Dan Peterson Booted From His Meti Office

[Calm]

The BoT would likely have some involvement in a decision to suspend a publication or make radical changes to a pet project of a recently deceased member of the Twelve.

Like no university director has ever believed he doesn't need to check with his boss on something that he feels is completely under his direction?

Dan has made a statement that the BoT didn't ratify the decision (to be specific). Are you saying he is lying or just doesn't really know what he is talking about or something else?

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[USU78]

But, at least from a purely legalistic point of view, ratification occurs when an institution (1) issues a press release [well, an answer to a press inquiry] confirming the actions you criticize and (2) nothing is done to right a perceived wrong. That is what I mean by ratification. I don't suggest that the Board of Trustees put your severance on agenda after the fact and voted on it.

The BoT delegates duties to the administration. It doesn't interfere with the day-to-day operations of the institutions. Ratification has nothing to do with it. No way were the Board, the Twelve [some of whom aren't on the Board] or the First Presidency [which one is not involved in the overall governance again?] going to be involved in this, unless you have evidence that they took the extraordinary step of doing so.

If you haven't any evidence, I suggest you retract or admit, at very least, that you are speculating without any evidence.

[Calm]

Because I know how the BoT operates, having dealt with it.

Have you been directly involved with Dr. Bradford so that you know how he operates?

[Bob Crockett]

If someone has suggested that Brother Bradford acted on a lark, they have ignored the evidence that Dan and others have given that this was a long time in development such as Dr. Bradford's article as well as the various delays in publications and outright rejections of articles. What was shocking to those involved, it appears to me, was the extreme he took it to.

And you're shocked by only one side's story. Now, I'd take exception to how it was handled if that was indeed the way it was handled. And the fact that emails were leaked lends some credence to that one's side to the story.

But given that the other side of the story is possessed by good people I respect and admire who can say nothing in defense, due to privacy rights which Dr. Peterson alone holds and could waive, I am willing to suspend judgment and not say things like Dr. Bradford's actions were "extreme." I wouldn't say that anonymously for certain.

[Bob Crockett]

Like no university director has ever believed he doesn't need to check with his boss on something that he feels is completely under his direction?

Dan has made a statement that the BoT weren't involved. Are you saying he is lying or just doesn't really know what he is talking about or something else?

That is not a tactic I endorse, to require me to characterize somebody as a liar to sign on to my views. I won't do that. Similarlly, I won't say to you: "So, you're calling me a liar?" Not a fruitful exercise. Differences of opinion, observations of evidence, expressions of opinion do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that somebody is lying.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

If you haven't any evidence, I suggest you retract or admit, at very least, that you are speculating without any evidence.

I'm not speculating without evidence. I'm speculating with information which has become publicly available.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know what, if anything, is going to happen. But, as I've repeatedly said, I know as certainly as anybody can know who isn't actually one of them and wasn't at the relevant meetings that BYU's board of trustees -- effectively the senior Brethren, if you will -- didn't order my ouster from the Maxwell Institute and didn't approve it in advance.

Will they allow it to go unchanged and unchallenged? Very likely. I can't imagine that they want BYU presidents to be looking over their shoulders all the time, being second-guessed. I wouldn't. In fact, I know it's a principle for them to keep hands off, as far as they can.

Will things change again in the future? Maybe. Maybe not. In the meantime, I'm forging my own path forward. But I really, really don't want certain false claims about this incident to be able to sink deep roots and become accepted consensus "facts."

[Calm]

And you're shocked by only one side's story.

Since we have at least the email of Dr. Bradford due to it being leaked as well as the evidence of previously leaked information, the press release, the announcement on the NAMI website and the evidence of the dismissals I don't think we have only one side of the story, though I am perfectly happy to admit that we don't have the full story from either viewpoint.

I did not say I was shocked (not saying I wasn't, just saying I was not talking about me but those who were involved that reported on the events). You need to read closer. You have made several assumptions that were incorrect about my own position, you have ignored comments by others it would seem from the questions you ask.

[Calm]

That is not a tactic I endorse, to require me to characterize somebody as a liar to sign on to my views. I won't do that. Similarlly, I won't say to you: "So, you're calling me a liar?" Not a fruitful exercise. Differences of opinion, observations of evidence, expressions of opinion do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that somebody is lying.

Fine. I did not limit you to only the accusation of lying. Why you are focusing only on that as an option I do not know.

Dan has come right out and stated the Board did not ratify the action.

You have stated after his statement that you don't believe the Board wouldn't ratify.

People can draw their conclusions.

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

Since we have at least the email of Dr. Bradford due to it being leaked as well as the evidence of previously leaked information, the press release, the announcement on the NAMI website and the evidence of the dismissals I don't think we have only one side of the story, though I am perfectly happy to admit that we don't have the full story from either viewpoint.

It really is not fair to say that we have both sides of the story merely because that one email was leaked. No objective person looking at this contest would so conclude. I apologize if I don't fully understand your position. I think it untenable.

I believe the Board has ratified the action, based upon the evidence publicly available. But ratification to me is a legal principle, and I base it on what I've seen.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

It really is not fair to say that we have both sides of the story merely because that one email was leaked. No objective person looking at this contest would so conclude. I apologize if I don't fully understand your position. I think it untenable.

Again you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say we had both sides of the story in completeness. I said we didn't just have one side of the story which is what you were claiming.

To be clear I will repeat myself: We have information from both sides involved, but not complete information from either. We are not limited to only hearing from Dan what happened.

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you claiming that if this had been ordered by the general Church leadership, that this would have been an unkind action by our church leadership?

Interesting attitude for one employed by desnews. I'm just saying...

I hadn't noticed this jab until now.

The unkindness I had reference to is public innuendo and conjecture by gossip-mongers that it was in fact ordered by the general Church leadership when that supposition is void of substance and, it now appears, is counter-factual.

And yes, said public innuendo and conjecture was and is unkind -- and contemptible.

Please refrain from twisting my words. And don't imply that my having an opinion on what constitutes decent behavior amounts to my being disloyal.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe the Board has ratified the action, based upon the evidence publicly available. But ratification to me is a legal principle, and I base it on what I've seen.

If, by ratified, you mean that they haven't overturned it, then I'm inclined to agree. Thus far, at least, they haven't overturned it, and I don't particularly expect that they will.

But there is nothing to suggest that this came at the initiative of the Board of Trustees, and I have direct personal knowledge that it wasn't initiated by the presiding quorums of the Church.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[USU78]

I'm not speculating without evidence. I'm speculating with information which has become publicly available.

Yes you are. You have someone who is involved telling us directly that the BoD was not involved. We have silence on the issue of ratification from the BoD . . . indeed, from the president's office. By all the publicly available evidence, this was solely a METI level decision and nobody else got involved.

For you to claim otherwise is naked speculation.

And you do poorly so to speculate.

[Calm]

It really is not fair to say that we have both sides of the story merely because that one email was leaked. No objective person looking at this contest would so conclude. I apologize if I don't fully understand your position. I think it untenable.

I believe the Board has ratified the action, based upon the evidence publicly available. But ratification to me is a legal principle, and I base it on what I've seen.

So Dan isn't lying, he is just pretty much clueless about how things really operate at the university he has been working at for what probably seems eons to him right now.

And someone is feeding him false information for some reason....got it.

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

It really is not fair to say that we have both sides of the story merely because that one email was leaked. No objective person looking at this contest would so conclude. I apologize if I don't fully understand your position. I think it untenable.

I believe the Board has ratified the action, based upon the evidence publicly available. But ratification to me is a legal principle, and I base it on what I've seen.

This is preposterous. You have absolutely NO evidence that anyone outside the university order or approved Dan's dismissal.

Dan's dismissal was the decision of Jerry Bradford at BYU. Some, but not all, of other people at the Maxwell Institute were also involved in the decision. (Most people at the Maxwell Institute had know idea it was going to happen.) Bradford got the approval of President Samuelson for the change, though Samuelson did not propose the change. No one above Samuelson knew about the dismissal before it happened. It's a very simple situation and chain of events. There is no reason to propose conspiracy theories.

[Calm]

Yes you are. You have someone who is involved telling us directly that the BoD was not involved. We have silence on the issue of ratification from the BoD . . . indeed, from the president's office. By all the publicly available evidence, this was solely a METI level decision and nobody else got involved.

Involved originally, I would agree there is no evidence. But there was a press release from the University following the action taken so at the very least someone in Public Relations was involved. Can't remember if it was a generic spokesperson or someone specific mentioned.

[Daniel Peterson]

And someone is feeding him false information for some reason....got it.

And it would be quite a "someone." (Or, more precisely, "someones.")

[Calm]

Bradford got the approval of President Samuelson for the change, though Samuelson did not propose the change.

Did this occur before or after the dismissal if you are able to be satisfy my curiosity?

[USU78]

Involved originally, I would agree there is no evidence. But there was a press release from the University following the action taken so at the very least someone in Public Relations was involved. Can't remember if it was a generic spokesperson or someone specific mentioned.

You are correct. I spoke hastily on that last . . . the Prez' office at least was involved in some way, but did not initiate the action, as set forth above.

[Daniel Peterson]

I assume that it was before, but I'm not certain of that.

[Calm]

And it would be quite a "someone." (Or, more precisely, "someones.")

Knowing you, I figured it would be highly unlikely you would give such a definite statement on based on vague reassurances as opposed to an explicit statement of fact.

[Bill Hamblin]

Did this occur before or after the dismissal if you are able to be satisfy my curiosity?

I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that it happened before.

It is really a simple thing.

Bradford says: "Dan has served as editor for 25 years. We propose to move the institute in a new direction and appoint a new editor. Is that alright?"

Samuelson says: "Sure."

There is absolutely no need to propose some cabal or conspiracy. This is Bradford's idea plain and simple.

[Calm]

I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that it happened before.

It is really a simple thing.

Bradford says: "Dan has served as editor for 25 years. We propose to move the institute in a new direction and appoint a new editor. Is that alright?"

Samuelson says: "Sure."

There is absolutely no need to propose some cabal or conspiracy. This is Bradford's idea plain and simple.

And it does not seem unlikely that President Samuelson, who was not involved in the original move of FARMS to the NAMI I believe, would not have had the personal experience to understand what the implications of moving in a new direction would mean to the promises given at that former time, especially if Dr. Bradford did not include details.

[Daniel Peterson]

Knowing you, I figured it would be highly unlikely you would give such a definite statement on based on vague reassurances as opposed to an explicit statement of fact.

You're correct.