In whose interest? The board should focus on the interests of alumni, not just the college

Back in September of 2017, when the proposal to cut the chapters out of full representation on the Alumni Board was first put forward, there were two main rationales. One was “streamlining” – from the perspective of some who are involved in business organizations, the Alumni Board was said to be too large to be effective, so the numbers had to be cut – and those numbers were to be achieved by having fewer chapter representatives.  But why not just down on the number of at-large representatives?  Why not say the Alumni Trustees did not have to be members of the Alumni Board?  Well, the explanation for that was that the nominating committee (selected by the central leadership of the Board) would be working with the Alumni Office staff to focus on nominating new at-large members who could be helpful in advancing the college’s objectives.  In his own recent statement in support of the changes, John  Sheehy has confirmed that this is the real agenda -- he chastises opponents for wanting to help alumni instead of trying only to help the college itself as an institution.

That latter rationale put some of us off.  The college’s objectives?  Shouldn’t the alumni board of directors be focused first and foremost on advancing the objectives of alumni, as best as we might see it?  These two interests are often aligned, but not always.  Sometimes, the interests (or views) of the alumni may be at odd with the interests (or views) of the college’s staff.

One such occasion, which came up at the very outset of John Kroger’s presidency, was during the controversy that arose after Kroger’s ham-handed intervention to quash some Paideia courses that he viewed as being at odds with his substance-control objectives.  Many of us on the alumni board, especially representatives of many of the chapters, felt that we should express solidarity with the Paideia czar in opposition to Kroger’s intervention, and a resolution was put forward to that effect. The executive committee reacted with alarm, insisting that the Alumni Board had no role in expressing dissatisfaction with the operation of the college.  Our resolution of disapproval was voted down; might an early alumni vote of disapproval have had some impact in avoiding some of the disappointments of the Kroger era?

Another example of divergence has to do with alumni career networking. One of the most interesting endeavor undertaken by the alumni leadership during the past ten years was the development of Working Weekend, which began as an entirely alumni-led effort to bring large numbers of alumni back to campus, in February of each of several years, for two days of panel presentations, aimed at students, but composed of alumni working in different fields.  Working Weekend was a wonderful opportunity for students to meet alumni, but it was also a great opportunity for alumni working in the same field to connect with each other.  After the first couple of years, the college’s own career placement staff slowly took control of planning for the Weekends; and after Alice Harra was hired to run what became known as the Center for Life Beyond Reed, the college decided to kill the operation, because CLBR was developing a different model for career planning for students; and the college decided, at the same time, that it had no commitment to helping alumni a substantial amount of time out of the college with career placement.  Now, this may well have been an entirely sensible move for the college from the perspective of its services to students, and its allocation of resources, but it was a serious blow to the objective of alumni career networking.  The Alumni Association needs to see the advancement of alumni interests as its main goal, and alumni leadership need to be able to press the college to provide better services to alumni.  (Note: there has been vague talk by college staff, speaking at meetings of the Reed Career Alliance, a current Alumni Board committee, of reviving Working Weekend next year, in 2020)

As the executive committee approached the final vote on the proposed changes, the rationale for the change made a subtle change from selecting nominees who fit the priorities of the college to selecting nominees who fit the priorities of the Alumni Board.  But so long as the selection of nominees is done by a handful of unelected insiders in consultation with alumni office staff, there may be little difference between the two.  Full representation of the chapters on the Alumni Board is needed to ensure a modicum of independence from control by the college’s staff, which is not always in the interest of the alumni.