote against me in this review process; and 2) your failure to speak up and support me during this course of these events. As I indicated to you during our face-to-face discussion of this matter, I do not understand how someone could do what you did, given your and my relationship over the last three years, and what I have done for the Department. I have been extremely supportive of you personally, as the enclosures will attest.

Among the many instances of support, there is one that sticks out the most. During the first semester of my arrival here, I suggested to you that you apply for promotion to Associate Professor. It was clear to me that you had been an Assistant Professor too long over fifteen years and your career appeared to be stagnated. At a faculty meeting, when it became clear that you had filed for promotion, the previous Chair opposed your application vehemently, along with another faculty member in the Department. I made my first strong stance against this man, when I indicated, unequivocally that I had encouraged you to apply for promotion, and intended to support you strongly. It was this incident that began my difficulties with this man. It was the right thing to do, and I did it, despite the consequences. I believe in supporting those, who deserve to be supported. It was my first act of leadership, as the Chair of this Department

Over the last three years, I have written letters of support for you, as you have sought employment at other institutions and petition the administration for equity adjustments in your salary. On numerous occasions, I have provided resources for you in order that you might better accomplish the tasks of your job in the Department. Part of my difficulties with the Department FAC has come as a result of my opposing merit decisions that would have been unfair to you, in my opinion at the time. Certainly, one of the many factors in your being selected for the new position that you will be assuming, must have been the strong letter of recommendation that I sent in for you.

More important than the personal support that I have given you, is the fact that I always related to you as a personal confidant and collaborator. As you know, often times I would discuss the business of the Doparunent with you mainly because of your history with, and commitment to the institution and the Department; the fact that I realized that I oftentimes needed rational and sensible input on the critical issues that we faced, and the many decisions that impacted the future progress of the Department. Often, as I recall. I had private conversations with you about the progress of the Department, even befote the broader discussions with the general faculty, because I viewed you as a trusted colleague. This worked well, I thought your career was recharged, and the Department began to move in a positive direction, with one improvement after another.

I must tell you that the reasons you gave me for voting against me seem awfully trivial and insincere. From you, of all people, I expected more. Your action has lePL me with a since of betrayal. I just hope that you prove to be more loyal to your next supervisor, than you have been to me. Having said all a . that, I do wish you well in your new position.

C:  Myron S. Henry, Provost KSU
      Joseph H. Danks, Dean CAS