As a constituent member to the Board of Trustees, I was asked, in the aftermath to the last Board meeting in July, to distribute a clarifying communication from the Board chair that described the newly passed resolution for an external reconsideration of the resident undergraduate program as "full, fair, and democratic." In my estimation, this is a mischaracterization. There has been nothing full, fair or democratic about this resolution. This proposal and the clarification which followed are symptoms of a Board no longer worthy of the label "trustee." I do not question the motivation of some Board members to do what they think is best for the College (although that "best" is often considered "better" than what those who live Goddard everyday might think), but they can never do so when Board structure, philosophy, and actions are themselves less than "full, fair, and democratic." I do realize the legal and fiduciary power which this Board holds over the College community, but I do not have any confidence that it can any longer exercise any moral authority here. In this letter, I propose to explain why and how the Board's structure, philosophy, and operation are misconstrued and wrong-headed (by example of this one resolution and of the Board's stance in general), what I suggest as solutions, and what I personally plan as a response.

• How can a Board be labeled "trustee" when it cannot engender any confidence or trust in its structure, philosophy, or actions within the community it purports to serve?

• How can a Board call for "innovation" within the College when it is unwilling to examine its own structure and operation for opportunities to be innovative in line with the intended mission of the College?

• How can a Board make healthy decisions on behalf of a College about which it has such a limited and biased understanding, based primarily on the word of a President who is equally ill-informed?

• How can a Board show external pride in a system of constituent representation when it internally employs this system so poorly, condescendingly making feeble attempts at consensus building and then simply overriding that representation?

The resolution for a process to reconsider the resident undergraduate program was hardly a "full" process, How can it be considered "full" when the structure of the Board itself is more like that of a private club than a Board of Trustees?

Constituent representation on the Board is touted by leadership as a source of pride, when it is really tokenism at its most detrimental. Representation by constituent members, those most in touch with what's going on at the College, is routinely ignored, discounted and demeaned; it is seldom a cause for open and honest dialogue, but rather strategic dismissal. Recent votes show dissension and abstention by student, staff and faculty constituent members against the overwhelming odds of at-large members.

Yet, these at-large members have no one to whom they are accountable. As a representative, I must answer to the faculty for my stance. To whom do at-large members answer? To whom are they accountable? Why should at-large membership be for longer terms than constituent membership? How "full" is it that new at-large members are recruited and selected by the at-large dominated membership itself? How did it come to pass that the "ability to give" has become the primary criterion for membership (thus making constituent membership even less significant)? How "full" is it that constituent members are denied membership on the Finance and Personnel Committee without even a vote of the entire membership? Is it any wonder that the Board is viewed by the rest of the College community as a "private club"? Where can be the trust in such an unaccountable, self serving structure?

Goddard has built its reputation upon the premise that the democratic way of life must establish alternatives to the status quo -- that innovation must spring from a critical and even radical response to what is not working in our dominant culture. Goddard's reputation is that of a counter-cultural learning experiment. Where is the radical innovation in the structure of this Board? We receive notice of proposed changes in Board by-laws that are little more than self-serving tinkering.

At the risk of being once more publicly acknowledged but essentially ignored, I propose that the Board consider reconstituting itself with an equal number of at-large and constituent members. Wouldn't this give us a better chance to return to our radical, democratic roots, than our current structure that everyday leans more toward the conservative, corporate-style, power-concentrating guidelines of the Association of Governing Boards? How can the Board expect the College to reclaim a leadership role in progressive education when it is not willing to risk its own "private club" structure?

Short of this (because I do not believe this Board has the foresight or courage to take such bold steps), why not at least recommit to an honorable and authentic attempt at consensus-building as suggested in our governance principles?

The resolution for a process to reconsider the resident undergraduate program was hardly a "fair" process. How can this process be "fair" when it is being imposed upon the community by the Board?

How can it be considered "fair" when the Board has neglected to publicly address issues about Dr. Mossberg's questionable management of the College: two ill-cast budgets in two years; incredible turnover in senior administrators; repeated attempts to inappropriately control the flow of information; ongoing violations of current governance policy (Faculty approval for new programs was never sought.); regular absenteeism from such functions as community meetings and graduations; misinformation shared with the Board; ongoing lack of a chief academic officer; and ongoing misunderstanding and misrepresentation of educational programs ( The first annual review of programs was not even shared with the Board)? How can any such process to redefine the campus program be considered "fair" when those who are most directly impacted by any ultimate decision in this regard, have already been so disempowered and demoralized by impostor leadership. How can this be a "fair" process when the administration's CFO has already declared the campus program to be "not viable" before the process even begins? (Why not release the "data" and the assumptions upon which this conclusion has been drawn?) I wonder how one powerful person's inability to interact effectively with the vast majority of community members can become the primary reason to plot a program's elimination?

The members of this community do not need to be "right" or to always have our own way. But we do need to be part of the decision-making process -- not just informed of the decision ex post facto (as is currently the case), and not just consulted during the inquiry in a transparent attempt at responsiveness, but an actual and active "fair" part of the actual decision-making. When a resolution is just a guise of "due process" for what is essentially the preplanned elimination of the campus program, then we must resist it.

The Board needs to reconsider its resolution from the July Board meeting. First, it needs to initiate an inquiry ending in a formal response to the two previous reports and their recommendations. Then it needs to actively seek input from the community on the need for any further process that might determine the future of the residential undergraduate program.

The resolution for a process to reconsider the resident undergraduate program was hardly a "democratic" process. How can it be termed "democratic" when such philosophical differences between the Board/Administration and the faculty, staff and student body have not been effectively broached or reconciled?

I still believe that at-large and constituent members of the Board can probably agree on 80% of the goals for the College. However, this is irrelevant unless we can also agree on the process to reach these goals. As anyone who has read and grasped the meaning of John Dewey knows, democratic process is the goal. He was talking about direct democracy. This is important to reiterate in a dominant culture where "results" are lauded above all else; where daily we witness examples of ends justifying the means. It is necessary to remember our counter-cultural role as an alternative College and to argue for sound, democratic process "uber alles." Even a so-called "correct" decision cannot be considered a "good" one if the process is not "democratic." That is a foundational element of progressive education that we must not cast aside.

It is common for the term democracy to be demeaned today (even by current members of this Board). There is talk of "different kinds of democracy." But all notions of democracy rest upon the principles of a small community governing itself -- directly. "Representative democracy" can only work as an extension of direct participation. And the fashionable, yet oxymoronic term "market democracy" must be challenged as a convenient but sly attempt to confuse the goals of capitalism with grass roots selfgovernance. We, as a College at all levels, must remain a responsible leader in the local, national, and global "pro-democracy" movement. That is the root purpose of our existence. We must not let the instrumental and limited definitions of democracy proffered by our leadership obscure our efforts at good democratic process.

How can this be a "democratic" process to recast the campus program when the proposal was "sprung upon" constituent members (by a Board chair who claims to not want any surprises) not allowing us time to present it to and collect feedback from our respective groups? How can this be a "democratic" process from a Board that allows legal and fiscal concerns to take precedence over academic ones? (There was once a time when Board meetings were dominated by spirited and focused discussions of progressive educational policy and practice.) How can this be a "democratic" process from an administration that trusts the advice of lawyers and outsiders over the opinions of its own employees and students? Can this be a "democratic" process by a Board that offered no formal response to The Whole Student Task Force or The Evaluation and Redesign Committee reports on the viability of the campus program (In fact, the Board never even asked why the President had omitted certain recommendations from one of these reports)? How can this possibly be a "democratic" process from a Board and administration that is actively

engaged in a unilateral revision of the College's mission statement? And how can this be a "democratic" process from a Board whose at-large membership (to my knowledge) has never asked for or received a copy of the current governance document? (I include the preamble and list of principles with this letter.)

The Board needs to reaffirm its commitment to the spirit and the letter of the mission statement, to reimmerse and educate its membership and leadership in the principles of democracy. In my view, until it does so, this Board has lost its way and can exercise no moral authority or expect any confidence or trust from me in my role as a faculty member and officer of the College.

As for me, I hereby resign my membership on a Board of Trustees that is so misnamed. My efficacy was severely limited by the structure of the Board even before my election was questioned or my contributions discounted. I see no reason to continue until the Board can reform itself. I will recommend to the faculty and to other constituent groups that we not send representatives to the Board meetings until such time as real structural, philosophical, and operational reforms are made. This will give the Board less to falsely "brag" about its constituent membership and may at least force it to become more honest in its awareness of the limitations of the current format. I will work tirelessly to develop and establish other alternative structures within the faculty and the rest of the College which are more "full, fair and democratic," and which can serve as examples for the Board.

Also, I choose to boycott the meetings of any such examination of the College's campus program because I now understand Dr. Mossberg's latest term "due process" to be code for "I decide." It may indeed be a good idea to receive the thinking of others on the future of this program so integral to the purpose of this College, but I have no faith, based upon two years experience and the more than inadequate response to internal reports, that this President can carry it out in an open and honest way. I will urge others to also boycott such a bogus process. Instead, I will work toward a fair and open internal hearing of the previously issued reports and an effort to have the Board read and respond before initiating any further process about the campus program.

Regretfully, I will immediately initiate a process to inform NEASC, our accrediting agency, of the numerous violations by this administration of our governance system and of standards for academic programs. I will seek support from the faculty for the drafting and issuance of a letter of concern. I do not take such action lightly. I feel the Board has been irresponsible in its awareness of and adherence to these standards and criteria for new programs. (Who among the at-large members even has a copy of these standards?)

Finally, I am overdue for, what I feel is, a well-earned sabbatical. And my contract is up for renewal next year, so I will need to spend some time compiling my reappointment portfolio. I also have a busy year ahead leading the effort to have our teacher education program reapproved by the State of Vermont. I have also been asked to write a chapter for a book on curriculum integration in higher education. (Yes, Dr. Mossberg, there is faculty expertise on this topic here at Goddard. If only you would ask.) And, of course, I will give my usual best effort to the work I love most -learning with my students. I have no illusions that I will ultimately receive that sabbatical in due course or that my contract will be renewed without incident, but I will not allow myself to be caught in the bind of the six faculty members currently without contracts. Such actions are, in my view, both illegal and unconscionable. So, I will begin searching for other employment at the same time. I deeply regret this decision. I will not easily give up this fight for democratic governance at all levels of Goddard which must complement our endeavors at democratic learning and teaching.

The current situation cannot stand. Nor can the future of the College within it.

To galvanize my view on the current untenable situation between the President / the Board and the rest of the College community, I offer a short excerpt from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." (I intend no direct comparisons between any Goddard individuals and those noted in the letter, but wish to emphasize the situational comparison.)

We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything that the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws. I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First I confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is devoted more to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Submitted with substantial frustration and deep concern,

Ken Bergstrom
Former Faculty Representative to the Goddard College Board of Trustees

back to top