Donors, trustees negotiate on future of Antioch College
By Diane Chiddister
As next week’s second financial benchmark nears
for the Antioch College Alumni Board to turn over additional funds to
Antioch University, major donors, university trustees, alumni board
leaders and former trustees are continuing an intense discussion on
the proposed governance for the college.
The discussion was sparked by many donors’ concern that the Nov.
2 agreement to leave the college open did not ensure the college’s
autonomy.
The conversations took place last week in New York City and this week
in Dallas, and according to a Dallas participant who wished to remain
anonymous, “no conclusions” have yet been reached. The board
of trustees will further consider the donors’ concerns around
the governance issue in a conference call this Thursday, Dec. 6.
When the Antioch University Board of Trustees and the Antioch College
Alumni Board reached an agreement on Nov. 2 to lift the college’s
suspension, the agreement stipulated a series of financial benchmarks
at which times the alumni leaders would turn over, in segments, the
$18 million they had raised to keep the college open. The first $2 million
was due 10 days after the agreement; the second payment, of $4.6 million,
is due next Thursday, Dec. 15.
But since the agreement was finalized in November, many major donors
have balked at what they perceive as the agreement’s vague language
concerning college governance, according to several alumni. Almost all
donors gave money with the stipulation that the college be given its
own empowered board of trustees, rather than be governed, as it currently
is, by the university board of trustees.
The Nov. 2 agreement stipulates that an “advisory body”
will be appointed soon to move ahead with choosing a college board of
trustees and a new president. According to the agreement’s language,
the advisory body will “advise the office of the President, and
until a President is selected, the Chancellor. The advisory body will
be an integral part of the search committee and process in identifying
a President of national stature for Antioch College.”
That didn’t sound like autonomy to many of the major donors, and
last month the Washington, D.C. alumni group wrote a resolution in which
they stated they would not honor their pledges unless the college’s
autonomy was more clearly guaranteed. According to alumni sources, the
D.C. group’s donations totalled about $5 million.
Last week in New York City, a group of about six major donors met with
several university trustees and former trustees to express their concerns.
According to Alumni Board President Nancy Crow in a press release, “Our
discussions were frank, open and intense.”
According to former trustee Laura Markham, “the pledges were conditional
on a self-governing college and we didn’t see the self-governance.”
Several of the donors present are candidates for the advisory board,
and, according to the press release, “They made it very clear
that they have no intention of serving on a body whose advice the UBOT
would be free to accept, reject or ignore, and pressed for meaningful
and increasing authority for the interim body and the future College
Board of Trustees.”
Instrumental in bringing together the donors and the trustees was a
group of former Antioch University trustees, donors and alumni, including
Francis Horowitz, Zelda Gamson, Barbara Winslow, Bob Krinsky, Dan Kaplan,
Eric Bates, Karen Mulhauser, Lee Morgan, Malte von Matthiessen, Hardy
Trolander, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Markham.
While the discussions at the New York meeting were frank, “the
trustees were open and willing to engage,” Markham said. However,
the issues were too complex and needed to be carried over to a second
meeting, which took place Sunday, Dec. 2, in Dallas, where the university
board governance committee was meeting, and where several donors weighed
in via phone.
Mindful of the Dec. 15 deadline, all participants are working quickly
to try to come to an agreement, Markham said.
Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com
