Ladner, Part II

There are a couple of additional developments on the Ladner front. Most interestingly, there’s a Washington Post article today that reveals a specific instance in 2004 where Ladner was once again asking for more money. This memo directly contradicts his assertion that he has never asked for more compensation. According to the article, as recently as last Friday, Ladner informed the Washington Post editors that “he had never asked for additional compensation and that he was always ‘surprised’ at how much he was paid.” Wow, that’s a textbook Kozlowski defense (I wonder if Ladner realizes that it didn’t work). The best part is that in light of the memo asking for $5 million in additional compensation, Ladner still maintains that he has never asked for more money. Again, according to today’s Post: “[Ladner] said he was not asking for extra compensation in the memo but was responding to a request from the chairman of the board of trustees, then George J. Collins, for ideas about his compensation.” Uh huh.

There was also a student rally on the main campus, where about 500 students showed up to gently advise the Board of Trustees as to exactly what they should do with Ladner. In additional, the Student Bar Association at American also passed a “no-confidence” vote in Ladner on Tuesday night by a margin of 17-0. The SBA President, David Jaffe, also released this statement:

Yesterday I and other University student leaders met for nearly three hours with 15 members of American University’s Board of Trustees. I openly questioned various facets of their investigation, as well as expressed the Student Bar Association’s deep concern over the future of Dr. Ladner’s affiliation with this institution. The Board was incredibly generous with their time. To their credit, all of the Trustees present were candid and forthright about the status of the investigation, their positions on the matter, and even how the University arrived at this unfortunate position as they each accepted full responsibility for failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility of oversight. In presenting the Washington College of Law’s resolution, I insisted that the Student Bar Association expressed its unanimous vote of “no confidence” not based on the legal ramifications of Dr. Ladner’s actions, but instead on the manner in which his actions undermine the core values and mission of an educational institution that prides itself on public service.

If these aren’t enough nails in the coffin, I don’t know what would qualify. Hopefully, the Board realizes just how untenable the situation is for students.