This spring my Nonprofit Management course assigned a research project on critical trends facing the nonprofit sector. There is nothing more critical than governance. The success of Sweet Briar College surviving a closure attempt by its former board provides ample inspiration for research on governance.
As an elected member of the University of Maryland Senate, I have a new appreciation for shared governance. I chair the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Committee for the University Senate. As a staff member, I have never been engaged in shared governance until now. It is quite amazing sitting alongside students (undergraduate, graduate and post-gradate); faculty (tenured and professional track); staff (hourly, professsional and managerial); and ex-officio members from key departments. This spring, we worked on four new policies for the University including a policy on Nondiscrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Disability. Our original policy will have to wait until next semester for action, but it is very important (a policy on students who change their name or gender and need consistency with University databases). Shared governance works extremely well at the University of Maryland and I can see how it would benefit any institution.
I chose to focus my research paper on shared governance as it is a topic very near and dear to many stakeholders of Sweet Briar College. The attempted closure of Sweet Briar College resulted in multiple law suits seeking to stop the closure. The mediation brokered by the Virginia Attorney General allowed each party to the suit to appoint three members of the new Sweet Briar College board. Students, alumnae, faculty and the Commonwealth of Virginia suit (funded by alumnae) were able to appoint new members. This new board ushers in a new era of governance at Sweet Briar College more inclusive than past boards. The new board of Sweet Briar has expressed a commitment to engaging stakeholders.
This annotated bibliography and research paper focuses on best practices for shared governance examining the key stakeholders responsible for the saving of Sweet Briar College: Students, faculty, staff, community, and the founder.
My abstract follows:
Higher education is in crisis. In March, 2015, the President and Board of Sweet Briar College, whose symbol is a rose, attempted to close the 100-year-old institution in rural Virginia. Stakeholders revolted, filed suits and ultimately control of the College was handed to a new board. The circumstances faced by Sweet Briar are not unique and point to trends in higher education. The suits filed and the saving of Sweet Briar provide examples of engaged stakeholders fighting for their rights. This paper examines each stakeholder’s role in the attempted closure and examples from other institutions practicing shared governance. Shared governance can be a path through crisis. References provide trend data on higher education and examples of shared governance at other institutions. Sources also provide glimpses into the trends of higher education faced by governing boards and stakeholders, including where there are breakdowns in communication and governance. Reference sources highlight stakeholder groups including student, faculty, staff (administrators and support), alumni and the wider community. Sweet Briar College must reinvent itself and its governance. Lessons learned from other institutions can be considered for the future.The collective voices represented in shared governance yields more roses than briars.
I am currently in graduate school pursuing a Masters in Business with Nonprofit Management concentration. This semester, I am taking Organizational Theory and Nonprofit Management. Each course required me to prepare an annotated bibliography and an individual paper. With my instructor’s permission, I chose Sweet Briar College, my alma mater, as my focus (normally, you cannot pursue the same research subject in different courses).
My first assignment came in the Organizational Theory course. We were to take a case study covered in an academic journal and use it as a basis for our individual paper. This seemed daunting at first. However, as I began my research, I found many case studies with similarities to Sweet Briar College. The attempted closure of Wilson College has startling similarities to the attempted closure of Sweet Briar College. The annotated bibliography provides a “deep dive” in issues facing higher education and the lessons available to learn from Wilson College. You may find a link below.
As the paper came together, the title changed and some sources fell away in favor of others. The lessons learned from the attempted closure of Wilson College are relevant for many colleges. The abstract follows:
Wilson College in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, whose mascot is the phoenix, survived a closure attempt in the 1980s. Sweet Briar College, in Amherst, Virginia, whose mascot is a vixen (fox), faced attempted closure in 2015 and was saved by its stakeholders six months later. This paper explores case studies and articles reporting on Wilson College and Sweet Briar College. Other articles elaborate on trends faced by the Colleges and the broader sector of higher education. Reviewing these colleges provides valuable lessons on challenges facing higher education, particularly for private, single-sex institutions. The case for this research is Wilson College with comparisons to Sweet Briar College. Both colleges are small women’s colleges with enrollment under 1,000.
All my life group and team dynamics have fascinated me. As a psychology major at Sweet Briar College, I read my textbooks with great interest and began applying that insight in my life. Over the years, I have supervised hundreds of people, coached synchronized skating teams, served on boards and, more recently, experienced the intense team effort to save Sweet Briar College.
One of the most helpful and elegant models I have found in understanding human and team dynamics comes from Bruce Tuckman, PhD. His model is the Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing Model. He added a fifth stage later in his career “Adjourning”. This model provides reassurance for those living through a time of uncertainty now. Applying the Tuckman model helps understand both the individual and team dynamics.
Forming – Stage 1
When a team forms, there is high dependence on a leader (or perceived leader) for guidance and direction. There is little agreement on the team’s aims and activities unless direction comes from the leader. Individual roles and responsibilities aren’t clear and often are not yet defined. Leaders will be besieged by questions about the team’s objectives, purpose, motives and relationships.
A stone laying atop Indiana Fletcher Williams grave, “Believe” sits next to Daisy’s resting place.
On campus, faculty and staff faced an uncertain future. Those working under the leadership of the President and Board followed their path to closure.
Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. formed and appointed a Board. They secured legal counsel to launch an important legal challenge. Their charge and mission was clear; however, there was a misperception that they would or should have the answers to all questions and provide all direction — which was impossible and not their charge.
Stakeholders of all kinds were filled with questions and they directed them in many directions, including the volunteer leaders of Saving Sweet Briar. The many stakeholders of Sweet Briar were uncertain as to who was leading them. People waited for direction and answers — answers that sometimes couldn’t be provided given the confidentiality of a legal case.
Social media allowed for teams and subgroups to organize themselves around work they found important: Students, Admissions, Research, Parents, Friends, and many more.
During the early formation of the teams organized to save Sweet Briar, I was unsure as to my best way to contribute. As a fundraiser, I saw the need to raise money. As someone who has worked in higher education for much of my career, I was called to take some of the issues I felt were important to a broader audience. I turned to my blog. My march blogs grappled with the broader issues I saw.
Looking back, “forming” was inevitable. It was understandable. The fact that this is normal is one of the reasons we must look back with an open mind at both perspectives — those who worked to close and those who worked to save. Each had their respective leaders and followers who were moving towards — and directed towards — different futures.
Storming – Stage 2
Storming is a normal phase for all teams and teams return to this phase when there is a change (such as a new leadership, key decision, even victory). In this phase decisions do not come easily in the group. Team members vie for position as they try to establish themselves in relation to other team members or the leader. The leader will receive challenges from team members. Team members will attack each other, especially those who may not appear to comply with what they perceive to be the leader’s goals. Clarity of purpose grows, but plenty of uncertainties persist. Power struggles are the norm and factions will form.
Banners protesting the closure and leadership hung from balconies, the bell tower and buildings.
Chaos reigned in the following weeks. Chaos of all types. Students protested the Board’s actions with banners hung from balconies and the bell tower. Faculty unanimously voted no confidence in the leadership. Additional suits were filed on behalf of faculty, students and an alumna.
Social media provided a forum where various people and teams working to save Sweet Briar organized – and divided — themselves. In the weeks after the initial announcement of closure, “storming” was alive and well. The different groups working on the issues they felt were important experienced internal and external challenges. Different teams questioned motives of others. There was a strong desire to have “one” voice, “one” approach and to muffle any external statements that didn’t comply.
National media reported on the “fight” to save Sweet Briar. Board members posted opinion pieces. Op-eds, blogs, articles and social media brought to light the many issues of concern: Donor rights, honoring the founder’s will, faculty contracts, and more.
The “us” and “them” felt as deep as the Grand Canyon at this time with Board members and “closers” (as they came to be called) fighting it out in Court, through social connections and in the national media.
During this time, I wrote some of my strongest blog posts about what I felt was wrong. My discontent also took the form of frustration with the lack of process and procedure with the efforts to save the College. I also was – true to form – frustrated with my leadership. I wasn’t used to leadership unfolding in this way. I didn’t understand why we didn’t take on more volunteers. I didn’t want anyone to tell me to wait. I was in classic “storming” in my April blogs.
“Storming” is understandable. It is one of the reasons we must forgive each other. Without every team working towards its individual goals — even if we did not understand them — we might not have crossed the finish line we reached on June 20.
Norming – Stage 3
Agreement and consensus forms among the team. Leadership is embraced and their roles are further defined. Stakeholders of all types will see where they can assist and not wait for “spoon feeding” or regular direction by the leader. There is less questioning of those willing to work without direction and an appreciation that “many hands make light work”. Big decisions are made by group agreement. Small decisions may be delegated to individuals or smaller teams. Unity is strong and commitment grows. There may be fun and social activities bonding people together. Working styles emerge. There is a general respect for the leader and more leadership is shared. The leader faciliates and enables versus directing.
In response to the President’s comment that he “left no stone unturned”, this image shows the will of the students, faculty, staff, alumnae and CITIZENS of Virginia crying out for leadership.
Norming took the shape of efficient fundraising. We celebrated million-dollar-sized milestones along the way. My team had regular conference calls. We secured a professional fundraising firm, Alexander Haas, to help coordinate things. As a fundraiser, this was a Godsend to me! The processes, procedures, lists and other tools I was used to using were suddenly available. We still had three different databases and some mis-steps along the way, but our collective apologies, thank yous and phone calls continued to yield success.
Back on campus, the practical matter of students transferring and faculty securing alternative positions outside of Sweet Briar unfolded. As much as people hoped for a positive outcome, practical steps were needed.
Fundraisers all over the country were held. Class challenges inspired giving from alumnae in far greater numbers than ever before. National news stories began to cover the stories of the fight to SAVE the College.
Performing – Stage 4
In a performing stage, the team is strategically aware. The team knows what it is doing and why they are doing it. There is a shared vision. The leader no longer has to be directive (nor is he/she expected to be). Sub-groups have confidence of their role and they plunge themselves into useful activity. Reporting structures become clearer. The team attends to relationships and processes along the way. There is self-care and mutual-care with people looking after each other. The leader is able to deliver even greater results with the efficiencies and often a group of leaders will be able to expand its ranks.
Salute to Daisy facing Monument Hill – a gathering of 100+ women and men as a symbolic show of unity.
Looking back, it seems to me that those working to save Sweet Briar College hit the “performing” stage just in time for Reunion, 2015. The collective goodwill from the regional events and opportunity to reconnect with campus reinvigorated everyone, even if they couldn’t attend.
On campus, there was greater clarity for students and faculty. Quietly, there was optimism about the possibility of success.
National media stories continued with coverage of the efforts to save and the broader issues of importance to anyone. Strong leaders spoke out — and were heard.
The amazing thing to me is the sense of TEAM that has emerged collectively. I have never looked at my classmates at Sweet Briar and felt we were a TEAM until now. I didn’t expect to look to the classes around me and see us as a united front. In fact, there was often subtle competition at Reunions to compete for fundraising with the last class to reach our milestones. I feel UNITED with students, parents, faculty, staff, alumnae, community and friends. We, Sweet Briar College, are a TEAM. This team building we have undergone has been painful, jubilant and TRANSFORMING.
I don’t see how this can be replicated at any other institution in the land and I hope no other place has to go through it. However, I can honestly say, I would do it all over again to reach this amazing place our team Saving Sweet Briar has reached!
Adjourning – Stage 5
Bruce Tuckman refined his theory in 1975 and added a fifth stage to the Forming Storming Norming Performing Model which he called Adjourning (it is also referred to as Deforming and Mourning). Tuckman’s fifth stage is the break-up of the group, hopefully when the task is successfully completed. Everyone can move on to new things, feeling good about what’s been achieved. From an organizational perspective, sensitivity to this stage is helpful, particularly if members of a group have been closely bonded or feel threatened by the change.
Indiana Fletcher Williams smiles a bit broader….
To be honest, I forgot about this step until I prepared to write this post. When I reviewed the material on Tuckman’s model, I hadn’t noted the fifth stage in the articles. Yet, it is very helpful to think about now whether from the perspective of the outgoing Sweet Briar College Board, the new members of the Sweet Briar Board or the Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. Board who announced from the beginning that they hoped to be “out of a job” by the end of their efforts.
The Sweet Briar College Board collectively resigned after the Memorandum of Understanding was reached between the parties filing suit and Sweet Briar College. To their credit, they saw that their job was done. They took a vote, they took steps to execute that vote for closure and held their course. They served in a very difficult time and I am compassionate for how this must have been for them.
The Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. Board’s role for funding the important legal counsel was a victory – the County Attorney of Amherst achieved her desired goals and the outcome of “getting back the keys” resulted. The fundraising effort launched surpassed everyone’s wildest expectations. The work to secure a new President was successful. All parties to the suits put forward suggested names for new Board members for Sweet Briar College.
Fortunately, there is no “adjourning” for those who have worked to save the College. The cycle begins anew.
Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing
We can expect all of these stages in the weeks ahead. Hopefully, it can help us be more compassionate with those who are working on campus to welcome back students. Perhaps it could help us reach out to those who thought differently from us and welcome them into this future. We need all leaders, followers, rank-and-file, do-ers possible to begin the cycle again.
Soon, we will bring to you our regularly scheduled links at the College, but we don’t yet have the keys….
Stacey Sickels Locke, CFRE, is a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. She served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, she solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and she feels a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, she has spent her career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, she has served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. She raises funds for Saving Sweet Briar, a charitable organization committed to the future of the College She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), is affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and holds a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
What we need right now is an about-face, a u-turn, a change of heart…
Editor note: This along with several other posts has been emailed to all members of the Board of Directors with email addresses.
I have written at length about the President and Board’s decision to close Sweet Briar College since March 3. Initially, the Board refused to provide any data or reports which they used to make their decisions. This is one of the reasons the stakeholders of Sweet Briar College (students, faculty, staff, alumnae/i, community members, elected officials) have such a hard time accepting and RESPECTING their decisions. Since then, through legal discovery, various reports have been released. We are still missing key reports, such as the Arts & Sciences report (which Arts & Sciences included on its client list, but has since removed).
Screen shot of the Arts & Sciences firm regarding their Sweet Briar Report (this link has since been removed) – why?
Many people feel there must be something nefarious going on or personal financial gain driving the President and Board. It may turn out that one or more Board members would gain financially from Sweet Briar College’s sale; however, I think there are two simple reasons we have not seen any flexibility or change: Saving face and group think. I also think it is not too late for one or more brave board members to revisit their decision. Below I provide analysis, examples and a template. Continue reading Repeal! An Analysis, a Road Map & a Draft Letter→
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
I was sent a copy of the letter you sent to the American Association of University Professors. I write to draw your attention to an error in your letter and call for you to cease saying something that does not reflect well on you. While I do not know you personally, I write out of respect for the office you hold. I did want to write to you – and board members writing in national media — so that you could avoid continued embarrassment.
By way of introduction, I have worked in fundraising and higher education since Sweet Briar (25+ years) and I also worked at the College in the 1990s. I was on the call when you spoke to alumnae after the closure and shared with you my experience working at another institution that was honest with alumnae when it faced challenges. As you may recall, that institution now thrives. Since March 3, I was concerned about this “feasibility study” you referred to on that call and board members continue to refer to since then. As alumnae who were interviewed started to come forward, as I learned staff made the calls, as I heard comments you and board members making, my concern grew. Initially, I was critical of the firm and the consultant on the survey as I could not believe the firm would conduct a survey with such poor methodology. I believed you when you said you had a feasibility study – until I spoke to the firm and realized you did not.
Sweet Briar College does not have a “feasibility study” in the Donor Insight Survey conducted by Grenzebach Glier and Associates. I have spoken to the firm and to the principles charged with the study. They were charged, as you may know, from the former President, Jo Ellen Parker. The methodology for the survey is not designed to draw a conclusion about fundraising amounts. The charge was simply to interview donors about possible strategic planning directions. Staff conducted the meetings which, as you must know, is not customary or considered reliable (neutral consultants conduct feasibility interviews under confidential agreements). As you must know from your past experience, a fundraising feasibility study has specific methodology to be able to draw conclusions about what might be raised for a campaign. I give you the benefit of the doubt – I assume that you, Vice Chair Wyatt and other board members THOUGHT you had a feasibility study, but you did not. I understand the firm has asked the College to stop using the term. You can contact them for further clarification.
The most you could draw from this survey is that fundraising ALONE might not be enough to help the College’s financial challenges (other revenues streams are also critical); that alumnae would embrace change; and that alumnae would continue to give. The firm was just as shocked as the rest of your stakeholders with the decision to close. If you read the survey (I have since it is now part of the discovery process), you will see that alumnae would embrace ANY change if it meant “No Sweet Briar at all” and they would give.
But you don’t need a survey to know that alumnae will give. Now that alumnae, students, parents, faculty, staff, community and people across America are mobilized, funds are pouring in. I have served Sweet Briar as a volunteer since my graduation and I have never seen this type of engagement and generosity.
As another suggestion, it would be nice if the College released on the web the reports on which you have based your decision to close. The Arts and Sciences report, to which you refer in your letter, has not yet been released. Instead of waiting for legal discovery, it would be a nice gesture to make those things available that were paid for with operating dollars (which includes alumnae donations).
There is much hope for the future contrary to your perspective. I am sure you, your staff and the board have a very difficult job right now. Obviously, you must know I am on the side of saving Sweet Briar. As a colleague in higher education, I do empathize with the difficultly you all must face now.
Finally, in addition to stopping using the term feasibility study, I do ask you to consider an orderly resignation along with the board. At this point, I think your dignity and reputation will be stronger if you do as other strong leaders have done when there is public outcry for change. Jamshed Bharucha, President of Cooper Union College, resigned this week. Five trustees resigned in unison as well. There are countless examples of excellent leaders who went on to positive careers or happy retirements who stepped down when they heard the call.
Sweet Briar College’s Board is described by Richard Leslie, a former member as, “ham-handed, myopic and dictatorial”.
Sweet Briar College provides excellent lessons for schools and organizations about which I have written over the past few weeks.
This title, “Sunshine Laws & the Case for Abolishing the Executive Committee….everywhere….” lifts up the need for transparency as well as the downfalls of having an over-arching Executive Committee of a Board. After all, who wishes for a small group of people to make decisions for them when they are fully capable of weighing the same evidence for themselves? No one. No one likes others to make decisions for them, particularly when the decision is terminal.
Mr. Richard Leslie’s opinion piece “Sweet Briar’s Leadership was a Short-sighted Mess” in the Washington Post regarding his experience on the Board sheds light about the Board’s governance practices that led to its controversial decision to close the College announced on March 3, 2015. It is sickening to hear about the conduct of this board. As more and more information unfolds in the legal discovery process and in the national media, it is obvious this board was incapable of solving tough challenges, practiced poor governance and made a faulty and hasty decision to close. It is time for them to resign. In the words of Dr. David W. Breneman, member of the Executive Committee, he admits their weakness,
We knew that we faced an existential challenge, but collectively we were unable to find an answer.
Vice Chair of the Board, Elizabeth Wyatt, describes it even more simply,
“We tried….”
Today I dive deeper into the issue of governance and examine the Executive Committee model both at Sweet Briar College and through my own experience. I call for implementing Sunshine Laws and practices immediately and abolishing Executive Committees everywhere. Why? Because it makes for better boards. I learned the hard way….
When I served as Executive Director for Anne Arundel Community College Foundation and Director of Institutional Advancement for the College, I inherited a board with a strong Executive Committee, Chairs of Committees and a robust list of 20+ board members. I was cautioned by the outgoing Executive Director that not many of them showed up and that the majority of the work was done within the “EC” (Executive Committee). This wasn’t cause for alarm for me, in fact, it was the norm from places I had been and boards on which I had served. All of the training I received in leading boards led me down the path to this model. I now realize the consequences of this model and know there is another way….
Enter the rising board chair. Six months into my five year tenure at this organization, a new board chair rose to lead the board. He was an accomplished accountant with a large firm in the area and a respected community leader. When he rose to the position of Chair for the Board, the first thing he said to me was, “We are no longer having an Executive Committee.” My first response was, “What??? How are we going to get our work done??” As an Executive Director, I LIKED the idea that I could convene a few people on the phone or by email and resolve issues (which were later reported to the board fait accompli). He explained to me that, through his board experience, he didn’t appreciate serving on a board when it seemed that a smaller group actually made decisions and he simply was asked to rubber stamp them or not weigh in at all. He said, “Eventually, people feel like their time is wasted and their voice on the board doesn’t matter. Trust me on this, we will have a better board.” He was right.
This new model for the private foundation was closer to the operations of the Board of Trustees at the same College . As the College was State funded, they were required to operate under Sunshine Laws. Those laws forbade Trustees to meet or make decisions outside of a public forum. In light of Sweet Briar College’s current fate, this approach seems very refreshing and worthy of consideration for future leadership.
Sunshine Laws call for openness. Whether mandated by law or best practice, these practices make for good decision making and leadership.
DEFINITION of ‘Sunshine Laws’
Regulations requiring openness in government. Sunshine laws make meetings, records, votes, deliberations and other official actions available for public observation, participation and/or inspection. Sunshine laws also require government meetings to be held with sufficient advance notice and at times and places that are convenient and accessible to the public, with exceptions for emergency meetings. (Credit: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunshinelaws.asp#ixzz3cl9l2SXB )
If the Government can figure out to publish their meetings in advance and make their deliberations public, I certainly think a small nonprofit or College could do the same.
At Sweet Briar College, the Executive Committee had completely usurped the power of the board, Richard Leslie wrote in the Washington Post:
During the five-year term of the Presidency of Jo Ellen Parker, rather than none, all critical decisions were made by a small subset of the Executive Committee of which Ms. Dalton was a part.
The full board was occasionally asked to ratify decisions, which they dutifully did.
Upon the entrance of Jo Ellen Parker, all board members were specifically instructed not to contact a member of the Senior Staff without first obtaining permission of the relevant committee chair and the president. They even brought in a coach from the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), an organization solely funded by the presidential budgets of our nation’s colleges, to reinforce this stifling of involvement.
As I can personally attest, those who even accidentally violated this rule were reprimanded by the president.
By contrast, when I worked for Sweet Briar College in the 1990s, I found an engaged Board open to feedback from all fronts. As a junior staff member, I was encouraged to attend meetings (albeit sitting in the back), interact with members of the Development Committee, continue to volunteer as an alumna, and interact with students regularly. I attended meetings of the Development Committee and worked with several board members around the country for Regional Campaigns. I stayed in these board member’s homes and we shared ideas throughout the day. Imagine if that board member had not been able to speak to me at the time? Board members under the current administration were told not to talk to staff members and were reprimanded when they did.
In documents connected with the court cases (click here for a link to all legal proceedings), Mr. Leslie further wrote that even the decision to move the interim President to full President was made without input from the full board.
‘Please shred all of the napkins we wrote anything on.’
Interim President James Jones in an official College “Q & A” said this about the Executive Committee when asked why the Board didn’t share its Minutes:
Q: Why not release the meeting minutes?
Jones: “Because we do not have to release the minutes and because an enormous amount of what went on was done in executive session where there are no minutes.”
When I first heard this I was disgusted. As more experts debunk figures used by the board and more information becomes public, it is disturbing to me to know that the full board was not included in “an enormous amount of what went on….”.
The American Association of University Professors remarked on the Sweet Briar Board’s unilateral action as follows,
On March 3, 2015, with no warning, the board determined the college’s fate without any faculty participation, in evident disregard of widely accepted AAUP-recommended governance standards, as set forth in the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, jointly formulated by AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The board acted in secrecy, even though for two years the college’s faculty had been developing alternative curricular and programmatic scenarios to assure Sweet Briar’s survival.
All stakeholders of Sweet Briar College were shocked by the Board’s lack of transparency and action: students, parents, faculty, staff, alumnae/i, community members.
Back to my personal experience with my board chair and the transformation that unfolded. Initially, the board didn’t know what to make of the notices that our meetings would be a bit longer and there would be a new approach. While we still sent out Committee Reports from Committee Chairs in advance, those Committee Chairs were given more time at the meeting to update and to discuss. When preparing for the meeting, the board chair and I would go through what decisions needed to be made and the flow was designed to provide information on those items and voting early in the meeting. If we got into too much detail when preparing, he would stop us and often say, “The full board would appreciate hearing this.”
The meetings themselves transformed in small ways at first. People who normally arrived late and left early stayed to the end. Those who often were multi tasking with their blackberry in their lap were more engaged and participated in discussion. If anyone had held back not contributing during the meeting, the Meeting Evaluator (more on that in a moment), would ask for their input during the roundtable evaluation of the meeting a the end (more on that as well). By the third meeting, the tables were filled. We had to change rooms. By the last meeting of the year, there was a buzz in the room, constant dialogue, engaged members. Oh, and not surprisingly, giving from board members increased as well as offers to engage between meetings.
The idea of having a Meeting Evaluator and a roundtable meeting evaluation come from the book, Death by Meeting, which I commend to everyone. The meeting evaluator takes notes throughout the meeting regarding participation, length of discussion on items and gives feedback for improvement to the group. During roundtable evaluation, there is a brief report-out sharing either a take-away from the meeting or something a member would like to see in the future. Best of all, the five tips for better meetings is transformative if heeded. One of the five is worth lifting up in particular:
Provoke conflict. Are your people uncomfortable during meetings and tired at the end? If not, they’re probably not mixing it up enough and getting to the bottom of important issues. Conflict shouldn’t be personal, but it should be ideologically emotional. Seek out opposing views and ensure that they are completely aired.
Back to Sweet Briar College. The Board of Directors of Sweet Briar College voted to close on March 3, 2015. Imagine if this board actually operated with some form of Sunshine Laws or even basic transparency? We would have:
Meetings locations and agendas published in advance.
Meeting minutes available for review.
Reports used for deliberation available for public review.
Stakeholders represented (students, faculty, parents, staff, alumnae/i, community members).
Opportunities for public comment.
Imagine if the Executive Committee either didn’t exist or did not make decisions in private? I do wonder whether the full board might have reached a different conclusion if they had access to the same information. Is this a board that can be trusted to issue a death sentence? I think not.
The Sweet Briar College Board of Directors voted to close – a death sentence to the College and a violation of the will of the founder. Their deliberations are not unlike famous executions in history not based on proper facts or due process.
I assert that this board expresses the worst in governance practices. This board has a small insular Executive Committee making decisions outside of the full board’s input. The board took actions before announcing closure to violate donor’s gift intentions (meeting with the Attorney General to use donated funds for closure purpose)s. The leadership provided erroneous data (now being revised with eight-figure errors). The board members were given reports on which to base their decision without being able to review those reports in advance (they were collected after a cursory review period at one meeting and collected before a vote). Board members were told they could not launch a fundraising campaign based on a survey not designed to provide the data for such a decision (an analysis of this study with input from the firm charged with conducting it is explored in this article). This is pathetic governance and their decisions are simply not to be trusted.
“Collectively we were unable to find an answer” — Dr. David W. Breneman, board member.
Saving Sweet Briar, Inc., a charitable organization committed to the future of Sweet Briar College, stands ready to provide new leadership and support. To contribute, please visit Saving Sweet Briar. To review the strategic direction for the future, please visit: Sweet Briar 2.0.
Stacey Sickels Locke, CFRE, is a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. She served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, she solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and she feels a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, she has spent her career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, she has served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. She raises funds for Saving Sweet Briar, a charitable organization committed to the future of the College She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), is affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and holds a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
Given that all parties in the Sweet Briar College matter are gathering in good faith in mediation facilitated by the Attorney General, I continue to find it surprising that the Board’s Vice Chair would pursue stories like this. It seems the very opposite of having a good faith effort towards mediation.
What disturbs me most about the letters by Elizabeth Wyatt in the New York Times and Diane Dalton in the Washington Post are the continued use of questionable “facts” and figures. They are using figures which Sweet Briar itself now questions. They are using reports (such as the Sax Report) that do not meet academic standards. Now that I have READ several of the reports, I interpret that the Board saw a “falling sky” where others saw rays of sun. The Donor Insights Survey (which the board members erroneously refer to as a “Feasibility Study”) is one such report. As fundraising is where I spent my professional time, I found this report particularly interesting.
Donor Insight Survey, February 2015 – delivered just one month before the College Board voted to close.
This survey was conducted by a very reputable firm, Grenzebach Glier and Associates; however, the consultants themselves were not used for the actual interviews (which is customary in an actual feasibility study). The College sent staff members to visit donors. As a result of this methodology (which the consultant discloses in the report), the results were bound to be a bit suppressed (more on that in a moment). Kathleen Kavanagh, Senior Executive Vice President of the firm, and a Sweet Briar alumna, is a well respected leader in the field. I put great stock in her work product and I see the merits of the report she provided. She has provided consulting for a long time at Sweet Briar including when I worked there. What I disagree with is the misunderstanding of the purpose of the report, the misuse of the findings and the Board continuing to use the report as a compass pointing towards closure. As I read the Donor Insights Survey, I actually see many hopeful things which the Board obviously chose to disregard or overlook. But the real issue is this — whether this report was used as justification not to do fundraising and to close the College or not — WE NOW KNOW THAT A FUNDRAISING EFFORT IS INDEED POSSIBLE. My question now is this… WHY DON’T YOU LET US TRY???
The following is a response to Ms. Wyatt’s opinion in the Wall Street Journal (and elsewhere)….
Dear Ms. Wyatt,
Further to your opinion in the Wall Street Journal, in which you say:
“We Tried Hard… but Sweet Briar’s Problems are Terminal”: The numbers were not in our favor. Any effort to reinvent the college would require significant investments of time and money.
Ms. Wyatt, help me understand as a Board Vice-Chair, Sweet Briar alumna and business leader how you and your colleagues on the Board would not have read further into the studies for which you paid. Help me understand how you repeat the same facts and figures based on figures your own team is now revising? Help us understand why you did not undertake a fundraising campaign. It seems that this Board saw storms where others saw rays of sun.
We now know that the alumnae of Sweet Briar College are WILLING to”expend the NECESSARY investments of time and money” to which you refer. It is clear you “tried hard” and that is just not good enough. Step aside, Ms. Wyatt, and take the rest of your Board colleagues with you.
As someone who has worked in higher education for the majority of my career (including at Sweet Briar), I continue to find the behavior by this Board and the actions of the current administration very hard to understand. You continue to repeat the same facts and figures (most of which have been debunked by numerous experts) and fail to provide copies of the reports on which you base your decisions and with which you used substantial Sweet Briar College funds to secure. Fortunately, some of your reports are making their way to the public eye and they do not reflect well on your analysis, decision-making or choice of staff. Yesterday I received a copy of the Donor Survey cited in your recent article.
Since you refer to the reports as the basis for your decision-making, let me focus primarily on the Donor Survey since that is the area I best understand. I will leave the analysis of your financial stewardship to other experts such as Dan Gottlieb, a professional forensic accountant and your own legal team now restating its finances with a $17 million rounding error and misstatement. I commend to your reading, Jay Orsi’s piece “Sweet Briar’s Own Expert Uncovers Misrepresentations In Its Financials”.
Ms. Wyatt, I have served as an Executive Director of a Board, I have served on nonprofit boards and I have worked at Sweet Briar under fantastic financial and development leadership. While the hiring of such people is left to Presidents, the review of their work product is the work of the Board. The Board has clearly failed in its review of key documents as well as its vetting of reports provided for its decision making. I understand that the firm who did this study was NOT charged with testing the ability of the College to raise funds. Rather, their charge was to test with the College’s generous donors their reactions to various strategic planning priorities. The firm was just as stunned as the College stakeholders to learn of the decision to close. To refer to this report as a “feasibility study” (as you do in your article) is misusing the report and is not fair to the firm who conducted it.
Methodology: Gift officers were deployed to interview constituents in person and by phone (usually this is done by a consultant for confidentiality).
With respect to the Donor Insight Survey, I have several comments. I make these having hired over 20 consultants over the years and utilizing fundraising consultant’s studies in my work for over 25 years. This is a very good study and an interesting report – this Ms. Wyatt, is NOT a feasibility study.
Let me first focus on the methodology. First, the survey was conducted by gift officers (staff). I presume this was a cost-saving measure because it is widely considered not to be a best practice to use anyone other than the consultants themselves for donor interviews. The reason for this is that donors will not usually make a candid comment to a staff member regarding what “best gift” they might make because there is an inherent feeling that a solicitation is being tested. In fact, in the section “Influence on making a gift”, only a small percentage of alumnae (13%) said that a development officer or College leader influenced their philanthropy. It is clear that these same donors were not likely to discuss their giving with the people who visited them. I have spoken to many reputable consultants on this topic and have received unanimous feedback that using staff would clearly skew results in a negative direction when assessing capacity of a donor and even inclination. To draw conclusions from a survey with this methodology would make me question both the findings and your use of them to support closure.
The only conclusions you could legitimately draw from this survey (based on what the consultants were charged to do) is assess your donor’s reactions to possible changes. That is it. It is not fair nor appropriate to say that this survey could be used to show that a fundraising campaign would not be successful. Grenzebach Glier and Associates would have been delighted, I am sure, to conduct an actual feasibility study.
12 donors were capable of making a commitment of $1 million or more OF THE IDENTIFIED FOR THE STUDY.
The financial analysis stating that “Only 12 donors were RATED (emphasis mine) as being capable of making a $1 million gift” is not a basis on which to evaluate fundraising potential. 12 donors of 139 is not a bad percentage. This figure of “12 donors” has been repeated by you and President Jones as if to say that there were only 12 $1 million donors in the entire population of Sweet Briar. This is not what the report is saying! There are MANY in the Sweet Briar community capable of major gifts and there are many capable of making smaller gifts adding up to a greater total. Work directed at both ends of the spectrum seems to have been lacking with key positions unfilled (I know this because I interviewed 18 months ago and the position was never filled). There was greater capacity when I worked for the College in the 1990s. That capacity should have grown since then, not gone down. Since that time, a greater percentage of our alumnae are working and capable of giving. There has been an intergenerational wealth transfer widely written about since that time. Donor after donor after donor report that they have been “hardly asked”, “asked for low-level gifts” and “ignored”. Many major donors report how badly treated they were by former Presidents — one was asked for a $3 million gift after no previous cultivation. The donor then gave a $25,000 gift in response — and the check was never cashed!
Interviewees identified as major prospects (by the staff interviewers).
On page 25 of the report, it appears donors in the survey were evaluated for potential with a “yes” or “no” question as to whether they would make a major gift. I hardly think yes or no questions asked by staff would provide enough data on which to base a “no go” for a major gift effort. Furthermore, the majority of the respondents actually answered “yes” that they WOULD make a major gift in the Campaign. It is baffling how it could be determined that a fundraising campaign wouldn’t be worthwhile. If 48.2% (95 of your 139) could or would make a major gift — surely there would be some hope once you actually started talking to donor #140 and beyond. Your own consultant leads the way for a campaign to take place.
I have used wealth screening by the same firm you used for your study. Throughout the survey, wealth screening “ratings” are used as filters for data. Wealth screening is only ONE measure to base capacity for fundraising success. I am currently using “Wealth Engine” data in my daily work and routinely find people rated extremely low who are capable of making very generous gifts. A donor rated by GGA wealth screening as being capable of a gift in the range of $1,000-4,999 made an eight-figure transformational gift of a building to my institution this past year. Had I relied on the rating, I never would have even spoken to this person. This is not the fault of wealth screening – electronic tools can only see so much. Professional fundraisers know this is a tool of many in a tool box and not a tool used to spear possibility.
Most respondents indicated that they would continue to support Sweet Briar College philanthropically in light of ANY (emphasis mine) potential changes.
The biggest issue I have with the survey is the questions it failed to ask and the issues it failed to raise. If this report was being used as a litmus test for whether the College might close, stronger questions could have been tested to indicate how alumnae might respond. A study is only as powerful as the questions and issues it tests. Stating there are “mixed feelings” about “changes at the College” such as going co-ed or focusing on STEM fails to ask the most obvious question — what would the donor do if the future were uncertain?
I am not ill-informed about the power of questions in a feasibility study. I once worked at an institution facing closure — an all-woman educational institution. We, like Sweet Briar, hired a consulting firm for development coaching and a fundraising feasibility study. That consultant, a Sweet Briar alumna, had a huge task ahead. She had to work with the Board to come up with the questions that would be tested with the alumnae. She had to work with my fundraising team to solicit gifts with integrity not knowing what the future held. She pushed very hard for candor and testing the “tough questions”. There was a lot of anxiety about being honest and whether or not it would send out fear that would harm donations. I am sure Sweet Briar and its staff faced the same questions (however, you actually were not honest with your staff who were out asking the questions since most of them were also shocked at the Board’s decision). But here is the difference. In the feasibility study to assess fundraising potential, there were very difficult questions asked. I remember they went something like this,
“What would a world be like without _____________” and “What would you be willing to do if the future were uncertain?”
These types of questions give a donor the chance to tap into how much they love a place. It also gives a glimpse as to what the donor might be willing to do if she felt it were threatened. It also allows them to realize that the future may NOT be certain. On the heels of this, a question about what a donor might be willing to do – when a neutral consultant is speaking to them – elicits the kind of information that truly assesses what might be possible. Guess what? That institution thrives today. Sweet Briar missed an opportunity – and continues to miss an opportunity – to be candid and to allow its alumnae to help. Conclusions about closure drawn from a survey that never actually asked about what a donor might do to avoid it is at best a missed opportunity and at worst, flawed analysis.
“The large majority in the middle were open to the idea of (change, emphasis mine)… with a preference for remaining all-women’s, but preferring a co-educational Sweet Briar to no Sweet Briar at all”
We now know what alumnae and others are willing to do when they think the College’s future is in peril. They give. They give a LOT. As of this writing, they have given $16.5 million. A different wealth screening conducted by a reputable firm has reported a conservative estimate of capacity of over $100 million.
The “resistance to change” cited in the report cannot be relied upon when the very donors with whom you spoke were not given the consequences of a lack of change — closure. The report clearly hints at the fact that “financial stability” was a key driver in why the report was written. Furthermore, ways the College might change should really not be solely in the arms of alumnae to hold and consider. Testing the ideas with potential students and industry partners — and then presenting that data to alumnae — would be a far better measure of what directions might be embraced. Sweet Briar 2.0, a collection of experts and passionate supporters of Sweet Briar, provides numerous ideas for future consideration.
Your biggest clue in what alumnae would be willing to do lies in the “majority” of those who answered the question about Sweet Briar going co-ed. On the bell curve cited, a small percentage said they would stop giving if Sweet Briar went co-ed. A small percentage said they favored co-education. The report cites, “A large majority in the middle (a majority of your MAJOR DONORS mind you, emphasis mine)…would prefer a coeducational Sweet Briar to no Sweet Briar at all.” This section should have flashing lights around it for the boldness it contains. Even though you did not test the question of closure — the majority of your alumnae would rather see a changed Sweet Briar than none at all. Remember, this is only 197 people, not the wider community of alumnae who would likely have fallen into the same bell-curve. Of the 197, the report states, “Most indicated their willingness to support Sweet Briar in light of ANY of the proposed changes….” Did you just overlook this part? In short – the majority of your alumnae would have preferred ANYTHING to “no Sweet Briar at all”.
This survey asking alumnae to make commentary on the weaknesses and strengths of Sweet Briar is both helpful and also not relevant. The alumnae interviewed had already CHOSEN Sweet Briar and are committed to it. Again, a market study of incoming Freshman is a far more valid source of information on the strengths and weaknesses of Sweet Briar. Note – to date that report (the Arts & Sciences report) cited has NOT been released. Having just been in Lynchburg this weekend and seen the thriving Randolph College and Lynchburg College, clearly there are many who choose this wonderful region for education. There are also many women who choose women’s education. It seems Sweet Briar stopped recruiting from the markets who would consider it, particularly Internationally.
I have always respected the firm who produced the Donor Insights Survey — and I still do. In terms of timeline, my understanding is that this study was commissioned by the prior President, Jo Ellen Parker, but was not completed when she left. The current Board asked the firm to complete it, but without new direction for how it might be used. Again, the charge to the consultants was to help design a survey to test reactions to strategic planning priorities – NOT to conduct a feasibility study for a possible Campaign. Certainly not to do a survey that would be used to show no possibility of fundraising success. I have heard positive reports on the other consultants utilized by the College. Evidently another report addresses the enrollment issues, but that report has not been made available to alumnae. The Dr. Sax report has been debunked for its sample bias. The financial statements are now being amended with $17 million errors. It seems that a combination of flawed advice and, even worse, flawed conclusions led to where the Board sits today.
You don’t need a study at this point to know what is possible — those working to save Sweet Briar College have proven that a fundraising effort is possible.
Back to your own words Ms. Wyatt:
“We Tried Hard… but Sweet Briar’s Problems are Terminal”: The numbers were not in our favor. Any effort to reinvent the college would require significant investments of time and money.
I do not disagree that you and the Board “tried hard”. The problem is your version of trying isn’t adequate. In the movie “The Empire Strikes Back”, Yoda (George Lucas) says the famous words which ring true today:
Do or do not…there is no TRY
Those working to save Sweet Briar College are WILLING to make the “significant investments of time and money”. On that point, we agree…that is what it will take. I am willing to give that time and money (and raise it) and I know there are thousands just like me. One of the first calls I would make would be to the very consultants who provided the road map to a positive conclusion — which you and your colleagues on the Board refused to see.
It is clear you already made up your mind and you continue to keep your eyes shut to possibility.
Respectfully,
Stacey Sickels Locke, `88
Note: Article updated throughout to include information verified by a representative of Grenzebach Glier and Associates who confirmed the timing of the study and the charge.
Stacey Sickels Locke, CFRE, is a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. She served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, she solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and she feels a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, she has spent her career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, she has served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), is affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and holds a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
“O.K., I know its a long shot, but if we can convert just one lion…” by KANIN
As a fundraiser working on fundraising campaigns, there are always suggestions that perhaps some very generous person might step in to “save” the Campaign. My response usually goes like this:
While that is a really great suggestion, research shows that the way we will meet our goal is to first look at ourselves and ask if we have given our very BEST gift. Then, we turn to those closest to us and ask if we have thoughtfully met with those individuals and encouraged them to make their very BEST gift. Beyond that, we divide up names of those previously generous and reach out to them to ask them to consider additional generosity. Then, and only then, would I suggest looking outside of our Community to someone previously unaffiliated. Because usually someone unaffiliated with our cause is not likely to respond.
Even when I give this response, there is always someone who says, “What about Warren Buffet? Perhaps HE would be willing to contribute.” or “(Insert Wealthy Person’s Name), surely would want to be involved???” Usually this stems from the person feeling so passionate about their fundraising effort that they cannot imagine EVERYONE wouldn’t want to give.
Forget what I usually say. It is time to throw caution to the wind…
THROW CAUTION TO THE WIND!
In the case of saving Sweet Briar College; however, it is time for bold and courageous action. It is time to reach out beyond our community. The issues at stake here are relevant to anyone who cares about nonprofits; who loves a place that might face closure; who feels a sense of duty to give back; who puts trust in a governing board and feels betrayed by them; who counts on their charitable gifts to be used as intended; whose children start in Freshman year and expect to graduate as a Senior; who applied to and was accepted to a College only to learn from social media that your application is now worthless; who believe a will should be held in trust…
Forget what I said. It’s time to point over the fence, declare we will hit a home run and make some bold calls.
1960: Mickey Mantle hit a home run over the right field roof. Babe Ruth is famous for pointing before hitting a homer.
In the effort to keep Sweet Briar College open, I am throwing caution to the wind. I am open to any and all suggestions. I am telling people to look at themselves, each other and their community. I am pointing over the fence, over the right field roof and WAY outside of our community.
This past week I was called about a potential donor who it has been noted has considered (and retracted) nine-figure philanthropic suggestions — $100 million to be exact. When it was first explained to me, it came across that this donor actually might be interested in contributing to Sweet Briar. I WAS SO EXCITED! Turns out, this lead came from a consultant of a friend of a Sweet Briar alumna — and the consultant had heard there was a donor in Richmond we might look up.
That old mantra in my head nearly kicked into gear. Not this time. Instead, I put some of my fellow alumnae to work on finding contact information and perhaps shared contacts. Then I decided I would write an open letter to him. Because – really – this letter could go to anyone.
“The Long Shot” – Greenberg
Dear Supremely Philanthropic Person,
Have you ever wanted to be a hero? I can tell you how.
Would you like to make an impact on the world? I can tell you how.
How would you like to save a College?
I know this may sound crazy. I know I should have taken you to at least 10 lunches before having this conversation. I know I should be making this appeal with the President of the College sitting next to me on a chair in your office. I know this should have come from someone you know well. I know all of this because I have worked at Sweet Briar where I was well trained in how fundraising “should” be done, but we have realized that we must break from what we know — and who we know — hence this letter.
I am sure you have many questions. Allow me to hit the most important: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.
WHO are you saving?
STUDENTS – the reason Sweet Briar exists and the primary reason it should be saved!
Students – Students just graduated and those attending Sweet Briar this year were forced to transfer. There are many students who wish to return should the College provide a firm future. Alumnae paid many deposits so that students would not lose funds at other institutions.
Faculty – Faculty wish to stay. A few have accepted positions at other institutions, others have joined in a unanimous vote of no-confidence in the President and Board and are represented by pro-bono legal counsel and suing the College for breach of contract.
Women’s Education – Women’s Education has an important future. Many companies cite the need for female leadership, particularly technically-trained women. Sweet Briar produces leaders in every field.
Faculty and staff have termination letters. Financial commitment will help maintain the faculty.
Admissions records for admitted students for the upcoming school year have (according to witnesses) been shredded. Recruitment must begin immediately.
Students who transferred would like to continue. Alumnae paid their deposits and many of the Colleges to which they transferred have said they would release the obligation if Sweet Briar is able to remain open.
The alumnae of the College live all across the globe providing a strong network of philanthropy, admissions recruitment, volunteerism and community. You will never be a stranger in the home of a Sweet Briar woman.
They serve Starbucks on campus, so you don’t have to worry about proximity to a good cup of Joe (in case you, like the Board, were worried about that).
WHY?
The why is the WHO (see above), but it is also….
Woman’s education produces leaders, particularly in fields with shortages of women and diversity. The world, corporate America, the nation’s classrooms, the world’s boardrooms needs MORE women’s college graduates, not fewer.
Diversity. Sweet Briar recently (and many feel finally) became more diverse in all ways and including race, ethnicity, socio economic levels. Research shows the benefits of a diverse student body for the entire community. The current board cites this change as one of the reasons it must close and that this trend is not sustainable. Diversity is one of the saving graces and strengths of Sweet Briar today. These students deserve this education and the world needs these students. Philanthropy is one of the ways diversity can be maintained.
Faculty – Sweet Briar College faculty are exceptional. Unlike larger Universities, they are also approachable. Classes are not led by teaching assistants. From the moment students arrive on campus, they are surrounded by an exceptional faculty whose accomplishments are summarized here. It took years and a century of establishing a strong reputation to attract, hire and retain these amazing leaders — we must not lose them!
Sweet Briar College is regularly listed as one of the BEST Colleges in the country for:
Student Engagement
Quality of Education
Liberal Arts Education
Alumnae Network
Beautiful Campus
HOW? For the future to unfold, it will also take change.
Change. Change which all associated with the College (who wish for it to continue) are committed to embrace. This change is in the form of solid plans, talented administrators, dedicated board members and loyal students, parents, faculty, staff, alumnae and the wider community.
Plans. There is a strategic plan thoughtfully crafted by experts in their field. This plan addresses all aspects of College operations from admissions to development to land use to facility management.
New Leadership. Several potential Presidents with proven turnaround track records have been vetted and willing to lead. A slate of board members both nominated and recruited for their dedication and professional expertise stands ready to serve.
Retaining Talent. Sweet Briar has amazing faculty who are willing to stay. Talented administrators including some loyal and currently serving and others identified for their proven expertise can step in to manage.
Legal. Saving Sweet Briar secured Troutman Saunders to assist with the legal work. To date they have secured a 60 day injunction. Another attorney, Elliott Schugardt, secured a six month injunction.
Dedicated Alumnae. I, along with thousands of others, are willing to do all in our power for the future. We do not ask you to consider a gift before giving ourselves.
Generous donor, would you consider making Sweet Briar College one of your philanthropic priorities this year? Would you help save this College?
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration and for all you are doing for the causes important to you.
PLEASE consider this request. PLEASE save Sweet Briar College!
Very sincerely (and with strong desperation),
Stacey Sickels Locke, Class of 1988
I, Stacey Sickels Locke, CFRE, am a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. I served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, I solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and I feel a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, I have spent my career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, I have served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. I am a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), am affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and hold a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
Never ever depend on Governments or institutions to solve any major problems. All solutions come from the passion of individuals. – Margaret Mead
While there are many issues to examine with respect to the President, Board and operations of Sweet Briar College, it seems fitting to focus for a moment on the efforts to SAVE the College. I feel I can take a little break from my ranting against the horrible leadership, governance and lack of proper administration for a bit. The legal team inspires confidence and there national experts rolling up their sleeves and taking aim at those issues. Most recently it is the Amherst County Board of Supervisors. I thought today I would share a glimpse at the amazing work being done to #saveSweetBriar.
Yesterday I attended a farewell gathering of a colleague at the University of Maryland and was asked by many in the room about Sweet Briar. I found myself describing my efforts and those of my fellow alumnae and felt my spirits rising with each retelling. It is a story built on determination. It is a saga filled with drama and intrigue. It is a case study in alumni activism that will likely become an inspiration for our sister Colleges and other small liberal arts Colleges around the country. I can also confidently say we have worthwhile lessons to share with colleagues around the WORLD. I met a visitor from the University of Manchester in England who asked me to share some of the key lessons learned. The Saving Sweet Briar efforts are the very example of what Margaret Mead famously wrote. Wait for it… (this isn’t the quote you are thinking I am going to use),
“Never ever depend on governments or institutions to solve any major problems. All social change comes from the passion of individuals.” — Margaret Mead.
I have served on many boards from schools to arts organizations to sports teams. Alongside many passionate parents (and some alumni), I have added my weight to a collective effort to move something forward. Never in my 30 years of volunteerism or professional experience have I seen the likes of the mobilized alumnae of Saving Sweet Briar. Allow me to pull back the curtain and share a few examples….
Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. Within days of the announcement of the Sweet Briar College President and Board’s decision to close, a group of courageous women banded together to formally fight the closure. First, they opened up their pocketbook to pay for necessary legal counsel in Troutman and Sanders. Second, they established a Board. Third, they applied for 501C3 status for Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. They had a vision and mission statement, a segment of which is here:
Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. was established to block the closure of Sweet Briar College and provide accurate information to students, faculty, and alumnae about the true financial condition of Sweet Briar College and the viable alternatives to closure. The organization is also dedicated to raising the necessary funds to fight the closure and help erase the school’s financial shortfall. Saving Sweet Briar, Inc. is also committed to identifying highly talented individuals who can serve on the Sweet Briar College Board of Directors to help lead an immediate turnaround for the institution while developing a longer term strategy with input from key stakeholders. Success in achieving our mission will ensure that future generations of women can proudly call themselves Sweet Briar alumnae.
In their own words, they all wish to be “out of a job” and see themselves as temporary stewards. An example of the kind of top-notch experts they have hired to provide advice and guidance for the future include a forensic accountant, R. Stephen Spitzer, and a college turnaround expert with solid examples of other institutions. The Board vets candidates for a new Board; they have a list of interested College Presidents with proven turnaround experience; experts on a number of fields are being vetted to provide real advice for the future.
The call to action is clear:
Spread the word
Share your Sweet Briar Story with your friends on social media using the hashtags #savesweetbriar and #thinkisforgirls
Volunteer
Do you have particular talents that would help us with our mission to save our school? Contact us.
Raise Money
We need money to support our school! Given the state of financial aid and higher ed, Sweet Briar needs to grow its endowment to stay viable. Crowdfunding information to follow.
Help Keep Our School Alive
There are over 500 women on campus who need our support. Help us help them keep our school alive.
In the meantime, the thousands of alumnae have managed to create an organizational structure rivaling some of the largest Universities (I speak with experience working for a B1G school, University of Maryland and serve on the University Senate). There are literally HUNDREDS of Committees of EXPERTS in their professional areas reporting up through Chairs who compile the information into master documents. The first of these documents, a Strategic Plan, was delivered to the Saving Sweet Briar board in time for the first injunction hearing. There are PhD experts, attorneys, professional fundraisers, accountants, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, medical doctors, coaches, scientists, elected officials, C-suite executives of every type providing advice that the College — any College or nonprofit — would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure (I say this with experience having watched schools hire consultants for narrowly focused work and deliverables). Sweet Briar College itself by the Board’s own admission paid over $1 MILLION for a report that was never concluded and the Board members were not able to keep after reading it and voting to close the College.
Committee Structure. This is a case for the power of social media if there ever were one. Facebook, in particular, has provided the platform for alumnae to organize their efforts. Early in the process, pages were created for experts to share suggestions in different areas in the “Saving SBC Professional Roundtable” (a closed group so not hyperlinked here). Categories include every aspect of operations:
Academic Affairs, Admissions, Development/Fundraising, Diversity, Career Counseling, College Placement, Grounds & Facilities, Information Technology, Land (Creative Use of/Maintaining), Legal, Student Affairs, Social Life.
Each group has professionals who have spent their careers in these areas with best practices to share. The alumnae’s willingness to help is not just lip service. Examples of alumnae offers and efforts to assist include:
Deferred maintenance problems? Check. Habitat for Humanity-like plans for improvement including painting, plastering and even building repair by licensed contractors paid for by alumnae or their own companies. These are documented offers to help as they cannot execute these plans without coordination from the facility leadership.
Admissions/Recruitment problems? Check. Alumnae from around the Country have offered to reinvigorate a dormant network of volunteers to attend College Fairs, visit area feeder schools (and aspirant feeder schools), house admissions staff traveling, personally write interested students and their families. In addition, the Alumnae Angel Network are alumnae who sponsor students needing support transferring to another College. Even if this might mean losing a student needed for the future, the movement is supporting the current students in tangible ways.
Fundraising problems? Check. As of this writing, over $1 million in cash is in the Saving Sweet Briar accounts. Over $10 million in pledges over five years are being held in trust by Saving Sweet Briar for the College once the closure decision is reversed and there is a Board and Administration committed to the future. A Major Donor Task Force (of which I am a part) has weekly conference calls to coordinate outreach to past donors to the College and those who care and aren’t even affiliated. A Regional Task Force from each state writing to their residents, particularly those not on social media. Liaisons to classes (a traditional way to communicate with alumnae) share information on a weekly and even daily basis with links to give, participate and support. All of this has been accomplished without the tools fundraisers usually have (I know because I am one). For example, a donor database has been faithfully RECREATED through years of magazines publishing giving information and even programs from past campaign celebrations kept as keepsakes — now data for a defacto giving database. It is INCREDIBLE to watch and witness. This is worthy of its own blog post, stay tuned.
Communications Strategy? Check. The initial news stories reported the Board’s decision to close. The news of the alumnae outcry and mobilization was relegated to the comment section of most stories. However, the tide has turned. Now, major news outlets are reporting on the success of the alumnae efforts and on the amazing accomplishments of our alumnae, the morning of my writing the New York Times wrote about our alumnae and the efforts to save the College. This type of media battle and reversal of message does not happen easily. It has occurred through professionals and passionate individuals working with contacts to share opinion, provide worthwhile facts to report, verify stories and share perspective. Interestingly, the headlines of some of the earlier stories have changed from “College imploding” to “Alumnae Fight Closure”.
Conspiracy Theories? Check. One of my favorite movements within the Saving Sweet Briar collective, is a group a la Erin Brokovich that dedicates itself to researching the “back story”. The team (which includes some with investigative journalism experience) posts pieces of documents, theories, lists, etc. and a broad network do their further work and reports results. Some of these get passed along – once vetted — for journalists or the Saving Sweet Briar Board. Just when my own efforts to Save Sweet Briar might flag or my confidence wane or my enthusiasm might be dampened by some new comment by the “President”, someone from the group will post some new theory or angle that gets me MAD. They have even inspired and commissioned political cartoons. I have the one of the women turning over the rock next to my phone (for when I “dial for dollars”).
The efforts of the alumnae are truly inspiring.
Imagine – just imagine – if their efforts were harnessed BEFORE the College announced it must close.
Imagine if the Board took stock of this advice and reconsidered their decision?
Imagine if YOUR organization harnessed your stakeholders?
Sweet Briar is receiving DAILY national attention. Sweet Briar students, faculty, staff, alumni and community are rallying to share their expertise. The future IS bright and there is much to hope for with this kind of passion.
At this point, I cling to the other Margaret Mead quote – the one you know by heart – because I am seeing it validated on an hourly basis.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead
Our aim is not the world for now. For now it is a small piece of the planet located in Southern Virginia, Sweet Briar.
Stacey Sickels Locke, CFRE, is a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. She served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, she solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and she feels a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, she has spent her career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, she has served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), is affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and holds a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
There are a few more men joining the President on top of the “no stone left unturned”….
Update: When this post was originally written, I was working hard to save my alma mater, Sweet Briar College. While I did not like Mark Herring’s initial reaction to the former board’s decision to close the College, I would like to thank him for, ultimately, assisting Sweet Briar. Furthermore, my opinion on Mr. Herring was narrowly focused on this one issue. When I consider what I care about – women’s issues, the environment, health care access, education, and more — Mark Herring would be my favored candidate for office. Now, onto the original post….
As many know by now, I am passionately fighting the closure of my beloved College, Sweet Briar, by the President and the Board. I have written about my thoughts on the lack of governance. This post will focus on the curious and shocking lack of leadership by the Virginia attorney general, Mark Herring (you can find his contact form here), contrasted to the swift action of the County Attorney, Ellen Bowyer. I also share another example of leadership by the New York attorney general intervening in the Cooper Union College.
In the early days of the Sweet Briar College closure announcement, the Virginia attorney general remained strangely silent on the matter of the announced closure. The President and Board referenced meetings with Mark Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, to “unwind” College operations and unrestricted the endowment for the purpose of closing. This stunned me. There was no leadership by the Virginia Attorney General with respect to an investigation into the closure — which would seem a logical first step (well before any closure announcement, but certainly upon learning of one).
State attorneys general oversee nonprofits both because they’re generally exempt from state taxes and because they represent the interests of donors who may lack the means to enforce the terms of their gifts or, once they’re dead, the capacity. (Since such institutions are also exempt from federal taxes, the Internal Revenue Service is charged with ensuring that organizations adhere to their tax-exempt purposes.) Credit: Michael Appleton for The New York Times
The County Attorney of Amherst, Ellen Bowyer, has boldly taken action on behalf of donors and to request an injunction. Her suit charges that:
Closure would violate the terms of the will under which the school was founded and that charitable funds have been misused in violation of state law. (Susan Sverlunga, Washington Post).
Mark Herring, by contrast, evidently is HELPING the leadership of Sweet Briar College to release restrictions on donor’s contributions given over the years. As a fundraiser, I find this terribly concerning. I’ve written about the topic of protecting donor intent here.
Virginia Senators have written to the attorney general to express concern and to ask that he take action to protect the rights of donors and the substantial campus.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax, asked Herring to issue a legal opinion on what must be done with money and other gifts that have been given to the college, including its substantial campus. He also asked Herring to clarify the obligations of Sweet Briar’s board of directors.
“It seems to me if their duty is to try to fulfill the mission of the school, they ought to be making some effort to keep it open or at least look at the option of keeping it open,” Petersen said. (Alicia Petraska, Lynchburg News and Advance)
Cooper Union College in New York is under scrutiny by the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman. It provides a contrast in leadership and action:
In what should be a ringing alarm for nonprofit boards across the country long accustomed to minimal scrutiny or accountability, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York has signaled that the laissez-faire approach to nonprofit governance is over. (James Stewart, New York Times)
By contrast, Mark Herring of Virginia sees his role as meeting with College officials to violate donor intent. How can he think he is doing his job? One would think he would have more Virginia citizens wanting him to advocate for the College and to examine any possible mismanagement of funds. The Washington Post reported,
Herring essentially argues that in such a situation, with a charitable institution (the college, a nonprofit established in a bequest from an estate) disbanding, the state attorney general has been granted authority by the General Assembly to determine what is necessary to protect the public interest. (Susan Sverluga, Washington Post).
Back in New York, Eric Schneiderman boldly stepped in BEFORE Cooper Union College faced financial ruin. The New York Times reported:
Apart from the impact on Cooper Union itself, what’s striking about Mr. Schneiderman’s investigation is that his office is intervening before its financial problems ruin the school. Cooper Union’s endowment stood at $735 million at the end of its most recent fiscal year and, despite its financial woes, it is in no imminent danger of failing.
“It’s easy to forget, but New York’s charities, collectively, are a big and important part of our state’s economy, and I consider it my responsibility to promote and protect the nonprofit sector,” Mr. Schneiderman told me this week. “In part, we do that by aggressively investigating and prosecuting fraud. But we work just as hard to prevent mismanagement before it starts and, whenever possible, get troubled charities back on track.”
It would be appropriate for the Virginia Attorney General to aggressively review the President and Board of Sweet Briar College. He might consider how the President was elected; whether the Board truly took all measures possible before resorting to closure; whether the financial records accurately state the condition of the College. He might consult neutral experts such as the accounting firm which audited the Colleges’ financial statements most recently or the accrediting body of the College which granted accreditation for another 10 years in 2011.
By contrast, in New York, their attorney general takes action before “disaster strikes”:
The Cooper Union investigation fits into the New York attorney general’s office’s broader strategy to get ahead of potential crises by “stress testing” nonprofits that show signs of potential trouble, such as large operating deficits and excessive spending rates on endowments, said James Sheehan, the chief of the office’s charities bureau. “Once an organization is in trouble, donors don’t want to give money and people don’t want to join the board,” he said. “We want people to anticipate these issues before they become disasters.”
Such disasters have befallen the New York City Opera and Long Island College Hospital, two major New York institutions that collapsed in financial disarray in recent years, and the Crystal Cathedral in California, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2010 after accusations that its board had imprudently borrowed against the endowment.
Unfortunately, Virginia did not have any “stress testing”. Perhaps it was a matter of staffing or a view of role. However, wouldn’t it be safe to request that the Virginia attorney general take efforts to investigate these types of important matters? Minimally, might he not stand in the way of his own County Attorney who filed suit against the wrongful closure?
The President and Board of Sweet Briar College are now being held accountable by the people they did not inform or allow to help: students, parents, faculty, staff, alumnae and the wider community — the majority citizens of Virginia. Might he not consider the thousands of people begging for at least a proper process within the legal system?
Whatever the outcome at Cooper Union, Mr. Schneiderman deserves credit for putting nonprofit boards on notice that they’ll be held accountable, said Jack B. Siegel, author of a widely used guide for nonprofit directors, whose subtitle is “Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good.” “More states should emulate New York,” Mr. Siegel said.
This is no small matter, given that nonprofits accounted for 9.2 percent of all wages and salaries in the United States and 5.3 percent of gross domestic product in 2010, according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics. Given the many illustrious universities, hospitals, museums, orchestras, theaters and other arts organizations, nonprofits play an outsize role in the nation’s culture. But they have traditionally received little scrutiny until a scandal erupts or they’re on the brink of collapse.
Indeed, more states should emulate New York. Virginia should take a lead and PROTECT Sweet Briar College, its employees, its students and its donors from the reckless leadership of the current President and Board. Sweet Briar College employs hundreds of faculty and staff. Hundreds of students call it home. Millions in the endowment needs to be protected — not raided. Finally, the donor’s will should be honored. The one person in the state who should be advocating for the will of the founder has turned his back. This is very sad.
Thankfully, we have a leader in Ellen Bowyer who took swift action.
“Time is of the essence,” the suit, filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the county attorney, Ellen Bowyer claims, as college officials appear to be rapidly moving to sell assets, destroy documents and “obliterate contractual relationships governing tenancies and endowments.” (Susan Sverluga, Washington Post)
Meanwhile, Saving Sweet Briar, Inc., along with thousands of alumnae, hundreds of students and parents, community members, the citizens of Virginia and people across the country are doing all they can — primarily through donations and grassroots efforts to raise awareness. Please share your comments below and, should you be moved to give, make a commitment here.
To share your comments with Mark Herring, Virginia Attorney General, you can use this contact form.
In response to the President’s comment that he “left no stone unturned”, this image shows the will of the students, faculty, staff, alumnae and CITIZENS of Virginia crying out for leadership.
Stacey Sickels Locke is a proud graduate of Sweet Briar College, Class of 1988. She served as an employee of the College in the early 1990s working on the $25 million Campaign. During that time, she solicited many leadership gifts which make up the current endowment and she feels a sense of duty that those donations are not used for the closure of the College or for any other purposes than the donors intended. Since then, she has spent her career building support for higher education and the nonprofit community as a staff member and consultant for boards. As a volunteer, she has served Sweet Briar since graduation as a fundraiser, admissions ambassador and now advocate for the #saveSweetBriar movement. She is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), is affiliated (through the University of Maryland) with the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and holds a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) certification from CFRE International.
Follow us....by Share this....by Thanks for sharing!
Lessons Learned, Musings, Insights I Don't Want to Forget, Life Hacks, and the Occasional Recipe by Stacey Sickels Heckel Locke
by 
