I was thinking about writing a farewell column, but I feel that it would be wrong to do so, especially in light of the dire situation between the Faculty Senate and the President’s Council.

No one cares except for a few friends and family, and I love you guys, but I have a job to do. My friend’s and family know me well enough to know I hold that above all, so cue the sad piano music in your mind and listen up. I’m leaving. There’s nothing that can be done about it and there’s a problem here on campus that needs to be addressed. I have to do it.

Jared Bruggeman’s complaints have slowed down progress at Missouri Southern. Due to his thin skin and complaints, the President’s Council and the Faculty Senate now have a communication breakdown. 

I know that people have taken sides and whatnot on issues regarding the administration as shown by the shared governance report, but this seems like an effort to sabotage both productivity at this school and University President Bruce Speck’s commitment to opening communication between administration and the faculty and staff.

The blame here falls on Bruggeman.

Now due to illness and a doctor’s visit, Speck was unable to attend the last two Faculty Senate meetings; however, there was an issue at the October Faculty Senate meeting that I feel everyone had had their say on. To my knowledge, the issue began with the Communication 100 redesign, where professors Kelly Larson and Shanna Slavings spoke to the Faculty Senate, who then asked many questions. I noticed that two people got very personal. They were quickly passed over and were not addressed again.

In my mind, while others got heated, they were asking reasonable questions, and even in the disagreement, they still had a right to ask and they were mostly answered. In the December meeting it was argued by both sides that it is in the best interest of everyone to assume that the guy on the other side has the same goal—the best interest of the institution and the students.

It is because of disagreements and the environment provided by government bodies that people can debate and make decisions. 

Whether those in attendance agree with my statement or not, I feel that a heated debate and personal attacks are two different things and that it was handled appropriately.

Dr. AJ Anglin responded in the next meeting with his letter stating his disapproval over the conduct of those in the meeting. Everyone had their say. Case closed.

Except this Bruggeman thing, which came out of nowhere.

Speck cannot respond until the February Faculty Senate meeting after he listens to the October Faculty Senate meeting on the Blackboard site. Either way, I feel this is much like the situation in Washington D.C. Ultimately no one will agree, nothing gets done and the problems that are already getting worse despite our efforts to slow them only accelerate due to inaction.

I personally feel that Dr. Speck should not have asked the President’s Council not to attend. It was a bad move because it hurt both parties and only stoked the fire. I will not pretend to know what Bruggeman said that required such action to be taken, but it must have been something big. Either way, the issue will not be addressed until February’s Faculty Senate meeting. 

As a person who has attended every Faculty Senate meeting this semester, I honestly believe Dr. Speck will find it to be a waste of his time as well as a waste of the time of the Faculty Senate. This communication breakdown was also caused in part due to comments made before the meeting, according to Anglin’s report to the Faculty Senate, which I feel makes it a personal issue that one person needs to take care of with another, not something to punish an entire governing body, and thereby the entire University, for.

In conclusion, Bruggeman needs to grow a thicker skin. He’s holding up progress and it’s a lose-lose situation for everyone.

If you’re still wondering about me, in brief, the plan is to try to get a job and get married in the next half-year. I hope to have kids in the future.

You have been warned.