The chancellor needs to explain Follins’ financial award.
The public ought to know why money was wasted on Dr. Craig Follins, former “abusive” and absent Northeast Lakview College president.
Chancellor Bruce Leslie removed Follins from the position in October 2015.
The chancellor has denied the public a statement, aside from granting the professional language depicted in his memos to Follins — granted after 1 1/2 years of requests under the Texas Public Information Act.
In the memos, Leslie accused Follins of abusing two Northeast Lakeview College employees and one district employee and missing an accreditation visit.
Instead of simply terminating Follins, Leslie granted him a district position at the same salary and provided a leadership coach and outreach services to help him find a new job.
Few chancellors might ask: “How should I treat a man who is abusive, as defined by my own standards, and neglects his presidential duties?” and answer: “Pay him the same wages, fund resources to find him future employment and … leadership skill training?”
A chancellor who isn’t willing to admit he made an unwise selection might give that answer.
Perhaps there’s a personal connection somewhere or perhaps there’s something else the chancellor doesn’t want us to know.
Why do all remnants of Follins’ alleged abuse lead to human resources?
If the metaphorical demon is cast out, it should be laid to rest.
Then the curious are left to ask the victims, whom Leslie cites in his memos, for the last and final explanation of this former president’s conduct.
Unfortunately, the victims hold all the positions that can field questions about the abuse, and they are disinclined to discuss the matter.
Perhaps Leslie is the one who needs to be “more human.”
Tangila Dove, one of Leslie’s named victims of Follins’ abuse, headed the presidential search that yielded Follins and is the new head of accreditation at Northeast Lakeview College.
At the mention of presidents prior to the interim president, Dove recommends calling human resources.
But try eliciting a response from human resources. It’s time the chancellor released a statement explaining why the abusive and absent president walked away with a king’s ransom.
The chancellor needs to come clean without a legal battle. Why was a college president terminated and simultaneously awarded taxpayer money for a brighter future in “a long future of leadership”?
