September 23, 2004

EDITORIAL

Poor leadership at Glen Helen

Those still at the Glen Helen Ecology Institute may believe that the nature preserve will work through its recent controversies when the Glen completes its strategic planning process sometime this fall. This approach, however, overlooks the poor leadership on display by the organization’s executive director, Bob Whyte, who has alienated too many people to effectively manage one of the community’s most significant institutions.

Strategic planning won’t change the problems at the top of the Glen’s organizational chart. This much is clear after four members of the Glen Helen Ecology Institute board resigned last week. At least two of the board members cited ongoing difficulties with Dr. Whyte as reasons for quitting the Glen. This is not the first time someone resigned from the Glen because of Dr. Whyte. In July, Sue Feller gave similar reasons for leaving her position as the director of the Glen’s Outdoor Education Center.

That the four resignations came from well-respected and well-liked community members, including Al Denman, Donna Denman and David Hergesheimer, the chairman of the Glen Helen board, make last week’s news more alarming. Antioch College, which owns the Glen, needs to realize that the Glen is facing a serious problem before more good people quit the Glen, stop donating funds or cease volunteering for the 1,000-acre nature preserve.

The most notable of the four board member’s resignations may be that of Hergesheimer, who had publicly supported Dr. Whyte and had hoped that the strategic planning exercise could put the Glen on better financial footing. However, Mr. Hergesheimer has changed his course and now says that Glen Helen needs a new director and possibly a new leadership structure. Without citing specific examples, he criticized Dr. Whyte for his treatment of Glen Helen staffers and board members, and said that after going through a mediation process with other board members and Dr. Whyte, he realized it would continue to be difficult to work with the Glen director.

For his part, Dr. Whyte says that the board members’ resignations have less to do with him than with the Glen’s financial and organizational challenges. He remains determined to press ahead with the strategic planning process, which, he said, will devise a plan to meet the Glen’s needs and “better define” the structure of Glen Helen. This, he noted, will help him do his job better.

Dr. Whyte certainly has his share of strong supporters who believe he is taking the Glen in the right direction. Indeed, it becomes easier to make changes as one alienates staff and causes critics to resign from boards. However, this is not a sign of effective leadership, and will eventually lead to bigger problems down the road.

Antioch College needs to give more oversight of Glen Helen to the Ecology Institute’s board, which currently lacks real power to make real changes in the Glen. Right now, the board’s role is advisory and it provides support and advice to the Glen Helen director. The director, on the other hand, works for Antioch and reports to the president of the college, not the Glen Helen board. This structure is simply flawed — the college president has too many balls to juggle on campus, including keeping Antioch’s budget from sinking permanently into the red.

A strong Glen Helen board, made up of local and area residents, Glen Helen Association members and Antioch community representatives, to whom the directly reported directly, would better serve Antioch, Glen Helen and Yellow Springs. This would make the Glen director more accountable for his actions and decisions.

—Robert Mihalek