Very long post ahead that I will ask politely that you not quote or share without my permission, thought point anyone here as you see fit. The context for all this is important. -- To Brians post about the current state of Alumni estrangement from the institution, and questions from Mike and others about how the BoT can let this happen, let me describe how the current situation was addressed in the BoT meeting. The meetings have obvious levels of confidentiality around what happens in there, but I am exercising judgement to say that there is nothing sensitive in the specific exchanges Im relating here. In that I was asked to serve as Trustee to represent the Alumni in the room, part of that representation includes letting people know whats going on, however that can be done responsibly. I related much of this in a call with the CUAA yesterday evening. One constraint Ive been able to identify in the Trustee meetings is simply the lack of time. Some of it is wasted in ways I wont detail here, but even if it were wildly efficient, it would be hard to really discuss things at the necessary levels of detail. While it would help to trim the nonsense, Richard Lincer runs an well-run and efficient meeting, and thats sometimes at odds with an effective one. Thats by no means a dig at Rich, its just to say its a constraint that affects how things play out. So thats a preface to say that there was very little time to discuss whats happening with CUAA or with Alumni in general. Richard could not chair this part of the meeting because he was called away, so it was chaired (also in a well-run way) by Rachel Warren. There were five phases to the discussion: 1) Much of the time was used by a presentation by Caitlin Tramel on where things stand relative to Alumni Engagement, the kind of broad strategic best practice powerpoint that is often used in lieu of numbers, data, or original ideas. I dont think this was a good use of time, but whatever. The presentation by Tramel was generally rosy, outlining ways that Cooper was reaching out to connect with Alumni and how its quite successful, not as successful as Princeton, but why not dream of that? There was an overall gloss as to how alumni are engaged with Cooper through events, communications and services, and pride that the paper newsletter At Cooper Union will be restored. Three of ten minutes was spent on email open rates, and how Coopers is very high, and how this reflects an overall sense of connection between Cooper and its Alums. 2) When asked, on the subject of the CUAA, John Leeper spoke up to make clear to the Trustees that the CUAA has been effectively barred from communicating with the administration, as well as Alumni. I will say, because I was sitting amongst Trustees at this time who leaned over to ask me questions -- it seems most Trustees had no idea whats been going on between the administration and the CUAA. Further, most Trustees do not have a strong sense of the antagonism between the administration and much of the Alumni at large. They know now. One question for everyone -- including me -- is the sense that the most vocal Alumni are the ones most opposed or at odds with the Administration. I reckon that to be around 10% of living Alumni, but I myself dont know what the other 90% think, because I dont have a good way to interact with them. This is a problem. For everyone. I know I represent the 10% or so who wrote me in to sit there -- perhaps with greater authority than those who were voted in earlier, if numbers matter -- but I dont *know* what the other ~90% think. They dont speak up, and we dont have a way to hear them. Think about how best to solve that. From the Trustees point of view -- from where they are sitting -- it seems like a very small number of antagonistic views, maybe a dozen real serious people, was suggested. I was quite clear that its at least 1500, at various levels of commitment -- and reminded everyone that 22% of alums gave money to Cooper, and 8% of alums gave money to the legal action against the Board. Thats a clue. 3) In response to Leeper, Tramel described the situation as one in which the CUAA declared embargo and that the administration was not working with them any further and thats why communication broke down. I addressed that, using the word bullshit, referencing the memo from Tramel declaring that we were not back to business as usual just because the CUAA wanted to work together, and that further communication with the CUAA was -- strictly by mandate of the administration -- deferred. This was a straightforward palter on Tramels part, and I will say that my references to the reality behind it were, again, news to most all the Trustees there. That was an unfortunate way for them to learn about it. 4) In response to Tramel, I asked what means we can use to determine whether Alumni engagement is up, or down, and suggested we use the % that donate to the Annual Fund, and asked her to comment on that. Tramel was unaware of the numbers, didnt have them in front of her, so I asked if the trend was up or down. Tramel wasnt able to answer that, so I answered, to say that it was down 15% from the year previous. The dollar number was higher because of a large single donation, but participation was down. Again: this seemed like it was news to Trustees, who had just been told that Annual Fund numbers are higher, which they are, if you count dollars instead of people. Perversely, the numbers that the administration did not have available at the meeting were numbers I got from the CUAA. 5) Because we ran out of time, Rachel Warren made a wise decision to table the discussion and do an additional, smaller meeting after the main Board meeting. She also took the time to sit with me prior to that to get better informed as to what led to the antagonistic dynamics currently in play. The second, smaller, meeting -- run by Warren -- was maybe 7 or 8 Trustees (I recall Hirshhorn, Leeper, Epstein, and others) and (IIRC) no Administration. It was quite honest and productive. Among the Trustees who took an extra hour out of their day to do this, I would characterize their general perception as: 1) the number of Alums who oppose the Administration and the ways it runs the institution is quite small. 2) the Alums who oppose the Administration do so because of the introduction of tuition, and thats that. Ive sought to make clear that 1) the number is far larger than they think (though how large, I dont know myself) and 2) that the split is far broader than free-or-not-free, speaking to an overall lack of confidence in the leadership of the Administration. It was a difficult discussion in that theres a legitimate question about whether the Administration is bound to support an organization that is generally antagonistic, whether that support is in the form of space, or electronic comms, or whatever. Thats a legitimate question. I believe the answer is yes, it should still be supported, since the support comes on behalf of the institution, not the people who happen to cycle through to run it for a little while. I would argue that the Administration are literally there to support the Alumni, not the other way around. But its a legitimately complex question to answer. However, its important to note -- and I noted it -- that the antagonistic quality of the relationship with Alumni and the CUAA did not *start* antagonistically, but rather has arrived there through a series of actions I can only characterize as abuses of power. The sub-group all understood each other by the end, and outlined two problems: an immediate problem and a long-term problem. The immediate problem and solution, articulated by Warren from the discussion, is to restore to the CUAA the necessary means to communicate with the Alumni that elected them. The long-term problem is how to regain support by the Alumni for the institution, if not the Administration. Putting aside my heart, and wearing the Trustee hat, I can say that tuition-or-not is no longer a question; that is certainly the documented position of all Trustees there. So the discussion was whether there is a Cooper Union that Alumni can support, what is the vision for that, and how to build a relationship based on that vision. To my knowledge, that long-term problem remains -- to date -- unaddressed. -- Thats everything that was about alumni in the meeting. I cant/wont do that for the entire meeting, because every once in a while there are things that in my judgement do deserve legitimate confidentiality. But I speak in that room assuming that our conversation is being recorded like the transcripts Ive read, and I am recounting all this in order to make sure that everyone understands the situation well enough to help me address it. While hopeless, I would appreciate it this account is maintained within the context Im presenting it. I do not want it published in press, or the like, though I will stand by whatever Im presenting here.
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:18:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015