Tue 27 Feb 2007
I heard a rumor that the Record will report tomorrow that Campus Life Coordinator Sara Ansell will be leaving Williams at the end of this year.
1) Is this true?
2) Sara has received her fair share of attention from EphBlog.
3) There seems to be a lot of turnover among CLCs. How many have worked at Williams? How long is their average tenure?
Good luck to Sara in her future endeavors. Whatever our disagreements with her, there can be no doubt that she had the best interests of Williams at heart in all her efforts.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Congrats, David, you drove her out. Kane 1, forces of diversification, 0. Now all we need are Mayo S. to divorce his cheerleader wife in favor of a more suitably intellectual alternative and every eligible Eph to join the marines, and you can retire Ephblog forever.
(I guess I better put a caveat just in case anyone thinks I’m serious with any of the above, I do not actually believe this person is leaving Williams due to anything on Ephblog).
February 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
CLCs were created to be a two year position; high turnover was not only expected, it was seen as a good thing by bringing new energy and life into Williams with new, recent college grads.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Is it just me or does that seem stupid? How can anyone be a useful CLC in just two years? The first year is spent getting a clue and the second year is spent searching/applying/interviewing for the next job. Am I crazy to suspect that CLC productivity goes down in the last semester of employment?
Readers with better memories (JL?) should comment on the original plan for CLCs. I do not recall this “feature.”
Nothing about short tenures. Maybe I am missing something? High turnover must certainly keep Doug Schiarra busy!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I do, in fact, recall there being a preference or specification that CLCs have short term when the position was chartered. I have searched my minutes and been unable to verify this, though, so let’s just consider it my hazy sense — and of course if the terms had changed by now, I wouldn’t know. The best way to doscover the answer would be to search the proper channels for the job posting.
I have to generally agree with David on what happens when you work in a place for two years. Though it’s not quite as bleak as he makes it out to be — I’d say six months to learn the ropes, six months to make your exit — it’s definitely quite short.
You wouldn’t find it in the CUL report because it came later, if it came. I think it may have been Doug’s call. But think about it this way: you are chartering a new office, a new administrative structure of one leader and four to five equal-level workers. You don’t really have the room to promote these people without increasing the scope of the office; maybe that’s one reason to conceive of the positions as having short terms.
I do remember talk in Council of the positions’ being conceived of as for recent college grads . . . senior Council members were joking about applying themselves. So this could well be the genuine reason for turnover.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
as someone who’s spent a fair amount of time with the clc’s and who reads this blog only very rarely, but i was astonished to see all of the personal attention given to sara. i don’t think what she does is all that different from the other clc’s, i just think it might be getting a little more press. it’s hard for me to imagine that she’s robbing students of the ability to lead themselves… that seems like a huge overreaction.
you must have better things to do than spend this much time criticizing a very sweet,intelligent, hardworking, sincere woman who’s trying to make the campus a better place.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Welcome to the modern world of the internet, full of misinformation and ill intentions!
February 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Frank- The road to hell is paved with good intentions.