Nevertheless, my colleagues and I are concerned about the College's financial stability. The administrative turnover in the Business and Development Offices incites worry. The lack of meetings of the College Executive Committee to share the status of the current budget and to build next year's budget creates a sense of wariness. The inability of program directors to acquire an accounting of their current expenditures fosters a lack of trust. How can we be encouraged and supportive of the administration when there is no open flow of financial information? As a faculty we are used to tight fiscal constraints. This is part of the College's history and evidently its present situation, but we all wish it were better. We can be most helpful in tough times, if we are part of the decision making process. We have the experience and we know how to help.

The most troubling concern of the faculty, however, is the current lack of administrative leadership at Goddard. While we are maintaining the current status of programs with the guidance of the council of directors, there are a number of academic responsibilities that are not being addressed. The Academic Affairs Committee has experienced this leadership void in the inability to advance proposals for new initiatives. The Board's case statement has not received the needed review by academic entities due to a lack of leadership. And the faculty itself misses a coordination of programs as well as direction for discussion of program goals and faculty development. In short, we sense we are stuck academically. The faculty recognized that we were not moving in this vital area when it supported a pro-active proposal by the council of directors in December to elect a Dean of Academic Affairs from within the faculty (as has been our tradition for many years). How can the mission of the College progress without academic leadership? We need the support of the President and the Board to move ahead on this matter.

There has never been a shortage of new ideas among my colleagues during my time at Goddard. The College seems to attract those with vision and entrepreneurial skills. We have, however, been short on resources and infrastructure that can support such new initiatives. And we have not had a coherent, mission-focused curriculum vision through which to view and evaluate new, possible programs. How do we ensure that new initiatives are well-connected to the academic values of the College? How do we support new program initiatives that advance the mission of the College and grow it, not just for growth's sake (for we all understand the inherent advantage of the current size of the College's programs), but to rearticulate the notion of progress in progressive education? The faculty offers the Board (hopefully included in this Board packet) a redraft of our curriculum vision originally presented to the Board three years ago. Please dialogue with us about the viability of this vision. It is through a healthy exchange that we come to understand each others' perspectives and arrive at a common view.

As I noted in my Board report in October, I believe that open dissent is an expected and necessary part of a democratic process. If we all think alike we have little to learn from one another. I understand the Board's concern to project a kind of stable image for the College to the public. But to project this image at the cost of loss of different perspectives is not only unauthentic, but dangerous. If we don't invite the tensions among us to surface and be discussed, they will fester and eventually undermine the work we choose to do together. Perhaps another, more realistic image of stability is one where different perspectives can be valued and tensions are seen as healthy for they form a genuine basis for dialogue about the present and future status of the College.

One area where the faculty is eager to express its point of view is in the overdue evaluation of our current administration. We know how valuable regular student feedback is to our growth and development as teachers. The evaluation of the President, an event promised by the Board to the Search Committee as an integral part of the hiring process, could be of inestimable value to a new leader. But the longer we wait for a legitimate vehicle, the greater the frustration with our current lack of process to offer useful and constructive ideas. No, we are not very satisfied with how this administration is proceeding and wish to have our voices heard in this regard.. But we are even more worried that the delay in this evaluation is setting us up for one more discounting of the faculty's opinion by "that obstructionist body that cannot accept any kind of authority or leadership." How will feedback on the President's performance be sought and in what light will it be received, assessed, and used in setting performance goals?

Unfortunately, the faculty and the Board have as negative a history with one another as has the faculty has with its past presidents. It has been a rocky relationship, to say the least. We don't always disagree on goals, but almost always on how to achieve them. And our lack of opportunities to dialogue on a regular basis has been noted by many a Board chair as a problem to be overcome. This is a structural problem when

the flow of information is almost unilaterally controlled by the President's Office. Certainly, this office deserves to know about our communications, but the conversations between us need to be frank and uncensored. We need to come to know and respect each other, the Board and the faculty, as participants in the same worthwhile endeavor.

To this end, I want to propose a joint retreat for a day preceding the June Board meeting. Goddard College is ready to move -- to continue the journey. The most recent five-year strategic plan has elapsed. The College has emerged poised from a future search. The Board has reinvigorated the College with its commitment to fund raising. The administration is seeking stability upon which to build. The staff is waiting to be reinspired. The faculty has a solid, mission-focused curriculum vision. And the students, enrollees and prospectives, are seeking innovative and recrafted opportunities for learning. With the focus for the June Board meeting on the academic affairs, how might the faculty and members of the Board come together in a series of structured discussions about the foundational readiness for the next academic iteration of the College? I would be willing to take on much of the organizational work. I would seek teams of students to facilitate these conversations. We can entrust the challenge of collaboratively designing appropriate questions to our President. The secondary goal of this event would be simply to come to know one another better -- "to get on the same page" -- and to pool our collective energies without structural impediments. We await your favorable response.

There are a few other concerns that have been expressed to me by faculty colleagues that I share here with you:

• What is the status of the request for an off-campus faculty representative to the Board of trustees?

• How might the Board charge the College to craft a plan to increase the level of diversity, among faculty and students, in all of our programs?

• How might the Board initiate a full review of and response to the events within Admissions over the last few years? (There is still no catalog. Staff morale is poor. Admissions standards remain problematic. The department is understaffed.)

back to top