Date:	Thursday, 29 August, 1996
From:	Andrew Dinkelaker
Subject:	Board Restructuring and Presidental ??

IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR BOARD RESTRUCTURING:

The structrual issue is very simple. I really didn't need an hour or 15 mins to expain it (at the MA-BA residency), just an opportunity to rephrase the same idea over and over again until it hooks more people into wanting to address this very important issue. I will explain later why I consider the resolution of this issue to be central to Goddard's future as a democratic institution of progressive education.

Here it is ...the students who come to Goddard want to have the ability to determine their own educational needs and have the resources, which in this case would be the faculty (since there isn't much else), necessary to carry out their educational plans. The faculty want to have the power and ability to create academic programs in addition to developing learning environments that facilitate student growth and the development of strong and productive student - teacher relationships. Staff want to work within an organization where they can be themselves, be part of the governing of the college and their own workplace, and to organizationally relate to people as people and not as numbers and revenues. For both the faculty and staff having autonomy and a comfortable workplace compensates for the low pay that everyone receives. However, anything that any of these groups create in order to further these ends can be over-ridden, trashed, and modified beyond recognition by the current (and future) board, the current provost, and future president. The kicker is that if and when that happens, and it most certainly will, the students, faculty, and staff will have no other recourse to the decisions made but to challenge the president and board via protests, resignations, lawsuits, and outside pressure in order to have the board and president take into consideration the community's concerns and modify their actions. Who ultimately suffers throughout these struggles time after time are the students.

There is nothing in Goddard's organizational structure outside of relying upon the benevolence of those in power that would hold the president (provost) and board accountable to the values and concerns of the community, progressive education, and democracy.

IDENTIFYING DEMOCRATIC OPERATIONAL PROCESSES MISSING AT GODDARD:

However, rather than relying exclusively upon the force of the above argument let me outline some of the operational processes that are missing at Goddard that contributes to the continued cycle of authoritarian management, secrecy, and unaccountability .... We do not have open performance reviews for the position of president and other leadership positions at the college that would be community designed and contain criteria that measures collaborative abilities etc. Nor do we have community-wide performance reviews of the board as a whole and of individual board members. In addition, there isn't anything in place as a process that could be used to address and resolve problems that will arise between the community and the president - board. We don't have an outlined community grevience procedure that would ultimately end in arbitration or mediation as a final step. It has become the "accepted" management policy that finances and other information be held in secrecy along with any meetings where discussion of these matters takes place. (I am excluding of course material that would be considered confidential in the true sense of the word -- e.g. private personal information). We do not as an organization have a methodology for getting a "reading" on Goddard's organizational climate. In addition we do not have a methodology for evaluating on an annual basis the effectiveness of Goddard's leadership in fostering democratic participation, collaboration, and openness -- such a tool would draw out potential problems before they arise and become unmanageable. Finally, (though this list is not exhaustive) the organization has nothing structurally in place to hold the board and president accoutable for creating the above tools and policies and for using them to build Goddard as THE institution of higher education it can potentially become in the world of progressive education.

That took about five-to-seven minutes to explain the dynamics and structural issues involved. Take almost any question or concern that students (and community members) have about Goddard and feed it into the above loop and people will discover that the board - president can do whatever they want whenever they want if they so choose (as we discovered with Greene).

A QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP:

For the moment let us talk about democratic leadership, something that has not been a serious topic of open conversation and debate at Goddard. Mary Belenky (former board member) openly admitted that the board was not prepared (in 1992-3?) for initiating a presidential seach and bringing on the next president (which was Greene) primarily because the board did not debate or articulate what is democratic leadership nor did they understand the values of Goddard or the democatic leadership skills needed to push Goddard's development as a democratic and progressive institution. As a recent board member I would concur that this "unpreparedness" also applies to today's board as well. Since our experience with Greene aren't we now, as a community, interested in outlining a presidential job description and job criteria that could then be used to measure the performance of our future leader of their confidence, integrity, and democratic skills needed to lead without pain, coersion, and suffering -- in short, to lead without the powers of a dictator!!!

I say, don't we as a community already practice and use this kind of democratic leadership criteria at Goddard on a smaller more immediate level??? Aren't the students of the teacher education program who graduate with their credentials teach without becoming "rulers" -- without the use of coersion, spoon feeding materials to the students in their classroom?? Don't the psychologists and therapists who come out of Goddard use their skills to pay particular attention in how to facilitate growth and self understanding without dictating answers and prescribing solutions from a place of authority?? In many of Goddard's academic programs both the students and most of the faculty and staff already practice leadership without coersion and hierarchy. However, we haven't as a community tried to expand upon the principles and criteria we already evaluate ourselves with and apply them to Goddard as a whole -- to Goddard as an organization.

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP (PART TWO):

Though Goddard can boast of various programs that address (directly or indirectly) the issues of developing alternative communities and democratic learning environments which encourage self-determination, inclusion, and participation we UNFORTUNATELY do not have a permenant management or business program at Goddard. However, based on the short-lived(?) Goddard Business Institute I am sure that if a program were created at Goddard it would parallel the attitudes and concerns prevailing in the above mentioned academic programs. The field of management is typically more reactionary because of the corporate powers that it traditionally serves, but even so there are firmly established management practices coming out of the work of individuals like McGregor and more recently Block that parallel the attitudes of democracy, self-determination, collaborative learning, community building and other concerns that we already find in Goddard's other programs. The management program could then attract individuals concerned with organizational structures and processes that resonate with the above values and collectively draw upon the ideas and resources that contribute to the further development of this area (which is currently identified as the "cutting edge") in the management field. This could lead to having the program attract consultants and exemplars who practice democratic management and the building of community and self-determination within the workplace. Unfortunately, in the absense of such a group/program Goddard tends to use older organizational models, management principles, and consultants to address organizational and management problems. What we find is that through using such "outdated" material is akin to having teachers at Goddard (in say the absence of a progressive teacher-education program) draw upon the mainstream philosophy of education to develope and use the traditional tools and methodologies for teaching students via lectures, set program materials, exams, and a grading system. Sounds ridiculous and outdated as a form of teaching, but that is exactly how Goddard is dealing with its organizational problems!!!!

Much of the democratic learning and teaching happens IN SPITE OF what Goddard is structurally. Isn't it time for Goddard to be an organization that helps to facilitate these kinds of experiments in democratic leadership, teaching etc. rather than continually be an obstacle to that process??

IDENTIFYING AND TRANSFORMING THE "BENEVOLENT" DICTATORSHIP:

A recent movie came out starring Marlon Brando called THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU in which he plays a benevolent leader. Dr. Moreau has control of an island which is inhabited with "tiger people" who are the subjects (and the unfortunate results of his genetic experimentation) that the doctor holds in submission through the use of an electrical transmitter which upon the press of a button shocks any and all of his subjects. I ask if we want to continue to be like the tiger people hoping that the "good" doctor doesn't press the button causing pain beyond belief? If we break the "law" which is determined by the doctor, it's a pot-shot at whether the doctor, depending upon his mood, will set us free or execute us via forced resignations, purges, and firings. As long as the community focuses upon the benevolence of the person playing the "good" doctor (be it Brando or Val Kilmer) then the device transmitting the pain will always be availiable (and within reach) for the "good" doctor to use at his/her discretion.

After encountering Richard Greene aren't we interested in ending the pain and the doubt as to whether Goddard will survive through another "benevolent" leader?? Isn't it time that we dislodge the instrument of pain, the source of unbridled power, from the doctor's hand and work from there as a community??

Yes... I will conceed that Tim Pitkin was a charismatic leader but he subordinated his own charismatic activities to the principles of participatory democracy and kept alive the democratic principles at Goddard. The problem occurs when in contrast to this the charismatic leader formally and structurally takes the place of the democratic processes ending in a situation where the "leader" has unchallenged dictatorial powers to make unilaterial decisions without the community having any processes or opportunities for recourse for the bad and arbitrary decisions being made. I do not find anything wrong with charismatic people or leaders per say -the idea being that the community can utilize charismatic people and leaders WITHOUT THEM HAVING dictatorial powers.

However, in some sense we have the worst of both worlds. We have both an organizational structure that contributes to dictatorial powers and we do not have charismatic leaders that could instill a sense of purpose and direction towards democratic management. In the case of Jane Sanders, as the new Provost, we must be very careful as to what we want to have as an outcome. She is not a charismatic leader and the question of collaborating with her to reach some specific and immediate ends is insufficient to address the deeper structural issues that are at the heart of the problems we seek solutions to. INSTEAD, collaborating with Jane should entail changing the PROCESSES by which things are done. Right now Jane is giving you (Richard) the privilage to collaborate with her, she is giving you her time in order to hear out your concerns. However, when I was a board member that privilige was not extended to me (though it is the duty of the board chair to facilitate collaboration) even when I raised my ideas and concerns at the board meetings, in my letters to her, and in my newsletters. In fact, this behavour went as far as excluding me from important board matters including the drafting and voting of the Board Statement issued in early June. Those who are "allowed" to work, talk, and collaborate with Jane should use that opportunity to expand that "privilege" by creating democratic processes with her that would be introduced into the governance procedures in order to spread information and decision making powers across the community in a structural and operational way -- beyond the authority of one person or committee. Secondly, these opportunities should be utilized in order to work towards building an ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE which is different from the current climate of fear, secrecy, and autocratic managment to that of openness, accountability, trust, and democratic management.

To conclude, autocracy cannot be judged by examining one person and their actions. As it currently exists today Goddard is hierarchical and contributes to autocratic management practices and the concentration of unchallenged dictatorial powers to the executive committee on the Board of Trustees and to the position of the presidency. That structure and the powers therein outline an autocratic organization. Interestingly, as long as we have benevolent presidents and boards things at Goddard "appear" to run smoothly - democratically - and collaboratively, but this is merely an illusion. If we look at the history of Goddard's presidents especially during a time when things weren't going so well they exercised their power that came with the job to override the concerns of the community. Nine times out of ten these unilaterial decisions contributed to ... well the writing is on the wall. It couldn't have been any clearer in witnessing the partnership between President Greene and the Executive Committee on the Board to demonstrate just how much unchallenged power the president and board actually have -- that partnership of nearly two years was all it took to systematically change the heart and soul of Goddard. Jane Sanders, through being appointed Provost is simply inheriting a position that already has this kind of dictatorial power. Anybody who was on the board can describe how she used her power as Board Chair to set agendas and stifle debate -- determining what was negotiable and what was not. In this sense Jane is already on the authoritarian path because her position and her past board leadership behaviour latently contains those authoritarian powers and tendencies. As long as there isn't any conflict then her authoritarian tendencies will not manifest -- much like the gentle and caring behaviour the doctor demonstrated in some of the scenes in the movie. Under such conditions (of no-conflict) there "appears" to be an atmosphere of trust, team building, collaboration, and even democratic management. This type of false collaborative and democratic atmosphere Max Weber identified as "plebiscite democracy" where the authoritarian elements of an organization, society (or individual) are concealed. When a conflict arises in such an environment Jane has the option, according to the powers associated with her position, to override the concerns of the community and determine for herself what she thinks is the best thing to do. At that point it is becomes too late to challenge the issue or decision except through means of protest etc.

Let us examine how we can avoid this from happening again ....

back to top