A young girl (future student?) holds up the notebook I carried throughout Reunion weekend, 2015. I keep this photo nearby as I make calls to #saveSweetBriar
Today’s post gives a glimpse of the efforts to save Sweet Briar undertaken by one volunteer among many. It isn’t always easy, but there is much to learn in the process. It also sheds light on the future we can expect when the legal efforts are successful. Call by call, I am filled with hope and only occasional disappointment. Yet, it is actually those calls that are challenging — “cold calls” — where I learn the most.
People often think of fundraising as “cold calling”. In my 25+ years in development, I rarely think of it this way. Most of the time I think of myself as a relationship builder. A fundraiser is more of a listener than a talker. In the case of saving a College like Sweet Briar, I am back to my early days of a list of names I don’t know with a goal in mind. My early mentors like Martha Clement, used to say, “You ARE Sweet Briar to these alumnae. Ask them to tell THEIR story. Listen to what they LOVE. By the time they remember what they love, you won’t even have to ASK for money.” She was so right. Continue reading Dialing for Dollars, Hearts & Support (what can be learned from the occasional “cold call”)→
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!
Angel over Daisy Williams’ final resting place. Sweet Briar College was established in a Trust by Daisy’s mother to be a PERPETUAL memorial.
Virginia Supreme Court gives those fighting to save Sweet Briar a win today. A VICTORY for the efforts to save Sweet Briar. Laws of trusts cannot apply to a corporation.
Donors everywhere can exhale, but only for a moment. Case now goes back to the Circuit Court.
Virginia Supreme Court provides many interesting prior case laws worth considering. Now the Circuit Court must consider a longer injunction, permanent injunction or some other remedy. Those hoping to save Sweet Briar would like to see a fiduciary appointed and the President and current Board’s decision making ability removed.
Saving Sweet Briar press release.
Analysis will undoubtedly be shared by experienced legal minds. A link to the full opinion is below (be sure to read the conclusions – there is some good stuff in there!):
Marker for Daisy Williams, in whose memory Sweet Briar College was founded as a PERPETUAL memorial.A stone laying atop Indiana Fletcher Williams grave, “Believe” sits next to Daisy’s resting place.
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!
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!
James Jones — the Commonwealth of Virginia requests his removal in its injunction.
“Argue for your limitations, and surely they’re yours.” — Richard Bach
The announced closure of Sweet Briar College provides much fodder for every stage of grief. The current President and leadership’s statements continue to horrify many alumnae and the public at large. Each time the President takes the microphone or speaks to press, the quotes get worse. The President of the Board, the President, the President’s wife and other leaders: How is it possible in 2015 that people could speak this way?
Here is how NOT to speak about higher education — or women — or diversity — in 2015
“Sweet Briar’s rich-girl days were long gone.”
— Sweet Briar President and Chair of the Board, Paul Rice
Rich girl days? Really? While every School and College may have a percentage of students whose parents are able to pay for tuition without any loans or grants being taken and provide for many of the extras, Sweet Briar has never been a majority “rich girl school”. Even back to the founding days of the College there were scholarships for financial need and students were able to work in all types of jobs to provide for their education and expenses.
Jones told The New York Times that for students who entered Sweet Briar in fall 2014, 37% are first-generation college students, 32% are minorities, and 43% received Pell grants — federal financial aid grants for low-income undergraduates.
To use this statement as a reason for the College closing is one of the most egregious Jones has made and has generated widespread ire. To have this statement made as a negative is extremely unfortunate. Some have picked up on this statement and repeated it in front of current students and their families both on campus and around the country — as if this is a negative. Colleges and Universities across the country are THANKFULLY becoming more diverse in many ways — racially, socio-economically. Mr. Jones’ wife describes it this way in a public Class of 1969 webpage:
Then you thought about the cost of four years of college today. That cost is far beyond what an average American middle class family can afford without great sacrifice and careful financial planning. But, Sweet Briar had a world-class riding program, so surely there were girls from super wealthy families attending, weren’t there?
Evidently not, Mrs. Jones. The majority of families in higher education today are described by the statistics your husband quoted and the average middle-class family. Sweet Briar should embrace these students and their families. A school of “girls from super wealthy families” is never a goal for even families who are blessed with extraordinary wealth. Diversity is a blessing to all.
Mr. Jones’ comments not only appeared in print, but on a call with thousands of alumnae he was bold to say:
“I guarantee you that the students of today and the students applying are not of the same caliber as your generations.”
This phrase has been repeated by some in support of closure and is extremely disrespectful for current students and their families.
Frankly, students who are bringing in Pell Grant income may be, in fact, contributing significantly to the bottom line. I raised a question to the former President when I visited for my 25th Reunion and she said, “It is the traditionally full-pay families who are sometimes paying the least – because they know they can negotiate. ”
Every school has a range of socio-economic diversity. To blame the closing of the school on a change in the percentages is irresponsible and offensive.
Sweet Briar is no longer the “horsy school on the hill,” current professor.
Horsy school on the hill? Good grief. One of Sweet Briar’s STRENGTHS which continues (based on this year’s award winning season) is its equestrian program. While a small percentage of Sweet Briar students ride horses and an even smaller percentage of students bring horses with them, to describe the College this way indicates a complete lack of awareness of the award-winning program as well as the successful athletes, including Lendon Gray, a three-time Olympian. Our award-winning sports teams and incredible coaches are one of the hallmarks of Sweet Briar — and frankly any College or University. Riding is something that gives us a niche and a good reputation.
Sweet Briar determined in 2011 that the alumnae’s changing demographics made it impossible to effectively conduct a large-scale fundraiser, Sweet Briar’s vice president for finance Scott Shank told The News & Advance.
2011 is a full enrollment cycle away from 2015 where we are now. It is very unfortunate that the College did not conduct a professional feasibility study of its alumnae testing REAL issues and themes. The last feasibility study of 200 alumnae was conducted by staff members (I have spoken to many alumnae who gave when I worked at the College and who participated in this study – they cited no confidentiality as staff were the interviewers; no theme of any concerns; no details about giving levels). This was a huge missed opportunity. Alumnae assert that the College did not come to them and the fundraising ability they have shown — in incredibly creative ways — is inspiring (to this fundraiser in particular).
To say that the “changing demographics” made it impossible to conduct a large-scale fundraiser is completely offensive. This was my reaction initially and then I heard from the editor of the leading industry publication in my field (when she read about Jones’ and Shank’s statements)
I didn’t attend Sweet Briar, but I have to say that as a person of color (and donor to causes I care about) this bit attributed to the institution raised my ire.
By the way — news flash — one of the most generous groups of alumni are those who received scholarships and support themselves because they feel a duty to give back. Some of the world’s leading philanthropists did not come from wealth — someone helped them. Chances are, your “changing demographics” may actually be the source of great support in the future.
In response to why the College couldn’t adapt or change….
Here’s more from Jones’ conversation with IHE earlier this month on Sweet Briar becoming co-ed:
Jones said that, at Sweet Briar, going coeducational did not seem like a simple solution. He said that such a move would have required lots of money for scholarships and facilities, and he wasn’t subtle about the purpose of the spending. “We would need scholarships to basically buy males,” he said.
Buying males? Are you kidding me? I have two sons, one college age. He is not “for sale”. He chose to attend a small, liberal arts College in the Midwest. As a parent, I would have loved to have him consider Sweet Briar (albeit with a different male-counterpart name). I imagine there would have been many more interested and they would not have to be “bought”. Even if it is true that merit or scholarship support might be necessary in a greater percentage initially, to frame it as “buying males” is just disgusting.
The Chair of the Board, Paul Rice stated (when dismissing the possibility of going co-ed)….
Rice elaborated on the projected increased spending in The New York Times.
“You don’t just take ‘ladies’ off of every other bathroom door and put ‘men’ up,” Rice said. “You have to add programs and facilities, athletics. All of these things take significant investment and time.”
This is the Chair of our Board folks. Obviously, a co-ed environment requires some adaptations. There are men and women’s bathrooms in every facility on campus as it is. How do you think we get through Reunions? We have men and women in dorms, attending events and classes all across campus. It would not be terribly difficult to allocate a dorm for male students. We have sons of current faculty and staff who attend Sweet Briar. With the new athletic facility, a key asset was available. Furthermore, the College has capacity for far more students than it current enrolls, so even a small percentage of men initially could no doubt have been accommodated. To hear this decision dismissed so callously down to labels on bathrooms doors is embarrassing and does not instill confidence in the decision making or deliberations of the Board.
“Leave it to a man to destroy what a woman made” – banner hanging on the bell tower.
In the initial announcement about the closure of the College, the President seems to indicate that people just don’t chose a College like Sweet Briar anymore. He wrote,
“While the College has long been part of my life, as my wife is a 1969 graduate…..The board, some key alumnae and I have worked diligently to find a solution to the challenges Sweet Briar faces. This work led us to the unfortunate conclusion that there are two key realities that we could not change: the declining number of students choosing to attend small, rural, private liberal arts colleges and even fewer young women willing to consider a single-sex education, and the increase in the tuition discount rate that we have to extend to enroll each new class is financially unsustainable.”
This statement is telling because it seems to be that there was just a small group of “key” alumni who convinced themselves there was no hope. He then refers to them as “us”. Clearly, he left out the voices of thousands of alumni and his own faculty and staff who had very brilliant ideas (and who debunk with facts and figures the statements of why they needed to close).
It seems President Jones, the Board Chair and others have forgotten that there are HUNDREDS of current students at Sweet Briar College who HAVE chosen to attend a small, rural, private liberal arts college. There are also HUNDREDS of small, rural, private liberal arts colleges who are open and have smaller endowments than Sweet Briar.
Mrs. Jones, the President’s wife, uses some of the same language in the Class of 1969 webpage where she issues a public comment.
Why were the grounds not pristine as they had always been? You noticed the peeling paint, the shabby parlors, the rotting balcony about to fall off of Alumnae House, and that uneasiness grew…. Maybe you just wanted to let this new president know that it was not “the Sweet Briar way” to have the campus looking like this.
Shabby parlors? “The Sweet Briar Way?” Actually, due to surging enrollment, many of the parlors had turned into dorms and office spaces. That isn’t such a bad thing. And, yes, deferred maintenance was a problem, but no one had thought to appeal to the alumna who have since offered to organize a Habitat-for-Humanity like work project along with funding to catch up. Some people find older homes charming….
The President’s wife went on to say,
Even though you knew the demographics information: students in 2014 were turning away from single sex colleges, they were flocking to schools in urban and suburban areas that offered more vocational type curricula, they were more concerned about spending their education dollars to be trained for a job than looking for a broad liberal arts education.
Mrs. Jones, you forgot to add the important lack of a Starbucks that your husband was quoted as saying on the call with alumnae about the closure. Seriously though, there ARE people who choose small Colleges and liberal arts education still thrives.
The announcement of Sweet Briar’s closure ends with a quote by another 1969 alumna, Elizabeth H.S. Wyatt ’69:
“If we make the decision to close now, we will have a better opportunity to conclude academic operations in an orderly, compassionate and ethical way that pays homage to those who are here today and to those who came before us.”
This sounds like someone with their hands folded in their lap, speaking to a child. Perhaps it was expected that Sweet Briar alumnae would behave like “good girls” and just take this decision and go quietly onto other interests. But, no, President Jones describes our reaction this way:
“emotional, overwrought, irrational”
Patronizing has never had a better example than this. This is classic male behavior and language. “Irrational” is such a convenient word for men, perpetuating their sense of superiority. This is CLASSIC sexism used to describe essentially what is a different way of being. One of the reasons we attend Sweet Briar is to learn such things (I was a Psychology major). Men tend to think they are logical and not use feeling words; women aren’t afraid to express and use their emotion. Emotion is the antithesis of logic. When men perceive women as being too emotional (or a way you don’t want us to be), men say women are being irrational. Crazy. Wrong. Overwrought. Minimizing somebody else’s feelings is trying to control them. If they no longer trust their own feelings and instincts, they come to rely on someone else to tell them how they’re supposed to feel. I suspect this is how a percentage of our alumnae are feeling right now (I’ll refrain from using decade generalizations) because they have people around them telling them how to feel and pointing out those who resist in negative ways. I hope they can free themselves of this path and find their voice.
The press release regarding the President and Board’s refusal to step down refined the term to describe the #SaveSweetBriar movement as:
“well intentioned”
The number of alumnae who turned out to welcome students back from their spring break — traveling far and wide — outnumbered the entire population of campus. The funds raised in 10 days exceed the entire fundraising goal for the year. The faculty unanimous voted in opposition to the Board and President. Dismissing this energy and commitment shows how out of touch the President is with the stakeholders of the institution.
To CBS, Mr. Jones was asked by the interviewer, “Was there anything anyone could do?” Mr. Jones replied,
“No, there was nothing anyONE could do.”
Mr. Jones doesn’t think there was or is anything anyone could do because he is surrounded by such a small group of pessimistic people. In fact, once alumnae, faculty and parents learned of the President and Board’s decision, THOUSANDS have rallied and raised MILLIONS. Clearly he does not see the future and sees nothing that could be done. The logical thing for him to do is step down and allow those who see a future and have more creative ideas to lead.
These are just a few examples of how NOT to talk about women, diversity and education in 2015. Certainly not as leaders of an institution with current students, parents, faculty, staff and thousands of alumnae hanging on your every word.
This alumna is embarrassed by your comments and have found myself apologizing to people well beyond the walls of Sweet Briar — including leaders in higher education and the national media.
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.
Stacey Sickels Locke, CFREJames Jones
Here is some suggested reading on this topic (and to avoid further embarrassment):
A “No Confidence” banner hangs off the Sweet Briar bell tower – a symbolic heart of campus.
My continued advocacy for Sweet Briar College continues. Today’s focus is on governance, shared governance and the lack thereof (in the case of Sweet Briar). This situation exposes issues that should be of concern to anyone who has ties to a school, college or nonprofit. A sub-title could be “What are assets anyway?” Assets of an institution are not just endowment, land and buildings. Students, parents, faculty, staff, alumni and the community surrounding a place are assets deserving of the fiduciary duty of care, loyalty and obedience.
More and more, we see the public calling out nonprofit boards for decisions they have already made that appear at odds with what the stakeholders want. So it is at Sweet Briar College, the latest example of a board making a sudden decision to close only to find that they will be challenged legally, financially, and reputationally on that decision by the very people for whom they were acting in stewardship.
This lack of active connection to the base of supporters should be deemed a kind of nonprofit malfeasance, in violation of what we are organized to do.
While the faculty voted to oppose the Board’s decision to close Sweet Briar, their voice holds little power to actual affect change. Without legal intervention it seems, the College hurdles towards a closure many are fighting to stop.
Thousands of alumnae have cried out against the closure and, in particular, feel the total lack of communication did not give them a chance to step forward to delay or stop the announced closure. Their Alumnae Board on the matter? Silent. Absence any strong leadership and in response to the passion felt by so many, the Saving Sweet Briar Board established itself and is making statements representing the collective feelings of thousands of alumnae.
Governance – Who Represents the Stakeholders?
Governance is critical and very often not representative of stakeholders who attend, fund and care about an institution. The Association of Governing Boards, a widely-respected body, issued an important paper regarding the crisis boards are facing in higher education in particular. You can read the paper here. I recommend the entire paper for those associated with Colleges and Universities, particularly the comments on “Rising Prices and Eroding Public Trust”. What I particularly highlight and uplift today dear readers is the following from the Executive Summary:
2. Boards must act to add value to institutional leadership and decision making by focusing on their essential role as institutional fiduciaries.
3. Boards must act to ensure the long-term sustainability of their institutions by addressing changed finances and the imperative to deliver a high-quality education at a lower cost.
4. Boards must improve shared governance within their institutions through attention to board-president relationships and a reinvigoration of faculty shared governance (emphasis mine). Boards additionally must attend to leadership development in their institutions, both for presidents and for faculty.
Lack of Shared Governance at Sweet Briar
Unfortunately, shared governance at Sweet Briar seems to be completely lacking. The faculty of Sweet Briar College voted unanimously to oppose the Board’s unilateral action to close the College (Washington Post article link here). Yet, their voice holds little strength because they do not have a seat on the Board nor an advocate on the Board. With shared governance working, they would. The President agreed to meet with the faculty, but the meeting was canceled “on the advice of legal counsel”.
The Alumnae Board has been sadly silent on the matter with the exception of a few individual voices sharing comments on social media (I have not seen them, only heard that they are weighing in). Two of their members sit on the Board of Directors and there are other alumnae on the Board of Directors; however, it does not seem those individuals have listened to the inquiries from alumnae imploring them to oppose the decision and help reverse it.
I understand that the Sweet Briar Board of Director’s (and any Board of Director’s) primary role is exercise fiduciary oversight of the institution. I understand that their role is not to be spokespeople for any particular group. Their key role is to protect the assets of the institution. The problem I see at Sweet Briar is that the Board itself is not made up of stakeholders and thus cannot fully weigh the best fiscal path ahead. They seem to only be focusing on assets such as land and endowment and not the most important assets – students, parents, faculty, staff, alumnae and the community. Furthermore, the President (and his administration) and the Board failed to reach out to the stakeholders who were in the best position to improve the fiscal state — the alumnae.
Fiduciary Duty…the duty of care, loyalty and obedience.
A brief departure. … Fiduciary duty is roughly defined by a duty of care, loyalty and obedience. Taken together, these obligations require trustees to make careful decisions collectively and in the best interest of the institution consistent with its public good and charitable mission. The Sweet Briar Board is entrusted with the charitable assets of the institution — those assets include land and buildings, but also students, faculty, staff, and alumnae. To close Sweet Briar College seems an absolute violation of the care, loyalty and obedience required of a Board member.
One particular aspect I find troubling is under the duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires a board member to act in good faith and in a manner that can be believed to represent the interests of the college or university. Independence is also critical and is evaluated when legal cases are reviewed. What troubles me are the number of alumnae within a particular decade who serve on the Board. The wife of the current President, Jan Jones, has spoken and written publicly (you can read her thoughts here on a 1969 Class website) about her opinion of the College and her belief that it should close citing how many of her classmates agreed with her. Several members of her class sit on the Board. These public statements would not seem to lean towards a healthy balance of independence. AGB writes,
Under this requirement, a college or university board member must be loyal to the institution and not use the position of authority to obtain, whether directly or indirectly, a benefit for him or herself…. Accordingly, the duty of loyalty considers both the financial interests held by a board member and the governance or leadership positions he has with other organizations (or people, emphasis mine)…. Independence means that the board member is not employed by and does not do material business with the college or university. In addition, it means that the board member acts independently of any personal relationship he or she may have with the president or senior leaders of the college or university or with other trustees.
These issues appear to be systemic within higher education as is reported by the Association of Governing Boards,
Almost daily, we hear reports about questionable board behavior: boards that overstep their authority and get into institutional management; board members who act as faculty representatives, or captives of the alumni association; boards that are unduly swayed by single donors; boards that look the other way when it comes to trustees with conflicts; boards that fail to meet their formal fiduciary responsibilities. The list goes on.
While it may be too late for the current Sweet Briar Board, I have suggested to the Saving Sweet Briar Board that they consider a shared governance model making sure to have stakeholders represented in their decision making. I also joined the call for the current President and Board of Sweet Briar College to resign and, furthermore, to halt the closure of the College.
I welcome your feedback and thoughts below.
Questions:
Does the institution you care about have a shared governance model?
Do YOU have a voice in any constituency group? Does that group have a mechanism to hear the opinions of its stakeholders?
Does the leadership group of your stakeholders – service recipients, students, faculty, staff, alumni – have a seat on the governing board of the institution?
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.
Sweet Briar College bell tower. Photo credit: Aaron Mahler
While this letter and post pertains to a lovely College in southern Virginia facing possible closure by its Board, it also applies to you. Read on to discover why. I do hope my dear blog subscribers will forgive me for the recent #saveSweetBriar, pink and green and passionate advocacy for my beloved College. As a way of reaching a broader audience, I have decided to use my “channel” in lieu of multiple posts on social media.
“When the whole world is silent, even one voice becomes powerful.” – Malala Yousafzai
I am very disappointed not to have the voice of the Alumnae Board through the difficult days and now weeks since the announcement by the Sweet Briar Board of Director’s of its intentions to close our beloved College. The voice of our alumnae leadership is important — and tragically missing. I fully realize that there are other stakeholders far more impacted by the Board’s decision than alumnae (such as students, parents, faculty, staff and community members), but that does not mean alumnae do not have a voice.
Alumni Boards exist to represent the voices and needs of the alumni or stakeholders of an institution. They are the one group that “speaks” for alumni.
I believe we are seeing one of the largest stakeholder rallies that higher education and the nonprofit community has seen or will see for quite some time. The number of national news stories featuring the actions of the alumnae is inspiring. National papers, regional papers, television stations, trade journals, blogs, and a storm of social media are carrying the story of the passion our alumnae have both for their College and against the Board’s plans to close.
The current College President appears to be the primary spokesperson for the College. The voices of the alumni on the Sweet Briar Board and members of the Sweet Briar Alumnae Board are woefully missing in the dialogue.
At this point, a new Board of Saving Sweet Briar has taken over and filled the gap. At this point, this Board speaks for me. I believe this new Board of Saving Sweet Briar not only speaks for the majority of the alumnae, but also represents the truest intentions of the founder of Sweet Briar, Indiana Fletcher Williams. Indiana formed the College as a living memorial to her beloved daughter, Daisy. Her act of philanthropy provided the land, buildings and investments which created the College in 1901.
The monument to Indiana’s daughter Daisy overlooks the campus from a clearing called Monument Hill. From that perch, one can take in the view of the campus created as a “living memorial” in her memory. Daisy’s parents are buried in the same graveyard. In the early 2000s, I put my name on a list to be buried in the columbarium at the top of Monument Hill. I imagined one day my lifespan would be carved into the stone there. Never did I imagine my College would have an end-date. It will not – if I can help it.
The Amherst County Attorney and the legal counsel representing the Saving Sweet Briar Board and stakeholders believes that the College has broken State law by not honoring the intent of donors, including the founder.
No Board can say it is being true to its mission to close an institution. A Board and administration working to close the institution is not acting consistently with the original donor’s intent and will.
I join the voices of alumnae — and now a growing number of non-alumni — crying out against the Board and Administration’s actions. Alumnae feel they could have done something more had they learned sooner of the perilous situation the College purportedly faces. There were mechanisms to do so. A fundraising feasibility study undertaken with 200 of the most generous and most loyal alumnae did not “test” a “crisis message” or give any indication to those alumnae that the College’s future might be in jeopardy. Unlike others, I DO understand why the College could not “go public” with a possible closure; however, I DO NOT understand why the College did not test out this message with the very loyal alumnae who would be the most likely to help. Part of why I can say this so firmly is because I once worked for another institution facing possible closure and they WERE honest with a message along the lines of, “If the School were in peril and facing possible closure, would you be willing to give? How much?” I know these questions were confidentially asked at that institution because it was my (difficult) job to visit the alumnae after these visits and discuss their support. That School survives today. Unfortunately, Sweet Briar administrators and the Board elected to keep their donors in the dark.
The feasibility study wasn’t the only way the College could have shared information. There is another subset of alumnae they could have contacted, Class Leaders. Class Agents represent their class and help encourage alumnae financial support. These Class Agents have personal relationships with their classmates and have been successful over the years raising funds. These Class Agents – and Class Presidents – and Class Secretaries — are an organized group in every class who could have been harnessed to communicate about the intense needs. Instead, their energy is now focused on the #saveSweetBriar movement. Current students and parents were also kept “in the dark” and shocked at the announcement. I am certain there were avenues of communication that could have been utilized to strengthen their support. When I attended Sweet Briar, there was a Parents Council and my parents reached out to fellow parents formally and informally.
If you are not a Sweet Briar alumna and you have read this far, I assert that this should matter to you because…
….If you are an ALUMNA/ALUMNUS of ANYWHERE…YOUR alumni board of YOUR College has an important role to play. Your Class Officers (if you have them) should be a source of timely and important information. Your Class Secretaries could share information not just about alumni life and career highlights, but also key information from your School. I know my Class Leaders (because I am one of them) would have taken this on with thoughtfulness and gusto.
….If you are a STUDENT or PARENT attending ANY SCHOOL… your Board of Directors has incredible power over your future. You should make a point to read the meeting Minutes. Read the financial statements. Develop relationships with Board Members. Scrutinize the membership of the Board – is it representative? Ask questions and ask again. Are there forums to learn information? What would YOU do if your Board announced it was closing your child school? Nonprofit? What would you do NOW to prevent it? Whatever that is — DO IT NOW!
There was a movement in higher education in the late 1980s and early 1990s to end Alumnae Associations (particularly with separate dues structures). I saw this happen at Sweet Briar. The dues that alumnae paid provided operating support for the Alumnae Office staff and programming. When I worked for Sweet Briar College in the early 1990s, the dues structure was abolished with only Clubs in regions remaining independent. Then it was thought that this was a good move for the staff because they could become full employees of the College with benefits. The Alumnae Association leadership came under the control of the Development (fundraising) Office. As a fundraiser, this all made sense to me. After soliciting a major gift from someone, I certainly didn’t feel right asking them for a $30 gift of alumnae dues. As an alumna, Iooking back, I realize this was a terrible mistake.
The independence of an Alumni Body or stakeholder body is critically important. There must be a separate organizational body of each key stakeholder ideally with financial footing and also with a vote on key issues facing the institution. If the organizational body at the institutions you love does not have representative voices from key stakeholders on its Board, you should advocate for that NOW. If a School: students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents, community members. If a non-profit: service recipients, residents, community members, staff. Dues may seem “silly” to collect, but having a financial base is helpful and necessary to retain independence. I, for one, advocate a donor “tax” on all gifts to fund Alumni Associations vs. separate dues. The very activities of an Alumni Association are what cultivate and often steward donors.
In the public school my children attended the Parent Teacher Organization had tremendous power. They collected separate dues. They had their own meetings. They were not always lock-step with the administration. They had a voice through the County Board of Education to voice their views and oppose decisions.
At the private College I attended, many of these types of leadership structures were and are absent. Now that we face closure, I realize we lost important voices and funding mechanisms that could help today.
So where do we go from here? Yesterday, the #saveSweetBriar Board, represented by its attorney, asked the President and Board to step down. The President and Board responded in the media that they intended to keep their positions. I imagine further legal actions will take place, and I hope they do very soon.
As a professional fundraiser, I watch this with keen interest. I know there are many extremely important lessons to learn with respect to what is happening with Sweet Briar. These lessons pertain to the nonprofit community as well. I am taking notes, so stay tuned. I have been contacted by my industry’s publication to write an article about it.
Until then, as a graduate of Sweet Briar College, I am doing everything I possibly can to reverse this decision and keep the College open. I want to look back 5 years from now, 10 years from now or at the end of my life and know that I did all I could. I would still like the College to be thriving WHEN it becomes my final resting place.
Until then, #saveSweetBriar.
View from Monument Hill of Sweet Briar College (photo credit: Campus Grotto “10 Most Beautiful College Campuses)
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 
