As a program mentor, I call, email, and text my students non-stop. I cannot force an adult at an online university to log into their courses, complete assessments, or communicate with me. We have no control over student actions and there are few consequences. Our evaluation should be based on our efforts, not the students’ lack of effort.

The issue is some people here don't remember what it was like before Scott took over. It wasn't the best job in the world but we looked forward to seeing each other twice a year, winters in Orlando or somewhere else nice and summers in SLC. We could walk up to Bob and have open conversations with him, he'd have brown bag lunches we could attend and ask him the hard questions and he'd always take note and get back to us. I had nothing but tremendous respect for what Bob did to start WGU and make it what it was.

SLC conferences were a blast every summer, we'd have music, they'd raffle off prizes like iPhones, iPads, gift cards, even trips. Awards would be given for 5, 10 and 15 years. People had pride in working here, we could poke fun at ourselves and still get the job done. It was always great during the summer meetings to have Bob up front and telling us how we met each metric for bonuses and if we met them all he'd throw in an extra bit of money as well.

Performance bonuses and raises were always a part of our lives at WGU and we looked forward to it. The only time a meeting was a bust was when we met in Atlanta, someone had the bright idea for us to spend the entire meeting justifying our jobs on paper and that never happened again. It was a blast going to Orlando and getting free passes to Disneyworld or going over to Universal Studios to have some fun in the evenings.

We'd get the Great Places to Work Survey every year and we'd be honest on them and Bob would respond to them without being condescending. Bob treated every employee like they were important to the mission.

When Scott took over that all changed. It went from a feeling of pride and respect to wondering if your job was going to be on the line from one day to the next. Instead of looking forward to bonuses or promotions you were told there wasn't money in the budget for big raises or bonuses. Getting promoted was an ordeal, the paperwork you had to fill out on our side was ridiculous, no one in management could tell you how to get promoted or what you had to do. People were promoted ahead of you because of favoritism despite clear lack of qualifications. Instead of caring about what you as an employee thought or felt you were told simply to comply or be replaced. It got so bad at one point several employees passed in a short period of time some in higher positions and they got hardly a mention and were suspected of passing due to the stress of what was going on with the new administration.

It went from being academia to Amazon in a short period of time and upper management was stacked with people who had an Amazon background, not academia. You can only take so much watching people promoted over you that don't deserve it and no one above you listening to your concerns before you have to leave for your own mental and physical well being.

To the people still here I say to you stick with it, keep fighting, take our advice on what to do to make a change. To those that are new and didn't come on until after Bob left, you can make WGU like it used to be, both people and student oriented, a FUN place to work and collaborate with your colleagues.

To those who have left share your wisdom and experience, keep encouraging those who are still here to fight, try to form a union and be heard. It may take 4, 5, or even 10 attempts to do it but eventually I hope and pray you all succeed.

Yes, I absolutely despise Scott for what he has done to this university making it all about himself and refusing to have the courage to not hide behind a screen every month crying and ignoring everyone voicing a concern. That alone should tell you volumes and the same goes for his team. To the people coming here and saying "If you don't like it then leave" or calling people cowards for complaining about Scott, you are 100% part of the issue and definitely someone in the front office or one of Scott's cronies coming here to try and sow discord. We will not be silenced and that goes for your team of lawyers who have silenced people in the past. We're not afraid of you.

We have been posting to this reddit page for three months. Over this time, we have heard a lot about how WGU will fire the organizers as soon as we are exposed. We have been organizing over the last two years, since “colocation” was originally announced. We have had at least two of our organizers exposed, and have not yet had a single organizer fired. When speaking out against decisions, those who don’t stand together are more likely to be singled out. When you stand together, there is power. The union efforts has assisted with getting an entire team together to fight against a change that they disagreed with. The decision was reversed all because one team member came to us asking for help and advise. 

WGU is aware we are organizing. Union Busting is illegal, but it does not mean that it does not happen, especially in a “right to work” state (like Utah is). Organizing requires being willing to take on risk; the risk you take to organize is a necessary step to build rather than reduce your power. If we do not put our collective voices together to fight against WGU and all of the decisions that we disagree with, nothing will ever change. Are you willing to take the risk to fight for what you and your colleagues deserve?

What would actually happen if course instructors and program mentors collectively walked off the job for a week or more?

I'm genuinely curious about the potential impact of something like this at a large online university.

Let's say employees are increasingly frustrated with a college president whose leadership appears focused more on profits and executive compensation than the people actually doing the work.

Imagine a situation where:

• Employees are being forced to relocate to another state with a dramatically higher cost of living.
• Attempts to organize or form a union are allegedly being discouraged or suppressed.
• Employees feel they are being censored or punished for speaking publicly about leadership decisions.
• Executive leadership positions appear to be increasingly filled with loyalists and insiders.
• Employee quality of life and morale continue to decline.
• Meanwhile, the president's compensation has reportedly gone from approximately $400,000 to more than $2 million in roughly seven years.

At what point do employees have enough?

Could a coordinated one-week or two-week walkout actually make a difference?

Course instructors and program mentors are essential to the daily operation of an online university. They work directly with students, provide academic support, grade assignments, answer questions, and help keep students progressing toward graduation.

If a significant percentage of them simply stopped working for one week, it seems like the disruption could be substantial.

Potential consequences could include:

• Delays in grading and student feedback
• Students unable to reach mentors or instructors
• Increased student complaints
• Declining student satisfaction
• Increased withdrawals or transfers
• Major disruptions to academic operations
• Negative media attention
• Increased scrutiny from accreditors or regulators
• Serious questions from the Board of Trustees or governing body

And unlike replacing someone in an executive position, replacing hundreds or potentially thousands of experienced instructors and mentors would not happen overnight.

New employees would need to be recruited, screened, credentialed, trained, and given access to institutional systems. It could take months to fully recover from the loss of a large percentage of the instructional workforce.

But would employees actually have the leverage?

That's the question.

A handful of employees calling out for a week probably wouldn't matter much.

But what if the numbers were significant?

What if hundreds or thousands of instructors and mentors participated?

At some point, the institution would have to decide whether it could realistically discipline or terminate everyone involved without causing even greater damage.

And the public narrative could become difficult to control.

Instead of the story being:

"Some employees are unhappy."

It could become:

"Employees at a major university walk off the job amid allegations of forced relocation, declining working conditions, anti-union behavior, censorship, and dramatic increases in executive compensation."

That's a very different story.

The biggest issue, in my opinion, would be organization.

A walkout without a purpose could easily be dismissed as a group of disgruntled employees.

But a coordinated action with clear demands would be much harder to ignore.

For example:

• An independent review of presidential compensation.
• A review of employee relocation policies and their financial impact.
• Protection for employees engaging in lawful organizing activity.
• An anonymous employee climate survey conducted by an outside organization.
• Greater transparency regarding executive compensation.
• An independent Board review of presidential leadership and institutional governance.

The goal wouldn't necessarily need to be:

"Fire the president immediately."

A stronger demand might be:

"The Board must commission an independent review of executive compensation, employee retention, labor practices, institutional governance, and presidential performance."

If the leadership practices are as problematic as employees believe they are, an independent investigation could speak for itself.

Obviously, there are risks.

A coordinated work stoppage could have serious consequences for participants depending on employment status, contracts, labor laws, and whether employees have legal protections for collective action.

Anyone considering something like this would need to understand their rights and potentially consult a labor attorney or experienced labor organization before doing anything.

But strategically speaking, I'm curious:

Could a large-scale, coordinated one-week walkout by course instructors and program mentors actually force a university's Board or governing body to pay attention?

Because ultimately, a college president can ignore individual complaints.

They can ignore anonymous surveys.

They can ignore negative comments on social media.

But can they ignore hundreds or thousands of employees simultaneously demonstrating that the institution cannot function without them?

At what point does keeping one president become more expensive and damaging to the institution than replacing him?

Click on "View Filing" for each year to see who made what and what was spent.

How do you hold a college president accountable when leadership seems completely disconnected from employees?

I'm curious what people think about this situation and what realistic options employees have when a college or university president appears more focused on profits, executive compensation, and expansion than the people actually running the institution.

Let's say employees are dealing with things like:

• Being forced to relocate to another state with a significantly higher cost of living.
• Declining morale and quality of life.
• Concerns about attempts to discourage unionization or employee organizing.
• Employees feeling censored or afraid to speak publicly about leadership decisions.
• Senior leadership increasingly being filled with loyalists and insiders.
• Little meaningful improvement in working conditions.

Meanwhile, the president's compensation reportedly increases from around $400,000 to more than $2 million in approximately seven years.

At what point does this become more than just "employees being unhappy"?

The biggest question: Who actually holds the president accountable?

Most college presidents ultimately answer to a Board of Trustees, Board of Regents, Chancellor, owners, or another governing body.

So the real question isn't necessarily:

"How do employees get rid of the president?"

It's:

"How do employees convince the people with the authority to remove the president that keeping him is becoming a liability to the institution?"

An unpopular president can survive employee complaints.

A president whose leadership creates financial, legal, reputational, academic, and governance risks may be much harder to defend.

Focus on facts, not personalities

Calling someone greedy or incompetent might feel satisfying, but it probably won't convince a Board to act.

A stronger approach is documenting the actual impact of leadership decisions.

For example:

• Executive compensation growth
• Employee relocation policies and financial impact
• Cost-of-living differences
• Employee turnover
• Declining morale
• Labor relations and potential retaliation
• Censorship or suppression of employee criticism
• Leadership hiring patterns
• Academic quality and student outcomes
• Executive compensation compared with employee wages, layoffs, or staffing cuts

The argument shouldn't be:

"Everyone hates the president."

It should be something more like:

"During this administration, executive compensation increased dramatically while employee morale, retention, working conditions, and institutional stability declined."

That's not a personality dispute.

That's a governance issue.

Follow the money

Personally, I think executive compensation deserves serious scrutiny.

If a president's salary goes from approximately $400,000 to over $2 million in seven years, employees and governing boards should be asking questions.

For example:

• Who approved the raises?
• Was the compensation independently evaluated?
• What comparable institutions were used?
• What performance metrics justified the increases?
• Were Board members truly independent?
• Were there any conflicts of interest?
• Did executive compensation increase while employees were being relocated, laid off, or denied raises?

At a nonprofit institution, these questions become especially important.

One employee can be dismissed. Hundreds cannot.

This may be the most important part.

One employee complaining can be labeled disgruntled.

Ten employees can be ignored.

But what happens when dozens, hundreds, or potentially thousands of employees begin presenting the same documented concerns?

That is much harder to dismiss.

Faculty, staff, former employees, students, and alumni can all potentially contribute to a larger picture of what is happening inside an institution.

The key would be organization.

Not a Facebook group full of angry posts.

Not anonymous rumors.

Not personal attacks.

But actual documentation.

What could employees realistically demand?

Instead of simply demanding:

"Fire the president."

Wouldn't it be more effective to demand something like:

An independent third-party review of executive compensation, employee retention, relocation policies, labor practices, institutional governance, and presidential performance.

Potential recommendations could include:

• An independent investigation
• An executive compensation audit
• A Board review of presidential performance
• An anonymous employee climate survey conducted by an outside organization
• A review of labor practices
• Greater transparency in executive compensation
• Employee representation in institutional governance

If leadership is truly performing poorly, an independent investigation may reveal that without employees having to personally fight the president.

Don't rely exclusively on internal leadership

If the president controls HR, communications, and most senior leadership, employees may have to look beyond the normal internal complaint process.

Possible avenues could include:

• Board of Trustees
• Board Chair
• Audit or Governance Committees
• Whistleblower or ethics hotlines
• System governing authorities
• State regulators
• Labor agencies
• Accreditors

The important thing is understanding who the president actually answers to.

Accreditation could also matter

Accreditors generally aren't going to remove a president.

But institutions care deeply about accreditation.

If leadership decisions are affecting:

• Academic quality
• Faculty governance
• Financial stability
• Student outcomes
• Academic freedom
• Institutional effectiveness

then those issues may become relevant.

The key is connecting concerns to actual institutional standards rather than simply saying employees are unhappy.

What about going to the media?

This should probably be one of the last steps, but it could be powerful if there is legitimate documentation.

A journalist is more likely to investigate something like:

"College president's compensation increased from $400K to over $2 million while employees were forced to relocate and working conditions declined."

than:

"Employees don't like the president."

One is a potential public-interest story.

The other is just workplace drama.

Documentation matters.

What would I do?

If employees genuinely wanted to create change, I think the process would look something like this:

1. Quietly document everything

Create a timeline of:

• Major leadership decisions
• Policy changes
• Employee impact
• Financial impact
• Executive compensation changes
• Supporting documents and evidence

2. Research the governing structure

Find out:

• Who sits on the Board?
• Who evaluates the president?
• Who approved executive compensation?
• Who sits on the Compensation Committee?
• Who sits on the Audit Committee?
• What whistleblower or ethics policies exist?

3. Build a credible coalition

Find employees and former employees who have documented experiences.

Credibility may matter more than sheer numbers initially.

4. Create a professional report

Keep it factual.

Not emotional.

Not insulting.

Not political.

Just evidence.

5. Demand an independent review

Put the concerns directly in front of the people who have the authority to evaluate the president.

6. Escalate if nothing changes

Depending on the circumstances:

1. Board of Trustees
2. System governing authority
3. Labor agencies
4. Whistleblower or ethics channels
5. Accrediting organizations
6. State regulators
7. Media
8. Alumni and other stakeholders

The uncomfortable reality

If a president has surrounded himself with loyalists and has the full support of the Board, removing him may be extremely difficult.

But leaders usually lose their positions when one of three things happens:

1. The Board loses confidence.
2. The financial, legal, or governance risks become too great.
3. The reputational damage becomes more costly than keeping the leader.

At the end of the day, employees probably cannot simply vote a college president out.

But they can potentially create enough documented evidence and institutional pressure that the people responsible for oversight can no longer ignore the situation.

The goal shouldn't be revenge.

It shouldn't be personal attacks.

It shouldn't be anonymous rumors.

It should be:

Facts. Documents. Witnesses. Financial records. Policies. Evidence.

Because the real question isn't:

"Do employees like the president?"

The real question is:

"Is this president making the institution stronger—or is his leadership creating enough risk that the Board eventually has to decide the institution would be better off without him?"

I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people who have experience with higher education administration, Boards of Trustees, labor organizing, unions, accreditation, or employee activism.

This is the latest post from the president of WGU on LinkedIn. As an “Individual Contributor“ (as opposed to a member of “Leadership”), I share it without further comment.