We were extremely disappointed in your statement of May 6, 1996 supporting the president without any consideration and discussion of the substantive issues we raised in our no confidence statement or any open communication with us about our concerns.

In this letter we respond to the information and issues you presented in your statement.

History

We do not dispute most of your recounting of the history prior to the arrival of the president, with one important exception: We do not agree that "FUNDAMENTAL educational and financial change would be necessary to move Goddard back to the cutting edge of progressive education and vigorous financial health." (emphasis added).

While continued efforts on both the educational and financial fronts were still required when the current president arrived in 1994, Goddard was already on a strong growth path for both enrollment and financial condition. What was needed, and what we thought the current president would bring, was:

• experienced management to develop the systems and personnel needed to control our costs and expand our revenues;

• substantially increased fundraising for the College;

• leadership to consolidate our educational gains and provide support for new initiatives and new directions in progressive education; and

• a conciliatory and cooperative management style to heal the rifts that had arisen under the previous president.

What we got, however, as described and documented in our no confidence statement, was a president who provided none of the above.

Unresponsiveness

We did not take this no confidence vote lightly. We raised these issues with the Board because we felt the relationship between the president and the community of students, faculty and staff had reached the point where the educational and financial future of the College was being jeopardized. We expected a response from you based on the issues and information presented in our

statement, or at least an invitation to sit down with you and discuss these serious concerns. Unfortunately we received neither. And when a faculty meeting with the Board chair was arranged, it was quickly canceled by the Executive Committee.

Your response to our statement did not deal with any of the substantive issues faced by the College that we described in our no confidence statement. Instead you wrote of principles of governance and ethics with which we have no major disagreement. Where we do have disagreement, apparently, given your support of the president, is over the president's behavior in regard to governance and ethics.

Governance

While individual faculty members, like individual Board members, may have their own views on governance, we as a faculty did not request in our no confidence statement or anywhere else that Goddard move away from "a policy making Board of trustees, a president, and an administrative structure to implement that policy." What we have sought through our diligent participation in the Governance Task Force is a more democratic, participative governance structure in line with the principles currently in the governance document endorsed by the Board in 1994. We suggest the Board discuss with the Board members on that task force whether the faculty representatives ever made a single proposal of any sort to move away from the Board, president, and administrative structure you describe in your response to our statement.

There are, however, important issues around the president's treatment of the governance system which were very much at the heart of our no confidence statement. Despite his claims to the contrary, the president has violated time and time again the letter and spirit of the governance document regarding democracy, collaboration, and shared authority, making many decisions unilaterally that the governance plan places in the purview of other individuals or groups. His contracting with Miller and Cook without allowing any consideration by the CEC of the very substantial financial and educational impacts of that decision is but the latest example of his total disrespect for governance procedures and roles.

One of the reasons that some in the community have raised the possibility of a differently constituted Board and a different sort of presidency is that it has become clear that if the president chooses to violate the governance plan, there is no recourse. In your unquestioning support of the president's violations of our governance system, the Board has joined with him in undercutting this document. If the Board is unwilling to hold the president to the terms of the governance agreement, then it means nothing.

Ethics

On the matter of ethics, we share your view entirely that we need to provide an exemplary learning and working environment, with open and honest communication, where every individual is treated with respect and behaves respectfully, and we stand prepared to have the Board systematically evaluate our actions and intentions, and those of the president, along these lines at any time.

We believe that such an evaluation would clearly demonstrate to you the president's pattern of unethical leadership, closed and dishonest communication, and disrespectful behavior towards others that has had and continues to have extremely deleterious impacts on the learning and working environment at the College. In fact, our concerns about the president's ethics are fundamental to our lack of confidence in his leadership.

We feel that such ethical oversight is very much a part of the Board's responsibility and that you must exercise that authority, and investigate the many examples of the president's abuse of people and processes that have been reported to you. Anything less serves to unintentionally condone such behavior.

Support without Rationale

In your response you did state that "The Board strongly supports him [the president] in these efforts and does not call for his resignation," but you provide no indication of just what "these efforts" are and what issues he has been addressing, no evidence whatsoever of his diligence, nor, of even more importance, of any success he has had with these and other issues since coming to the College.

Since you do not address our list of his failings of leadership, perhaps you could inform us of exactly what are the accomplishments of the president in the almost two years that he has-been at the College that merit your continuing and apparently total support of his leadership? And perhaps you can share with us what process and criteria you plan to use for his evaluation this Fall?

What's Really Crucial?

We have worked diligently on the "crucial areas of faculty work load, group study size, personnel evaluation, and potential budget cuts," and through the Academic Dean's regular reports we have consistently reported back to you on our progress in these areas. Within' the past three years, for instance, we have increased group study size by two-thirds (from an average of 6 to an average 10); instituted a more thorough and developmental faculty evaluation process, using the teaching portfolio; continually readjusted faculty workloads so we can more

effectively serve our students; and through the Deans and our representatives on the CEC agreed to appropriate adjustments in the academic budget. The instructional budget was reduced by 7% from 199596 at a time when all other major expenditure areas were increased (including a 21% increase in administrative overhead -- institutional support).

We are prepared to share more of our thoughts and proposals with the Board on these matters and are disappointed that apparently there will be no opportunity for such a discussion until June 13, prior to your next Board meeting. We hope that that meeting will allow time for a frank discussion of the College's problems and an opportunity for us to present to you our analysis of the challenges we face and the steps we believe need to be taken to meet those challenges.

We feel, however, that the real "crucial areas" that need to be discussed run much deeper and wider than simply workload issues, and that these critical issues have not been addressed due to an almost complete breakdown in College-wide planning and coordination. These concerns include the need to:

1. Clarify our mission, vision, objectives, and refine our educational, organizational, and financial strategies,

2. Continually improve and revitalize campus program curriculum and residential life experience,

3. Increase new student enrollment and student retention,

4. Strengthen fund raising, especially unrestricted giving and. endowments,

5. Support innovation and increase new program development,

6. Improve cost control and align expenditure priorities with goals,

7. Improve physical plant,

8. Restore effective college level policy making, planning and coordination,

9. Regain and strengthen college's financial stability, and

10. Build a democratic "learning" organization.

Next Steps

We feel strongly that we need to address these broader issues strategically, decisively, and soon. The College financial situation has deteriorated badly, there is no sign that the ill-advised Miller and Cook strategy to increase new student

enrollment is working, the drop in the morale of the current student body has interfered with the "academic program" this spring and raises concerns about increased student drop outs in the Fall, low employee morale has led to two more resignations, we have not heard of any substantial improvements in fund raising. Action is needed, now.

We feel, furthermore, that changes in programs and personnel, as there inevitably will be and should be as the College evolves, must be made through legitimate and established processes -- processes based on the principles of fair personnel practice and democratic participation in decision-making as described in the Governance Document. The Board's concern for change must respect the importance of these processes and not operate on the premise that the ends justify the means.

Finally we share your concerns about collaboration and finding common ground (we wrote to you last January about these very concerns) and we request, once more, that the Board take action to help reunify the College. In January we sought reunification through mediation and outside consultant support; now, we feel that reunification can best be achieved through new leadership. We stand ready to work with the Board on providing that leadership and addressing the crucial issues faced by the College.

back to top