Talk:Rock Valley College

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mellieclem.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite and edit

As a part of the CC task-force being assembled to review and clean up CC articles, I wish to begin discussion on a rewrite for this article. While it is clear some noted controversy occurred for a time period for this school, more details, citations, information needs to be presented to make the article a professional one. I would like to begin hearing ideas on this from editors of the article. I will wait 14 days before making any changes. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support a rewrite of the article. Clearly the past scandals need to be addressed. As stated below, I simply don't feel that the scandals should take up 3/4 of the article, which is supposed to be about the college and its history as a whole. The majority of the article shouldn't be devoted to one part of RVC history. A simple linking system, which I've tried to put in place for the sake of clarity and concision, should provide the reader ample information on what happened that is easy to understand. If we addressed every scandal every college has been engaged in, Wiki articles would be unreadable. I'm all for "preventing future corruption", as another editor has stated, but this is not necessary for this article, and frankly, it's not that well written to begin with. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Havens vs. Chapdelaine

I removed the block of text virtually repeating word-for-word the summary of articles linked to at the Rock River Times. If people want to read more about this scandal, the link is there to follow. I don't think it should take up two-thirds of the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.51.98 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Rewrite Warning and Discussion

Message to recent editor(s), readers and Wikipedia Owner(s):

Improvements are always welcome.

The newly-named "Controversy" section is a reader-friendly summary of cited articles and court record.

Recent edits requesting additional citations in the new "Controversy" section strongly suggests the editor(s) have not read the newspaper links provided or court case cited in the section. The fact is "The Rock River Times" was the only news organization to uncover most of the controversy.

All facts stated in this section are just that, which have been published in newspapers and/or court record and broadcast on local radio and/or television programs. Readers, including editors of this page, should read all the articles and the court case cited, before assuming there are missing citations.

As to the amount of space the section occupies in relation to the rest of page: this is an irrelevant point. If more contributors added new and relevant material, the pecentage would obviously decrease.

Corruption in government-operated educational institutions in Illinois is well known, whether it takes the form of the recent admissions scandal at the University of Illinois, which was published in the "Chicago Tribune" to Triton Community College's awarding of construction contracts to businesses with ties to organized crime. [1]

Specifically, the Chicago Tribune reported Feb. 18, 1990, that “in July 1988, D & P Construction of Chicago was given a $4,600 no-bid contract to grade the college's soccer field. The company was owned by John DiFronzo, a top-ranking Chicago organized crime figure, and his brother Peter. The article details other incidents when the college did business with alleged organized crime figures.

The Chicago Tribune also reported Dec. 2, 1984, a grand jury investigated whether federal funds were involved in contracts that were allegedly awarded to companies with ties to organized crime.

Given the fact that Rockford has long been a community under the influence of organized crime, as evident by numerous news articles, including a March 4, 1984 article published in the "Rockford Register Star" titled, "The Mob in Rockford" and photo exhibits at the 2007, federal, Chicago Mob trial named "Operation Family Secrets," it does not take a huge leap in logic to understand why some would not want the information posted available to the public. [2]

A note regarding the link to the photos: The photos feature alleged hitman Frank Saladino and alleged Rockford Mob Boss Salvatore Galluzzo that were submitted on July 26, 2007 during the federal government’s case against the Mob. The FBI surveillance photos were taken on April 20, 1989 and show Galluzzo leading Saladino in a parking lot.

Further, Triton Community College had strong ties to the Rockford community through former Rosemont Mayor Donald E. Stephens and several Rockford-area businesses. [3], [4]

I will wait for a response before making changes.

Editors, readers and Wikipedia owner(s) should also be aware that this section may be under attack by people who do not want this information distributed, especially in light of new construction at RVC and Chapdelaine's recent, non-renewal of his contract in Los Angeles. [5]

From Oct. 28, 2009, "Los Angeles Wave": "When the time came later on in the afternoon for the board of trustees to vote on extending Chapdelaine’s contract, it voted 'no.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Weezer,

Thank you for your comments. While a scandal at a school may be of note, it should not dominate the article. You mentioned the UIUC scandal, which is a perfect example of how such scandals should be covered. If you look at the main UIUC page at University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign#Political_influence_over_admissions you will see that the event is only briefly mentioned, with a wikilink to the main article covering the scandal: see University of Illinois clout scandal. This is to allow each article to stand on its own and withstand strict scrutiny by the community. The event itself must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability for the community to allow it to remain in the article. Corruption, while well known in the State of Illinois, is not unique. The college itself is notable for just being a college. But the scandal ,while interesting to local readers, may not have as much value to the global audience who are only seeking the simple 5W approach to the wiki. In addition, the former president himself, if noteworthy enough for his failures or accomplishments could also be in his own article given the material you are presenting above. However, given the commentary is about a living person, caution must be exercised in the material.

In summary, each article should encompass the direct topic, and only when it meets WP:NPOV, WP:Notability, and WP:BLP Guidelines. To address your concern regarding information on the scandal not wanting to be seen, I would agree that some may want to hide it. However, you would have to show that those editors on wiki are doing just that and bring the issue to arbitration for resolution. Thank you for your input and response. Also, a quick note; technically, owners have no influence into the editing process as wiki is a not-for profit and is run by volunteer editors and admins. We as the community make all of the guidelines and articles through debate, collaboration, and consent. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Illini said: " But the scandal ,while interesting to local readers, may not have as much value to the global audience... ."

Wow!

Does Illini really believe he/she can post comments on behalf of the "global audience?" Do you know what everyone is thinking?

That takes a massive ego to make that kind of claim. Amazing.

You have apparently appointed yourself to be the gatekeeper for information regarding this topic.

My efforts have always been in the interests of giving readers facts they could not obtain elsewhere for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the local medias' inability and often unwillingness to serve as the Forth Estate of democracy for the Rockford area.

Your efforts would be more positively channeled in uncovering public corruption that runs rampant in Illinois, rather than attempting to cover it up under the cloak of bogus arguments.

The biggest tip-off their are continuing public corruption problems at RVC is the fact that the proposed arts center costs have jumped $16.2 million from 2004 projections to the 2009 estimate. This is a good example of a project much more worthy of a student's academic efforts.

Illini should recuse himself/herself from making any additional changes, due to his/her alleged enrollment in a university that is part of the Illinois public corruption network about which I and other newspapers have written.

I believe other readers would share the same opinion. It's time to step down, Illini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Weezer-

While I find it typically unproductive to address personal queries on a talk page, I will for the sake of this discussion.

1) I am not making a claim for a global audience, but rather working to help the article conform to wiki standards for articles regarding this particular subject matter: specifically WP:Universities. I am not posting on behalf of a global audience, but rather advocating the policies already set forth in the wikipedia recommendations. As to being a gatekeeper, each editor is responsible for being writers, editors, spell checkers, and fact checkers within the confines of the time they allot to working on wikipedia. It is incumbent on all people here to help make the wiki better by checking work, checking sources, and making edits and suggestions to improve the work for readers.

2)It is not necessarily an editors job to uncover corruption in Illinois in anyway. That is what a reporter is for; newspapers, magazines, journals, and even Wikileaks all take part in that activity, as it is what they do best. Wikipedia is not for relaying primary research. Rather, as an enyclopedia built by its users, it is to cover the primary aspects of a topic and discuss which information is germane, and what should be placed elsewhere.

3)I am fully aware of the corruption and mismanagement in the state of Illinois. It disgusts me as much as anyone else who pays their taxes and seeks responsible government.

4) My involvement with UIUC is simple: I am a graduate student. I dont work for them, speak for them, or particularly like many of the people who run the institution past or present. As with all institutions, it can always be better. However, being a student somewhere doesnt disqualify me from editing pages related to education. In fact, I refrain from getting involved with any page related to U of I to avoid the perception of editor bias. But being a student does not preclude anyone from editing.

5) I am would fully agree that the problems outlined with regard to RVC and its buildings are convoluted and obviously should be addressed. However, again, local newspapers, reporters, and even blogs such as http://district100watchdog.blogspot.com/ are appropriate venues for this. Wikipedia would not under WP:Notability guidelines.

Now, to respond to your comments and the edit issue:

a) I have taken the courtesy to make suggestions and invite comment before making changes from all quarters. TO date, other commenters seem to be for the reduction of or removal of the controversy information. However, I am waiting to allow for more discussion before making edits as this is something you take seriously. Especially since they are the only edits you have made on wikipedia since December of 2008 Special:Contributions/Weezer4718. This would suggest this is a topic of particular interest for you.

b) If an editor has a particular tie to an event, a company, or an institution, it is best they refrain from editing. For example, if you were the author of the Rock River Times articles, and were the one fired from RVC, it would be a conflict of interest to edit. In addition, if you are the author of http://district100watchdog.blogspot.com/, you might also have an ax to grind with regard to this article.

c) An arbitration committee or admin review of the section would likely conclude the section is problematic and recommend a rewrite.

d) I have taken the time make a suggestion (see below), with an appropriate citation from a reputable source that will withstand scrutiny as opposed to simply deleting the section. It may be easier to make suggestions there rather than make personal attacks on editors. I would prefer to avoid an edit war on this topic. Therefore I will submit the citations and section to review to other editors and admins to gauge their opinion and hold a vote on the issue in the talk page. Furthermore, I will make a direct request for advice regarding the strength of the articles you cite. Your thoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that you are a student at UIUC may or may not be a conflict of interest.

Obviously, if you were a beneficiary of the admissions scandal tied to the U of I, this would be grounds for arguing against any and all of your edits. An independent group with no ties to Illinois may be the best solution, regardless of your status.

I have a day job and don't have a lot of time to give to this topic. The Illinois Corruption Network has long understood this dynamic, and has capitalized on the fact that ordinary citizens are extremely limited in their ability to organize, file civil lawsuits and take other actions to expose wrongdoing.

Wikipedia is a new and valuable venue to educate the public, which was not available in the past. It's a very useful tool to summarize what "The Rock River Times" exposed, and the public is interested in learning.

As to your perceived conflicts of interest, this topic was addressed in "The Rock River Times'" news articles.

In one of the links, which you likely didn't make the effort to read or research, it reads:

"I [Staff Writer Jeff Havens]asked an ethics professor [Corporate ethics expert and Southern Illinois University Professor of Marketing John Fraedrich] from Southern Illinois University in early January 2003 whether it was ethical for me to cover the RVC story since I used to work there, and was fired under unusual circumstances. He responded by saying no one else would cover the story, and who better to expose what we suspected?" [6]

In the first link in this posting, which you also apparently did not read or research, the same issue was raised:

"Bill Scarpaci, English professor at RVC, said: “It's my professional opinion that if it were not for the articles initially written by Jeff Havens focusing on relevant and pertinent issues concerning the tenure and decisions of Dr. Chapdelaine, then we would not be playing witness to this meeting tonight. We would not be playing witness to a decision culminating in the investigative reporting rendered by Jeff Havens.”

"Scarpaci added: “I admire Jeff Havens for his perseverance, for his diligence, for his courage in bringing forth issues well supported, in bringing forth issues totally relevant and germane to the existence and welfare of Rock Valley College. Without the courage that he exhibited in developing the earliest of stories concerning relevant issues to the welfare of Rock Valley College, then—that’s the question—who would have done so?"[7]

Your assertion about who is and is not qualified to make edits is questionable, at best.

It's obvious to me by the adjectives used by some of the past editors that RVC operatives are not happy with having the corruption information on Wikipedia.

I am merely trying to state facts without prejudice, because no one else, for whatever reason, will post the information.

In my opinion, omission of this information is tantamount to complicity with organized crime, in a city long-controlled by organized crime.

Consider that before you edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Weezer,

Im not sure whether to be offended or just ignore the personal questions. If you had read the statements in the section labeled Talk:Rock_Valley_College#How_to_rewrite.2C_or_Address_the_controversy_section below you would see that other editors had reached a consensus that the section violated multiple wikipedia principles not only for its content, by the citations and refs as well. I read the citations from the Rock River Times from start to finish and so did others. However we found that the refs were violating issues with WP:RS regarding sourcing of information.

We waited a period time for discussion before making the changes for discussion, however you didnt make any comments.

Regarding your need to expose the "Illinois Corruption Network", this not the place. You are correct wiki is a great way to educate. If you feel the section is so valuable, you can create another article on that alone for readers. But according to the consensus in the room, it was agreed on by editors much wiser than I that the section should not stay. The decision was made by consensus. We cant all be part of the "Illinois Corruption Network, so even if you disagree with me, the rest of the room agree with the actions taken. To be honest, the notion that RVC is using "operatives" or there is an " Illinois Corruption Network" seems a bit paranoid.

As to your personal comments, heres the deal: As a UIUC student, I avoid editing anything having to do with my school. I even avoid editing anything from my prior alma mater. Just being a student of a state university does not disqualify one from editing a page about a school. Otherwise. more than 34,000 student couldn't edit from the UIUC alone.In what world dose that make sense. As for the admission scandal, even insinuating an editor is involved in such a thing violates wiki rules regarding WP:Civility. So I would advise you stay off the personal attacks and insulting comments and insinuations and stick the subject at hand.

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Illini:

Your group of editors' and Wikipedia's response was predicatble, and the topic of several, recent BBC reports and commentary [8].

In summary, the collection of reports and commentary criticizes Wikipedia for editors (groups of young, male academics) needlessly deleting information, based on questionable rules.

Now that I understand that a small group of young, male academics are policing Wiki and taking misguided actions, I won't waste anymore of my time and efforts to post on the Web site.

As to your "paranoid" comment, such a statement is based in naivete'. In Rockford, so extensive is the corruption at every level of government, the Mob and their associates rented office space to Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan and the U of I. [9]

Source: The Rock River Times June 22, 2005 Headline: "Ill. attorney general leased office space from group with a member with alleged Mob ties" "U of I also leased office space from same business group" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What the editor in question does not seem to understand is that Wikipedia is not the place to reveal public corruption. That is properly the province of the Fourth Estate and citizen journalists, should the traditional media fail to do their jobs. If the editor, Mr. Havens, or anyone else, wants to take it upon themselves to "fight public corruption" in Rockford, then the appropriate venue to enlighten the public is the Rockford media. What Mr. Havens and the editor have provided thus far in their defense is a series of biased, poorly sourced, highly subjective and prejudiced articles in a local newspaper that clearly do not meet the requirements of NPOV and WP:RS. I suggest to the editor that if he is truly concerned about continuing corruption at RVC and not just nursing a grudge, that he investigate his suspicions and bring them to the attention of the RVC board of trustees or the college president. And should they not respond positively, expose it in the media. Wikipedia is not the place for such investigations. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What CarpeCerevisium, who works for RVC, doesn't understand is what the BBC has aptly explained in their recent reports and commentary.

Wikipedia editors, who are primarily groups of 20-something graduate students, are applying questionable and capricious standards that results in deleting valuable information and discouraging many worthy contributions.

In this specific case, we likely have a group of U of I academics, who misguidely decided to omit, well-researched, published and verifiable information in RVC's records, print media, broadcast media and the court record. The academics are not interested in re-verifying the established facts regarding RVC's history, only in enforcing the questionable and capricious rules.

CarpeCerevisium is obviously upset the corruption was posted on Wiki and has made numerous efforts to delete this part of RVC's history, but those are the facts, which are indisputable.

As to bringing corruption information to RVC officials for them to act upon, this comment would be highly comical, if it were not so tragic considering the following, and is best described as the fox guarding the proverbial hen house.

From three articles cited in the original post:

1. The wife of former RVC Board Chairman's Chris Johnson sold land to the college when she was a real estate agent

2. Bill Sjostrom, who was board chairman when Chapdelaine was hired, resigned from the board Feb. 13, 2001, and was hired by Chapdelaine a few weeks later as RVC's facilities director

3. Don Johannes, former RVC chairman denied his economic interests were linked to insurance policies sold to RVC on behalf of Chapdelaine.

However, according to information from Chicago's Rabjohns Financial Group, Johannes operated a detached office, and was a direct affiliate” of Rabjohns. The insurance payments appeared to be directly related to an addendum to Chapdelaine's contract. However, Chris Johnson said in 2003 that Chapdelaine's insurance policies were puchased directly from Rabjohns, not Johannes.

Bring issues to the Rockford media?

Surely, you must be aware that media throughout the United States have cut back on reporting, especially investigative journalism, and especially in Rockford. Rockford media, like most media, are in financial surviival mode. That means controversial issues and topics that require a great deal of time examining will go uncovered, due to lack of resources and will to offend advertisers.

Wikipedia is not what I or many others thought it was when it started a few years ago as an experiment. Wiki is failing as a source for quality information, and I hope this trend does not continue.

CarpeCerevisium's remarks and suggestions are not credible by any standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer4718 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to make this personal, Weezer, but since you made this partly personal, allow me to respond. I do not work for RVC, nor have I ever (unless you count a year as a student worker.) I graduated from RVC over a decade ago, but have no connection to the college other than that.

Now back to the subject at hand. I (and others) have tried to make the page more user-friendly and readable while still providing good information about the scandals in RVC's past. You have responded by making unfounded accusations against the editors of this page, questioning their motives, rather than constructively work to make the page more user-friendly while maintaining adequate information about the corruption at the college. Secondly, it appears that the people you have accused in the article are no longer at the college (Chapdelaine, Johnson, Sjotrom, Johannes), so why would you describe it as a fox-henhouse situation? If corruption still exists at RVC, perhaps current administration would be more vigilant in rooting it out than it was under Chapdelaine. As a concerned taxpaying citizen, I would hope so, because that's my property tax dollars they'd be messing around with. I'm not interested in hiding corruption in anythign, I'm just a guy who dicks around on Wikipedia from time to time. And contrary to your claims, I'm sure the Rockford media would love a good corruption story. You are absolutely correct, in Rockford area government bodies, there's plenty of it. But I truly do not think that making anonymous accusations on Wikipedia is the way to solve such problems. Please consider what I have written, as someone who agrees with you in substance, if not in style.

From this point on, I won't engage in any discussion on this page that is a distraction from the rewrite. I think we can all agree that this page has been in need of more attention than it has gotten up to now. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Carpe~

I think at this point, no one in the room has the time nor the inclination to deal with his objections given they have become personal. He has become a Troll, and I think agree we should use the standard Wiki philosophy in this regard; Dont feed the trolls. Also, thanks for getting involved with the page to make it better. I'll be working on it again soon. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite discussion continued

I first posted above regarding a rewrite 3 months ago, and from the discussion here it seems that a rewrite is appropriate. It seems alot of the controversy material is improperly cited and written by one particular person, so i will begin a rewrite page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch/sandbox/rvc so others can contribute over the next few days. I will post the final change within the next few days. I welcome all input and your thoughts IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have begun adding new material and citations to the article to create a uniform appearance. I have also begun to add citations banners on the controversy section as it is all un-cited material to allow the author time to correct this before deletion. Again, I look forward to ideas and additional citations for use s the article develops further. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What's been rewritten so far looks pretty good. I would add information about extracurricular campus activities and student government as well. Also, any way you can include a brief, objective summary of the controversy is most welcome. The information as presented currently gives the impression that the author has an ax to grind. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that. Lastly, photos of the campus would be a nice addition. Keep up the good work, IGR. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Carpe- I agree the text makes it seem the author has an ax to grind, which is why I put it in its own section and marked it. I emailed him with a message to begin citing or it would be altered and/or deleted. Phase four includes the items you mentioned. For a sample of the way I typically write these articles, check out John Wood Community College or Shawnee Community College. I appreciate any input and advice you may have. thanksIlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of NPOV and BLP Material

It seems much of the content of what is now the controversy section comes from one particular writer, who has not cited 905 of it, and none of the citations conform with best citation practices. I have tagged the section as WP:disputed, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, with individual citation tags for all uncited claims. Given the focus of the controversy is on the actions of one person it seems, WP:BLP would seem to apply and should be given strict scrutiny to ensure we avoid libel and POV material. I invite comments, citations, and work with regard to the controversy section. I will wait a bit before deleting the section. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would assert that the citations themselves are not NPOV, because the Rock River Times employed the subject involved with the firing of Chapdelaine and the subsequent stories as a staff writer, who wrote many of the stories cited in the controversy section. I'm no expert, but I would think that that violates NPOV pretty hardcore. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How to rewrite, or Address the controversy section

In line with the response I made to Weezer above, I wanted to discuss the controversy section within the article. An article usually should cover the prime material of the 5W+H aspect of the topic, but should include major events as well briefly. If we look at the main UIUC page at University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana-Champaign#Political_influence_over_admissions we see that the event is only briefly mentioned, with a wikilink to the main article covering the scandal: see University of Illinois clout scandal. This allowed each article to stand on its own and withstand strict scrutiny by the community. Of course, the event itself must meet the guidelines of WP:Notability for the community to allow it to remain in the article. Corruption, while well known in the State of Illinois, is not unique in any way, but if well covered could be its own article. However, I am of the opinion that given the author of some of the material is a part of the controversy it could indicate a definite bias. Furthermore, it was not picked up by major press or MSM. It seems to be a local scandal or issue, and I would invite anyone with other citations to discuss them if they are available. Do any citations outside the rock river times exist? I have done a cursory search of the archives and major indexes at UIUC and havent found anything yet, but want to invite discussion on this as a courtesy. Your thoughts? IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A review of citations and suggested text for controversy

After reviewing the current citations, i found all of them were written by the man that is said to have been illegally fired. Therefore it tends to be conflict of interest with those citations and a question of credibility. The one article in the section that wasnt by that author had only to do with the rebuilding of the campus. Therefore, I went on a hunt and used the university archives to locate an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education , a publication of note and respect within the community, and found a citation that covers the firing in brief. Based on that citation, I propose the following brief text for the section labeled controversy.

Main text

In January of 2004, The Board of Trustees of Rock Valley College voted unanimously in January to terminate the employment of it's president, Roland J. (Chip) Chapdelaine. Randy J. Schaefer, chairman of the board of trustees at the time, declined to give a reason for Mr. Chapdelaine's removal. Chapdelaine had been the president of the college since 1997. Chapdelaine had alienated faculty members and other employees with what was viewed as reckless spending and poorly executed reorganizations of the college. Namely, the president's plan to pay for building construction and renovations by issuing more than $60-million in bonds. Groups representing faculty, professional, and support-staff members all voted no confidence in the president prior to his termination.

Citation

Wilson, R., Evelyn, J., & Fogg, P. (Feb 6, 2004). Professor's Departure Stirs Questions at Dartmouth; Trustees Fire President of Rock Valley College; U. of New Mexico Names Director of Latin-American Institute. The Chronicle of Higher Education. , 50, 22. p.NA. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A147116449&source=gale&userGroupName=westerniul&version=1.0

I will continue to search for relevant citations that are from publications of note that will withstand scrutiny, but I welcome everyones thoughts and opinions. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• The controversy section sounds like the author has an axe to grind. While some mention of those controversial activities ought to be included in the article, I think the way it is currently written places undue weight upon the controversies and seems to promote the staff writers at The Rock River Times. -Mabeenot (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

General advice

IlliniGradResearch asked me to give a third opinion as a neutral party. Here is some general advice:

• The pressing issues are those of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The controversy section cannot rely solely on an editorial written by the person who made the claims stated in the article. We need reliable third-party sources to verify this information and ensure that the whole picture is presented.
• See Wikipedia:Criticism sections and Wikipedia:Criticism for guidelines on whether a "controversy" section is warranted, and if so, how it should be organized.
• Right now, the section violates our policies on WP:NPOV and undue weight. Remember, articles must be a summary of the sources used; if only a brief mention is made about one issue, do not dedicate half the article to it.
• I suggest moving the entire controversy section to the talk page for now, as it is a BLP nightmare and its content is disputed. The rewrite IlliniGradResearch has begun is a good start toward resolving the issue.
• All users need to focus on the content and not on other users. See WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, and WP:NPA.

Personally, I think that if there is any recoverable info from that section, it should be briefly summarized in the history section rather than in a POV-fork section. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• As seen above, I favor an NPOV summary of "just the facts". The editor in question does seem to have an ax to grind against RVC, as evidenced by the single source citations written by the man alleged to have been illegally fired, unbacked accusations of corruption against the current college president ("ties to the same corruption network as Chapdelaine") and the wild accusations against other editors of the RVC page. This is not a blog, or an alternative newspaper. The facts need to be presented in a neutral, objective way so as to let the reader decide for oneself as to what they mean. Wikipedia is not, nor should it be a forum for personal grudges. Keep the opinions to the blogs. CarpeCerevisium (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have read through the controversy section and agree with the comment by CarpeCerevisium that little, if any, of the section should be retained. This article should focus on the college itself and be of a general information nature. The controversy section, even if it were unbiased (which does not seem to be the case) should be proportional to overall article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section Movement

As has been stated by other experienced editors in the room, I agree that the Controversy section is riddled with POV and BLP issues that make it unsuitable for the page. The articles are rife with conflict of interest issues, and the publication seems to not be a periodical or record for the area it is in. Furthermore, the article should be dealing solely with the history of the school and not with the minute details of the scandal. Therefore, I am moving all of the aforementioned material to a subsection below here on the talk page for discussion. While a believe that this will be upsetting to one of the editors, the consensus is clear that the section does not belong. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy of the controversy section from prior to changes in editing

On Jan. 13, 2004, RVC President Dr. Roland "Chip" Chapdelaine was fired from the college nearly one year after Rockford-based, weekly newspaper, The Rock River Times, launched an award-winning, year-long series of news articles that spotlighted corruption at the college and Chapdelaine's mismanagement at RVC. [10]

The news articles were authored by Jeff Havens, staff writer for The Rock River Times, who was illegally fired by Chapdelaine and the RVC Board of Trustees in 2002. Havens was Laboratory Manager in the Physical Science Department at RVC from 2000 to 2002. Havens employment was illegally terminated by RVC after Havens publicly criticized Chapdelaine and RVC Board Trustees in print and broadcast media. Havens also spearheaded a union organization effort for staff at RVC.

The RVC Board of Trustees voted unanimously to fire Chapdelaine after the newspaper launched its news series, which culminated with an article that detailed RVC Board Chairman Chris Johnson's wife's land sale to RVC during the time she was a real estate agent.[11]

Approximately five months after the news series began, Havens and The Rock River Times were named defendants in a lawsuit filed in Winnebago County Circuit Court on June 5, 2003 by Donald B. Johannes, former RVC trustee and board chairman the evening Havens was illegally fired in Aug. 13, 2002 (Winnebago County Circuit Court case 03-L-219).

In the lawsuit, Johannes alleged he was defamed when the newspaper published an article on April 23, 2003 in which Johannes denied benefiting from the sale of insurance to RVC. Johannes was an insurance agent for more than 20 years, in addition to being an RVC trustee.[12]

Johannes' lawsuit was thrown out of court on Jan. 22, 2004 after the court ruled Johannes failed to prove anything in the article was false—just nine days after Chapdelaine was fired as RVC president. However, the court allowed Johannes a second chance to file his complaint.

Johannes re-filed his allegations the following month, but they too were thrown out of court for a second time on May 28, 2004 after he again failed to provide any evidence the article was false. When Johannes re-filed his lawsuit, he admitted in his filing there was a conspiracy to fire Havens for his written criticisms of the college—a violation of Havens' First Amendment right to exercise free speech.

In the first amended complaint filed with the state court, Johannes wrote: “On information and belief Jeffrey Havens…was fired…for writing negative articles about the college as summarized above.”

Observers of the proceedings speculated the real purpose of the lawsuit was to discourage the newspaper from continuing its investigation and reporting on events at the college, persuade owner Frank Schier to fire Havens as a reporter and financially ruin the newspaper.

In October 2004, the news series was recognized by the Illinois Press Association for outstanding reporting in their "Best of the Press" contest.

Although no specific reason was ever cited by the Board for terminating Chapdelaine, his tenure included the following:

1. Complaints. Numerous complaints from the college's employee groups to RVC Trustees

2. No confidence. Three "no-confidence" votes by all three employee groups that totaled 204-28

3. Status downgrade. Downgrade of RVC recognition status by the Illinois Community College Board. As of 2008, no other locally funded and operated community college in Illinois has ever had such a downgrade in status. The status was upgraded by the state two weeks after Chapdelaine was fired in January 2004

4. Deficit spending. Five consecutive and unprecedented years of deficit spending that totaled more than $7.3 million

5. Political donations. Illegal use of taxpayer funds by Chapdelaine for two political contributions, which were allegedly reimbursed only after inquiries about the expenditures were made by The Rock River Times

6. No-bid contract. Controversial awarding of a no-bid $5.6 million construction contract to Robert Stenstrom of Stenstrom Companies Ltd., for whom RVC named their Samuelson Road facility after he allegedly made a $1 million donation to the college. RVC never produced documentation the $1 million was ever received, despite requests from The Rock River Times.[13]

The $1 million was to be derived from construction services offered by Stenstrom,and sale of Stenstrom's personal jet. Part of the $1 million Stenstrom proposed was for "in-kind" construction management services. But the services were tied to a condition in which the services would only be offered if his company received the building contract for the Support Services Building. The Support Services Building was originally slated at $4.2 million, but ultimately cost $7.9 million.

The other half of the $1 million "gift" was contingent upon the sale of an aircraft owned by Stenstrom. However, at the time of the awarding the contract, and the alleged donation, the aircraft was being flown around Illinois for a political campaign. The campaign involved former Winnebago County Board Chairman Kris Cohn's failed bid for Illinois Secretary of State's office in 2002.

After RVC hired Stenstrom under terms of Illinois construction management law, Stenstrom awarded the contract to costruct the Support Services Building to himself. However, Illinois law prohibits construction managers from awarding contracts to themselves. Trustees, Chapdelaine and Stenstron also linked the hiring to Stenstrom's proclaimed $1 million donation to the college.

Despite the obvious abuse, and likely breaking of construction management law, Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul Logli refused to investigate the issue because he claimed the statute was "undeveloped," and was not interested in developing the statute.[14] Four years later, Logli was appointed to the position of Winnebago County Circuit Court judge in 2007 after holding the same job during the 1980s.

7. Recruitment scandal. Double payments to Chapdelaine in 1997 for airline expenses for his recruitment to RVC. Prior to that time, Chapdelaine was president of Cumberland County College in New Jersey.

In 1997, Chapdelaine charged $770 to his Cumberland County College credit card for three round-trip airline tickets from Philadelphia to O’Hare Airport at the same time he was being considered for his RVC position.

RVC also issued Chapdelaine two checks during the same period totaling $2,107.53 for his recruitment to RVC.

Cumberland County College documents show Chapdelaine charged Cumberland County College for two July 17, 1997, airline tickets to O’Hare, the day after he secured the RVC presidency on July 16, 1997. Chapdelaine charged $612 to Cumberland County College for tickets and flight insurance for himself and his wife on July 17, 1997.

8. Construction overuns. At least $9.6 million in construction cost overruns, which included the Stenstrom-named facility on Samuelson Road, and the Support Services Building that Stenstrom constructed on RVC's main campus.

Chapdelaine's supporters argued he was a "change agent" who ushered RVC into a bold era of needed construction projects. Critics countered Chapdelaine severely mismanaged the college.

Epilogue

RVC hired Dr. Jack Becherer as its new president in 2004. Becherer has connections to the same corruption network that gave rise to Chapdelaine through his previous employment at Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills,Illinois during the 1990s.

After a two-year presidency at Cuyahoga Community College's Eastern Campus in Cleveland, Ohio in which Chapdelaine proposed changing the institution into a center for "holistic medicine," he was hired in late 2006 as president of Los Angeles Trade Tech College. According to a Jan. 26, 2007 press release from the Los Angeles Community College District, Chapdelaine was presiding over $230 million in construction projects at the college.

Approximately five years after Chapdelaine was terminated, RVC began more building projects that included the following, which were featured in the Rockford Register Star in 2009.[15]:

• $28.5 million science and math building
• $1 million for renovations to the Stenstrom Center for Career Education
• $13 million for renovations to the Physical Education Center
• $2 million for updated parking lots on the main campus during
• $7.5 million remodel of the Estelle M. Black Library in 2007

Supporters of the college claimed in October 2009 that these facility changes would provide more and better educational opportunities for students. And in November 2009, the State of Illinois announced RVC was awarded money to build a $48.7 million arts instruction center that was orginally priced at $32.5 million in 2003, during Chapdelaine's tenure.

Missing History, added tag 

Moving beyond the content that has taken up 3/4 of the talk page so far, the history of the article currently seems to stop at 45 years ago...I tagged that to get things started along. --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to start helping with the history section of this page (while avoiding the controversy). I'm researching some of it now; I want to make sure I find acceptable sources outside of the college's website; although that has more information available than is currently on this page [16]. I noticed that the current link to the college website in the reference section is not accurate since the college has had a website overhaul recently. I'll correct any misdirected links. I'd also like to include a photo or two. Mellieclem (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)