In response to complaints by the state Board of Regents and the ISU administration, supporters of the faculty petition that criticizes ISU President Martin Jischke have released a specific set of charges against the university president.

Bill Kunerth, supporter of the petition, said the bill of particulars was issued after some people said the language in the faculty petition was too ambiguous. The faculty petition accused Jischke and the ISU administration of creating an atmosphere of “fear and repression” at Iowa State and asked for a Board of Regents’ review of Jischke’s performance.

“A couple of regents said we didn’t have enough specifics in the petition,” said Kunerth, professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication. “They were saying that our complaints were vague, and President Jischke said they were untrue.”

Kunerth said one reason the original petition was nebulous was because people expressed concerns about Jischke for various reasons.

“We included those general concerns in the petition because we felt those were major issues that we wanted to give people a chance to respond to,” he said.

Jorgen Rasmussen, supporter of the petition, said he hopes the Board of Regents will give the petition serious consideration now that the charges are more precise.

“It’s up to them; given the response, given the signatures, given the specifics that have been laid before them, one would hope they don’t dismiss it out of hand,” said Rasmussen, distinguished emeritus professor of political science.

However, John McCarroll, director of University Relations, said the bill of particulars isn’t very different from the actual petition. Jischke was out of town Monday and unavailable for comment.

“These faculty members have every right to express their opinion, and it looks like that’s what they’ve done again,” McCarroll said.

McCarroll said he is unsure whether the specific charges will satisfy the regents.

“What I have seen again are opinions,” McCarroll said, “and in some cases, they appear to quote newspaper articles where their opinions are quoted, but I can’t say if this is what the regents wanted.”

Frank Stork, executive director for the Board of Regents, said he doesn’t think the petition will affect how Jischke is reviewed.

“The board does have a performance review system in place for all of the presidents,” he said. “So I don’t think this will affect that in any way, that process.”

However, Kunerth said he hopes the Board of Regents takes the faculty seriously.

“The bottom line is we think there’s a merit to our concerns,” he said. “We think we’ve provided a reasonable amount of tangible evidence to convince the Board of Regents to inquire into our concerns.”

The bill of particulars is compiled from a variety of sources, including newspaper articles, personal accounts and the Institute for Physical Research and Technology.

It states, “We believe that President Jischke has made important contributions to the university, but we also believe that there needs to be greater balance in the allocation of the institutions resources (particularly in regard to undergraduate teaching), improved administrative practices, and more sensitive relations with faculty and staff.”

Kunerth said he believes the perceived decline in undergraduate education and the sense that the administration is ignoring faculty concerns are important elements to the bill of particulars.

“At his installation in 1991, President Jischke promised that teaching would be the number one priority, taking precedence over research and outreach. Five years later, he told student and faculty groups that the university had made strides in research, outreach and technology but had not made similar progress in undergraduate education and the liberal arts,” the bill of particulars states.

The bill of particulars is available online at www.public.iastate.edu/~aaup/petition /Background.htm.

The petition is scheduled to stop circulating Friday.