Reply from Above

Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to both Tom Faecke, CFO and Toni Murdock, Chancellor of Antioch University basically outlining my observations. I received the following reply from Mr. Faecke today:

Louise,
After receiving your email I spoke with Milt Thompson about the Theater. He has walked through the entire building this morning. A few days ago there was a minor water leak from the sprinkler system that was missed in the draining of the building. The break was in the bathroom and a few ceiling tiles were destroyed. They have all been clean up and the rest of the building has been cleaned during our close down process. The carpets in the area were flooded but they are in the process of drying out with the use of fans. This is creating the condensation of the windows but that will go away. Fortunately the mild weather is helping is that process. The water never made it to the wood floor so there is no warping. The drains on the roof have been cleared a number of time of leaves and are clean and open at this time. There are no new cracks in the cement since the closing. We need to realize that this building is old and has seen better days but we are doing all we can within our means to protect it.

Milt has done an excellent job in securing the campus and his staff has worked very hard to protect all of the assets of the College. I hope this clarifies the condition of the Theater and we will continue to do our best to secure the integrity of the campus.

Tom.

Pay attention. My question is: if the leak was near the back bathroom why did I see water on the floor in the front lobby if this is just a "minor leak"? And why is the front lobby carpet wet if this is just a "minor leak"? It would mean that the water had to travel down the length of the hallway from the back of the building to the front. Not what I would classify as a minor leak.
I think it is interesting that Faecke defends Milt in his e-mail. In no way do I suggest that Milt is at fault for the collective negligence over time of a variety of entities. Why does Tom insinuate by his defense of Milt that I have somehow suggested Milt did not do a good job? Milt was very far from my mind when I wrote the e-mail.

I am glad that there has been some remedying of the situation. I think it might be time for another outisde inspection of all of the buildings, just to be sure they are OK.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

My two cents.

I am sending these thoughts back to Faecke, by the way. Along with my appreciation for a prompt response. Happy New Year?