An email was sent to about 90% of the Trustees by some of the Administration yesterday. That letter is confidential. My reply is public, pasted below. -- Hi everyone, and thank you, Cooper Union Senior Leadership Team, for the opportunity to discuss this. I am the person who wrote and said all that, Im quite open about it. No need to hide behind the author of the post. I dont hide anything behind anything. At the risk of legitimizing the idea that this is a productive use of anyones time, I invite you to read what I posted, with apologies for its colloquial tone, typos, and needless length. Its public. In reference to a rapidly increasing distance between the Alumni and the Administration, I stand by what I said in the meeting, and what I said about it afterward. Every fact, and every opinion. In particular, two facts seem -- puzzlingly -- to be called out in contention in this email that was just sent to most of the trustees. But: -- 2.736 alumni participating in Annual Fund giving (2013) is 15% lower than 3,243 (2012), and that is not falsely noted. Sorry I didnt have 2013-2014 numbers for the meeting, and sorry that no one in the Administration had any numbers (or knowledge about their broad trends) when I asked for them to provide numbers instead of me. And Im sorry that participation numbers were down 15%. Thats quite a hit. -- Or... if as is claimed by the Senior Leadership Team -- that drop doesnt matter, because 2012 numbers are N/A since they represent an unsustainable rally ... then theres a modified number series (2006-2013) that reads 3618, 3424, 3250, 2864, 2790, 2846, N/A, 2736. That also seems to be a very clear diminishing trend over the short and medium term, and is not falsely noted. Even if you want to just use the % numbers that are provided in the email to you to prove otherwise, the number series (21.9, 21.7, N/A, 21.0, 20.5) is still a downward trend. This is math. So whats gained in saying that I falsely note any of that? How to read the rest of the note, if that simple math doesnt add up? Further, Im noted to be supporting a lawsuit that names me as a respondent, by virtue of posting in an online forum (publicly accessible Facebook Site) that includes 2700+ alumni and other trustees. Is that support also shared by the other trustees (e.g., Tom Driscoll, Eric Hirschhorn) who have posted in the same forum at various times... in their own attempts to actually connect with Alumni? Or it it only a suicidal form of legal support when I write something that someone disagrees with? Is explicitly sharing it with the CUAA -- when its public in the first place -- some sign of conspiracy? I reference facts and numbers, and I speak from the daily conversations that I have with the 1000+ Alumni who wrote in to ask me to represent them, and beyond. I call out palters when I see them, and palters are different than lies: A lie would take a diminishing number series [21.9, 21.7, 21.0, 20.5] and describe it as increasing. A palter would describe the same diminishing series as hovering around 21%. Not untrue. But not the truth. I know that everyone knows what I am talking about. I believe that until I spoke up, that members of the Board listened to a presentation by Caitlin Tramel and quite reasonably took away a conclusion that the Alumni are in good shape, happy with where the school is going, and that the numbers to pay attention to are email open rates. In my opinion, thats a palter, as I noted. Beyond my qualitative take on it from frequent contact with Alumni -- and the Administrations refusal to work with Alumni elected officials, my so-called empirical claims are that there are other measures (e.g., fund participation) that might be more worthy of the boards attention than email opens, and that anyone can tell a nice story by selecting which facts represent great news. I see no reason to revise my opinions, just as no one should see any reason to revise the facts. What I wrote on Facebook was a hasty and defensive reaction to some ugly notes directed at the BoT, and I was defending the Board of Trustees from many accusations that we are out of touch with how people actually feel, and that we are not accurately representing Alumni interests and concerns. Read it with that in mind. I was writing because I believe that many of the Trustees have Coopers best interests in mind same as I do, that Alumni should know that, and that -- as the era of George Campbell was described to me by one Trustee -- the Board was not getting the real story. I know that some of you were grateful I spoke up, because you told me so. In the last several hours I got an email from a NYT reporter asking why Alumni can no longer meet on campus (what I referred to Justin) and a message from someone Ive never met named Jack Freeman (Ar 69) and it reads: As one of the 90% I much appreciate your efforts and the communication you provided. Im as sorry as everyone else that there is such bad news about Alumni support for the current Administration of their alma mater. But there are only so many messengers to shoot. I hope that with me or without me, the Board can face the quantitative and qualitative reality of a broad, angry, and disconnected Alumni base, and find a way through to a positive outcome. They depend on the Board, and the school depends on them.
Posted on: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:28:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015