[Alumni-chat] AB response to webinar

[Travis Sanford (travissanford at msn.com)]

"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."

Sally, there are specific procedures in the contract to cover financial exigency and the faculty suit, in part, calls for the U to follow the terms of the contract. They U still has to abide the contract and their actions do not nullify the contract or their responsabilities under it. They can terminate employment but they have to do it in a legal manner and the essential argument is that the U has not. Your assumption of proper notification and following of procedure is exactly the question of fact that needs to be determined. The application of what area of the law applies is the question of law that needs to be determined. The faculty have every right to exercize this option and indeed would be foolish not to.

"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)!!!"

I may not be as informed as I think I am, but I believe the AB has been incorporated as a 501(c)(3) and such path is available.

"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."

And do you endorse this? Is it right to ignore the constituencies as they exist now because if you ignore them long enough they go away? Very progressive.

"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."

Good thing to! 5 decades from now? Fifty years ago did anyone think that the USSR would cease to exist in any way other than a massive war, possibly nuclear? Other than Sci-Fi predictions about the future, did anyone envision the incorporation, the neccesity of silicon wafers to the global economy? Sorry for the rhetoricals but the ability to see even five years into the future is difficult in the extreme (did you really believe the country would be engaged in an ongoing attempt at "nation building"?). The key to be success is to be open to change, be nimble, but be there. 

I guess Al's view is debatable. I sense mostly pique that he was not asked his opinion about any of this before it happened. He is just applying Machiavelli to Toni and Art's position, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you have to act like your right, refuse to consider alternatives and keep moving forward.