June 12, 1996, you wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>I was very troubled to hear of your resignation from the board, and I hope
>that you will reconsider and rescind it as soon as possible. I share the
>concerns that you express in your letter, and after the meeting I too felt
>like resigning, but the more I have learned about the intent of the visiting
>committee and the provost position, the more I am convinced that this is a
>genuine effort to respond to the community's concerns and to move Greene
>out as quickly as possible. Those aware of and concerned about the damage
>that Greene is doing had to deal with the political realities of the
>situation. I think that Jane at this point is trying to do the right thing,
>and she needs our support.
>
>It may come down to a phone vote or a special meeting to vote on firing
>Greene, and the off-campus students deserve to have a vote in that process.
>I hope you can put your past conflicts with Jane aside, and hang in there
>through the summer. First we have to get rid of Greene; then we can deal
>with the important issues re restructuring our governance system. If your
>resignation has not yet been officially accepted, I think you can still
>rescind it.
>
>Please call me if you'd like to talk about any of this.
>
>Steve Schapiro
>

--------------------------- Here is my response to your letter.

At the June Board Meeting we passed by consent the formation of the "Visiting Trustee Committee." This was created to build a stronger rapport between the board and the Goddard community. The charge was given to this group that they would determine the academic impact that the President's Budget will have on Goddard and to work collaboratively with the President in creating a provost position -- determining the job description of the provost, outlining a search process, etc. The intentions of this committee as discussed in the Board meeting did not mention or indicate anything about investigating the charges brought forth against the President or with doing a performance appraisal of the President. Rather the committee will assess whether the implementation of the President's academic restructuring and budget that the Board passed will make any sense. In other words this is a committee designed to contain the problems associated with these policies -- damage control. I consider the following statement you made to be a big IF and not based on any past board behavior that would justify your hope that -- "the more I have learned about the intent of the visiting committee and the provost position, the more I am convinced that this is a genuine effort to respond to the community's concerns and to move Greene out as quickly as possible."

However, let me assume that you have reason to believe that you are accurate in your assessment. Why is it then that this is done in secrecy? You know my positions regarding President Greene, the budget, and any administrative restructuring regarding the position of the president and the function of the board of trustees -- yet I am left in the dark and only counted as a vote for whatever agenda you or others may have in mind. Why is that? Why isn't the trustee committee coming out with a public statement that indicates that they are investigating the charges brought against Greene etc.? In addition, this committee has not disclosed to the community (or the rest of the board) the criteria being used to assess the situation, a "impartial" methodology that would be developed for the purpose of collecting information in a systematic way, or a timeline as to when the committee will reach a conclusion regarding these matters. If and when the committee does make recommendations it is not known how this will be acted upon by the full board. If what you say is true that the committee is looking into these matters but doing so in a covert way you are entering very dangerous and essentially non-democratic waters. In addition, this committee like the board is not accountable to the community either structurally or operationally so that when the committee goes off-course like the board what are we going to do protest that too??

Secondly, I find it naive of you when you place your faith in Jane Sanders for getting rid of Greene and responding to the community's concerns. In the past five years there has been nothing in her history as a board member that would indicate that she would move in this direction. Her term as a board member expires in only three months. Since it has taken nearly two years to force Jane in a position to do what you consider to be "the right thing" she does not have the integrity to stand up against Greene and fight for his dismissal so late in her term. Why would she want to fuck around with this and stir up more press coverage, calling attention to herself so late in the game especially when she has a political campaign to run -- a campaign that has become all the more difficult since a Democrat entered the race.

To say that I have personal conflicts with Jane indicates to me that you do not understand my reasons for resigning. In addition, Jane's actions calls into question her character. The statements she has made in public and in the papers do not prove to be progressive, democratic, or accountable. Instead, these statements in combination with her behavior on the Board as Board Chair strengthens the conclusion that Jane is manipulative and operates in a highly "political" and autocratic manner. How can you place faith in Jane's back room promises in regards to getting rid of Greene and renegotiating the academic structure and governance of the college when she has publicly made the statement over and over again that these two things are "nonnegotiable" items? To say one thing in public and come back saying something completely different behind closed doors is not a virtue that I wish to enable or want to endorse as the "political reality" of the situation. I suggest that you call Larry Kressley and ask as to why he resigned from the board. Call Frank Adams and ask what his assessment of Jane and the board is. Call David Dellinger and ask him how Jane has responded to his concerns.

By placing faith in the visiting trustee committee, the provost position, and a "special meeting" to vote on firing Greene you are giving time for Jane to politically maneuver out of the picture while you are left "spinning your wheels" waiting for something to happen. Since the trustee committee, provost position, and the possible dismissal of Greene does not directly address the structural anomaly of the Board of Trustees then I am afraid that Goddard will not be able to adequately develop a thorough process to: obtain the resources to buy out the President's contract and/or pay for the newly created position of Provost, recover from the drop in admissions this fall that will undoubtedly continue into the spring, reverse the downward spiral of fundraising and development, or move the college back on the "democratic" track.

The changes that will come forth from the "Visiting Trustee Committee", though a step in the right direction, will not be enough to bolster academic confidence on the part of the students, financial confidence on the part of donors or foundations, or organizational confidence on the part of the 16 who were laid-off and those employees who remain at the college. Given the state of our programs today in combination with low morale, lack of substantive resources, virtually no endowment, etc. I do not see a plan that will address how to retain our current students and attract prospective students.

A number of people are in denial about the situation at Goddard, I consider first and foremost among these to be the Board of Trustees. To place faith in fellow board members to carry this institution through this current situation is dangerous. The stormy seas of autocracy, financial mismanagement, and unethical and possibly illegal behavior originates from the Board and the President of the college. By the design of the system the president and board members are compelled to do such things. Making back room deals, stonewalling the community, and operating "politically" is not what I came to Goddard for and I cannot ethically participate with such actions.

To organize, we must do so in a manner that is consistent with the ends we wish to achieve. I hope that you reconsider your position on these issues and take the challenge .... I will leave you with a quote that I included in my last newsletter to off-campus students:

"The conflict as it concerns the democracy to which our history commits us is within our own institutions and attitudes. It can be won only by extending the application of democratic methods... in the task of making our own politics, industry, education, our culture generally, a servant and an evolving manifestation of democratic ideas .... If there is one conclusion to which human experience unmistakably points it is that democratic ends demand democratic methods for their realization." -- John Dewey, 1939.

Sincerely,
Andrew Dinkelaker

back to top