↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
Board of Trustees
150 E. South College Street
Yellow Springs, OH 45387
937-769-1345(phone)
937-769-1350(Fax)
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 2-4, 2006
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Note: These are the minutes ofthe mee~ings conducted closed and open sessions.
Tuesday, Jan uary 31, 2006
The Investment Committee met today to interview investment advisors.
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
ULC met all day today. The Investment Committee met this morning and the Trusteeship
Committee met in the afternoon.
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Today’s plenary session took place at the Seattle Campus.
Trustees present: Art Zucker/Chair, Michael Alexander, Bruce BedfordlTreasurer, Amy Chappell,
Dan Fallon/Vice Chair, John Feinberg, Dianne Brou Fraser, Everette Freeman, Sherwood Guernsey,
Reuben Harris, Hal Joseph, Dan Kaplan, Jeff Kasch, Niels Lyster, Tom McNicol, Jack Merselis,
Larry Stone, and Barbara Winslow/Secretary.
Absent: David Crippens, Paula Treichler
Others present: Laurien Alexandre, University-wide Dean; Barbara Danley, President of Antioch
University McGregor; LucyAnn Geiselman, President Antioch University Southern California;
Rick Jurasek, Chief Operating Officer of Antioch College; Neal King, Interim President Antioch
New England Graduate School;’ Steve Lawry, President Antioch College; Toni Murdock, Acting
Chancellor and President of Antioch Seattle; Don Tecklenburg, Vice Chancellor and Chief
Financial Officer; David Weaver, University Legal Counsel; Karen Ely and Leslie Johnson,
Assistant Secretaries of the Board. Also present were Jessica Geiben Lynn ofthe Center For
App lied Research (CFAR) and Bob Ness, consultant for Trustee/ULC morning session. Seattle
Community members included Onnond Smythe, Academic Dean; Pat Linn, Chair, Psy.D. Clinical
Psychology Program/Core Faculty, Center for Programs in Psychology; Mary Lou LaPierre, Mark
Hauer, and Richard Norris; College Community members included Margo Tucker, Director of the
Office of Institutional Advancement; Dennie Eagleson, Assoc Prof of Photography (College); and
Shelby Chestnut, College Conununity Manager.
7:30 – 8:00AM
The Board met in Executive Session.
8:00 – 9:10AM
Acting Chancellor Toni Murdock joined the Executive Session.
Plenary Session Call to order.
Art Zucker called the meeting to order at 9: 15AM. He began by asking all the guests in the room to
introduce themselves. Art announced that, for reasons everyone should understand, the Trusteeship
Committee has requested that laptops be turned off and that cell phones be put on etiquette mode.
Art asked Steve Lawry to talk about Coretta Scott King who passed away on January 30. Steve
described Mrs. King’s place in American history and her legacy, especially as it related to Antioch
College and what she learned as a result of attending the institution. The national magazine of the
Urban League, Opportunity: the Journal ofNegro Life, published in 1948 the article she wrote as a
third-year Antioch student; called “Why I Came to College.”
Art thanked Steve then asked for a moment of silent reflection on and contemplation of the memory
of Coretta Scott King.
Chair’s Report (A copy of the entire report is on file with these minutes.)
Art briefly reviewed the leadership transition events following the October meeting and his
involvement with the University Leadership Council (ULC), including being invited to attend a
portion of their Winter Retreat in S1. Louis.
Among his various travels on behalf of Antioch was the trip Seattle for the AUS graduation where
he spoke on behalf of the Board of Trustees and was part of the receiving line to congratulate the
graduates. As was the case at previous Antioch graduations he has attended recently, he was deeply
moved by the excitement and the urunistakable Antiochian values in evidence in the students there.
“The highlight of the day,” he said, “was when I shook the hand of Edna Travis, congratulating her
for achieving the degree of Master of Arts in Education. Edna is 77 years old!” Toni had said to
him then: “This is why we’re here” and he said the same to the Trustees now. “This is our
compensation for our work. If you haven’t attended a graduation, you’ve missed your payday.”
In his meeting with a large donor in December, Art reported that this donor, who cares very much
for Antioch, commented that Antioch doesn’t seem to keep its Chancellors very long, and then
asked Art’s comments. He had responded that in his opinion there were two main reasons for this
in recent history: the first is a lack of agreed upon expectations and the second is inadequate staff
support.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 MeetingMinutes
2
To the first point, he noted that since he’s been in the role of board chair, agreed upon goals for the
chancellor have been established. To the second point, Art pointed out that there is no senior
support in place for the chancellor to offload key projects and tasks – identified executive tasks
that have University-wide substance. After Toni’s analysis of the situation, he said “it’s become
clear to her and to the ULC that infrastructure and processes are missing and need to be put in place
to operate effectively.” He noted that this is a long-term process, and that Toni has agreed to act on
the need for senior University staff support as well as additional secretarial staff, what Art referred
to as an investment in needed personnel. He pointed out the obvious need for financial resources in
order to accomplish this which will “will require some creativity and a change in attitude …. In any
organization there are costs of operation for needed functions – some can be, and should be,
effectively centralized …. The ULC [has} some control over this [and} collaboratively can determine
what activities should be centralized.” Art added that the ULC is “entitled to demonstrated
assurance that the shared functions are being properly managed.” Art entreated his trustee
colleagues that the Board “must be prepared to provide adequate resources. If it’s determined by
our management team that additional funds are required, then we must be willing to find ways to
get them,
Art addressed the necessity of a sound, positive relationship between the Board Chair and the
Chancellor/CEO. He recounted the details of his new and evolving relationship with Toni as she
took the reins as acting chancellor beginning the end of October, noting among other firsts that a
board chair had never been invited to attend a ULC retreat. “This was a giant step in dismantling
the wall that had been in place separating the Board of Trustees from the ULC,” he said, adding that
“the relationship has heen growing since then.”
When ULC asked him during their conference call what he’d like to accomplish over the next 6
months, he responded that he wanted to build transparency and trust between the Board and ULC.
“I was pleasantly surprised,” he said, “when our management team responded with an enthusiastic
desire to pursue such an effort, and recommended that we do so with the aid of a professional
consultant in the process.” As a result of this, Toni and Art had identified a facilitator to lead a
session that afternoon with the goal of tearing down “what’s left of the wall that separates us, and
clear away the rubble so we can go forward together.”
In reporting on what it was like to be a participant in the ULC’s retreat, he said “This is a powerful
group of senior, experienced managers applying their keen insight, intellect and energy to the
myriad matters of this complex entity – and doing so in a collaborative manner.” He came away
with a substantially increased respect for each member of the management team, and for the group
as a whole. “One thought keeps coming forward in my mind – that is: As a Trustee and an
Antiochian – I am very proud of our ULC.”
In spite of the geographic distance between them, Art emphasized that he and Toni communicate
daily and have established clarity in each of their roles and responsibilities, and that “she goes out
of her way to share her ideas, activitie~ and concerns, that she openly seeks advice, and is not
hesitant to disagree. In these first 100 days together I have found her to be energetic, enthusiastic,
fair, sensitive, firm, consistent, trustworthy, not risk-aversive; and she can handle the multi-tasks
before her – promptly and with care …. [and doing so] while holding the title of Acting Chancellor.”
c…, Art noted that among best practices for higher education boards is that the agenda is driven by the
CEO and the management. Although as chair he is responsible for the meeting, and that trustee
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
3
concerns will be recognized, he emphasized that the main thrust of the meeting will be driven by
Toni and the ULC. In conclusion, Art said that in this meeting “you will hear from the Chancellor
and the campus Presidents about their vision of their world; we will work together to enable
transparency and trust between trustees and the management team; and you will see an involved
Chancellor.” Art expres::edthat, in his view “We have a Chancellor.”
Applause.
Art then gave the flo.orto Toni Murdock for her report to the board.
Toni began by telling the Board that it is often confusing for people to know which role she is
playing – which hat she is wearing – in her dual role as the president ofthe Seattle campus and
acting chancellor of the university. So the solution, she said, was to wear hats that conveyed her
role. She donned a black cowboy hat (to wear as president ofthe campus) and then changed to a
hard hat (to wear as chancellor). Then, while donning a Mao Tse Tung-style cap with a single red
star in front, she joked “this is the one I wear on the other campuses because this seems to be how
people see me.” Finally, she donned a Viking hat to signify that “it ain’t over ’til the fat lady
sings!”
Chancellor’s Report (Toni’s remarks are included here almost in their entirety; a copy of the full
report is on file with these minutes).
Toni quoted from Thomas Friedman’s book The World is Flat which explains that there is a
measure of an institution that is difficult but revolving and involves asking the question:
Does your institution have more memories than dreams or more dreams than memories?
Friedman knows when an organization is in trouble because its management tells him how
good they were in the past, that when memories exceed dreams, the end is near. The
hallmark of a truly successful organization is the willingness to abandon what made it
successful and start fresh.
Arthur Morgan dreamed of a college such as never existed and felt that Antioch should be a
lever to move the world. Here’s what he said: “My hope for Antioch is that through great
desire disciplined by knowledge, and through great commitment to fine purposes, its students
may be a powerful force for remaking human life.”
Morgan’s dream is a transportable dream from generation to generation, down through the
decades. The dream is sustainable, but only if Antioch is effective in adapting to the
learning environment of each succeeding generation. In reality, this is what the The Plan for
Antioch College accomplished. Although we originally called it a renewal plan, in actuality,
the plan was not built on the old Antioch, but rather creates a new Antioch that realigns its
curriculum to meet the needs of the world of tomorrow.
What are the hallmarks ofthat world oftomorrow? It is a world that requires replacing the
notion of “lifetime employment” with the notion of “lifetime employability” because no one
can be guaranteed lifetime employment anymore. It is a world where the “individual worker
is going to be more and more responsible for managing his or her own career … and economic
security.” A world that requires leadership skills and an educational foundation that
encourages risk-taking and adaptation. A world in which an individual no longer has the
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
4
option to not engage in lifelong learning in order to survive and succeed. The world of today
and tomorrow is not the world of Arthur Morgan 80 years ago, but Morgan’s dream still
remains and the College Plan is built around that dream.
How now do we build the dream around the University? How do we abandon the memories
of its original birth, painful as it was, and move toward a vision of our role and purpose as a
University in the 21st century? It has been over 30 years since the seeds were planted for
Antioch to become a multi-campus system and eventually a university, Granted, its creation
was chaotic and somewhat unintentional, but not without purpose-economical and
educational. Economically it was to provide resources for an un-endowed College by taking
advantage of the growing adult market and educationally it was to spread the gospel of
Antioch.
“It was created in a time when many multi-campus systems were being birthed across the
nation,” she said, giving many examples. “Each of these systems has developed and changed
over the decades. Their structures differ in governance, number of boards, centralization,
and decentralization, some like University of Troy have separately accredited campuses
within the system, some such as National Louis have one faculty senate that governs the
academic sector of all campuses within the system. Their different development patterns
validate that it is not necessary for all of the constituent campuses to he part of every
cooperative activity or consolidation of functions. Nor is it necessary for consolidated
services to be centralized; frequently member campuses can serve as the lead campus, or
service provider, for different system operations.”
Rule of thumb is that “the presumption should always be in favor of decentralization to the
individual campuses or units” (The Multicampus System: Perspectives on Practice and
Prospects). Why? Because we know that when the stakeholders, which includes the
community, feel ownership they become more deeply invested. And, we know that
particularly in an academic setting, the faculty stakeholders are the primary source of
curriculum iIUlovation, student recruitment and student retention.
So, given that we have a similar history to many public systems and even the non-profit
system of the National Louis University, can we be viable as a system in the world of
tomorrow?
Interestingly, approximately 80% of the students currently enrolled in 2- and 4-year public
colleges and universities (and that comprises 80% of the total national enrollments) attend
institutions that are part of mUlti-campus systems. The relevant question here is not whether
we should exist as a system – we do – but rather how do we design and structure the system
to “stimulate, support and sustain an outstanding, highly diverse and responsible higher
education enterprise,” Clark Kerr, president emeritus of University of California, reflected,
“the freestanding campus with its own board, its own and only president, its identifiable
alunmi, its faculty and student body, all in a single location with no coordinating council
above it, is now the exception whereas in 1945 it was the rule.” And I would add that now,
hardly a year passes that the closing or merger of a single college campus doesn’t occur in
American higher education.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
5
There is a supposition by many educational leaders that the multi-campus system is the
model that will survive and thrive in the 21 51 century. Systems are unique in both their
intellectual resources and their capacity to be more than the sum of their parts. However, for
multi-campus systems, public or private, to survive and thrive in the 21 st century, they will
need to be leaner and more agile, supported by infonnation technology and a willingness to
fonn partnerships. This will require a conunitment to collaboration, to inter
connectiveness-among campuses, and even sometimes, competitors-and will require the
system to change its shape and structure over and over again. It is a necessity because higher
education institutions no longer hold the monopoly on education or knowledge nor the
distribution of it. Knowledge is as accessible as the closest computer connected to the
Internet. The learning industry of the 21st century is global, pre-K through 99, and rapidly
growmg.
I believe that Antioch is positioned to be a player in this new world. We have the framework
to be sustainable. Because Antioch is a system, we have more leadership brain power which
can lead to higher levels of creativity and success than can be produced by one single
college. We address the need for life·long leaming and the trend that students 25 years and
older have been increasing at a rate nearly four times as fast as the 18-24 year range. We
have the ability to establish graduate programs desired by our Antioch College students and
streamline their transition from undergraduate to graduate status through 3 + 2 programs
operating at all our graduate campuses. We as an academic institution embody values that
will contribute to Friedman’s dream ofa Great Society that operates on compassionate
flatism, an approach he recommends to maximize the benefits and opportunity of tomorrow’s
world while providing a safety net for those who have difficulty with the transition.
Compassionate flatism is based on leadership, education, social activism and parenting-all
characteristics embedded in Antioch curriculum.
We are positioned, but we will be successful only if we are deliberate in how we continue to
build and plan our system. First, we must create a system that promotes the sustainability of
each independent campus, including the College. We as distinct campuses and as a system
become sustainable when we are seen as a vital member in the conununities in which we
reside and a player in the state and regional higher education systems where we are located.
Leaders on our campuses must serve on conununity boards and state and national
professional boards. Our students must embrace their responsibility for civic engagement
and community service locally as well as internationally.
This means designing a system that is seen as not only contributing to the educational needs
of the region, but also contributing economically through local banking, purchasing, and
community-based research. The success of the individual campuses is in responding to the
local and regional needs; the success of the university is a system designed to encourage each
campus to greatness by providing economical efficiencies, support systems, and safety nets
unable to be achieved by a single campus.
To achieve that kind of system, we must turn to the second challenge, the plan for the system
itself. System planning is different from institutional planning because our system has
different priorities than the individual institutions. System planning is focused on the optimal
collective perfonnance of its institutions. A recent survey of multicampus CEOs confirmed ~
that the “full potential of the multicampus system is far from being realized. The goal of
Board of Trustees 6
February 2006 MeetingMinutes
achieving ‘creative tension’ between the whole and its parts remains a continuing challenge.
Higher education systems are loosely coupled organizations, which means that there is high
autonomy for individual campuses and what happens in one part of the system does not
necessarily have an effect on any other, let alone all other, parts of the system. At the same
time, it may have great impact on the other parts-intended or unintended. The loosely
coupled character of educational institutions requires a different approach to leading and
planning. ”
More than anything, a loosely coupled organization needs inter-cormectiveness. And the
only way to achieve inter-connectiveness and collective performance across a national
institution is through teclmological development. This is why Antioch must invest in
creating a sophisticated teclmology plan. It is so crucial that the ULC has committed.itself to
a thorough technology audit to be performed by Bill Graves and his team of SunGard
Collegis. Dr. Graves has a national reputation in the role of technology in systemically and
measurably improving institutional performance-baSed on mission– in higher education.
He is one of the best. The audit is to be completed by March of this year. It will allow us to
identify collective needs, address them more effectively and efIiciently-tlrrough prioritization,
and establish a plan of implementation of funding resources.
Later this moming, Launen and I will share with you our new dream – a Virtual Commons
concept that we feel will provide the technological structure to sustain the connectivity and
collective perforntance we require and will also establish Antioch once again in the
innovative realm of education. The purpose of the virtual commons will be to provide
learning services and resources in a high quality, cost-efficient, scaled fashion to students,
faculty and staff of the entire university regardless of geographic location -one shared
library, virtual; one shared student writing and math lab, virtual; one shared foreign language
lab, virtual; one shared faculty training lab, virtual–to mention only a few. Add to this the
concept of a collective graduate study abroad program for both students and alunmi, a
university-wide WYSO and a university wide Antioch Review.
Can we dream? Can we dream of Antioch University becoming the preeminent national non
profit private university system of the 21SI century? To that end, ULC has engaged Tom
Gilmore and two of his associates from the Center of Applied Research out of Cambridge,
Massachusetts to guide us through a University vision and planning exercise. Some of you
have already had the opportunity to work with Tom in the Structure Working Group. The
planning will be focused on five areas (l) the university organizational structure, (2)
university financial modeling, (3) university management procedures, (4) university
technology, and (5) university persormel policies.
The place we stand today in our historical development, reminds me of Rainer Rilke’s
observation, “The future enters into us, in order to transform itself in us, long before it
happens.” Though we acknowledge that this Antioch system was initiated with little
intentional plarming, we have evolved into a University that will serve us in the 21s1 Century.
And, over the last three years, the Board has been intentional in its actions to maintain a
university system. Whatever we do over the next few months will detennine what future we
adopt to transfonn ourselves in order to’serve the generation of students to come. That
generation will include students who are entering a different world than we experienced.
Undergraduate and graduate students who need a system to provide them an education for
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
7
life-time employability. Minority students who need a compassionate system that provides
the safety nets and quality education that allows them to succeed in this newly constructed
flat world.
The American higher education system needs the Antiochs in multiple forms and campuses
to preserve and promote the values of an educated citizenry and to encourage for social
reform. To continue Arthur Morgan’s work to enflame the passion and commitment of our
students with the knowledge to make our world a better place to live – that is Antioch’s
mission. The recent NCA report confirms that Antioch has the capacity to perform that
mission in a far broader context as a university system than as independent campuses
operating alone.
I do not believe that we want to watch Arthur Morgan’s dream become a memory. And, I do
not believe that-when we speak of Antioch’s greatness, its strength, its promise-we want
to be speaking in the past tense. We have the opportunity to grow that dream in the 21 51
Century in ways that make everyone associated with Antioch proud-including many of
those disgruntled.Antioch alumni out there. I am asking that we all stand together-and
work together-to do just that.
Applause and standing ovation.
At the end of Toni’s report, Dan Kaplan remarked that no one had ever made a better case for “the
university” than what he had just heard.
Meeting Overview. Art reviewed highlights on and changes to the agenda, then asked for the
presidents to give their reports; they had been asked to convey their visions for their campuses.
(Their written reports, divided into three categories – Achievements, Opportunities, and Challenges
– were sent to Board members in advance of this meeting. Those reports are on file with these
minutes.)
Reports from the Campus Presidents
AU SEATTLE.
Ormond Smythe, Seattle’s Academic Dean, had been asked to present the report for Antioch
Seattle. Ormond referenced Arthur Morgan’s vision of “Community,” which Antioch takes
seriously everywhere it’s been and that we continue to learn about it. He reflected on Antioch
Seattle’s brief history which has included growing pains. The campus is working on
recasting/reconsidering its governance and its peer review system for faculty reappointment. He
expressed excitement in anticipation of being connected virtually beyond the Seattle campus, and
reported that the recently ~pened new psychology and counseling clinic is thriving. This campus is
“reaching out to the community around us and inviting the community in,” he said. “We are on the
way to becoming one university and that is great news,” he said, “especially considering the
centrifugal history Antioch has had. We are beginning to see the glimmer ofa new kind of unified
institution. ”
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL.
Neal announced the new Rosa Parks memorial scholarship. He handed out a small 4-color
publication – part I ofa 3-part mailer- which is a summary of the various programs at ANE, for
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
8
marketing ANE without having to lug around the various program publications. The campus is
working on a variety of ways to get the word out, reporting that they will have a new view-book
available on July 1. He described it as having higher impact to draw more attention to the campus
and its programs.
He next spoke about Community service and engagement and a new ground-breaking project ANEI
is involved with that will impact the State’s highway system and could have an impact on the US
Department of Transportation. It involves a grant from the State Department of Transportation for
working with communities around the state who are dealing with quality of life issues that emerge
when highways are widened.
Neal reported that the campus is keen to change its name to “Antioch University New England.”
He believes that “after some years of drift, with no active management,” it’s time to get involved
aggressively with strategic enrollment management and building a strong board of visitors.
Although he feels the future is bright, he wonders about the sustainability of a single location
campus, that with the direction the population is moving it may be necessary to establish another
center east of Keene.
Art asked if the basis of his strategic planning process has a timetable? Neal responded that the
themes and directions will be based on resources; the 2007/08 budget will address this.
Dan Kaplan made comparisons between the new marketing piece and having the infonnation on the
ANE web-site, especially as it relates to the older student, and the importance of balancing printed
and web material.
Neal responded that there is a strategic integration of web, print, and marketing/PRJ community
relations. We got a million hits in one month and there’s been an increase in inquiries over a 4
month period through the Web. The campus is collecting data now that didn’t exist before,
including tracking web traffic. ANE has an in-house web staff.
With regard to the transportation department project, Sherwood asked about the idea of reaching out
to other Antioch campuses that may have expertise to enhance the program, in addition to the
regional input he’s getting. Neal had not considered this but was interested in the idea. Likewise,
Neal said he and LucyAnn had discussed AUSC’s Green MBA program and were going to talk to
Laurien about a shared curriculum. If the pilot program (department of transportation) becomes a
model for the federal department of transportation then it would be shared with the other campuses.
AU SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
LucyAnn spoke to the increase of students entering higher education, especially Hispanics, and the
impact on AUSC. There are 7.3 million Latinos in the USA; 20.8% live in eight counties in
southern California between San Diego and Santa Barbara. That percentage went up to 35% in
2005. Antioch’s LA campus has only 44 Latino students; 45 in SB. “That’s going to change,
LucyAnn stated. “We’ve gathered these students for focus groups and intensive conversation, to
learn better ways of attracting Latinos to our programs to meet their educational needs. She met
with the National Hispanic Scholarship FlUld president and learned that they don’t give money to
the campus, they give money to individuals. They were intrigued and interested when LucyAnn
told them what is happening at AUSC. Coincidentally, the new director of Development at AUSC
is a graduate of the National Hispanic Scholarship Fund.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
9
LucyAnn reported that, in anticipation of the MFA in public art, they’re having an exhibit
comprised primarily of a mural by one of the BA completion students from Mexico. She’s making a
mural for the first floor ofthe LA campus building, following the principles of community cultural
development. Mural begins work in March and LucyAnn, along with other faculty and students in
the BA program, have been invited to put a few strokes of paint on the canvas.
She reported serious leadership problems in Santa Barbara, but is starting to see progress, thanks to
Dean Richard Whitney. Her marketing manager has recommended spending more money on
advertising/marketing, so LucyAnn is determined to find $400K to do this. Pepperdine, one of
AUSC’s competitors, spends $500K on just one of their programs, but LucyAnn believes that 400K
will get her campus in the ballgame. “By June 2008 you’ll see a new AU SB,” she promised.
AU MCGREGOR.
Barbara gave examples of her campus’ community engagement, then listed her “Rules of
Engagement” which included listening and being patient, considering what you can offer the
communities you serve, and including your family and friends in extending your reach (equipping
them with t-shirts, mugs, and appropriate infonnation). She distributed her complete list, “A Primer
and history for Creating Partnerships with Our Communities.”
She noted that McGregor wants to be the training place for management. Our future is not about
tuition, she emphasized, “When we look at FTEs, that’s a myopic view.”
ANTIOCH COLLEGE.
(A copy of Steve Lawry’s full report is on file with these minutes.)
This was Steve’s first opportunity to address the Board as the president of the College. He spoke
highly of Rick Jurasek and his contributions as interim President these past eighteen months. “The
College is much stronger for his leadership. The College is much stronger for his leadership on
several fronts, including the curriculum, physical facilities, and faculty and staff morale. We often
associate interim presidencies as times for maintaining the status quo. Rick was hardly the
caretaker. In a time of great challenge and change, he was a decisive and detennined leader,” Steve
said.
Steve declared that there were three things he wanted to mark his presidency. The first is to build
strong foundations for the College’s financial health. The second, to ensure that Antioch College
provides a rigorous liberal arts education that prepares its graduates for lives of meaning and
purpose. And third, to cultivate on campus a climate that embraces intellectual freedom and
tolerance for diverse ideas.
He stated his goal is “to see the College move from a position of chronic financial weakness to self
sustainability and strength.” Feedback from students in the first-tenn learning community has been
very good, he said. “We have invested heavily in communicating the Plan and the curriculum to
prospective students, and those efforts appear to be yielding results.” While strong enrollments are
vital to long-term financial health, he said that “the prospects for the College’s financial viability
can be improved through investment in a variety of other initiatives.”
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
10
He continued, “Most important among these is a sustained, permanent and well-financed investment
in our fund-raising capacity. Clearly, this starts with the president, and how he spends his time and
how effectively he makes the case for Antioch to a variety of constituencies.” He spoke with
confidence about the strong development staff under Margo Tucker’s leadership, that she and her
team are “strengthening the College’s fund-raising capacity across a variety of fronts.” When the
College faces financial difficulties, the tendency.is to cut staff in development and admissions. He
said that these are vital to maintaining the College’s viability and would “not allow this to happen
while I am president.”
Steve recounted that he’s been traveling around the country speaking to alumni and that sometimes
when he leaves an event he’s left “with the impression that a well balanced Antiochian is someone
with a chip on each shoulder. We must listen carefully to what alumni have to say. and give their
views and ideas the weight and respect they deserve. We will continue to pay a great price for
failing to do so.”
With regard to his second goal, he recognized the talented and committed faculty and stated that, “if
properly supported, they will return the College to the kind of intellectual leadership among peer
institutions that has marked Antioch throughout its history.” With a new and compelling
curriculum, “we must do all that we can to evaluate on a continuing basis the effectiveness of our
teaching and learning systems …. [our] student body must be seriously dedicated to learning and
scholarship in the classroom and to community and professional engagement through co-op. I
believe in the peer effect. One of the benefits of attending a residential, liberal arts cQllegeis that
students are living within an intensive learning environment, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They
are likely to learn as much from their peers as they are from their teachers. Academically serious
and prepared peers are essential to the vitality of the learning experience. We are very pwposefully
recruiting students of diverse backgrounds who are deeply serious about their studies…. We have a
new, fresh and compelling curriculum in the Learning Community model. We must do all that we
can to evaluate on a continuing basis the effectiveness of our teaching and learning systems.”
And with regard to his third goal of cultivating a climate of tolerance for diverse ideas, he views this
as a complicated subject, bound up in part “with the very deep divisions that have characterized
American society for the last forty years.” He believes that “the experience oftoday’s Antioch
education, which should offer so much by virtue of its orientation to the world, does not adequately
encourage students to engage with challenging ideas and with others in a spirit of intellectual
openness and rigorous inquiry. This is a matter for faculty, students and College leadership to
wrestle with in a thoughtful and deliberate way, and I intend to lend leadership to what I expect to
be a constructive and rewarding process.”
In closing, Steve emphasized that he will “take time to speak with and Ilsten to faculty, staff and
students on campus and our friends around the country who care about the future of Antioch
College. I will be reporting back to you on what I have learned, and what I am proposing in greater
detail, at future board meetings.”
Dan Kaplan raised the question of the application numbers Steve reported, believing that there are
more applications by virtue of the fact that there is no fee if a student applies on-line. Art asked
what the next indicator is and what it might tell us.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
11
Steve responded that the next indicator will be when deposits start to come in. Other indicators are
visits from prospective students and their parents. On March 12 there will be 80 students visiting
with their parents, which is more than last year. Steve emphasized how much work is going into
this event including the renovation of dorm space.
Don added that when financial aid awards start to go out that will also be an indicator.
Steve said that once an application is received, it’s a matter of developing the relationship, getting
in touch on the telephone, providing financial aid infonnation. “I’m convinced that we have a
professionally managed admissions process, we’re doing all the right things. It’s now [up to us] to
convince these prospects.”
Getting back to Dan’s comment, Margo stated that one of the goals is to provide for students who
aren’t able to pay, so waiving the application fee provides access to those students.
There was a brief discussion about retention and how the College might use the power of Caretta
Scott King’s words to encourage applicants to become students. Steve distributed the obituary for
Mrs. King and a copy of the article she wrote in 1948 when a student at Antioch. Barbara Winslow
suggested that this article be included on the College’s web-site and that there be a conunemoration
of her by the University.
At 11 :55AM, Art announced a 5·minutes break.
Antioch University Virtual Learning Commons Report and Discussion
Laurien Alexandre reported on the progress since she first described the idea of the virtualleaming ….)
conunons to the Board at the June 2005 meeting: Ahead of this meeting, she had provided trustees
with a written report, a concept paper, ·on the vision. The purpose of the Antioch University Virtual
Leaming Conunons would be “to provide learning services and resources in a high quality, cost-
efficient, scaled fashion to students, faculty and staff of the entire university, regardless of
geographic location, and to do this in a manner that supports our mission and purpose of high
quality education, experientialleaming and socially engaged citizenry.” In her report, she described
that these services would be provided “as part of a shared’ commonspace,’ offering resources that
individual campuses have been unable or unwilling to mount, in ways that model the collaborative
networked structure oftoday’s organizational models. It’s helpful to imagine this as a virtual
networked space that complements the ‘campuspace. ‘”
She stated that “Through efficient and effective technologically enabled collaboration that will
allow us to redesign academic support and resources for teaching and learning across the university,
we will not only be unifying the institution but also setting the foundation for a sustainable future.
If we believe that our future holds promise with distinctive mission-driven and competitive campus
based programming as well as innovative, nationally available university-wide degree and non
degree offerings, then we will need to find ways to create high quality learning/teaching resources
and flexible, accessible services that are cost-effective and contain expenses. We are uniquely
positioned to do this although doing so challenges how we operate as a university system.”
There was a break for Lunch at 12:30PM
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
12
12:45PM – ULC & Board Session (closed) -led by Bob Ness (Jessica Geiben-Lynn, CFAR, also
present).
Agenda
~ Goals
» Group Commitment
» Touchstones (rules of participation)
» Personal Antioch Bonds
» What is it about Trust?
» Data from Interviews
~ Straigbt Talk/Giving Feedback
» Open Space to Address Trustee
~ Reports
» Closing Circle – Reflection and Learnings
Goals oftbe session (as outlined 00 a handout):
• Increase transparency
• Build trust and confidence
• Clarify roles oflhe board oftmstees and ULC
• Get to know each other better
• Get inspired about the future
• Draw a line in the sand between past challenges and future opportunities
There was a discussion of the rules of participation. Breakout groups spent one hour discussing the
question of why there is a lack of trust between the Board and the ULC. The group returned to the
main meeting room to share findings then each person offered feedback on what they felt had
transpired.
There was consensus that the Board and the ULC need to continue taking measures that build
confidence; e.g., the ULC strategic planning initiative and this retreat, and future actions.
The session ended at 4:30PM and committee meetings commenced.
4:30 – 5:30PM Committee Meetings
• Physical Facilities
• Academic Affairs
Following today’s meetings, there was a dinner for Trustees and ULC at the Columbia Tower Club.
Some discussion from this afternoon’s session was continued.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Today’s plenary session took place at the Seattle Campus.
Trustees present: Art Zucker/Chair, Michael Alexander, Bruce Bedfordffreasurer, Amy Chappell,
David Crippens, Dan FalionIVice Chair, John Feinberg, Dianne Bran Fraser, Everette Freeman,
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes 13
Sherwood Guernsey, Reuben Harris, Hal Joseph, Dan Kaplan, Jeff Kasch, Niels Lyster, Tom
McNicol, Jack Merselis, Larry Stone, and Barbara Winslow/Secretary.
Absent: ·Paula Treichler
Others present Laurien Alexandre, University-wide Dean; Barbara Danley, President of Antioch
University McGregor; LucyAnn Geisehnan, President Antioch University Southern California, Rick
Jurasek, Chief Operating Officer of Antioch College; Neal King, Interim President Antioch New
England Graduate School, Toni Murdock, Acting Chancellor and PresideJ;ltof Antioch Seattle; Don
Tecklenburg, Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer; David Weaver, University Legal
Counsel; Karen Ely and Leslie Johnson, Assistant Secretaries of the Board. Also present during
open sessions were members of the Community including Margo Tucker, Director of the Office of
Institutional Advancement; also the Vice President of the College Alumni Board; Shelby Chestnut,
(College) Community Manager, and Bob Krinsky, Chair of the Campaign Cabinet.
7:30 – 8:45AM -Campaign Cabinet Meeting ..
Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM in closed session.
Art reviewed housekeeping items then gave the floor to Bob Krinsky for the Campaign Cabinet’s
report.
9:10-10:00AM Campaign Cabinet Report
Bob asked Barbara Winslow to talk about the Coretta Scott King Center. Barbara had committed
$5,000 to the Center and asked for 100% participation by the ULC and the Board to signify “our
commitment to her legacy.”
Pledge sheets were distributed while Margo explained the process for pledges, asking that they be
turned in by Noon.
In a related matter, Steve announced that the King family had requested that in lieu of flowers
donations be sent to Antioch for the CSK Scholarship Fund.
Margo reported on the improved staffing situation in the Office for Institutional Advancement. She
also reported on the travels with Steve Lawry to meet with alums/potential donors, and the very
successful fund-raising dinner Bob Krinsky hosted. The Antiochian has been re-designed so that
it’s not only less expensive to print and maii, it’s also visually more appealing. The next issue will
be published in March, she thought. She also aMounced the hiring of the new director of
publications, Jim Dexter, who brings with him 20 years’ experience including bringing the liberal
arts college into visibility.
Margo also reported on the Horace Mann Society. “We did a blitz mailing to 266 current/lapsed or
potential members to encourage them to give/increase. 137 responded with a gift and of those, 23%
increased their gift.” She said her office would continue to follow up with those who had not yet
responded.
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
14
She provided an update on the volunteer situation and the use of board volunteers to express thanks
on behalf of the College to the donors, whether it’s a phone call or a letter. “I’ll provide an outline
to help get you started. If you get the donor’s answering machine, leave a nice thank you voice mail
message. I would also like any feedback from you on those calls,” she said.
Margo gave the floor to Steve Lawry. He emphasized that an important part of the strategy in going
forward with capital campaign is supporting the renewal plan. He reminded everyone that the
campaign began prior to the renewal plan, but that we want to have a sharp focus on using
campaign dollars for the renewal. What should our campaign look like in going forward? There
will be transition cash needs and, although there is some optimism with regard to enrollment, the
numbers are down. With respect to enrollment growth, we predict a breakeven point in 2009/10
and will need $12M in core operating costs to keep the College. going.
Steve aIU10uncedthat there was an error in the analysis he had presented at the October 2005
meeting. Some monies that were assumed to be already available were not included in the gap
budget. Steve proposed three approaches for bridging the gap which included asking one ofthe
major donors to re-designate an endowment gift so that the money is available to the College’s cash
needs. The second would be approaching another major donor for $5M. The third is directing the
Annual Fund giving to cover the gap.
Bob Krinsky directed the idea to David Weaver – not for immediate response – that before he and
Steve present their idea to these two donors it would be important for Steve’s understanding that
David review with him the history behind their giving.
Steve asked Rick Jurasek to speak to the facilities modeling. Rick reminded the Board of the
mandate given at the October meeting to get on a fast track for the new union building that has a
price tag of $20M. He reported that planning has already begun on a new student union, which will
meet both village and campus needs.
Bob reported that the Ketchum contract had been put on hold at the end of December 2005 pending
budget approval to renew the contract.
There was a discussion of the specific and various cash needs – facilities costs versus renewal costs.
Bob concluded that he sees the College president taking a much greater role in the campaign. The
cabinet will revert to its advisory role, he said, adding that he hoped to continue to expand the
cabinet and the work it does in terms of making cOIU1ectionswith potential donors, going on calls,
and helping in any way we can. In New York, I’ve made certain connections, but we need a similar
person making connections in other big cities.
At the end of Bob’s report, Toni brought the trustees’ attention to a book which had been
distributed. Written by Eric Liu, who serves on Seattle’s Board of Visitors, the book is called
Guiding Lights. Toni noted that the copies are personally inscribed to each Trustee.
At 9:55AM there was a break followed by committee meetings.
10:00AM Development Committee meeting.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
15
11 :OOAM Communications Committee meeting.
At 12:00PM there was a break to get lunch and then a presentation by the Center for Creative
Change (“e3”) Program. (handouts)
Shana Honnann, core faculty member, introduced Evelyn Allen and Kristen McIvor, two students
in the C3 program. Among the distinguished guests were panelists Bob Willard, a leading expert
on the business value of corporate sustainability strategies, and Hubert Locke, Distinguished
Visiting Fellow.
Hubert spoke to the element of creativity, “a capacity that all of us can aspire to, not just a
privileged few.” He noted that his fellow faculty might be “appalled by my notion of creative
change: it’s something in which all of us can engage [in the process of] changing the social
landscape. The political situation is not something for the well-connected it’s an obligation for us
all.” Second, he pointed out that creative change is capable of moving in two opposite directions
and is not always a good thing. He used the Nazi movement as an example of creative change that
brought about the most destructive period in our history. With regard to the efforts of the Center for
Creative Change, he noted that is “a hallmark is that it has an unwavering commitment to the idea
of social justice. If the ends are not clear or finn, all else is folly. There is no doubt in my mind
that this commitment to social justice is at the very core of what my colleagues are engaged in. In
one sense, the great tragedy is that we live in a period of immense change. It’s highly questionable
that the ends are socially just or directed at anything remotely in tune with social justice. I’m
delighted to be associated with this effort, [to be part of the process of] preparing young.leaders in
social justice.
Evelyn Allen, a student in the C3 program, said her ultimate passion for social change is for the
black population, a goal that includes the community’s economic growth. Her change project gave
her the opportunity to join a community effort for small business owners who are African
American. “My education here has given me a new perspective in viewing social justice/change, I
look at things,in a holistic way and have a new language for things I see. I have learned that I
should always consider the environmental impact of all I do.”
Kristin McIvor, another student in the program who had also served in the Peace Corps, reported on
her “amazing experience” in the C3 program. Prior to entering the program, she saw the problems
facing the world as being too complex to handle. She expected to receive a sort of “Go change the
world” training that would give her the tools she needed. While there are techniques to be learned,
she said the program went much deeper than that. “The faculty provides a safe place for us to take
risks – not only here but in our communities.” In her work, it’s given her the freedom to try
something new/different, even if some think it will fail. This is not only encouraged here, it’s
expected, she said, we need to take risks. The assignments were challenges, not just tasks, “and
gave me a new way of seeing problems, seeing what’s going on in a new way, a new way of
thinking. It’s a set of skills that allows me to work with people in a new way.”
Bob Willard said he wished he’d known about this place sooner. “It brings content together that
desperately needs to be brought together,” he said, describing the approach as more holistic and
“exciting.” His interest in the C3 program is “the challenge of engaging corporations in the kind of
work being described here [because it involves] a mind shift for many corporate executives. My
personal efforts are to engage the business community, connecting with them in their language and
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
16
with where they are. There are benefits to those companies if they’re smarter about what they do as
it concerns the environment and society.” As far as what he is learning from this, he said that “the
first thing you have to do is assume those you’re working with are smart and good people. When
engaged, it’s amazing what creativity can be unleashed.” He emphasized the importance in
speaking their language in the way things are described. Lastly, he pointed out the necessity of
reinforcements: “don’t try to do it yourself. use networking, use the champions, help others enable
the change you want to make, influence the influencers, equip them with the tools and turn them
loose. We can move this ball faster together.”
At I :OOPM the Trustees and ULC reconvened in closed session to discuss Campus West. Art read
aloud Resolution 14 and copies were distributed to Trustees. He had explained that, while the
Executive Committee had previously been delegated the authority to act for the Board to conclude
the Campus West Project, some members of the Board requested a further review of the Project’s
fund-raising efforts before final action is taken by the Executive Committee.
Bruce Bedford asked Barbara Danley to update the Board on the Project’s approvals and fund
raising efforts. Barbara reviewed each of the slides on the handout of PowerPoint slides.
Bruce described the timeline of the project’s schedule.
There was discussion about the decision-making process as it involves the various Board approvals,
whether it was the full Board or the Executive Committee. David Weaver confinned that
Resolution 10.22.05: 14, approved at last October’s meeting, delegated the power to take any and all
actions needed in connection with the Project to the Executive Committee.
Barbara next spoke to the fund-raising of the Project and there followed a lengthy discussion about
the sources of monies contributing to the $3M campaign, what money has been raised and what
money already existed (grants, the donated land, and capital reserves). Barbara offered to create a
pie chart that distinguishes these categories.
Barbara reported being 6 months behind her target with regard to the fund-raising calendar, but was
not daunted since this is McGregor’s first campaign. She added that there’s no published end date
to the campaign and their success rate with asks is about 70%.
Next there was discussion about the costs of construction. Barbara pointed out that the
Construction Contract will have a guaranteed maximum price and that the intent is to build the
entire building but postpone some of the build-out of interior space and to delay purchasing
furniture and equipment until the funds are available. She has scaled back according to the limits of
her budget.
Jolm Feinberg asked iftbere is a policy on or process for naming rights? Don replied that to his
knowledge there are no restrictions on naming, but that it’s a policy we probably should have.
Barbara noted that there is already a classroom named for past Trustee Bill Hooper.
Michael Alexander asked if the Fall 2007 opening was still realistic. Barbara said that classes
probably would not be conducted until January 2008. She added that the new building has
considerably more space for classrooms than McGregor currently has, and that the configuration is
much better.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
17
There were some questions about the capital campaign. Barbara explained that in spite of the many
campaigns going on in the Miami Valley, she’s pleased with the success so far. Tom McNicol, who -…-I
serves on her campaign cabinet, noted that for a first-try campaign he is pleased with the progress
and feels especially good about “refining our expertise [at this campaign] and our presence in the
Miami Valley in continuing to garner support – this is to Barbara’s credit.”
The resolution was moved and seconded, and there was more discussion. A friendly amendment
was proposed to modify paragraph 5. A second amendment was proposed to add that if a vote is
required by the Executive Committee and the full Board is convened, then the full Board is to be
involved in that vote. Both amendments were voted on; the first was carried, the second was not.
The amended motion reads as follows:
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:14
WHEREAS, at its October 16, 2004, meeting the Board of Trustees approved the plan and
timetable for construction of the “Campus West” project (“Project”) to address the facility and
space needs of Antioch University McGregor; and
WHEREAS,at its October22, 2005, meting,the BoardofTrustees adoptedResolution
10.22.05:14 modifying the Project’s financing in certain respects and delegating to the
Executive Committee the power and authority to approve the fonn, terms, and provisions of all
documents certificates and offering materials in connection with the Project and to authorize the
execution of documents, contracts, certificates, and offering materials as may be necessary and
to take any and all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board has been infonned that the Executive Committee has reviewed and is
willing to approve the Project’s development agreement, architect agreement, and construction
agreement at the conclusion of this meeting; and
WHEREAS, certain members of the Board have requested a review of the Project’s fund-raising
efforts prior to the Executive Corrunittee’s approval of said contracts; and
WHEREAS, the Board has undertaken a review of the Project’s fund-raising efforts to date, the
plans for additional fund-raising and the contingency plans for dealing with any shortfall in
fund-raising; and
WHEREAS, the Board also wishes to modify its prior resolutions to reflect the total acreage, as
surveyed, of the real estate to be acquired is 10 acres plus the adjoining road right-of-way
consisting of a total of 11.122 acres.
THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Boardcommendsthe Presidentof Antioch
University McGregor for the fund-raising done for this Project to date and requests the
Executive Committee to proceed pursuant to the prior authorization delegated to it in Resolution
10.22.05:14 to move forward on the Project.
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
18
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board’s prior Campus West resolutions are hereby
modified to clarify and correct that the total acreage of the real estate being acquired for the
Project is 11.122 acres.
Passed, as amended with two Jotes against (D. Kaplan and 1. Feinberg)
From 2:25 – 4:30PM there was a Finance Committee Meeting; Trustees who are not committee
members were invited to remain in the room.
From 4:45 – 5:45PM, the Executive Committee met with Seattle Board of Visitors.
The Board of Trustees and ULC hosted dinner for the Seattle Board of Visitors and the Antioch
Seattle President’s Team at McConnick and Schmick’s.
Saturday, February 4, 2006
Today’s plenarY session took place at the Seattle Campus.
Trustees present: Art Zucker/Chair, Michael Alexander, Bruce Bedfordffreasurer, Amy Chappell,
David Crippens, Dan FallonNice Chair, John Feinberg, Dianne Brou Fraser, Everette Freeman,
Sherwood Guernsey, Reuben Harris, Hal Joseph, Dan Kaplan, Jeff Kasch, Niels Lyster, Tom
McNicol, Jack Merselis, Larry Stone, and Barbara Winslow/Secretary.
Absent: Paula Treichler
Others present: Laurien Alexandre, University-wide Dean; Barbara Danley, President of Antioch
University McGregor; LucyAnn Geiselman, President Antioch University Southern California, Rick
Jurasek, Chief Operating Officer of Antioch College; Neal King, Interim President Antioch New
England Graduate School, Toni Murdock, Acting Chancellor and President of Antioch Seattle; Don
Tecklenburg, Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer; David Weaver, University Legal
Counsel; Karen Ely and Leslie JOMson, Assistant Secretaries of the Board.
Beginning at 7:35AM, the Board of Trustees met in executive session.
Art referenced Thursday’s session with the ULC, noting that the process·being recommended
presents a different way of dealing with people and issues. He underscored the need to deal with
each other differently, to be conscious to implement this change in a positive way, and that there
needs to be better communication between the Trustees and ULC.
It was pointed out that Friday’s session showed that there was still room for improvement in this
area. Dan Fallon.suggested that “there is a way of voicing concerns that doesn’t question motives;
that transparency must mean that it’s a two-way street and, while expressions of concern have to be
voiced, we all have different styles …. Transparency means you must be oPen in what you’re doing.”
Sherwood remarked that yesterday’s discussion about Campus West went on too long, that the
issues should be brought to a close after a certain amount oftime.
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes 19
Art agreed that we need to find better ways to raise questions, adding that there exists a weakness
within the institution regarding the manner in which financial data is dealt with and what our
expectations are as trustees relative to going forward.
At 8: 15AM, Art asked for Toni to be invited to join the Trustees.
Art reviewed the three items on the executive session agenda: the honorary degree for Jim
Craiglow, the resolution naming Steve Lawry as vice president of the corporation and president of
Antioch College, and the presentation of financial data presented to the Board.
Art gave the floor to Dan Fallon to provide background on the Academic Affairs discussion and the
procedure for an honorary degree. Dan explained that these are granted by the University and they
don’t come to the Board unless the Academic Affairs Committee approves them. The Committee
approves this one and the ULC has endorsed the recommendation. Dan distributed Fonn B that
serves as a ballot and then they were passed back to Dan for counting.
For the sake ofinfonnation, David Weaver read aloud a portion of the policy for awarding honorary
degrees. This was followed by some discussion.
Art stated that he was supportive and “in my role as board chair I respect strongly our management
team and their commitment.”
Dan disclosed the results of the vote, which included two votes against. The following resolution
which carne moved and seconded by the Academic Affairs Committee was passed.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:17 (D. Fallon/Academic Affairs Committee)
WHEREAS, throughout his professional life, James H. Craiglow has worked tirelessly to make
a difference in the quality of education, and;
WHEREAS, few members of the Antioch community or University Leadership Council have
given as much of their life and commitment to Antioch University as James H. Craiglow, who
served as Provost then President of Antioch New England Graduate School from July 1986 to
July 2002, previously serving as Associate Dean and Acting Dean; and,
WHEREAS, James H. Craiglow believed in the enterprise that is Antioch University, advancing
its mission publicly and privately, representing’the University as an individual living the
Antioch mission through his many years of volunteer service in the community; and
WHEREAS. in February 2002, he accepted a temporary appointment as Interim Chancellor of
Antioch University, an appointment that was ratified in June 2002 tq remove the “Interim”
designation; and
WHEREAS, his distinguished contributions to Antioch New England and Antioch University
have been substantial, making it appropriate and fitting that his role in leading Antioch New
England and the University be recognized, and;
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
20
WHEREAS, James H. Craiglow has been nominated to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of
Humane Letters (DHL); and pursuant to the University policy on awarding of honorary degrees,
and;
WHEREAS, said nominations have been reviewed favorably by the Academic Affairs
Committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees authorizes conferring the
honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters upon James H. Craiglow on the occasion of
Antioch New England Graduate School’s commencement on May 6, 2006.
Art next put the following resolution to a vote. There was some discussion.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:8 (D. Kaplan/S. Guernsey)
RESOLVED, that Steven W. Lawry is elected to serve as Vice President of the Corporation and
President of Antioch College retroactive to January 6, 2006, for the remainder of the year
ending June 30, 2006.
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
Art then addressed the manner and the quality in which financial data is presented to the Board.
Bruce added that it’s important for the Board “to see substance to the process of presenting financial
data, especially in the absence of strong campus CFOs. While human errors occur, the campus
CFOs need to consult with University CFO,” Sherwood asked that Bruce be involved in addressing
the gap at the College.
Jack remarked that the university needs to have a standard practice, to have a process in place for an
internal audit.
Larry said he respected Toni’s financial management abilities and asked that she come back to the
Board with a plan on how to improve on the presentations.
Toni weighed in with what she has observed, emphasizing that Central’s focus is on issues at the
College and on McGregor’s Campus West project, that both of these campuses need their own
CFOs. Her plan would be to conduct an audit of Central to be completed by the end of the NCA
visit. Decisions could be made based on the results of the audit.
There was more discussion about financial planning. Bruce Bedford recommended Tom Clough as
someone to consider helping us. The Lovelaces have offered Antioch his services. Dan Fallon
noted that Tom was an active member of the Renewal Commission and did all the spreadsheet
analyses. There was support for enlisting Tom’s help.
At 9:00AM, Art asked the ULC, along with Margo Tucker, to join the session.
Art summarized for the ULC the gist of the foregoing discussion about financial planning, namely
the gap in the College’s operating needs. He pointed out that the Board voted in support of the Plan
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
21
22
for Antioch and stated that the Board is obligated to find resources to fund that plan to the benefit of
the College and the University. He then asked for comments.
Dan Kaplan revisited the discussion from the day before about approaching a major donor about his
gift to the Endowment and asking about a redirection of those funds to operating costs. He added
that there may be alternative ways – rather than redirecting the money – that would have the same
effect but keep it within the endowment.
Bruce stated that it would be more prudent for the Board first to require in-depth justification of the
financials being reviewed. To require that the College look at alternatives and come back to the
Board with options that don’t include the endowment. “With the new fund-raising staff, new
leadership and changes in the process, there’s an enlarged capability the fundraising group may
have. What’s been missing is any real grant approach. That’s money that would be supportive of
the College,” he added.
Art inteIlUpted the discussion briefly to ask Amy to share some good news. Amy reported that
while watching CNN, she learned that the King family had asked that in lieu of flowers for Mrs.
King, money be given to Antioch College. The announcement on CNN included Antioch’s address.
Art wanted to share something else with the Board that involved a conversation with Dennie
Eagleson, Class of ’71, who is tenured faculty at the College and one of the co-architects of the new
curriculum. She had asked to speak with Art. “I just want to ask you to tell the Board ‘thank you’
for everything you’ve done for our College. And to’ thank.you because we know how difficult it’s
been for you to do what you’ve had to do to help us.”
Art then directed everyone’s attention back to the issue at hand.
Steve agreed that there is virtue in doing an analysis of the College’s financial situation. He agreed
with taking more time to gather more data in order to come up with a solution that yields a higher
level of comfort.
Art: review the numbers. Go to Leo to ask for modification of his wishes – plan A for the NCA
report. After a review ofthe numbers, then go to Leo.
Margo noted the additional option of a plan to raise the money and from whom. If the planned
giving program is carried out properly, then any money removed from the endowment is quickly
replaced. Any money removed would be on an annual basis, replaced with annual gifts.
To Steve, Art said he’d like hear his view of the process and what involvement he needs from the
Board and when. Steve agreed to develop by Wednesday, February 8, a plan of what would be
done in the spirit of Bruce’s suggestions, with a timetable and decision points.
ANE President Search.
Art asked Toni for a report on the search for president at ANE.
Toni reported that there were 46 applicants, with most of those coming in as a result of the
November ad. The pool is strong and diverse, most of the VPs and having higher ed experience.
There was a meeting in Keene where the pool was narrowed down to 8. The Committee was split
into teams for the purpose of interviewing those 8 by ‘phone. In the meantime, one candidate has
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
dropped out. The pool has been narrowed to 4 and the Committee is in the process of doing
reference checks on those 4. The target date is to have them on campus for interviews the week of
March 6. “I’m pleased with the strength of the candidates we have,” Toni said.
Bruce asked ifthere were any internal candidates to which Toni replied there is one.
Chancellor Search.
Art reported on the chancellor search. The Committee met with Jerry Pieh, the consultant with
Isaacson, Miller on Tuesday evening and Art expressed how impressed be is with the
professionalism and competence of this search finn. The very large pool of candidates bas been
narrowed down to 4. On February 17 the Committee will have a conference call to review another
3 or 4 candidates. Interviews will take place in Phoenix in early March and at that time they’ll
decide what other constituencies need to be brought into the process.
Bruce asked about the timetable. Art said he expects to bring recommendations to the Board in
mid- to late April, and expects to have the search resolved by the June meeting.
Art next asked for a review of the consent agenda, noting that he would like for Resolution 2 to be
removed for discussion. He asked if anyone else had a similar request. There were none. Art asked
for motion to approve the consent agenda.
Resolutions ],3,4,5.6,7 (H. Joseph/J. Merselis):
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:1
RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the minutes from the October 20-22, 2005, Board
of Trustees meeting held in Yellow Springs, Ohio, and the minutes from the October 31,2005,
meeting held via telephone conference.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:3
RESOLVED, that Antioch College’s revised Drug & Alcohol Policy as presented at this
meeting is hereby approved.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:4
RESOLVED, that Antioch College’s revised Consensual Romantic/Sexual Relations Policy as
presented at this meeting is hereby approved.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:5
RESOLVED, that the University’s Philanthropic Commitment (Gift) Acceptance policies are
hereby revised to read as indicated below:
IX. MEMORIAL OR TRIBUTE GIFTS. C. Endowed Memorial Funds may be established
with gifts totaling $20,000 or more. The earnings from endowed memorial funds
typically are used for scholarship awards or departmental support. The campus director
of development and the University Vice Chancellor and CFO must approve the purpose
of such endowed funds.
J. NAMED ENDOWED FUNDS. C. Endowed memorial funds may be established with
gifts totally $20,000 or more. The amount of the original gift need not meet the
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
23
minimum dollar requirement if the donor agrees to fully fund the named fund at the
minimum dollar requirement within a specified and reasonable period.of time. The
campus director of development and the University Vice Chancellor and CFO must
approve the purpose of such endowed funds.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:6
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 8.1.1 of the By-laws of Antioch University. Section 4.1.3
of said By-laws is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 8 reading as follows,
effective immediately:
Compensation Committee: The Compensation Committee shall annually review with the
Chancellor the performance and compensation ofthe officers of the Corporation and shall
report to the Board of Trustees any recommendations for adjusting their compensation. The
Chancellor is expected to review with the Committee all compensation matters related to
officers of the Corporation before making commitments to them. The Committee shall also
undertake such other functions pertaining to the employment of officers and other highly
compensated employees of the University as the Board of Trustees or its Chair’may.from
time to time request.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Section 4.1.3(2) of the Bylaws is hereby amended to delete the
sentence now reading: “It [the Finance Committee] shall annually review the performance and
compensation of the officers of the Corporation and report to the Board of Trustees any
recommendation for adjusting their compensation.”
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:7 ~
RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Finance Committee. the President of
Antioch New England Graduate School (“ANE”), in consultation with the Vice Chancellor and
CFO, is hereby authorized to take the actions needed to replace the telephone and voice mail
system for the ANE campus, by lease or purchase, as summarized in a memorandum to the Vice
Chancellor and CFO from the President of ANE, dated January 3, 2006, or on such other terms
and conditions as the Vice Chancellor and CFO deems best; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that in order to effectuate the foregoing resolution, the Vice
Chancellor and CFO and the President of ANE are hereby ,authorized to sign contracts,
equipment leases, notes security agreements, financing statements or other documents as the
Vice Chancellor and CFO deems necessary and appropriate, provided that no action taken to
replace the telephone and voice mail system at the ANE campus shall violate the terms or
covenants of any cu~ent bond or other financial obligation of the University.
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
SG asked for each committee chair to get highlights of this meeting to Barbara by Monday.
Finance Report – Bruce acknowledged that since the whole Board had been present for the
committee’s meeting. there was no need to repeat what had transpired.
Board ofTruslees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
24
Investment Report – Jeff Kasch reported on the return on investment for 2005. We’ve been very
successful in the decisions we’ve made, he said. The following resolution is presented to amend the
University’s investment guidelines.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:18 (J. KaschlR. Harris)
RESOLVED, that Section VIII, Asset Allocation Guidelines, Subsection A.l., Aggregate Fund
Asset Allocation Guidelines (at market value) of the Antioch University Statement of
Investment Policy, Objectives, and Guidelines, as amended October 28, 2003, be further
amended to pennit a maximum investment in International Equities of20% and a minimum
investment in Fixed Income of 15%.
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
Physical Facilities Report – Hal Joseph reported.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:15 m. Joseph/A. Zucker)
RESOLVED, that the Vice Chancellor and CFO is hereby authorized to list and sell the
residential real estate located at 302-304 Winter Street and 140 W. Davis Street given to the
University by Lee and Victoria Morgan on such tenns and conditions as he deems best.
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
Hal added that there was an update on the potential new site for a Seattle satellite campus and that
the conunittee would report on this at the June meeting.
Communications Report – Sherwood Guernsey reported that the Committee would like for ULC
to prioritize conununication in their crisis management plans. Each campus would have a blueprint
for managing various crises. This is not a matter of response only to weather crises, but also
per~onnel matters, such as campus unrest for example. Sherwood added that there were several
ULC members present at the committee’s meeting and they were in agreement. The goal is to
deliver a report in June.
The Committee has been conducting an analysis of university branding and image. Because of the
importance to increase the visibility of the University to the outside world, we detennined that it
would be helpful to have this as part of the strategic planning process. In addition, Steve Lawry
will work with Toni Murdock to develop a marketing plan for increasing the College’S visibility.
With regard to the events surrounding the memorials for Coretta Scott King, Sherwood asked Steve
and his staff to prepare some talking points that Trustees might use if and when they’re in a position
to respond to questions or conunents from alums, donors, and the outside world. Leslie to get these
to the Board and ULC via e-mail today.
Trusteeship Report – Dan Fallon reported on behalf of Barbara Winslow. The Committee
detennined that we’d like to make it fonnal that we’ll meet on the Wednesday ahead of each Board
meeting because we need the extra time this allows. Ongoing is the need for trustees to volunteer
to attend graduations at each campus. The Committee discussed evaluation of the Board chair.
Also discussed was the issue of trustees sitting on Boards of Visitors (BoVs). While the strategic
planning process goes forward, we determined that no trustees should sit on BoVs, including the
College’s yet-to-be narned BoV, Dan said. This will minimize any conflict of interest. He added
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
25
that if a trustee is already on a BoV, that is the exception. The Committee discussed the process of
mentoring new members of the Board and whether the buddy system is effective. There were no
resolutions.
Development Report – Jack Merselis reported. The Committee met by phone ahead of the
meeting and then again here. McGregor campaign update. Discussed ways in which the board
. could be engaged more fully in the various campuses. Art has appointed a committ~e, with Toni,
Barbara Winslow, and Jack Merselis to look at the issue of trustee solicitation and expect to report
in June.
Jack reviewed the Committee’s three resolutions.
acknowedge by t e Anboc Diversity Board of Trustees:
IDonor Amount ANTIOCH COLLEGE
Restriction I Tvne
$5,000.00 General Purpose Endowment
$500.00 Alexander Family Endowed Facultv Develonment
$150.00 Anne Poindexter Fisher Endowed Scholarshin
$125.00 Belinda McGuire Endowed Scholarshin
$100.00 Robert Cooney Endowed Memorial ScholarshiD
$1,000.0 Patterson Endowed Scholarshio
$11,138.0 Patterson Endowed Scholarship
$3,000.0 Paul A. Coney Endowed ScholarshiD
$250.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$400.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$35.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams Endowed Peace Fund
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:9 (J. MerselislDevelopment Committee)
RESOLVED, that the following new endowment gifts and pledges received from October
1,2005, through December 31, 2005, and endowment gifts for Antioch College Irwin
Abrams Endowed Peace Fund not previously acknowledged, are gratefully accepted
1 d db h . hU
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
26
IDonor Amount ANTIOCH COLLEGE
Restriction I Tvoe
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$40.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$75.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$20.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$75.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$500.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$25.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$300.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$250.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$750.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$2,000.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
27
IDonor Amount ANTIOCH COLLEGE
Restriction I TVDe
$20.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 IrwinAbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$25.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 IrwinAbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$250.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,500.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$150.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$500.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$25.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$500.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$250.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$25.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$200.00 IrwinAbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$5,106.74 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$500.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
28
IDonor Amount ANTIOCH COLLEGE
– Restriction I Tvpe
$2,500.00 hwin Abrams EndowedPeace FWld
$2,500.00 hwin AbramsEndow~d Peace FWld
$225.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace FWld
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace FWld
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 hwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFWld
$50.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFWld
$25.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$10.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFWld
$150.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$500.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$500.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$150.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace FWld
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$300.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$250.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$125.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace FWld
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$50.00 Irwin AbramsEndowedPeace Fund
– $150.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$30.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 hwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFWld
$200.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$150.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$1,000.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes 29
IDonor Amount ANTIOCH COLLEGE
– Restriction I Tvne
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$50.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeaceFund
$30.00 IrwinAbrams EndowedPeace Fund
$564.58 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$25.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
$100.00 Irwin Abrams EndowedPeace Fund
Donor Amount ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY SEATTLE
Restriction I TVDe
$25.00 ScholarshipEndowment
$8.33 ScholarshipEndowment
$8.33 Scholarshio Endowment
$4.17 ScholarshipEndowment
$16.67 Scholarship Endowment
$60.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$1,000.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$25.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$30.00 ScholarshipEndowment
$1,000.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$30.00 ScholarshipEndowment
$100.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$400.00 ScholarshipEndowment
$30.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$50.00 Scholarship Endowment
$30.00 Scholarshio Endowment
$100.00 Scholarship Endowment
$30.00 ScholarshioEndowment
Donor Amount ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND
Restriction I Type
$10.00 Wilson Scholarshio .
$100.00 Wilson Scholarship
$250.00 Wilson Scholarship
$200.00 Wilson Scholarshio
$20.00 ES Masters Scholarshio
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
·.
Regardingthe non-endowed gifts resolution, Margo spoke to the gift from
moneyis to be used for the AntiochEducationAbroadprogram.
Board of Trustees
February2006 MeetingMinutes
that the
30
Additionally, Jack drew attention to other names on the resolution that
are long familiar as Antioch benefactors.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:10 fl. Merselisffievelopmeot Committee)
RESOLVED, that the following new non-endowed gifts and pledges received from October
1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, of $50,000 or more are gratefully accepted and
acknowledged by the Antioch University Board of Trustees:
IDonor Amount Restriction I Type
$300,000 $125,000 – Antioch College Lois Mann
SalarylBenefits
$100,000 – AntiochCollege Annual Fund
$ 60,000 – AntiochSouthernCalif. SB and LA
Annual Funds
$ 5,000 – AntiochMcGregorAnnual Fund
$ 5,000 – AntiochUniversitySeattleAnnual Fund
$ 5,000 – Antioch New EnglandAnnual Fund
$600,000 AntiochUniversity-
Alan E. Guskin ScholarsFund for Ph.D. In
Leadershipand Change
$135,792.11 AntiochCollege – CampaignUmestricted
$50,000 AntiochCollelle AntiochEducationAbroad
$130,000 AntiochUniversity
$60,000 AntiochCollege
$40,000 Annual Fund
$20,000 Camoaion Uorestricted
$50,000 AntiochUniversityMcGregor
CapitalCampaijUl
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
With regard to the following resolution for foundation grants/contracts, Jack commented on the
continued and remarkable support from the Foundation.
Concerning this resolution, it was discovered that one entry was in errorand it was removed from
the resolution. It was passed as amended.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:11 fl. Merselis/Development Committee)
RESOLVED, that the following new grants received from October I, 2005, through
December 31, 2005, of $50,000 or more are gratefully accepted and acknowledged by the
Antioch University Board of Trustees:
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
31
, .
rFoundation Name Amount Restriction I Tvpe Date
$100,000 Antioch University – Programmatic 11/15/05
development
$85,000 Antioch New England support of The 11115105
Center for Alternatives to Violence
$130,000 AntiochUniversitySouthernCalifornia 11/15105
(I) $50,000PsychologyDepartment
(2) $50,000Capacity buildingfor
fundraising
(3) $30,000MarketingSupportof
outreach to Hispanic students
$225,000 Antioch University Seattle 11/15/05
$100,000-Centerfor CreativeChange
$80,000 – Psychological services clinic
$35,000 – On-line re2istrationcaoacity
$175,000 Antioch University McGregor 11/15105
$95,000 – Masters degree for certified
school teachers
$90,000 Yellow Sprin2.s ChautaUQua
$60,000 Antioch University Southern California 11/30/05
– Year two paymentto employa
Consultant to create a development plan
for the SantaBarbara camous
$250,000 Antioch University Seattle 10112105
Earlv Collelle High School Initiative
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
Academic Affairs Report – Dan Fallon reported that the Executive Summary for the NCA Report
was completed. He added that the committee had issued a resolution of appreciation for the long
hours Laurien and Toni had contributed in getting the NCA report completed on time.
Dan explained that since the October meeting the University’s mission statement had been edited
and made more brief. “We think these two simple sentences contain a powerful message” he said,
that it is in concert with Antioch’s values and the Committee endorses it. Toni added that it also
had the full support of the campuses and asked that it be approved. Art read aloud the mission
statement.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:13 (H. Josephrr. McNicol)
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby approves the following mission
statement for the University:
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes 32
· .
Antioch University is founded on principles of rigorous liberal arts education,
innovative experiential learning and socially engaged citizenship. The multiple
campuses of the University nurture in their students the knowledge, skills and habits
of reflection to act as lifelong learners, democratic leaders and global citizens who
live lives of meaning and purpose.
Passed by unanimous voice vote.
In addition, the Academic Affairs Committee had discussed dates for the now annual summer
retreat held in Williamstown, Mass. August 26 is the date; the committee will convene on Friday
evening;then meet for a full day on Saturday.
Toni explained the justification behind changing the name of ANE to Antioch University New
England. It was vetteji by the faculty and they are in support. She added this is a symbolic move
toward a name that better reflects that it is part of the university system.
RESOLUTION 2.4.06:16 fA. Zucker/J. Kasch)
RESOLVED. that upon the recommendation of the Interim President of Antioch New England
Graduate School, the Board of Trustees hereby authorizes and directs that the name of the New
England campus be changed effective July 1,2006. to Antioch University New England.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that action be taken to amend the By-laws of the University at the
Board’s June 2006 meeting to reflect the change of name of the New England campus and that
the Chancellor and other officers of the University take such other actions as my be needed to
effectuate said name change,
Passed by una~imous voice vote.
Art took time to recognize on behalf of the Board the efforts that went into the trustees’ meeting by
Karen Ely, Wendy Dahl, Sharon Semius, and Leslie Bates.
Toni was asked to speak on the subject of the Annual Report. Toni held up the report: Making a
World ofDifference. This is a first attempt, she said. It does include a financial piece, but there are
other things that need to be included. She pointed out there was an error in the name of the PhD
Program, that the report will be reprinted correctly and copies made that will be distributed to
Trustees, Boards of Visitors, and donors. Applause. A suggestion was made that it also be made
available on the university’s web-site.
Art asked ULC and other guests if there was anything they wanted to share before departing. As
there was no response, the ULC was excused and there was a lO-minute break.
At 11:00AM, Art reconvened as a meeting of the Executive Committee in closed session. These
minutes are recorded separately. At the conclusion of the Executive Committee meeting, the Board
meeting resumed. Art asked if there was any new business.
Jack expressed his appreciation to Toni for stepping into and up to the chancellorship in a very
positive way, that it was refreshing and gratifying, and that she deserved extra thanks for her extra
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
33
work. Jack further expressed his appreciation to Art for meeting all the recent challenges so well so
early in his tenure as board chair.
Sherwood commented that over the course ofthe last three days he’d had the opportunity to interact
with Steve Lawry and it was his observation that he’s been proactive in addressing immediate
needs.
David Crippens shared that he was impressed with Toni’s report to the board. With regard to the
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., family, he emphasized what a big surprise it has been for them to give
such high credit and attention to Antioch College. That they have asked that donations be given to a
predominately Anglo institution is phenomenal, he said. He added that the past two days have
taken him to a very supportive position on where the College is going.
John Feinberg thanked Art for sending the Tom Gilmore”CCFAR)article that was sent to the Board
ahead of the meeting. The article is Challenges ofLeading & Planning in Higher Education.
Toni expressed her appreciation to the Board, for their great support, appreciate their commitment.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :20AM. Action items from this meeting will accompany the
meeting minutes.
These minutes respectfully submitted by,
Les[ie(BatesJofinson
Leslie Bates Johnson
Assistant Secretary
Board of Trustees
February 2006 Meeting Minutes
91wt1imtaS. Wimfum
Barbara S. Winslow
Secretary
34
