[Alumni-chat] [SaveAntioch] Has the Lawsuit preempted alumni efforts

[ccary60 (ccary60 at gmail.com)]

The Development Office (actually the Office of Advancement now) is a College office, not a University Office.  The current Director of Advancement reports to the College President.  The only cross over function is the director of research who also does some research for other campuses. One third of this salary is paid by the University, unless that has changed since I left a year ago.  

Most Antiochians I know aren't the "sit around and see what the judge has to say" types and since there are a number of alumni who are lawyers, I would also say that the ones I know also aren't going to calmy accept an unfavorable ruling either.  The faculty are actually the only group with any legal standing to file a suit because of their contractual relationship to the institution as approved by the BoT through the Faculty Personnel Policies.  I believe the cold water came a couple of months ago and, thankfully, many folks did finally wake up!  


Callie  

>In a message dated 8/16/2007 7:50:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>tedgoertzel at gmail.com writes:
>
>I'm  sorry we didn't get to hear the WEB presentation because of the lawsuit.
>It seems like an excuse but that is the kind of advice lawyers usually
>give.  I am sure the Board will also decline to talk about finances or the
>reasons for closing at the Aug 25 meeting.  They will want to limit  discussion to
>visions for 2012.  People may use the occasion to make  arguments or ventilate
>against the Board, but they won't be under any pressure  to respond.  What the
>lawsuit seems to have done is cut off any  possibility of a political
>decision and left everything up to a judge.   All we can do, apparently, is wait and
>see what comes out of the  lawsuit.  This may end up being a good thing
>because once the judge rules  everyone will accept the ruling even if they don't
>like it.  It is hard  for me to imagine a judge ruling that the Board has to keep
>the college open,  but I am not a lawyer.  Does anyone know of any precedent
>for that?   Anyone out there with a legal background in this area?  Anyone
>still  think there is any point is mobilizing pressure against the Board outside
>of  the lawsuit?
>
>
>
>Ted, I expect the faculty suit will be settled with an agreement on some
>sort of severance package.  The harm done to the faculty is essentially  loss of
>economic security and perhaps career or professional damages.  But  it is hard
>to argue that an organization operating at a deficit over a number of  years
>should continue to operate so as to acquire an even greater deficit, as a
>means of contributing to employees economic security and well being.   Non-Profit
>Corporate Law makes the trustees of a non profit the fiduciaries for  that
>organization, and if the BoT can demonstrate during what ever kind of
>discovery/hearing process is required, that they made a reasonable business  decision
>given the facts at their disposal and the consultants they employed to  advise
>them, the argument that one should stay open and pile up more debt will  not
>get much sympathy from any judge.  If the judge is sympathetic to the  faculty
>there may be pressure to negotiate a severance package as settlement --  and
>the BoT will have to weigh that against things like community good will,  costs
>of further litigation and all the rest.
>
>There are lots of instances in Ohio Labor Law ever since so  much
>manufacturing industry left Ohio of employees applying for injunctions  against closing a
>shop or business, and virtually all of them have failed.   So given that most
>judges follow precedent, I seriously doubt any injunction  will be issued.
>>From what I can tell the Ohio Appeals courts have never  overturned such a
>lower court decision on injunctive relief.  So if the BoT  wins that argument,
>they will actually have something they don't have now, and  that is case-law
>legal approval of their decision to suspend operations on  purely business
>arguments.  Since the BoT under state law has the fiduciary  responsibility to
>protect the property assets of the institution they serve,  this Faculty action
>promises to put BoT in even firmer control of  those assets.  If in the end the
>BoT negotiates a severance package, it  will probably tack on sealing the court
>records and non-disclosure agreements as  the price for participating in
>severance.  So no one will really know what  happened.
>
>Does anyone other than Faculty likely have standing?  I rather doubt  it.
>The University has promised degree completion opportunities in other  units of
>Antioch U to students who want that option, and they are offering  transfer
>assistance.  I think that probably will be considered meeting  obligations to
>current students.  The Alumni Board might have some  approaches to legal action,
>though not necessarily to keeping the current  college open.  I think they
>might find favor in the courts if they sought  to preserve the endowment for the
>future college if it looks like the University  is messing with it.  But to do
>that, they would have to be a separate  corporate entity from the University,
>and right now they are more or less an  advisory committee to the Development
>Office.  And the Development  Office is part of the University.
>
>I realize I am throwing up lots of cold water today, but sometimes it's
>useful as a wake-up.
>
>
>
>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour