President Doug Baker announced his resignation during a June 15 Board of Trustees meeting, bringing his four-year term to a close. The controversy surrounding the resignation has caused many conversations on campus.

Angela L. Pagan | Editor-in-Chief

Secretive, unbalanced and overrated

From the beginning, President Doug Baker’s presidency has been anything but transparent.

Baker was the primary candidate for NIU’s president in 2013 when the university was in the midst of an FBI investigation because of the failures of Baker’s predecessor, the chief operating officer and vice president of the university were placed on paid leave and NIU’s police chief was fired. At the time, the Northern Star asked on behalf of the students that the presidential candidate, which at the time was Baker, reveal himself for the sake of transparency, according to a March 24, 2013 Northern Star editorial.

Baker failed to do this and thus began his presidency under a shroud of secrecy without the full trust of the community.

He knew the situation he was walking into, but he chose to keep students in the dark.

Though he made attempts to remedy this poor start by creating a focus on beautifying our campus to improve enrollment and initiating Program Prioritization, a process meant to save the university money and increase sustainability, those accomplishments do not outweigh his the financial burden he added to our university by mismanaging funds and choosing expensive legal counsel. The Office of Executive Inspector General found Baker had cost NIU roughly $1 million because of his mismanagement of funds, according to the May 31 OEIG report.

Even after all of these bad decisions, the Board of Trustees chose to reward Baker with a $600,000 severance package. Even more disappointing to me was the Student Association’s response to Baker’s resignation. Rather than call on the university to be more wise in its future choices or at the very least standing up for the students whose tuition money Baker wasted, the SA chose to pat him on the back. The SA decided to “focus on the positive rather than the negative” and “with sadness” acknowledged Baker’s resignation, according to a statement released by SA June 19. Baker’s tenure has been shamefully overrated by people who should be his biggest critics.

Madison Kacer | Perspective/News Editor

Masked, undignified and expensive

The facade that has been President Doug Baker’s term was erected by individuals beyond the president himself; his image of wholesomeness and do-goodery was built up by parties including top administrators, the Board of Trustees and Student Association leadership.

Presenting a united front is, to some extent, an acceptable excuse for this behavior. However, it should have been the duty of such important leaders on campus to hold our president accountable when reports as significant as that released by the Office of the Executive Inspector General went public. Rather, they continued to mask his misdeeds with his now-outweighed accomplishments.

Following the release of the OEIG’s report, Baker refused to take responsibility for the malintent behind his actions in 2013 and 2014.

“I concur with the report’s findings that there were no violations of the state’s Ethics Act, and I appreciate that they not only acknowledge the numerous steps we’ve taken but also that recommend we continue,” Baker said in a May 31 Baker Report. “However, I disagree with any implications that there was intent to circumvent NIU’s guidelines or state regulations.”

It is almost laughable that Baker chose to question the findings of a two-year investigation carried out by a reputable state agency, later going as far as to say the release of the report was a “distraction,” thus slashing his sense of dignity.

The cherry on top of the sloppy end to Baker’s term is his $600,000 severance package. Upon announcing his resignation at a June 15 Board of Trustees meeting, Baker said he wanted to take the “course of action [that] is best for the university.” How walking away with such a massive severance package is beneficial to the institution is lost on me.

Though it seems to be a statewide standard to award a resigning university president with such a large sum, I still don’t understand how Baker can call his transition agreement a positive move for NIU when he is continuing to waste what is likely barely-there state appropriations and student tuition dues on his personal gain.

Tom Burton | Sports/Entertainment Editor

Disreputable, overlooked and unfinished

President Doug Baker’s resignation comes after state reports of his ‘mismanagement’ of the university during his term. It was revealed officials paid five individuals who were intentionally misclassified as “affiliate” employees roughly $1 million over the course of two years.

The Office of Executive Inspector General, a state watchdog agency, investigated Baker and his administration, and subsequently, NIU spent $189 thousand in legal fees because of his actions.

Recent happenings certainly show how Baker is disreputable and how he is not setting a good example for himself, our school and our community.

Though Baker’s term was disreputable and ended on a poor note, he did accomplish some good things during his tenure with NIU. He played a large role in improving the infrastructure and public transportation of our campus.

Baker initiated the demolition of Douglas Hall and created more biking and walking paths for students and community members, according to a Mar. 26, 2014 Northern Star Article. Baker also expanded Lucinda Avenue to run through Stevenson towers all the way to the Convocation Center.

Baker also played a big role in improving graduation rates for students. Graduation rates and first-year retention rates have consistently increased since Baker took office in 2013, according to NIU’s website.

Even though Baker fixed some issues that were in the best interest of the university, he still did not live up to expectations.

One of Baker’s biggest flaws was that he was unable to deal with the budget crisis in a proper manner, allegedly ‘mismanaging’ his university by hiring and providing for unqualified employees.

Also, undergraduate enrollment has continuously decreased during Baker’s tenure at NIU and there never seemed to be a solution on his end for this kind of thing happening. Due to his inability to deal with the issue, NIU was forced to cut over 150 university staff positions in May, according to an April 4 Baker Report.

It’s easy to blame the budget for many of his problems, but Baker could have done more. Baker seemed to have good intentions before his NIU tenure was abruptly cut short because of his own decisions.

Maddie Steen | Columnist

Senseless, everlasting and selfish

President Doug Baker’s term was nothing short of senseless. The decisions made throughout were supposedly to help the university, students and the budget situation. Instead, many of the actions were foolish and done without concern for the consequences. After he has wasted money on improper hiring practices, it only makes sense that his senseless term would end in another senseless action of taking $600,000 away from the school one last time.

His term could also easily be considered everlasting – especially during this last year. Before his time at NIU, Baker accomplished quite a bit throughout his career. What is slightly comical is during his time as executive vice president of the University of Idaho, he “guided the development, implementation and revision of the institution’s strategic plan during a period of fiscal challenges,” according to his biography on NIU’s website.

He was able to financially assist this institution, but took advantage of his position with us. After everything that has been discovered about him within my three years of being at this university, I don’t understand how he kept his job for so long.

Lastly, I’d consider his term selfish. Whether he was mindful or mindless in the decisions he made, all he did was take and make decisions that were best for him, not the university. He hired people that would benefit his term as president by improperly classifying high paid consultants, keeping them around for too long and paying them past the allowable limit, according to a report made by the Office of the Executive Inspector General. He also thought it was appropriate to spend excess money on his legal defense. It’s okay to spend too much money on five employees and protection for oneself, yet no one can seem to hire a repairman to fix the ceilings that leak in Wirtz Hall when it rains. I guess Baker’s priorities were only those that helped him.