College Votes No for Murdock, Endorses Self-governance

by Lauren Heaton, Yellow Springs News, October 18, 2007

Last week more than half of the 350 students, faculty and staff members on the Antioch College campus passed a community referendum that included a vote of no confidence for Antioch University Chancellor Toni Murdock and an endorsement of establishing a self-governing college independent of the university.

The community-wide vote took place last Monday and Tuesday, following a similar vote of no confidence in Murdock by the faculty and union staff in September and a call from both faculty and staff for an independent college that same month. Several students said the vote, which followed a great deal of discussion and organizing on campus, gave the current campus a voice in the decision-making that is scheduled to take place this month at the meeting of the University Board of Trustees on Oct. 25.

“We hope these referendums put pressure on the board, that it pressures the minority to trust there are viable plans on the ground now for the college, and we cannot miss this opportunity,” fourth-year student Julian Sharp said last week.

Students also hoped the community action would give the campus a voice in a debate some feel they have been left out of, third-year student Erin-Aja Grant said.

“This is a chance for us to raise our voice because it has been so minimized, when we’re the ones who are being affected,” she said.

The referendum’s no-confidence vote cited Murdock with damaging the college by failing to involve the campus community, according to the college’s shared governance policies, in the decision in June to suspend operations at the college in 2008 and the decision in September to dismiss College President Steve Lawry.

The referendum also stated that the college should continue operations after 2008 and establish independence from a university system that has for many years damaged the college by removing the president’s authority to make budgetary decisions and report directly to the board of trustees, as well as mandating a curriculum renewal without consulting the campus community.

Further infuriating the college community were unproductive visits from both Murdock and Art Zucker, chair of the university board of trustees, to the college’s Administrative and Community Councils (AdCil and ComCil) to explain the events that lead to Lawry’s dismissal and his being replaced by a new leadership council. According to college professor Hassan Rahmanian, the responses were void of meaning and deeply unsatisfactory.

“Toni could have laid out the principles on which she based her decisions, but instead she exercised the Fifth Amendment, took the administrative privilege of silence and left us in the limbo of our imaginations,” Rahmanian said. “It all adds up and gives us a feeling that she has very little understanding of us and the value we place on the democratic process.”

These most recent votes of no confidence are not the first for Murdock, whose faculty when she was president of Antioch Seattle levied a no-confidence vote against her in 2000. One Seattle faculty member who did not wish to be named explained that Murdock listened to the faculty’s concern that her top-down administrative style was actually stymieing growth for the school’s programs, and she did manage to modify her policies. But the president who replaced Murdock has been a much better listener and by extension a better leader, according to the faculty member.

A request to speak to Murdock was referred to Vice-Chancellor Mary Lou LaPierre. Speaking for the university, LaPierre said that the college and university have the same goals, to create an academically vibrant and financially sustainable college, but the two groups disagree on how to get there. A new governance structure would help the college, she said, but the college still has enrollment and financial shortages due to increased competition and market changes that would still bog down a college with a minuscule $30 million endowment.

According to estimates from the Antioch College Alumni Association and the college’s institutional advancement office, $100 million in gifts could be raised if the college secured its independence from the university. The alumni have raised a little over $12 million in gifts and pledges since June. But LaPierre was doubtful of the college’s ability to attract much more.

“Why haven’t the alumni said in greater numbers ‘We’ll pledge $50 million if you’re independent’?” she asked on Tuesday. “With all the press they’ve gotten, why have the donors not stepped up? The power is in their hands.”

But the college has been so weakened by the budget cuts imposed each year by the university over the past decade, according to 2005 Antioch College graduate Rowan Kiser, that the fundraising office has had a lot of catching up to do. And the budget cuts were necessary to pay for facility maintenance costs that had been deferred during the years that the board of trustees were not adequately intimate with the college to be effective fundraisers and grow the endowment, he said. The system slowly crippled the college.

“The university’s 2001-02 financial consolidation and stabilization plan, a $1.5 million annual depreciation to build the structural repairs into the budget, delivered the knockout blow to the college budget,” he said. “Once a year the university CFO would come across the street and demand those cuts, which sent us on a brutal spiral downward.”

In response to the vote of no confidence, LaPierre stated that Murdock successfully administered her post in Seattle for several years following the no-confidence vote, and that as chancellor she has brought to the university system a realistic appraisal of the financial system which was lacking before her arrival.

The university board of trustees will consider a business plan for a self-governed and continuously operating college to be presented by the college alumni board at the trustees’ Oct. 25 meeting. The trustees will also consider a recommendation from the governance committee chaired by BOT vice-chairman Dan Fallon on how to improve the university’s governance system with respect to the college and also Antioch University McGregor.

College supporters hope the most recent resolution will help convince the board not to delay its vote for an independent college, because in order to be successful next year, the campus community needs to start planning now.

“This is a useful way for a campus that has been ignored to say this is our voice, we have strength and opinion — negotiate with us,” Kiser said. “This is a great way to show the college is still a politically and intellectually vibrant place that’s worth keeping open.”

Shock, Awe and Antioch: The Bush Administration’s Attack on Progressive Education

by Bob Fitrakis Columbus Free Press, October 10, 2007

As the Free Press goes to press, the Antioch College Alumni Association has raised $12 million in donations and pledges in an effort to keep the socially-conscious college from closing next year.

Mysteries still surround Antioch’s rapid and poorly explained closing. The Board has bizarrely turned to the “marketing, branding and public relations firm” of Simpson Scarborough to peddle the closing decision.

Simpson-Scarborough CEO Christopher Simpson previously worked as an editor and writer for the notoriously right-wing Washington Times – a newspaper owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The dark side of Moon, a self-proclaimed Messiah, is well-documented in the public record. A 1977 congressional report placed Moon on the payroll of the Korean CIA. Moon also has financial ties to former CIA Director George H.W. Bush.

Simpson also previously served as press secretary for the infamously racist U.S. senator, Strom Thurmond. How did the planned demise of America’s most socially liberal and activist college end up in the hands of a marketer with such strong right-wing credentials? Revolution Online first raised this
question in a July 31, 2007 posting.

When the Antioch Board of Trustees made the decision to close, three of the former Trustees had clear ties to the U.S. military and security industrial complexes. A Trustee who argued strenuously for the closing, Lawrence Stone, runs Metron Inc. The company’s brochure reports its goals: “Objective: Support our DOD [Department of Defense] and Intelligence clients with advanced, mathemathics-based products for dynamic target tracking, threat activity and event detection and large-scale warfighting simulation and analysis.”

The Metron website stresses that its Oasis Group, among other things, is “…working directly with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Space and Naval Warfare Command (SPAWAR).” Metron provides “war games support” and lists CACI as a client, the company that supplied the interrogators for Abu Gharib. Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh reported that Major General Antonio Taguba wanted two CACI employees reprimanded for ordering military police to physically abuse Abu Bharib prisoners.

Bruce P. Bedford, one of only three Trustees not a former alum, served on the board of Arlington, Virginia company GlobeSecNine in 2005. Bear Sterns described the company as having “a unique set of experiences in special forces, classified operations, transportation security and military operations.”

Business Wire noted: “GlobeSecNine invests in companies providing U.S. defense, security, global trade management and supply chain solutions to the public and private sectors, and has a strategic alliance with The Scowcroft Group, a business advisory firm headed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.”

Bedford served on the GlobeSecNine board of advisors with Scowcroft and co-founder of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center, Fred Turco. Others affiliated with the company are tied directly to the prison industrial complex.

On July 3, 2007, Michael Alexander’s name was removed from the list of Antioch trustees. Two days earlier, he had been sworn in as president of Lasell College in Newton Massachusetts. In 1998 Alexander founded AverStar, where he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and did business
primarily with NASA and the Defense Department. In 2000, Alexander’s AverStar defense company merged with the Titan corporation.

In March 2005, Titan pled guilty and paid the largest penalty under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in history for bribery and filing false tax returns.

L-3 Communications acquired the Titan Corporation on July 29, 2005. As their corporate website described the company, it “is a leading provider of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems, secure communications systems, aircraft modernization, training and government services. The company is a leading merchant supplier of a broad array of high technology products, including guidance and navigation, sensors, scanners, fuzes, data links, propulsion systems, simulators, avionics,
electro optics, satellite communications, electrical power equipment, encryption, signal intelligence, antennas and microwave components. L-3 also supports a variety of Homeland Security initiatives with products and services. Its customers include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, selected U.S. Government intelligence agencies and aerospace prime contractors.”

The L-3 Communications Titan Group brags that 8,000 of its 10,000 employees have “security clearances” and that they are a leading provider of C4ISR, Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance – “developing and supporting the systems of today and tomorrow for the United States and Allied Militaries and defense-related agencies in order for them to carry out their assigned missions,” according to their website.

While Antioch board members Bedford and Alexander cozied up with U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security, students at the university sponsored a national teach-in to expose the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay on October 5, 2006.

How a college targeted by the FBI and its notorious COINTELPRO operation during the Cold War as a “vanguard of the New Left” managed to place two “spook”-connected trustees on their board is a mystery worth exploring.

In a June 28, 2007 weekly Yellow Spring News article, Stone argued, “If the Board hadn’t decided to close the college, the budget shortfall could take down the entire university system.” The Dayton Daily News is reporting that a $5 million accounting error caused the radical college to close. Bedford served as Treasurer just prior to the decision to close the college.

The role of a Thurmond/Moon-connected PR firm and three trustees tied to the U.S. military and security industrial complexes must be heavily scrutinized. Antioch alumni should be ashamed to allow their college to die until they get to the bottom of this spooky mystery.
—
Bob Fitrakis is the author of The Fitrakis Files: Spooks, Nukes, and Nazis,
on the role of the CIA in Ohio politics.

Antioch College Community Passes Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Tulisse Murdock; Supports Independence from Antioch University

Yellow Springs, OH, October 8th and 9th 2007 Antioch College community members cast their ballots for the student initiated community referendum on two issues critical to the survival of Antioch College. College students, faculty, and staff levied a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor of Antioch University, Tulisse Murdock. Also passed was a second referendum that endorsed continuing the operations of the College past the proposed closure date of July 2008, while working towards reformation as an independent and self-governing institution. Community Manager Chelsea Martens stated, “I think that Antioch’s sustainability and livelihood is dependent on its ability to be a self-governing institution [away] from the University.”

The referendums stated Murdock has “violated long-standing Antioch College values, community standards, and the Civil Liberties Code.” This community-wide vote of no confidence in Chancellor Murdock unifies the two pre-existing votes of no confidence in the Chancellor by Antioch College faculty and union staff. The College’s advisory body to the President, Adcil, was concerned and frustrated with the lack of consultation leading to the departure of President Steve Lawry. The community also endorsed a second referendum that advocates independence from the Antioch University system, including a separate Board of Trustees. This referendum posits that Antioch College can maintain operations beyond the 2007-2008 academic year by attaining autonomy and with the support of the College Alumni Board.

In June of 2007, the Antioch University Board of Trustees announced the suspension of College operations effective July 2008. Antioch College, a leader in progressive education, is the only residential campus with tenured faculty in the six-school University system. Currently, a single Board of Trustees, and Chancellor Murdock oversee Antioch University.

To learn more about efforts to keep Antioch College open, go to http://www.antiochians.org

Referendum Issue #1:

Vote of No Confidence in Antioch Univer­sity Chancellor Tulisse Murdock

Antioch College is grounded in values of democratic shared governance, the worth and dignity of every individual, and the pursuit of social justice. These values have withstood over 150 graduating classes, two world wars, and 21 College Presidents, but right now these values are being threatened more than ever before.

Tulisse Murdock, Chancellor of Antioch University, has violated long-standing Antioch College values, community standards, and the Civil Liberties Code. Line six of the Antioch College Civil Liberties Code states, “We regard these as fundamental necessities of genuine education, individual worth and dignity, and democratic government.” Under Chancellor Murdock’s leadership the Civil Liberties Code has been violated and democratic shared governance has been stifled. The College’s financial stability and reputation have been repeatedly damaged over the past two years by Chancellor Murdock’s administrative decisions, which in many cases also circumvented the College’s shared governance policies. We acknowledge that problems have existed between the College and university long before Chancellor Murdock took office, however, Murdock has failed to bring the two institutions into right relationship and has never been an advocate for the college.

Chancellor Murdock’s removal of President Steven Lawry and her formation of a new administra­tive team is cause for question. Both President Lawry’s removal, and the formation of a new adminis­trative team, occurred without the consultation of any of the College’s structures of shared governance. Weeks after the fact, Chancellor Murdock came to a meeting of the Administrative Council to answer questions about the recent changes in College administration. We found her answers incomplete and unsatisfactory, and we have yet to receive a candid account of the events of August 31, 2007. The administrative shake-up has damaged the College’s reputation and decision-making abilities at this critical juncture in Antioch’s history.

Moreover, the dehumanizing treatment of the locked-out employees of the Office of Institu­tional Advancement speaks volumes to Chancellor Murdock’s unprofessional leadership and lack of commitment to ethical standards. Furthermore, we believe the seizure of the Office of Institutional Advancement violated Antioch College’s Statement on Community Standards. That document states, “The theft, seizure or destruction of private or Community property” is grounds for dismissal from the Antioch community. The seizure of the Office of Institutional Advancement on August 31, 2007 not only violated the Statement on Community Standards, but also the Civil Liberties Code in its reference to the individual dignity of those employed in the office. Seizing both the office and the FirstClass ac­counts of Institutional Advancement employees and going so far as to send illegitimate email replies fictitiously signed by locked-out employees may be illegal, and is a direct violation of the Statement on Community Standards. These activities were initiated without following College policies of democratic shared governance and have only further eroded our trust in the Antioch University Chancellor.

Therefore, in response to these flagrant violations of College policy we are called by our value of social justice to question the legitimacy of the current University administration. We state we have absolutely no confidence in the leadership of Antioch University Chancellor Tulisse Murdock.

Referendum Issue #2:

Vote in favor of the future of Antioch College as an independent and self-governing institution, no longer under the auspices of Antioch University

Antioch College has maintained a proud tradition of educating progressive voices to counter oppression and to create just and sustainable communities for over 155 years. Antiochian leadership has benefited humanity in profound and transformative ways over the past century and a half, and the world needs Antioch now more than ever. Today Antioch College finds itself at the crossroads of its ex­istence. The dedication and leadership shown by the Antioch College Alumni Association over the past few months is a testament to the possibility for institutional change. In order for the College to survive it must break free from University control.

Over the past several years, the University leadership and Board of Trustees have made deci­sions which have directly and indirectly damaged the College. Antioch University has removed finan­cial decision-making authority from the College, and forced budget cuts which have reduced faculty, support staff, admissions, and development capabilities. The University imposed a “Renewal” cur­riculum on the College with minimal consultation with the Antioch College community, and then failed to financially support the drastic changes which it had mandated. The results of these poor business decisions have been exacerbated by the disconnected culture of secrecy under which the Board of Trustees and the University operate, culminating in the shocking decision to suspend Antioch College operations in June 2007.

We question the accuracy of the information used by the Board of Trustees to make its deci­sion to suspend College operations in June, and we believe viable solutions to the College’s financial troubles exist. The Alumni Association and College Faculty are developing promising solutions. Options that were not on the table in June of 2007 now seem viable.

Today we, the students, professional educators, and staff members of the Antioch College community, call for our independence from the detrimental governance of Antioch University. We support the formation of an autonomous College Board of Trustees, no longer under the auspices of Antioch University. We intend to continue building a movement that will realize the full potential of our beloved institution.

(DRAFT) Proposed Governance Structure of Antioch College (DRAFT)

Proposed Governance Structure of Antioch College: Narrative. All Comments should be sent directly to Ellen Borgersen

This proposal is presented for discussion and comment by the Antioch College Alumni Board’s Governance Committee. It addresses the governance structure of Antioch College under a new Antioch College Board of Trustees. It does not address the relationship between the College Board and the University Board of Trustees. [Narrative]  [Flow Chart]

The Committee supports the greatest degree of authority and autonomy for the College Board — in hiring the President of the College and managing the assets, budget, curriculum, programs and faculty of the College — that can be achieved consistent with the requirements for maintaining the College’s accreditation. We are working with the Accreditation Task Force and the Legal Team to develop a proposal for the relationship between the College and University Boards of Trustees.

This proposal is inspired by two main goals:

  1. Increase the real, original power of the stakeholders by giving AdCil the power to advise and consent on all matters other than curriculum, subject to veto by the President, with provision for appeal to the College Board of Trustees.
  2. Return the Faculty of Antioch College to the center of the College’s mission and curriculum. The Faculty’s ability to serve as Trustees and on AdCil provide a much needed boost in its ability to guide the education of Antioch students.

This proposal does not offer a structure for the President and CEO’s team, nor does it detail the procedures of the Faculty Senate. The President and CEO’s team structure should be up to the President with the consent of AdCil. The faculty should create their own procedures for electing a Faculty Speaker, etc. The composition of the Faculty Senate proposed on the org chart is of tenured, tenure tack and emeriti faculty. In the event that a non-residential education unit exists within the College, the level of participation and rank, if any, of its instructors needs to be determined.

At the administrative level it is assumed that non-residential education would be handled at the level of a dean or director.

Note there is no inclusion of reserved seats for specific constituencies. Following the advice given by Mort Rauh in Antioch Notes, such numerical division will never be satisfactory to the participants and would probably lead to factionalism. By keeping all Trustee spots open to any combination of Faculty, Staff, students, University trustees, or outside candidates, AdCil, the Alumni Board, and the existing Board will be able to craft the best slate to meet the needs of the college.

Direct election of trustees would most likely lead to the problem at Dartmouth where money starts entering the campaign and forcing out those who would lack the resources to run a campaign.

I. The Trustees of Antioch College
a. Current and former practice was to have a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees.

  • BoT view tends to be the 10,000 foot view, lack current stakeholder viewpoints.
  • Students, faculty and staff do not feel adequately represented before the Board and become alienated from them.

b. Proposal: Alter the composition of, and manner of selection for the Board to include the following,

  • 1/3 of trustees appointed by AdCil.
  • 1/3 of trustees appointed existing trustees.
  • 1/3 of trustees appointed by Alumni Association Board of Directors
  • The Faculty Speaker to be added as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
  • The President of the Antioch Alumni Association as an ex-officio, voting member.
  • The Community Manager as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
  • Open eligibility for trusteeship to all whether employed by the Corporation (faculty and staff but not officers or Deans), students or outside candidates.

c. Outcome:

  • Wider opportunities for participation in governance.
  • Current interests of the institution represented by stakeholders
  • Long term continuity preserved by self-selecting cohort.
  • Faculty gains a permanent voice on the Board.
  • Alumni represented by a permanent vote on the Board.

d. Objections:

  • Gives too much power to current stakeholders.
  • Conflict of interest if stakeholders (faculty, staff) are appointed by AdCil
  • Conflicts of Duty
  • Complicates cycle of terms.

e. Consensus: It is not uncommon for people to serve in multiple capacities. The other objections are outweighed by the benefits of having a Board that is closer to the stakeholders.

II. Chairperson and Committees of the Antioch College BoT

a. Currently the Chair has no term limit in the position, the regular term of office as a trustee may be extended to the length of the term as Chair, controls committee assignments and appoints committee chairs.

  • Concentrates power unnecessarily
  • Forces others to rely on the good graces of the Chairperson.

b. Proposal:

  • The Chairperson of the BoT will be term limited to 6 years.
  • The Chairperson of the BoT will not automatically have their term as a trustee extended but will be the Chairperson if they are re-elected as a trustee.
  • Committee assignments will be made by consensus of the whole. Committee Chairs will be elected by the committee each year.

c. Outcome:

  • Greater participation of all trustees.
  • Power decentralized.

d. Objections: ?

III. The Faculty of Antioch College

a. The faculty does not currently have a “constitutional” role in the governance of the college, except as elected members of AdCil.

  • Faculty not encouraged viewing the college as theirs.
  • Faculty not in charge of curriculum.
  • Faculty is treated as employees rather than as peers.

b. Proposal: Constitutionally empower the faculty.

  • A Faculty Senate shall be convened with its own rules of conduct but including all tenured faculty and emeriti.
  1. This Senate, is charged with the development of and final authorization and implementation of the curriculum, except where issues of finance are the proper purview of AdCil and the BoT.
  2. Create elected Faculty Speaker to serve on BoT as ex-officio, non-voting member.
  3. This Senate will approve and confer all academic and honorary degrees.
  • Faculty eligible for appointment or election to BoT.

c. Outcome:

  • Faculty becomes first and final say on matters of curriculum.
  • Faculty assured a voice on the BoT.

d. Objections:

  • Diminution of Trustees power.
  • Diminution of Presidential power

e. Consensus: The lessons of recent years prove that excessive power in the hands of the Trustees and the President does not ensure the well-being of the College.

IV. The Administrative Council of Antioch College

a. AdCil does not currently have a “constitutional” role in governance and is confined to an advisory or consultative role in administration of the college.

  • President able to disregard the elected representatives of the community.
  • Faculty, students and staff not able to access information needed for informed participation.
  • Faculty and staff relegated to employee status.
  • No ability to check on Administrative or Trustee actions.

b. Proposal:

  • AdCil to serve as legislative body of the college, with power of binding decisions. The President is granted veto power over decisions of AdCil. The veto of the President may be appealed to the BoT by AdCil. The veto power does not extend to AdCil’s tenure review decisions or to its selection of trustees.
  • AdCil positions to be year long and attendance by teleconference allowed.
  • Faculty tenure will be granted by AdCil, and financially approved by the BoT.
  • AdCil will appoint 1/3 total number of trustees.

c. Outcome:

  • AdCil as the legislative body of the College can protect the interests of the current stakeholders in the decision making process of the Administration.
  • AdCil’s power is limited by the Presidential veto and the unlikely event that the BoT would override a veto except in the most extreme of circumstances.
  • Control of tenure review maintains input to the tenure process by the community.

d. Objections:

  • Diminishes power of President – would top candidates take the job with this level of oversight?
  • Diminishes power of Trustees
  • Too much power in the hands of a body connected to the heat of the campus.
  • Lack of expertise among students and factionalism from the Faculty.

e. Consensus: Shared governance is a core value of Antioch College and essential to its mission of producing leaders and change agents. AdCil was empowered by tradition for many years. Students, faculty and staff who are empowered to govern gain expertise. They take their responsibilities very seriously. A candidate for President who is unwilling to govern under a system of checks and balances does not have the commitment to shared governance that an Antioch President must have.

V. The Administration of Antioch College

a. General:

  • The Administration (except the president) reports to AdCil administrative functions to be approved by AdCil as the legislative body.
  • Administrators of the College are not eligible for election to AdCil, or the BoT.
  • They may be elected to ComCil or CSB.

b. President of the College

  • Will also be the Chair of AdCil

1. Non-voting except to break ties or cast veto.

  • ii. Reports the actions of AdCil to the BoT
  • iii. Is hired by BoT after approval by Faculty Senate and AdCil.