[Alumni-chat] AB response to webinar

[Travis Sanford (travissanford at msn.com)]

>In a message dated 8/17/2007 11:35:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>alumni-chat_forum at antiochians.org writes:
>I wrote:
>"The  faculty lawsuit does not ask for damages, it asks for injunctive relief
>and  saying that is why they are not going to release their financials implies
>directly that evidence of mismanagement will reasonably be inferred by a
>judge  and jury. I know this is a standard reaction to a lawsuit but it just
>proves  they are reactining like a typical corporation rather than one inspired by
>a  mission."
>
>
>Sally wrote:
>Well, in order to get to a Jury Trial, (about the truth of facts and
>inferences based on such facts,) there are many hoops to jump through, and one  of
>those will be standing.  I doubt if Faculty and Staff have any  standing at all
>except for torts or damages to them collectively and  individually as a
>particular class of individuals impacted by the BoT  decision.  Can you find in Ohio
>Case Law any example where an organization  or business that has essentially
>declared bankruptcy has been ordered by a court  to continue operations for
>the welfare of anyone?  Can you find anything in  the Ohio Codes of Legislative
>Law that says this? -- no.  Ohio Law as with  other state's laws,  understands
>Boards of Directors or Trustees as having  a profound fiduciary
>responsibility to protect property assets of the  corporations, for profit and non-profit,
>for which they are responsible -- and  these laws thus empower such Boards to
>take actions to that end.
>
>We have large arguments in American Political History about what is called
>"American Exceptionalism" -- and how ideas stemming from such a belief
>frequently impact how we think about US actions and policy vis a vis the rest of  the
>world.  Perhaps there is an equally troublesome belief in something  called
>Antioch Exceptionalism,  that leads to beliefs that somehow we have  a mission
>that is outside normal non-profit corporate law.  Yes -- the  college does
>have a precious mission -- but among other things, it does not  overturn the laws
>of Ohio or the laws of gravity.
I did not say there would be an order to continue operations to benefit the faculty or the Alumni or even current students. What I said was that the faculty suit demands the University abide by their contract with the faculty and also, in the interim, asks for injunction against liquidation. The faculty may be the only ones (Union reps any comment?) who have standing because there contract may have been violated. The irreperable harm argument is essentially that if the U starts selling of assets or makes other moves to mothball the college the faculty will not be able to obtain relief, i.e. relief for the faculty is not getting to keep their jobs neccesarilly it is about having their contract rights enforced and keeping the assets together that those rights are tied to. If they prove that other less drastic means were available (e.g. massive alumni movement to keep college going) it won't matter if the U has so damaged the reputation of the College that it won't matter if the
faculty win or not.

This is not exceptionalism it is routine enforcement of a labour contract. I admitt to not knowing, or having the time to research the question of standing for the alumni to sue for various types of breach of duty. I am asking to know where the legal committee is on this. And so far Sally all you have to offer are statements that Ohio law and courts are mute on the issue. Well as you must admit there may be cases that are on point that don't pop up when you type "Trustees" "College" "Breach" into Google.