↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
1 A I F: The Final Report — Passing the Torch August 2003 Introduction At Reunion 2000, when AIF still had a Board of Directors, it met upstairs in the Olive Kettering Library and talked about closing down. Friends of the College were still excited about our idea of pulling all Antioch operations, coast to coast, back into what everyone seemed to agree was the heart and soul of the institution — its residential co-op program in YS. But the few people who run the AU Corporation hadn’t even considered that idea, much less talked about it. And yes, it was their decision to make — legally, financially, absolutely. It seemed to be time to fold our tents and let nature take its course. We decided that day to set and publicize a deadline for disbursing the Independence Fund, thinking that might stimulate interaction with the decision-makers. It almost did — but not quite. All that was three years ago. Looking back, it’s amazing how many things did change, especially turnover in personnel – chancellors, board chairs, trustees, presidents, deans, directors, faculty — all drifting in and out, mitigating against productive AIF/BOT discourse. What did not change in any lasting way was the official refusal of the trustees to enter into direct talks with AIF. The June 30th deadline passed with no agreement enabling AIF to release its Independence Fund to the existing institution; it went instead to over 100 tax-deductible organizations (including Antioch College/University) chosen by its donors. As for the idea, we leave it in the public domain, passing the torch to new strategists. This final report is by no means the whole AIF story. Its purpose is merely to tell stakeholders what happened between our 2001 Annual Report (mailed June ‘02, when negotiations began to seem likely) and our last progress-report (mailed June ‘03 — AU’s administrative counter to our final 8 Proposals, plus AIF’s immediate response). Nothing official transpired after that. Here’s a preview of content: [Page 2] 1-A chronology of AIF/ BOT negotiations, ruthlessly condensed [Page 3] 2- What happened to the Independence Fund [Pages 3-15] 3-AIF’s major proposal(s) as submitted last November, and Pres. Straumanis’ February reply [Page 15] 4-Background on our 8 compromise proposals (mailed to you recently, so not included here) [Pages 15-20] 5- Enclosures: Two recent AIF documents previously unpublished, and our final Endorser List One last enclosure [pages 21-23], reprinted with permission from the 6/26/03 and 7/3/03 editions of the Yellow Springs News, describes AIF’s denouement — perhaps more even-handedly than the principal players might have done. Underlining, added by AIF, highlights basic information of interest to AIF readers who live far from Yellow Springs. What occurred between those two editions was AIF’s deadline, ending the possibility of our huge lump-sum gift. Three days later, in an unprecedented budget- balancing move, Antioch officials had decided to begin liquidating College assets (real estate in YS). Finally, a reminder that this is a direct report to AIF stakeholders — yours to share. We offer no wider distribution, although copies can be obtained “at cost.” Our sincere thanks to each of you for your participation over the years. Katy Cobb Jako ‘54 and Connie Pelekoudas, AC faculty emeritus
2 1. Chronology of AIF / BOT Negotiations Note: As potential donors since January 1997, AIF routinely asked the AU Board of Trustees (BOT) to discuss with us the College’s status in the institution. Some private conversations occurred, but officially the BOT made no response, so AIF set a deadline for disbursing the Independence Fund. July 2000: The AIF Board, after setting Spring’03 as its official end-date, asked for and was granted an introductory meeting with Chancellor. Jim Hall. Several broad issues were cordially and briefly discussed in his YSO office the next morning. Further communications took place by phone & correspondence. April 2001: Mediator Dick Salem facilitated a YSO meeting between Katy Jako, Jim Hall and his assistant Paul Ewald. Five points of agreement were reached. One called upon Jako to write to the BOT’s ad hoc Committee on Structure and Governance. She did so, but received no reply. June 2001: Following the BOT meeting, it was reported that Chancellor. Hall, BOT Chair Krinsky and AC Pres. Devine were all “stepping down.” Plans for replacements were vague, but Hall’s contract lasted up until January ‘03, so informal AIF/ BOT contacts continued despite anticipated shifts in leadership. Dec’01-Feb’02: Mediator Salem took the lead in arranging for AIF to meet with trustee leaders. Time, place, manner, and agenda were approved: 4 pm. 2/6/02, Los Angeles campus. One of the trustees phoned with apologies a few days before that date, saying “everything had changed” and the meeting was no longer possible. AIF tried unsuccessfully to reschedule. Craiglow replaced Hall in mid-February. June 2002: AC’s new president initiated a meeting in YS with some local AIF Advisors. It was their understanding that she had been authorized to represent the BOT in talks with AlP (then represented by Jako and Pelekoudas) during its final year. Salem offered to mediate/facilitate these discussions. 7/28/02: Without discussing content or implications, Pres. Straumanis flatly rejected AIF’s initial proposal– a brief outline of steps by which we thought an AIF/ BOT agreement might be attainable. It was tabled. She then described (and we discussed) her concept of AC’s uniqueness/ centrality in the university, which she agreed to put into writing and distribute by mail for further discussion in August. 8/23/02: In a a wide-ranging session focused mostly on Centrality, we talked about how trustees might endorse/implement that concept, and how it might be combined with AIF’s first proposal, which had been tabled. AIF agreed to produce a new document that all three discussants could work on via emails, and that the president could carry to the BOT for consideration. 11/22/02: New comprehensive AIF document submitted to the president’s office for BOT consideration. 02/24/03: President’s reply by email. While its rationales/arguments were deemed plausible, she had not shared it with the BOT in February, and did not plan to do so. Two common concerns were noted in her reply: 1) ensuring BOT respect for AdCil’s role in governance, and 2) clari! AC’s control over its assets, possibly including additional legal safeguards — a “firewall.” 3/20/03: As a compromise, and building upon the common concerns noted above, AIF took its November document off the table, and substituted eight very specific proposals for changes in AU’s existing By-Laws. Both parties and the mediator collaborated on revisions for a month. 4/17/03: Final submission of 8 AIF proposals to define the centrality of the College within the University. 5/31/03: Pres. Straumanis & Chancellor Craiglow countered with a 2-part Resolution (containing no changes in any By-Laws) for action by the BOT at their June 5-7 meeting. AIF’s immediate written acceptance of this proposed action was requested, and the subsequent release of its $1.22 million to Antioch College. 6/1/03: AIF replied. As an association with a clearly stated purpose, it could neither co-sponsor a Resolution wholly unrelated to that purpose, nor could it release the Independence Fund as a result of BOT action adopting said Resolution. No further written proposals were exchanged through June 30, 2003.
3 2. Disbursing the Independence Fund The potential lump-sum gift represented by the Fund at its apex was $1.22 million, free and clear. How much AIF spent is unknown; it came from volunteers’ household budgets, unrecorded. But AU’s 1987-93 Capital Campaign had spent up to 440 for each dollar raised, so ‘free and clear’ is significant. The vast majority of those dollars were ‘designated’ long before AU replied to our final 8 “compromise proposals.” In June, we sent the Secondary Designation (SD) list to donors who hadn’t yet made up their minds, asking for their SDs. Most made their choices, and by July we were ready to do the arithmetic. An estimated $160,000 (13%) was in documented bequests to a ‘more independent’ Antioch College. That was deducted on July 1. Remaining for distribution to donors’ SDs was $1,058,600 in cash. Some donors (whose contributions were usually small ones never did furnish an SD, but our list clearly represented the charitable interests of most of our constituents. The sum total of all undesignated monies (including small quarterly dividends) was simply divided among SDs on the list. The grantmaking process was long and complicated, but late in August all grant-recommendation forms had been completed, submitted, approved and if not paid were at least in process. You saw the SD list in June, so it’s not included in this report. Everyone agrees that it is ‘very Antiochian.’ Educational organizations were the most popular category of recipients — a huge variety of them. But by far the most money (though from fewer donors) went into medical research. Grants to the “Antioch” category (including the Review and the Glen as well as the Antioch College Annual Fund) = $15,360. So much for money. It was never AIF’s main event, just its way of proving that College supporters would gladly pay for sorely needed changes in Antioch priorities, with $1.22 M instantly available. Yet five people (3 chancellors, I trustee, 1 president) decided that AU would consider no changes of any sort — and that was that! The money will still win victories for humanity, but not the ones we had in mind. 3. AIF’s Major Proposals This was an 11-page opus sent to Pres. Straumanis, the BOT’s negotiator. We’re including the whole thing — partly to save time, but also because no other document contains “the case” that AIF presented (albeit indirectly) to AU trustees. You may prefer to skim it, which is fine, but its inclusion makes it accessible to the studious few. Only the size of the print has been changed, to save a little paper! Here’s an excerpt from the cover-letter, dated November 22, 2002: “In this document, we want to back up and do a better job of describing the kind of agreement for which AIF seeks board approval, and to explain why we believe today’s trustees might consider it. Both we and they are volunteers and investors. Their only reward and AIF’s only reason for addressing them, is to see a better institution to invest in — more competitive, more successful. So the argument we make is the oldest one in the books: enlightened self-interest. “For fiduciaries, consolidating a small but complex school around the national college whose name it bears is a conventional way to reduce corporate costs and clarify future directions. But for this school, it can also revitalize both the original campus and its most generous donors. AC’s well-known campus democracy is important to its faculty, its students and yes, its alumni. The lack of a truly self-governing community, not a problem for non-residential programs, is a predictable and recurring problem for a college with Antioch’s history and public image. “We begin with Centrality, adapted from your August proposal, and go on to suggest ways to implement that idea — to make it operational. We do appreciate the magnitude & the difficulty of the task — reflecting the magnitude/ difficulty of ‘the problem.’ Nonetheless, my guess is that some trustees understand the need for meaningful change and, as a group, they alone have the authority to bring it about.” [ The rest of the document appears, verbatim, on pages4 through 13.]
4 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] The Concept of Centrality (adapted from Joan Straumanis’ 8/18/02 proposal) AU trustees recognize the College as founder and parent institution of today’s university system. Antiochian values (e.g., education for citizenship and service to humanity) originated there, along with its distinctive co-op plan and Community Government. Throughout the institution’s history, the centrality of Antioch College remains a simple reality in the minds of its major supporters, including (in all but a few of those years) its governing boards. Pres. Straumanis suggests that the present Board is likely to agree with such a formulation, and to formally affirm the following ramifications: A. The Board, its administrators and the non-residential campuses are each committed to maintaining the College as a national residential liberal arts program. However, the College is not formally and reciprocally responsible for the survival of the University or of any of the non-residential campuses. B. The College has a unique relationship with the university Board. The other campuses have Boards of Overseers while AU trustees constitute the College’s only external body providing both oversight and protection. It follows that (a) the Board is committed to the long-term financial stability of the College, and participates in Capital Campaigns that directly benefit the College, and (b) College leaders have special access to the Board, and vice versa, as needed. C. As provider of venture capital in the past, and of most endowment funds to date, the College holds a unique financial position in the present system. Unlike other campuses, the College is not required to maintain reserve funds, nor does it contribute overhead for university maintenance. A previous debt, said to be owed by the College to the non-residential campuses, remains on the books, but the bulk of it was erased during the 2002-03 budgeting process. By acknowledging the centrality of the College, today’s Board indicates its willingness to consider further actions, consistent with the above statements, that build “the centrality of the College” into the formal organization of the institution. The two characteristics of the agreement AIF seeks 1. It is institutional in scope, improving the College’s status relative to that of other campuses The degree-granting institution is one legal entity, incorporated in 1852 “to posess and carry on” a college in Yellow Springs under the direction of its trustees. The addition of distant ‘centers’ brought the status of the residential college into question (see Apppendix A). Many Boards took specific actions, institutional in scope, to transfer assets and authority from the “YS campus” to System administrators, in effect lowering the status of AC. Now, with its traditional and informal centrality more widely accepted, current trustees can act to formally raise the College’s position in the institution. E.g., by restoring 1) ownership! control of assets, and 2) AdCil’s traditional role in governance, particularly in the selection of major policy- makers. 2. It is legal and binding assuring the long-term centrality of the College in the institution. Any agreement resulting from these negotiations will represent a formal Board response to widespread concerns dating back to “the expansion,” and is likely to include appropriate changes to the institutional charter. As such, we believe it warrants direct consideration by trustees whose charge is to protect the institution as a whole, and to safeguard its future.
5 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] Current events that argue for an agreement in 2003 A. “Tidal Wave II” — positive but temporary demographics Children of the ‘boomers’ now provide a huge over-supply of college-bound youth, but the ‘wave’ flattens out about 2010, so competition among independent liberal arts colleges will tighten. With its ‘centrality’ and control of assets assured, the College needs those last 7 years of the wave to build enrollment and regain a competitive footing among its traditional peers. B. An endowment campaign that needs to be ignited Legal ownership & control of Antioch’s endowment are stubborn issues of concern to College donors familiar with the school’s fiscal history. Thç 2003 Board, by acting to implement the concept of centrality, can directly address and relieve those concerns. That could get the Campaign rolling. C. Antioch College Sesquicentennial — a potential PR windfall An “AU Sesquicentennial” has no positive PR value. Antiochians and H.Ed. professionals who know the history will scoff. But stories on the 150-yr celebration, combined with “news” of Board actions to enhance the status of Antioch College, would surely be picked up by the press and seen by many of ‘the disaffected’ as a new and exciting reason to re-connect. D. New Trustees on the FY2003 Board At least 60% of the present voting members were seated in 2001 or 2002. (One first came aboard in 1980; all others (8) from ‘95 to ‘98.) Today’s Board played no part in re-structuring the school as a “federation” in 1992. Yet they may be called upon to judge the efficacy of that unique and complex structure, or to improve upon its cost-effectiveness. This agreement can be a step in that process. E. New administrative talent at all levels The chairman of the Board, AU’s chancellor, and AC’s president (plus 2 other presidents) were all appointed Feb through June of 2002. Yet top-level leadership, so necessary for the College but so difficult in the present federation, remains unsettled. If this new team can work out an agreement with AIF for a more conventional model, it may slow down turnover rates and increase stability. F. New acting Chancellor: a gift of time Antioch is poised between its 18th and 19th administrations. Three of the last four brought about sweeping organizational changes, leaving behind a small school unsure of its direction. Jim Hall, the first to be hired as a Chancellor, tried to lead by constant negotiations and resigned early. With no rush to launch another Search, implementing Centrality can help to improve the job description. G. The end of AIF’s timetable The million dollars is but a drop in the bucket, donated by a handful of ‘friends of the College’– those we happened to contact. Each person we did contact stands for hundreds that we didn’t. Why turn it (and them) down without responding to the fundamental questions they raise? Their Fund is evidence of widespread concern about the status of the College among would-be donors — and of their fervent hope that it can be improved. It should also be an incentive for the Board to restore to the College its status as the degree-granting institution — not one of several, but the one authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents to grant Antioch degrees regardless of where they are earned; and the one that decides what it takes to earn one. Sixteen trustees (9 from ‘centers’) attended the 1977 meeting that, at Pres. Birenbaum’s request, transferred that authority to a previously non-existent university. As an institution, that university has gained neither academic recognition nor firm fiscal footing. Yet no one (except AIF) has asked them to transfer it back to Antioch College. Pres. Straumanis could do that. They just might do it. That would make headlines in the N Y Times Education section – free!
6 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] Centrality of the College — What’s in it for the trustees? A. A leader who “can run a tight ship The 1984-85 Board, facing serious leadership problems, provided the model by hiring Pres. Guskin to rebuild the College. For six years he used ‘the centrality of the College’ to pull Antioch together in YS. He set priorities, cut costs, gained the confidence of ‘friends of the College’ and conducted a successful Capital Campaign. Then, inexplicably, he de-centralized it: increased costs, decreased its ability to live within its means, and replaced institutional leadership with constant negotiations. Ten years later AU is like a fleet of ships, each with its own compass, in its own ocean, with no flagship. Current trustees’ acceptance of College centrality, and a search based-on that concept, can give them the leader they need — one who can run a tight ship and can say where it is going. B. As an alternative to “federalism,” it can lighten their work-load This “federal model” (a name Pres. Guskin chose for his decentralization plan) is otherwise non-existent in H.Ed.. For 3 decades and led by 3 presidents, Antioch trustees approved 3 big changes: the network in ‘72, the university in ‘77, and the ‘federation’ in ‘92. In each case, fiduciary oversight became more difficult. Trustees had to make planning decisions formerly handled in the context of a central campus, informed by institutional research and with active faculty participation. Now, with no central campus and no system- wide research, all six components try to define AU’s goals and policies. Even so, ULC decisions go first to the Chancellor and then to the Board which has become, by default, the only body left to struggle with big issues — like The Future of Antioch. C. A timely surge of investor confidence Non-residential units are more “pay as you go” operations, so it falls mainly to the College to attract the long-term support that can raise this institution’s bottom-line. Cash (e.g., endowment) from alumni & friends is a start. But equally important — moreso in the long run, since their competence and enthusiasm determine program quality — are (1) the faculty & staff who invest their careers and (2) new students & their families who invest pivotal years of their lives. Clearly, the confidence of all three groups was badly shaken years ago. Finn assurances of ‘the centrality of the College’ in Antioch’s future plans can give it a big boost. D. A sense of accomplishment among trustees themselves? Comments of former members seem rarely to reflect fond memories of the trustee experience, and the composition of the current Board (see Current Events-D, above) indicates considerable turnover since 1991 — the ‘freshmen’ who, had any of them remained, would now be completing term-limits. ‘Centrality of the College’ is a fundamental issue that Boards since the mid-60s have either stuggled with or struggled to avoid. Regardless of what decision they make, it’s an issue that deserves a place on their agenda, and one that they have to feel good about addressing. E. A more competitive institution — one they can brag about Trustees are busy professionals with other things on their minds, not typically looking to move mountains. Still they give time and talent to protect a school that can be as competitive as any in the nation. Neither educators nor financiers ever laid plans for a 5-campus system called Antioch University, yet that’s the hand today’s trustees were dealt. Its history is written, but they can claim bragging rights for its future, knowing full well that in the private sector, schools that can’t compete have no future. AU’s competitors range from Brandeis to the Univ of Phoenix –not too hopeful. AC’s competitors range from Bryn Mawr to Wartburg – familiar territory. Trustees cannot wipe out the competition. They can, however, choose the race Antioch can win.
7 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] Centrality of the College — Implementation We agree that it’s good to articulate the idea of the College’s centrality, and for the Board to formally accept statements to that effect. But AIF’s interest is in implementing that idea — to actually put the College at the center of the institution. Our July “outline” made only brief mention of the two alternative proposals that are discussed in some detail on the following pages: A. To unify the institution: Designate today’s system as Antioch College This one reverses the name-change that Pres. Birenbaum talked his Board into adopting in 1977. It would be the most exciting for our endorsers, and would generate the best “press.” OR B. To de-federalize the university: Make AC ( the principal campus of AU This one reverses Pres. Guskin’s administrative re-structuring plan which gave us the “federal model,” board-approved in Feb ‘92 and slowly implemented through Feb ‘98. It won’t make the same splash in the press, but it can bring the campuses into a better balance and can improve the prognosis for the College. Both alternatives represent ideas that our endorsers expect us to discuss with the Board. Their donations were made with the understanding that we would “make the case” for them. Since our initial ‘outline’ was quickly tabled, we present them again (with background and rationales previously omitted) as ways and means of building upon and implementing the Centrality concept. We also recognize that other paths to an agreement might be explored as well. For example: 1. The notion of AC itself being incorporated as a separate legal entity with ownership of assets, but still connected to an AU Corp., conceptualized as the “holding company.” 2. Establishing an AC Foundation, again a separate (501c3) entity with legal ownership and control of College assets, to serve as a ‘firewall’ of sorts. Preliminary research indicates precedents for arrangements of this nature at other college/ universities. In short, today we are replacing AIF’s earlier “outline,” tabled in July, with the two alternative Proposals that follow. Hundreds of Antiochians view them as reasonable ways to revoke certain policies that preclude centrality for the College. Voting members of the Board may even share that view — no way of knowing until they are made aware of it. At the same time, we leave the door open to any promising ideas that may hold hope for an early resolution – the two outlined above, or others that may emerge. A “more independent” College (less subject to external authority/jurisdiction) is still our goal. To that end, we hope to shape a single proposal that all of us directly involved can support, that can justify AIF’s gift, and that Pres. Straumanis can present persuasively to the Board. (1st alternative) A Proposal to Unify the Institution: Designate today’s 5-campus system as Antioch College By far the most efficient. cost-free and non-intrusive method of achieving AC’s legal, financial and psychological independence is the one that Antioch College trustees adopted in Oct 1977: a simple name- change. Their action, fully implemented in the next 11 weeks through the Ohio Board of Regents, defined Antioch as an independent university (AU) with some 25 or 30 loosly joined and fairly entrepreneurial units, all but one providing adult and/or professional training. Ownership of all institutional assets, tangible and intangible, automatically transferred to the new corporation. More difficult to transfer, however, were the school’s reputation, image and educational mission. All three became and have remained ambiguous since then.
8 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] It was something of a de-facto change. The 1976 Carnegie Classification had already moved AC from edition (plus one in between) classified AU as “LibArts I.” So that same 1977 argument (i.e., that the new name is “a more cogent presentation of what Antioch really has become”) applies again in 2003. The four remaining regional programs are highly productive, but each is known only within a modest radius of its site. The College, while far less productive, still provides the institution’s heritage and public “image” which, nationwide, remains that of a “distinctive liberal arts college.” It also provides the bulk of the university’s donors and endowment. So which shall it be and why? Only the Board can decide which designation is more advantageous to the future of the institution. This idea has been around for decades, usually expressed as a question: “Why does the College need a university?” or “How does having a university benefit AC?” or similar. The reply is invariably “Money — they have it, we don’t.” The reason they have it is because the school was re-named. It remained the same school, with the same amount of money. Only the ownership changed. The 1977 Board decided (along with Pres. Birenbauin) that it was to the school’s advantage to be called a university. In fact, as things turned out, it was not to the school’s advantage. Enrollments declined further, more “centers” were closed, fiscal problems worsened, and that president was urged to resign with his university in shambles. Had a charismatic leader emerged at that point with a comprehensive plan to re-incorporate rather than merely/ rebuild the College, the 1985 Board might have cheered. That didn’t happen, of course, but this is 18 years later. It could happen now. There is precedent. The last ten years (“federalism”) again weakened the College’s position vis-a-vjs the rest of the system, while the university as a whole also suffered declines in enrollments, fiscal shortfalls and changes in its leadership structure. Yet in 2002 the Straumanis presidency seems to have gained the confidence of the Board while AU Chancellor Hall vacated his position 10 months early, leaving future institutional leadership up for grabs. Clearly, this will be another year of hard choices, especially at the College. The 2003 Board might be ready to decide that, all things considered, it may indeed be more advantageous for Antioch to be called a College. As to its being “efficient, cost-free and non-intrusive,” just a few words about each claim. Efficient: Authorizing a name-change takes less than an hour. Even in the organizational chaos of 1977, it was done with one vote, and charter revisions were completed shortly thereafter. Today, all five units are firm and stable. Every educational function of the university continues within an institution whose name is recognized and respected nationwide, in keeping with the ‘centrality of the College.’ Once trustees adopt that goal, the overall design falls easily into place and can be implemented in due course, without disturbing any ongoing educational process and with very few personnel changes. For example, bringing graduate programs into the College creates the need for a new position that for now we call Dean of Graduate & Continuing Education. As liaison between the College and its non residential campuses, s/he provides leadership & oversight, and reports to the president. That office would also be responsible for most of the coordination of budgets & programs now handled in the Chancellor’s Ofc, which can gradually be phased out. Cost-free: Except for a boost (from AIF) in gift-income, budget impact of this option is likely to be negligible in FY03, and favorable from FY04 forward. Phasing out the Chancellor’s Office will decrease overall operating costs. AC’s legal ownership of its name, heritage, endowment, real estate and affiliates (like WYSO and the Glen) is sure to have a positive impact on the generosity of its alumni and friends. Regional campuses continue to be self-sufficient as always. Non-intrusive: No educational program is affected by implementing this option. Rather than comprising a “university system,” the five would comprise a residential liberal arts college with external graduate and degree-completion programs. The non-residential programs remain “semi-autonomous” as always. Each recruits and maintains faculty, staff and students for its programs, so in that sense their institutional status is unchanged. A new “deanship” enhances their ability to collaborate with one another. But other than that, they are free to maintain their regional identities and serve their own communities, with no routine involvement in College governance.
9 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] We fully acknowledge the political difficulties that accompany this name-change propsal. We really don’t know how President Birenbaum persuaded College trustees to adopt the previous one, but he did. So if “history repeats itself,” this seems like the right time for someone to present today’s University trustees with the same opportunity — one that allows them to adopt a new vision and a new name with which to kick-off a successful Capital Campaign. – Every Board from FY79 through FY02 did its level best to implement the Birenbaum vision without further damaging the College. As a result, AC has survived on subsidies from the non-residential campuses. But now it needs more than that. It needs a plan for getting through the next ten years. ————————————————————————— (These 7 “Implications of this Proposal for …“ appeared on a separate page.) 1) Implications for the changed role of the College, if any: a) It is the main campus — it owns and administers the larger institution. Other campuses are semi-autonomous branches. b) Its president is CEO. 2) Implications for any name changes that follow from the changed role: a) Antioch College, in its own name, is an IRS-approved 501c3 Non-Profit organization eligible to receive tax-deductible gifts and bequests directly. b) It is owned by the Antioch College Corporation and overseen by the Antioch College Board of Trustees c) Ohio Bd of Regents would designate it as a ‘college’ rather than as a ‘university.’ 3) Governance implications: a) Add a liaison (Dean of Grad/Cont’ng Educ) to coordinate! oversee programs & budgets of the non-residential campuses, and who reports to AC president (See above, under ‘Efficient’ and under ‘Non-intrusive’) b) AdCil’s traditional role in institutional governance is fully restored. c) Chancellor’s Office is gradually phased out d) BOT still has final oversight of everything, but the entity they protect is a college with external programs. It no longer strives to become “a real university” or to compete with leading private universities nationwide. e) Other campuses are relatively self-governing, but they play no formal role in College governance. Their Dean” represents them, and may assemble a Council similar to ULC to promote planning, collaboration, etc. 4) Legal implications: a) AC ownership of all institutional assets, both tangible and intangible. b) Nothing in the proposal about this yet, but we assume that other campuses could “opt out” of their affiliation with the College if they so desired. 5) Accreditation implications: a) Extremely positive we believe, as long as the ratio of assets to liabilities improves. 6) Implications for the adult campuses: a) Some may worry that in this new model, the work of the graduate/adult programs may be de-valued. To us, that seems highly unlikely — not only because of their financial stability but also given the very positive tone of the Straumanis administration. b) Their Registrars are “branch administrators” of the main RO in Yellow Springs, in order to promote consistency of ‘policy & procedures.’ That’s the front line of quality control, without which an Antioch degree loses value. 7) Implications for the University: a) It is replaced by the College. Same corporation — different name — revoking the October 1977 Board’s “name change” Resolution.
10 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] (2nd alternative) A Proposal to Dc-Federalize the Institution Make Antioch College the Principal Campus of Antioch University Our July proposal mentioned this idea, but it was not tied specifically to the College. This time, we offer it as a second way of implementing ‘the-centrality of the College.’ Tried and true. it’s the conventional model The fall 2000 edition of Antioch Notes (Vol 64, No. 1), “Federation: Revisiting Structure and Governance at Antioch University,” provide this overview: “Some independent universities operate at multiple sites, but with a very few exceptions these sites are branches of the principal campus, which administers most of their internal academic and fiscal processes.” (p. 6) (James W. Hall) If the vast majority of such private universities give a principal campus overall responsibility for academic & fiscal administration, AU might well do the same – for budgetary reasons if for no other. In fact, until 1972 when it had over 20 ‘centers,’ Antioch was a good example of the principal-campus model. Then, perhaps for expediency, Pres. Dixon “split” his administration in two, leaving prior governance processes ineffective, and putting more decisions into the hands of trustees and/or personnel from the new ‘centers.’ Despite all the gradual consolidations and dual-presidencies since then, that “split” has not yet been healed. 2003 could be the right time to do it. AC’s sudden expansion was indeed difficult and controversial, but those disputes ended long ago. Today’s non-College programs are stable and well administered at their respective sites. For at least a dozen years now, their relationships with the College have been good. The Straumanis administration seeks to improve them further, while still maintaining the basic centrality of the College. This model can help her to do both. This conventional model can also promote objective system-wide institutional research and planning, so useful for decision makers at other schools. Rather than ignoring the distinctions between the two kinds of education AU offers (residential LibArts, and non-residential graduate! continuing), AU can design a coherent and potentially competitive institution. It can deal purposefully with the differing needs and contributions of its two circular components, while realizing the economies that other multi-campus universities in the private sector already enjoy. Antioch’s experiment with NO principal campus (i.e.. the “ model”) That same issue of Antioch Notes indicates that the NCA, in its 1993 accreditation review, asked for evidence that would support the efficacy of the federal model, a plan to (a) remove AC from its ‘central’ role by putting all five units on the same line in the organizational chart, and to (b) replace a dual- presidency with I chancellor and 5 presidents. Such evidence was not available in 1993, as it was only a plan, gradually implemented through early 1998. So in order to prepare for this year’s NCA review, the Chancellor inquired into its early outcomes. He found that: “Since implementation of the federal model, the university has experienced almost complete change in its leadership; it has experienced a modest down turn in student enrollment, placing real constriction upon available revenues; and it has seen an absolute decline in the extramural support that funded important new creative efforts in the past. “These changed conditions require that we reassess the model’s appropriate ness for the future. Other models can be conceived in theory. Other models might work in a different campus alliance. …“ (p. 9) (James W. Hall)
11 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] O’Toole & Bennis, experts on corporate and governmental federalism, call it “a difficult structural form to manage — perhaps the most difficult….“ They recommend it for huge monolithic organizations (e.g., the Republic of China) that need to be broken into manageable units. Higher education contains no such organizations. Regardless of size, institutions are inherently sub-divided by discipline, by purpose, by level, by geography, etc. — none more so than Antioch. Thus, the rationale for restructuring AU as a ‘federation’ has always been somewhat unclear. With no other ‘federated’ schools to go by, AU is a case-study. And as an experiment in system governance it seems to produce mixed results. As a university, the negative results noted above have continued. The chancellor it recruited left office early; turnover among trustees seems higher; budget shortfalls are still common, etc. As single units, we can only assume five different results, some more positive than others, but the impact of “federalism” upon the College was wholly negative. When College and University were perceived, both in YS and nationwide, as one institution led by one president, both gained stature and acceptance in the public eye. When perceived as dissimilar, led by different people in different places toward different missions, that public acceptance falters. Problems with the ‘ leadership structure Chancellorships belong in huge, comprehensive systems in the public sector. An article in the March ‘96 AAHE Bulletin (p.7) says, “… we’ve reached a right compromise with the term, reserving it for heads of state systems of higher education.” Until 1997, Antioch CEOs were hired to “preside” over a small school in the private sector, as Pres. Guskin did through FY94. But his Decentralization plan called for employing both a non-CEO/ president (Crowfoot) to lead the College and a CEO/ chancellor (himself) to lead the University — i.e., to (1) coordinate its five programs and to (2) act as gatekeeper between the ‘main campus’ and the Board. That arrangement, further separating top-level decision makers from the educational programs they serve, was difficult from the start. The new title passed from Guskin to Watts (Acting) to Hall to Craiglow (Acting). Let’s examine the two main functions of this experimental Chancellorship, and ask how it might be modified to enhance the ‘centrality of the College.’ Program coordinator The NCA approved Antioch’s first Masters program in 1962, and countless others since then. So far no CEO has yet sought a qualified Dean of Adult Graduate studies to lead & coordinate those programs, but it would still be timely in 2003. Such a Dean, reporting to the president, sustains the logic and the economy of the principal-campus model. Today, with only the College and four stable, well- administered campuses remaining, there is every reason to question AU’s need to pay a Chancellor top dollar for work that a CEO is not really in the best position to perform, since it is basically curricular in nature. That function can be handled more effectively, and at lower cost, by a Dean with expertise in developing solid, reputable graduate programs. Gatekeeper This function is essentially an artifact of the Chancellorship itself. From FY88 to FY95, the president of the ‘main campus’ was also the president of the university, so access to the Board by one was automatically access by both.. While never formalized, that arrangement had many positive fiscal & academic impacts: a successful Capital Campaign that pulled the University out of fiscal crisis, the best accreditation report since 1958, improved morale in YS and among Antioch supporters nationwide, etc. By comparison, the Chancellor-led years after FY95 have been problematic, mostly for the College but also for the system as a whole. President Straumanis clearly favors greater collaboration between AU’s programs, and envisions a future in which both College and graduate schools contribute to its success. With the “new Dean” in her cabinet to handle routine coordination and leadership “in the field,” she would seem to be ideally suited to lead the institution forward. The principal-campus model provides a vehicle for doing that, non-intrusively and non-disruptively. ————————————————————————-
12 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] (These 7 “Implications of this Proposal for …” appeared on a separate page.) 1) Implications for a changed role of the College, if any: a) It becomes the main campus of Antioch University and plays a larger role in its administration without affecting ownership by the AU Corporation. b) Its president may eventually become-CEO, but that could be a 2- or 3-stage process invoMng a new Deanship and a gradual transition. c) Rather than “1 of 5 campuses,” the College is “1 of 2 curricular components,” linked by a new Dean who leads and coordinates the non-residential campuses. 2) Implications for any name changes that follow from the changed role: [none] 3) Governance implications: a) President of AC doubles as President of AU, and speaks for “Antioch.” S/he is selected jointly by the residential campus community (AdCiI) and the Board of Trustees. S/he chairs AdCiI, Faculty mtgs, etc. re: campus governance; and consults w/ new Dean re:institutional goals and policies. b) Dean of an Adult! Graduate division reports to President and speaks for the Network. S/he is selected by and chairs a “Network Leadership Council” (or similar). Subject to normal Board oversight, s/he provides leadership for non-residential campuses. c) The Chancellor’s Office is gradually phased out as collaboration between new Dean and AC President becomes effective. Univ-wide staff reports to Acting Chanc during transition; then to President. VP/Finance and VP/Devmt positions move into the principal campus. d) Chief administrators of Network campuses complete tenure as presidents; their future replacements may be hired as provosts. 4) Legal implications: [none] 5) Accreditation implications: Quite positive in several respects. a) NCA always criticizes AU’s failure to use data-driven institutional research for plan ning purposes. As presently ‘de-centralized,’ comparable system-wide data (e.g., on enrollments, completions, programs, costs, etc) are virtually impossible to compile. This model addresses that problem by combining 1) a system-wide RO on the principal campus + “branch registrars” at other sites, with 2) access to MIS data so necessary for administrative planning & cost control. b) The obvious economies of RE-centralizing functions will reduce AU’s administrative payroll dramatically, improving its ‘precarious’ financial status, another NCA concern. c) The matter of “institutional mission” is always central to accreditation reviews. AU’s mission, defined somewhat differently on each campus, is difficult to articulate; it’s equally difficult for the NCA to assess the degree to which the school as a whole is achieving it. The 2003 team would likely welcome news of a “de-federalized” institution led by a principal campus that they already understand. 6) Implications for the adult campuses: Educationally, none — programs are unaffected. Only their roles in governance change. 7) Implications for the university: The major impact of a principal campus model will be to clarify Antioch University’s image in the outside world, where it has been blurred for its entire 25-year history. That, in turn, can have a benign effect on recruitment and retention at all levels, from students and faculty through to CEOs and trustees.
13 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] Appendix A Board actions affecting the college’s institutional status 1853 -1962 Single-campus liberal arts college (OH) w/ some overseas AEA sites 1957+ 1 1963 Acquired Putney GSE [School of Education] (VT) 2 1966 Added another GSE (DC) – 3 1967 Added 2 GSEs (OH, PA) and another Center (HI) 6 1968 Another GSE (MD) 7 1969 Another Center (MD) 8 1970 Added 5 Centers (MD, DC, TX, NY, OR) 13 1971 Added 7 Centers (PA, CA, NY, WV, MN, NM, TX) 20 1972 Added 5 Centers (OH, CA,. DC, NY, MD) 25 [1972-3 By-Laws revision defined Antioch as a ‘network,’ not a ‘college’] 1973 Added 6 Centers (MD, CO. TX, MN, BC, MA) 31 1974 Added 2 Centers (IL, AK) 33 1975 Added 3 Centers (CA, WA, OH) 36 1977 Added I Center (CA) 37 [1978 AU Corp replaced AC Corp as owner of all assets] 1979 Added 1 Center (HI) 38 The bulk of the expansion took place during the Dixon administration (1959-1975), and 3/5 of all additions occurred in four years, 1970 through ‘73. By the time his presidency ended in 1975, Antioch College was not classified (in the Carnegie publications) as a selective liberal arts college, but as a less- selective comprehensive university. Closures (or mergers, transfers, spin-offs, etc.) began in 1969, accelerated in 1974 and continued through the Birenbaum administration (1976-1985). With the change of corporate ownership, all institutional assets were transferred to the University by 1978, and the College began to be “subsidized” by the more profitable centers in 1978-79. Interestingly, the much downsized University was then re classified as a liberal arts college. Facing fiscal crisis, the 1984 AU Board, used its authority to bring the focus back to YS. Pres. Guskin centralized the system cost-effectively around the College, assumed simultaneous leadership of both entities, directed the last closures to date about 1990, regained a measure of alumni support, and conducted a highly successful capital campaign which, for a time, improved the fiscal health of the entire institution. Yet no steps were taken to codii those changes. Led by the same president, the 1992 Board reversed course by adopting his policy of “Decentralization” (‘federal model’), still in effect. It puts all five remaining campuses, including the College, on the same line in the organizational chart, negating the ‘central position’ it had held informally and temporarily. – – – – – end of Proposals submitted Nov 22. 2002- – – – – So, patient reader, that’s the package that AIF commended to the trustees’ attention toward the end of last year. Even a brief hearing at their Feb ‘03 meeting, we reasoned, could open the door to direct talks in time to reach an agreement of some sort before our deadline. A long and thoughtful reply came from Pres. Straumanis by email on Feb 24, 2003. It was copied to a number of people, so now that confidential negotiations have ended, we can share it with you: Katy, please forgive my unconscionable delay in replying to your very careful document, but the College has suffered a series of significant difficulties this winter that have taken my full attention. In addition, preparing my analysis and response was quite a challenge for me. I hope that what follows is as respectful of your efforts as I mean it to be, and proves helpful in moving us forward.
14 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] I very much appreciate your perception of the concept of Centrality as a breakthrough and a basis for further discussion. I hope that my inattention has not been too much of a distraction, and that we are able to pick up where we left off – with an exchange of proposals about how best to ensure and institutionalize that centrality in practice, so as to address the core concerns that led to the original formation of the AIF. What I heard your message to be requesting, and why. You are requesting two specific actions to be taken by the Board of Trustees: 1. Change the name of Antioch University back to Antioch College. 2. Change the charter of the University so that the College is the “principle campus”, with the president of the College serving as president of the whole five-campus system as well (the “early Guskin” model). A new Dean of Graduate and Continuing Education, reporting to the President, would be responsible for management of the four non-residential campuses. While I am sure I will not do justice to the nuances of your extensive argument in doing so, let me summarize your reasons by saying that you attribute many of the College’s difficulties during the past decades to ambiguity in its external identity and reputation, and weakness of the College’s position within the University. Although you have argued in the past that the University structure is inefficient, and that considerable savings could be realized by the simplifications suggested here, such an argument is mentioned only in passing in the present document. My general response to your proposals. As you will recognize, many of the points I will make here have been a part of our oral discussions at three meetings during the past year. Your plan is a plausible one, and arguably has some advantages over the present University structure. It would be well worth considering as an option if we were in the process of creating a new institution from scratch. It might even have made sense as a proposal for the operating structure of Antioch when the decision was being made during the 90s to separate the administrations of the College and the University. But my position is that the current structure is functioning reasonably well, at least well enough so that spending the enormous amount of energy and political capital it would take to change it cannot be a priority for me. Furthermore, I simply am not persuaded that the problems the college has suffered flow significantly from the institution’s structure, or that changing the governance structure or name would have any real effect on the reputation or financial health of the College (with the notable exception of the good that would certainly come from the AIF gift itself). I am forced to regard the changes you propose to be mostly symbolic, and without the potential for significant real impact even if they were to be implemented. Some of your arguments seem to rest on the assumption that the world pays attention to our name, and our status as a university, and would give more attention to us if these were altered. My experience is that this is far from the truth. Even our own constituents and our Yellow Springs neighbors are sometimes confused about our name and our structure, and while the world does indeed know the name “Antioch”, it knows and understands little about the issues which concern you and your members. Our reputation as a College – such as it is – will not change if we change our name or our structure. We retain the name College for most practical purposes, and are known as a college by our current and prospective students, and by the consortia to which we continue to belong- consortia consisting exclusively of liberal arts colleges. For these reasons I can’t be your partner in presenting or promoting the changes you propose to the Board of Trustees. However, since I am interested in real change, real centrality for the College within the University, I maintain hope that we can find common ground. I would like to put further energy into two main points for further discussion: 1. Strengthening the role and recognition of AdCil in choosing College leadership, and ensuring that the Board respects that role.2. Reassuring all constituencies that the College is viable and gaining strength, and that money contributed to the College for use by the College would never be used for any
15 [AIF’s Major Proposals, cont’d] other purpose. Perhaps there are additional legal safeguards – a “firewall”- that could be put in place for this purpose, but my belief is that restricted funds must, by law, be used for the purposes established by the donor. Of course Antioch is committed to carrying out the wishes of its donors. We are launching a Capital Campaign on behalf of the College (not the University), so this message must be credible to our alumni and other donors, or the campaign will fail. I hope that you, Katy, and the AIF fund will provide the leverage needed to secure the first goat, and that I can help AIF members find a way to the second. I have made detailed notes on the various points made in your document, Katy, and I will either write them up for you or FAX my annotated copy to you before our next meeting. Believe me, I share your goal of “a more independent College (less subject to external authority).” My constant refrain is that I want to leave Antioch College financially and psychologically autonomous and healthy. Let’s work together towards that end, making real change and healing the divisions that exist today. Donors to AIF are among those who love the College most, and I want to re-inspire them to contribute their energies as well as their material support, especially in time for the Capital Campaign, especially in time for the Sesquicentennial. If we cannot come to agreement, Katy, and have no resolution to announce, we will leave a generation of alumni worrying and wondering whether the College is worthy of their support. Please help me to bring them in from the cold! Many thanks for all your efforts and for listening to me, too. Yours, Joan [Note to readers This ENDS the ‘Major Proposals’ section. Returning now to Final Report.] 4. AIF Compromise: 8 New Proposals The only reason for this brief section is to explain AIF’s sudden and drastic “change of course” in early spring 2003. You got the ‘new proposals’ with our June progress report, so they are not included. Here we briefly recap the process that led up to them. The president’s reply (above) made it clear that, for whatever reasons, the 2003 Board had not seen our ‘major proposals’ at all. If there was to be any chance for an AIF/ BOT agreement enabling the Fund to go to the College, it must be based on a new AIF initiative — simple and concise, one that could be discussed and voted up-or-down in the few months remaining on our calendar. Months earlier, an attorney with expertise in higher education law, affiliated with neither AIF nor AU, had critiqued AU’s By-Laws with an eye to improving AC’s position in the university. Antioch had amended its by-laws more or less constantly since the 70s, so that was a familiar route for trustees. For AIF, it was a massive compromise, but one we felt we could defend as small but meaningful steps toward the original “transition” to which AIF’ers had contributed so generously. Our eight proposals were submitted in March, and the mediator worked with both the president and AIF on revisions for about a month. The final revised version went to the president’s office on April 17. AIF had let it be known informally that AC’s gift of $1.22 M depended mostly upon BOT action on only two of the proposals (1 & 8, corresponding roughly to the two areas that the president’s Feb 24 email had suggested for further discussion). #1 was about legal control of AC’s gift income, including almost all of the university’s endowment. To serve as the needed “firewall,” AIF proposed establishing an Antioch College Foundation into which all AC monetary assets were to be transferred, and into which the Independence Fund could be deposited forthwith. #8 restored AdCil’s governing role in the institution, which had been deleted from Antioch’s charter when it was legally re-designated as a university in the late ‘70s. You know the rest of the story. Not only were none of the proposals acted upon but, as far as we can tell, voting members of the Board didn’t discuss them at all. It was an executive decision made by four salaried employees and approved only by the Board Chair, all five being quite content with the status quo. [Note to readers: That completes the text of our Final Report. Pages 16-20 are enclosures, FYI.]
16 A Short History of Antioch’s Chancellorship 1990-91 First envisioned by AU/AC Pres. Guskin, in his “administrative restructuring plan.” Feb. 1992 Proposed to! approved by BOT, as part of Decentralization (later called Federalism) Spring 1993 Efficacy of the federal structure was questioned in NCA’s accreditation report. July 1994 Both the Chancellorship and a new (separate) AC Presidency were implemented. Guskin titles: Chanc. of AU and Pres. of the AU Corp. Crowfoot title: Pres. of AC.] Oct 1996 Crockett/Mulhauser proposal (to reinstate AU/AC dual-presidency) defeated by BOT. April 1997 The first Chancellor-Search was launched; advertised in Chronicle of H.Ed. Aug 1997 James W. Hall appointed Chancellor for five years, Jan1998 through Dec 2002. Sept 1997 Chanc. Guskin left office, moving as a tenured professor to the Seattle campus. Oct 1997 Interim Chancellor (and AU VP/Finance) Watts served for 3 months. Jan 1998 Chancellor Hall took office in Yellow Springs. FY2000 Noting fiscal problems, Hall suggested a comprehensive review of the federal model. June 2001 Ch. Hall declined to seek contract renewal; planned to retire as of January 2003. Feb 2002 BOT replaced Chanc. Hall. Acting Chanc (& A/NE Pres) Craiglow remained in Keene, NH. June 2002 Trustees postponed plans for a 2nd Chancellor-Search, leaving Craiglow in charge. —————————————————————————————————————————— In FY01 the cost of this one position, first budgeted in FY95, was $204,000 [ 60K in salary + $44K in benefits], per data from the 11/22/02 Chron H.Ed. Four men have held it but only one, who resigned early, was recruited through an academic search process. Following NCA-mandated closure of two big campuses in 1990, Antioch was cost-effectively centralized around the College. From ‘86 to ‘94, one president led the college, the university, the corporation, and Antioch’s most successful Capital Campaign. FY03 trustees might do well to consider the advantages of adapting that basic leadership structure to their present needs: to (1) develop a competitive institution, and to (2) conduct another successful Campaign. No other ‘federation’ has ever existed in higher education. Pres. Guskin’s plan, seriously questioned by his own VP/Finance, was Board-approved with no hard data re: its probable impact on university-wide budgets, or on governance/leadership in general. Many questions were raised later– by the NCA, by AC (faculty, alumni-board, donors), by trustees, even by the CEO hired in 1997. The brief, unquiet history of this chancellorship seems to suggest the need for revisions in order to attract and retain strong candidates in the academic marketplace. Katherine L. Jako, 2/20/03
17 Antioch Investments: 1963-1990 Incorporated in 1852, Antioch is still one corporation. What is now AU began in 1963 when the AC Corp acquired an unaccredited graduate school in Vermont. Subsequent Boards (both AC & AU) invested heavily in adult! graduate ‘centers,’ opening & closing dozens of them for 27 fairly chaotic years. This is a review of that period’s fiscal impact upon the residential college. 1963-72 These controversial “start-up” years entailed sustained deficit spending by the AC Corp. It was thought that, like other adult programs, the Centers would thrive and turn profits for AC, but that rarely happened. In any event, start-up funds were taken (“borowed” ?) from resources of the original liberal arts college, regarded as ‘one of the best’ throughout the ‘60s. – 1972 Pres. Dixon split his ‘Network’ away from the ‘YS campus,’ taking AdCil out of College-wide fiscal planning. Both halves (Network led by the CEO; YS campus led by an interim Dean) still belonged to the AC Corp. When trustees approved the “split,” did they ascertain the size of the debt owed to the original college by the Network? How much endowment had been “borrowed?” 1972-77 For 5 years of two-administration bookkeeping, additions to! subtractions from that “debt” may be hard to calculate. Enrollment in YS declined from almost 2,500 to just over 1,300 but it’s safe to assume that: (a) the original campus was solvent through 1977; (b) the Network, which opened 17 and closed 13 units in this period, was spending more than it took in; and (c) assets of the YS campus (e.g., endowment, alumni, goodwill, reputation etc kept the corporation afloat Oct. 1977 Trustees of the AC Corp (with two administrations) legally designated it as the AU Corp with dozens of units including a residential college. Did the books of the new entity carry forward an indebtedness to the YS campus? Can that debt be expressed in 2003 dollars? Or did the name-change wipe out prior fiscal records, making all units equal and starting the College over at zero? 1978-90 In fiscal crisis, AU had to invest in a long series of costly closures. By 1990, it had almost come full circle. Only 3 units were left outside of YS; the college seemed to be rebuilding; and AU remained among the most marginal of ‘private universities.’ Antioch College still furnished its marketing image, its name-recognition, and (most important) its Capital Campaign investors. * * * * * * * * * * Now, 13 precarious fiscal years later, College alumni are asked to endow [to provide a permanent source of income to] this university whose 25-yr history of managing College assets inspires so little confidence. AIF proposes that the College form a separate corporation (e.g., an AC Foundation) to receive, manage and report on its own monetary assets, particularly its own endowment. With such a legal firewall securely in place between the resources of Antioch’s liberal arts college and those of its other components, reluctant investors (including AIF) may once again invest generously in the school that invented “co-operative education for liberal arts undergraduates” — Antioch College. Katherine L. Jako (Rev. May 2003)
18 AIF Petition Endorsements Fay Huffinan Abelson Irma R. Abrams Robert M. Abrams Barbara Dole Acosta James A. Aldrich * Louise Sanford Aldrich Dorothy Hall Alexander * Pauline J. Johnson Alexander William E. Alexander * Bennett Alford Lezli Alford Joseph L. Anderson Laura Jarrells Anderson Anonymous (4) David E. Apter Eleanor Selwyn Apter John Arras Connie Sekerak Austin Karen Lelli Austin Rob Austin John D. Ayer Edythe Scott Bagley Esther L. English Bailes Daniel Bailey Deborah S. Bakan Carrie Theis Baldwin * Robert F. Baldwin, Jr. Penny Hartshorne Jones Barbera Rex Barger James D. Bargerstock Eric R. Bass G. William Bauer Rodney Bean Alan M Beasley Barbara J. Dinsmore Beasley Patricia McAdoo Beasley Frederick S. Beckner Nao Okuda Belser William L. Belser Judith Ginsberg Bender Jan Franklin BenDor Michael David BenDor Mary Maureen Bennett Ruth F. Bent Nancy (Terry) Hanis Beresford Ernest P. Bicknell, II Harvey Birenbaum Roberta Messner Block Gregory Blodgett Edward H. Bohike Annabel Dawson Boissevain Mathew G. Boissevain Mary Alice Bond Richard G. Bond Alan Booth Menucha Boomer Mary Brombacher Bieri Bowman
Emma L. Brackett Charlotte Thomas Breckenridge Gary J. Brick Lorie Silber Brillinger Rosa Engel Bromberg Kathan Brown Margaret (Peggy) Fisher Brown * Thomas Edward Brown James G. Bruce Myron (Mike) H. Burnstein Don E. Burris Laura Menken Butler Marian Lippitt Cameron H. Theodore Campbell Jean M. Hayward Campbell Theresa Black Carlson Lorenzo L. Carter Patrick A. Cates Shannon A. Cates Kenneth H. Champney Margaret (Peg) Palmer Champney John H. Chandler Gordon A. Chapman Mary W. Chapman Elisabeth Christensen Wadleigh Roberta (Bobbie) Lester Churchill Elizabeth (Betty) Gates Clegg John C. Cobb, Jr. Michael Cohen Richard D. Colburn Richard W. Colburn Richard M. Colvard George W. Comstock Cecil K. Conklin Carol Rubin Cook Jeremy Vance Cooke Hilda Millbank Cooley Alan K. Cornelius Ruth Fortner Cowperthwaite Leila Boykin Crane Joyce Creber Eleanor Neel Curry John W. Curry Thomas H. Curry James Poole Dahlberg Meredith Dallas Willa Dallas Lauretta Sanford Dankers Marvin Davis Ruth Brant Davis Richard S. Dawson, Jr. Harry Olin Deatherage Marilee Knebel Deatherage Leslie DeBartolo David Dempsey * Alvin L. Denman Donna K. D. Denman David A. Dietrick Bruce Dobberteen Sara Epstein Dobberteen Arthur A. Dole Marjorie Welsh Dole
Susan Bishop Drum Steven Douglas Duffy Peter Dummett Jane Eaton William A. Edmundson Ann Weisler Edmundson Mark A. Edson Jeanne Watson Eisenstadt E. Rowley Elliston Megan Elsensohn Elizabeth Emrey Barbara Shipherd Evans Gordon W. Evans Lauryl Evans Kevin Evilsizor Betty J. Ross Farrell David C. Farrell Anne Gross Feldman Gordon A. Fellman Myra (Miki) Zorn Fetzer Peter G. Fetzer Louis Filler * Roger W. Fingado Barbara Redman Finlayson Edwin Z. Fisher Miki McBride Fisher Alice B. Fogel James R. Foreit Karen G. Fleischman Foreit Lawrence E. Fox Paul Fox Barbara Laise Francis Mary Hodge Frantz Jane Felsenthal Fraser Julius T. Fraser Eliot Fremont-Smith Martin L. Fried C. Robert Friedman Jeffrey Friedman Lenore Ann Friedman Nancy J. Friedman Martha Milligan Friese John Frings Elizabeth Wolff Simpkins Furber Clarke L. Gage Constance Crockett Gahagan David Galin Helen Irwin Gallagher Henry M. Gallagher Mark A. Gamin Mary E. Gamson William A. Gamson Zelda Finklestein Gamson Tendaji W. Ganges Herb Gardner Geoffiey J. Garrett Donald L. Gasho Hildred Storey Geertz Galen S. Gilbert Stacey M. Gilbert Peter Gilmartin Janet Lyttle Gleeson
19 Selma Kushner Goldblatt * Michael Paul Goldfarb Sanders Goldstein Bonnie Faye Goodell Reba Goodman Daniel H. Goodwin Esther Newcomb Goody Debra J. Gottlieb Joseph S. Gottlieb Robert Gottlieb Vera Cohen Gottlieb Andrew Goutman F. Lincoln Grahlfs Judson C. Gray Michael R. Gray Robert IL Green Allison Greene Daniel J. Greene Fred I. Greenstein Phyllis Feldman Greenwood Barbara (“Bariie”) Dallas Grenell Peter Grenell Constance Foster Griffith Doris Gittlen Griffith Wendell W. Griffith Elaine Shuman Grossman Agnes J. Forrest Gruliow Leo Gruliow * Gwendolyn Mumma Gunn Sherry R Hahn George Halverson Kit Kitchen Hamilton Monroe K. Harris * Judith M. Hart Sue C. Hartman Isabel Judd Harvey Gerald A. Harwood Thomas R. Haugsby Selma Hayman Dorothy Mason Headley Knud J. Helsing * Nancy J. Henly Mildred McNichols Henry Kimberly Braze Hermsmeier Stephen R. Herr Theresa Wilhelm Herr Elsie Owen Hevelin Dorothy Hubert * Roy 0. Hoffman Betty Joan Gruver Hofstetter Robert P. Hofstetter Pamela Savoy Hogarty Max Holland Barrett Hollister Katharine Maxwell Hollister David A. Horowitz Ann Conlon Horvath Daniel D. Hotaling William B. Houston, Jr. M. K. Hudgins Jana Hueffed Carol Hunsicker
Frances Wrobel Hurley Peter L. Hurst * Carl Dudley Hyde Lorena Estlow Hyde Frances Schonfeld Jacobs Karen Folger Jacobs Robert E. Jacoby Margaret Hyde Jagler Katherine L. Cobb Jako David A. Johnson Jean Hanson Johnson Michael B. Jones Harold (Hal) Joseph Robert C. Judd George W. Judson John R. Judy Teddi Lind Kachi Yukio Kachi Anne Wingfield Kaplan Richard Kaplan Arno Karlen Martin W. Keck Mary Mesaros Kennedy Barry E. Keyes Joan Leon King * Louis G. King Ruth Hameyer King Michael L. Kingston John Michael Kittross Sally Sprague Kittross * Fiona A. Kennedy Knox J. Douglas Knox Nancy Hedrich Knox Dorothy Witter Koltnow Peter 0. Koltnow Andrea Tuttle Kornbluh John Kornbluh Carol Tweedie Korty Lawrence I. Kramer, Jr. Evelyn Koenig LaMers Thomas H. LaMers David L. Landes Wendy Frances Lang G. Christian Lantzsch Beatrice Rosenblum Larsen Leonard H. Larsen Lawrence J. Lasser Jon H. Lawrence Daniel Lednicer Lester P. Lee, Jr. Mary Bernard Leuba Richard J. Leuba Joan Levy Levitt Theodore Levitt Laurence A. Lewis Richard L. Lightstone Georgia Lloyd * Thomas E. Londergan Jay W. Lorsch Nancy Loughridge James N. Lowe Leona Stepek Lundy
Richard M. Lundy Christopher H. Lutz Sally Shove Lutz Alison Maier Andrew D. Manic SarahD. Manic Richard 1’. Mansfield * Joseph L. Marcum Hubert Marshall Janice Kimball Marshall Rachelle Lubar Marshall Mary Catherine Mohn Martin Sho Maruyama Shannon T. Mauldin Dixie Kiser Maurer Bonner J. McAllester Ernest D. McDaniel Winifred Olsen DeVos McLaughlin Jerrie Michael Meadows Marilou Pinnick Mendel Alexander R. Mercer Bessie D. Moore Mercer Evelyn Catton Messer David P. Michener Gene B. Milgram Grace Smelo Milgram * Margaret J. Millard Bernard S. Miller * Daniel E. Miller Nasha Levitt Miller Niela Miller Norman Miller Marilyn Savolaine Minto Charles McKim Mitchell Walter J. Monasch use Bloch Moon Richard H. Moore Zerka 1. Moreno Jane Moore Morgan Stanley J. Morse Gretchen Muller Kristin Muller Paul L. Munson Nicholas F. Muska Susan Hartman Muska Caroline Nappo Maijorie Miller Nelson Thomas E. Nelson, Jr. Nancy B. Nestegard F. Barry Norris Steven Olson Teresa Olson John F. O’Neill * Nancy A. Loomis O’Neill Judith Dehn Oplinger Maijorie Clapp Pasch Ronald W. Pasch Albert E. Paschkis Marcia 111ff Paschkis Josephine Gerace Pasciullo Robert J.Pasciullo
20 Connie Pelekoudas Lois M. Pelekoudas Bernard A. Penziner Davis G. Phinney Erma H. Nash Phinney Mark A. Pinsky Robin Rubenstein Poer Jessie Jean Poesch Mark L. Pomerantz Ronah Gordon Posner * Marion Esch Potter Winifred Champney Pozorski Alexandra Pye Edgar W. Pye Joni Rabinowitz John K. Rains Hugh Lamont Randall David J. Raynor Dorothy L. Read Carl B. Reeverts Maureen Reid-Cunningham Elaine Sokol Reisman Pamela Rice Rendeiro Jean Sanford Replinger Stuart J. Rice Edward W. Richard William H. Richardson Ruth L. Ricket Thelma Whitehouse Riley Marie Riordan Shirley A. Collins Ritz Sonia Jaffe Robbins Linda B. Robinson Nancy Roca Harold W. Roeth Jane Rogers Malcolm D. Rogers Alan Roland Donald E. Ronda J. Arlene Heintzelman Ronda Arthur W. Rose Chris Prouty Rosenfeld Lyle C. Rossman Caroline Wingfield Roth Dennis M. Roth Joy Lipman Rubin Larry W. Rubin Gary Rudnick Sharon A. Salit John S. Sample Jane Sanford Stephen Schecter David Schinhofen Albert Schoemann Howard Schuman Josephine Miles Schuman John Schnurer E. Jack Schoop Alden W. Sears George G. Seifert Nancy Seifert Eleanor Sekerak
Emil Sekerak * Elizabeth Storey Selim Elizabeth Hayes Senf Rita Senf Thelma G. Seto Charlotte Teni Shaw Kathleen Penn Shaw * Keny Sheehan Ruth Pollack Shelley Thomas G. Shelby Os J. Shepler Karen L. Shirley Ruthe Peoples Sicherman Jay Siegel Evelyn Sikes Walter W. Sikes Frank R. Silbajoris Richard H. Sill Donna G. Silvert Nancy Whittemore Simon Andrew (Kim) Simons David L. Singer Judith Gruender Singer Rebecca Furlow Skinner Deidre Skiar Edna R. Small H. Roger Smith Jean Gibb Smith Paul Hugh (“Happy”) Smith Richard I. Snider Arthur Louis Solomon Daniel Solomon * Robert H. Somers Lois Reminers Sparks Megan Rosenfeld Spencer Hans B. C. Spiegel Donald F. Stanat Sylvia Chi Stanat Joan Leah Hobbs Staples Joanne H. Steinhilber Mildred K. Nickels Stephens Stephen W. Stephens * James L. Stern Ward R. Stoops David B. Stoppelman William Stroder Anita F. Swetland Ruth A. Swett * Tekia Taylor-Lagway Martha(Mimi) Taylor Teghtsoonian Barbara Ritz Thacker Erik Thomsen * Virginia Neal Thornthwaite Maiit Beckman Thorson Rebecca Lawrence Tobias Stephen L. Tobias Sally Lou Todd Richard W. Toelken Catherine Clancy Towbin Victoria E. Townsend Arthur K. Trenholme Gene Davenport Trolander *
Hardy W. Trolander John B. Trostle Suzanne Leseur Trostle Katherine Bernhardi Trow Martin A. Trow Earl M. (Mac) Unger William F. Van Orsdol John B. Van Zwieten Gordon F. Vars Paul W. Wagner Elizabeth Bull Waldhauer John J. Waldhauer Ellen Bass Walker Elizabeth Lundquist Wallace Leslie Waltzer Jonathan R. Warren Norma Hostetler Watson Betty Ann Link Webster Margaret E. Weeks Peter Weeks Ruth B. Weeks Leonora Weinblatt Harry Weiss Charles A. Wellers Janis Lehman Wellers Ralph E. Welton Anne (Mitzi) Wilson Wheeler Canton E. Wheeler Scott M. Wheeler Lynn Westerman White William C. White Beverly B. Wilder Timothy i. Wiles Elizabeth Owen Wilson Everett K. Wilson * Jean Bloch Wilson * Robert Louis Wilson Richard H. Wood, Jr. C. Allen Wortley Dale Broch Wortley David Yngve Alfred J. Zacher Conrad Zagory, Jr. Elaine Green Zimmerman Mark H. Zoole Italics denote former trustees of Antioch College (1852-1977) and/or University (1978 – present) * deceased
21 Over $1.2 million at stake as Antioch negotiations stall Robert Mihalek – Yellow Springs News – June 26, 2003 It appears that Antioch University and a group of Antioch alumni and supporters will not be able to reach an agreement that would have secured more than $1 million for Antioch College. Officials at Antioch and the director of AIF, or the Antioch Independence Fund, said that recent proposals made by both sides are unacceptable, and with a June 30 deadline, which was set by AIF, just days away, people involved in the situation say that the negotiations are essentially over. Even if the two sides continued to negotiate, they have a ways to go to close the gap between their positions. Katy Jako, the director of AIF, said that the group is still open to “substantive negotiations” and would extend its deadline, if the Antioch University Board of Trustees asked. But, in a phone interview from Richmond, Calif., where she lives, Jako said, what is on the table “is not particularly encouraging.” Joan Straumanis, the Antioch College president, who negotiated with Jako, said, “It looks as if no agreement is possible with the AIF. That is something I regret.” “The board certainly doesn’t seem to have an appetite for more negotiations,” Straumanis said later of the university Board of Trustees. “We’re not going to go out to California, we’re not going to negotiate with Katy anymore,” said Dan Kaplan, chair of the university Board of Trustees. What’s at stake is $1,217,000, which AIF has raised through pledges. Formed to “fund the transition of Antioch College from its status as a dependent unit of AU to that of an independent liberal arts college in Yellow Springs,” AIF would give the college its money if the group reached an agreement with the Board of Trustees that made the college “more independent,” Jako said in a letter to AIF supporters, who, according to Jako, include 539 people who have either endorsed the fund or donated money to it. If AIF can’t reach an agreement with Antioch, the group plans to disperse its money to other tax-deductible organizations chosen by donors. In an interview Sunday, Straumanis stressed that she hopes the donors and supporters of AIF will support the college. “I hope the AIF donors and members who say they are so devoted to the college will come through for us and help us financially and in other ways well into the future,” she said. At least one AIF advisor plans to do that. Barry Hollister, who held various positions at Antioch for more than 30 years and has advised AIF, said this week that he and his wife, Kay, would give their donation to the college. Hollister supports both AIF and Antioch College. For instance, he said, the university needs to consult the college more about finances and operations, which he called a “culture of truly consultation and governance.” He also said, “I think the present president and leadership of the college is very favorable.” “At the end of the day, most people in AIF will see a bright future for Antioch College and will want to support it,” Kaplan said in a phone interview last Friday from his home office in Westmoreland, N.H. Straumanis also said that she regretted the “short time” between AIF’s deadline and the final proposal from the Board of Trustees, which Jako described as “restatements of the status quo.” Negotiations between Straumanis and Jako started last year, and at least twice, they issued optimistic statements. After Straumanis and Jako met on Aug. 23, 2002, a statement was released saying, “In our continuing discussions we will endeavor to further narrow our differences and reach agreement on specific ways that the centrality of the college can be assured over the long term by the Board of Trustees.” In April 2003, AIF submitted what appears to be its final proposal, which defined “the centrality of Antioch College within Antioch University.” The points included creating an Antioch College Foundation, controlled by the college president, to manage money and assets raised by the college, and including the college’s Administrative Council (AdCil) in the selection and removal of the college’s president as well as the responsibility, with the president, to manage the college and its academic programs. To implement the points, Antioch University would have to amend its bylaws. The college foundation would be a corporation that would receive and manage the college’s monetary assets, Jako said. It would serve AIF’s goal to create what Jako called a “firewall between the finances of the college and the university.”
22 [“Antioch negotiations stall” cont’d] Antioch administrators and Kaplan countered with a proposal that said endowment and annual funds donated to the college shall be “restricted for exclusive use by Antioch College,” and that alumni and others will be able to inspect endowment records and the budgets of the college and university. The proposal also said that AdCil would play an advisory role in the selection or dismissal of the college president, as well as advise the president in the management and policy-making at the college. The two points would “provide the necessary reassurance to AIF regarding two primary concerns,” Straumanis and Jim Craiglow, the university chancellor, said in a letter to Jako. Straumanis said that the Board of Trustees regarded the proposed points as “non-issues,” since, for instance, the college controls its assets “with board oversight.” It would be illegal for the university to spend money designated for the college on anything but the college, Straumanis said. AIF could not endorse the university’s response, Jako said, because it “indicates no change in the direction for which the fund was established.” Straumanis pointed out that the university subsidizes the college and gives it a break on overhead services that the university provides. “For the last decade the university has been financially essential to the college’s health,” she said. “The college could not thrive without the university,” Straumanis added. The differences between AIF and Antioch cover more than their proposals. Both Kaplan and Straumanis said that AIF has hurt Antioch College. AIF’s campaign caused confusion, and some have not donated funds to AIF or Antioch because they did not want to take sides, Straumanis said. Kaplan said that AIF is “doing great harm to an institution that they say they love.” He contrasted that with the Board of Trustees, whom, he said, have contributed $24 million to the college for various activities and needs. He also pointed out that the Antioch College endowment has increased from $12.2 million in 1997 to $28.3 million last year. The college, he said, has a “dynamic president” and a “Board of Trustees that’s committed to Antioch College.” Jako said that AIF has had a positive impact on the college. The group has “done a good job” raising consciousness and asking questions in public. But Jako said that Antioch University “has coasted on the academic reputation of Antioch College.” “We see no future” for the university, she said. The college would be more successful if, for example, the college faculty had the power to set graduation standards, Jako said. Kaplan and Straumanis also disagreed with Jako’s assessment of the university. “Antioch University not only can survive, it does survive in a competitive, private market,” Straumanis said. [End]
23 Antioch to sell land on south end (Proceeds needed to balance college’s budget) Lauren Heaton – Yellow Springs News – July 3, 2003 Antioch College needs to balance its budget this year, and to do that college and university officials have agreed to sell 22 acres of property Antioch owns on the south end of Yellow Springs. Located behind residences on Orton Road, Glenview Drive and Stewart Drive, the property is zoned Residence A, which according to the Village Zoning Code, allows for medium-density single-family development. Antioch also currently has the Morgan House on Limestone Street on the market, but officials hope that it will remain a bed and breakfast. “The college is not interested in managing real estate,” Antioch University vice-chancellor and CFO Glenn Watts said of the decision to sell the 22-acre property. “The land is surplus, and it has no foreseeable use by the college or the university.” In addition, Watts said the favorable housing market, the college’s need for funds and the village’s need for additional housing, created an opportune moment to sell the properties. The college is asking $525,000 for the land, or approximately $24,000 per acre. The college has owned the property, known as Birch III, since the 1930s when Hugh Taylor Birch donated Glen Helen and other land to Antioch. A proposal to sell the land was presented to the college budget committee late this spring. Its location in the village with access to utilities and good drainage make it ideal for housing, Watts said. One local developer had previously expressed an interest in Birch III, Watts said, and the current low-interest rates could make it more attractive to other potential home builders. Local real estate agent Jo Dunphy agreed that current rates could be a positive incentive for buyers. “Investors are going to be able to borrow at a lower rate, and that’s a big boon to developers and wonderful for people who want to buy houses,” Dunphy said. “And $24,000 per acre is a very fair price, one or two buyers would be perfect for it.” The college needs the money for essential operating expenses and for student scholarships, one of the school’s biggest expenses, college President Joan Straumanis said. In her “State of the College” address on Saturday, Straumanis said that proceeds from the sale will help the college balance its budget. “There’s no way we can have a balanced budget without selling the land,” she said. But officials also realize that land is a finite resource and that the school needs to find a way to stabilize its finances by attracting more students, Watts said in a recent interview published in the Antioch Record, the campus newspaper. The university is looking for a builder or an architect with a vision for the property, Watts said. Straumanis said that the college hopes to find a socially responsible developer who would build a variety of types of housing and serve the needs of Yellow Springs. “We’d love a developer who would pay attention to the needs of our faculty for affordable housing,” she said. Morgan House will be listed on the market next week, though it is available now. The university would consider leasing the building again, but officials prefer to sell it, Watts said. Marianne Britton, who holds the lease on the Morgan House, closed down her bed and breakfast operation last month when health problems prevented her from continuing to manage the business. Britton has another two years to go on her 20-year lease, but she said last month that she does not want to sublease it.
