College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -
Two USD employees have been relieved of their current positions and will not have their contracts renewed for the coming year, university officials said Monday. Michael Allen, associate vice president for facilities, and Dawn Mikkelson, manager of business services for facilities management, were notified of their termination June 10.

 

" />

USD to terminate two employees

Published: Monday, June 15, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 21:06

 

Two USD employees have been relieved of their current positions and will not have their contracts renewed for the coming year, university officials said Monday.
 

Michael Allen, associate vice president for facilities, and Dawn Mikkelson, manager of business services for facilities management, were notified of their termination June 10. Both will be assigned to “special projects” until their contracts expire Sept. 10, said Rich VanDenHul, vice president of finance and administration at USD.
 

Their positions will temporarily be filled by other university employees until permanent replacements can be found, VanDenHul said.
 

Although he was not able to comment on the reasons for the terminations, VanDenHul did say neither of these actions was related to the budget cuts recently undertaken by the administration.
 

Phil Carter, USD’s manager of media relations, declined to comment further, saying university policy forbids him from discussing personnel matters.

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

9 comments

Hey Mr. Sullivan
Thu Jun 25 2009 19:46
I don't think "salacious" means what you think it means.
Your name
Wed Jun 24 2009 20:49
When used in reference to employment, the word terminate can mean 1.) fired for wrongdoing, 2.) dismissed for any number of reasons, or 3.) laid off for budgetary reasons. Basically, if you are terminated, you do not quit of your own will. It is a blanket term that seems more appropriate than not in this situation. This is a stupid argument.
Dan Sullivan
Mon Jun 22 2009 23:53
that last one was me again
Your name
Mon Jun 22 2009 23:53
Ok obviously if the author had been honest and had written "2 USD Employees Will Not Have Their Contracts (which by the way are expiring) Renewed," no one would have read the article. As it is probably only ten people read it anyway, but that doesn't make it any better.

It's understandable to want people to read what you've worked hard on, but it doesn't make it ok to lie. Call it semantics or quibbling if you like, but using that term (once in the title and twice in the story) is patently misleading.

Two things: A) Yes it's unfortunate that two people will not have their contracts renewed, and yes it is strange that the university won't say why they were fired. B) Hopefully whoever wrote this and their editor are mass comm students, because they both have a lot to learn about ethics in journalism.

Your name
Thu Jun 18 2009 17:59
ATTN: Dan Sullivan:
Is whining about semantics on a college newspaper website really the best use of your time? Grow up.
Acrosticus
Tue Jun 16 2009 15:36
What is the story we're NOT being told here?
Vertitas
Tue Jun 16 2009 01:38
It seems to me, Mr. Sullivan, that two employees not getting their contracts renewed and being assigned "special projects" instead of their normal work suggests that "termination," et al would be appropriate.
Dan Sullivan
Mon Jun 15 2009 21:31
ATTN: Editor[s] of the online Volante:

Do your job. Either you screwed up the story or you just forgot your principles. Allowing a contract to expire is an entirely different thing than "TERMINAT[ING]" a contract.

Come on. Just because it's online doesn't mean you can throw journalistic integrity to the wind in favor of choosing the most salacious headline you can.

aaron woodard
Mon Jun 15 2009 21:04
Why does university policy always prevent comments on "personnel matters" when we, the public, are the ones paying the bills? What a bunch of hooey.






log out