I did not know Mike Garms well, but he was nonetheless friendly to me. From afar, I admired his professional manner and demeanor. He took himself seriously and expected you to be serious as well, and he seemed acutely aware of what was going on at the college.
As someone approaching retirement, he was still intent on keeping up with the latest in technology. He taught online courses and frequently made use of the training and assistance offered in the Learning Resource Center. He even introduced me to the so-called “flash drive,” the portable memory device that can hold more information that the outmoded and unwieldy floppy discs and looked much cooler in the process. He carried his with him everywhere.
The memory of Mike that stands out most vividly for me was his participation in a single committee meeting, whose primary purpose that day was to evaluate the merits of a colleague’s proposal. Whether the proposal was for funding or redirected time, I do not recall, but it was one that the presenter had a big stake in and clearly wanted (or needed) the committee’s approval.
But it was not to be. Mike tore into the proposal, taking it apart piece by piece. It was vague in this respect, insufficient in that, not well organized, focused, or coherent. If it meant to gain the support of a college-wide audience, it was a complete failure. Mike made these points in a series of rapid-fire questions directed at the proposal’s author. There was little or no defense.
The rest of committee was dumbfounded. Did Mike have a personal vendetta against the author? Was this merely a display of personal nastiness? Did Mike enjoy skewering this younger, tongue-tied applicant? It was a tense exchange, and no one in the room could counter Mike’s barrage of criticism. Finally, at a point when it appeared that the proposal had no hope of gaining support and that the goodwill in the room had been exhausted, Mike, with his warm but characteristically unnerving smile, announced that he had been dissecting the proposal only because he supported it and would like to see it succeed.
Like a last-minute reprieve on death row, this welcome news changed the atmosphere completely. It restored the good will and camaraderie of the group. We’re all in this together! Nevertheless, protocol must be followed and one’s argumentation must be flawless. It was a grandstanding performance on Mike’s part, no doubt, one in which he had thoroughly prepared for and one in which he had thoroughly enjoyed, but in the end, I believe, the proposal and the presenter were better for his efforts.