BOARDWATCH: THE STATEMENT
The Board of Trustees issued a Statement to the Goddard Community on May 6 that presented "shared values and beliefs held by the board." This is a curious introduction for several reasons. This document was written by the Executive Committee with only minimal consultation of the full Board. Reports indicate that at-large members that did support it had little knowledge of what has been occurring on campus this semester but chose to support the Statement rather than contradict the Executive Committee's wishes. Furthermore, there is an amended statement that differs significantly, written by Peter Lazus and supported by at least two other Board members. Chandra Napora, on campus student representative to the Board (who has been off-campus in Ohio and largely incommunicado this semester) abstain from support or rejection of the letter but is reported to have been in support of the amended statement. Stewart Bautz (staff rep.) Andrew Dinkelaker (off-campus student rep.) rejected the Statement completely, ending any speculation of how shared these believes are among the Board.
The Statement gives brief detail of the presidential search committee (chaired by Jane Sanders) that hired Richard Greene. It cites "fundamental education and financial change" was a solution for Goddard and Dr. Greene was going to be the executor of that change. No mention was given to the fact that Sanders was the exclusive representative of Goddard had negotiated Greene's contract. Few of those who served on the committee are around today, leaving much to doubt of the democratic structure of the committee. In addition, those that are around (with exception to those associated with the Board) have not been supporting Greene nor explaining the context in which he was hired.
"Shortly after hiring President Greene," the Statement continues to relate, "our efforts culminated in Goddard receiving, after a five-year show-cause (as to why they should not put us on probation) order, an unblemished accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges." Thankfully, this clarifies Greene's total lack of influence over the NEASC process as it was a five-year process performed mostly under Jackson Kytle's administration; an administration both Lynn Heglund (Executive Committee member) and Jane Sanders (Chair of the Board of Trustees) were fighting viciously to expel.
The Statement asserts that the Board of Trustees have been very concerned about "issues" that are entwined with Goddard's fiscal and academic beings. "Rather than imposing our view, we have repeatedly asked the faculty and the administration (including former administrations) to address those concerns and report back to us." Obviously, the student body is not an entity that the Board wishes to hear from. This is underscored by the efforts of the Administration to suppress the addresses and names of the Board of Trustees to not only the on-campus students, but during the off-campus residencies as well.
The Statement includes the first insight in the president's evaluation: "The President has been working diligently to address these issues." However, no more information has been released about the president's performance review conducted exclusively by the Executive Committee of the Board.
The Board Statement becomes most interesting with their (The Executive Committee's) insight on the current conflicts that they believe Richard Greene shares with "virtually every president since Tim Pitkin." This is bifurcated into a two "overriding issues." One issue is compacted and settled in one sentence: "Goddard is, has always been, and will continue to be a college with a policy-making Board of Trustees, a President, and in administrative structure to implement that policy." It's curious to know that perhaps the reasons why Richard Greene and every last president since Pitkin has suffered from these conflicts is because of this governance. However, it ends with that speculation because "that is non-negotiable." Presumably, this is not "imposing our view."
The second "overriding" issue the Statement proposes is ethics. Ethics are never mentioned again in the Statement but an insistence "on open and honest communication." This is quite a peculiar request in that there are significant ethical questions about the conduct of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, the Board of Trustees as a whole, and the President. All of whom have limited, if any, accountability to the Goddard Community. The committee that is to monitor conflicts of interest within the Board of Trustees does not exist. The Governance Documents cite "shared authority" which the President interprets as "advisory authority" from the varied committees that do exist. The Executive Committee of the Board meets at will and is not required to express anything to the rest of the Board regarding their meetings or decisions. This is, presumably, why "open an honest communication" is all about in the first steps in providing an "exemptlary learning and working environment."
The Statement suggests that despite the imbalance of power and lack of accountability "Community collaboration is, and will always be, an intergral part of Goddard's structure." The plea continues to avoid the proposed question of ethics with an urge for "all members of the Goddard community to consider and articulate the changes they prefer in such crucial areas as faculty workload, group study size, personnel evaluations and potential budget cuts." The Board clearly does not want the Community to concentrate its energies on less crucial areas such as: Presidential Evaluation, Participatory Democratic Governance and Accountability, Full Disclosure, and Actuals-Based Budget Analysis.
"Successful dialogue most certainly includes the right to disagree and to express that disagreement through peaceful means." This, of course, does not mean that retribution will not come to those who disagree, even peacefully. Peter Burns was just the latest casualty of staff who have chosen to disagree with Greene. Overriding issues say nothing of the undercurrent of intimidation tactics used on staff and faculty by Greene and Gribbin. Again, this is not a crucial area to concentrate on as the Statement insists and the Board believes that we should look at the "long-range good of the college and an adherence to the principles that bind us, together we will build a strong future for Goddard" in a contradictory atmosphere of budget cuts, Corporate American Express Cards, high turnover of the student body, catered Board meetings in the Boston Park Plaza Hotel, increasingly limited arts resources, unaudited fund-raising jaunts, and undisclosed itemized expense report. It's difficult to imagine what principles that bind the community together that'll overcome the rifts of the abuse of principles that have driven it apart.
"These are difficult times."
Indeed.
