It's a follow-up editorial to yesterday's front-page "fair and balanced" story about the WL Faculty Senate meeting.
Today's editorial continues where yesterday's front page editorializing left off (see post below). It begins:
How much control over discussion of ideas for West Liberty University's future are leaders of the Faculty Senate demanding?
I think that's called a leading question. (Yes, and are you still beating your wife?) Here is what the editorial states happened:
Faculty Senate leaders were upset the university's chief financial officer, Jack Wright, put forth a cost-saving proposal that had not been discussed in advance with the faculty. During a closed meeting this week, the Faculty Senate approved a vote of no confidence in Wright. That occurred even though the group had learned the option proposed by Wright, closing three campus buildings, was not going to proceed beyond the discussion stage.
Okay, if the meeting was closed how did the editorial writer know that this is what happened? He or she obviously didn't check the minutes which public institutions such as WVU, Marshall, and West Liberty must publish and which are readily available online. (Another possibility is that they did and decided to ignore them -- why ruin a good editorial with what actually happened?) If you check the minutes, you'll see a number of different issues were discussed under the "no confidence" motion -- I counted at least a dozen. And directly contradicting the editorial, missing from that list of reasons is the building closings.
The rest of the editorial consists of four more leading questions taking them to the bottom of their slippery slope: that the Faculty Senate would have "the power to decide what is even going to be discussed" and have "veto power." Yes, it's a blatant power grab disguised as a "vote of no confidence"-- those faculty sure are sneaky.