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

[Gerry Bello (gerrybello at hotmail.com)]

>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.
In a word... bullshit.

>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.
No... it hasnt.  just injunctive relief is up to the 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.
Glad you admitted that because you clearly dont know a damn thing.

>Does anyone know of any precedent
>for that?
Zehner v Alexander 1979 in the Commonwealth Courts of PA.  Concerns Wilson College  College, a school in a very similar situation to us.   The judge who ruled on the case is still alive


>Anyone out there with a legal background in this area?
yes.  I've done the research thanks.


>Anyone
>still  think there is any point is mobilizing pressure against the Board outside
>of  the lawsuit?
Yes... Full Spectrum Dominance is the way forward.


>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.
Execpt that the outfit as a whole is solvenent and the judge will have to weigh alumni potential contributions.

In Zenher V Alexander the  Judge unseated the board and gave Wilson college to the plaintiffs essentially.


>I realize I am throwing up lots of cold water today, but sometimes it's
>useful as a wake-up.
Thanks I prefer coffee.