The misclassification involved the use of the affiliate employee classification. The classification, which has since been eliminated, was to be used for “individuals whose primary job is not with NIU, but who teach an off-campus ex­tension class (typically non-credit) for the university on an occasional basis,” according to the report.

The investigation also concluded Cunningham misused the affiliate classification by approving it for the temporary hiring of Ron Wal­ters, former strategic initiatives ad­viser, and Nancy Suttenfield, for­mer interim chief financial officer.

Greg Long, former Faculty Sen­ate president, said Baker was acting on the recommendation he received from Cunningham regarding the use of the affiliate employee classification.

“If you look at the [OEIG] re­port, the former HR director was, and still is, in favor of this catego­ry,” Long said in a June 5 interview with the Northern Star.

Cunningham said the employ­ee classification was designed to bring accomplished profession­als into roles at the university, most of them instructional. He said there were some instances in which the classification was used for non-instructional profession­al expertise.

Cunningham said the short-term nature of Walters and Suttenfield’s initial appointments resulted in the affiliate employee title being selected.

“The key here is that it was ap­propriate based on the informa­tion I had at the time during the first four months or so of President Baker’s term while I still had effec­tive supervisory authority,” Cun­ningham said. “Based on that in­formation, clearly these were short-term roles that were not permanent positions at the university, that had substantial responsibilities in the institution, and therefore did not fit the profile of the independent contractor status.”

 While Cunningham said he stands by the classification being used at that time, as he said these were not procurement hires, look­ing back now, he said he would have done things differently.

“In retrospect, which is always 100 percent, I would have insisted on a temporary supportive professional staff title,” Cunningham said. “But that’s all hindsight at this point.”

Relationship with Baker quickly deteriorates

Cunningham said it’s important to note that he only had supervisory authority for the first few months of Baker’s term as president. After that time, Baker “orchestrated a re­organization of almost all long-term executive level career NIU man­agement, including Cunningham” which Cunningham said left him with “essentially no remaining au­thority over HR matters at NIU,” ac­cording to his public response which was included with the May 31 OEIG report release. He also said their in­teractions became limited.

“My access to President Baker became increasingly limited after he took office,” Cunningham said. “Because of that, the opportunities to really influence these transac­tions were limited — significantly limited; however, I did describe the procurement code to the president, the limitations of the procurement code, independent contractor status versus employment, as well as the limitations of the civil service system and things like that.”

Shortly after Baker took office, Cunningham said he briefed him on details of NIU’s budget, which in­cluded about $40 million in reserves at that time, he said. He also said he provided Baker with all the finan­cial information with the regulatory context related to procurements, personnel and human resources, among other things.

Subsequently, Cunningham said his access to Baker was significantly reduced, as was the access of other long-term staff members. Cunning­ham said he’s not sure why Baker opted to limit his interactions with — and eventually phase out — long-term staff members, although he said that was up to Baker’s discretion as president.

While Cunningham had not planned to leave NIU after Baker took office, his diminished role and limited access to Baker con­cerned him.

Cunningham said he quickly real­ized his relationship with Baker was not sustainable.

“It was clear to me that as the months went on, and it was a matter of just a very few months, that this was not going to be a viable working relationship for me,” Cunningham said. “I was not in any way confident or comfortable with my ability to ad­equately control and be responsible for the many areas that were under my jurisdiction as had been estab­lished under the former president at that time.”

NIU’s future prospects

While Cunningham provided his input while he still had supervi­sory authority during the first few months of Baker’s presidency, any decisions made related to the hiring of employees were ultimately Bak­er’s, he said.

“Administrators are there to im­plement the will of the president,” Cunningham said. “In this case, the president directed that these indi­viduals be brought in. Certainly, this was his decision to bring these indi­viduals in and no other person’s de­cision. And so the circumstance that is addressed then by presiding ad­ministrators is how to get that done.”

Despite his assertion that he was made a scapegoat in this OEIG re­port, Cunningham said he has faith in NIU as an institution and thinks it will have the opportunity to pros­per under the right leadership.

“I had the privilege in participat­ing with the NIU community for almost 20 years; I know the com­munity well,” Cunningham said. “The institution itself is very strong; there’s great integrity at NIU — there always has been. It’s very much alive and well in the faculty and staff and the thousands of people who have long-term or even near-term expe­rience in that institution.”

Baker declined the Northern Star’s request to be interviewed for this story.