Trying to manage the response to the crisis at UMass has been hard. I really feel like we have a tiger by the tail. Or maybe two: we have both the problem (Wilson et al) and then our 'herd of cats' that we're trying to keep moving in the same direction.
The biggest challenge in keeping our people on-message, is understanding what our common goals are and getting buy-in on those goals. I see the leadership group focused on moving forward and trying to pick a path among the landmines. But many faculty are focused almost entirely on getting Lombardi to come back. It's not realistic to expect them not to push for that, but it limits our ability to craft a message that gives them the flexibility to express that without compromising the overall message.
Looking at the globe article, I have remind myself that the media can always be counted on to get it wrong. We were very careful NOT to take a no-confidence vote in the president or trustees themselves. We limited our statement to the actions, because we believe that our current best path is to move forward with them. But the Globe reported it as "what amounted to a no-confidence vote" and the AP just says "a vote of no confidence". So much for the nuanced distinction we were so careful to make. So when you see things reported in the press, you can't jump to conclusions about what was actually said.