Dear Colleagues,

There are several issues I would like to discuss in my attempt to learn the historic nature of Goddard's current conflict. Watching the Board over the years, and listening to individual members tell their own perspectives as trustees, I discover with apprehension an operational structure framing the Board and its president with governance through expertise. This familiar approach to business management is in opposition to the model of governance through committee historically practiced by our academic campus community.

The polarity of these two management styles over many years has created a cycle of conflicts for a series of presidents, including Richard Greene. There are those of us who find the solution to these conflicts through homogenizing the style across the institution, either through expertise from the top down, or the reverse perspective through committee, from the bottom up.

Today, we are in a stalemate across the entire institution. Goddard is too fragile, both economically and historically to withstand a clean sweep for expertise sake: On the other hand, governance through committee as interpreted by many trustees and the president only compounds our crisis and the inability to move forward, and will fail to ensure the security of the college. What do we do?

I'm not convinced that the solution to our immediate problem of institutional collaboration is an either/or situation. The heterogeneous structures operating at Goddard inherently generates conflict making for an environment that is both very creative and high maintenance. The destructive situation I currently see isn't only the result of opposing models, but is also the corruption of the structures involved. The symptoms of this dysfunction is evident in the restrictive, non-communicative, and isolate nature of each operative element.

The cause of this structural undermining stems from the unfortunate reactions the Board has taken to protect itself and its president from the conflicts between itself and the rest of the Goddard community. The structural malaise is also the result of the divergent philosophies emerging from this protectionism. I believe it is in the means to embodying Goddard's philosophy, and not the ends, where we have lost our vision and structural integrity. Where do we begin?

Areas that I see important to address before any focus can be institutionally clarified include the current restrictive nature and inaccuracy of information, the dire quality of communication, the manipulation of shared and delegated authority, conflicts of interest, and the destructive boundaries created to ensure protection instead of results. Without acknowledging these abusive structures, we will continue to repeat the cycles of conflict, pointing blame, asking for resignations instead of retraining.

I would appreciate any additional perspectives. I look forward to our immediate Board meeting for furthering a discussion on these issues.

Sincerely
Stu Bautz

CC : The Full Community
enc: Tape of Goddard Rally and View Book