HookedonGriz said:
griz5700 said:
1. Crady deserved to be fired. He dropped the ball on a follow up with TMG. That's unacceptable. I'm guessing he didn't want TMG to analyze his (flawed) strategy and did not want TMG to share their findings with the University (Bodnar). He's not a team player and has to go. If he did his job, Chelsea Elander-Bodnar wouldn't be in the picture.
2. I have no issue with Dr. Elander's involvement. All hands on deck, people... I appreciate her enthusiasm and would encourage a more active role for her if she wishes.
Big Picture...
I think I see how UM and TMG are establishing a workflow for this outreach campaign. They want data on prior UM students to see who the influencers are in UM's digital ecosystem. When they find these influential voices, UM can learn about and possibly promote the individual's story, but most importantly, they can use that person's digital influence to relay UM's story and brand. For example, your friend raving about his new F-150 on Facebook influences you much more than seeing a Ford advertisement in your news feed.
In essence, UM and TMG are looking for creative ways and creative people to tell UM's brand/story in a one-to-one-to many concept. This is a good start.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. A highly educated, extremely qualified volunteer took the bull by the horns because university employees continue to flounder and drop the ball....and people are upset? Hell, thank goodness someone like this is taking action otherwise our university would continue sinking. She did nothing wrong and did everything right and I am so happy it was done.
While we are on the subject of University employees completely blowing it, what is up with the fact that financial aid packages got delivered six weeks late and could also be leading to poor enrollment numbers for fall? Who f***[*] that up and what are the repercussions for that employee or that office?
My earlier comment was based on just the flow of eGriz comments, but I finally went and read the damn article. I won't go into all the ins-and-outs about legal matters etc (a careful request about what information was available and could be released,
no information actually released, a firm that has much experience in the "privacy" area, and so on).
I don't much care about all that. What I read was a standard scenario: Disgruntled under-performing employee goes public with "concerns" about matters that could have (in his view) happened, but actually didn't. You can go back and forth about whether it was "appropriate" for the president's wife to get involved, and so on ... but from afar, this looks pretty much like a normal "pissed off, soon-to-be ex-employee getting back" sequence. No laws were violated or even endangered, and the benefit to the "nepotism" beneficiary is problematic at best. Far as I can tell, there is no there ... there.