AN OPEN LETTER TO JANE SANDERS AND THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
[Editor's note: The following open letter is a result of an
open invitation made by the staff of the Nudepaper to the
board earlier in the semester, wherein the members of the
Board were encouraged to use this paper as a form for informing
student and community members as to Board opinions. The staff
is pleased that Mr. Dinkelaker has seen fit to take advantage
of our invitation, and would like to reiterate our willingness
to consider all submissions from Board members.]
A statement was recently issued (
5/6/96) by Jane Sanders, ostensibly 'from the Goddard College
Board of Trustees.' I, and others who are also trustees, do not
share the values and beliefs presented in that document, and want
to make that fact abundantly clear. Furthermore, I was not contacted
regarding this matter nor asked to review and comment on the
statement before it was issued. I strongly disagree with both
the content of the statement and with the antidemocratic process
used in framing it. I am aghast that the statement was written
in such a way as to imply that the board stands unanimously in
agreement with its contents.
Given the gravity of the situation on campus (a nearly unanimous
faculty and community vote of no-confidence in the president and
request for his immediate resignation as well as a letter from 50
Goddard employees concerning union recognition), an emergency meeting
of the full board should have been called, which would have provided
board members with an opportunity to debate the relevant issues with
each other, to hear out faculty, staff, and students, and to publicly
present their own views regarding the situation in a responsible,
reciprocal, and accountable fashion. In short, it would have
provided an opportunity to honor a large number of important
stakeholders, entertain divergent points of view, and work toward
forging a real consensus and future plan for Goddard. It is
unrealistic to expect board members to rationally and intelligently
respond to a telephone poll seeking support for issuing a board
statement drafted by the executive committee, especially when board
members have received little "official" or unofficial information
about the crisis on campus. A polling of board members is not an
adequate substitute for an open public meeting. It limits debate
and dissent (especially when members are selectively cut out of
the process), prejudges the outcome (by offering one prefabricated
'statement' on which to vote), gives the appearance of unwillingness
on the part of the board to directly face the community, and
concentrates power in the hands of Jane Sanders (Board Chair)
and the executive committee.
The documents that Jane and the executive committee has crafted claims
to avoid a position in which the board is 'imposing its view' on the
community. But this is precisely what the document is doing, and
in the process, warning the community that alternate views, particularly
ones that propose increased participatory democracy, will be considered
'non-negotiable'. (The document states that 'the overriding issue is
one of governance.... It is our intent to make one thing extremely
clear. Goddard is, has always been, and will continue to be a college
with a policymaking Board of Trustees, a president, and in administrative
structure to implement that policy. That is non-negotiable.')
According to this view, faculty (not to mention staff and students)
are relegated to making recommendations and minor decisions regarding
'faculty workload, group study size, personnel evaluations and
potential budget cuts...', the document tells the community. The
document also claims that 'the president has been working diligently'
to address issues significant to the community, and has a 'collaborative'
style. With whom has a president succeeded in 'working collaboratively'
if 43 faculty members cite him in the faculty letter of no-confidence,
with having 'consistent disregard for the democratic process and his
inability to reach out and utilize the collective intelligence of all
those within the Goddard community'? The board document states, 'We must
all put our collaborative principles into practice and insure that our
communication is constructive rather than destructive and our efforts
are aimed at resolving differences rather than igniting them'. The
'board statement' crafted by Sanders and the executive committee is
itself an immensely destructive device, a tactical move that is designed
to crush Greene's opponents -- it is unresponsive to the position outlined
in the faculty "no-confidence" document, creates a hostile environment
for anyone wishing to restore the accountability of the president and
the board, or offering innovative plans toward filling the democratic
intent of the present governance documents (this is achieved, in part,
by dismissing such proposals as 'non-negotiable').
In addition, the board document states that 'We expect the faculty,
staff and administration to maintain the orderly operation of the
college for the benefit of the students and in full compliance with
their contractual responsibilities.' This is nothing more than a veiled
threat, challenging faculty with the possibility of dismissal on the
basis of 'failure to meet contractual obligations' if speaking out
leads to a disruption of 'orderliness' on the campus.
It appears that a hierarchically designed, autocratic, top-down power
structure is the legacy that Sanders and the executive committee of the
Board intends to leave Goddard. This, I loathe to tell them, is not
a 'progressive' stance nor is it in accordance with the powers and
duties of being a trustee to ensure "the establishment and oversight
of policy for the democratic management of the College" (Article III,
section 6 -- Board By-Laws). Jane and other board members who would
so arrogantly choose to stand in the way of ensuring that participatory
democracy ultimately prevails at Goddard should simply stand aside,
resign from their positions of power, and hand the governance of the
college over to the members of the community. If you are to do this Jane,
you could at least rest assured that history would not remember you
as having been want to have, with your executive committee, ruined
the experiment in democratic governance and progressive education that
is Goddard.
Sincerely,
Andrew Dinkelaker
Off-Campus Student Representative to the Goddard Board of Trustees
