With just about six months left on his contract at the University of New Mexico, Robert G. Frank appeared poised to end a relatively calm presidency at an institution known for leadership turmoil. But that all changed last week.
Through a series of leaks to local news media, the public has learned of an external investigation into whether Mr. Frank has created a hostile work environment at the university, along with an audit of his expenses. On Wednesday, the university’s Board of Regents met in closed session to discuss whether to suspend or terminate the president, but the group made no official ruling and offered no public statements about its deliberations. Indeed, the regents scattered from the building before reporters could question them.
We're sorry. Something went wrong.
We are unable to fully display the content of this page.
The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.
Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page.
You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one,
or subscribe.
If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com
With just about six months left on his contract at the University of New Mexico, Robert G. Frank appeared poised to end a relatively calm presidency at an institution known for leadership turmoil. But that all changed last week.
Through a series of leaks to local news media, the public has learned of an external investigation into whether Mr. Frank has created a hostile work environment at the university, along with an audit of his expenses. On Wednesday, the university’s Board of Regents met in closed session to discuss whether to suspend or terminate the president, but the group made no official ruling and offered no public statements about its deliberations. Indeed, the regents scattered from the building before reporters could question them.
It would not at all surprise me if Bob Frank blows up with his staff at times. ... But the notion that that’s grounds for firing him, when he’s already leaving in June, is dubious to me.
New Mexico’s secretive process has taken on a Kafkaesque quality, as Mr. Frank hunkers down in his office, speaks only through his lawyer, and protests that he has never even seen a report, said to be critical of his management style, that is at the root of his tenuous status at the university. On Tuesday, he threatened to sue the university for defamation.
“The board and President Frank are trying to work out a settlement agreement that would resolve all of their differences,” Jaymeson Pegue, Mr. Frank’s lawyer, said Thursday. “That is a work in progress, so I’m not authorized to tell you any terms.”
This unpleasant coda to Mr. Frank’s tenure has a familiar ring. His predecessor, David J. Schmidly, faced a faculty vote of no-confidence before announcing, in 2011, that he would retire the following year. Prior to that, Louis Caldera, a former U.S. secretary of the Army, resigned amid friction with the board.
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy J. Ross, a former president of the Faculty Senate, said professors have grown weary of turbulence at the top and that they are concerned about how this latest episode will affect recruitment of a new president.
“We’ve gone through so many presidents and provosts we often wonder how strong our pools can be, and maybe we should be going internally for a while,” said Mr. Ross, a civil-engineering professor. “We’ve been through too many in the last twenty years; that clearly is a concern of all faculty.”
Lucrative New Post
Mr. Frank, who is 64, announced in September that he would step down as president when his five-year contract ends May 31.
As part of his agreement with the board, Mr. Frank is to be appointed director of a new Center for Innovation in Health and Education. He has led or helped to establish programs in public health at the University of Florida, Kent State University and New Mexico. Mr. Frank’s proposed annual salary of $350,000 as director of New Mexico’s health-education program is nearly commensurate with his base pay as president, prompting some public criticism in a state where university compensation is often a subject of scrutiny.
In late November, about two months after Mr. Frank had announced his intention to step aside, the Albuquerque Journal reported on the findings of an outside investigation commissioned by the regents into allegations that Mr. Frank had mistreated professors and staff members. Alice Kilborn, the lawyer who conducted the investigation, concluded that there were “shades of a hostile work environment,” but that the president’s actions fell short of creating such an environment.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Frank’s treatment of faculty and staff is not appropriate and may rise to the level of bullying,” Ms. Kilborn’s report states, according to the Journal.
The report, which quoted staff members who described Mr. Frank as “generally affable,” also contained allegations that he could be “bitingly sarcastic, condescending, and rude.”
“In one case, after asking for coffee twice and never getting it,” the Journal reported, “Frank placed his coffee cup on the floor of the doorway and said, ‘See if you can get it from here.’”
Ms. Kilborn also cited “perceived unprofessional communication with the Governor (Susana Martinez) and her chief of staff,” the newspaper said.
Ms. Pegue, the president’s lawyer, said Mr. Frank had been unjustly defamed by leaks to the media and unable to defend himself against allegations in a report that the regents have refused to provide to him.
ADVERTISEMENT
“As we stated in our Tort Claims Act letter to the regents, it remains our position that President Frank is on the receiving end of what is an improper process,” Ms. Pegue said. “His position is what it has always been: There never was a hostile work environment or evidence which would support such a claim.”
The Chronicle sought the investigative report from both university officials and the regents, neither of whom provided it. A spokeswoman for the university said it did not have the report, which may be exempt from public-records disclosure because it includes opinions about a personnel matter. The regents, who paid $9,357.65 for the investigation, say the document is protected by attorney-client privilege.
In addition to the hostile-work-environment investigation, the Journal reported on an audit of Mr. Frank’s expenses, which found he had been over-reimbursed by about $5,500. He has since paid the money back, the Journal reported.
The timing of these dual investigations, coming as they did amid public criticism of Mr. Frank’s lucrative new post in health and education, has invited speculation about whether the board is seeking a justification to renege on its agreement with the departing president.
Numerous faculty members, staff members and administrators declined interview requests, saying that it would be inappropriate to discuss a matter where litigation may be pending or that they feared retribution from the regents for speaking publicly. A faculty member, who asked not to be identified, said that the apparent effort to oust Mr. Frank in the last months of his contract tracks as a vindictive maneuver designed to release the university from its financial obligations to the president.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It would not at all surprise me if Bob Frank blows up with his staff at times. That’s entirely believable to me,” said the faculty member, who cited conversations with colleagues who had complained of the president’s temper. “But the notion that that’s grounds for firing him, when he’s already leaving in June, is dubious to me.”
In order to terminate the president for cause, the board would need to give Mr. Frank a notice of the grounds for his dismissal and allow him 30 days to respond, according to the president’s contract. Robert M. Doughty III, chairman of the regents, said Thursday that the board had not given the president any such notice. Nor has the board informed the president that he will be terminated without cause, as would be required under his contract.
Mr. Doughty, who would only respond to questions via email, said he could understand how the prolonged nature of this process has contributed to instability at the university and damaged the president’s reputation.
“I can appreciate that concern,” he wrote. “The board is acting in the best interests of the university.”
Mr. Doughty said that he did not leak any documents to news media and that he had no knowledge of who might have done so.
ADVERTISEMENT
‘The Hammer’
Mr. Frank appears to enjoy support on campus, where he is credited with helping to raise graduation and retention rates. But there were concerns about the president’s management style before he was even hired.
Mr. Frank, who was previously provost at Kent State University, once described himself as “the hammer” for Kent State’s president. New Mexico professors chafed at that, writing a letter to the regents in which they expressed fears that Mr. Frank would be “divisive and polarizing.”
Lester A. Lefton, a former president of Kent State to whom Mr. Frank reported, said his former colleague was impatient to make big changes. “Bob was a get it done kind of guy, and along the way that doesn’t always make friends,” Mr. Lefton said.
Hard-charging though Mr. Frank may have been, Mr. Lefton said, he never witnessed the former provost yelling or losing his cool.
“I always found him charming and agreeable,” Mr. Lefton said.
ADVERTISEMENT
New Mexico’s board is expected to meet again Tuesday.
Jack Stripling was a senior writer at The Chronicle, where he covered college leadership, particularly presidents and governing boards. Follow him on Twitter @jackstripling.