[Alumni-chat] AB response to webinar

Sun Aug 19 16:46:18 EDT 2007

>In a message dated 8/19/2007 9:56:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>alumni-chat_forum at antiochians.org writes:
>
>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.
>
>
>
>The contract you speak of is about the exchange of instructional services
>for negotiated salary and other benefits.  With the college closing as of  July
>1, 2008 -- accepting no new students, graduating those they can, and then
>offering others assistance in transferring out -- the BoT has nullified the need
>for any instructional services.  In addition, they have declared a  financial
>status that is very similar to bankruptcy, and the labor laws of Ohio
>regarding an organization in financial extremis apply with perhaps a few
>modifications.  They have declared an interest in reorganization, and  possible
>re-opening after a period of very significant reform.  They, the  BoT is saying, we
>don't know what the future College might look like, how it  will be organized,
>but for the immediate future we do not need any instructional  services,
>because we will not have any students for the next few years.   Assuming that proper
>notification is given, transition services provided and all  -- I am just
>saying I can't find any Ohio Case Law that supports injunctive  relief in a
>situation such as this.
>
>I do believe if the Alumni Board were organized independent of the
>University, they might (emphasis on might) find more favor with the matter of
>preserving assets, largely because many of those assets (both fabric and  endowment),
>were originally contributed by Alumni, through campaigns organized  by and
>among alumni for the purpose of improving the college, or in the case of
>scholarship funds, assisting students wishing to attend Antioch.  It might  be a
>stretch -- but I could see courts approving time limited plans about  sequestering
>and preserving assets based on announced plans to reorganize and  reopen.  It
>might not even need a court -- such an agreement between the  BoT and an
>independent Alumni Foundation might be mutually beneficial and  possible.  (but
>get it in writing)!!!
>
>Beyond this, I find much of interest in Al Guskin's memo posted here.
>First, it seems apparent that not a whole lot of thought was put into the
>framework for building a re-organization plan, he sees this, and is advising  that an
>independent entity study and in fairly short order recommend a work plan  for
>actually doing the hard work of preparing a reorganization model.  It  seems
>to me he is saying take this seriously, it is not something that gets done  on
>the fly, you are not, once you close, responding to an immediate  crisis.
>Recognize that you don't have such a framework, get serious about  creating one.
>But he is also saying don't get tied down in serving  constituency groups as
>they stand now.  After all, one thing reorganization  accomplishes is to
>reorder constituencies, -- it creates new ones, and changes  the nature of old
>ones.
>
>Second, I see precious little in Guskin's memo, or in most of what is being
>posted to the forums regarding the likely or possibly even predictable
>structure  of Higher Education in the next let's say five decades or so.  Where in
>the  vast scope of that landscape is the place for a progressive, relatively
>small  Liberal Arts College?  What is the potential constituency for it?   What
>are the economic constraints and possible economic leverage such a College
>might have?  What cultural trends need to be considered and accommodated in  any
>planning for Antioch 2.0?  What does new or emerging technology have to  offer
>that could make greater accomplishment possible and yet do things cheaper
>and with much greater efficiency?  I think the dominant tendency here to
>essentially cut out or eliminate any voices that recognize that the BoT does  have
>the power to close the College down for reorganization, works against any
>effort to consider changed conditions and "Futures" that don't correspond to
>ideologically driven causes.  "My Way or the Highway" eliminationist  thinking
>pretty much makes any advocacy of honestly creating an analysis  of problems, and
>planned change so as to re-focus, a no-no.
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Are you still talking?

Why are you still talking?

Quit complaining that nobody likes your ideas.  As I told thelma before she quit the forum (and started lurking and spreading lies only through private email), this is a place for organizing to keep Antioch open.

This is not a place for any of the following:

1) Visioning Antioch 2012

2) Creating a new Alumni Board (ie fostering a split so you can have your way)?

3) Lying... which is what you do every time you touch the keyboard

4) Basically anything you have to say.

Yes the dominant trend runs against you.  That is because this place has a purpose which you are actively working against.  Now please... go away.

Nobody likes your ideas because they are bad ideas.  It's criminal to sit silent and let people spew bullshit without challenge.