I am a 1978 Marlboro College alum and was caught off guard at the original announcement of the merger with the University of Bridgeport.
At a public presentation at Marlboro town hall, I raised the prospect of reviving an “originalist” Marlboro, a neo-Luddite book-oriented college comprised of thin administration, underpaid faculty, thin staff, with students doing much of the more routine work of the college (maintenance, administration, library, bookstore, etc.) I suggested that Marlboro had lost its sense of mission.
I'm an accountant professionally, formerly an auditor, and recently finance executive of local not-for-profits. I asked about cost structure necessary.
My inquiries implying staff cuts, reductions in faculty pay, and other cuts were rebuffed. They obviously had discussed the pressures and had already experienced a round of layoffs. The faculty were protecting their employment. The students were protecting their chosen lifestyle. The president was protecting the board decision process.
I wasn't aware of the modern trend of deeply discounting tuitions and fees in order to eliminate obstacles to students' enrollment. I wasn't aware of the extent of changes in campus life (from neo-Luddite to wired, from very limited services to considerable), nor the extent that the college had been built up - overbuilt - over an extended period of time.
I also was not fully aware of the long history of losses. I personally had neglected to be involved in Marlboro enough to review published financial statements and form 990's (not-for-profit federal tax forms).
I mourned. Something that was an anchor in my past was threatened. I didn't know how bad it was, and while I had a right to mourn, I didn't have an extended right to be angry, given my own negligence to stay involved.
Then the deal fell through, and I thought that there would be a blank-slate discussion among those who had expressed an interest - an opportunity to get involved constructively.
* * *
A month later, the Emerson deal was announced, and dreams of revival crashed. I expressed anger to the faculty in writing for being willing to accept a transition that left only them whole, but no one else. Not alumni (memory), not emeriti (prior sacrifice).
I thought the nature of the deal was a gift, a bribe, or a theft, and I suspected some financial corruption on the part of key leadership for subsequent positions or bonuses.
I was one of the dissenters, suspicious and careless in my language.
But a couple of faculty did not react defensively to my comments; they coolly explained their reasoning and need for a reliable transition (rather than layoff into the southern Vermont employment landscape).
They explained their understanding of the funds transfer as partially a prepayment of their salaries, but more importantly as an investment in a new development of a self-directed education program at Emerson.
I read for the first time the published financial statements and 990's. I did my own back-of-the-envelope calculation. I determined per my own estimate that Marlboro would be recruiting for new students for a four-year program, yet had only three years of dependable funding.
* * *
Then the Will Wootton “challenge” (a confrontational word, with dual meaning) was introduced, following assertions that the president should step down (also confrontational).
Over time, the challenge was attempted to be framed as an independent, non-biased second opinion, but the cat was out of the bag. The independence of the challenge was compromised. The board had, and still has, very good reason to regard the challenge as a prospective insurrection and reject it.
I recently came to understand that the college had floated the idea of an open request-for-proposal process at some point for purchase and development of the campus in conformity with the town of Marlboro's educational zoning of the land. I reasoned that the challenge was asking instead for an exclusive right to propose to the board, in contrast to the college's legal obligation for an open proposal process.
Further, I concluded that access to Marlboro College management spreadsheets was unnecessary for a skilled former college president to construct cost and revenue expectations and how much funding would be needed at what phase to avoid bankruptcy.
I offered privately and publicly to Will Wootton, Adrian Segar, and T. Wilson to pore over the existing published financial statements toward an assessment of viability and proposal, but that offer was rebuffed.
Will Wootton should be allowed equal rights to submit a proposal to the board. If the board were to determine that they would open their books to all individuals/groups considering making proposals, then Will should have that access as well, but not exclusively.
* * *
In reviewing timelines and relations to multiple stakeholders, I came to understand the administration's actions in a positive light, as ethical - not cynical, not just giving up.
The administration was accused of misleading alumni and the public. The sequence of major actions by management included expressions of confidence in the college's viability (prospectively to keep open 2019 admissions efforts), and initiation of a strategic planning period, both indicating confident financial health.
Those statements of health appeared to conflict with committees' internal recognition of the extent of college's financial problems and seeking consultation ultimately on the prospect of mergers or closure.
That juxtaposition of public statements of health, at the same time as internal inquiry into closure and/or merger, led many to believe that the administration was deceptive.
In contrast, my interpretation of that sequence was that the college was seeking an ethical transition in all of its current relationships with the town, faculty, students, staff, Marlboro Music festival, and even funding staff time toward post-merger preparation of the new use of the campus.
I concluded that it would have been immoral to recruit new students in the current recruitment period, without the prospect of graduating. (Three years of funds, four years of promises).
* * *
When the decision to close and merge occurred, the abrupt announcement created a definitive clean break point, a shift from “we're operating” to “we're closing.”
The public communications were awkward and did not invite alumni or emeriti faculty into the planning. The faculty, staff, board, town, and music festival were given priority as current stakeholders actively affected by the decision.
Alumni and emeriti faculty were mourning, but our active stakeholder period ended when we graduated or retired.
So, I came to oppose the Wootton challenge. I thought of it as dramatic spectacle rather than real work at constructing something new.
I concluded that it would delay the analytical work to construct a viable post-transition use of the campus rather than hasten it.
In contrast to the accusation that the board was unnecessarily secretive, the leaders of the challenge declared that their process would be transparent, demonstration of a better mousetrap. Unfortunately, it has also been secretive, especially relative to critical descriptions of intent.
My two cents.