Dear Barbara:

Many of us were originally buoyed by your arrival as Goddard's new president. Despite our very difficult and painful struggles with recent leadership at the College, and our ongoing assertion that the hierarchical structure of the College does not match its expressed values, we were hopeful that your enthusiastic leadership might help us turn an important corner in Goddard's history.

We are now concerned and discouraged by a number of actions that either expressly violate the intent of the governance document or implicitly ignore the democratic ideals upon which the College was founded.

In particular, three of these ideals of democracy might guide a discussion of our differences:

1. ...That a person who must live with the impact of a decision should have a part in making it.

The governance document clearly calls for the participation of the faculty "through active consultation" on "the organizational structure of the college, ...the appointment and promotion of administrative officers of the college... whenever those offices are created or become vacant ...."

Yet, we've seen the dismissal of the dean for academic affairs, the subsequent appointment of an interim dean, and an ongoing administrative restructuring, including the appointment of a registrar and a director of development and the continued employment of the interim Financial Officer without any consultation with the faculty. We receive an ex post facto announcement. This is unacceptable.

2. ...That the control and direction of democratic action lies in the situation, not outside of it.

We are an amazingly rich and talented learning community, deeply committed to the ideals of democratic living. We can bring an abundance of alternative perspectives to bear on any issue.

Yet, we've seen, in the recent contract dispute, a heavy administrative reliance on the faceless opinions of outsiders, lawyers and accrediting agencies, to make decisions which are more appropriately informed from within. We've seen student protest signs removed from the cafeteria and a significant, legitimate, learning opportunity denied those students. We've seen a task force created and charged with tasks that first and foremost belong within the purview of the faculty itself. These actions are inappropriate.

3. ...That open and honest communication is the bedrock prerequisite of the democratic way of life.

We don't have to agree. In fact, our collective learning and decision making is enhanced by varied opinions and approaches to an issue. But we insist that we speak with honesty and integrity when we place our ideas in the public forum and we encourage all those who want to become involved in the discussion to do so.

Yet, we've seen in your communications an indirectness, a reliance on euphemisms, and an obfuscating style that seems to continually shift the frame of reference for our conversations. In addition, attempts to silence views that dissent from your own agenda worry us greatly. This is not constructive.

We are concerned with an administrative style that does not honor the real meaning of the word -administer literally means "to serve" -- but which perpetuates the corporate connotation, twisting it to mean "to rule." We see an administration that is controlling, exclusionary, and proprietary. These leadership qualities have no place at Goddard College.

We believe that genuine authority comes from those we serve. Democracy is not an instrument to be used in selected situations from time to time; it is a philosophy -- a way of life. It cannot be taught here at Goddard unless it is lived by all parts of the College all of the time.

One last note. A most fundamental democratic ideal is faith in the individual and collective capacities of the people to create possibilities. We stand ready to work with you to take this College to another level of possibilities. We've been listening and watching and we are greatly concerned and discouraged. If you will recommit now to your earlier expressed obligation to the Board to spend your first few months listening, we believe we can resolve these differences.

We suggest that next Tuesday's meeting, be more than a list of presidential announcements. We propose the above concerns as an initial agenda. An open discussion of these issues can begin to move us toward the creation of a real democratic learning community.

Sincerely,

[Editor's Note: This letter was signed by 10 faculty.]