|
July 2, 1996
On July 1st I turned in my letter of resignation as the student representative to the Goddard board of trustees. I did not do this out of a sense of futility or failure, but on ethical grounds. My resignation is a wake-up call to bring to their attention that I am disaffected with the process and attitudes of those in power who in my opinion are acting disingenuously and in an ethically questionable manner. As a strong advocate for bringing Goddard back on a progressive and democratic tract (as outlined in the mission statement and various governance documents) I have consistently met resistance in having these views effectively incorporated into the Board's resolutions. We must not lose sight of the fact that a core issue underlies the events and disputes taking place between, on the one hand, the college president, board president and some board members, and on the other hand, most of the faculty, staff and students at Goddard. The ISSUE is whether the college will operate according to democratic principles. Goddard College was originally established as a model of educational democracy where the founders "intentionally placed significant emphasis on the practice and theory of democracy in BOTH academic and operational affairs." As it currently stands, we have a Board of Trustees that is in not accountable to the Goddard community either operationally or structurally. The current governance documents do not outline criteria or a process that the community could use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Board or the president. Board members are nominated by other Board members through what could simply be called an "old' boys network." The community has no voice in choosing 20 out of the 25 board positions. The character, style, and beliefs, of board members tend to be self-perpetuating as a result of the fact that it is the old members who are choosing 80% of the new members. The two student representatives serve for 1 year terms in comparison with 5 year terms of non-elected members. The faculty and staff positions are for 3 years. Non-elected boards may not be atypical of other organizations (not-for profits or other non-progressive colleges) but Goddard's founders espoused a form of democracy that was not only representative but tended toward a participatory format in which consensus decision making played a large role. The Goddard Board, as it operates today constitutes a structural anomaly in a democratic paradigm of governance. In addition, Goddard has retained the "traditional" role of presidency with all the powers and duties contained therein. This in combination with an unaccountable board contributes to situations in which a select few can override the democratic processes that are outlined in the governance documents. Enclosed is the letter of resignation that I have sent to the President of the Board and other members.
Dear President of the Board of Trustees: At the June board meeting numerous community members (including faculty, college executive committee members, administrative staff, and students) made serious allegations regarding the conduct of the president of the college in managing fiscal affairs, personnel matters, and governance issues. Members of the community proposed to offer evidence to the board that in conducting the affairs of the college the president had intentionally deceived others with mis-information, had withheld significant fiscal (and other sorts of) information from committees and persons who had (in their official capacities in governance processes) the RIGHT to know such information, had acted in an autocratic and excessively uncollaborative manner (in flagrant disregard of the democratic intent of governance documents), and had acted vindictively. In short, it was alleged that his management of the college had not been in its best interest. It was also suggested that unless the board of trustees were to give serious consideration to these allegations (by establishing a thorough investigation, conducted by an independent and neutral third-party group) it could be considered complicit in any wrongdoing on the part of the president, as any wrongful actions that had been committed would thereby remain unremedied as a result of their inaction. The board could possibly, as a result, itself be considered guilty of:
The decision made by the board at the June meeting to hire a Provost and to re-institute a 'visiting trustee' committee, are decisions that do not address the concerns that were raised by the community, deflect attention from the real issues, and do nothing to remedy wrongs that were perpetrated in the name of the college, or to put the college back on (democratic) track. Greene is in the process of systematically dismantling Goddard as we know it. A majority of the present board members have been chosen under his watchful eye, and do not share the vision of the college's founders -- that democracy is an essential ingredient in progressive education. These members also do not reflect the spirit, wishes, or intent of the Goddard community. Unfortunately, they are not accountable to the community, as they are not elected by it. And in my opinion, president Greene has taken advantage of this structural anomaly in Goddard's governance processes to commandeer the college, and force it into a non-progressive 'corporate' direction, against the will of the community. Ironically, he has been able to do this, and to unilaterally wield excessive unchecked power (with drastic consequences), DESPITE the fact that he is merely one hired employee of the College! The board, of course, and its present leadership, is permitting this to happen. When I ran for the position of elected student trustee, I stated my intention to do whatever I could to strengthen and build upon Goddard's tradition of participatory democracy and progressive education. Nearly a year ago, long before the present situation in which the college is embroiled, I suggested to the Board that a performance appraisal of the president of the college be conducted, and that a process be designed for this purpose. I suggested that evaluation criteria be established (for both president AND board) and a methodology be designed for accurately assessing the effectiveness of both the president and the board in fulfilling the mission of the college articulated in the governance documents and accomplishing the goals outlined in the priorities plan. I argued that a principle criterion, by which the successful performance of a president and board might be judged, is the extent to which their activities foster the growth of participatory democracy in the administration and governance of the college. I also suggested at that time that a 'climate analysis' be conducted by neutral, outside interviewers, in confidentiality (to insure that views concerning the administration and governance of the college could be openly expressed without fear of retribution by the administration). Needless to say, my suggestions were ignored. And I now fear that the board has even further removed itself from any set of objective standards (or procedures) reflecting the original (democratic) intentions of the founders. I cannot, in good conscience, continue as a board member under these conditions, for to do so would be to contribute to the illusion that the college is presently being governed in a democratic, fair, effective, and fiscally sound manner. I hope that my resignation will act as a wake-up call to other members of the board who do have good intentions in respect of the future of democratic process at Goddard, and inspire them to reconsider their position, call for a thorough investigation of the matters raised by the community, an evaluation of the president's performance, and the establishment of governance processes at Goddard reflecting the guiding principle of participatory democracy. Sincerely,
 |
