A new advisory board touted by Conference on World Affairs director John Griffin has delivered a harsh review of the new leader in the wake of public criticism of his leadership.

Griffin, a political science professor at the University of Colorado, took over direction of the conference last summer. He said he formed an interim advisory board in January to include more voices in conversations about the conference.

In recent weeks, as criticisms of Griffin have mounted, he’s promoted the board as an innovative idea that demonstrates his willingness to listen to others and include community members and students on decisions.

But some members of the six-person board felt they were advisory in name only, and that Griffin made decisions before consulting them, then pretended to listen to their opinions.

“I feel like John was hoping for and expecting six ‘yes’ men to sit with him on Friday mornings to say, ‘Great idea, John,’ and to defend his ideas to the rest of the editors, that we would essentially be translators of his agenda to everyone,” said Annika Erickson-Pearson, a CU senior who chaired the advisory board this year.

Griffin refuted that characterization and said he genuinely listened to feedback.

“I viewed my relationship with the board as one where I would raise ideas and they would, as their name suggests, advise me on whether those ideas were the right thing at the right time or whether we should shelve them or whether we should disregard them entirely,” he said. “I’m pretty confident in saying that I always followed the board’s advice in every single case.”

The board’s six-page report summing up its experiences with Griffin was delivered to Chancellor Phil DiStefano on Thursday, less than a week after the tense conclusion of the 67th annual collection of free panels, performances and other events on the Boulder campus.

“John’s style of leadership affects how staff and volunteers perceive him,” the board wrote in its report. “John has failed to work with members of his staff on creating an atmosphere of mutual trust, inclusiveness, transparency and respect.

“These are the characteristics that most would prefer make up CWA’s cultural identity.”

Campus spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the chancellor needs time to review the report, but added that DiStefano supports Griffin and the conference.

“However, one of his major goals is to increase revenue from other sources rather than tuition dollars and state funding to fund this program and other outreach programs,” Hilliard said. “To that end, over the next few weeks, the chancellor will work with (Griffin) to look at other revenue sources such as corporate sponsorships, private giving and foundation support to continue this wonderful week-long event.”

‘A healthy thing’

The week-long conference this month ended with Griffin defending himself during a public panel about the future of the conference. Some conference volunteers expressed doubts about Griffin’s motives and complained that he has damaged the friendly and transparent climate that existed among organizers.

Griffin is also accused of losing a $1 million donation to the conference.

Jane Butcher, conference chairwoman and Boulder philanthropist, has said she rescinded that offer over Griffin’s “lack of acceptance” of CWA’s founding principles.

Those include keeping the conference free and open to the public, inviting only participants from outside of Colorado and ensuring that the conference remain a partnership between the community and the university.

During the panel discussion on April 10, Griffin mentioned the advisory board, saying that he wanted to hear input from more community stakeholders in the years to come.

“One of my goals this year has been to allow more voices in these discussions and to allow ideas about the conference more room to breathe,” he said during the panel. “And this has, perhaps inevitably, led to some points of disagreement. But this, I think, is a healthy thing.”

‘No progress’

The report outlined the board’s goals and accomplishments, and included the individual opinions of five board members. Many expressed disappointment and concern about Griffin, writing that he has harmed key relationships with donors, students and volunteers.

They also expressed frustration that, after months of working with Griffin, the two sides made little progress toward a resolution or rebuilding trust in his leadership.

“… The (board) discussed a number of actions relative to building trust, encouraging openness and transparency, driving out fear and uncertainty, behaving collaboratively and communicating clearly, completely and consistently,” according to the report. “Little to no progress was made in this area.”

Griffin has acknowledged that he has work to do in the areas of communication, transparency and inclusiveness. He reiterated his commitment to improving on those skills after reading the report.

“I really need to spend time reading the report again and reflecting on what some of the underlying issues might be that led to those comments,” he said. “I’m a pretty self-critical person and I will readily admit that this was my first year and there’s some things that I’d like to work on and some goals I’d like to set for next year.

“I take the feedback very seriously and I’m looking to act on it.”

Dissenting view

One member of the advisory board, Bob Yates, did not help write the report nor sign his name to it. Yates said he felt the board focused too heavily on the negatives.

Yates said the report omitted Griffin’s fundraising successes and his efforts to include more faculty and students in the conference.

“In many ways, John Griffin in his first year as director is a lot like a first-year football coach,” Yates said. “Like a first-year football coach, he has had some early successes and he’s had some misses… Typically we give a new football coach two or three seasons to get the hang of things and make adjustments.”

Sarah Kuta: 303-473-1106, kutas@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/sarahkuta