| ||
|
the logic of taking a professional consulting firm and jamming their strategy into
a couple of months. Is this what Lucy Ann Geiseleman [current Board of Trustee] meant
when she suggested we take a look at the Miller & Cook firm? I don't believe it.
Had Miller & Cook been allowed the opportunity to present their final plan in writing, the CEC could have evaluated the long term planning implications, set a budget and endorsed the plan. The admissions and financial aid office could then have easily rallied around the wishes of the community. However you clearly stated on April 9th, at CEC, that the CEC has no jurisdiction in this area and the President has the power to hire consultants anytime he wants. You did point out that you would have to talk to the Executive Committee of the Board in order to get approval for the deficit spending necessary to pay for the Miller & Cook initiatives, yet Miller & Cook are arriving on campus April 10th to begin the implementation process? It is clear we are moving ahead with Miller & Cook (you have publicly said so, and Bill Miller himself told me that he was told by you that we are moving ahead). It is clear that their strategy has implications for the next two to three years on every aspect of financial aid and admissions. Your individual commitment to Miller & Cook makes a mockery of CEC, shared decision making, and collaboration. So as of April 10th, the admissions and financial aid staff will be working with consultants to implement a plan that has your endorsement, (yet it is not in writing), it has no identified funding source, it changes the priorities plan, changes the financial aid policy from need based aid to non-need based, creates parameters upon which preferential packaging will occur, has not been approved by the Executive Committee of the Board and according to you, is no business of CEC (the group charged with planning and budget responsibilities by the governance document). Then this morning, April 10th, you told my staff that you expected full cooperation with the changes as suggested by Miller & Cook. This is leadership? This implementation visit follows last week's meeting where you met with my entire staff and in a period of an hour and one-half completely demoralized the whole crew. In a nutshell you told us: 1. there will be changes, 2. you will decide what is implemented, 3. you can't
|
assure
anyone in the room of their position. This total lack of respect for the professionals in my
office is untolerable. I have worked for nine college presidents and have never seen such an
elitist and paternalistic attitude.
I do not know how your "panic" use of Miller & Cook holds any promise of success under t he current climate of fear that you have created. Unless of course you are using Miller & Cook as a way to simply purge the admissions and financial aid staff. Was this also what Lucy Ann Geiselman was suggesting when she asked you to explore Miller & Cook? I don't believe it. You inherited a college on the upswing. It was under Jackson Kytle that Goddard made the turn. Since your Presidency began that college has once again turned, however, in the wrong direction. You have systematically specialized in eliminating things here at Goddard: Travel for Academic Growth, the At the Source program, the Institute for Teaching and Learning, the Institute for Business and Democracy, Jim Galloway, Earl Thompson, Richard Weinberg, Alex Forbes, Emily Tanner and now you can scratch my name off your list. You are very good at what you do and I will have no part in it. Faculty Vote No-Confidence In Greene [The following statement was prepared by the faculty on 4/18/96. 1 quote it in full.] The faculty of Goddard College* vote no confidence in the president of the College, Richard Greene, and call for his resignation.
| |
