When you’re heading straight towards a wall, full speed on your bike, your reaction may be to back-pedal. This is a natural reaction to oncoming trauma. Despite this, you’ll still be hitting that wall at speeds undesirable. This seems to be what bests describes Carleton’s management of media relations regarding the Clayton H. Riddel donor agreement.
Carleton has presented things in a way that downplays any real issue with its agreement with the Riddell Family Charitable Foundation, fronted by partisan Preston Manning, which saw the group donate $15 million to Carleton’s newly-formed political management program. By praising the program, it has also given the illusion there is no big issues.
In the school’s initial press release, Carleton was full of praise for the program, calling it an “excellent academic initiative” and saying that the faculty and staff “possess the highest academic standard.”
After keeping the sensitive parts of the agreement secret, Carleton finally addressed the controversy in July with statements to the press. There wasn’t much admission and repenting, but there was a one genuine admission of, at least some, serious fault. They admitted to the Canadian Press that the deal “did not fully reflect Carleton’s policies and procedures with regard to budget management and selection of staff.” Various other stories confirmed this angle.
Despite this admission, two months after their first announcement, Carleton issued a press release to announce the amended Riddell contract. In this news release, the most Carleton would concede is that there was some “confusion” and that, ultimately, the controversy surrounding the agreement was just a “misunderstanding.”
To make matters worse, despite the headlines and reports from journalists everywhere that Carleton was looking to re-negotiate the contract, Carleton maintains, in perfect Orwellian terms, that it didn’t “re-negotiate” the contract, merely “re-wrote” part of it to “clarify.” If it was to re-negotiate, that would be some sort of concession of culpability – or so they think.
In an email exchange with Carleton’s Manager of Public Affairs Beth Gorham, I was told the media coverage of the “rewriting” as an alleged “re-negotiation” from reporters was the “interpretation of the reporter’s.” Huh?
Although Carleton initially admitted there was at least one fundamental problem with the donor agreement for its political management program, the main issues were never removed — or even addressed -— in the sorry excuse for a “re-negotiation.” The donor agreement still affords the donors’ appointees de facto control over the annual budget, and the funding (which is dished on a per-year basis) can be withdrawn at any moment by the donor, according to clause five of the contract.
The reason this “re-negotiation” is a sham is because it never was intended to be a re-negotiation in the first place. The “clarification” of the contract Carleton officially claimed was likely just a contrived and calculated media event to recover Carleton’s lost credibility. Carleton spoke out of both sides of its mouth, perhaps hoping they could deceive the public over the very troubling elements within the donor agreement they signed. This type of misleading behavior from Carleton has disturbing implications about an institution that is supposed to strive for truth and academics. Carleton wasn’t interested in transparency from the start, and still, its behavior shows a keen interest in avoiding real accountability and actual resolve. All it shows is a continued hoodwinking.
In the end, rather than back-pedal, it’s probably better to steer clear of the wall in the first place. Carleton shouldn’t have accepted this sketchy deal to begin with, and all the negative press they’re getting (and will continue to get) is unavoidable.
Not only was (and still is) the donor agreement itself highly questionable, but so is Carleton’s public statements and conduct. Now they’re back-pedaling, but, as we all know, ‘tis an act in futility.
Adam D. Carroll,
first-year journalism
