The Free Press hasn’t criticized the actions of the university’s administration very much this year. For the most part, I get the impression that the school does the best that it can and, considering the resources available, does a phenomenal job. Unfortunately, in the past year, there has been some slippage between the actual and perceived role of one of the university officials many work with most: Chris O’Connor, assistant to the dean of student life.
O’Connor’s job description, available on the USM website, mentions no direct role working with the paper, other than supervising our Adviser, Jess Kilby, who is a university employee. For some time now, he’s been working more closely with us, to the point of speaking on behalf of the university when procedural questions come up, advocating for particular staffers and showing up at our meetings. O’Connor’s heart is in the right place, but I think he’s overstepping his boundaries.
In the first weeks of my tenure as the Executive Editor, we ran out of letterhead, envelopes and business cards. I mentioned this at an unrelated meeting, and O’Connor told me, incorrectly, that the university’s new logo would have to appear on everything we printed, according to the rules the university lays out for its departments and student groups. The new logo is quite distinctive, and dominates anything on which it appears. I was concerned about using it on the paper’s letterhead, as we are always concerned with maintaining our objectivity and independence. The university’s policy is, in fact, that The Free Press is a unique institution and doesn’t have to use the logo.
Upon further inquiry, I found O’Connor adamant in his interpretation of the university’s logo guidelines, saying that since The Free Press is a student group, it’s subject to the use of the logo. When I persisted he told me to email Craig Hutchinson, vice president of student and university life.
I sent an email to Hutchinson stating very strongly that we didn’t want to use the logo and why, and Hutchinson advised me to send my email instead to Amy Barnes, assistant director of publications. Barnes is also on The Free Press Advisory Board. When I talked to Barnes, I quickly found that the rules allow The Free Press to print letterhead without the university logo. This exchange foreshadowed what has become a major issue: O’Connor weighed in on the issue when he doesn’t have any direct role with either The Free Press or the logo initiative. And, instead of referring me to Barnes immediately, he argued with me.
That exchange turned out well because I persisted in my goal. O’Connor’s actions came even more prominently into question last month, when I decided, after deep consideration, to terminate our contract with a student who works for the paper.
After I told this staffer I was planning to terminate their contract, the staffer went to O’Connor, with whom this staffer has a long-running friendship.
It’s important to have impartial and well-informed advisors when personnel problems happen at a student paper. In the last month, it’s become unclear whether O’Connor is impartial, and how well-informed he is on university policy and most importantly, whether he should be acting as an advisor in the first place. I’m not sure whether O’Connor has been well-trained in advising: an advisor would know not to steer the discussion one way or the other.
O’Connor asked to speak with us both. He said he didn’t consider the meeting he wanted to have mediation,” that he just wanted to talk to us.
Joseph Austin, Dean of Student Life, later told me that if both parties in a conflict are present, he would call it a mediation. Austin is O’Connor’s supervisor. He said in a conflict-resolution situation, he consults with each party separately before going into a group meeting. O’Connor didn’t do this; he called us directly into a group meeting. I don’t know how much O’Connor talked to the staffer beforehand. I didn’t get to express my concerns in an environment free of confrontation.
In the meeting, instead of addressing any of my issues, O’Connor led us into an abstract discussion about leadership and reminded us both how proud he was of how much we’d done at the paper. He then said he thought I should resolve the issue by “exuding leadership” rather than firing anyone.
USM has an official Mediation program. Information on its website (search “mediation” on the USM home page) states “Mediators do not advise, recommend, or make decisions.”
I got the impression that, rather than acting as an impartial advisor or mediator, O’Connor was advocating against my point of view, and therefore for the staffer. In fact, since Chris’s job is not to advise The Free Press, and he told us he wasn’t acting as a mediator, it’s unclear exactly what he meant to do.
After that, I elected to call a meeting of the paper’s Executive Board to run my decision past them. O’Connor invited himself to the meeting via email. I wasn’t comfortable with his being there. Despite my reservations, I told Chris he could come if he wanted to. In later conversations, he said he hadn’t wanted to come, and only asked to come after the staffer had invited him. In contrast, his email reads: “I’d like to try to attend if I can to be a support person for all of you through the process.” In my opinion, “I’d like to come” is a lot different than “I don’t want to come, but someone wants me there.”
I don’t know why O’Connor felt he needed to be at a Free Press meeting, especially since Kilby was there in her assigned role as our Adviser. Again, O’Connor is Kilby’s boss. I assume he trusts her, because in the two years I’ve been here I’ve never seen O’Connor in the office, except when he visited a few times to chair a hiring committee when we hired Kilby – over a year ago.
At the meeting, O’Connor suggested the staffer and I leave so the rest of the Executive Board could talk without us there. I thought it was a strange request, but I complied. Behind closed doors, the Executive Board went from supporting me to moving to overturn my decision. One member of the board told me they changed their mind based on statements O’Connor and Kilby made. Neither of them had spoken while I’d been in the room. O’Connor then advised the Board to vote without bringing the two of us back into the room. There are several problems with this: Without me, the board didn’t have quorum; I didn’t get to say anything before the vote; and there didn’t necessarily need to even be a vote in the first place, if the board didn’t feel strongly enough either way. I am disappointed with O’Connor’s work in this role as a self-assigned and poorly-defined “support person.” I think the word “support” is probably the opposite of whatever service he’s provided the paper.
O’Connor later told me he’d advised this course of action because, he said, the Student Senate uses the same procedure when it’s discussing disputes. I questioned the wisdom of using Senate procedures in The Free Press, which is traditionally run like a business. He replied “In the end, The Free Press is just another student club.” Considering the resolution we reached during the logo issue, this is an alarming statement. Here again, I’ve gotten conflicting statements from different authorities: Austin – again, O’Connor’s superior – has repeatedly assured me he considers the paper is unique as an institution, and indeed considers it tricky to deal with because of its unusual rights and responsibilities.
The Student Senate’s Executive Board tells me the Senate traditionally has had candidates briefly leave the room when they elect their Executive Board. People are never asked to leave during conflict resolution. And they would never move to vote without all voting members present.
If someone does get brought before the senate for criticism, their constitution states “Any person charged…shall be permitted to be present at the executive session if he or she desires; otherwise the hearing of the charges or complaints against him or her must be conducted in open session.” (Article 8, Section E) So, even if The Free Press were to use the Senate’s rules as a template for its own actions, those rules say everyone is supposed to be present. O’Connor acted outside his job description, used rules that don’t apply to The Free Press, and displayed a woeful ignorance of the rules he’s supposed to know.
Further, this year, the Senate decided not to have people leave at all during their elections because, as Andrew Bossie, the senate’s Chair, put it, “We thought we could be grown-ups up about it.” They also noted that The Free Press shouldn’t take Senate procedure as cues for its internal management.
These are my questions: Does the University have a single stance on The Free Press’s place in the organization? Or even on basic rules of procedure at meetings? If so, O’Connor hasn’t been filled in on this stuff, and it’s affecting his ability to do his work. Is it okay for O’Connor to act outside his job description and his areas of expertise? If not, this needs to be made clear to everyone in the future.